MidTerm Transcription Land Titles

1
Philippians 4:13
I can do all things in Christ who gives me strength
this transcription was ran by Razer and fueled by Monster Energy Drink (unleash the beast)

Midterms Land Titles and Deeds
(Lend Tetls and Deds)

Importance of land registration
- Protect rights over the land
- Protect ownership over the land
- Facilitate land transaction

Examples:
Right to dispose
Facilitating land transactions like using the land
as collateral in the loan

PD 1529
- decree issued to update the Land Registration
Act and to codify the various laws relative to
registration of property and to facilitate effective
implementation of said laws
- Prior to PD 1522 the laws on land registration
were scattered, PD 1522 aimed to codify all land
registration laws into one law
Among such laws were:
+ CA 141
+ Act 496
+ CA 2259
+ 3344
+ 1508
+ RA 26
+ PD 27
+ 8958
+ 726
(Basta kana sila di lagi na mu gawas)

- consolidated all laws so that we only have to
look at one law

Regalian doctrine
- All public lands belong to the state
- in the absence of proof of private ownership
that land, without proof, as a general rule that
land shall be owned by the state

- originated during the Spanish rule
> First to enact the rule
> All ownership and rights must be
passed from the crown
> king of Spain conquered the
Philippine islands this is based more on conquest, since
they conquered the Philippine islands and it seems now
that the king and the crown owns the lands of the
Philippine islands. We already know from history that
we have been conquered by so many others and so from
Spain then to US until independence. That is why
Regalian doctrine tells us that without any ownership the
land belongs to the King of Spain

(Naka basa naman gyud tingali mo tanan sa caso sah
kay grabe pinusilay, questions nani dayun)

Sec. DENR vs. Yap
Occupants of Boracay Island want the lands
registered

What was the reason of the Supreme Court in saying that
they could not have title over the lands?
- these lands were considered unclassified and
pursuant to the revised forestry code, unclassified lands
are deemed ipso facto to be forest lands and forest lands
are owned by the state

There was also an issue as to the presentation of proof of
private ownership, were they equal to proof that they
owned it apart from the proof that they tilled on the lands
and substantial investments
- No, because the SC said that there must be a
positive government act that declares the lands alienable
and disposable, since they were not able to show that
there was such proclamation or any act from the
legislative department that would show that these lands
were alienable and agricultural lands

Positive acts that would prove that the land is
alienable and disposable:
1. acts which were made by the legislative
department such as proclamations, decrees and orders

How about the contentions of the investors of
Boracay that they have already invested so much and it
would be prejudicial to them if they were unable to
secure title over the land?
- The SC noted that, if they indeed were able to
build several billions of pesos in the land but however
they could not have these titles however they still have
other remedies
- Since they do not necessarily have ownership
does not mean that they could not have possession. They
could apply for patents or loans.

PD 1081, was that not enough a positive act
classifying that the lands were alienable and disposable?
- it was not a positive act, since this only refer to
the administration of land into a tourist zone and a
marine zone, they could only have established business
transactions but not necessarily classifying it as alienable
and disposable such that the persons can already gain
ownership and title

Regalian doctrine:
General rule:
All lands are owned by the state

2
Philippians 4:13

Exemption:
Proof of private ownership and according to the
case of sec of DENR vs. Yap there are 2 requisites:
1. Applicant is in open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious possession (OCENP) over the land within a
time prescribed by law or since June 12, 1945 or earlier

2. There must be a positive act of government
declaring the land as alienable and disposable

What are these positive acts?
- Presidential proclamations
- Executive orders
- Administrative acts
- Investigative reports from the bureau of lands
- Certification from the DENR
- Legislative acts

What type of land may be alienated and disposed of by
the state?
- Only agricultural land
+ Other classifications are forest, timber and
national parks are not alienable

Proclamation 1081 was not enough, it was a presidential
proclamation but it did not classify Boracay as an
agricultural land it merely classified Boracay as a tourist
zone

Proclamation by Gloria
- It was already a positive act, certain parts were
agricultural and certain parts are forest

those who possess the lands where they these lands were
classified as forest lands by the proclamation regardless
of whether they have already possessed it since June
12,1945 or earlier, there was no other requisite present
because the land was not yet alienable and disposable.
- it tells you that regardless of how long you
have occupied the land, if that land is not classified as
agricultural, then you cannot obtain original registration
for that land

As to whether substantial investments would make you
owner of that land the SC said not, even if you have
invested billions of pesos over the land that does not give
you better right over the land because it is not alienable
and disposable but the SC said that you are not yet
hopeless, you could still apply for patent. it is not for the
supreme court to decide or give away.

Republic vs Munoz
Payment of taxes do not make you owner of said land
- Payment of taxes do not prove ownership of
the land it only proves possession

What about the evidence presented that he is applying
for patent over the land?
- Application for patent was denied, it did not
show that the respondent had occupied the land
exclusively and continuously

- the Supreme Court said that, still he has not
presented any proof that the land was alienable
and disposable therefore if it does not belong to
the exception then the general rule shall have to
apply that it belongs to the state as to his
evidence that he submitted that he was already
applying for a patent, the SC supreme court
said, "so what?" that was only an application. it
has not yet been granted. it being just an
application, it does not hold water.

Rural Bank of Anda vs Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Lingayen-Dagupan

Does the municipal corporation, an instrumentality of the
government, have a right to appropriate public lands?
- Even if municipal corporations are an
instrumentality of the government they cannot
appropriate to themselves public or governmental lands
without prior grant from the government

Cruz vs Sec. of DENR

What was the contention of the petitioners in saying that
the IPRA law was unconstitutional?
- IPRA law would give ownership to the said
lands and it is a violation of the Regalian Doctrine

What was the position of those that were in favor of the
IPRA law?
- the land was already in possession of the
indigenous people time immemorial then they
have the right for those lands

In the IPRA law, was it full ownership?
- it is not full ownership but stewardship, or
management or first preference or priority of
use of the land
- it was not full ownership, so it does not violate
the Regalian Doctrine

IPRA law was upheld

Cario vs Insular Government
The second exception to Regalian doctrine is native title
- You and your ancestors in interest have
been in possession and occupation of that

3
Philippians 4:13

land since time immemorial even prior to
Spanish conquest
- It acknowledges the reality that when we
were conquered by Spain, not all the lands
of the Philippine islands were conquered
(basis of the IPRA law)
- Beyond the Regalian doctrine

Torrens System of Registration (PD 1529)
- Gives you a more organized way of
registration of lands, giving those lands
indefeasible title
- Manner by which you can facilitate your
land transactions

Grey Alba vs de la Cruz

Original registration
- Land is not yet titled
- Apply for title over it
- Confirms ownership

Proof of ownership to be presented in court
1. OCENP over land within a time prescribed
by law or since June 12, 1945 by you or
predecessor-in-interest
2. Land must be agricultural land

Application Requisite:
1. Publish application
a. Proceeding in court is a
proceeding in rem (binds the whole
world)
i. The fact that it was
published then everyone
is already made a
defendant because it is
against the whole world

Legarda vs Saleeby
Dual titling of a certain area

Purpose of Torrens System of Registration:
- Quiet title of the land
- Rest secure that once the title is made the
title is really yours

Legarda already obtained title of the land in
1906. Here comes Saleeby although a successor
in interest has a title which included part of
Legardas land. Both have title. There is
overlapping of Titles. Who shall be considered
as owner of that overlap?
- The first registrant, when issued a certificate
of title over that land you should already be
rest secured that the title is already yours.
Already quieted ownership of land
- Legarda first acquired title, binding against
the whole world

Traders Royal Bank vs CA
Encumbrances and registration in the lack of
land title

Traders Royal Bank(TRP) extrajudicially
foreclosed the land of the Capays. Capays used their land
as collateral. Capays applied for notice of lis pendens and
also injunction (stop the extrajudicial foreclosure). Place
at the back of the title. Notice of lis pendens was not
annotated. Land was sold to third party and sold again to
several parties. After 15 years that was the only time that
the Capays raised the issue that they can attack the
ownership of the subsequent owners. SC ruled that they
have already slept on their right by laches. If they wanted
to protect it they should have made sure that it was
annotated. Everything you put on the title is binding on
the whole world. That is the purpose of the Torrens
System of Registration protects property rights.

SM Prime Holdings Inc. vs Madayag
SM Prime Holdings acquired 9 lots, some had
titles but some had missing titles. Madayag wanted to
have a certain lot registered but the lot was included in
one of the lots of SM. She was applying for a survey plan
but opposed by SM. SM wanted to hold the availing
proceedings in the trial court to wait for the resolution of
the DENR.

SC said that the trial court need not wait for the
resolution of the DENR in order to proceed with the
registration proceedings.

Pd 1529
- Grants the Land registration court or RTC
the power to settle all issues regarding land
registration including the survey plan.

Why is it indefeasible?
- Because of the proceeding that it has to go
through
- Because of the power of the registration
court to examine evidence whether or not
you really are the owner of the land
- When the decree is given to you confirming
ownership over the land, it becomes
indefeasible. No need to wait for other
administrative agencies because that power
settles issues of ownership over the land is

4
Philippians 4:13

already given to the RTC or Land
Registration Court

Government of the Philippine Islands vs Abural
What was the reason why they wanted to reopen the
case?
- They were not informed of the proceedings,
there was fraud

What period may you reopen the case when there is
fraud?
- Within one year from entry of decree of
registration

How come SC said it cannot be reopened?
- Because the ground for reopening it was
ignorance of the proceedings or they were
not informed
- Ground must be fraud, cannot be ignorance

Indefeasibility sets in 1 year after entry of decree
of registration
- The SC said that on the basis of PD 1529,
you may attack it on the ground of fraud
not ignorance
- Original registration proceeding is a
proceeding in rem.

What is the requisite of it being in rem?
- Publication
- The effect of publication becomes
constructive notice to the whole world
- The whole world is made a party
defendant, even the part defendant. So long
as it was already published they were
already notified.

Borromeo vs Descallar
Wilhelm Jambrich nag uyab ni Descallar nya
nag palit sila yuta gi butang sa ngalan ni Descallar. Nag
buwag sila kay namiga nasad si Jambrich la.in exotic
beauty. Gi baligya ni Jambrich iyang yuta ni Borromeo
para pang bayad sa pa-ayo sa iya speedboat. Lalis dayun
kinsay tagiya

What about the contention of Descallar that the title was
already in her name, and then the title has already been
indefeasible considering the lapse of 4 years?

- Respondent was not a land owner in good
faith therefore it was an exception to the
indefeasibility rule(tubag sa student)
- She did not pay any valuable consideration.
Registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. Registration is a mere
ministerial act that confirms ownership.

That is why it is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine
you should prove your ownership that you are OCENP
since June 12, 1945 or earlier and a positive act by
government that the land is A and D. That tells you that
you are already the owner. Wala ka nagpa register para
imohang ma own. Nagpa register ka para the state will
recognize that you are the owner.

What happened in the case?
- While there is a certificate of title in her
name and registration merely confirms
ownership. What did that certificate of title
confirm? Nothing, because she was not the
owner in the first place. Registration does
not vest ownership upon her because
evidence showed that she could not buy
property in AgroMacro. It was in fact
Jambrich

Descallar said that Jambrich could not own property and
therefore could not pass it to Borromea
- SC said that the constitutional prohibition,
the reason for that ban on aliens was to
preserve it for the Filipinos but it was
already cured because Jambrich transferred
it to Borromeo.
- SC said that if an alien transfers a land or he
himself becomes a Filipino citizen by
naturalization, ma tangtang ang reason for
the prohibition. It is alright that Borromeo
can get the property from Descallar

Baguio vs Republic
Michaels attained a foreshore. Baguio applied
for Certificate of Title fraudulently and asked for rent
from Michaels. Baguio bagag nawng. Dmd

Even though the title has already been
indefeasible the reversion to the state is
imprescriptable.

General Rule:
1. Title is indefeasible

Exception:
1. Attack it within 1 year due to fraud
2. Attack it even beyond one year if you can
prove that the holder of the title is not really
the owner
3. Title being given over public lands
Reversion to the state is
imprescriptable

5
Philippians 4:13

Pascua vs CA
Analogy of judgment to registration

2 requirements for proper registry:
1. Must be written in the dockets
2. Promulgation should be sent to the parties

Sending of the promulgation was to the parties via
counsel because of trial by abestia. The error in this case
was that the writing of the dockets was delayed as
evidenced by sending of the letters. Promulgation must
be refilled and Pascua was able to file her appeal.

When can you consider a document as registered?
- When it is entered into the books of the
registry

Fudot vs Cattleya Land
Cattleya Land owns several properties however
there were 3 properties that they were not able to secure
the title because they were not able to show the certificate
of title of the previous owner. You could not be issued a
new title if you dont surrender the old title to the RD.
Kay kung issuehan ka ug bag.og title nya wala pa to ang
old, duha na la title over the property. There is a huge
chance of a double sale. There is a chance for a double
sale over one title how much more for two. Fudot was
able to secure the title. Based on evidence they had
amorous relationship with the husband. She had easy
access to the certificate of title. She could attain a new title
based on this deed of sale. The deed of sale was dated
before the deed of sale of Cattleya Land for the parcels of
land. Cattleya Land was able to register the deed of sale
even without securing the title. It was able to register the
land first. Wa lang niya na kuha ang title kay wa niya na
surrender ang present existing title. Fudot was able to
secure the title, she was also able to register.

