Você está na página 1de 3

EL BLANCO ESPANOL v PALANCA GR NO L-11390 March 26, 1918 Street,J: Facts: Petitioner filed an action to foreclose a mortgage upon

various parcels of land owned by respondent who failed to pay his loan. After the execution of the instrument, respondent returned to China, his native country. An order for publication was accordingly obtained from the court and publication was made thru newspaper. The court directed the clerk of court to notify respondent at his last place of residence, i.e., Amoy, China. However, no proof was shown that said order was fulfilled by the clerk of court. After 7 yrs of confirmation of sale, now, administrator of the estate claims that no notice was received by them, thus seeking for annulment. Issue: WON the confirmation of sale be void due to failure to notify respondent Held: No. With respect to the provisions of our statute, relative to the sending of notice by mail, the requirement is that the judge shall direct that the notice be deposited in the mail by the clerk of the court, and it is not in terms declared that the notice must be deposited in the mail. We consider this to be some significance; and it seems to us that, having due regard to the principles upon which the giving of such notice is required, the absent owner of the mortgaged property must, so far as the due process of law is concerned, take the risk incident to the possible failure of the clerk to perform his duty, somewhat as he takes the risk that the mail clerk or the mail carrier might possibly lose or destroy the parcel or envelope containing the notice before it should reach its destination and be delivered to him. X X X The observations which have just been made lead to the conclusion that the failure of the clerk to mail the notice, if in fact he did so fail in his duty, is not such as irregularity as amounts to a denial of due process of law; and hence in our opinion that irregularity, if proved, would not avoid the judgment in this case. Notice was given by publication in a newspaper and this is the only form of notice which the law unconditionally requires. X X X

REPUBLIC v GUINTO GR NO. 175578 August 11, 2010 Peralta, J: Facts: Respondents applied for Registration of Title professed themselves to be co-owners of subject lots, having acquired them by succession from their predecessors , who, in turn, had acquired the property under a 1969 document denominated as "Kasulatan sa Paghahati ng Lupa na Labas sa Hukuman na may Pagpaparaya at Bilihan.". They also alleged that until the time of the application, they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open, peaceful, adverse, exclusive and continuous possession of these lots in the concept of owner and that they had consistently declared the property in their name for purposes of real estate taxation. They submitted to the court the blueprint as well as copies of technical description. They further averred that the original tracing cloth was previously submitted to the RTC of Las Pinas in connection with a previous registration case which had been dismissed. Petitioner through the Office of the City of Prosecutor opposed the said application for the respondents failed to present competent and sufficient evidence of ownership, particularly the absence of the original tracing cloth. Issue: WON absence of original tracing cloth will cause the denial of the application of respondents Held: No. The provision denotes that it is imperative in an application for original registration that the applicant submit to the court, aside from the original or duplicate copies of the muniments of title, a copy of a duly approved survey plan of the land sought to be registered. The survey plan is indispensable as it provides a reference on the exact identity of the property. X X X In not so many cases, it was held that the non-submission, for any reason, of the original tracing cloth plan is fatal to the registration application, since the same is mandatory in original registration of title. X X X Yet if the reason for requiring an applicant to adduce in evidence the original tracing cloth plan is merely to provide a convenient and necessary means to afford certainty as to the exact identity of the property applied for registration and to ensure that the same does not overlap with the boundaries of the adjoining lots, there stands to be no reason why a registration application must be denied for failure to present the original tracing cloth plan, especially where it is accompanied by pieces of evidence such as a duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and a duly executed technical description of the property which may likewise substantially and with as much certainty prove the limits and extent of the property sought to be registered.

UMBAY v ALECHA GR NO 67284 March 18, 1985 Aquino, J: Facts: Petitioners are the heirs of Natalio Enanoria who died in 1924 leaving Lot 5280 represented by OCT No. 10933 issued in 1922. In 39 years after NAtalios death, his heirs asked a surveyor to relocate the lot and later found out that a 500 sq.m. portion was occupied by herein respondent who refused to vacate the land. Issue: WON the actions of herein respondents does prescribe and can be barred by laches Held: No. It was held 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. X X X 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. Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest.