ffiEEEffiE*l[sf,llflIflgfE

A Forest land is a non-regi3trable land. Only thcoxecutive branch of the govrnment cen declassify forest land into alienable agricultunl lrndr. Mrrc paymGnt of land taxaa la not sufficiont, it must br couplad wlth po$e$lon ln th concapt of an ownsr.

Oppositors can introduce evidence to support opposition

9.

Doclsion

-ftnc

cltuations:

,PRocEsygnF"EHgnEFIlo,s-oJ

1.

Survay i:- results in suryey. phn to be slgned by a geodetic 6ngln$r and.approved by th6 dirctor of Lands.

' .

c.

a. b.

court dccldes in favor of applicant coutt decides in favor of oppositor/s

court dlmisses ca$e because nobody

proves

2. flr

appllqstlod fbr registration udth RTC where land is

10. Court issue3 ordcr for a Decre. 11. lssuanc of a Decree. 12. R6gistsr of OeBds issues Original Certificate of Titte.

actually situated:

a. idontify basis of ownership b. ldntry hnd c. identifiadJacent.owners d. tdentfy oaaxlpants/tenantr. e. ldanu,y sncumbrFnces
.

EEITEOIE8

1.
otheMise

From an Ord6r of Oefault

3. ..Seung of initlal hearlng,

.llotl.tureqgliqqpce ilt r dladofr'--pet tu for reliof on the grounds of

tchion - file a @tion to lifl order of default ground of ftauq, ftau4, accident, rnbbke and

Opposltor fileserqdfied opposition on ol.hahre hearingi

fraud, accident, mistake and negligence

6.

btrerwtbc, oourt lsSuea Adar b, daoral dcfauJi OR if the

2.

From a Deoillon

7.

gcuhr

improvements, loB ownBrs, adjacent inspection 6wners. Then the ciiurt will prepara a repod.
Hcarlng/Trtgl

a. The losing party may ,ile a moton fq .f,I*lml8n''pn the ground that lhe decision is inrbil'i; tiw/eridence. lt must'b fihd wlhin 15
dayg from receipt, olherwise, the decision becomes
final.

the applicant must prove thrc. things:

b.

'.,

c.

b.

proof o, $Dlh.!on (JurEdlctlonrl proof olryFrrf;hlp proof of ld.ntity of land

mrtt 0

Thc loting party may file a motion for, new trial on tha grounds of fraud, accidont, mistake atrd ucu..blo ncgligonoo or . ncwly dlacover.d
aviCCnoc. lt must be flled wlthin 15 day3,

-.{*#-s=s
c.

H U ffi-ffitrffE=I
sogflffigg$:
.
whcrc a person is deprived of land because of aclllal fraud or breach of trust, he may recover the
tand:

The losing party'may qppqf$n th6 ground that the decision ls contrary to lawcvldrnco. lt may be filed wlthin '15 days.

party can lils a motlon for a new tlal. lf thc motion for a new trial is Ceni.d, the party may still appcal.

As a gBnaral rule, the party mult fllc clther a motion for .con3id.rafon or a ,notion for naw td8l (Omnibus motion rulc, put all grounds). lt-ihare ir nayly dircovered evidence aficr ftling a rnotiori for reconsldsratlon and the party is not awara ot lt .at ths tlm6 of hdadne, .nd lf lt was doniod, the

i.

3.

From a Flnal Judgment 6pse of 15 days.

- declllon becomes final afrer the

lrust if aggrived party b not ln posssdon if aggrivad pa.ty. in . poasession of laod, action ls to quiet title which is imprescriptiblc, Cabrsra v. CA, 267 scRA 339) lli. at any time if there is breach of an express

ll.

within 4 years from.discov6ry of fraud where thre ls need to annul a fraudulent d6ed (i.e. lraud is thru document or contraot) wlthin 't0 yearc from breadt ot an lmpliad

.of land (because

.faffgo{.r,ror

Whera s-d6crao0G not yet b6en issued, thc lo3lng party may fil6 a rdLf under rule 38 of the Rula! of Court on the grounds of fraud, accidont, mbtaka and excusabL nogllganaE. lt must be verified and filodq'daW.from nouco but'no mol. than 6 months from enw of d6cEloft.

