LAND TITLES | ATTY. PADILLA | ATENEO LAW SCHOOL | Table by Frances Lipnica Pabilane (2015)

Topic and Relevant Provisions

Case Title Facts and Keywords Case Doctrine

Assignment | DISCONTINUANCE OF THE USE OF SPANISH TITLES; GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE ESTOPPED BY ACTS OF ITS AGENTS

Republic v. Court of Appeals

* validity of the registration of 885 hectares of public forestal land located in Mulanay, Quezon; unclassified public forest

* It is axiomatic that public forestal land is not registerable. Its inclusion in a title, whether the title be issued during the Spanish regime or under the Torrens system, nullifies the title. * Possession of public forestal lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership * Spanish titles are not indefeasible * Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Presidential Decree No. 892 effective February 16, 1976 discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings.

Assignment 1 | NATURE OF IN REM PROCEEDINGS

Ching v. Malaya * nullifying the judgment of the municipal court in a forcible entry case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction * R.A. No. 296, as amended, which was the law then in force. That law allowed the municipal court to receive evidence upon the question of ownership in ejectment cases, but only whenever it was necessary to do so for the purpose of determining the character and extent of possession and damages for detention.

The mere circumstance that proof of title, or evidence of ownership, had been introduced during the trial before the Municipal Court would not deprive said court of jurisdiction to rule on the question of who had the prior physical possession. * As permitted in the above-cited Section 88 of R.A. No. 296, the plaintiff in an ejectment case may introduce such evidence for the purpose of proving the character of his possession and the amount of damages he is claiming for unjust deprivation of such possession. 14 The petitioners were only trying to prove their right to possession and damages by establishing their right of ownership.

Assignment 1 | PURPOSES OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM

Umbay v. Alecha * They discovered that its 500-square-meter portion was occupied by Placido Alecha, the owner of the adjoining Lot No. 5281 which is its southeastern boundary

* We hold that the action of the heirs of Enanoria to recover the 500 square meters portion of their registered land does not prescribe and cannot be barred by laches. Nor can Alecha, the adjacent owner, acquire that 500-square-meter area by prescription because it is covered by a Torrens title * Section 46 of the Land Registration Law, now section 47 of the Property Registration Decree (PD

No. 1529 effective June 11, 1978), provides that "no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession" . Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under a claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title.

Assignment 1 | ABANDONMENT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION RULE

PNB v. International Corporate Bank

* cancellation of annotations of an encumbrance on its transfer certificates of title * personal notice is not necessary and what governs is the general rule in Section 3 of Act 3135, as amended, which directs the posting of notices of the sale in at least three (3) public places of the municipality where the property is situated, and the publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in said municipality.

* Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (The Property Registration Decree) which took effect on June 11, 1979, regional trial courts acting as land registration courts now have exclusive jurisdiction not only over applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, but also over petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. Act 496 (Land Registration Act), specifically Section 110 thereof, the court of first instance, sitting as a land registration court, has the authority to conduct a hearing, receive evidence, and decide controversial matters with a view to determining whether or not the filed notice of adverse claim is valid.

Assignment 1 | EFFECTS OF REGISTRATION: QUIETS TITLE TO LAND, ETC.

Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals

* Does the presumption of conjugality of properties acquired by the spouses during coverture provided for in Article 160 of the Civil Code apply to property covered by a Torrens certificate of title in the name of the widow? * The PNB had a reason to rely on what appears on the certificates of title of the properties mortgaged. For all legal purposes, the PNB is a mortgagee in goodfaith for at the time the mortgages covering said

* The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a registered land has a right to rely upon the face of the torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man make such inquiry. 9 A torrens title concludes all controversy over ownership of the land covered by a final degree of registration. 10 Once the title is registered the owner may rest assured without the necessity of stepping into the portals of the court or sitting in the

properties were constituted the PNB was not aware to any flaw of the title of the mortgagor.

mirador de su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land. 11

Assignment 1 | TITLE MERELY CONFIRMS PRE-EXISTING RIGHT; NOT MEANS FOR ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP

Bornales v. Court of Appeals

husband and wife; mistress; mistress fraud sold to relative; relative not buyer in good faith, knew about the transactions

* Thus, it is a settled rule that the defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title does not extend to a transferee who takes it with notice of the flaws in his transferor's title. If at all, the petitioners only acquire the right which their vendors then had.

Assignment 1 | TORRENS PROTECTION NOT ABSOLUTE

Viajar v. Court of Appeals

During the pre-trial it was proven that during the cadastral survey in 1926, the two lots were separated by the Suague River and that a part of the land of Lot 7340 and the old river bed were in the possession of the Spouses Ladrido and that the plaintiffs have never been in actual physical possession. * Whether or not the plaintiffs are protected by the Torrens System (in relation to the dimunition of the area of their land because the plaintiffs are contending that Art 457 must be interpreted as applicable only to unregistered lands)

It is a well settled rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparian owner against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream or river. Accretions which the banks of the river may gradually receive from the effect of the current become the property of the owners of the banks.

Assignment 1 | TITLE DOES NOT MAKE HOLDER THE TRUE OWNER OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED THEREIN

Coronel v. IAC The point is that the 1/3 undivided portion of the private respondents over Lot No. 1950-A was mistakenly included in the transfer certificate of title of Mariano Manalo.

The simple possession of a certificate of title, under the Torrens System, does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein. If a person obtains a title, under the Torrens system, which includes by mistake or oversight land which cannot be registered under the Torrens systems, he does not, by virtue of said certificate alone, become the owner of the lands illegally included. * The petitioner is bound to recognize the lien in favor of the private respondents which was mistakenly excluded and therefore not inscribed in the torrens title of the land of his predecessors-in-interest.

Assignment 1 | NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OVER ILLEGALLY INCLUDED LANDS

Galloy v. Court of Appeals

The foregoing conclusion does not necessarily wreak havoc on the indefeasibility of a Torrens title. For, mere possession of certificate of title under the Torrens System is not conclusive as to the holder's true ownership of all the property described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the land illegally included. In a more recent case, the case of Lola vs. Court of Appeals

Assignment 1 | LAND ALREADY REGISTERED AS PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY OF THE STATE, NOT REGISTRABLE

Republic v. Court of Appeals

• Whether the land already registered as patrimonial property of the State (for the use of the Bureau of Public Schools) can still be registered in the name of another person.