Issue: Who had the better right?

Held: Art. 1544 when you say double sale. There should
be two valid sales. Based on the testimony of Asuncion,
her signature was forged. Sale to Fudot was not valid. It
was not a sale. Registration is a purely ministerial act. It
does not cure a defective instrument. Since the title of
Fudot was a forged instrument. The title is therefore null
and void.
- Suppose there was a sale. Who had a better
right?
o It is still Cattleya, 1544 says that if
you register it first then you have a
better right. If you are the first
buyer and you register it first,
regardless if you know about the
second buyer or not, so long as
you register it first, that will not
affect your right. But if the second
buyer has no knowledge of the
second buyer but was able to
register it first, will that affect the
1
st
buyer? Yes, because the 2
nd

buyer was in good faith. If 2
nd

buyer is in bad faith then 1
st
buyer
has the better right
o Cattleya 2
nd
buyer but still
registered it first, constructive
notice to the whole world
therefore it still had the better right

Registration
- Any recording in the books of registry
- In general as the law uses the word, mean
any entry made in the books of the registry,
including both registration in its ordinary
and strict sense, and cancellation,
annotation and even marginal notes in its
strict acceptation, it is the entry made in the
registry which records solemnly and
permanently the right of ownership and
other real rights.
- Do not limit registration to only original
registration but also include any entry such
as encumbrances. Include entry of notice of
lis pendens

Samuka JP cgeg ubo di ko kadungog ni maam.

PO SUN TUN vs Price

- One deed of sale was recorded by the RD
and one deed of sale was received by the
RD. Receiving by the RD cannot be
tantamount to a registration because
registration is the entry into the books of
registry. If you present a deed of sale and
was only stamped received is not entry,
even if there was an acknowledgement of
receipt.
- The mere presentation to the office of the
register of deeds of a document on which
acknowledgement of receipt is written not
equivalent to recording or registering the
real property
- For you to be able to say that you have
registered it, it must be entered in the books
of registry
- Registry is important when there is double
sale because whoever registers first in good
faith between two buyers shall have the
better right over the property

6
Philippians 4:13

Vagilidad vs Vagilidad

First sale was from Loreto to Gabion Jr. Loreto
did not surrender title to Gabino Jr. Gabino Jr. execute a
deed of sale to him in favor of Wilfredo but there was no
title involved. According to Gabino that deed of sale was
executed because Wilfredo needed that deed of sale for
the purpose of loaning. However Wilfredo was also able
to ask Loreto to make a deed of sale in his favor. Loreto
had the possession of the title and then gave it to
Wilfredo. They did this in order that Gabino cannot use
the property. Loreto and Wilfredo defrauded Gabino

Who has better right? (Gabino or Wilfredo)
- Better right lies with Gabino
- Registration of property is not a means of
acquiring ownership. Its alleged
incontrovertibility cannot be successfully
invoked by Wilfredo because certificates of
title cannot be used to protect a usurper
from the true owner or be used as a shield
for the commission of fraud. So just because
you have a certificate of title and just
because of the indefeasibility rule, that does
not mean that usurper cannot use that as a
shield especially if the person who is the
owner can prove that he really is the real
owner and that fraud was committed
against him.

Tiro vs Phil Estates Corporation
General rule:
A fraudulent deed cannot be a root of a valid title

The fraudulent deed was an extrajudicial adjudication of
sole heir made by Maxima Ochea
- She pretended to be the sole heir of the
spouses Tiro. Because of that deed, she was
able to transfer the title to another person
then there were subsequent transfers.

certificates of title merely confirm or record title
already existing and vested. The indefeasibility
of the Torrens title should not be used as a
means to perpetrate fraud against the rightful
owner of the property. Good faith must confer
with the registration because otherwise the
registration will be an exercise in debility.

Fraud was committed by Maxima Ochea. The forced
deed was also executed by Maxima Ochea and based on
evidence; bad faith was only executed by her. There was
no bad faith in the subsequent transfers and there was
nothing wrong with the subsequent transfers. If you are a
purchaser, you are not required to go beyond the title.
You have every right to trust the title. What is the use of
the Torrens system if di man diay ghpn ka maka salig sa
title.

Bad faith was only executed by one person and all the
rest were in good faith.

How come the SC said that Philippine Estates
Corp. shall be considered as the owner when in
fact the root of the title was fraudulent?
- Exception is when the purchaser is in good
faith
However, where good faith is
established, as in the case of an innocent
purchaser for value, a forged document may
become the root of a valid document.

If there is no subsequent transfers, just
transferred to the name of Maxima Ochea and the heirs
find out. The heirs shall have the better right. Maxima
Ochea is not the real owner. Therefore the general rule
shall apply because it did not pass through innocent
purchasers.

Cruz vs Cabaa
Double Sale
- Two valid sales to two different vendees

Sps. Cabaa sold to:
The first buyers (sps. Legaspi) wanted to register it
because a requisite in registering a sale in your favor is
you have to surrender your old certificate of title. You
surrender it kay kung issuhan ka ug new nya
outstanding pa ang old then there will be two certificates
over the same property. If there are two certificates of
title over the same property mo samut ug ka rampant ang
double sale. Magka double sale na gani nang isa ka titolo
how much more if you have two certificates of title over
one property. The registration failed because at that time,
Cabaa mortgaged it to PNB. Because if you mortgage a
property. The mortgager will require you to surrender
the title for security purposes.

Second buyers (Sps. Cruz) at the time of his purchase
were unaware of the first purchase. At that time there
was already a title. The property was already released by
PNB. So he registered it and was able to do so. A new
title was issued in his name but at the time he registered
it he was told that it was already sold to Sps. Legaspi but
he did not care. Samut niya I register kay naa naman diay
nip alit (salbahis gyud).

Rule on Double Sale:
- If you are the first buyer you have a better
right regardless if you have knowledge of

7
Philippians 4:13

the 2
nd
sale so long as you registered it
first in good faith. Right as a first buyer
will not be displaced. If you register it
whether or not you know of a 2
nd
sale it will
not affect you.

How do you displace the first buyer? How can a 2
nd

buyer have a better right over the 1
st
buyer?
- If the second buyer registers it first, but
you must register it in good faith. No
knowledge whatsoever of the prior sale.
From the time you acquired the property up
to the time that you register.

- The better right goes to the first buyer since
the 2
nd
buyer had knowledge when
registering the land

Article 1544
Rule on double sale 2
nd
buyer requisites to displace 1
st

buyer
1. Registration in good faith
2. Possession in good faith
3. Presentation of title in good faith

In rem vs In personam
- The object of an action in an in rem
proceeding will bind the whole world. In an
in personam only particular persons lang.

Torrens system of registration requirement to bind the
whole world
1. 2 publications
2. Notification if the person who wanted to
register knows of some persons that have interest to the
property

Republic vs Ribaya
- Jan 23, 1922 a survey plan made (25 sqm
meteres). The Hearing was only published
once later on a second survey amending the
first survey plan but there was no
publication to the amendments. The
petitioners raised that they wanted to
reopen the case because the decree issued to
the respondents were null and void because
it lacked the required publication. It was
also raised that it was 1925 when the survey
was conducted and the land was declared A
and D only on 1930.

At the time of application of decree of
registration, did the application for original
registration come first before it was declared A
and D or was it declared A and D before
application?
- The registration was first applied before the
land was reclassified into A and D.

Issues:
1. Whether the court has jurisdiction
2. Whether the republic of the Philippines is barred
by prescription to bring the action for annulment

Held:
1. The court did not have jurisdiction because they
lack the essential requisite on publication. There
was only one publication on the first decree but
there was no publication on the amendment. It
did not acquire jurisdiction of the case because
there was lack of the publication.
2. The Republic of the Philippines has the right to
recover the land even if the land was already
registered under the Torrens System anytime.
The state is not barred by prescription from
recovering lands that belong to it.

Grey alba
Personal notice not required because it was already
published.

Ignorance could not be grounds to reopen the
proceedings

Moscoso vs CA
- Personal notice is not necessary because the
time that it is published that means that you
have already been notified and that is
considered as constructive notice to the
whole world regardless of whether or not
you have read the publication. Neither may
lack of such personal notice vitiate the title
issued in a registration proceeding for the
court to acquire jurisdiction there must be
publication.

2 Systems of Registration
1. PD 1529 registered lands
2. RA 3344 unregistered lands

Melencio vs CA
2 sales from the heirs of Juana Amodia and Go
Kim Chuan, Aznar then filed for cancelation for the
certificate of title to Go Kim Chuan. Go Kim Chuan
contested that document in favor of Aznar was forged
because the heirs did not sign the document

8
Philippians 4:13

Issue: 1. Was there forgery? who has the better
right?

SC said that forgery cannot be presumed. The
RTC said there was forgery based solely on the
handwriting expert the SC said that that was not enough.
The judge himself must make a personal determination
on whether the document was forged or not but the judge
did not do so. Since the SC is not a trier of facts it will not
do with forgery and the presumption is there was no
forgery.

Who had the better right?
Go Kim Chuan has the better title. The rule on
double sale is that the first registrant who first registers it
in good faith shall have a better right; good faith is only
attributed as to the 2
nd
buyer. The first buyer was Aznar,
he also registered it first the problem of Aznar is that he
registered it with the wrong registry. Therefore the SC
said that registration in the wrong registry does not
tantamount to registration. The contention of Aznar was
that his title was lost and therefore the land is already
unregistered but SC said that once the land is registered
under PD 1529, just because the certificate of title is lost
does not convert it to unregistered lands. Once
registered it becomes indefeasible.

How does the 2
nd
buyer displace the 1
st
buyer?
- By registration in good faith. Go Kim
Chuan is considered the 1
st
registrant
because sipyat Aznar register taka raman
pa rehistro gg noon ang title niya.

Republic vs Dignos-Sorono
The subject properties were 2 lots. Dignos had
one fourth parcel sold the 2 parcels to Civil Aeronautics
Association now MCIAA. The other heirs of Dignos
wanted MCIAA to vacate the premises. MCIAA
registered the lot under 3344.

Issues: WON there was the sale valid? WON
Registration under RA 3344 regarded as constructive
notice?

1. SC ruled that the sale was only valid up to the
share of Dignos.

2. SC ruled that it is not considered as a
constructive notice against the whole world.
There is no valid registration. Registration under
RA 3344 only refers to unregistered lands
however in this case, since the land was already
registered and title was lost during WW2, it
cannot be registered again under 3344, just
because the certificate of title is lost does not
convert it to unregistered land.

What is the effect of registration?
- The title because indefeasible and can no
longer be challenged in court
-
TCT transfer certificate of title
- The land has already been transferred from
one person to another
- TCT will bear the origin of the title
- Know which OCT it is derived from
- Can trace which is original and which OCT
was first registered

In original registration proceedings, title was then
unregistered and ask the court to register the land, what
then is being issued?
- The OCT (Original Certificate of Title)
o Subsequent transfers will bear the
TCT

Guaranteed Homes Inc. vs. Valdez
Sepriano claimed that he was the sole heir but
he was not and an action for nullity of
Fraudulent act cannot bind the successor in
interest. Not to look beyond the title.

As a purchaser what title will you look at?
- Only the immediate predecessor
Because the title is presumed to be free
from encumbrances unless annotated,
not required to go beyond the specific
title

On the torrents system of registration you are
only to look at your predecessor because if you are to
oblige all purchasers to look at all the titles then what is
the purpose of registering it in the Torrens system if you
cannot trust the title of you immediate predecessor

Document on Forged Deeds, SC said that a
forged deed cannot give rise to a valid title unless passed
on to an innocent purchaser of value

It is enough that petitioner had examined the
latest certificate of title which in this case was issued in
the immediate transferor. The purchaser is not bound by
the original certificate but only the certificate of title of
the person from whom he had purchased the property
because the titles are imprescriptable.

Rabaja Ranch Development Crop. Vs AFP Retirement
and Separation Benefit System
Rabaja registered free patent on 1982 and AFP
had a homestead patent on 1966. Who has the better
right?

9
Philippians 4:13

If there are two certificates of titles on the same property,
imo sang I trace ang ilahang origin because whose origin
is under the torrens sytem becomes indefeasible. AFP vs
Rabaja Ranch

Rabaja Ranach title was on free patent on Jose
Castromero given to him on 1955 but was able to register
it under the torrens system only on 1982. So that it is
known that it became indefeasible only on 1982 but AFP
titles origin from Charles was issued on 1966. Based on
the OCTs it was Charles OCT came first. Rabaja Ranch
claimed there was fraud but the SC stated that even
though that there was fraud, if the land was transferred
to an innocent purchaser for value then the transfer is
valid.