trust

b
,for valus.

not trans$effed to an innocsnt pwchasir

- Failure to intentional omission of applioant to disclose the actual physical pos3sssion of propcrty ln sppllcation for land reglstration, e3 a rBult of which such porson ls not givn notic of proceedings, .mount! to actual fraud. {Exttlnslc fraud where it
prevenE a party from having a trial.) (Roxag v, CA, 270 SCRA 209). Where a Decree has already been issued,

But if already sold to lPV, the only remedy for the losing Party is to ,ile an acuon for daruaerfiegainst the perPtrator of fraud within 4 ysa$. He will not grt tho land back, only the value of the land plus
damagos.

petition for r.gsw junder;S6c. 32, PD 4!!tr1 on tho ground of deprivagon of dominical .rights"orer the lead hrf aCud .nd sxtrinsic fraud" lt must b6 fil6d within 'l year from,lssuangs of th dEcree providd there is no lnnocent purchaser for valuc (lPV). An IPV is one who buys the properly without knowlsdge of 8ny defect in the
title AND pays Just price for the land.

he loslng parly may

file a

..Sdl[lh[E{re awlrded when tnere i9rnn*ut dePrivation of ldd, (!tro negligence ot tAc party deprived, posslble, @conveyance is not
anSlon
is lild wl$rin four years.

acuon ,or damagaa agalnst the Aasuranc Fund withln O..).ears., provided there is n*ncgllgence and breach ol trust
NOTE:

lf the prpo*sbr at rilrd'.ls

.insolvsnt the losing party may file an

Howcvcr, lt*0ntht${nB,!P4lhe3 C.Drad, th. lorlng parly mav file an llgoti- lor rloonvcyancq-bn th. ground thrt th prsoo lost domhlcdl rlght! ov.r thc proplrty b.cau$ of .xtrlnslc fraud or bnach of trutt, provld.d thore 13 no lPV.

Iraooant purchcr.l lor

wluc

no notlc! of flaw or claim of other pe6on payt a full and fair pdce

r-*-E n r--* rl
.
As a must examine the selle/s dupllcato certificate df title (lslamlc Oirectorate v. CA, 272 SCRA 254)
squatter3) .ca0 ba cvlcted/ousted by a

fr i il !
ohange from lSod Cande, married to Ana Santos' to'Sed Cande.' lf wlfia objects, sec. 108 is not spplicable. lt must
go thru a full-blown hearing.

gen.r.l rul., c llnaldcislon wlh.publlcellon blnd6 all parties in rem, thlrctora, blnda th. wholo world, hrDi. (oppo8ibrs and

court

lf a peBon cnteB befor the lgsu.nor of thg decree, the rfi:6fFiEidiliiir,l.Eut

mrr(trilot port$tbn

from

owner can eriict the person .thru a

enters atar"h l$uance of the decree, the owner must file an ejoctIlent ruit.

lf a dupllcatg OGT l3 lott, one may ,ile an action for rplacomEnt lf the origlnal OCT l! lofl'.tone may file for an ection for tcaomtitufion. lf a titla has b6cn rcconstituted, anyone dealing with the title must exercis extraordinery diligence to be deemed an lPV.

. C.rtlllcrt of TlU. ti
An Orlginal Ccrdflcate of TiUa l$ 6videnco of Utlc, lhat lho land is registerd undor the Torens System,i lt E bsuod ln two copies; one orBinal uAich ls with the Register of DeoCs rnd onc duplicate for the registeredormer.
Conflitctlng
.

Petiuon must nolify occupants, adjacent owners and adveEe clafnants by publhtthn, posting and Personal notic3. Otherwise, rconstituted titlc la vold.
\Alhere brother.blrs( grgtends to be the rogistered owner of land,

fibs for

cer ficatGs

prior

UUe

prBvails unlo!!

def.ctive

.1.Arffi&Iitti
Amendmenb can be donesummarity und+Ecc. 108 of P0 1529 if: rcglrtered intorest termlnab! or there is 6rror inc8rtiflcats no serious dispute as to enpr or chang of status
doo3 not amount to reoPnlog doer not lmpah, rights of innoor{ purchaser But if there B a ,substantial. change in the OCL or the change is disputed, the parly must go thru th6or'dn8ry*lsglsttalion proceding, E.g.

espechuy whera Eu. registered owner still has copy of his TCT (Torres v. Ca, 186 SCRA 167)

recondlttllon, obtains reconstitutd cortllicat and nrortgags to anEthat, mortgagee has no bettor right th8n mortgagor

3.Dat&h${lo irq|l
.first records the Eala ln rogistry of proPerty.