• Sec. 6 of Act 496 provides that “no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.” The action to recover registered land does not prescribe. • A land registration court is w/o jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already registered in an earlier registration case, & that the 2nd decree entered for the same land is null & void.

Assignment 1 | MANGROVE LANDS ARE REGISTRABLE, NOT BEING FOREST LANDS

Tongson v. Director of Forestry

• The Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 classified mangrove (manglares) lands as agricultural public lands. • After the Administrative Code of 1917, mangrove swamps were included in the category of public

WON the parcel of land, in the possession of the oppositor (Macario) & his predecessors in interest, as far back as 1905 when mangrove swamps were still classified as agricultural lands, may now be considered as timber domain which is inalienable and not disposable. "Mangrove swams where only trees of mangrove

forest. species grow, where the trees are small and sparse fit only for firewood purposes and the trees growing are not of commercial value as lumber, do not convert the land into public land. Such lands are not forest in character. They do not form part of the public domain."

Assignment 1 | LANDS FORMING PART OF PUBLIC DOMAIN, NOT NECESSARILY REGISTRABLE

Ampoloquio v. Court of Appeals

* The Municipality of Bansalan, on its part, filed an opposition to the petition on the ground that the nine (9) parcels of land included in the petition for registration were reserved for townsite of, and actually occupied by, the Municipality of Bansalan. * WON respondent could have validly purchased the property from Datu Julian Bagobo.

• Since the land was forestal, it was inalienable & non-disposable public land. • Respondent knew that he could not directly acquire the lots since they were part of the public domain, so he got access to the land indirectly. He realized that the only way he could was to clothe the datu w/ a color of ownership so that the datu could subsequently transfer the land to respondent. Respondent accomplished this in a haphazard manner. He caused the issuance of a tax declaration to the uneducated datu & manipulated the alleged sale w/in 1 day. This explains why there was no concrete evidence of the alleged deed of sale, why the contested lots could not be accurately identified, & why private respondent never raised a hand when the townsite was being developed. • The Torrens System could not be used to perpetrate fraud.

Assignment 1 | FORESHORE LANDS AND PORTIONS OF TERRITORIAL SEA, NOT REGISTRABLE

Republic v. Ayala Y Cia

* increasing its area from 9,652.583 hectares (as evidenced by TCT No. 722) to 12,000 hectares, by taking or including therein lands of public dominion. * It has been established that certain areas originally portions of the navigable water or of the foreshores of the bay were converted into fishponds or sold by defendant company to third persons.

But even assuming for the sake of argument that this contention is correct, the fact remains that the areas in dispute (those covered by permits issued by the Bureau of Fisheries) were found to be portions of the foreshore, beach, or of the navigable water itself. And, it is an elementary principle of law that said areas not being capable of registration, their inclusion in a certificate of title does not convert the same into properties of private ownership or confer title on the registrant.

Assignment 1 | LAKESHORE LANDS, DISTINGUISHED FROM FORESHORE LANDS

Republic v. Lat The Republic of the Philippines filed Civil Case No. 2044 with the lower court for the annulment of the certificates of title issued to defendants Amanda Lat Vda. de Castillo, et al., as heirs/successors of Modesto Castillo, and for the reversion of the lands covered thereby (Lots 1 and 2, Psu-119166) to the State. It was alleged that said lands had always formed part of the Taal Lake, washed and inundated by the waters thereof, and being of public ownership, it could not be the subject of registration as private property.

* Lakeshore land or lands adjacent to the lake, like the lands in question must be differentiated from foreshore land or that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides * Such distinction draws importance from the fact that accretions on the bank of a lake, like Laguna de Bay, belong to the owners of the estate to which they have been added (Gov't. v. Colegio de San Jose, 53 Phil. 423) while accretion on a sea bank still belongs to the public domain, and is not available for private ownership until formally declared by the government to be no longer needed for public use (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]). But said distinction will not help private respondents because there is no accretion shown to exist in the case at bar. On the contrary, it was established that the occupants of the lots who were engaged in duck raising filled up the area with shells and sand to make it habitable.

Assignment 1 | VARIOUS KINDS OF SPANISH TITLES; FOREST LANDS, RESERVES, AND TIMBERLANDS, NOT REGISTRABLE

Director of Forestry v. Munoz

* Piadeco is a company engaged in logging. It claims to be the owner of a 72,000-hectare land in Bulacan, as “evidenced” by a titulo de propriedad, dated 1894. Piadeco applied for and was issued a Certificate of Private Woodland Registration in 1963, which converted a portion of the Bulacan land into private woodland. * Nawasa director ordered the cancellation of Piadeco’s certificate because it encroached beyond what was allowed in the certificate. Piadeco actually cut trees in the Angat and Marikina watershed area, which was prohibited. Piadeco then settled with Nawasa.* Piadeco sought to renew its certificate but it was denied by the Asst. Director of Forestry. The latter ruled that the Spanish title is no longer recognized and should have never been used to apply for a Certificate. Is Piadeco’s title registrable with the Bureau of Forestry? – NO

I. Forestry Administrative Order 12-2 is the controlling law A. Under that administrative order, only administrative or judicial titles may be used as evidence for registration pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code (RAC). B. Said order deleted the use of titles granted by the Spanish sovereignty. C. The order has the force of law 1. The RAC empowers the Director of Forestry to issue regulations necessary to conserve or protect the pubic forests. II. Spanish titles may be lost through prescription A. The rules on prescription (10 years for good faith/30 years for bad faith) apply. III. Kinds of Spanish titles A. titulo real or royal grant B. concession especial or special grant; C. composicion con el estado or adjustment title – the SC said that Piadeco’s title was equivalent to this. D. titulo de compra or title by purchase E. informacion posesoria or possessory information title, which could become a titulo gratuito or a gratuitous title. IV. Piadeco’s title is dubious A. Adjustment titles, under the Spanish law, must be subscribed by the Direccion General de Administracion Civil B. Piadeco’s title was signed by the provincial board of Bulacan, not by the Direccion General V. Private ownership of land must be proved not only by genuineness of the title, but also with a clear identity of the land claimed. A. In cases involving Spanish titles, the land must be measured in hectares and not in mass. B. Thus, the area must be fixed. C. When Piadeco applied for a rejoinder, it stated that the area of the property is 74,000 hectares.