Who has Jurisdiction?
Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over
registration proceedings over lands

Exemption:
- Delegate the jurisdiction to the inferior
courts

a. Subject lot is not under
controversy or opposition
b. Contested but the value would not
exceed 100,000

Conception vs Conception
Is it within jurisdiction of the land registration
courts to hear opposition of the deed of conveyance as
ordered by the court?
- SC said that the lower court has jurisdiction
because it is just an incidental matter. The
RTC has general jurisdiction over matters
pertaining to registration. That is how
broad the jurisdiction of the land
registration court is

De Los Angeles vs Santos
Original application of registration of 12 lots in
the RTC of Rizal, there was publication and then there
was opposition by Cora Hidalgo and DL stating that
homestead patent was approved in favor of Hidalgo.
They contended that lot 11 was owned by Hidalgo and
registration should be dismissed.

Issue:
WON lot 11 should be included in the
registration
Held:
SC said that it is within the jurisdiction of the
lower courts to decide if in fact the applicant already
owned the land based on her application. DL control is
only for public land. RTC cannot be merely divested of its
jurisdiction by the mere expedient of the RTC that it was
invalidly issued. There must be a full blown trial.

Real Actions
- Actions for real properties

Personal Actions
- Actions where personal rights are
concerned

Venue:
Real actions
- the court that has jurisdiction over the
property in question

Personal actions
- court where the petitioner or defendant
resides

What type of action is your original title proceeding?
- It is a real action
- RTC with jurisdiction over the property.
Who has jurisdiction over the property? It
depends on where the property is situated.

A personal action does not involve title to or interest in
real property, so your collection of sum of money is
personal action. Damages are also a personal action.

Original registration proceeding is a real action so if the
property is situated in Mandaue City then the court
having jurisdiction over the case would be the courts in
Mandaue City.

Parties
- applicants
- oppositors
- all the world are parties
binds the whole world through
publication
the rights of all the world are
foreclosed by the decree of registration
torrens system of registration quiets
title to land such that no one else can
claim a right over the land because
their rights are already foreclosed once
the decree of registration is issued

What is the difference between a title and a certificate of
title?
Title
- Lawful cause or ground of possessing that
which is ours.

10
Philippians 4:13

- That is why in an original registration
proceeding wala pay certificate of title, but
you are now trying to prove title or
ownership over the land. Once you have
proven it, a consequence is the issuance of
the certificate of title to evidence your title.

Certificate of title
- Mere evidence of ownership, it is not the
title of the land itself.
- Even if you have the certificate of title, but
in truth and in fact you are not the real
owner then the certificate of title proves
nothing.

As between the title and the certificate of title, the title is
more superior than the certificate of title.

Castillo vs Escutin
What does a tax declaration prove?
- proves of possession
- used for prescription proceedings

Introduction of which type of evidence to prove which
type of right
- Certificate of title proves ownership, tax
declaration merely proves possession

If one person has a tax declaration over a parcel of land
and another has a certificate of title over that same parcel
of land, as to determining who the real owner is, the one
who has the certificate of title has the better right, not
the person who has a mere tax declaration.

Tax declarations and corresponding tax receipts cannot
be used to prove title to ownership of a real property in
as much as they are not conclusive evidence of the same.
- Because it is very easy to procure a tax
declaration than to secure a certificate of
title.

Types of Certificates of Title
Original certificate of title
- the first title issued in the name of the
registered owner by the ROD covering a
parcel of land which have been registered
by virtue of a judicial or administrative
proceeding

Transfer certificate of title
- The subsequent titles issued by virtue of
subsequent transfers. The title issued by the
ROD in favor of the transferee to whom the
ownership of the already registered land
had been transferred by virtue of a sale or
other modes of conveyance.

Land Registration Commission and Its Registries of
Deeds
Land Registration Authority
- Central repository of records relative to
original registration of lands titled under
the torrents system including subdivision
and consolidation plans of titled lands.
- every time the RTC issues an order
confirming ownership over the property,
they will forward that order to the LRA, so
that the LRA can issue a decree of
registration. After the issuance of the decree
of registration, a copy of which is also now
transferred to the RD concerned because the
RD will now transcribe the decree of
registration. It now issues the certificate of
title.

Organizational Structure
Administrator
2 deputy administrators

Functions of an administrator:
- Issue decrees of registration pursuant to
final judgment of the courts. Courts will
order the decree of registration because the
court has found that the applicant is the
owner of the parcel of land. The LRA will
cause the issuance by the registers of deeds
the corresponding certificates of titles.
- Try to prove in court that you are the owner
of the property, if the court is convinced
that indeed you are the owner of the
property because you have shown the two
requisites that you have OCENP and that
the land is A and D. The court will confirm
the decree of registration after which the
LRA will tell the RD to issue the certificate
of title.

Is the LRA administrator a judicial or executive official?
- Executive official
- Under the supervision of the president
therefore his functions are executive

Is the issuance of the LRA of decrees of registration
ministerial or discretionary?
- ministerial but not purely ministerial

11
Philippians 4:13

Gomez vs CA
The case is question where the duties of the LRA
in issuing decrees of registration are ministerial or not.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge had jurisdiction to issue
the decision of 27 March 1985 which set aside the lower
court's earlier decision of 6 August 1981 ad the order of 6
October1981

In this case was there ever a decree of registration
entered?
- Not yet.
- It was still under the courts control. Even if
the decision has become final because of the
15 day phase. Even if there was a lapse of 15
days, the order has become final but as to
incontrovertibility as to the power of the
court to see whether or not the title really
belongs to you, it has not lapsed yet because
the decree of registration was not yet
entered.
- The SC also said that as long as a final
decree has not been entered by the LRA and
the period of 1 year has not elapsed from
the date of entry of such decree, the title is
not finally adjudicated and the decision in
the registration proceeding continues to be
under the control and sound discretion of
the court rendering it.

Issue to whether the duty of the LRA is ministerial:
- the duty of respondent land registration
officials to render reports is not limited to
the period before the court's decision
becomes final, but may extend even after its
finality but not beyond the lapse of 1 year
from entry of the decree

SC said that the LRA should not be limited to
the time when the case is on-going because it
will cause a haphazard making of reports. Dapat
di siya ma limited. If mu lapas na xa 1 year then
the courts will not entertain the reports because
the title becomes indefeasible.

Is the duty of the LRA ministerial?
- Ministerial in the sense that they act under
the orders of the court and the decree must
be in conformity with the decision of the
court and with the data found in the record.
If tan.aw sa LRA walay sayup di xa
maka buot, unsay naka suwat maoy
buhaton

- If they are in doubt upon any point in
relation to the preparation and issuance of
the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter
to the court. they act, in this respect, as
officials of the court and not as
administrative officials, and their act is the
act of the court they are specifically called
upon to extend assistance to courts in and
in cadastral land registration proceedings
If naay problema nga tan.aw nila nga
maka cause ug double titling like naka
register na siya sa homestead ug sa
land registration act, di na pwede ma
ministerial kay mu samut ang
problema.

Angeles vs Sec. of Justice
RDs refusing, there was already an order by the
RTC for partition of the property. Meaning makig buwag
na ang property nya isuhan na ug separate titles and land
owners kay mag partition na sila awaiting orders from
the LRA because this lot have already went through
several cases and it was found out that the OCT dated
April 19 1917 was spurious kay naay la.in nga May 19
1917. So they filed a case for mandamus against the LRA
administrator saying that ministerial ra daw imu duty
such that kung mu ingun na ang court imu gihapong
sundon.

Issue:
Whether or not it was unlawful for public respondent to
refuse compliance with the order of the RTC of the
issuance of the TCTs in favor of the petitioners.

Held:
The issuance by the LRA officials of the decree
of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases
where they find that such would amount to double
titling. Ministerial if walay problema but it is not blind
ministerial function that ni sulti ang RTC nga i issue a
decree of registration but pag tan.aw sa records naka
register na siya, dili pud pwede nga mu enter pud siya sa
decree of registration.

Functions of the Register of Deeds
1. Central repository of the city
2. Immediately register an instrument if it is
presented for registration so long as it complies with all
the requisites for registration

Gurbax Singh Pabla and Co. vs Reyes

Whether petitioners (lessee) have the contract
annotated? The respondents refused to surrender the

12
Philippians 4:13

certificate of title because 1
st
they dont have knowledge
and 2
nd
the contract of lease was invalid

SC said that the purpose of registering an
instrument is just to notify the whole world of the
existence of that instrument therefore the register of
deeds does not determine if it is valid or invalid. If an
instrument is presented to him and all requirements of
registration are present regardless of whether the
instrument is valid or not, he must register it. In fact that
is the second function of the register of deeds, to register
an instrument as long as all the requisites for registration
are present. SC also said that the supposed invalidity of
the contracts of lease is no valid objection to their
registration, because invalidity is no proof of their non-
existence or a valid excuse for denying their registration.
You want it registered because you want the whole world
to be notified of its existence. How could a party object its
invalidity if it does not know about the instrument in the
first place so how do you acquire knowledge of the
instrument? By registering it, registration is registration
to the whole world, but just because an instrument is
registered it does not make an invalid instrument valid or
make a valid instrument an invalid one, purpose is only
to notify.

Balbin vs Register of Deeds of Ilocus Sur
Difference of this case and the earlier cases:
- RDs duty is ministerial, invalid or not the
instrument must be registered

- In this case, the SC said it was alright for the
RD to deny the registration because the
procedure for registration was legally
defective, because if you ate to register an
instrument and there are more than one
copy of the title over that copy of the
certificates of title should be presented, so
that if you annotate in one title it will also
appear in the other titles.
- There were 3 copies of the title. What was
presented was only one. The RD had the
right to refuse because there were several
co-owners.

Almirol vs Register if Deeds of Agusan
Exhaustion of administrative remedies, you do
not have to go to the courts right away. If you have a
dispute against the RD you have to go first to his
superior, his administrator. You have to let the
department correct themselves first before you go to the
courts

Issues:
1. Can the RD refuse an illegal title?
2. Will mandamus lie to compel the RD to
register the Deed of Sale

Held:
1. Whether the document is valid or not it is not
in the RD to determine but it is the court with competent
jurisdiction

2. Mandamus does not lie to compel the register
of deeds to make registration. The
administrative remedy must be resorted to by
the interest party before he can have recourse to
the courts. Exhaust first the administrative
remedies.

ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Sec 14
Who may apply?
1. OCENP of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945
2. Prescription
3. Accession or Accretion
4. Any other manner provided by law

3 co-owners want to register their land
- All co-owners should apply
- When land is still not registered your co-
owner of the parcel of land, you cannot
attribute to yourself a specific portion. You
only have allocated share even if you have
designated among yourselves the share.
Prior to registration there is no partition yet.

Sales with right to repurchase
Who may apply?
Vendee a retro
- Application for original registration filed
first before the sale vendee a retro may
substitute after redemption period has
expired

- deed of sale executed prior to filing
application or petition for original
registration; deed of sale may be annotated

Vendor a retro
- May file for original registration if the sale
preceded the registration because he is in
fact the owner.
- How does a vendor a retro protect his right
if the repurchase period has not yet
expired?

13
Philippians 4:13

o Alligate in the certificate of title
o But if nag una ang registration but
while the proceedings are pending
then pwede xa ma substitute sa
vendee a retro. Any one of them
may file depending on the
circumstances.

Trusts
trustor or the trustee

Sec 14 (1)
Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945
or earlier.

What are the requisites in order to comply
1. Alienable and disposable
2. OCENP
3. Possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier

Republic vs CA and Naguit
Is it necessary that during the entire period of
possession it is already alienable and disposable?
- Because Naguit presented that his
predecessors in interest was already
occupying it since June 12, 1945
- But it was only declared A and D on Oct.
15,1980

SC said the more reasonable interpretation of
sec. 14 (1) is that it merely requires that the
property registered was already A and D at the
time of application for registration. Does not
need dating back to June 12, 1945 that it is
declared alienable and disposable, to do that
means that there would be no more lands that
are going to be registered.

The land is already A and D at the time of
application so that if you register tomorrow,
make sure that the land is already A and D
today basta before application for registration

Ong vs Republic
Issue is whether he is able to prove possession
and occupation:
During the trial, Ong failed to prove possession
and occupation. A tax declaration is good indicator of
possession and the oldest that they could present was
1971 tax declaration
SC said that the Ong brothers admitted that they
did not possess and occupy the land.

Possession aloe is not sufficient to acquire title to
alienable lands of the public domain because the law
requires possession and occupation unlike in the case of
Naguit he was able to prove possession and occupation
of the land by introducing improvements

Acts of possession of the land consists of the
administration of acts of dominion

Malabanan vs Republic

Should lands subject of application for original
registration be alienable and disposable during the entire
period of possession?
NO,
Malabanan is a reiteration of the Naguit case

Section 14 (2)
Prescription
- Those who acquired ownership of private
lands by prescription under the provisions of existing
laws
- Through lapse of time

1. Ordinary acquisitive prescription
a. Requires good faith
b. Just title
c. Possession of 10 years
2. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription
a. Does not require good faith
b. Does not require just title
c. Possession in 30 years

May state property be acquired through
acquisitive prescription?
- General Rule: No but exception is patrimonial
properties
Patrimonial property

ARTICLE 1113
All thins which are within the commerce of men
are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise
provided, property of the state or any of its subdivisions
not patrimonial in character shall not be subject of
prescription, it tells you that patrimonial property may be
subject to prescription.

ART 421(what types of properties are patrimonial)
All other property not belonging to 420 are
patrimonial

When can you say there is good faith?