Asale affect! thld pcGons only from date of registration. Under Art 1544 of the Clvil Codr, ownership passes to buyer in good faith who
Notica of advan. chlrtl is a measure designd to Prot6ct he interst of a peocon ovcr a place of land ald serues as a warning to third persorl3 dsating wih ssid property, that someons b daiming atl

,t,

L
2.

cannot be changa from 16 degrees to 'lE degrsca tl.tis is a t08 under Seo. because aummarily changed iuuJ&nuarCnanse.'Fiteanordinsryproc.oding. \, Upocnphlcal oror
"Joaquln

interest thsreon, (SeJonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79)' But notlco must ,6tate how and undaf:rrhom the alleged right of clahant acguird. (Lozano v. Balle3t ro3, 195 SCRA 681): Adverse claim efiecti+e' qnp6 ntgred in dqy book even if ow,neds duplicat not 8urndered.'
(Garcia v. CA, 95 SCRA 380).

Bam!..'

chan96 from 'Jotquln B.arrnas' to

l*lnf,E[lBlT'E,ltTRATIOM
you deal with lt)

(16., the land is already titled .nd

ffiffif--5trtrrrnrE
NotB: Thsrc

r?nr
X regirta,d owner ot TCT 12345 VALID goer lo US, so gives title to friend Y

lr rogiltratlon

of voluntary tranracuonr (rale, mortgagE,

etc.) oncr dcad antcrod ln day book AND raglrtrant surrenderg

1.

Mortg.g.

Y-

onfurtod byX X'r signature in deed of sale of Lnd ln Y's favor. Y gets TCT 12346 from Rggister of Oeeds (Y ir r forger, therefore, Y has a
torgGs

VOID

A mortgago ls de6md registered ll th. mortgage is entered in the day book 6ven if it b not annotstgd at tho ack of th titls. ThErfor, a buyer is bound by th6 mortgage. Latest SC
decision: 6ntry of mortgage in day book

void tiue)

rcgistration

2,
-

AdvEe Cl.lmr or Lls Pondont

An'advers claim has a life of 30 dayr, o0iorwlg, it.lapses. An affldavit ol adveire clalm must be entcrud !t gnca into the day book so lhat tho subsequent buyer Ir con{rucuvely bound. ln case of doubl! rgle, th6 person c:nnot lnvoke rogistration in good faith B monuoned ln Art 15i4 qf iho Civil Code of the Phllippirrei whcn there b a lb pendona'tnnoEtcd at th6 back of th. tiuc. Filing of an actbn may Eke 0mcr'

Y ralb land to Z as IPV Z VALIO Z reghters land and gets TCT 12347 Z ha! a vElid title

X returns and arkg Y for title and learns the sale of land to z. X cannot recovr from Z because as bgtween two pe6ons, the one who caused tha lo$ and who is deemed negligent must sufier. Remedy o, X Ir to lib an action against Y for damages. But if Z has not yet obtained title, X can recover from Z.
Example # 2

CHAIN OF TITLE

This is an exceptlon to th6 civil law doctrlna lhat

be higtier than the source, i.e., even I buyer can have tiue. So forged documnt can bo ths root of a valid
titlE.

h6 stream cannot thc tdler has no titlo, the

X Y

own! TCT 12345 mlsrspresents to Z that he is X and sells the land to

z
I
I

The parties who forgad the deed and slmulatad the signaturBs of other parties are in bad faith and the lorged dood is a nullity and cannot serve as a just title (Reyes v. CA, 258 SCRA 651). Exampl. # I TITLE

negligent becausc hc has the duty to find out that the seller is th registord owner, hcrcfora, X can recover the proporty from Z. Abo if th pric of th6 proporty is suspiciously low. Therd is no chain of title sincs Y did not gatiany title in his name, therefor, Z has no tiue
slso.