1. In the title, it is 72,000 hectares. 2. So which is which? D. “This but accentuates the nebulous identity of Piadeco’s land.” VI. However, assuming that Piadeco’s title is registrable, the Director of Forestry still had the discretion whether or not to grant the renewal. A. Piadeco violated the terms of its agreement with the Director 1. Specifically, Piadeco cut trees within the Angat and Marikina Watershed Reservations B. Thus, there was necessity in freezing forthwith Piadeco’s illegal acts.

Assignment 2 | POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION REQUIRED OF ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN MUST DATE BACK SINCE JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER

Republic v. Doldol

In view of Doldol's refusal to vacate, Opol National School filed in 1991 a complaint for accion possessoria with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro. The trial court ruled in the school's favor and ordered Doldol to vacate the land. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court a quo, ruling that Doldol was entitled to the portion he occupied, he having possessed the same for thirty-two years, from 1959 up to the time of the filing of the complaint in 1991.

Doldol could not have acquired an imperfect title to the disputed lot since his occupation of the same started only in 1959, much later than June 12, 1945. Not having complied with the conditions set by law, Doldol cannot be said to have acquired a right to the land in question as to segregate the same from the public domain. Doldol cannot, therefore, assert a right superior to the school, given that then President Corazon Aquino had reserved the lot for Opol National School. The law, as presently phrased, requires that possession of lands of the public domain must be from June 12, 1945 or earlier, for the same to be acquired through judicial confirmation of imperfect title

Assignment 2 | PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE REGISTERED NEED ONLY BE ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IS FILED

Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic

* [T]he more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. * • It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan has acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, according to their own evidence—the Tax Declarations they presented in particular—is to the year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves

* The President is authorized, from time to time, to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, or mineral lands.20 Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are further classified according to their uses into (a) agricultural; (b) residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes; (c) educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or (d) reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses. * To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. * • Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for the development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil Code. The classification

of registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

of the subject property as alienable and disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.

Assignment 2 | APPLICATION, WHEN LAND FORMS PART OF ESTATE OR ADMINISTRATION

Pons Realty Corp v. CA

• The complaint of private respondent Prudencio G. Falcis, in representation of several persons, seeking the nullification and cancellation of certain torrens titles issued in the name of petitioner, PRC. Falcis is sueing in his capacity as an Administrator-Plenipotentiary-Extraordinary and as Attorney-in-fact of the heirs of the Estate and administrator of their respective shares as Extra-Judicially settled among the heirs themselves. | • Respondents seek to annul the title of the petitioner, PRC, and declare the heirs represented by Falcis as the lawful and legal owners of the subject land.

• We do not hesitate in holding that the complaint in question should have been dismissed, if only because as an action to nullify and cancel the torrens titles in dispute, it is not the proper remedy under the Land Registration Act and the jurisprudence thereunder concerning the indefeasibility of the decrees of registration on which said titles are based after one year from their issuance, which took place way back, at the latest in 1931, and as a suit for damages, it cannot prosper against herein petitioner who was not the original registrant but a mere second transferee, as evidenced by the annotation on the said titles themselves. • Inasmuch as it is alleged in the complaint that the lands claimed by private respondent on behalf of his supposed principals are alleged to constitute part of the estate of Don Mariano San Pedro whose estate is under administration in Special Proceedings No. 312-B of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, the suit can be filed only by the judicial administrator of that estate or another person duly authorized by the

probate court.

Assignment 2 | FORM AND CONTENTS

Francisco v. CA Notice to dead persons; creek | It will thus be seen that the applicants did not state the true adjoining owners with the deliberate intention of preventing notices of their application for registration to be sent to petitioner Fausta Francisco and to her sister Paula Francisco, and in that way prevent petitioner from appearing in the land registration case and file an opposition to their application for registration.

It is to be stressed likewise that the Land Registration Act commands that the applicant ‘shall also state the name in full and the address of the applicant, and also the names and addresses of all occupants of the land and of all adjoining owners, if known; and, if not known, it shall state what search has been made to find them | By fraud is meant actual fraud, dishonesty of some sort. This meaning should be given to the word 'fraud' in section 38 of the Land Registration Act. Proof of constructive fraud is not sufficient to authorize the Court of Land Registration to reopen a case and modify its decree. Specific acts intended to deceive and deprive another of his right, or to in some manner injure him must be alleged and prove'. The court held that the registration of land cannot serve as a protecting mantle to cover and shelter bad faith.

Assignment 2 | WHO MAY FILE OPPOSITION; VIS-A-VIS SEC. 15, PD 1529

Leyva v. Jandoc o Manuela Jandoc applied for registration of 3 lands in Dadiangas, Gen. Santos, Cotabato. o The Leyva spouses objected to such registration saying that they have been in peaceful and continuous possession of the lands sought to be registered. o The government also objected to the registration stating that the lands are part of public domain. o The Leyva spouses were not allowed by the court to continue their case against Jandoc. The Leyva's support their claim upon a foreshore lease. They do not have the right to bring a case against Jandoc.

Although the provisions of law just cited apparently authorizes any person claiming any kind of interest to file an opposition to an application for registration, it is our view nevertheless that the opposition must be based on a right of dominion or some other real right independent of, and not at all subordinate to, the rights of the Government. | that their right, that of being foreshore lessees of public land, is completely subordinate to the interests of the Government, and must necessarily be predicated upon the property in question being part of the public domain.

Assignment 2 | FAILURE TO OPPOSE CONSIDERED AS ABANDONMENT

Vda. De Cailles v. Mayuga

* . Invoking the aforementioned 1937 registration proceedings, Dominador Mayuga asked for the issuance of a decree covering the land in his favor, as the only son and forced heir of Estanislao Mayuga.

• Even assuming that Estanislao Mayuga did not have sole and exclusive title to the land and that he had been holding the shares corresponding to other co-owners in trust for them, his application for registration of the land certainly was a renunciation of the co-ownership, and since that unilateral assertion of individual ownership was not opposed by the petitioners until considerably more than ten (10) years had lapsed, whatever claim the latter might have had as co-owners had ceased to exist, prescinding from the fact that since they are deemed to have had constructive notice of the registration case, a proceeding in rem resulting from the publication of notice thereof in the Official Gazette on April 15, 1937, their omission to oppose the same can only be construed as an abandonment or non-existence of ground to contest it, and the judgment therein rendered had

acquired immutability and incontestability when no appeal was taken therefrom within the period set therefor.

