A.

BACKGROUND, BASIC CONCEPTS & GENERAL PRINCIPLES

B. TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION
LAND TITLE
evidence of right of owner or extent of his interest, by which means he can
maintain control and as a rule assert right to exclusive possession and
enjoyment of property
DEED
instrument in writing which any real estate or interest therein is created,
alienated, mortgaged or assigned or by which title to any real estate may be
affected in law or equity
LAND REGISTRATION
- Is a judicial or administrative proceeding whereby a persons claim
over a particular land is determined and confirmed or recognized so
that such land and the ownership thereof may be recorded in a public
registry
TORRENS SYSTEM
- A system for registration of land under which, upon the landowners
application, the court may, after appropriate proceedings, direct the
issuance of a cert of title.
NATURE: a) judicial in character and not merely administrative b)
proceeding in rem (binding upon the whole world)
TORRENS TITLE
- Cert. of ownership issued under the torrens system, through the
Register of Deeds, naming and declaring the owner of the Real
property described therein, free from all liens and encumbrances
except such as may be expressly noted there or otherwise reserved by
law.
REGISTRATION
guarantees the title
RECORDING
does not guarantee the title; need to examine other docs
MODES OF ACQUIRING LAND TITLES:
1.Title by public grant conveyance of public land by government to a
private individual
2.Title by acquisitive prescription open, continuous, exclusive, notorious
possession of a property
3.Title by accretion alluvion
4.Title by reclamation filling of submerged land by deliberate act and
reclaiming title thereto; government
5.Title by voluntary transfer private grant; voluntary execution of deed of
conveyance
6.Title by involuntary alienation no consent from owner of land; forcible
acquisition by state
1

7.Title by descent or devise hereditary succession to the estate of

deceased owner
8.Title by emancipation patent or grant for purpose of ameliorating sad
plight of tenant-farmers; not transferable except by hereditary succession
PROCEDURE IN LAND REGISTRATION CASE:
1.Survey of land by Bureau of lands or duly licensed private surveyor
2.Filing of application for registration by applicant
3.Setting of date of initial hearing of application by RTC
4.Clerk of court to transmit to Land Registration Authority the application,
date of initial hearing & other pertinent docs
5.Publication of notice of filing of application, date & place of hearing in OG
and in newspaper of general circulation
6.Service of notice contiguous owners, occupants & those who have
interest in property
7.Filing of answer or opposition to application
8.Hearing of case by RTC
9.Promulgation of judgment by court
10.Issuance of decree by RTC decision; Instruct land registration authority
to issue decree of confirmation & registration
11.Entry of decree of registration in Land Titles Administration
12.Send copy of decree to Register of Deeds
13.Transcription of decree of registration in registration book & issuance of
the owners duplicate original certificate of title of the applicant by the Land
registration Authority - upon payment of prescribed fees
CONCEPT OF JURA REGALIA
-refers to royal rights , or those rights which the King by virtue of his
prerogatives.
-the capacity of the state to own or acquire property is the states power of
dominium.
REGALIAN DOCTRINE. (Art. XII (2) 1987 constitution)
THE DOCTRINE DOES NOT NEGATE NATIVE TITLE
CRUZ V SEC. DENR
KAPUNAN, J: recognized the existence of native title to land , or ownership
of lands by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since
time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown, as
an exception to the theory of Jura Regalia.
PUNO, J: IPRA grants the IICs/IPs the ownership and possession of their
ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands
2

and domains. The ownership given is the indigenous concept of ownership

under customary law which traces its origin to native title
VITUG, J: court should adopt the fundamental law
PANGANIBAN, J: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to the
constitution and that no one is exempt from its all encompassing provisions.
Since there was no majority vote, Cruzs petition was dismissed and the IPRA
law was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include public domain
somehow against the regalian doctrine.
BACK GROUND OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION
The Torrens system requires that the government issue an official certificate
of title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of the
property described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as
thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves. The certificate of title is
indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are
quieted upon issuance of said certificate. This system highly facilitates land
conveyance and negotiation.
PURPOSE OF TORRENS SYSTEM
The real purpose of the Torrens system of land registration is to quiet title to
land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except
claims which were noted, at the time of registration, in the certificate, or
which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it
would seem that once the title was registered, the owner might rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the
"mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing the Torrens system is a
judicial proceeding, but it involves more in its consequences than does an
ordinary action.
All the world are parties, including the government.
REGISTRATION IS NOT A MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP
The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is
merely an evidence of title over a particular property.
Merely a procedure
the registration of lands of the public domain under the Torrens
System, does not by itself, convert public lands into private
lands.
ADVANTAGES OF TORRENS SYSTEM
1.Abolishes endless fees
2.Eliminates repeated examination of titles
3.Reduces records enormously
4.Instantly reveals ownership
5.Protects against encumbrances not noted on the Torrens certificate
6.Makes fraud almost impossible
7.It assures
3

8.Keeps up the system without adding to burden of taxation; beneficiaries of

the system pay the fees
9.Eliminates tax titles
10.Gives eternal title as state ensures perpetuity
11.Furnishes state title insurance rather than private title insurance
12.Makes possible the transfer of titles or of loans within the compass of
hours instead of a matter of days
THE PUBLIC LAND ACT (CA NO 141)
Applies to lands of public domain which have been declared open to
disposition or concession and officially delimited and classified. It contains
provisions on the different modes of government grant, e.g homesteads,
sale, free patents and reservations for public and semi public purposes.
A certificate issue pursuant to a public land patent has the same validity and
efficacy as a cert. of title issued through ordinary registration proceedings.
THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT (ACT NO. 496) Court of Land Registration
Court of limited jurisdiction, with special subject matter, and with only
one purpose, was created
Courts of general, original and exclusive jurisdiction- their powers are
restricted.
In rem
Assurance fund
THE CADASTRAL ACT (ACT NO. 2259)
When, in the opinion of the Governor-General (now the President), the public
interests require that the title to any lands be settled and adjudicated, he
may to this end order the Director of Lands to make a survey and plan
thereof. The Director of Lands shall, thereupon, give notice to persons
claiming an interest in the lands, and to the general public, of the day on
which such survey will begin, giving as full and accurate a description as
possible of the lands to be surveyed.
In rem
THE PROPERTY REGISTRAION DECREE (PD 1529)
Update LRA and to codify various registration laws
REGISTRATION UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM IS A PROCEEDING IN
REM
Main principle of registration: make registered titles indefeasible
RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER LAND REGISTRATION CASES

