Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Group 4-A Christian Gabriel Cruz John Mark Layog Carla Louise Paragas Maybelline Ubalde
Group 4-A Christian Gabriel Cruz John Mark Layog Carla Louise Paragas Maybelline Ubalde
Ruling:
Article 1544 inapplicable to the case at bar since the subject land was
unregistered at the time of the first sale. The registration contemplated
under this provision has been held to refer to registration under the
Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as the operative
act that binds the land.
Act No. 3344, which provides for the registration of all instruments on
land neither covered by the Spanish Mortgage Law nor the Torrens
System. Under this law, registration by the first buyer is constructive
notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer in
good faith.
"The issue of good faith or bad faith of the buyer is relevant only where
the subject of the sale is registered land and the purchaser is buying the
same from the registered owner whose title to the land is clean x x x in
such case the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the registered
owner is protected if he is a purchaser in good faith for value." Since the
properties in question are unregistered lands, petitioners as
subsequent buyers thereof did so at their peril. Their claim of having
bought the land in good faith, i.e., without notice that some other
person has a right to or interest in the property, would not protect them
if it turns out, as it actually did in this case, that their seller did not own
the property at the time of the sale.
Ruling :
AZNAR registered the sale in its favor under Act 3344 despite its full
knowledge that the subject property is under the operation of the
Torrens System. To repeat, there can be no constructive notice to the
second buyer through registration under Act 3344 if the property is
registered under the Torrens system.
Moreover, before buying the subject property, Go Kim Chuan made
verifications with the Office of the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu City and
the Register of Deeds. He likewise visited the premises of the subject
property and found that nobody interposed any adverse claim against
the Amodias. After he decided to buy the subject property, he paid all
taxes in arrears, caused the publication of the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Absolute Sale in a newspaper of general circulation,
caused the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title and caused the
issuance of the assailed TCT in his name. Given these antecedents,
good faith on the part of Go Kim Chuan cannot be doubted.
Petitioners filed their answer Dated November 28, 1989, They claimed
that they applied for a free patent over the subject area on August 10,
1987 and on November 26, 1987, they were issued free patent no.
165790. On December 11, 1987, Original Certificate of Title No. P-30187
was registered in their name.
Issue:
Whether or not the free patent that was issued in favor of the
petitioners were valid.
The land was private and since it is private in nature, the Director of
Lands has no authority to grand a free patent over it thus any title
issued pursuant thereto is null and void.
Facts:
Spouses Simon D. Encinas and Esperanze E. Encinas, respondents, are
the registered owners of Lot No. 3517 of the Cadastral Survey of
Sorsogon, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4773. The
subject matter of the controversy is a portion of Lot No. 3517 with an
area of 980 square meters, which the Heirs of Jose Maligaso, Sr. ,
petitioners, continue to occupy despite having received two notices to
vacate from the respondents.
The lot was previously covered by OCT No. 543, which was issued in
the name of Maria Maligaso Ramos, the petitioners' aunt. Maria sold
Lot No. 3517 to Virginia and three years later, Virginia sold it to the
respondents. After approximately thirty years from the time they
purchased the lot, the respondents issued two demand letters to the
petitioners, asking them to vacate the contested area within thirty days
from notice. The petitioners refused to leave, claiming that the subject
area was the share of their father in their grandparents' estate, thus the
respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the
petitioners. The petitioners , in their defense , denied that their
possession of the disputed area was by mere tolerance and claimed title
thereto on the basis of their father's successional rights. years.
That the petitioners' occupation remained undisturbed for more than
thirty years and the respondents' failure to detail and specify the
petitioners' supposedly tolerated possession suggest that they and their
predecessors-in-interest are aware of their claim over the subject area.
The petitioners likewise moved for the dismissal of the complaint,
claiming that the allegations therein indicate that it was actually an
action for reconveyance. Further, laches had already set in view of the
respondents' failure to assail their possession for more than thirty
years.
Issue:
Whether or not the claim of the petitioners' refusal to vacate the lot is
valid.
Ruling:
Laches does not operate to deprive the registered owner of a parcel of
land of his right to recover possession thereof, neither will the sheer
lapse of time legitimize the petitioners' refusal to vacate the subject
area or bar the respondents form gaining possession thereof.