Assignment 2 | MERE ABSENCE OF OPPOSITION DOES NOT BY ITSELF WARRANT REGISTRATION; RULES OF COURT

Larangan v. CA The appellants cannot be rigidly tasked to adhere to the provisions of Section 16, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court as to what an appellant's brief should contain, for the reason that the rules contained in the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases only in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient; 14-a and that said rules of procedure are to be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

In the instant case, the appellate court found that, while it may be true that the petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest, Anastacio Sibbaluca, have been in continuous and adverse possession of the land in dispute for more than 30 years, they were not bona fide occupants thereof. | Besides, it is an established rule that an applicant for registration is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered in his name simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of the land. He must show, even in the absence of opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple.

Assignment 2 | WHEN OPPOSITOR ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE DESPITE THE ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT

Yabut Lee v. Punzalan

Florencio Punzalan filed a "Petition for Reopening and/or Review" on the claim that applicants had committed fraud in not disclosing in their Application that he is the owner of a house standing on the lots applied for, that he has usufructuary rights over said properties, and prayed that the Petition be admitted, the case reopened and a new trial ordered so that he could have his day in Court.

Order of General Default in Land Registration Case No. N-345; LRC Record No. 34956, in respect of oppositor-appellant Florencio P. Punzalan is hereby set aside, and let this case be remanded to the trial Court for resumption of hearing and rendition of the corresponding judgment. | In the case at bar, no judgment has as yet been rendered by the lower Court, and much less has any decree of registration been issued. The fixing of a Petition by Punzalan is decidedly premature. Indeed, in the absence of any decision and/or decree, there is nothing to be reviewed or reopened. | An Order of General Default is interlocutory in character, subject to the control of the Court, and may be modified or amended as the Court may deem proper at any time prior to the rendition of the final judgment.

Assignment 2 | BURDEN OF PROOF AND QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED

Gutierrez Hermanos v. CA

The question herein — whether the petitioner may register certain parcels of land, seven in number, or whether it consists of inalienable timberlands and consequently, non-registerable — is a question, so it has been held, that is factual in nature. | During the war, the records of the Bureau of Forestry were lost and/or destroyed together with the records of the applicants on their claims over these lands. Because of which, the Director of Forestry on January 26, 1952, wrote a letter (Exhibit "19"-Gov't.) requesting the applicants to furnish the office of the Director of Forestry copies of their title or documents evidencing ownership of the lands subject of these cases. | The applicant also applied for the benefits of the Public Land Act. Under the methods for registration of title in Sec. 48 of the PLA, there must be proof of either: (1) A title which already exists and only has to be confirmed by the Court and ordered registered; or (2) An imperfect title under Sec. 48, or open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application.

the burden is upon him to show that he is the real and absolute owner, in fee simple of the lands which he is attempting to have registered | It is the duty of the courts, even in the absence of any opposition, to require the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of evidence and by positive and absolute proof, so far as it is possible, that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands which he is attempting to have registered. | In the words of the Supreme Court, the registrable rights must be grounded in well-nigh incontrovertible evidence and based on positive and absolute proof. | The Land Registration Act, Act 496 requires the presentation of muniments of title for registration under the regular provisions of said law. The applicant, which alleged ownership in fee simple since Spanish times, could have presented old Spanish grants such as a titulo real or royal grant, a concession especial or special grant, a composicion con el estado or adjustment title, or a titulo de compra or title through purchase. The applicant could have presented a titulo posesorio or possesory information title, which is not a title in fee simple but is nonetheless prima facie evidence of possession under concept of ownership from the date of the title and for the required period under the law.

Assignment 2 | BEST EVIDENCE ON IDENTITY OF LAND

Republic v. CA "Applicant Tabangao Realty, Inc. attached to its application its Articles of Incorporation, the tracing cloth plan of the lots, blue print copies of said plan, technical descriptions of the lots, Deeds of Sale, Assessment Certificate, Tax Declarations for the three lots and Tax Clearances. | The issue raised is whether respondent Tabangao Realty, Inc. has registerable title over three (3) parcels of land situated in Tabangao, Batangas City applied for While the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes was the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands, blueprint copies & other evidence could also provide sufficient identification. For as long as the “other evidence” contains all the details & information necessary for a proper & definite identification of the land sought to be registered, thereby serving the purpose for w/c the original tracing cloth plan is required..

An applicant seeking to establish ownership over land must conclusively show that he is the owner thereof in fee simple,[7] for the standing presumption is that all lands belong to the public domain of the State, unless acquired from the Government either by purchase or by grant, except lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish conquest.[8] | Analyzing the evidence submitted, we note that the applicant failed to prove the fact of possession by itself and its predecessors in interest for at least thirty (30) years before the filing of the application. | "The applicant must present specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession."[20] "Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property."[21]

Assignment 2 | FINALITY OF JUDGMENT; WHEN APPEAL NOT DEEMED PERFECTED; DECREE OF REGISTRATION, WHEN AND BY WHOM ISSUED; PERIOD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE

Heirs of Cristobal Marcos v. De Banuvar

APPEAL: We hold that the decision of March 24, 1938 had long become final and executory as no appeal was taken therefrom. The certification of the acting provincial land officer of Masbate, dated March 8, 1960, recites that no "appeal has been taken by the Director of Lands or any private oppositors from the decision rendered." ; An appeal was not perfected by the mere notation, "Con mi exception." The judgment rendered in a land registration case becomes final upon the expiration of thirty days to be counted from the date on which the party appealing receives notice of the decision.