14
Philippians 4:13

- Belief of that person that he has acquired the
property from someone with right to transmit ownership.
The belief that the person had every right of the property
and to transmit.

Malabanan vs Republic
- Possession and occupation did not date back to
june 12, 1945
- tax declaration was only 1948
- Sec 14(2)
> Even though classified as alienable
and disposable it does not mean it will
change the character of the land to
patrimonial property
> must be changed by an executive or
legislative act

-Application for registration was filed on 1998
> Alienable and disposable
> 1948 to 1998 (50 years)
> Way beyond the 30 year period for
prescription

Why did the SC say that Malabanan still has not acquired
through acquisitive extra ordinary prescription when in
fact he can present evidence that he possessed it since
1948 or 50 years back
- Not yet patrimonial property and outside the
commerce of man.
Would you count his possession from 1948 to 1982,
would you count that?
- SC states that possession prior it being
patrimonial property cannot be counted because you
start counting when it is declared patrimonial property.
When the government says that it is no longer intended
for public use or development of national wealth, the
state would declare it through a legislative act or
presidential proclamation if the law allows it. In this case
what was shown only was a certificate that it was
alienable and disposable. SC said that it was not enough
for prescription to set in or run. There must be an express
declaration by the state that the public dominion
property is no longer intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth or that the property
has been converted into patrimonial without such
express declaration, the property even if classified as A
and D remains property of public dominion pursuant to
the civil code.

It is only when such alienable and disposable
lands are expressly declared by the state to been longer
intended for public service or for the development of
national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription
can begin to run.

When section 14 (2) of the property registration
decree explicitly provides that persons "who have
acquired ownership over private lands through
prescription under the provisions of the registering lots
unmistakably refers to the civil code as the valid basis for
the registration of lands.

Section 14(1) vs. section 14(2)
- based on possession
- enough that the land is classified as A and D before
application of registration, so long as possession and
occupation dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier
- so long as the property is classified as A and D (before
registration ) and possession and occupation dates back
to June 12, 1946 or earlier, the number of years of
possession and occupation is material.

> Prescription
> Not enough that it is declared as A and D; it must be
declared by the state as patrimonial property and there
must be a declaration by the state that it shall be no
longer used for the development of the state or national
wealth

Sec. 14 (3)
Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or
accretion under existing laws.

Accession
- Change of the course of the river such that
the new course would affect someone elses
land
- The dried up land, kung kinsa tong na
affected sa pag change sa course sa river
iyaha natong land, of course there is the
right of the adjoining owner to buy that
property.

Accretion
- Caused by the deposits of the rivers due to
its currents

Republic vs Abrille
What were her reasons for having amended the
subdivision plan?
- Davao river dried up and then she alleged that
her land expanded

Issues:
WON the lower court erred in ordering the
cancellation of TCT

It does not mean that because the adjacent land,
the dried up river, was already registered land does not
automatically convert the alluvial deposit of that dried up

15
Philippians 4:13

river as registered land. You have to apply for
registration. It is still considered unregistered land.

SC said that just having a subdivision plan
amended just to include the excess does not bring it
under the operation of the torrens system. Acquisition is
one thing and imprescriptability under PD 1529 is quite
another.

Just because the civil code says the riparian
owner owns that, it does not mean it is automatically
protected by the torrens system. You still have to register
it. Lower court was correct in cancelling the TCT.

Grande vs. CA
Land of the petitioners and the northern
boundaries of the Cagayan River and land were formed
by alluvial deposits. It was then entered into Calulung
since 1948. The petitioners are now filing for quieting of
title because they say they own it by virtue of the civil
code for the riparian owner owns it.

Issue:
Whether the accretion becomes automatically
registered land just because he lot which receives it is
covered by the torrens title thereby making the alluvial
property imprescriptible

SC said by virtue of the civil code the riparian
owner owns the alluvial deposits but that does not mean
that just because the riparian owners land is registered,
that does not make the alluvial deposits registered also.
You also have to register it to protect it from somebody
else. Someone else may still occupy it adversely through
prescription.

Ownership of a piece of land is one thing and
registration under the torrens system is quite another.
Ownership under the accretion received by the adjoining
river is governed by the Civil Code, imprescriptability of
the registered land is provided in the registration law.

The effect of the torrens system of registration is
to quiet title to land so that you dont have to be in every
square inch of that land to protect it. You are already
protected by its registration.

Ignacio vs. Director of Lands
The question was whether deposits that result
from the current of Manila bay can be considered alluvial
deposits as referred to by the Civil Code.
- The SC said no, it is part of the sea. The civil
code is clear that accretion is the result from
the currents of the river. Therefore it
becomes land of public domain for
whatever deposit that may be caused by the
sea is still part of public domain.

Heirs of Navarro vs IAC

Issue:
Whether may the land sought to registered be
deemed an accretion in the sense that it naturally
accretion favor of the riparian owner or should the land
be considered as foreshore land? Was it Manila bay or the
two rivers?
Requisites of accretion
1. The accumulation of the soil sediments be
gradual and imperceptible
2. Made through the effects of the current of
the river
3. Land where accretion takes place is adjacent
to the banks of rivers

The SC said that the 3
rd
requisite is lacking. The
accretion be attributed to either or both of the
Talisay and Bulacan rivers the alluvium should
have been deposited to either or both to the
eastern and western borders not to the northern
portion.

Section 14(4)
- those who have acquired ownership of land
in any other manner provided by law
+ land grants, presidential proclamations,
legitimate acts

Rights under the indigenous peoples rights act
(libug ni dapita, antosa nalang tawn ni kay apil nakos manga
wala ka sabut sad)
Purpose
- The law allows indigenous peoples to
obtain recognition of their right of
ownership of ancestral lands and ancestral
domain by virtue if native title.

Constitutional bases if IPRA law
Sec 2 art 2
- The state recognizes and promotes the
rights of indigenous cultural communities
within the framework of national unity and
development

Sec 5 art 12
- The state, subject to the provisions of this
constitution and national development
policies and programs, shall protect the
rights of indigenous cultural communities

16
Philippians 4:13

to their ancestral lands to ensure their
economic, social and cultural well being
- The congress may provide for the
applicability of customary law governing
property rights or relations in determining
the ownership and extent of ancestral
domain.

Sec 6 art 13
- The state shall establish a special agency for
disabled persons for the rehabilitation, self-
development and self-reliance, and their
integration into the mainstream of society.

Sec 17 art 14
- The state shall recognize, respect and
protect the rights of indigenous cultural
communities to preserve and develop their
cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall
consider these rights in the formulation of
national plans and policies.

Native tile vs. ownership of land by acquisitive
prescription
Native title
- Never became part of the public domain
- Exception to the Regalian doctrine
- There were lands that were never
conquered at all

Acquisitive prescription
- It is part of the public domain and became
A and D, by virtue of possession by certain
number of years the possessor acquired it
by prescription

Ancestral domains
- An individual cannot own ancestral
domains
- It is owned by the community (communal
ownership)
- Cannot be owned by a single individual
- Refers to all areas generally belonging to
ICCs or IPs comprising lands, inland
waters, coastal areas, and natural resources
therein, held under a claim of ownership,
occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by
themselves or through their ancestors,
communally or individually since time
immemorial, continuously to the present
except when interrupted by war, force
majure or displacement.

Ancestral lands
- More on individual ownership
- Owned by the members of the ICCs or IPs

Ownership of natural resources
- State owns the natural resources

Preferential or priority right
- Stewardship or management
- They will take care of the management but
state still obtains ownership

Identification and delineation of ancestral domain
- Self-delineation
Members of the ICCs to determine
which part of the domain they own
They know better which belongs to
their group

The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries
including census of all community members therein shall
be immediately undertaken by the ancestral domains
office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs
concerned. The first step is self-delineation then file a
petition or application to the ADO.

Proofs of ancestral domain claims
- Testimony of elders in community under oath
- Other documents directly or indirectly
attesting to the possession or occupation of the area since
time immemorial by such ICCs or IPs in the concept of
owner

ADO shall prepare a map, complete with
technical descriptions and descriptions of the natural
features and landmarks embraced therein

Basic documents of the delineation process
- approved and valid survey plan
- petition for delineation

Posting and publication
- Newspaper of general circulation
- There should be posting and publication
- Posting is always a requirement
- Radio only comes in when there is no
newspaper

A copy of each document including a translation
in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be
posted in a prominent place therein for at least 15 days. A
copy of the document shall be posted at the local
provincial and regional offices of the IPs and published in
a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 2
consecutive weeks from the date of publication. If there is
no newspaper of general circulation in the area then
posting and radio. If there is no radio and newspaper
then posting lang. Kailangan gyud nay posting.

17
Philippians 4:13

Steps:
Self-delineation
Petition for delineation submitted to ADO
Endorse to NCIP

NCIP
- National commission of indigenous persons
- Issues the certificate of ancestral domain

Allocation of lands within the ancestral domain
- The ICCs or IPs concerned

Lands claimed by the ICCs or IPs not under the ancestral
domain
- Then not the ICIP who will grant them
- No longer within the ancestral domain

What procedure will you follow?
- First the individual and indigenous
corporate claimants of ancestral lands
which are not within ancestral domains
may have their claims officially established
by filing applications for the identification
and delineation of their claims with the
ADO. The same procedure as when the
ICC/IP themselves will file for delineation
for their ancestral domain.
- If dili part of the ancestral domain ang gi
claim sa individual claimant who is a
member of an ICC/IP then the procedure
will be the same. Now you go to the ADO.

The one who has power to allocate is the ICC/IP
themselves but if wala sa ancestral domain then
you have to go through the same process as
when an ICC/IP is claiming an ancestral
domain. Go before the ADO.

An individual, family or clan may file such
application in his behalf or in behalf of his family or clan
and the proofs of such claim will be of course your tax
declaration, proofs of payment of taxes, and testimony of
elders.

What will the NCIP issue?
- The Certificate of Ancestral Lands
Title(CALT)
- Same procedure, only apply if the land
already claimed is not already recognized.

Registration of CADT and CALT
- Registration of CADT and CALT before their
RDs result to the issuance of a certificate of title?
- No, it does not mean there is an issuance of a
certificate of title.
The effect is that you just make notice to the whole world
that this is an ancestral domain and that this is an
ancestral land.

The recording of the CADT and CALT in the office of the
Register of Deeds does not result in the issuance of a
Torrens certificate of title, like a Torrens title issued
through regular registration proceedings. The purpose of
registration is simply to apprise the public of the fact of
recognition by the NCIP of specific claims to portions of
ancestral domains or ancestral lands.

May part of an ancestral domain be subject to alienation?
- No, it is communal property
How about ancestral lands?
- May be subject of registration under the
public land act or PD 1529

Is it necessary if I am an individual claimant belonging to
the ICC/IP and I want my CALT to be issued in a torrens
certificate of title, is it necessary that I show proof that the
land is A and D?
- No, IPRA, for purposes of registration, has
already expressly converted the ancestral
land into public agricultural land. Public
agricultural lands are the lands in which are
A and D.

You may be issued a Torrens certificate of title by virtue
of an original proceeding and your proof is your CALT,
what is the effect of that Torrens certificate of title?
- Same effect as your normal registration
under the Torrens system. It becomes
indefeasible.

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
Is an independent agency under the office of the
president and is composed of 7 commissioners belonging
to ICCs/IPs from different ethnographic areas who are
appointed by the President.

What is the purpose of the NCIP?
- protect and promote the interest and
well0being of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their
beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions.

What is the jurisdiction of NCIP?
- Exclusive jurisdiction of all disputes and
applications involving ancestral domains and ancestral
lands
- Before the NCIP can assume jurisdiction it
must exhaust all remedies within the ICCs/IP. They must
resolve their own problem first before going to the NCIP.

18
Philippians 4:13

Specific Powers and Functions:
1. Formulation of policies, issuance of rules
and regulations
2. Resolution of conflicts
3. Issuance of CADT/CALT
4. Cancellation of ancestral domain and
ancestral land titles
5. Issuance of certification as a precondition to
the grant of permit
6. Power to cite for contempt, issue restraining
order

Application for Land Registration Information:
1. Full description of the land as evidenced by
survey plan duly approved by the DL,
surveyors certificate, and technical description
2. Citizenship and civil status of the applicant,
whether single or married, and , if married, the
name of the wife or husband, and, if the
marriage has been legally dissolved, when and
how the marriage relation terminated
3. Full names and addresses of all occupants of the
land and those of the adjoining owners, if
known, and , if not known, it shall state the
extent of the search made to find them
4. Assessed value of the land and the buildings
and improvements
5. Whether or not there are mortgages or
encumbrances of any kind whatsoever affecting
the land, or any other person having any interest
therein, legal or equitable, or in possession
thereof
6. The manner by which the applicant has acquired
the land
7. Whether or not the property is conjugal,
paraphernal or exclusive property of the
applicant
8. Names of all occupants of the land
9. Original muniments of title and other related
documents supporting applicants claim of
ownership
10. If the land is bounded by a public or private
way or road, whether or not the applicant claims
any and what portion of the land within the
limits of the way or road, and whether the
applicant desires to have the line of the way or
road determined

How many copies of the application should be prepared?
3 copies
1. Clerk of Court
2. Land Registration Authority
3. Solicitor General

Before Filing of the application, the applicant has
furnished the Director of Lands (now Regional Executive
Director of the DENR) with a copy of the application and
its annexes.