Z-

lf Z gets title, TCT 12347

title is VOID; Z is

ftllIffit--E---I--II-lrEE
Examplo # 3

;r*E-a
A deed of salo 6xGcut6d by an impostor without the authority of the owner of the land told is a nullity, and registration will not validate what otheMiso b an invalid doqrment. However, where the cartiflcate of tltlc wtt alroady transfered from the nrmo of the trug ownr to thc to8ar and, while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser, ths vondee had the right lo rely upon u/hat eppeered in the certificate and in he absence of anything to cxclto suspicion, was under no obligation to look
beyond the cerllllcatc.

Y forgca th. ded of sale but doa! not rgister it to get a Z. Z buys. Y makas dcad of title in favor of Z. X can recovr th property from Z becausa $crc ia no chain of titl. As betwren 2 pccons, the on6 who should rhouldor the loss is the one who ls nogllgrnt. ln thls oxample, Z l! nrgligont. Note that X must have a valld ljtle in the tirst placo, oha,r,vlso, thr6 can be NO chain of title. Nota further that lf there ls no chain of Utle but land is
new title. Y shows to mortgaged, X can recovbr ftom Z but mu3t rospect tho mortgage.

lrl " . suwivy of'Rrccnt:Gitoc on Land

titlo and Dreds

Grffion
.!,:

Duran v. IAC ' 138 SCRA 489 Circa ow)ed two lots. ShE left for the U.S. Lator, a deed of sale was made in faVor of Circe's mother, which dsod wa! rcgistered. Circe's mother then mortgaged the lots. when Circo lcamed about this, she wrote th6 rglstar of deeds that she nsvcr rxacutad tho doed of sale to her mothr. ln the meantime, th mortgagge has foreclosed. When Circ!'s mother failed to redeem, fta riortgagee obtained title ln its nam.. Clrce clalmed her signature ln thc dced was a forgery.

Nouce3 to owneo of adjoining lots and actual occupants of the subject proprty erc not mandatory and jurisdictional ln petition for judicial reconstitutlon of destroyed OCT when the source of such reconstitution lr hc owne/s duplicate copy therBof (Republic v.
Planes, 38'l SCRA 216).

Registration is not equivalent of title. Under the Tonens System, rBgistrauon only elvct validity to the transfer or creat8 a lien upon the land. A holder in bad faith of a certiflcate of title is not entiued to tho protection of hw, for the law cannot be used as a shleld for fraucl. (Lee v. Manlpon, 30J SCRA 788).

Any lin annohtcd on previous certificates

HELD: Whlb Aticlr'2oEs of th8 Civll Codo rlqulne own$ship by tba mortgagor of thg hod to make thr".fnotttga valid, lneofar as tldd.padice ara conoorn4 .Orcal8, q)ensr. . lt b a gancral rule that here ls no dgly to look beyond tha crlificate of title. The mortgagee is ln good failh. lt aoquk6d titlc. Ciree did not Ev6n lntervene ln the foroclGura rsle. She was r!6Slrg.nt

ffi#r$,trY-,.i't

of tiue should be incorporatod ln or oanicd over to the new certjficatg of Utl. Such liBn ls inssparabla trcm the properly as it ls a right ln rm. (Padcon Condo Corp. v, Or{grt Center, 382 SCRA 222).
issuanc. (Alvarlco v. Sola, 383 SCRA 232).

frTfiliffi;;

urrria pa'ty's bare allesation to defeat the OCT which on its faca onJoys the legal presumption of regularity of
A private individual may not bring an action for reversion (ld.)

an!ffifnailo rucA 4gototrnA,@, It h.t b..n con.lrt ntly h.ld thrt a forgrd docd orn lcaally
,oot of a vrlld Utla whcn

!n

bc the lnnocont purchatar for valuc lntrrvrns.

land3 rataln thclr lnharut potential as areas for public use or public se,.lcs (Ch8vrr v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152).

to prlvatc partha unllka other alinable public land!

