GARCIA VS CA 95 SCRA 380 (1980) In this case two sets of certificates of title were issued to different people for

the same lots. The 1st set was issued sometime in 1920 to Lapus who had bought the parcels in 1918. However, despite this registered sale, the OCT was not cancelled and the sale to Lapus was not annotated thereon. The 2 nd set of titles was issued in 1963 when heirs of the original owner, relying on the clean OCT, were able to succeed in having TCTs issued to them. Eventually, both sets of owners entered into transactions with other people who in turn secured TCTs in their favor. Issue: Whose successors in interest would have a better right?

HELD: Where two certificates (of title) purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails. And the rule that in case of double registration the owner of the earlier certificate is the owner of the land applies to the successive vendees of the owners of such certificates. The vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate. There can be no doubt that Lapus was an innocent purchaser for value. He validly transmitted to his successors-in-interest his indefeasible title or ownership over the disputed lots or parcels of land. That title could not be nullified or defeated by the issuance forty-three years later to other persons of another title over the same lots due to the failure of the register of deeds to cancel the title preceding the title issued to Lapus. This must be so considering that Lapus and his successors-in-interest remained in possession of the disputed lots and the rival claimants never possessed the same.

Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals Facts: Ignacio Gonzales executed a Deed of Donation on July 12, 1972 conveying his share of the property in favor of his 14 Grand Children. The said donation was not registered. Thus, when the Presidential Decree No. 27 took effect on Oct. 21, 1972, the landholdings of the spouses Gonzales were placed under Operation of Land Transfer by virtue of said decree, and private respondents were accordingly issued the corresponding Certificates of Land Transfer Emancipation Patents. The side of the petitioners filed an application for the exclusion of their property from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. In the process, DAR Secretary issued an order affirming the application of the petitioners. The contention brought to the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the DAR and favoring the matters to the respondents. Issue: Whether or not the property subject of the deed of donation which was not registered when P.D No. 27 took effect, should be excluded from the Operation Land Transfer.

Ruling: No. As provided in Article 749 of the Civil Code provides inter alia that in order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy. Corollary, Article 709 of the same code explicitly states that the titles of ownership, or other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons. Registration is not necessary for it to be considered valid and effective. However, in order to bind third persons, the donation must be registered in the Registry of Property (Registry of Land Titles and Deeds). Non-registration of deeds of donation does not bind other parties ignorant of previous transactions; Tenant-farmers who are beneficiaries of Presidential Decree No. 27 are considered third persons contemplated in laws on registration. It should be noted that one of the recognized modes of acquiring title to land is by emancipation patent which aims to ameliorate the said plight of tenant farmers. By virtue of P.D No. 27, tenants farmers are deemed owners of the land they till.

Republic vs. Lee

Facts: Lee, respondent, filed before the CFI of Pangasinan, an application for registration in her favor of a parcel of land consisting of 6, 843 square meters, more or less, loacated at Mangaldan, Pangasinan. Director of Lands, in representation of the Republic of the Philippines, filed an opposition, alleging that neither the applicant, nor the predecessors-in-interest have acquired the land under any of the Spanish Titles or any other recognized mode of acquisition of title; that neither she or her predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land in concept of owner at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application; and that the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines. The respondent contends that she was able to prove her title to the land in question through documentation evidence consisting of Deeds of Sale and Tax declarations and receipts as well as her testimony that her predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land in question for more than 20 years. Issue: Whether or not Lees contention constitutes the well nigh incontrovertible and conclusive evidence required in Land Registration cases. Ruling: No. No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied from government. The bare statement of the applicant that the land applied for has been in the possession of her predecessors-in-interest for more than 20 years does not constitute the well-nigh incontrovertible and conclusive evidence required in land registration cases. The phrase adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and concept of owner by which she described her own possession in relation to that of her predecessors-in-interest are mere conclusions of law which require factual and substantiation. It also noted that, not the fiscal, but the court which should be convinced, by competent proof, of private respondents registerable right over the subject parcel of land. Private respondent having failed to prove by convincing, positive proof that she has complied with the requirements of the law for confirmation of her title to the land applied for, it was grave error on the part of the lower court to have granted her application.

Director of Land Management vs. Court of Appeals

Facts: Juco lost his protest in the Bureau of Lands, but upon appeal to the SEC of Agriculture and Natural Resources, he was, on December 18, 1969, adjudged to have preferential right to buy the property. He was given sixty 60 days from the finality of the decision to file his own application to purchase it, which he did on August 29, 1971. Shortly thereafter, Feliciano Juco died. Jucos wife Pacita Resurrection, and their children, offered to sell the property to Pompeyo Maliwat who was told about the proceedings in the Bureau of Lands but not about the earlier sale of the land to the Lina spouses. He verified from the records that Feliciano Juco did have a preferential right to the property, so he bought it. He had the deed of sale registered and he declared that land for tax purposes in his name. He placed men to the land to take care of it. Director of lands opposed the application on the ground that the land is public land. Minister of Agrarian Reform also opposed on the ground that the land is public land. Lina spouses filed a motion to dismiss Maliwats application for registration of title on the ground that the land is covered by a homestead application of Loreto R. Lina, but later on they amended their opposition which in turn claiming that they had purchased the land from Feliciano Juco, and that hence, the title should be registered in their names. Issue: Whether or not the property under the case satisfies the requirement in making the inalienable land as private property. Ruling: Yes. Alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or thru his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously, and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period of 30 years under the Public Land Act is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of said period, ipso jure. Ref: 1969 1971