Other documents accompanying the application:
1. Certified copy of the original tracing cloth
plan
2. The white or blue print copies of the plan
3. Original and two copies of the technical
descriptions certified by the Regional
Technical Director
4. The original and two copies of the Geodetic
Engineers certificate
5. A certificate in triplicate of the Provincial,
City or Municipal Assessor of the assessed
value of the land at tits last assessment for
taxation
6. All original muniments of title of the
applicant which prove his ownership of the
land

Person not living in the Philippines can file for
original registration here in the Philippines
provided that there is a representative having
special power of attorney filing for registration
in behalf of the non-resident.
- Sec. 16 allows non-residents to apply for
land registration
- Must name an attorney-in-fact or else the
courts will not acquire jurisdiction

Where do you file the application?
- File in the RTC where the land is situated
o It is the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RTC but there are exceptions:
Where the lot is not the
subject of controversy or
opposition
Where the lot is contested
but the value thereof does
not exceed P100,000

Steps in brining land under the Torrens System
1. Survey of land by the Land Management
Bureau or a duly licensed private surveyor
2. Filing of application for registration
3. Setting of the date for initial hearing
4. Transmittal of the application and the date
of initial hearing together with all the
documents or other evidences attached
thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land
Registration Authority
5. Publication of the notice of the filing of the
application and date and place of the
hearing in the Official Gazette and in a
newspaper of general circulation

19
Philippians 4:13

6. Services by mailing of notice upon
contiguous owners occupants and those
known to have interests in the property
7. Posting by the sheriff of the notice in a
conspicuous place in the land and in the
bulletin board of the municipal building or
city where the land is situated
8. Filing of answer to the application by any
person whether named in the notice or not
9. Hearing of the case by the court
10. Promulgation of judgment
11. Issuance of an order for the issuance of a
decree declaring the decision final and
instructing the LRA to issue the decree of
confirmation and registration
12. Entry of the decree of registration in the
LRA
13. Sending of copy of the decree of registration
to the corresponding RD
14. Transcription of the decree of registration in
the registration book and the issuance of the
owners duplicate original certificate of title
to the applicant by the RD, upon payment
of the prescribed fees

Application covering two or more parcels of land:
- A single application may be filed for two or
more parcels of land provided that they are
situated in the same province or city. The
court may at any time order the splitting or
striking out of one or more parcels, or allow
amendments to the application, including
joinder, substitution or discontinuance as to
parties upon such terms as may be just and
reasonable

When there are amendments for substantial change in the
boundaries or an increase in area:
- Publication is required
- Without publication the court does not
acquire jurisdiction over the additional
portion of land
- The judgment is only valid to the extent
only to the land included in the publication

If the land published is more than the actual land area, is
there a requirement for another publication?
- There is no more need to publish because
no rights are encroached.

What piece of document evidences that the land was
indeed surveyed?
- Original tracing cloth

Who approves the survey plan or tracing cloth?
- Director of Lands and the Land Bureau
Management

If the survey plan was lost:
- Inform the court that the survey plan was
lost and provide evidence that there was
actually a survey plan but was just lost.
- Can allege in the application that the survey
plan was lost
or
- Let the land be resurveyed

Carpo vs Ayala Land
Sps. Carpo applied for quieting of title over a
parcel of land. Ayala Land contends that the title actually
encroaches over a portion of the Carpos. Ayala Lands
title was from 1950 while the title of the Carpos dates
back to 1970.

Issue:
Who had a better right over the property?
Held:

RTC quoted Ayala in not alleging in their answer that
there was no survey conducted. SC stated that Ayala was
correct in merely relying on the certificate of title that it
was correct and that because there was an original title
then there was a presumption that there was a survey
conducted. What is the reason why the SC said Ayala
was correct in relying on the Certificate of Title?
- Presumption of regularity in performing the
duties of the LRA. Upon the issuance of the
Torrens title, it presupposes that the
applicant fulfilled all the requirements of
Torrens title.
- Also that the person who alleges that there
was no survey conducted has the burden of
proof in proving his allegations.

Since Ayala registered the land first and their title was
presumed to be regularly applied then we apply the
principle First in time, Stronger in Right.

Applied for registration of land, complied with
everything that the law requires, several weeks later the
court sent a letter requesting for additional documents
because they wanted to verify several information, may
the court do this?
- Yes, under sec.21, the court may require
several additional facts and papers
- The court is not merely limited to what is
alleged in the application. It may ask for
several documents as well as inspect the
land applied for.

20
Philippians 4:13

Publication:

NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING:

Q: who sets the date of initial hearing or the original
hearing?
- the court
- the duty and the power to set the hearing tade
lies with the land registration court

Once the court determines the date of the initial hearing,
what the does the court gives out?
- an order
- After the date is set, the court shall issue an
order setting the initial hearing date.
- Then it is mailed by the clerk of courts to the
LRA

In this process the applicant has no involvement yet, so
again the COURT determines the initial hearing, then
issues an order and then DIRECTS the clerk of courts to
SEND a notice to the LRA.

Director of lands vs CA & Abistado

Facts:
In this case, Abistado(A) filed a petition for registration of
his land, and then, the land registration dismissed his
petition because they DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.

Why? Why did the lower court say that it did not have
jurisdiction?
- Because there was only a publication in the
official gazette and NO PUBLICATION in a
NEWSPAPER of general circulation.

What does your PD 1529 require?
- SECTION 23 requires both publication in the
official gazette and newspaper of general
circulation.

SC:
- section 23 is mandatory in character it says that
there must be publication in the OG &
Newspaper of general circulation.
- Yes section 23 says that OG is sufficient but by
practicality and DUE PROCESS its not enough
that you will publish only in the OG. Because it
is not widely read.
- So it is DUE PROCESS and the REALITY that
OG is not widely read as circulated as
newspapers.

PURPOSE:

Why is there a need to publish?

- the purpose of publication is than in the OG for
the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case
AND in the Newspaper of general circulation as
a notice to the whole world of the proceeding.
- TWO FOLD PURPOSE
o To confirm jurisdiction
o To give notice to the whole world

Mailing

Is mailing mandatory?

- yes, as stated in section 23 of PD 1529
- MAILING, PUBLICATION & POSTING ARE
MANDATORY

So to whom shall you mail?
- 1
st
to the persons interested in the application 7
days after publication of the notice in the OG
- if specific cases:
o to the Secretary of Public works and
highways, governor and mayor of the
area if to have the line of a public way
or road determined.
o to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
Solicitor General, Director of Lands if
the land borders on river, navigable
stream or shore or an arm of the sea.
- 2
nd
Solicitor General
o representative of the government in
original registration proceedings

Posting

when and where?
- when: within 14 days before the initial hearing
- where: conspicuous place in the land to be
registered & bulletin board of the municipality or city
where the land is situated
- MANDATORY

21
Philippians 4:13

PROOF REQUIRED in Registration Proceedings

RP vs Dela Paz:

Facts:
Dela paz wanted to register his land, he presented several
documents during the case.

What did the applicant here show that the land was
alienable and disposable?
- the applicant showed a survey plan classifying it
as alienable and disposable, this was the only
proof. HE was not able to show a POSTIVE ACT
OF THE GOVERNMENT classifying the land as
alienable and disposable.
- Did not show a certificate from denr that he
failed to show.
- the burden of proof in overcoming the
presumption of State ownership of the lands of
public domain is on the person applying for
registration, who must prove that the land
subject of the application is alienable or
disposable
- SC said that the notation of the surveyor is not
sufficient proof
- 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 president
- he must have presented a certificate from
CENRO & PENRO of land classification status
as alienable and disposable
- there must be a positive act from the
government such as a PD, EO, Administrative
Action, investigation report of the bureau of
lands investigators and a legislative act or
statute.
- The applicant may also secure a certification
from the government that the lands applied are
alienable and disposable.

Opposing an Application for Original Registration

Requisites for opposing an application
1. the oppositor must have an interest on the
land applied for
2. he should state the grounds for his
connection as well as the nature of his
claimed interest
3. HE SHOULD INDICATE THE DESIRED
RELIEF
4. THE OPPOSITION SHOULD BE SIGNED
AND SWORN TO by him or by his duly
authorized representative

When can you say when you have a right to oppose or a
legal standing to oppose?
- interest means that you may claim ownership
over it, or some other real right or claim of
ownership like you may be leasing it
- you are leasing it from A then here comes B
applying for original registration. So your right
to lease the land is also affected. So you can
oppose the petition for original registration.
- It is not necessary that when you oppose there is
a claim of ownership it may be any OTHER
REAL RIGHT not necessarily a real right

to give a person legal standing to object to the
application for registration, "he must make some claim
to the property."
- the circumstance that an opponent in a land
registration proceeding to transfer title does not
have a claim of ownership over it DOES NOT
incapacitate him from opposing.
- Like a lease or mortgage
- What is necessary is that he can show he has an
interest in the property not necessarily
ownership

Supposing only a portion of the partial of land, how
should the LRC issue the decree of registration?
- segregate
- That part of the land being upheld should be
segregated dili siya I apil.
- can issue a decree to the part where not
opposed to successfully

if however the parcel of land being opposed to or portion
opposed to is included in the decree of registration, what
is the remedy?
- petition for review within one year, from the
issuance on the ground of fraud.

Effect of Failure to file Opposition

What happens if a person claiming interest fails to file an
opposition?
- oppositor cannot question the errors of the
judgment after one year from the issuance of the
title by the LRA indefeasible.

May a private person oppose an application for original
registration on behalf of the government?

- NO, the OSG as the lawyer of the government
is the representative.

22
Philippians 4:13

Order of General Default

- if no person appears and answers within the
time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the
application, order a default entered and require
applicant to present evidence.
- The order of GENERAL default by the name
general it is directed against the whole world,
the whole world is made a party

Order of Special Default

- when an appearance has been entered and
answer filed, a default order shall be entered
against persons who did not appear an answer
- to those who did not enter their appearance or
submit an answer directed to specific
individuals and those who did not enter their
appearance.

Effect of failure to appear

- Oppositor files an opposition but fails to appear
at the initial period.
- He will not be considered in default, unlike your
order of special default,
- When you say default waka file sa judge og
answer, pero kung naka file na sya but failed to
appear he is not declared to be in default.

Effect of Failure of OSG to file an opposition

- even if the OSG fails to oppose, not barred to file
an appeal
- the government is not estopped by the mistake
or error of its officials or agents

Belated Filing of an Appeal by the State

- if the OSG failed to file the opposition appeals,
but opposition is belated, may CA dismiss the case?

RP vs TIOTIOEN

- the belated filing of an appeal by the state, or
even its failure to file and opposition, in a land
registration case because of the mistake or error
of its agents does not deprive the right of the
government to appeal of a judgment of the court
- because of the principle that the State cannot be
estopped by the errors of its officials or agents
- you cannot let the government suffer by the
incompetence of its officials or agents
- it is a well known and settled rule in our
jurisdiction that the Republic or its government,
is usually not estopped by mistake or error on
the part of its officials or agents

Disposition of Case

Within how many days may a LRC decide on a land
registration case?
- within ninety days from the date the case is
submitted for decision
- starts from the time the case is finished

Referee S.27

Who is the referee?
- usually the clerk of court
- the court may still receive evidence if it feels that
it is more prudent and necessary that the court
should receive evidence
- for speedy disposition of land registration cases

May land subject of application still be subject of
alienation or encumbrances?
- Yes. Section 22 tells you that even of your land is
under or pending original registration, the
applicant may still sell the land or encumber the
land it will not stop the applicant because he is
the owner of the property.
- Doesnt mean that it is under a land registration
proceeding that he cannot alienate or encumber
anymore.

Test ni Mam pag July 24,2013
1. When does judgment in an original registration
proceeding become final?
- becomes final 15 days from the notice of the
decision

2. If there was already an order by the land registration
court for the issuance of the decree but after 30 years the
LRA still has not issued the decree, is it proper for the
applicant to petition to the court for revival of judgment?
yes or no, explain briefly
- No, land registration proceeding is declaratory
in character therefore it does not prescribe. You
don't have to revive the judgment. The proper
recourse is with the LRA because it is ministerial
in their part.

3. Title of the case related to the number 2 question
- Republic vs. Nillas

4. Mr. A applying for registration of original registration
and his application has been granted by the LRC. Mr A
wants to evict Mr B who has been possessing the land
even prior to the grant of the LRC. Will the writ of

23
Philippians 4:13

execution issue against Mr. B? Yes or No. No explanation
needed
- Yes

5. Mr. A also wants to evict Mr. C who entered upon the
land after the confirmation of ownership in the land
registration proceeding. Will a writ of possession issue
against Mr. C.? Yes or NO. No explanation needed
- No, if a person enters into the property after, it
cannot be a writ of possession lang. You have to
file a case for ejectment because these persons
who enter into the property after would have to
have their day in court.

6. In Vencilao vs Vano, what is said to be a complement
to a writ of possession?
- Writ of demolition, if there is an occupant and
built structures in the land that you don't like
you can demolish it.