Facts:
Respondents filed before the RTC an action to recover the ownership and
possession of the subject property from petitioners, seeking as well the
payment of damages. They alleged that it was owned by their predecessor-in-
interest, Emiliana Bacalso, pursuant to Decree No. 98992, though lost during
the last World War, its’ existence was shown by an LRA certification and a
certified copy from the daybook of cadastral lots issued by the Register of
Deeds (RD) of Cebu City (daybook entry). After Emiliana’s death, Genaro
Rabadon took over the possession of it and upon his death, his children, herein
respondents, took over its possession until 1988. In 1989, they discovered that
it was already in the possession of petitioner Alejandra Delfin and some of her
children and their families already constructed their houses thereon. Alejandra
claimed that petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, Remegio Navares previously
bought the said property; however, the copy of the deed of sale was lost.
Alejandra inherited it by virtue of an extra-judicial settlement. It had been
declared by them for taxation purposes and they paid the corresponding realty
taxes due thereon. Petitioners further contended, inter alia, that respondents’
demands were already barred by laches, given that they took about 55 years to
file their complaint.
The RTC rendered ruled in favor of petitioners. Respondents have not
shown any efforts to locate the said title nor to reconstitute the same.
Neither have they attempted to declare it for taxation purposes nor have
they shown any proof that they paid the realty taxes due thereon, thereby
negating their claim of ownership. Respondents were also guilty of laches.
Upon appeal, the CA reversed the RTC’s pronouncement. The CA stressed
that tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of
ownership or of the right to possess the land when not supported by other
evidence of actual possession which remained wanting in this case. The
LRA Report could not qualify as proof of possession since the report failed
to mention that the subject property actually belongs to petitioners’
predecessor-in-interest. In fact, the LRA Report even affirmed that the it
was covered by a decree issued to Emiliana and her husband, Dionisio
Rabadon. Further, when TCT No. 20910 was sought to be reconstituted by
Alejandra, one Juanito Montenegro (RD representative) of the Cebu City
RD testified that the said title does not cover the subject property and that
the Cebu City RD has no record available for Lot No. 8217. Respondents are
not guilty of laches since there is no evidence that would show that they
omitted to assert their claim over the subject property.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents have the better right to the ownership and possession
of the subject property.
Ruling:
Yes. It is an elemental rule that a decree of registration bars all claims and rights which arose or
may have existed prior to the decree of registration. In the case of Ferrer-Lopez v. CA, the Court
ruled that as against an array of proofs consisting of tax declarations and/or tax receipts which
are not conclusive evidence of ownership nor proof of the area covered therein, an original
certificate of title, which indicates true and legal ownership by the registered owners over the
disputed premises, must prevail. Accordingly, respondents’ Decree No. 98992 for which an
original certificate of title was issued should be accorded greater weight as against the tax
declarations and tax receipts presented by petitioners in this case. Besides, tax declarations and
tax receipts may only become the basis of a claim for ownership when they are coupled with
proof of actual possession of the property, which petitioners failed to show. As to the issue of
laches, petitioners were not able to adduce any sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
respondents unduly slept on their rights for an unreasonable length of time. Quite the
contrary, records reveal that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the subject property since the 1950's and that they filed their complaint on
October 19, 1993, which is only four years removed from the time petitioners entered the
property in 1989.
Facts:
The lot claimed by Dream Village used to be part of the Hacienda de
Maricaban which is now known as Fort Bonifacio. When R.A. No. 7227
was passed, the title of Fort Bonifacio was transferred to the Bases
Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA).
Ruling:
Yes. In the case of Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati, Inc. V
BCDA, the Court ruled that the BCDA's titles over Fort Bonifacio are
valid, indefeasible, and beyond question, since TCT. 61524 was
cancelled in favor of BCDA pursuant to an explicit authority under R.A.
No. 7227, the legal basis for BCDA’s takeover and management of the
subject lots. The TCTs were all in the name of the BCDA.
No. Under Article 422 of the Civil Code, public domain lands become
patrimonial property only if there is a declaration that these are
alienable or disposable, together with an express government
manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer
retained for public service or the development of national wealth. Only
when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period
for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.