EMMANUEL F. CONCEPCION vs. HEIRS OF JOSE F. CONCEPCION

Under Sec. 2 of P.D. 1529, it is now provided that Courts of First Instance
(now Regional Trial Courts) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of titles to lands, including improvements
and interest therein and over all petitions filed after original registration of
title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such
applications or petitions. The above provision has eliminated the distinction
between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the
limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely
as a cadastral court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits the change has
simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon the regional trial
courts the authority to act not only on applications for original registration
but also over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power
to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions.
JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES INVOLVING TITLE TO PROPERTY
Jurisdiction: allegations in complaint and reliefs prayed for
Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to
property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over
the assessed value of the property.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE COURTS GENERAL AND LIMITED
JURSIDICTION ELIMINATED
DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR COURTS IN CADASTRAL AND
LAND REGISTRATION CASES
Where the lot sought to be registered is not the subject of controversy
or opposition; or
Where the lot contested has a value not exceeding P 100, 000
(affidavit of claimant, tax declaration)
SC ADMIN CIRCULAR NO. 6-93-A
REGISTRATION COURT IS NOT DIVESTED OF ITS JURISDICTION BY
ADMINISTRATIVE ACT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PATENT
REGISTRATION UNDER THE SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW DISCONTINUED
SPANISH TITLES NO LONGER USED AS EVIDENCE OF LAND
OWNERSHIP
REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS AFFECTING TITLED LANDS UNDER
ACT NO 3344 INEFFECTIVE AGAINST THIRD PERSONS
Should be registered under property registration decree

Salvatierra, et al vs. CA
The registration of an instrument in the Office of the Register of Deeds
constitutes constructive notice to the whole world, and, therefore, discovery
of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of registration. Such
registration is deemed to be a constructive notice that the alleged fiduciary
or trust relationship has been repudiated. It is now settled that an action on
an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the date the
right of action accrued.
The complaint for reconveyance was filed by the Longalong spouses on
November 22, 1985, only five (5) years after the issuance of the O.C.T. No. 04221 over Lot No. 26 in the name of Anselmo Salvatierra. Hence prescription
has not yet set in.

VDA. DE LIMA VS TIO

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, formerly in force, good or bad faith was
immaterial for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Adverse possession in
either character ripened into ownership after the lapse of ten years.
SERNA VS CA
Fraud; filed when respondents were out of the country and they had no way
of finding out that petitioners applied for a title under their name.
Though mere tax declaration does not prove ownership of the property of the
declarant, tax declarations and receipts can be strong evidence of
ownership of land when accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for
prescription
At the time material hereto, registration of untitled land was pursuant to Act
No. 496, as amended. Later, Presidential Decree 1529, the Property
Registration Decree, amended and codified laws relative to registration of
property. Adjudication of land in a registration (or cadastral) case does not
become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one (1) year after
the entry of the final decree." After the lapse of said period, the decree
becomes incontrovertible and no longer subject to reopening or review.

HEIRS OF VENCILAO, SR. VS CA

A title once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open

and notorious possession. tax declarations and receipts do not by
themselves conclusively prove title to the land.
As a general rule, where the certificate of title is in the name of the vendor
when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what
appears on the face of the title. He is under no obligation to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of the
certificate. By way of exception, the vendee is required to make the
necessary inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which
indicates any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property. Otherwise, his
mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his
eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendors title, will
not make him an innocent purchaser for value if it afterwards develops that
the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the
defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of
precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like
situation
TRADERS ROYAL BANK VS CA
The main purpose of the torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title
to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the
public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. Where innocent third
persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued,
acquire rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and
order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright
cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for
everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would
have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title has been regularly or
irregularly issued by the court. Every person dealing with registered land
may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor
and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to
determine the condition of the property.
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to
be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the
sellers title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that
his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him.
What is worse is that if this were permitted, public confidence in the system
7

would be eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by

complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of
ownership. The further consequence would be that land conflicts could be
even more numerous and complex than they are now and possibly also more
abrasive, if not even violent. The Government, recognizing the worthy
purposes of the Torrens system, should be the first to accept the validity of
titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are
satisfied between two innocent persons, the one who made it possible for the
wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.
RP V CA AND PLAZA
the issuance of the proclamation did not have any effect on the subject
property as the proclamation only withdrew it from sale or settlement and
reserved the same for slum improvement and sites and services program,
but subject to actual survey and existing private rights. The proclamation
did not prohibit the registration of title of one who claims, and proves, to be
the owner thereof. We agree. At any rate, registration does not vest title. It
is merely evidence of such title. Our land registration laws do not give the
holder any better title than what he actually has. When the conditions set by
law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law,
acquires a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title being issued. The Torrens system was not established as a
means for the acquisition of title to private land, as it merely confirms, but
does not confer ownership.
Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be
paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive
possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title
over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for
taxation purposes manifests not only ones sincere and honest desire to
obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the
State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute
needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens ones bona
fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
FRANCISCO V CA
Falsely testified that the disputed land was part of a land purchased by his
predecessor
Torrens system cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against
8