PERIOD OF ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE: the issuance of a decree is a ministerial duty both of the judge and of the Land Registration Commission; failure of the court or of the clerk to issue the decree for the reason that no motion therefor has been filed can not prejudice the owner, or the person in whom the land is ordered to be registered. | • There is nothing in the law that limits the period within which the court may order or issue a decree. The reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory in character and does not need to be asserted or enforced against the adverse party

Assignment 2 | WHEN JUDGMENT CONSIDERED FINAL; VIS-A-VIS SEC. 1529

Republic v. Association Benevola de Cebu

Sol Gen’s Contentions: • its appeal on July 16, 1986 was filed on time, which is within the prescribed period of fifteen (15) days from its receipt of the copies of the decisions • the property in question is public land and therefore, substantial justice requires that such appeal be allowed | The request of the Solicitor General for the fiscal to represent the former and to appeal did not make the fiscal counsel of the Republic. Only the Solicitor General whose office, "as the law office of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines", is the entity that is empowered to "represent the Government in all land registration and related

• A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. Thus, finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected. • If ever there was an entry of judgment in this case dated September 14,1984, this had the effect of finally disposing and putting an end to the controversy with regard to the private respondents herein as among themselves and not insofar as the government's interest on the land is concerned. As to it, the judgments have not yet attained finality because its appeal was perfected on time, before the lapse of the period within which to appeal. • The adjudication of the land in a registration or cadastral case does not become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree.

proceedings". Thus, the 15 days should be reckoned from the time the Solicitor General's Office was apprised of the decision or order and not from the time the special counsel or fiscal was served with the decision.

Assignment 2 | WRIT OF POSSESSION, WHEN ISSUED AS A MATTER OF COURSE; UNTIL WHEN AVAILABLE; WRIT OF DEMOLITION MAY ALSO ISSUE AS A LOGICAL COMPLEMENT

Lucero v. Loot “the issuance of a writ of possession is only a matter of course if nothing in the past has been issued in favor of the registered owner.” | there is no period of prescription as to the issuance of a writ of possession. | a writ of possession may be issued not only against the person who has been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land registration proceedings

“the fact that the petitioners have instituted, more than one year after the decree of registration had been issued, an ordinary action with the Court of First Instance attacking the validity of the decree on the ground of fraud, is not a bar to the issuance of the writ of possession applied for by the registered owners.” | “if the writ of possession issued in a land registration proceeding implies the delivery of possession of the land to the successful litigant therein, … a writ of demolition must, likewise, issue, especially considering that the latter writ is but a complement of the former which, without said writ of demolition, would be ineffective.”

Assignment 2 | UNTIL WHEN WRIT OF POSSESSION MAY BE ISSUED; 5-YEAR PERIOD FPR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT NOT APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, LIKE LAND REGISTRATION CASE

Rodil v. Benedicto

* Cadastre were claimed and applied for by the spouses Tomas Rodil and Catalina Cruz. * Original Certificate of Title was issued to the applicants * • The cadastral court gave due course to the petition and set the case for hearing, where oral and documentary evidence were presented by the petitioning heirs of Alejandro Abes. * heirs of Alejandro Abes filed an action against the registered owners for the reconveyance of title, claiming that Tomas Rodil and his wife procured registration of the land "thru fraud, misrepresentation and the use of falsified deeds of sale." Tomas Rodil and Catalina Cruz filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession asking that they be placed in possession of the lots and that the heirs of Alejandro Abes be evicted therefrom.

4. The 5-year limitation rule for execution, on motion, of judgments does not apply to special proceedings, like a cadastral proceeding (most important) • The judgment may be enforced within five years by motion, and after five years but within ten years by an action (Section 6, Rule 39) refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as land registration cases. | Writ of possession can be issued against persons not specifically named as parties in a cadastral proceeding which is a proceeding in rem. | • A cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem and against everybody, including the respondents herein, who are deemed included in the general order of default entered in the case | 3. The right of a buyer of registered land to ask for a writ of possession does not prescribed.

Assignment 2 | EFFECT OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION; AMENDMENTS, SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENTS

Benin v. Tuazon In other words, the area of the six parcels of land claimed by the plaintiffs is only a little over two per cent (2%) of the aggregate area of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. But the decision of the trial court nullified Original Certificate of Title No. 785, without any qualification.

Without a new publication the registration court can not acquire jurisdiction over the area or parcel of land that is added to the area covered by the original application, and the decision of the registration court would be a nullity insofar as the decision concerns the newly included land. | We believe that this difference of 27.10 square meters is too minimal to be of decisive consequence in the determination of the validity of Original Certificate of Title No. 735. It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that only in cases where the original survey plan is amended during the registration proceedings by the addition of lands not previously included in the original plan should publication be made in order to confer jurisdiction on the court to

order the registration of the area that was added after the publication of the original plan.

Assignment 2 | SEC. 6, RULE 39 NOT APPLICABLE TO ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION

Realty Sales Enterprise v. IAC

Reconstitution: The whole theory of reconstitution is to reproduce or replace records lost or destroyed so that said records may be complete and court proceedings may continue from the point or stage where said proceedings stopped due to the loss of the records. The law contemplates different stages for purposes of reconstitution. | If the records up to a certain point or stage are lost and they are not reconstituted, the parties and the court should go back to the next preceding age where records are available, but not beyond that

* Under Act No. 496, Land Registration Act, (1902) as amended by Act No. 2347 (1914), jurisdiction over all applications for registration of title to and was conferred upon the Courts of First Instance of the respective provinces in which the land sought to be registered is situated. * Jurisdiction over land registration cases, as in ordinary actions, is acquired upon the filing in court of the application for registration, and is retained up to the end of the litigation. The issuance of a decree of registration is but a step in the entire land registration process; and as such, does not constitute a separate proceeding. | If they fail to ask for reconstitution, the worst that can happen to them is that they lose the advantages provided by the reconstitution law" (e.g. having the case at the stage when the records were destroyed).

Assignment 3 Fule v. Legare Emilia Legare - adopted son - lack of prudence - transferred title to son - son sold to third party

The title with adopted son's name is conclusive as to third party. Lack of any suspicious item on its face. Sale is valid.

Assignment 3 Balbin v. Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur

Cornelio Balbin - donation - sale - presentation of duplicate

Duplicates should all be presented; the copies should contain the same information; Torrens | Exception: 3 instances when the Register may deny registration of voluntary instruments: a) When there are more than one copy of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and not all such copies are presented to the Register of Deeds b) Where the voluntary instrument bears on its face an infirmity

c) Where the validity of the instrument sought to registered is in issue in a pending court suit (Balbin v. Register of Deeds Ilocos Sur)

Assignment 3 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Mangawang

Titles under Homestead Law and Cadastral Acts; first priority; can also be characterized as double sale; 2 titles are vested on the same land, same registrant | Homestead Patent and the other one is via Cadastral Proceeding

Santos Camacho (first sale valid) the owner is Development Bank of the Philippines (Santos Camacho mortgaged the property to DBP) | Since both purchasers apparently have acted in good faith, the sale made to Santos Camacho would be the valid one considering that when Amposta sold the same land to the Mangawang bros after the 1st sale to Santos, he had nothing more to sell even if the title he surrendered to them is one issued covering the same property. In legal contemplation therefore, Amposta sold a property he no longer owned, and hence the transaction is legally ineffective.