Also under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, it is provided that before
acquisitive prescription can commence, the property sought to be
registered must not only be classified as alienable and disposable, it
must also be expressly declared by the State that it is no longer
intended for public service or the development of the national wealth,
or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Absent such
an express declaration by the State, the land remains to be property of
public dominion. Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529, the Property Registration
Decree, expressly provides that no title to registered land in derogation
of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession. The subject property having been expressly
reserved for a specific public purpose, the COSLAP cannot exercise
jurisdiction over the complaint of the Dream Village settlers.
The land dispute in Bañaga, which was invoked by COSLAP, was
between private individuals who were free patent applicants over
unregistered public lands. In contrast, the present petition involves
land titled to and managed by a government agency which has been
expressly reserved by law for a specific public purpose other than for
settlement. Thus, as we have advised in Longino, the law does not vest
jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem, but it
has to consider the nature or classification of the land involved, the
parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for
immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to persons
and damage or destruction to property.
Facts:
A Petition dated April 17, 1998 filed before the RTC, petitioner sought
for the original registration of two parcels of land situated at Brgy. Sta.
Rita, Batangas City, denominated as Lot Nos. 1298 and 1315 (subject
lots), both of Cad. 264 of the Batangas Cadastre, which consist of 4,155
and 968 square meters, respectively. The case was docketed as Land
Reg. Case No. N-1554 (LRA Rec. No. N-69624) and, as a matter of
course, was called for initial hearing. No oppositor appeared during the
said hearing except Prosecutor Amelia Panganiban who appeared in
behalf of the Office of the Solicitor General (respondent).
Consequently, the RTC issued the corresponding Order of Special
Default and the reception of evidence was delegated to the Branch
Clerk of Court.
For land registration purposes, the subject lots were both investigated
and inspected separately by Special Land Investigator Rodolfo A.
Fernandez and Forester I Loida Y. Maglinao of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) CENRO of Batangas City.
Based on their findings, the subject lots are within the alienable and
disposable zone under project no. 13, lc map no. 718 issued on March
16, 1928. Also, in a letter dated January 18, 1999 from Robert C.
Pangyarihan, Chief of the Surveys Division of the DENR Region IV –
Land Management Sector, copy furnished the RTC, it is stated that the
subject lots are not portion of/nor identical to any approved isolated
survey.
During the reception of evidence, the government, through
respondent, was given the opportunity to examine the authenticity of
the documents presented by petitioner in support of its application for
land registration as well as cross-examine the latter’s witnesses.
Without any objection from the former, all exhibits offered by
petitioner were admitted by the RTC. Meanwhile, respondent did not
present any evidence to contradict petitioner’s application.
In a Decision dated December 6, 2004, the CA granted
respondent’s certiorari petition and thereby, annulled and set aside the
RTC Decision and Amended Order as well as the final decree of
registration issued in favor of petitioner over the subject lots.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC
Decision and Amended Order as well as the final decree of registration
issued in favor of petitioner over the subject lots.
Ruling:
CA correctly pointed out, land registration proceedings are in rem in
nature and, hence, by virtue of the publication requirement, all
claimants and occupants of the subject property are deemed to be
notified of the existence of a cadastral case involving the subject lots. In
this regard, petitioner cannot, therefore, take refuge on the lack of any
personal knowledge on its part previous to its application. Case law
dictates that a cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds the whole
world. Under this doctrine, parties are precluded from re-litigating the
same issues already determined by final judgment.
RTC’s Amended Order was issued in violation of the doctrine of
judicial stability. This doctrine states that the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of
concurrent jurisdiction. The rationale for the same is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction – verily, a court that acquires jurisdiction over
the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of
justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with
this judgment.Therefore, as the RTC’s Amended Order was issued in
stark contravention of this rule, the CA correctly ordered its
nullification.
Ruling:
Registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or
creates a lien upon the land.
TCT No. 36777 does not indicate where it came from. The issuance of
the said title also becomes suspect in light of the fact that no Deed of
Absolute Sale was ever presented as basis for the transfer of the title
from Dulos Realty. In fact, the spouses Vilbar do not even know if a
Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot 21 was executed in their favor. As the
evidence extant on record stands, only a Contract to Sell which is
legally insufficient to serve as basis for the transfer of title over the
property is available. At most, it affords spouses Vilbar an inchoate
right over the property. Absent that important deed of conveyance over
Lot 21 executed between Dulos Realty and the spouses Vilbar, TCT No.