7. If there is a writ of possession issued by the LRC but
the occupant refuses to vacate. Will the refusal to vacate
constitute contempt of court? Yes or No
- No, because it is incumbent upon the sheriff to
use legal force to evict or eject the occupant.

> When will it constitute contempt of court?
- when the occupant was evicted but returned to
the land

8. Who classifies public Lands?
- executive department

9-12. enumerate the classification of public lands
- timber/forest
- mineral
- national parks
- agricultural

13. May possession of a forest land for over 30 years ripen
into ownership? Yes or No, give the title of the case
- No, Director of Lands vs CA and Bisnar

14. Will forest or mineral lands forever be under state
property? or can they be owned by private individuals? If
so when?
- No, may be owned by private individuals by
way of patent, reclassification or conversion,
declaration that it is patrimonial property

15. Can the use of state property be converted to
patrimonial?
- No, Laurel vs Garcia

Non-registrable properties
- There is only one kind of public land that can
be registered and that is patrimonial land. The rest cannot
be registered except agricultural lands.

When OCT Takes Effect

Dates Found on the OCT
3 dates:
1. date if issuance of the decree
2. entry of the decree to the LRA
3. transcription by the registry deeds

On the date when judgment was made, who issues the
decree?
- Land Registration Court

How about the entry of the decree?
- Land registration authority

How about the transcription?
- register of deeds

Significance of the three dates:

3 dates:
1. date if issuance of the decree
- this is when you count for 15 days before the
judgment will become final and executory
- this is where you can file an Motion for
Reconsideration or Appeal
2. entry of the decree to the LRA
- this is where we count the 1 year
- after this one year then the title becomes
indefeasible
- you can file for petition for review on the
ground of fraud.
3. transcription by the registry deeds
- time when the decree of registration is entered
in the LRA then forwarded to the RD and then
the RD transcribes it. OCT is made. This is when
your OCT takes effect. This means that if there
are 2 titles covering the same parcel of land, you
have to look at the date of transcription.

general rule: decree of title takes effect 1 year after date
of entry in the LRA

Exception: 2 conflicting
The rule is we focus on the transcription of the certificate
of title on the registry of deeds

So as we said when you consider the land as registered
land the land becomes registered land only upon the

24
Philippians 4:13

transcription of the decree on the original registration
book by the register of deeds and not on the date of the
issuance of the decree.

What do you call that book in the register of deeds?
- Registration Book

Manotok vs CLT

Basically this very long case will tell you that there were
two OCTs, april 19 1917 CLT; may 3 1917 Manotok
SC found out that there was really only one OCT and
april was the issuance of the decree while the May was
the transcription of the decree. So the party who had the
better right was the party who had the title derived from
the may transcription.

This case tells us when OCT takes effect:
SC said, the certificate shall take effect upon the
transcription of the decree.

With the plain language of the law as mooring, this Court
in two vintage and sound rulings made it plain that the
original certificate of title is issued on the date the decree
of registration is transcribed.
it was held that there is a marked distinction between the
entry of the decree and the entry of the certificate of title.
Again entry of the decree is done by the LRA, the
significance of this date is the one-year indefeasibility.
And the significance of the date of transcription is when
there are two conflicting claims over the same parcel of
land covered by separate certificate of title then you look
at the transcription because this is the time when the land
becomes registered land.
Otherwise stated, what is actually issued by the register
of deeds is the certificate of title itself, not the decree of
registration, as he is precisely the recipient from the land
registration office of the decree for transcription to the
certificate as well as the transcriber no less. Since what is
now acknowledged as the authentic OCT No. 994
indicates that it was received for transcription by the
Register of Deeds of Rizal on 3 May 1917, it is that date
that is the date of registration since that was when he was
able to transcribe the decree in the registration book,
such entry made in the book being the original certificate
of title.
Indubitably, as between the titles of ARANETA and the
MANOTOKS and their predecessors-in-interest, on one
hand, and those of DIMSON, on the other, the titles held
by ARANETA and the MANOTOKS must prevail
considering that their titles were issued much earlier than
the titles of the latter.

REMEDIES:
There are several remedies it maybe under your rules of
court or your PD 1529:
RULES OF COURT:
Grounds:
Motion for new trial or reconsideration:
- Motion for reconsideration Fraud, Accident,
Mistake or Excusable Negligence (FAME)
- Motion for new trial newly discovered
evidence

Petition for relief of Judgment:
- the same (FAME)
- When do you file?
o within 60 days upon learning of the
judgment but not more than 6 months
from the time the judgment was
entered.

Preliminary Injunction
- you may ask the court to stop any act from
proceeding the issuance of the title

PD 1529:
Petition for Review
When: within 1 yr from the entry if the decree of the
registration in the LRA on the grounds of FRAUD.
Is quieting of title a proper remedy if you find out that
the land you are claiming ownership over has been
adjudicated to another person?
- No. the proper remedy is to ask for a petition for
review.

Eland Philippines vs Garcia
The ruling of the supreme court as to the issue on
whether the complaint for quieting of title was a proper
remedy petition for review under sec. 32 of PD 1529.
SC said even though it is final courts may still open
proceedings. Land registration proceedings already
closed by final decision or decree may be opened when
an application for review of the party aggrieved within
one year from the entry of the decree of registration.
However it must be anchored only on ACTUAL FRAUD.
SC enumerated the req. for one to avail of the remedy of
petition for review:
1. the petitioner must have an interest in the land
(not necessary to have a claim of ownership,
sufficient you have an interest over the land)
2. he must show ACTUAL FRAUD in the claiming
of the decree of registration
3. filed within one year from the issuance of the
decree or entry of the decree in the LRA
4. has not passed to innocent purchaser for value
a. if na pasa nah: a fraudulent document
may become a root of a valid document
title in the hands of an innocent
purchase for value .

25
Philippians 4:13

As long as the final decree has not been entered by the
LRA, and the period has not elapsed from the date of
entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated
and the registration case continues to be under the
control of the registration court.
If we say that the petition for review should be filed
within one year from the entry of decree of registration,
does this mean that before you can file a petition for
review we should wait until there is an entry in the LRA?
- no. because so long as there is no decree yet or it
was already entered and within the one year
then you may file a petition for review. No need
to wait for it to be entered.
Section 32 provides that petition for review of the decree
of registration maybe filed not later than one year from
and after the decree of such registration. It has been ruled
that the petition maybe filed at ANYTIME after rendition
of judgment even no entry of decree of registration yet.

Supposing there was a decree of registration and issued
by the LRA but before it became final an oppositor filed a
motion for reconsideration and denied. May he still file a
petition for review?
- yes he can. Because the remedy of petition for
review is separate from that of your remedies in
the rules of court.
- A petition for review under Section 32 is a
remedy separate and distinct from a motion for
new trial and the right to the remedy is not
affected by the denial of such a motion
irrespective of the grounds upon which it may
have been presented.
- In the present case, the one-year period before
the Torrens title becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible has not yet expired; thus, a
review of the decree of registration would have
been the appropriate remedy.

LOPEZ vs Padilla
Here this is about an issuance of a patent, but the date
when there was promulgation of judgment corresponds
to a decree of registration. So the one-year will start to
run from the promulgation of judgment or order of the
director of lands and not the actual issuance of the patent.
The petition for review here is from the date of
PROMULGATION of judgment or ORDER of the
director of LANDS.

RAMOS vs RODRIGUEZ
this is at what we discussed before the LRA has a
ministerial duty but only up to the extent where
everything is in order. Of he finds out that the entry of
decree of registration will cause double titling they will
not enter the decree of registration.
The principle is that you can always file a petition for
review within one-year from the entry of the decree of
registration by the LRA.
WALSTROM vs MAPA
Here the SC again enumerated the requisites, and the
requisites were found to be wanting.
The SC said the proper remedy should have been before
your DENR and not the court. Kay wala paman nya na
prove na naa syay interest sa property. And this is the
first requisite. You have to prove first your real right.
The petitioner said nah wala na daw nya gi exhaust iyang
remedy kay hapit na mahuman ang one year, SC said
that is not a reason for you to use because you have first
to exhaust you administrative remedies before you resort
to the courts.

FRAUD:
PALANCA vs AMERICAN FOOD
MANUFACTURING
Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the
successful party in a litigation, which is committed
outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or
his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated
party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his
side of the case.

On the other hand, intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party
in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged
instruments on perjured testimony, which did not affect
the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and
just determination of the case.
When you say extrinsic it should be external and does not
involve documents because if it involves documents you
have every opportunity to examine them.
Petition for Review you must be able to allege
EXTRINSIC FRAUD.

SC stated in this case EXAMPLES as to what is extrinsic
fraud:
1. Where the unsuccessful party had been
prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his
opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a
false promise of a compromise; or
2. where the defendant never had knowledge of
the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of
the plaintiff; or
3. where an attorney fraudulently or without
authority assumes to represent a party and
connives at his defeat; or
4. where the attorney regularly employed
corruptly sells out his client's interest to the
other side these, and
5. similar cases which show that there has never
been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the
case, are reasons for which a new suit may be
sustained to set aside and annul the former
judgment or decree, and open the case for a new
and fair hearing.

26
Philippians 4:13

It is extrinsic when it deprives a party from his day in
court thereby preventing him from asserting his right to
the property registered in the name of the applicant.
Perjury of document cannot avail for petititon for
review. Intrinsic fraud.

FRIAS vs ESQUIVEL
Again it is not enough for you to allege extrinsic fraud,
you must also PROVE IT.
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 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

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs CFI of RIZAL
For fraud to justify the review of a decree, it must be
extrinsic or collateral and the facts upon which it is based
have not been controverted or resolved in the case where
the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered.
Mere allegation of fraud is not enough.
Specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive another
of his right, or in some manner injure him must be
alleged and proved.
There must be actual or positive fraud as distinguished
from constructive fraud to entitle one to the reopening of
a decree of registration. And it must be extrinsic and not
intrinsic fraud.
This is necessary to maintain the stability of judicial
decisions and save the precious time of the courts from
being wasted by unnecessary proceedings.
Moreover, the fact that the District Land Officer of the
Bureau of Land conducted the corresponding inspection
and investigation of the land in question with its findings
and report submitted in court, renders the present appeal
interposed by the Director of Lands without valid basis.
It cannot just simply deny the report of its own
investigator. Besides, there is always that presumption of
regularity in the performance of official function.

Who is an innocent purchaser for value?

Rosales vs Burgos

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 it, and who pays
a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before
receiving any notice of another person's claim.
The burden of proving the status of a purchaser
in good faith and for value lies upon one who asserts that
status. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere
invocation of the ordinary presumption of good faith.
Because there were instances and circumstances
that would lead a reasonable man upon inquiry that the
person they were dealing with a person with a case of
estafa. They should have investigated, due diligence on
land dealings or dealings with property.
In addition, there was a notice of lis pendence
annotated
Subsequent sale to the aunt was void for being a
simulated contract.

Fule vs De Legare

In this case spouses Fule were considered as innocent
purchasers for value because they did everything in their
capacity to assure themselves that they are dealing with
the right person. In fact they required the son to have it
registered in his name first, and of course if you are
dealing with the registered owner all you have to do is
rely on the certificate of title. It would have been different
if the son sold it and the name was in the adoptive
parents but in this case nabalhin na sa iya name there is
nothing to excite suspicion on the part of fule so they are
innocent purchasers for value.

Since the act of registration is the operative act to convey
or affect the land in so far as third persons are concern
Consequently, where there was nothing in the certificate
of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of
the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser
is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens
title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect
or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right
thereto. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and
conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens
system seeks to insure would entirely be futile and
nugatory.
GR is if you are dealing with a registered land all you
have to do is to rely on the certificate of title if you are the
purchaser.

YU vs PACLEB

Here was Yu a purchaser in good faith?

GR is if you are dealing with a registered land all you
have to do is to rely on the certificate of title if you are the
purchaser.

Exception: as given in this case is when you are
dealing with a person who is not the registered owner.

27
Philippians 4:13

Thats why in this case there were several
UNREGISTERED TRANSFERS. Therefore the buyer or
the purchaser was dealing with someone who was not a
registered owner. So it is INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO
GO BEYOND THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE to
investigate because he was dealing with a person who
did not register the land PLUS was not the possessor of
the land at the time. There must be prudence and due
diligence in finding out the factual circumstance.

one who buys from one who is not the registered owner
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, or in his
capacity to transfer the land.
When you become lawyers this will be very common.
You will handle a lot of land cases. Very interesting. Mga
igso-on mag away. May pa way yuta wapay away.
DAGHAN YUTA DAGAHN AWAY LIPAY
ABOGADO. Pa awaya lang na sila.

Domingo vs Reed

FACTS:
Guillermo Reed, who was an overseas contract work
purchased a lot in Pasig. Later a TCT was issued in the
name of his Lolita Reed (his wife), married to Guillermo.

Later, his brother Dominador and his wife who was
allowed to stay in his property was summoned to the
barangay because there was a complaint for ejectment
filed by Eduaro Quiteves who claimed to own the lot.

When Guillermo went to the Register of Deeds, he found
that by virtue of a SPA that he allegedly executed
authorizing his wife to sell his property, his wife Lolita
sold this lot to 3 different persons. (Edward Quitevez; Sps
Villanera; Sps Domingo)

He then filed a complaint for reconveyance of property
against his wife and the person she dealt with alleging
that these persons conspired with each other to make it
appear that he authorized his wife to sell their property.