the real owner of the registered land. The Torrens System is intended to
guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of registration
but it cannot be used for the perpetuation of fraud against the real owner of
the registered land.
LU V MANIPON
Before acquiring the mother lot from the bank, he knew of respondents
claim of ownership and occupation
Registration is not the equivalent of title. Under the Torrens system,
registration only gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
It was not established as a means of acquiring title to private land because it
merely confirms, but does not confer, ownership.
Equally important, under Section 44 of the Property Registration Decree
(Presidential Decree No. 1529), every registered owner receiving a certificate
of title in pursuance of a decree of registration and every subsequent
purchaser of registered land taking such certificate for value and in good
faith shall hold the same free from all encumbrances, except those noted on
the certificate and enumerated therein.
True, the purchaser of a registered land is not required to go behind the title
to determine the condition of the property. However, a purchaser cannot
close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard
and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no
defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect
exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a
defect in his vendors title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for
value, if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it
appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its
discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may
reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation.
All told, the right of a buyer to rely upon the face of the title certificate and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further is upheld only when the party
concerned had no actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should
impel a reasonably cautious man to conduct further inquiry.
C. PROCEEDINGS IN ORIGINAL REGISTRATION UNDER THE
TORRENS SYSTEM
PURPOSE OF TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

prime purpose: to decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable and
undiputable.
The title, once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take
notice. No one can plead ignorance of the registration.
REGISTRATION ONLY CONFIRMS EXISTING TITLE
System for registration of land only and not a system established for the
acquisition of land.
LAWS GOVERNING LAND REGISTRATION
PUBLIC LAND ACT (voluntary)
PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE (voluntary)
CADASTRAL ACT (compulsory)
IPRA LAW (voluntary)
PROCEEDINGS ARE JUDICIAL AND IN REM
REGISTRATION UNDER THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE
WHO MAY APPLY:
1.Those in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession of patrimonial
property of state under bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or
earlier
2.Those who acquired ownership of private land by prescription
3.Those who acquired ownership of private lands by right of accretion
4.Those who acquired ownership in any manner provided for by law
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC and ACME PLYWOOD & VENEER CO. INC., ETC.,
Bought from the dumagat tribe

The question turns upon a determination of the character of the lands at the
time of institution of the registration proceedings in 1981. If they were then
still part of the public domain, it must be answered in the negative. If, on the
other hand, they were then already private lands, the constitutional
prohibition against their acquisition by private corporations or associations
obviously does not apply.
open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed
by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite
period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land
and becomes private property
Even on the proposition that the land remained technically "public" land, despite
immemorial possession of the Infiels and their ancestors, until title in their favor was actually
confirmed in appropriate proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no serious

10

question of Acmes right to acquire the land at the time it did, there also being nothing in the
1935 Constitution that might be construed to prohibit corporations from purchasing or
acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had already acquired that type of socalled "incomplete" or "imperfect" title. The only limitation then extant was that corporations
could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares. The
purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were brought under the aegis
of the 1973 Constitution which forbids corporations from owning lands of the public domain
cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate
transactions then perfectly valid and proper. This Court has already held, in analogous
circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested rights.
alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his predecessors-in-interest,
openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30 years under The
Public Land Act, as amended) is converted to private property by the mere lapse or
completion of said period, ipso jure.
Acme thereby acquired a registrable title, there being at the time no prohibition against said
corporation's holding or owning private land.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IGLESIA NI CRISTO

It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant,
express or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that the persons claiming
title to a public land should show that their title was acquired from the State or any other
mode of acquisition recognized by law

NATIVIDAD V CA AND RP
TCMC
Under the facts of this case and pursuant to the above rulings, the parcels of land in question had already been converted
to private ownership through acquisitive prescription by the predecessors-in-interest of TCMC when the latter purchased
them in 1979. All that was needed was the confirmation of the titles of the previous owners or predecessors-in-interest of
TCMC.
Being already private land when TCMC bought them in 1979, the prohibition in the 1973 Constitution against corporations
acquiring alienable lands of the public domain except through lease (Article XIV, Section 11, 1973 Constitution) did not
apply to them for they were no longer alienable lands of the public domain but private property.
The Director's contention that a corporation may not apply for confirmation of title under Section 48 of Commonwealth Act
141, the Public Land Act, was disposed of in the Acme case where this Court ruled that the defect in filing the confirmation
proceedings in the name of a corporation was simply an "accidental circumstance, ... in nowise affecting the substance and
merits of the right of ownership sought to be confirmed in said proceedings." (Director of Lands vs. IAC and Acme Plywood
& Veneer Co., Inc., 146 SCRA 509, 522.) Since the petitioners could have had their respective titles confirmed prior to the
sale to TCMC, it was not necessary for the corporation to take the circuitous route of assigning to natural persons its rights
to the lots for the purpose of complying, on paper, with the technicality of having natural persons file the applications for
confirmation of title to the private lands.

CO-OWNERS SHALL APPLY JOINTLY

VENDEE A RETRO MAY FILE APPLICATION IN HIS NAME
CORPORATION SOLE MAY PURCHASE AND HOLD REAL ESTATE

11

RP V CA AND LUCENA
A corporation sole consists of one person only, and his successors (who will
always be one at a time), in some particular station, who are incorporated by
law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particulary
that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In
this sense, the King is a sole corporation; so is a bishop, or deans distinct
from their several chapters
There is no doubt that a corporation sole by the nature of its Incorporation is
vested with the right to purchase and hold real estate and personal property.
It need not therefore be treated as an ordinary private corporation because
whether or not it be so treated as such, the Constitutional provision involved
will, nevertheless, be not applicable.
IMPERFECT TITLE/TITLE IN FEE SIMPLE
a determination of the character of the lands at the time of institution of the registration proceedings must be made. If they
were then still part of the public domain, it must be answered in the negative.
If, on the other hand, they were already private lands, the constitutional prohibition against their acquisition by private
corporation or association obviously does not apply.

HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant
must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau
of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.
Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the amendatory P.D. No. 1073
preclude the application for registration of alienable lands of the public domain, possession
over which commenced only after June 12, 1945? It did not, considering Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree, which governs and authorizes the application of "those who
have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing
laws."
Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. There is a
consistent jurisprudential rule that properties classified as alienable public land may be
converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at
least thirty (30) years. With such conversion, such property may now fall within the
contemplation of "private lands" under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by
those who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus, even if possession of the
alienable public land commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession
being been open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to
register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.
It is clear that property of public dominion, which generally includes property
belonging to the State, cannot be the object of prescription or, indeed, be subject
of the commerce of man. Lands of the public domain, whether declared alienable and
disposable or not, are property of public dominion and thus insusceptible to acquisition by

12

prescription. Accordingly, 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 alienable or disposable, remains
property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition
by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared
by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the
national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run.

LAND MUST ALREADY BE ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE AT THE TIME

OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. CA and CORAZON NAGUIT,
In Naguit, this Court held a less stringent requirement in the application of
Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 in that the reckoning for the period of possession is the
actual possession of the property and it is sufficient for the property sought
to be registered to be already alienable and disposable at the time of the
application for registration of title is filed. It merely requires that the property
sought to be registered as already a and d at the time the application for
registration of title is filed.
A different rule obtains for forest lands such as those which form part of a
reservation for provincial park purposes the possession of which cannot ripen
into ownership It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that
forest land cannot be owned by private persons. As held in Palomo v. Court of
Appeals, forest land is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how
lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such lands are
reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. In the case at bar, the
property in question was undisputedly classified as disposable and alienable;
hence, the ruling in Palomo is inapplicable, as correctly held by the Court of
Appeals.
SEC 14 (2) AUTHORIZES ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP BY
PRESCRIPTION
PRESCRIPTION- acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse
of time and in the manner and under the action prescribed by law
CONCEPT OF POSSESSION FOR PURPOSES OF PRESCRIPTION: OCEN; owner,
public, peaceful, uninterrupted
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION tacking allowed

13

PRESCRIPTION LACHES
Effect of delay

Fact of delay

Matter of time

Question of
inequity of
permitting a
claim to be
enforced, this
inequity
being founded on
some change in
the condition of
the property or
the
relation of the
parties

Statutory

Not statutory

OWNERSHIP OF ABANDONED RIVER

BEDS BY RIGHT OF ACCESSION
OWNERSHIP BY RIGHT OF
ACCRETION
ALLUVION MUST BE THE EXCLUSIVE
WORK OF NATURE
REASON FOR THE LAW ON
ACCRETION

Applies at law Applies at equity

CORTES V CITY OF MANILA
Based on a
Not fixed time
fixed time
If lands bordering on streams are exposed to floods and other damage due to
destructive force of the waters, and if by virtue of law they are subject to
incumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is only just that such risks
or dangers as may prejudice the owners thereof should in some way be
compensated by the right of accretion.
ACCRETION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME REGISTERED LAND
IGNACIO GRANDE, ET AL. vs. CA AND CALULUNG
The question is whether the accretion becomes automatically registered land just because
the lot which receives it is covered by a Torrens title thereby making the alluvial property
imprescriptible. We agree with the Court of Appeals that it does not, just as an unregistered
land purchased by the registered owner of the adjoining land does not, by extension,
become ipso facto registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and
registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is quite another.
Ownership over the accretion received by the land adjoining a river is governed by the Civil
Code. Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the registration law. Registration
under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts does not vest or give title to the land, but
merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already possessed by the owner, making it
imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. But to obtain this protection, the land must be
placed under the operation of the registration laws wherein certain judicial procedures have
been provided.
did respondents acquire said alluvial property through acquisitive prescription? This is a
question which requires determination of facts: physical possession and dates or duration of
such possession
LEONIDA CUREG, et al vs. IAC AND APOSTOL

14

that the alleged "motherland" claimed by private respondents is nonexistent. The

"subject land" is an alluvial deposit left by the northward movement of the Cagayan River
and pursuant to Article 457 of the New Civil Code

The increase in the area of petitioners'land, being an accretion left by the

change of course or the northward movement of the Cagayan River does not
automatically become registered land just because the lot which receives
such accretion is covered by a Torrens title. As such, it must also be placed
under the operation of the Torrens System.
ALLUVIAL FORMATION ALONG THE SEASHORE FORMS PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN
ACQUISITION IN ANY MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW
Reservation for a specific public purpose by presidential
proclamation
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO
P. D. No. 152928 requires the Director of Lands to sign and approve the survey plan for the
land applied for, otherwise, the title is void.
"SECTION 17. What and where to file The application for land registration shall be filed
with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The
applicant shall file together with the application all original muniments of titles or copies
thereof and a survey plan approved by the Bureau of Lands.
"The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has
furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all the annexes (emphasis
ours)."
No plan or survey may be admitted in land registration proceedings until approved by the
Director of Lands.29 The submission of the plan is a statutory requirement of mandatory
character. Unless a plan and its technical description are duly approved by the Director of
Lands, the same are of no value.

ANGEL DEL ROSARIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

The submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of
Lands, in cases for application of original registration of land is a mandatory
requirement.21 The reason for this rule is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure
that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous
land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent
registration of any adjoining land.22 The failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to
petitioner's application for registration.
ANTONIO TALUSAN and CELIA TALUSAN vs. HERMINIGILDO* TAYAG and JUAN
HERNANDEZ
Presidential Decree (PD) 1529, however, intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to
promote the expeditious termination of cases. In more recent cases,12 therefore, the Court
declared that this Decree had eliminated the distinction between general jurisdiction vested
in the regional trial court and the latters limited jurisdiction when acting merely as a land
registration court. Land registration courts, as such, can now hear and decide even

15

controversial and contentious cases, as well as those involving substantial issues.