36777 issued in the name of Bernadette Vilbar cannot be deemed to
have been issued in accordance with the processes required by law.
Opinion was proven to be in good faith when he dealt with the
Gorospes and relied on the titles presented to him. Spouses Vilbar, on
the other hand, failed to present substantial evidence to prove
otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby
DENIED. The Decision dated May 26 2006 of he Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R CV No. 84409 affirming the Decision dated January 31, 2005 of
the Regional Trial Court Branch 255 Las Piñas City in Civil Case No. 98-
0302 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Facts:
The respondent filed a complaint against spouses Sarili and the Register
of Deeds of Caloocan City alleging that he is the owner of a certain parcel of
land situated in Caloocan City and has been religiously paying the real estate
taxes since its acquisition on November 29, 1974. He is a resident of California,
USA, and that during his vacation in the Philippines, he discovered that a new
certificate of title to the subject property was issued by the RD in the name of
Victorino by virtue of a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 16, 1978
by him and his w3ife. He averred that the said deed of was fraudulent and is
committed by spouses Sarili and the RD in order to acquire the subject
property.
The spouses Sarili maintained that they are innocent purchasers for
value, having purchased the subject property form Ramon Rodriguez, who
possessed and presented a Special Power of Attorney to sell/dispose of the
same, and, in such capacity, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November
20, 1992 conveying the said property in their favor. In this relation, they denied
any participation in the preparation of the February 16, 1978 deed of sale,
which may have been merely devised by the fixer they hired to facilitate the
issuance of the title in their names.
Issues:
Whether or not there was a valid conveyance of the subject
property to spouses Sarili and whether or not the TCT in the name of
Victorino married to Isabel should be annulled and the respondent's
name should be reinstated.
Ruling:
It is well-settled that even if the procurement of a certificate of
title was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation, such defective title
may be the source of a completely legal and valid title in the hands of
and innocent purchaser for value. Where innocent third persons,
relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire
rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and
order the total cancellation of the certificate.
However, a higher degree of prudence is required from on who buys
from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object
of the transaction is registered. In such a case, the buyer is expected to
examine not only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances
necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the
transferor. The buyer also has the duty to ascertain the identity of the
person with whom he is dealing with and the latter's legal authority to
convey the property.
Ruling:
It is an established rule that a Torrens certificate of title is not
conclusive proof of ownership. Verily, a party may seek its
annulment on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. However,
such action must be seasonably filed, else the same would be
barred.
In this relation, Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the period to
contest a decree of registration shall be one (1 year from the date
of its entry and that, after the lapse of the said period, the
Torrens certificate of title issued thereon becomes
incontrovertible and indefeasible.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is impelled to sustain the CA’s
dismissal of Paraguya's complaint for annulment of OCT No. P-17729
since it was filed only on December 19, 1990, or more than eleven (11)
years from the title's date of entry on August 24, 1979.Based on Section
32 Of PD 1529, said title had become incontrovertible and indefeasible
after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of It’s entry, thus barring
Paraguya’s action for annulment of title.
In the case of Naval vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167412 dated February 22,
2006. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of good faith or bad faith of the
buyer is relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered land and the
purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner whose title to the land
is clean. In such case the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the
registered owner is protected if he is a purchaser in good faith for value. Since
the properties in question are unregistered lands, petitioners as subsequent
buyers thereof did so at their peril. Their claim of having bought the land in
good faith, without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in
the property, would not protect them if it turns out, as it actually did in this
case, that their seller did not own the property at the time of the sale.
In the case of Vda. De Melencio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148846
dated September 25, 2007. The Supreme Court ruled that Go Kim Chuan’s
actions such as verification with the Office of the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu
City and the Register of Deeds, visiting the premises of the subject property
and found that nobody interposed any adverse claim against the Amodias,
paying all taxes in arrears after he had decided to buy the subject property,
causing the publication of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute
Sale in a newspaper of general circulation, causing the reconstitution of the
lost certificate of title and caused the issuance of the assailed TCT in his name.
Is a sign of good faith in registered lands.
In de Guzman vs. Agbagala, G.R. no. 163566 dated February 19, 2008. The
Supreme Court ruled that since the land subject to the dispute is private in
nature, the Director of Lands has no authority to grant a free patent over it
making the issuance pursuant thereto is null and void. The Director of land can
only grant free patent over lands that is public in nature.