RTC dismissed the case. CA reversed the RTC

ISSUE: Whether or not purchasers were buyers in good
faith.

HELD: Purchasers were not buyers in good faith.

As to the spouses Domingo who knew that the property
belongs to the conjugal property of Guillermo and Lolita,
they should have inquired into her authority to sell the
property. When they executed the Deed of Sale, Lolita
showed no SPA and the Spouses Domingo merely relied
on Lolitas verbal claim of having been authorized to
sell the property.

As to petitioner Quitevez, he should verified the SPA
Lolita had since in the acknowledgment portion of the
SPA, only Lolita appeared before the lawyer who
notarized the document. He should have inquired
whether the SPA was valid.

They had knowledge of facts that should have led them
to inquire and to investigate, in order to acquaint
themselves with possible defects in her title. Having thus
failed to do anything that an ordinary prudent person
would have done in a similar situation, petitioners
cannot now claim to be buyers in good faith.

SPA is not authentic:
1) Guillermo denies having signed the document;
2) Lolita admitted that merely sent the document
and when it came back it was already signed by
Guillermo
3) Nobody saw Guillermo affixed his signature in
the SPA
4) Only Lolita appeared before the lawyer who
notarized the document.

ATTY:

Did the purchasers know that the spouses were not living
together anymore?
- it was known and the property was conjugal in
nature.
Here there were so many circumstances that would make
them curious.
1
st
. they were dealing with only one spouse and the
property was conjugal. Merely relying assurance that
there was an SPA.
2
nd
they also knew that the spouses were not in good
terms, so even if nay SPA how sure are they nah ang SPA
is still valid and effective.

Thus, the presence of anything that excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond
the vendor's certificate and investigate the title appearing
on the face of that certificate. A vendee who does not do
so cannot be denominated either as an innocent
purchaser for value or as a purchaser in good faith and,
hence, does not merit the protection of the law.
ST. DOMINIC CORPORATION vs IAC

FACTS:
In 1961, People's Homesite and Housing Corporation
awarded the subject property to Cristobal Santiago and a
TCT was issued

28
Philippians 4:13

Sometime in 1965, the Robes mortgaged the property to
Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company. The mortgage
lien was annotated on the TCT.

On February 27, 1968, Castulo and Ebreo filed a
complaint for cancellation of the TCT in the name of
Robes and Francisco. Claiming legal interest in the
property, the Bustamante spouses were allowed to
intervene in the case.

On March 25, 1968, a notice of lis pendens was annotated
on TCT 84387 at the instance of the Bustamante spouses.

The subject property was then foreclosed by the bank
after the Robes failed to pay its obligation. The property
was purchased by Franciso. After no one redemmed the
property, a TCT was issued in the name of Francisco.

In 1976, Francsico sold the property to St Dominic
Corporation and a new TCT issued to the latter.

Later, the civil case filed by the Castulo/Ebreo proceeded
to judgment declaing the allocation and sale to Santiago
as void; declaring the sale between the Santiago to Robes
and Francisco as void, cancelling their TCT and ordering
the NHA to process the application of Bustamante

When Bustamante applied for a writ of execution it was
granted by the court on the condition that it cannot be
implemented against St. Dominic Corporation. Upon a
MR which now included St Dominic and Francisco, the
court granted their prayer.

Petitioner filed a MR.
ISSUE:
HELD:
On the issue of including the petitioner in the writ of
execution:
a judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to
the action. It is clear from the records that petitioner St.
Dominic Corporation had never been impleaded as a
party to Civil Case No. Q-11895 filed by Ricardo Castulo
and Juan V. Ebreo. The complaint had for its purpose the
nullification of the award to Cristobal Santiago, Jr., and
the subsequent sale between Santiago and the spouses
Adalia Francisco and Carlos Robes.

On the effect of the trial court's judgment on the
mortgagee bank's rights and on the foreclosure of the
property:
The court held that where a Torrens title was issued as a
result of regular land registration proceedings and was
in the name of the mortgagor when given as a security
for a bank loan, the subsequent declaration of said title
as null and void is not a ground for nullifying the
mortgage rights of the bank which had acted in good
faith

A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears on the
face of the certificate of title. There is no showing in the
records that the mortgagee bank was aware of any
shadow affecting the title of the mortgaged property
when it was mortgaged.

The title to the property given as security to the
Manufacturer's Bank and Trust Co., by the spouses Robes
was valid, regular, and free from any lien or
encumbrance. The mortgage was executed prior to the
institution of Civil Case No. Q-11895, thus establishing it
as a lien superior to whatever claims the plaintiffs therein
may have as a result of the subsequent litigation.

This being so, the adverse claim in Civil Case No. Q-
11895 could not affect the rights of the mortgagee. The
fact that the foreclosure of the mortgage and the
subsequent auction sale were effected after the
annotation of the adverse claim is of no moment. The
foreclosure sale retroacts to the date of registration of the
mortgage.

A person who takes a mortgage in good faith and for a
valuable consideration, the record showing a clear title in
the mortgagor, will be protected against any equitable
titles to the premises or equitable claims on the title, in
favor of third persons, of which he had no notice, actual
or constructive.

Any subsequent lien or encumbrance annotated at the
back of the certificate of title cannot in any way prejudice
the mortgage previously registered and the lots subject
thereto pass to the purchaser at public auction free from
any lien or encumbrance.

Upon proper foreclosure of a first mortgage, all liens
subordinate to the mortgage are likewise foreclosed.

ATTY:
This is a scenario of an INNOCENT MORTGAGEE FOR
VALUE. Same as your purchaser for value. They have
both avail of the same protection.
The title of the property is being given to them for
security and it is for value because kay nag pa utang sila.
SC:
this Court has held that where a Torrens title was issued
as a result of regular land registration proceedings and
was in the name of the mortgagor when given as a
security for a bank loan, the subsequent declaration of
said title as null and void is not a ground for nullifying
the mortgage rights of the bank which had acted in good
faith

again same ra, if you are a mortgagee and your dealing
with a mortgagor who is the registered owner, then all

29
Philippians 4:13

you need to do is rely on the title. It would have been
different if lahi ang nabutang nyah ang yuta nga gi
security belongs to somebody else. Pero pwede japon ni
BUT there must be investigation. There must be an SPA
that the owner allows that the land be made a security in
favor of someone else.

So innocent purchaser value for value will also include
innocent mortgagee for value.

There remedy of the person prejudiced is to bring an
action for damages against those who cause the fraud if if
has passed on to an innocent purchaser for value.

General rule:
The owner of a registered land does not need to
look beyond the certificate of title.

but if you look at the title and there are incumbrances
there you are bound to the encumbrances. Because
registration is an operative act that binds third person.

So if palit ko ug property nya sa title nay notice of lis
pendens. What is the effect to continue to purchase the
land?

- in caso ma pildi to ako gi palitan, I have to let go
of the property because im am bound by those
encumbrances.
- What if it was a mortgage? If di sya ka bayad ma
bira ang yuta, pwede pa ba mabira sa bank ang
yuta na belongs to me? Yes, because the
mortgage follows the property whoever the
owner is if it is annotated in the title. If not
annotated before the mortgage, I will not be
bound by the mortgage, I can only be bound if I
have personal knowledge.
EXCEPTION:

1. dealing with someone who is not the registered
owner
2. there are factual circumstances that will excite
suspicion
3. dealing with registered owner but another is
possessing the property

Who has the burden of proof that he is an innocent
purchaser for value?

- one who alleges. It is not for the other party to
disprove it; you have to establish that in fact you
are an innocent purchaser for value.

Action for Reconveyace

- remedy for the title over the land is wrongfully
registered to another person.
- the difference of a petition for review and an
action for conveyance:
o petition for review can be availed of
within on year from the enter of the
decree in the LRA mu lapse nagani nah
you have a remedy of an action of
reconveyance.
o In a petition for review you are asking
the court to re-open the land
registration proceeding, ipa void nimu
ang decree
o Action for reconveyance since the title
is already indefeasible you can no
longer re-open the LRC proceding, you
will just have to respect it but you are
asking the court to give back the land
to you kay nahatag na sa lain. You are
respecting the decree, mu respeto ka sa
court na iyaha sa na karon pero ibalik
na sa akoa.

HEIRS OF LABANON

FACTS:
Constancio settled on a piece of land and cultivated the
said lot and introduced some improvements. Having
difficulty applying for a Homestead Patent, he let his
brother Maximo file the application with agreement that
they would divide the lot as soon as possible.

After Maximo was issued a Homestead Patent and a
corresponding OCT, they executed a document wherein
Maximo assign and conveys the ownership of certain
portion of the lot to Constancio and his heirs so they can
occupy and use such lot.

Later, Maximo executed another sworn statement
reiterating his desire that his brother and his heirs shall
own the eastern portion of the lot.

After the Constancio died, his heirs sold the eastern
portion of the lot to the husband of one of Constancios
children. They then discovered that the heirs of Maximo
were taking steps to deprive the heirs of Constancio of
their ownership over the eastern portion of the lot.

In 1991, the heirs of Maximo filed a complaint for Specific
Performance and Recovery of Ownership. RTC granted
their complaint but CA reversed the ruling of the lower
court which recognized the ownership of the heirs of
Constancio on the eastern portion of the lot.

30
Philippians 4:13

Petitioners appealed to the SC arguing that respondents
can no longer question Maximo Labanon's ownership of
the land after its registration under the principle of
indefeasibility of a Transfer Certificate of Title

ISSUE: Whether or not the OCT issued in 1975 to
Maximo has become indefeasible and conclusive.

HELD:
Respondents are not precluded from challenging the
validity of the OCT.

While Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the title
becomes indefeasible after a year from the issuance of
the decree, it does not totally deprive a party of any
remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered in
the name of another.

Section 32 of PD 1529 merely precludes the reopening of
the registration proceedings for titles covered by the
Torrens System, but does not foreclose other remedies for
the reconveyance of the property to its rightful owner.

The remedy of the land owner whose property has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name
is, after one year from the date of the decree, to bring an
ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.

In the instance case, respondents are not precluded from
recovering the eastern portion of the property. The action
for Recovery of Ownership before the RTC is indeed the
appropriate remedy.

On the issue of trust: The court held that unrepudiated
written express trusts are imprescriptible.

ATTY:

the sc said here that if the one year period has elapsed,
you have an action for reconveyance. But the SC said that
while you have that remedy after one year, if the land has
been passed on to an innocent purchaser for value
action for damages. Because again innocent purchaser for
value is protected by the law.

AGUILA vs CFI

FACTS:

The subject lot in this case is being claim by the children
of Juliana Matienzo, the petitioner being the only
surviving child of his second marriage and the
respondents being the children of his first marriage.

In an earlier action, respondents sued for the partition of
said property which rendered in favor of them. Plaintiff
then filed for a motion for reconsideration which was
denied by the court.

The court then levied upon the propertu and sold it at
public wherein the respondents where the highest bidder.

Petitioner then filed a complaint for reconveyance
claiming he was deprived of the opportunity to submit
his evidence in the earlier case.

ISSUE: Whether or not an action for reconveyance is
proper in this case.
HELD: No.

An action for reconveyance is a remedy when by reason
of mistake or fraud, property is registered in the name of
a person not its owner.

1) Clerical error in designating the real owner is a
valid ground for reconveyance after the decree
shall have become final following the lapse of
one year there from.
2) When a person not entitled to the property
succeeded in registering it in his name to the
prejudice of the real owner.

However, it cannot be employed to negate the effects of a
valid decision of a court of justice determining the
conflicting claims of ownership of the parties in an
appropriate proceeding.

The decision in that case was a valid resolution of the
question of ownership over the disputed properties and
cannot be reversed now through the remedy of
reconveyance.

When petitioners lawyers were negligent in performing
their duties, he should have immediately replace them.
Instead, petitioner retained his lawyers until everything
was too late.

ATTY:

The remedy of reconveyance is available in cases where:
- as a result of mistake or fraud, property is
registered in the name of a person not its owner.
- Clerical error in designating the real owner is a
valid ground for reconveyance after the decree
shall have become final following the lapse of
one year therefrom.
- Reconveyance may also be sought where it is
established that a person not entitled to the
property succeeded in registering it in his name
to the prejudice of the real owner.

31
Philippians 4:13

GASATAYA vs MABASA

FACTS:

Respondents father was granted a Homestead lot, he
then mortgaged such lot to DBP. After he failed to pay
his obligation, DBP foreclosed the sold and they were the
highest bidder.

Later, DBP allowed the respondents daughter to
reacquire the property through a deed of conditional sale.
Respondent then entered into an agreement with
Petitioners father for the latter to assume payment of her
obligation to DBP.

Upon representation by Sabas Gasataya that respondent's
obligation to DBP had already been settled, they entered
into another agreement denominated as "Deed of Sale of
Fishpond Lands with Right to Repurchase.

Later, respondents found out that petitioner stopped
paying DBP and as a result revoked her right to
repurchase. They also found out that DBP held an
auction on their property and petitioner is the highest
bidder.