To reiterate, for purposes of the collection of real property taxes, the registered owner of the
property is considered the taxpayer. Although petitioners have been in possession of the
subject premises by virtue of an unregistered deed of sale, such transaction has no binding
effect with respect to third persons who have no knowledge of it.
Thus, insofar as third persons are concerned, it is the registration of the deed of sale that
can validly transfer or convey a persons interest in a property. In the absence of
registration, the registered owner whose name appears on the certificate of title is deemed
the taxpayer to whom the notice of auction sale should be sent. Petitioners, therefore,
cannot claim to be taxpayers. For this reason, the annulment of the auction sale may not be
invoked successfully.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. CA AND MANLAPAZ, PIZZARO
The decision in Cadastral Case No. 41 does not constitute a bar to the application of
respondent Manuela Pastor; because a decision in a cadastral proceeding declaring a lot
public land is not the final decree contemplated in Section 38 and 40 of the Land
Registration Act.
A Judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude even the same
applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land,
provided he thereafter complies with the provisions. of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No.
141, as amended, and as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable (now
section 3 and 4, PD No. 1073,)
ANGAT and the LEGAL HEIRS OF FEDERICO ANGAT vs. RP

when the reconstitution is based on an extant owners duplicate TCT, the main
concern is the authenticity and genuineness of the certificate, which could best be
determined or contested by the government agencies or offices concerned. The
adjoining owners or actual occupants of the property covered by the TCT are
hardly in a position to determine the genuineness of the certificate; hence, their
participation in the reconstitution proceedings is not indispensable and notice to
them is not jurisdictional. (but CAs decision already final and executory)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ASSOCIACION BENEVOLA de CEBU ET AL

It is also worthy to note at this point that the adjudication of the land in a registration or
cadastral case does not become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one
year after the entry of the final decree. As long as the final decree is not issued, and the
one year within which it may be revised has not elapsed, the decision remains under the
control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after
hearing, may set aside the decision or decree or adjudicate the land to another party
The rule is established that in land registration cases, the appellant must show that his
rights or interests have been prejudiced by the decision appealed from; and that he
challenged the application for registration, or participated in the proceedings before his
appeal may be properly entertained. This has been complied with in this case.
16

Assuming in gratia argumenti that the opposition was not filed on time, nevertheless, an
oppositor is still allowed to present evidence to prove ownership of the disputed land
despite the declaration of general default against him provided that a decision has not
been rendered or that a decree of registration has not been issued in this case
GOMEZ VS CA ET AL
Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration
proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration
of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of registration. 9 This Court, in several
decisions, has held that as long as a final decree has not been entered by the Land
Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from
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.
Examining section 40, we find that the decrees of registration must be stated in
convenient form for transcription upon the certificate of title and must contain an
accurate technical description of the land. This requires technical men. Moreover, it
frequently occurs that only portions of a parcel of land included in an application are
ordered registered and that the limits of such portions can only be roughly indicated
in the decision of the court. In such cases amendments of the plans and sometimes
additional surveys become necessary before the final decree can be entered. That
can hardly be done by the court itself; the law very wisely charges the Chief Surveyor
of the General Land Registration Office with such duties (Administrative Code, section
177).
Thus, 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 one (1) year from the entry of the decree.
It is 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, and they have no discretion
in the matter. However, 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. 12 They are specifically called upon
to "extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings ."
LUCERO V LOOT
there was a final decree in a land registration case which arose from a decision promulgated
in 1938, the final decree being issued on October 29, 1941. It was not incorrect for the lower
court to state, therefore, that "the issuance of a writ of possession is only a matter of course
if nothing in the past has been issued in favor of the registered owner." 11 It is equally true, as
likewise mentioned therein, that there is "no period of prescription as to the issuance of a
writ of possession, ..."12In Pasay Estate Co. v. Del Rosario,13 it has been made clear that the
purpose of the statutory provision empowering the then Court of Land Registration, now the
ordinary courts of first instance, to enforce its orders, judgments or decrees in the same way
that the judiciary does is so that the winning party could be placed in possession of the
property covered by such decree. Thereby, there would be an avoidance of the
inconvenience and the further delay to which a successful litigant would be subjected if he
were compelled "to commence other actions in other courts for the purpose of securing the

17

fruits of his victory."