Assignment 3 Gatiaon v. Gaffud record; constructive notice; presumption of knowledge of every fact; this presumption is irrebutable; the record of mortgage is indispensable to its validity; lot has been mortgaged and remortgaged, the bank is supposed to know the technical descriptions of the lot and know that the titles refer to the same lot

We have laid the rule that where two certificates of title around issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail as between original parties and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the land, the person holding under the prior certificate is entitled to the land as against the person who rely on the second certificate. The purchaser from the owner of the later certificate and his successors, should resort to his vendor for redress, rather than molest the holder of the first certificate and his successors, who should be permitted to resort secure in their title.

Assignment 3 Bergado v. Court of Appeals

Petitioners claim the property by right of inheritance from their parents. The Republic says the land was donated to it on July 26, 1977. An action for recovery of title to or possession of real property or an interest therein can be brought only within ten years from the date the cause of action accrues.

Ownership should therefore vest in the respondent Republic of the Philippines because it was first in possession of the property in good faith. If any recourse is still available to the petitioners, it definitely is not against the Republic of the Philippines. Their claim for satisfaction on which we do not rule at this time may be addressed only to Marciana Trinidad who, for reasons still to be discovered, sold the same land once, and then once again, to separate purchasers.

Assignment 3 Heir of Claro Laureta v. Intermediate Appellate Court

pending litigation… The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that a partial execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3083 prior to the final determination of Caram's petition in G.R. No. L-28740 would be a proscribed legal absurdity. Such partial execution, if allowed, would indubitably entail the cancellation of Caram's title and would unquestionably have been legally premature and impermissible at that time since the validity thereof still had to be resolved by this Court. Consequently, the ten-year period for the execution of said judgment commenced to run only on February 12, 1982 when the decision denying Caram's petition became final and executory, and the execution on motion of petitioners in 1983 in Civil Case No. 3083 was not time-barred.

Assignment 3 Roxas v. Dinglasan

person who bought from owner v. person who bought from a person falsifying a public document; mortgagee in good faith and for value

When they bought land from Kalaw without the title, they should have filed for an adverse claim; vendee and mortgagee are not expected to do more research when there is nothing suspicious on the face of the title (the title was also in the name of the vendor); Had they filed an adverse claim, Pedro Dinglasan would not have been able to obtain cancellation of Felisa Kalaw's certificate of title and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in his name. They were, thus, negligent, and their negligence was the proximate cause of their loss.

Assignment 3 Philippine National Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court

Fr. Title over the land - Public open space not annotated on the title - donated to Suarez

mortgage valid; bank not required to research on history of the title; Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith shall hold the same free from all encumbrances not noted on the title. (Sec. 50, PD No. 1529) When transfer certificates of title were issued in favor of the transferees (the donees and the purchaser) nothing was said therein about the land having been reserved for a public open space. Persons dealing with a property covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title

Assignment 3 Natalia Realty Corp. v. Vallez

unlawful occupants; 5 civil cases consolidated; summary judgment

There is nothing either in Presidential Decree No. 2 which may be said to justify appellants' claim that said decree granted the ownership of said lands to them and their successors by title. Apparently, appellants were misled or induced to believe that they acquired the parcels of land in question when the whole country was declared by the previous regime as a land reform area.

Assignment 3 J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Court of Appeals

that mere possession of whatever length cannot defeat the imprescriptible title to the holder of registered Torrens Title to real property, and that registered real property under the Torrens system cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription.ejectment --> action for recovery of possession --> Renosa built construction on the property and argued that he obtained the property from Cruz | Issue is whether private respondent Renosa's predecessor-in-nterest in the

Capt. Faustino C. Cruz based his alleged true and sole ownership of the disputed land on the compromise agreement. | The compromise agreement did not provide for an outright transfer of title to the beneficiaries (including the 3,000 square meters allotted to Capt. Cruz), but subjected said transfer to suspensive conditions, namely, deduction of P250,000 from the amount that may be due the "Deudors;" after delivery to the petitioner of the lots marked "refund" shall have been affected; and after the subdivision plan is approved by the National Planning Commission and the Bureau of Lands. | The compromise agreement did not provide for an outright transfer of title to the beneficiaries (including the 3,000 square meters allotted to Capt. Cruz),

disputed property namely, Capt. Cruz, acquired a valid right to own and possess said land a right that he couldhave legally transferred to Renosa to entitle the latter a better right of possession against the admitted registered owner of the land.

but subjected said transfer to suspensive conditions, namely, deduction of P250,000 from the amount that may be due the "Deudors;" after delivery to the petitioner of the lots marked "refund" shall have been affected; and after the subdivision plan is approved by the National Planning Commission and the Bureau of Lands.

Assignment 3 Medina v. Changco

Complaint; obtained through fraud; property owned by parents who are part of the minority in Benguet; five of the heirs were removed from the complaint (even against the suit)

We cannot discern in any of them any specific act indicating any participation of the petitioners in whatever fraud might have attended the original transaction between the parents of private respondents and J.O. Wagner. | section 55 of the Land Registration Act that although an original owner of a registered land may seek the annulment of a transfer thereof on the ground of fraud, such a remedy, however, is "without prejudice to the rights of any innocent holder for value" of the certificate of title. If only because (1) petitioners did not acquire the property in question from Wagner but from the Leungs and this transaction between Wagner and the Leungs took place in 1917, or four years after the alleged fraudulent execution of the transfer in favor of Wagner: (2) the transfer or conveyance to the petitioners took place only in 1932 or 19 years after the sale to the Leungs by Wagner; and (3) the complaint below was filed only in 1969, more than 50 years after the first transaction, it is unbelievable that the herein petitioners could have taken part in any manner in either the transfer from

the parents of the private respondents to Wagner as well as the transfer from Wagner to the Leungs.