Respondent then filed a complaint in the RTC for
reconveyance of titles of lands claiming that petitioner
deliberately reneged on their obligation to pay DBP
which led to their right to repurchase the lot being
revoked by DBP.

RTC ruled in favor of respondent and order petitioner to
reconvey to respondent the TCT. CA upheld the ruling of
the lower court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court erred in reconverying
the property to the respondent.
HELD:
Reconveyance is available not only to the legal owner of a
property but also to the person with a better right than
the person under whose name said property was
erroneously registered.

While respondent is not the legal owner of the disputed
lots, she has a better right than petitioner to the contested
lots on the following grounds: first, the deed of
conditional sale executed by DBP vested on her the right
to repurchase the lots and second, her right to repurchase
them would have subsisted had they (the Gasatayas) not
defrauded her.

Petitioner cannot discredit the deed of conditional sale
just so he can to keep his titles to the lots. Petitioner
should be reminded that DBP revoked respondent's right
to repurchase the lots under said deed because of the
deceitful maneuverings that he and his father employed.
If we were to sustain petitioner's argument, then we
would, in effect, reward him for his misdeed.

Moreover, the law only protects an innocent purchaser
for value and not one who has knowledge of and
participation in the employment of fraud.

ATTY:

Basically the issue here is whether the action for
reconveyance is available only to the owner of the
disputed lot.

Reconveyance is available not only to the legal owner of a
property but also to the person with a better right than
the person under whose name said property was
erroneously registered. While respondent is not the legal
owner of the disputed lots, she has a better right than
petitioner to the contested lots on the following grounds:
first, the deed of conditional sale executed by DBP vested
on her the right to repurchase the lots and second, her
right to repurchase them would have subsisted had they
(the Gasatayas) not defrauded her.

BENIN vs TUASON

FACTS:
This case is a consolidation of 3 cases which has the same
cause of action against the same defendant. All of the
plaintiffs allege that they and their predecessors in
interest were in open, continuous, adverse, peaceful
possession of subject lots since time immemorial and that
after the war, the leased their respective lots to evacuees
from Manila who were paying monthly rentals. That in
1953, they discovered that their land had been
fraudulently or erroneously included in parcel 1 of OCT
735 issued in the names of the Tuasons.

They further allege that the defendants OCT are null and
void because during the land registration proceedings,
the area of parcel 1 were altered and amended without
any subsequent publication; And since their OCT is null
and void, it follows that all the subsequent TCTs that
were issued are also null and void.

Plaintiffs prayed that the court declare them owners of
their land and revoke the title of the defendants.

Respondents, in their answer, claim that the plaintiffs
action is barred by prior judgment, precription and
laches;

RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the
decree and title issued in the LRC as null and void and
without any effect whatsoever; Declared all TCTs derived
from that OCT as null and void;

32
Philippians 4:13

ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in declaring
such OCT and TCTs as null and void.
HELD: Yes

With regards to the land registration proceedings:
There was no irregularity in the contested land
registration proceeding; Although there was an
amendment in the original plan there was no inclusion of
any additional area, but only a reduction thereof as a
result of the Tuasons and the government agreeing that
the government would withdraw its opposition if the
Tuasons would not include some areas that would be
used as roads; Therefore there was no necessity of a new
publication.
With regards to the trial court declaring null and void
OCT 735:
The court cannot simply declare OCT 735 as null and
void as the parcel of lands that the plaintiffs were
contesting comprised only 2% of the whole area which
OCT 735 covers.

With regards to the addition of 27.10 sqm:
This number is too minimal to be of decisive consequence
in the determination of the validity of OCT 735; this was
already included in the original plan an was a result of a
mere error which was corrected when the amended plan
was prepared; Besides in cases were a certificate of title
was issued covering lands that were the RC has no
jurisdiction, the certificate of title is null and void insofar
as it concerns lands which the RC had no jurisdiction.

With regards to the OCT not properly transcribed in the
Registration Book:
This is only a formal, not a substantial defect. What
matter is that the original certificate contains the full
transcription of the decree; For a certificate of title cannot
be invalidated simply by the mere errors committed by
the employees of the register of deeds

Whether or not appelles still have legal right over the six
parcels of land:
No, an action for recoveyance can only prosper if the land
claimed to be wrongfully registered is still registered in
the name of the person who procured the wrongful
registration. No action for reconveyance can be had when
an innocent third party has purchase the land in good
faith and for value.

In the instant case, JM Tuason bought the land in good
faith and for value from the Heirs of D Tuason, who
bought it from Mayorasgo Tuason. Therefore, an action
for reconveyance instituted by the plaintiff cannot
prosper since the land is no longer registered to the
person who procured the wrongful registration and it has
already been bought by an innocent purchase in good
faith and for value.

Besides, their action is barred by res judicata and
prescription. Res judicata because this dispute has
already been settled in an earlier ruling by the court
which upheld the validity of OCT 735; And prescription
because the land became incontrovertible in 1915 and the
plaintiff only filed their case in 1955 or after a lapse of
some 41 years.

ATTY:

In this case the SC basically said that if there is already an
innocent purchaser for value, you cannot avail for an
action for reconveyance. You may however avail of
action for damages.

It is also the rule that a reconveyance may only take place
if the land that is claimed to be wrongly registered is still
registered in the name of the person who procured the
wrongful registration. No action for reconveyance can
take place as
against a third party who had acquired title over the
registered property in good faith and for value.

DATU KIRAM SAMPACO vs HADJI SERAD
MINGCA

FACTS:
Respondent Hadji Lantud filed an action to quiet title
aginst petitioner Datu Kiram. He alleges that he is an
owner in fee simple of a parcel of land in Marawi which
is covered by an OCT. He claims that Datu Kiram and
his daughter entered his property and destroyed several
improvements and after that, the Barangay captain and
the local council issued a decision which states that Datu
Kiram is the owner of the subject parcel of land.

Datu Kiram, in his answer argues that he inherited the
lot from his father and that the OCT issued to Hadji has
been issued through fraud since the land is an
residential land which cannot be subject of free patent
since only agricultural land can be the subject thereof.

RTC ruled in favor of Datu Kiram, however CA reverse
the ruling of the lower court

ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in sustaining the
validity of the Hadjis OCT
HELD:
No. The torrens title is conclusive evidence of
ownership of land. Petitioner was not able to prove that
the OCT was issued through fraud. He was was not able
to show that the land was indeed residential as classified
by the President per recommendation by the Secretary of
DENR. (At present pwede napud ang residential)

33
Philippians 4:13

With regards to his action for reconveyance:
In an action for recoveyance, the property must be
identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of
his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's
claim. To do this, he must first fix the identity of the
land he is claiming by describing the location, area and
boundaries and then show his title.

In the instant case, petitioners was not able to identify
his property by metes and bounds. Second, he merely
claims that he is in open, continuous and adverse
possession of the property in the concept of owner.
Respondent on the other hand, has an OCT to show proof
of his possession. Between he and respondent, the latter
clearly has a better claim.

With regards to fraud:
Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for
cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should
never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence
not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which
must be proved.

ATTY:

In this case this petitioner vs this respondent who
remained ownership of the property because of an OCT,
while petitioner was merely claiming ownership over it
and his proof is only a barangay certification that
property was residential lot and therefore should not be
issued a patent.

The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to
the ownership of the land described therein, and other
matters, which can be litigated and decided in land
registration proceedings. 26 Tax declarations and tax
receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of title, which is
an incontrovertible proof of ownership

As to the issue that it should not have been issued a free
patent because it was a residential lot SC said that it is not
enough that you classify it as residential because its
classification in the patent is agricultural land, it is not
just for anybody to classify it as residential and
agricultural. It must be classified by a legitimate
authority.

In addition, two requisite on the part of the one claiming
reconveyance:
1. identity of the land you are claiming
2. prove your title over the land

here petitioner argue that the lot was included in his
large property but even the petitioner cannot identify the
bounds of his property. And no title over the property.

The Court holds that petitioner failed to prove the
requisites of reconveyance as he failed to prove the
identity of his larger property in relation to the disputed
property, and his claim of title by virtue of open, public
and continuous possession of the disputed property in
the concept of owner is nebulous in the light of a similar
claim by respondent who holds a free patent title over the
subject property.

Unlike petition for review here you need not only an
interest but A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP in action for
reconveyance.

Action for reconveyance is an action in personam because
it is directed to an individual but still a real action
because involve a real property.

WHERE TO FILE

The Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original
jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to or
any interest in property where the assessed value exceeds
P20,0000 or in MM: P50,000.

If the assessed value does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000
in Metropolitan Manila, it is the Municipal Court who
has jurisdiction.

REPUBLIC vs MANGATORA

Actions affecting real possession of real property, a real
action shall commence and be tried in the proper court
over the jurisdictional area where the real property
involve.

An action for reconveyance is an ordinary action filed in
the ordinary courts unlike your land registration
proceedings which fall with the LRC.

QUANTOM OF PROOF

CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE

LASQUITE vs VICTORY HILLS

FACTS:
In this case, a certain Jose Manahan executed a Deed of
Quitclaim and Assignment of Rights over a land to
petitioner Lasquite. He then applied for a free patent

34
Philippians 4:13

over the lot and sold half of the land to Andrade and
both were issued an OCT (NP) [1981]

Later the Prescillas filed a case for reconveyance against
the petitioners on the ground that he forfed the signature
of Jose Manahan. The heirs of Manahan was allowed to
intervene and later respondent Victory Hills also
intervened in the case.

Victory Hills claimed that they traced their title to Lot
3050 to OCT 380 which was allegedly registered to Jose
Manahan by virtue of a Homestead Patent, who then
sold it to Hieras then to Angeles who then transferred it
to Victory Hills.

Petitioners, on the other hand, question the validity of
OCT 380 which is the source of respondents title. They
claim that the certificate of title does not bear the
signature of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.

RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. However, CA
reversed their ruling

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Victory Hills is
entitled to reconveyance of the subject lot.

HELD:
No, in an action for reconveyance of title, party seeking it
should establish not merely by a preponderance of
evidence but by clear and convincing evidence that the
land sought to be reconveyed is his.

In the instant case, The copy of the OCT 380 showed that
it was not signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources but by the Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce. To give OCT 380 a probative value in
court would be to allow circumvention of the
requirement laid down in Act 2874.

Second, there is no proof in the records of the Bureau of
Lands that the Homestead Patent which OCT 380 was
based upon ever existed.

Third, the original registration date of the TCTs bore
different dates.

Fourth, respondent cannot even establish that the Jose
Manahan from whom it derived its title is the same Jose
Manahan that petitioner bought the subject lot.

Thus respondent failed to dispense such burden.

Respondent avers that petitioner Lasquite forged the Deed of
Quitclaim/Assignment of Rights to make it appear that Jose
Manahan conveyed Lot No. 3050 to him. It must be stressed,
however, that whoever alleges forgery has the burden of
proving the same. Forgery cannot be presumed but should
be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.

ATTY:
The established legal principle in actions for annulment
or reconveyance of title is that a party seeking it should
establish not merely by a preponderance of evidence but
by clear and convincing evidence that the land sought to
be reconveyed is his.

Do not mind the case of cavile. Take note of the
principle in lasquite of CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE.

Prescription periods
- prescription based on fraud - 4 years
- prescription based on trust - 10 years
- prescription based on void contract -
imprescriptible

Amerol vs Bagumbayan
2 parties applying for patent
1. amerol
2. bagumbaran

Bagumbaran was granted the patent. Amerol
found out and filed an action only 9 years after issuance.
Bagumbaran contends that actions based on fraud only
prescribe only on 4 years but the SC held that there was
an implied trust and its prescription period is 10 years.

Daclag vs Macahilig

issue:
WON action for reconveyance is prescribes in 4
years or 10 years

Held:
it is neither applied in this case because Maxima
never owned the land. An action based on a void contract
is imprescriptible because Maxima never the owner of the
land in the first place.

(MAKABORBY ning manga tubaga)

If you have a petition for review or an action for
reconveyance then it was later found out that it was
proven in court that the land was already passed on to an
innocent purchaser for value, do you still have a remedy?
- Yes, remedy would be action for damages or
recover from the assurance fund

What is the basis for the action for damages?
- sec 32 PD 1529
- recovery from the assurance fund is sec 95

35
Philippians 4:13

If you recover from the assurance fund, who will you
sue?
- register of deeds
- National treasurer

If you are able to recover damages from the person who
was responsible for the fraud, can you still recover from
the assurance fund?
- Not anymore
- Bar from double recovery

Action for reversion of public land:
- Lands of the public domain wrongfully
registered in another person's name is imprescriptible

Action for damages and recovery from the assurance
fund there must be no negligence in the part of the party
asking for damages or asking for recovery from the
assurance fund

Action for reversion of public land is imprescriptible
because the person never owned the land in the first
place. It belongs to the public domain

Other remedies
- are found in the Civil Procedure or Rules of
court: annulment of judgment, final orders, resolutions
and appeal from judgment
- RPC - perjury

Good Luck God Bless sa exam kay 9:00pm - 8: 30am ra
ang ma tun.an nga oras ani

2 Corinthians 12:10
- That is why, for Christs sake, I delight in weakness, in
insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For
when I am weak, then I am Strong.

MidTerm Transcription Land Titles

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MidTerm Transcription Land Titles

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

Você também pode gostar