There was a restatement of the above principle in Demorar v. Ibaez,14 the closest in period
of time to the challenged order of the lower court. Thus: "We have heretofore held that a writ
of possession may be issued not only against the person who has been defeated in a
registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion
thereof during the land registration proceedings ... The issuance of the decree of registration
is part of the registration proceedings. In fact, it is supposed to end the said proceedings.
Consequently, any person unlawfully and adversely occupying said lot at any time up to the
issuance of the final decree, may be subject to judicial ejectment by means of a writ of
possession and it is the duty of the registration court to issue said writ when asked for by the
successful claimant." As a matter of fact, in a 1948 decision, 15 it was held by us that "the
fact that the petitioners have instituted, more than one year after the decree of registration
had been issued, an ordinary action with the Court of First Instance attacking the validity of
the decree on the ground of fraud, is not a bar to the issuance of the writ of possession
applied for by the registered owners."
PEDRO MANUEL et al vs. MARIANO ROSAURO
In the Manlapus case quoted above, the writ of possession was upheld because the record
showed that none had been issued previously and the person occupying the land had been
an opponent in the registration proceedings where the final decree was issued.
In the Yuson case, the writ of possession was denied because it appeared that another had
already been issued and that the persons in possession of the land, and against whom the
relief was sought had occupied the land after the final decree had been issued; furthermore,
they had not been parties to the registration proceedings nor had the appeared as
opponents; for which reason the court said:
. . . Such was the case here. But when other persons have subsequently taken
possession of the property, claiming the right of possession thereto, the owners of the
registered land, or his successors, cannot dispossess them by merely asking the court
for a writ of possession. The Land Registration Law (sec. 46) provides that title to
registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner cannot be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. Nevertheless, in order to recover the ownership or
possession of land possessed by a third person, it is absolutely indispensable to resort to
the proceedings established by law. This court has repeatedly declared that it is
sufficient for a person to be in possession in order that he may be respected in the
possession enjoyed by him of a real property, so long as no other claimant appears who
has and proves a better right. (Dancel and Mina vs. Ventura, 24 Phil., 421.) He who
believes himself entitled to deprive another of the possession of a thing, so long as the
possessor refuses delivery, must request the assistance of the proper authority. (Art.
441, Civil Code.) In other words, he who believes himself entitled to deprive another of
the possession of real property must come to the courts of justice, instituting, as the
case may be, an action for unlawful entry or detainer under section 80 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, or the revindicatory action authorized by article 348 of the Civil Code.
Briefly, what this court held in both cases in harmony with the others cited therein, is that
the writ of possession will not issue: (a) When it has already been issued at the instance of
the applicant or his successors, who hold transfer certificates of title; and (b) when the
persons against whom it is sought to be used have occupied the premises after the final
decree was issued, and have not taken direct part as opponents in the registration
proceedings where said final decree was issued.

18

SERRA VS CA

In a land registration case, a writ of possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of
registration in an original land registration proceedings "not only against the person who has
been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land
or any portion thereof during the proceedings up to the issuance of the decree." It cannot
however, be issued in a petition for reconstitution of an allegedly lost or destroyed certificate
of title. Reconstitution does not confirm or adjudicate ownership over the property covered
by the reconstituted title as in original land registration proceedings where, in the latter, a
writ of possession may be issued to place the applicant-owner in possession.
TUMIBAY VS SORO
As a general rule, the writ of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the
decision to be executed; an execution is void if it is in excess of and beyond the original
judgment or award. The settled general principle is that a writ of execution must conform
strictly to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated, 13 and may not vary the
terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it go beyond the terms of the judgment
sought to be executed.14
Nonetheless, we have held that a judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of
the decision, but extends as well to those necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto.15 Thus, in Perez v. Evite,16 where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in
the judgment, the delivery of possession of the land was considered included in the decision
where the defeated party's claim to possession was based solely on his claim of ownership.
In Buag v. Court of Appeals,21 we explained that a judgment for the delivery or restitution of
property is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in possession of the property. If
the defendant refuses to surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party, the
sheriff or other proper officer should oust him. No express order to this effect needs to be
stated in the decision; nor is a categorical statement needed in the decision that in such
event the sheriff or other proper officer shall have the authority to remove the
improvements on the property if the defendant fails to do so within a reasonable period of
time. The removal of the improvements on the land under these circumstances is deemed
read into the decision, subject only to the issuance of a special order by the court for the
removal of the improvements
MANOTOK REALTY, INC. and MANOTOK ESTATE CORPORATION vs. CLT REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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.
A decree of registration is an order issued under the signature of the Commissioner of
Land Registration (formerly Chief, G.L.R.O.) in the name of the Judge to the fact that the land
described therein is registered in the name of the applicant or oppositor or claimant as the case
maybe. When this is transcribed or spread in toto in the registration book and signed by the
register of deeds, the page on which the transcription is made become the original

19

certificate of title, more commonly called the Torrens title.

The land becomes a registered land only upon the transcription of the decree in the
original registration book by the register of deeds, the date and time of such transcription
being set forth in the process and certified to at the foot of each entry or certificate of title.
The issuance of the original and owners duplicate certificates are basic for the valid
existence of the title. Issuance of additional copies are permissive and their non-existence does
not affect the status of title. A certificate of title is deemed as regularly issued with the
issuance of the original copy and owners duplicate
RP VS CORTEZ
However, Cortez reliance on the foregoing annotation in the survey plan is amiss; it does
not constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the subject
property remains part of the inalienable public domain. In Republic of the Philippines v. TriPlus Corporation,15 the Court clarified that, the applicant must at the very least submit a
certification from the proper government agency stating that the parcel of land subject of
the application for registration is indeed alienable and disposable, viz:
It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the
land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
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 alienable or disposable, remains property of the public
dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is
only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared by the State to be no
longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the
period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a
law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is
duly authorized by law.

D. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN REGISTRATION

CASES
1. NEW TRIAL (judgment set aside)OR
RECONSIDERATION(judgment amended)
Grounds: fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence or
newly discovered evidence
Affidavits of merit
60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment and not more
than 6 months
Exclusive of each other
2. APPEAL
Ordinary appeal
20

Petition for review

Appeal by certiorari
15 days from notice of judgment
Notice and record of appeal within 30 days
3. REVIEW OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION
courts may reopen proceedings already closed by final decision
when application for review is filed within 1 year
date of issuance of patent is equivalent to the decree of
registration
FRAUD MUST BE ACTAUL OR EXTRINSIC
ELAND PHIL INC V GARCIA
Not notified of the land registration case; EXTRINSIC FRAUD

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
RAMOS V RODRIGUEZ
In the case at bench, Administrator Bonifacio filed his report as an officer of the court
precisely to inform the latter that the NLTDRA cannot comply with the order to issue a
decree because the subject lot sought to be registered was discovered to have been
already decreed and titled in the name of the Payatas Estate. Under these
circumstances, the LRA is not legally obligated to follow the court's order.