Assignment 3 Duran v. Intermediate Appellate Court

Circe Duran --> went abroad --> deed of sale executed in favor of her mother --> mother mortgaged the property to tiangco --> wrote to register of deeds informing that she had not given authority to her mother --> mortgaged foreclosed Circe S. Duran claims that the Deed of Sale in favor of her mother Fe S. Duran is a forgery, saying that at the time of its execution in 1963 she was in the United States. On the other hand, the adverse party alleges that the signatures of Circe S. Duran in the said Deed are genuine and, consequently, the mortgage made by Fe S. Duran in favor of private respondent is valid. A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the certificate of title and, in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, he is under no obligation to look beyond the

Even if signature forgery, and sale is void, the mortgage is valid. STILL insofar as innocent third persons are concerned the owner was already the mother (Fe S. Duran) inasmuch as she had already become the registered owner. Thus the rule is simple: the fraudulent and forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name indicated by the forger What is important is that at the time the mortgage was executed, the mortgagees in good faith actually believed Fe S. Duran to be the owner, as evidenced by the registration of the property in the name of said Fe S. Duran| where innocent third persons relying on the correctness of the certificate of title issued, acquire rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate for that would impair public confidence in the certificate of title; otherwise everyone dealing with property registered under the torrens system would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly or irregularly issued by the court. | also barred by laches:

certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on the face of said certificate.

should have filed action when the building permit was even under her mother's name; should have intervened in the mortgage proceedings - BUT SHE DID NOT

Assignment 3 Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, De Lara, St. John the Baptist Sisters

Conrado de Lara (Patent) lot in Noveleta --> deed of sale with mortgage in favor of the sisters of St. John the Baptist --> Bautista filed complaint against de Lara, alleging she is the owner; attained lot from cadastral proceeding; that she declared it in payment for tax declarations --> Upon investigation conducted by the Bureau of Lands, it has been ascertained that Free Patent No. 016937, and its corresponding original certificate of title, were erroneously and fraudulently issued to Conrado F. de Lara through misrepresentation of facts by stating in his application that the land applied for is not claimed or occupied by any other person but is a public

Sisters: "herein defendant-movant is innocent purchaser for value and in good faith and as such it has acquired a title over the property in question which is perfectly valid and legally unassailable and indefeasible . . . . --> Motion to dismiss by sisters was dismissed. An innocent purchaser for value is "one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. 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. The effect of such an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every

land when in truth and in fact said parcel is claimed by and covered by survey plan Psu-104879 in the name of Roberto Bautista.

instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued.

Assignment 4 Dirige v. Biranya petition for relief dismissed - 6 months reglementary period has lapsed; defendant: begin to toll from finality of judgment, 30 days;

6 months from judgment is entered; if no appeal, judgment shall be entered in the book of entries; petition for relief must be accompanied by showing of fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence; petition for relief is premised on equity; Mere forgetfulness of a party is not sufficient to set aside a judgment of default

Assignment 4 Rublico v. Orellana

appeal for an order of dismissal of a petition for annulment of a judgment and/or review of a decree of registration of two cadastral lots allegedly procured through fraud; Orellana sole claimant, Rublico did not file; order of general default

It will be noted that the essential requisites or elements for the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree are: (a) that the petitioner has a real or dominical right; (b) that he has been deprived thereof; (c) through fraud; (d) that the petition is filed within one year from the issuance of the decree; and (e) that the property has not as yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser; ANY PERSON MAY FILE, NOT NECESSARILY ONE CLAIMANT; must show actual fraud and not just constructive fraud; should aver facts and not mere conclusions of law

Assignment 4 Frias v. Esquivel co-owners, sold, refused to reconvey; reopen the decree of registration based on fraud

To justify the setting aside or review of a decree of registration under Section 38 of Act No. 496, the party seeking relief must allege and prove, inter alia, that the registration was procured through fraud — actual and extrinsic. It has been held in this connection that if the fraud alleged in the petition to set aside the decree is involved in the same proceedings in which the party seeking relief had ample opportunity to assert his right, to attack the document presented by the applicant for registration and to cross-examine the witnesses who testified relative thereto, then the fraud relied upon is intrinsic. The fraud is extrinsic if it was employed to deprive a party of his day in court, thus preventing him from asserting his right to the property registered in the name of the applicant

Assignment 4 Republic v. de Kalintas

review of cadastral decree; Mati, Davao; Lopez; through fraud with the aid of Justice of Peace

Act of 1948 amended by RA 2613. Section 88 of the law allows Justices of the peace to sit as Cadastral courts, saying : “Provided, however, That justices of the peace may, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, be assigned by the respective district judge in each case to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the value of which does not exceed P 5,000...” The appellants contend that the judgment should be set aside because the Cadastral court did not lawfully acquire jurisdiction over the property. They averred that the decision of the Justice of the Peace Court was null and void for want of jurisdiction, because the lot was a controverted lot, the value of which exceeded (P5,000.00); The court ruled that the petition was meritorious and should not have been dismissed off hand by the CFI. However, it did not make a ruling on its

own because the facts about whether or not the land truly was incontrovertible were not yet proven; they should be given their chance at a trial to prove their case. Case was remanded to CFI.

Assignment 4 Rural Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon

certificate of title cancelled; authority to mortgage

The rule applicable to this controversy, with the exception thereto, is well settled. Where the certificate of title is in the name of the mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the innocent mortgagee for value has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of title. In the absence of anything to excite or arouse suspicion, said mortgagee is under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on the face of said certificate. Although Article 2085 of the Civil Code provides that absolute ownership of the mortgaged property by the mortgagor is essential, the subsequent declaration of a title as null and void is not a ground for nullifying the mortgage right of a mortgagee in good faith. NEGLIGENCE AMOUNTING TO BAD FAITH FOR FAILURE TO INQUIRE WHO IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND PRIOR TO MORTGAGE

Assignment 4 Maquiling v. Umadhay

dispute we are asked to resolve refers to one-third share originally pertaining to Enriique and which he sold to herein plaintiff who failed to register the sale in the proper registry.