In the case of the Maligaso vs. Encinas, G.R. No. 182716 dated June 20,
2012. The Supreme Court held that latches does not operate to deprive the
registered owner of a parcel of land of his right to recover possession thereof,
neither will the sheer lapse of time legitimize the refusal of the other party to
vacate the subject land bar him from gaining possession thereof.
In the case of Delfin vs. Rabadon, G.R. No. 165014 dated July 31, 2013. The
Supreme Court held that an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) will be given
greater weight over tax declarations and or tax receipts since tax declarations do
not make a conclusive evidence of ownership and can only became the basis of
a claim for ownership when they are coupled with proof of actual possession of
property which they failed to show or present.
In the case of Dream Village vs. BCDA, G.R. No. 192896 dated July 24,
2013. The Supreme Court held that BCDA's titles over Fort Bonifacio are
valid, indefeasible, and beyond question, since TCT. 61524 was
cancelled in favor of BCDA pursuant to an explicit authority under R.A.
No. 7227, the legal basis for BCDA’s takeover and management of the
subject lots. The TCTs were all in the name of the BCDA.
In the case of First Gas Power Corporation vs. Republic, G.R. No.
169461 dated September 2, 2013. The Supreme Court held that Land
Registration Proceeding are in rem in nature thus it is binds the whole
world and by virtue of the publication requirement, all claimants and
occupants of the subject property are deemed to be notified of the
existence of a cadastral case involving the subject lots. Therefore one
cannot take refuge on the lack of any personal knowledge on its part
previous to its application.
In the case of Vilbar vs Opinion, G.R. No. 176043 dated January 15, 2014.
The Supreme Court ruled that Opinion was proven to be in good faith
when he dealt with the Gorospes and relied on the titles presented to
him. Spouses Vilbar, on the other hand, failed to present substantial
evidence to prove otherwise.The doctrine of ‘the mortgagee in good
faith’ based on the rule that all persons dealing with property covered
by a Torrens Certificate of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public
interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as
evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance
thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon
what appears on the face of the certificate of title.
In the case of Paraguya vs. Sps Crucillo The Court Ruled that Upon the
expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his
remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other
persons responsible for the fraud. The Court impelled to sustain the
CA’s dismissal of Paraguya's complaint for annulment of OCT No. P-
17729 since it was filed only on December 19, 1990, or more than eleven
(11) years from the title's date of entry. Based on Section 32 of PD 1529,
said title had become incontrovertible and indefeasible after the lapse
of one (1) year from the date of its entry, thus barring Paraguya's action
for annulment of title. Complaint for annulment of title is dismissed
since she merely relied on the titulo posesorio issued in favour of
Estabillo sometime in 1893 or 1895.
In the case of the Heirs of Victorino Sarili vs. Lagrosa, the Supreme
Court held that even if the procurement of a certificate of title was
tainted with fraud and misrepresentation, such defective title may be
the source of a completely legal and valid title in the hands of and
innocent purchaser for value.
However, a higher degree of prudence is required from on who
buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land
object of the transaction is registered. In such a case, the buyer is
expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual
circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in
the title of the transferor. The buyer also has the duty to ascertain the
identity of the person with whom he is dealing with and the latter's
legal authority to convey the property.
From the above cases, the Supreme Court held that the verification of the
subject property to the Office of the City Assessor, actual surveillance of the
subject property to find out if there is an adverse claim, and the publication of
the Deed of extra Judicial Settlement of Absolute Sale in the newspaper of
general circulation constitute good faith. Good faith and bad faith of the buyer
is relevant only where the subject of the sale is a registered land and the
purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner whose title to the land
is clean.
The Supreme Court also held in the case of de Guzman v. Agbagala that the
Director of lands can only grant free patent on lands that are public in nature.
In case of latches, it does not deprive the registered owner of a parcel of land of
his right to recover possession thereof. The OCT will be given greater weight
over tax declarations since tax declaration do not make a conclusive evidence of
ownership and need actual proof of actual possession in order for it to be
appreciated.
Land Registration Proceedings are in rem in nature which means that they are
binding against the whole world and no person can take refuge for lack of any
personal knowledge on its part previous to its application.