STERLING INVESTMENT CORP. V RUIZ

"Fraud to be ground for nullity of a judgment must be extrinsic to the litigation.
Were not this the rule there would be no end to litigations, perjury being of such
common occurrence in trials. In fact, under the opposite rule, the losing party
could attack the judgment at any time by attributing imaginary falsehood to his
adversary's proofs. But the settled law is that judicial determination however
erroneous of matters brought within the court's jurisdiction cannot be invalidated
in another proceeding. It is the business of a party to meet and repel his
opponent's perjured evidence."
"Not every kind of fraud, however, is sufficient ground to set aside a judgment.
This Court has held that only extrinsic or collateral, as distinguished from
intrinsic, fraud is a ground for annulling a judgment. 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

21

testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair
and just determination of the case."
RABAJA RANCH DEVPT V AFP RETIREMENT
Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive.
Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional
deception
practiced
by
means
of
the
misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.
Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because
of its detrimental effect upon public interests and
public or private confidence, even though the act is
not done with an actual design to commit positive
fraud or injury upon other persons.
Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud
is regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts
pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or
where the acts constituting the fraud were or could
have been litigated therein. The fraud is extrinsic if it
is employed to deprive parties of their day in court
and thus prevent them from asserting their right to
the property registered in the name of the applicant.
The distinctions assume significance because only
actual and extrinsic fraud had been accepted
and is contemplated by the law as a ground to
review or reopen a decree of registration. Thus,
relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in
land where the fraud consists in a deliberate
misrepresentation that the lots are not contested
when in fact they are; or in willfully misrepresenting
that there are no other claims; or in deliberately
failing to notify the party entitled to notice; or in
inducing him not to oppose an application; or in
misrepresenting about the identity of the lot to the
true owner by the applicant causing the former to
withdraw his application. In all these examples, the
overriding consideration is that the fraudulent
scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party
from having his day in court or from presenting his
case. The fraud, therefore, is one that affects and
goes into the jurisdiction of the court.
We have repeatedly held that relief on the ground of
fraud will not be granted where the alleged fraud
22

goes into the merits of the case, is intrinsic and not

collateral, and has been controverted and decided.
Thus, we have underscored the denial of relief where
it appears that the fraud consisted in the
presentation at the trial of a supposed forged
document, or a false and perjured testimony, or in
basing the judgment on a fraudulent compromise
agreement, or in the alleged fraudulent acts or
omissions of the counsel which prevented the
petitioner from properly presenting the case.

No actual and extrinsic fraud existed in this case. In our

jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed.. Mere allegations
of fraud are not enough. Intentional acts to deceive
and deprive another of his right, or in some manner,
injure him must be specifically alleged and proved. The
burden of proof rests on petitioner, and the petitioner
failed to discharge the burden.
Petitioner did not
convincingly show that the Homestead Patent issued to
Charles is indeed spurious. More importantly, petitioner
failed to prove that respondent took part in the alleged
fraud which dated back as early as 1966 when Charles
supposedly secured the fake and spurious Homestead
Patent.

Once the patent is granted and the corresponding certificate of title is

issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes
private property over which the Dir. Of Lands has neither control nor
jurisdiction
When relief may not be granted- intrinsic/collateral fraud; presentation
at trail fraud
Innocent purchaser for value and in good faith
ROSALES RUFLOE V BURGOS
Forged signatures; not innocent purchasers for value

It has been consistently ruled that a forged deed can legally be the root

23

of a valid title when an innocent purchaser for value intervenes.1[14]

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 persons 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.
As a general rule, every person dealing with registered land, as in this
case, may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued
therefor and will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to
determine the condition of the property. However, this rule admits of an
unchallenged exception
a person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the
Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring
further except when the party has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such
inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of
title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man
to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. The
presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then
prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title
of the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls
within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for
value nor a purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the
protection of the law
SILVERIO V ALMEDA
The grants of deed from Silverio to Silcor and from Silcor to Lancaster were silent as to
1
24

the actual amounts that the lots were sold for; the grant deeds said merely that the
transactions were "for valuable consideration x x x receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged."Yet, Silverio continued not to disclose the actual amounts of those
considerations despite the suit filed in court and the trial that followed. He even uses to
his personal advantage the non-mention of those amounts in the grants of deed, saying
that those grants of deed do not prove profit on their faces.
But, since it is Silverio alone who was in a position to say whether or not the "valuable
consideration" mentioned in those grants spelt profit for the sellers, the call for truth
nudges at him. His suppression of it gives rise to the assumption that its disclosure would
hurt his interest,43 that it would show him to have made a profit from the resale of the lots
and so be liable to the Almedas for that profit. Since the agreement places a cap of
$100,000.00 on the additional compensation arising from the resale, the CA was correct
in ordering Silverio to pay the same.
SAJONAS V CA
Inscription of the notice of levy on execution on the TCT should be
cancelled
whether or not plaintiffs are buyers in good faith of the property of the spouses Uychocde
even notwithstanding the claim of the defendant that said sale executed by the spouses
was made in fraud of creditors, the Court finds that the evidence in this instance is bare of
any indication that said plaintiffs as purchasers had notice beforehand of the claim of the
defendant over said property or that the same is involved in a litigation between said
spouses and the defendant. Good faith is the opposite of fraud and bad faith, and the
existence of any bad faith must be established by competent proof
Under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act which gives validity to the
transfer or creates a lien upon the land. A person dealing with registered land is not
required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property. He is only
charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted on the face of the
register or certificate of title. [20]
i