Under the circumstances the Umadhay could not claim conclusiveness of what appeared on the face of the certificate of title; it was not in Eriberto's name and his self-serving declaration that he was Paz Maquiling's sole heir could not be availed of by them in derogation of the share of the other heir — Enrique Gumban — or of the latter's transferee, the petitioner herein; TITLE ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE INDEFEASIBLE

Assignment 4 Esconde v. Barlongay

Petition for Writ of Possession; complaint for reconveyance; alias writ of possession; writ of possession; restraining order, preliminary injunction

Land Registration proceeding is an in rem proceeding; decree of registration obtained by fraud, only one year to file a petition for review; after one year, it will be incontrovertible; action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him; RECONVEYANCE TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON WHO SECURED REGISTRATION IS NOT THE REAL OWNER THEREOF; DOES NOT SEEK TO SET ASIDE THE DECREE BUT ONLY TO TRANSFER FROM REGISTERED OWNER TO REAL OWNER; action for reconveyance based on fraud, 4 years from the discovery which is when title is registered

Assignment 4 Vda de Cabrera v. Court of Appeals

it is true that by themselves tax receipts and declaration of ownership for taxation purpsoses are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property; BARRED BY LACHES;

CO-OWNERSHIP WO SIGNATURE, DID NOT BEAR THE LATTER'S SHARE; THE DEFENSE OF INDEFEASIBILITY OF THE TORRENS TITLE DOES NOT EXTEND TO A TRANSFEREE WHO TAKES THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WITH NOTICE OF A FLAW IN HIS TITLE. THE PRINCIPLE OF INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE IS UNAVAILING WHERE THERE WAS FRAUD THAT ATTENDED THE ISSUANCE OF THE FREE PATENTS AND TITLES; prescription applies when the person claiming to be the owner is NOT in actual possession of the land; NOT

BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION BUT BARRED BY LACHES? :)

Assignment 4 Gicano v. Gegato co-ownership; original owners died; intended to transfer not 1/2 but only 1/3 share; But the action instituted by the plaintiffs Rosa Gegato, et al. was not one to declare the deed of sale of August 23, 1952 void ab initio, for lack of cause or object in accordance with Article 1409 of the Civil Code, which is really imprescriptible, but to annul it on account of fraud, on the theory of constructive trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years.

An action to recover an immovable from a defendant allegedly holding it under a constructive trust prescribes in 10 years, counted from the issuance of title to said defendant. / Trial court has discretion to dismiss prescription-barred actions.

Assignment 4 Sotto v. Teves Atty. Filemon Sotto, married to Rallos, cesti que trust; registered lot either in the name of his wife alone to the prejudice of the other co-owners; Marecelo Sotto denied that there was any trust relation between Atty. Sotto and Rallos; titling of lots done in capacity as trustee and not as absolute owner; TREMENDOUS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE/ The express trusts disable the trustee from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his management or custody, at least while he does not openly repudiate the trust, and makes such repudiation known to the beneficiary or cestui que trust. / Adverse possession in such a case requires the concurrence of the following circumstances: (a) that the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust; (b) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust and (c) that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive. / The claim that the heirs of Concepcion Rallos are guilty of laches and are estopped from claiming the properties deserves scant consideration, for in fiduciary relationship, the beneficiaries have the right to rely on the trust and confidence reposed in the trustee.

* Filemon Sotto by virtue of his marriage to Carmen Rallos was only as much as the trust on the shoulders of the two husbands of Concepcion Rallos, Mariano Teves and Mariano Camara, and this trust is not the trust defined in our Civil Code on express trust. * Not being the absolute owner thereof, Carmen Rallos could not legally convey their ownership by including them in their will. * We must overrule petitioner's stand that the trust was expressly repudiated by the parties although he makes capital of the fact of registration of the properties in the names of Carmen Rallos and Maria Fadullon Vda. de Rallos, contending strongly that such registration is evidence of repudiation of the express trust. * The acts, on the contrary, were secretive and fraudulent assertions of exclusive ownership. * That the deed of sale supposedly asserting a claim of ownership and transfer thereof was kept under seal of secrecy cannot be considered as unequivocal acts of repudiation of the trust and of the co-ownership. Although the title to the lot was finally consolidated in the name of Carmen Rallos thru this secret manner, We must regard the registration to be for the benefit of the other co-heirs who cannot be prejudiced by such furtive and stealthy act. REGISTRATION WAS SECRETLY, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REPUDIATION

Assignment 4 Manarpaac v. Cabanatan

fraudulent misrepresentation; changed the cause of action from declaration of nullity to RECONVEYANCE; one year period if issued under public land grants should be from the issuance of Public Patent

Possession since time immemorial carries the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest. * In this case, the land occupied had become, by operation of law, private property - the only lacking element is judicial sanction. Given such, the remedy of reconveyance is clearly actionable since there is sufficient cause due to the property being wrongfully and erroneously registered in another's name. The goal of reconveyance is not to defeat the indefeasibility of title. Rather, its goal is just to return the land to its proper owner.

Assignment 4 Vda. De Carreon v. Cartagena

complaint to remove a cloud to title; ISSUE: there can be no reconveyance because never allege ownership and fraud

plaintiffs do not fall under the class of innocent title holders contemplated in the provisions on compensation from the assurance fund; HE HAD NO RIGHT OVER THE SAME BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HAVE ACQUIRED THE RIGHTS OF PATALEON CARREON WHO HAD ALREADY TRANSFERRED HIS RIGHTS TO ANTONIO MAGUINSAWAN; order without due process is null and void

Assignment 4 Treasurer of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals

Spouses Ocson; Assurance Fund subsidiarily liable for damages sustained by the private respondents; Lawaan Lopez; the real Lawaan Lopez, impostor;

* The first situation is clearly inapplicable as we are not dealing here with any omission, mistake or malfeasance of the clerk of court or of the register of deeds or his personnel in the performance of their duties. * The second situation is also inapplicable. The strongest obstacle to recovery thereunder is that the private respondents acquired no land or any interest therein as a result of the invalid sale made to them by the spurious Lawaan Lopez. * MAIN POSTURE IS THAT THE REAL LAWAAN LOPEZ HAD IN HER OWN GENUINE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE * THEY SEEMED TO BE SATISFIED THAT HE HAD AN ILONGO ACCENT TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM TO BE THE VISAYAN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. * spouses may still recover from the impostor

LAND TITLES | ATTY. PADILLA | ATENEO LAW SCHOOL | Table by Frances Lipnica Pabilane (2015)