Although we have relied on the foregoing rule, in many cases coming before us, the
same, however, does not fit in the case at bar. While it is the act of registration which is
the operative act which conveys or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned,
it is likewise true, that the subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificate of Title
cannot prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn to and annotated on the certificate of
title previous to the sale. [21] While it is true that under the provisions of the Property
Registration Decree, deeds of conveyance of property registered under the system, or any
interest therein only take effect as a conveyance to bind the land upon its registration, and
that a purchaser is not required to explore further 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, nonetheless, this rule is not absolute. Thus, one who buys from
ii

25

the registered owner need not have to look behind the certificate of title, he is,
nevertheless, bound by the liens and encumbrances annotated thereon. One who buys
without checking the vendors title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such
failure
UNCHUAN V CA
Note however, that since the filing of the adverse claim, Unchuan has done nothing to prosecute his claim of ownership over
onehalf of the property. He has not, for instance, compelled Jaldon to execute the property instrument so that the sale could be
registered (Assuming that the land was indeed sold to him) and the proper title issued in his name. In fact, the mortgage to the
bank had been foreclosed, and a new title had been issued in the name of Philippine Banking Corporation, but all the Unchuan did
was file an adverse claim.
The Civil Code provides that if the- Rame immovable property is sold to different vendees, "the ownership shall belong to the
person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property" [Art. 1544, Civil Code.] Presidential Decree No.
1529 extends the protection given to an innocent purchaser for value to an innocent mortgagee. [Art 32, Pres. Decree No. 1529
(1978).] Thus grande that Unchuan indeed bought one-half of the property" long before November 3,1976," since he filed his
adverse claim only after the land was mortgaged to the bank, the right of the bank to the property is superior to that of Unchuan.

YU V PACLEB
Spouses Yu not valid purchasers
The law protects to a greater degree a purchaser who buys from the registered owner
himself. Corollarily, it requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys
from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the
transaction is registered. While one who buys from the registered owner does not need
to look behind the certificate of title, 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.
DOMINGO V REED
Not in good faith

When dealing with land that is registered and titled, as in this case,
buyers are not required by the law to inquire further than what the
Torrens certificate of title indicates on its face. It is also settled,
however, that purchasers cannot close their eyes to known facts
that should put a reasonable person on guard. They cannot
subsequently claim to have acted in good faith in the belief that
there was no defect in the vendors certificate of title. Their mere
refusal to face up to that possibility will not make them innocent
purchasers for value, if it later becomes clear that the title was
26

indeed defective, and that they would have discovered the fact, had
they acted with the measure of precaution required of a prudent
person in a like situation.
NRSI V TANJUATCO

The law, no doubt, considers Tanjuatco an innocent purchaser for

value. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of
another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such
property and pays the full price for the same, at the time of such purchase or
before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the
property
As regards the consideration which Tanjuatco paid Cuevas for the
assignment of rights to the lands, suffice it to state that the assignment
merely vested upon Tanjuatco all of Cuevass intangible claims, rights and
interests over the properties and not the properties themselves. At the time
of the assignment, the lots were still the subjects of a pending sales
application before the Bureau of Lands. For, it was not until May 24, 1996,
that titles were issued in Tanjuatcos name. The assignment not being a sale
of real property, it was not surprising that Cuevas demanded from Tanjuatco
only P85,000 for the transfer of rights.
requisites
o petitioner must have an ESTATE/INTEREST in the land
o he must show ACTUAL FRAUD in the procurement of the
decree of registration
o must be filed within 1 YEAR from issuance of decree by the
LRA
o property has NOT yet passed to an INNOCENT PURCHASER
FOR VALUE
E. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
ISSUANCE OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
The cert. Of title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the
register of deeds in the registry. The certificate, once issued, is the evidence
of the title which the owner has. But mere possession of cert of title is not
conclusive as to the holders true ownership of all the property described
therein. (ex. Inclusion of public highways)
27

DECREE BINDS THE LAND AND IS CONLCUSIVE AGAINST THE WHOLE

WORLD
REGISTRATION DOES NOT GIVE A BETTER TITLE THAN WHAT HE
REALLY HAS
PROBATIVE VALUE OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

WHAT TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION:

1.Tracing cloth plan duly approved by the Director of Lands
2.3 copies of technical descriptions
3.3 copies of surveyors certificate
4.All original muniments of title
5.4 copies of certificate by city/provincial treasurer of assessed value of land
MUNIMENT OF TITLE
instruments or written evidences which applicant hold or posses to
enable him to substantiate & prove title to his estate
WRIT OF POSSESSION
order to sheriff to deliver the land to the successful party litigant; no
prescription
1.Against loser
2.Against anyone unlawfully & adversely occupying
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO AGGRIEVED PARTY IN REGISTRATION
PROCEEDINGS:
1. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - must be brought within 15 days from notice of
judgment
a.Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence which ordinary
prudence could not have guarded
b.Newly discovered evidence which could not be discovered &
produced at trial
c.Evidence insufficient to justify decision, decision is against the law
2. APPEAL must be brought 15 days from notice of judgment

28

3. REVIEW OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION available to party deprived of day

in court; became non-party due to misrepresentation; invoke actual fraud;
before expiration of 1 year; specific acts intended to deceive; will no longer
prosper if already transferred to innocent purchaser for value
a.Plaintiff is owner of land registered in name of defendant
b.Registration procured through actual fraud
c.Property has not issued to innocent purchaser for value
d.Action is filed within 1 year after issuance of decree of registration
4 .RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 60 days 6 months after entry of order;
available to party to case, FAME; after judgment; person deprived of right is
party to case
5. RECONVEYANCE action in personam; available so long as property not
passed yet to innocent purchaser for value; bad faith or with notice of defect
6 .RECOVERY FOR DAMAGES
a. Person is wrongfully deprived of his land by registration in name of
another actual or constructive fraud
b. No negligence on his part
c .Barred/ precluded from bringing an action
d. Action for compensation has not prescribed

29

i
ii