Historlcally, landt racLimed by governmsnt are not Jvailable for sale

reclalm.d

ffifi
Jurisprudence holding that the grant

t} n Ir $-fl--{- t-{- I I 5 fi-q-f--ir

of

Utle the alienable land

of

of hc

Patcnt ot

issuance of
domain

The State prohibits th6 Bale or encumbrance of the homestead within five years after th6 grant of patent. (Republic v. Ale,aga, 393 SCRA
361)

public

Even after the lapla of one year, the Stat6 may bring action for reversion if public hnd has been fraudulently granted. (ld.)
When a party has actuel knowledge of facts and circum3tances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make inquiry, relying on the face of the title b not enough. (Naawan Com. Rural Bank v. CA,
395 SCRA43)

Such lands must bs transfened to qualified prlvate parties or government utilitios not tasked to dispose of Public lands before
these lands can bcome private or pattimonlal lands' (ld.)

A building in good faith i9 one who builds wlth the beliefs that the
land h is building on is his. (Orquiola v. CA, 380 SCRA 301).

An action to quit tiue may be brought whon thQre rxists a cloud on the title to ral property or any interest thereon, (Gapacan v. Olnlpet,

of titls case nnot be properly dismissed on the ground of forum shopplng predicated on tiling and Pending of a damage case. (UP v, Su8i, 397 SCRA 365)
Cancellation

387SCM3E3)..

'

A survy of land oubJcct of an

apPlication

for registration is an

Once a parcel of land ls included within a watershcd r$ervation duly established by Executlve Proclamation, a Prerumpuon arisos that the land continues to be part of such reservatlon - rnd 13 inalienabls until clear and convlncing evidence of sub3aqucnt declassification is shown. (Collado v. CA 390 SCRA 343)'

essential requisite. (Dolino v. CA, 401 SCRA 695)

A certilication

'of

titlc c.nnot be subject of collateral attack. (Anicete

v. Balanon, 402 SCRA 5t4)

The right of revorsion or reconveyanoo to ho State of public properties regbtered and which are not capable of private
appropriation doe8 not prescribe (ld,)

Ownership is not tho sama as OCT. The latter is only the evidence of ownership. (Erman v. Erman, 403 SCRA 193)

PeBons dealing wlth proPerly covered by a Toncna certiflcate of title, as buyeB or mortgages, are not rqulrd to go beyond what appears onthe face of the tiue. (De Leon v' Calalo, 391 SCRA 752).

An actlon i3 an rthck on a titl6 when the object of the action is to nulliff the titl6 .nd hul challenge the ,iudgment or proceeding pursuant to which tho tltlo was decreed. The attack 13 direct when the objsct of an ac{on is to annul of set aside such judgment or enjoin its enforcemcnt (ld.)
A counter-claim can bo considered a direct attack on the title. (ld.)

Mere adverso po$ession for a period provlded by law would automatically eniitle thc possessor to the right to roglrter Public land in his nams- but h. has to esteblish tho disp6abb and alienable character of he land by a positive aci of govomm3nt such 8s a oresidential groclamrtion, executivs order, !n admlnbtratvo sction, invcrtlgetlon rcPort ol th. Burcau of Land.-, laglslatlvc act or certtficatlon of thc oENR (Rcpubllc v. cA, 392 SCRA 190).

The one-year period does not apply when the pe6on seeking
annulmeni of title or ne-conveyance is in possssion of the lot' (ld.) Absenca of opporltlon from government agencies i3 of no moment becauso ths StatG clnnot be estopped by the omisslon' mistaks, or enor of lte officiala and agents. (Republic v. Lac,405 SCRA291)

lr rf tl t* rl-*-t*
Declassification

lt l[ ll ,u--{J---+ ll-& ta ll ll Il #
conversion into alienable land
destroyed,

TJ

requires an expross gnd positive act from thc govommnt. 0d.)

of forast land and

there is nothing to rcconsutute. Th rcondtuuon procEedings and second owne/g duplioato certificat3 of tlu. aro vold. (Pineda v' CA' 409 SCRA 438)

lf the own./t duplloatc crtlllcate of tltl. It not lort or

No valid TCT can issue from a void TQT unlcss an

innocent

But lhe nullity of thc cscond duplicate TCT dld not atfact tho validity of the sals bltween spouses Benitez and MoJlcE nor the validity of a mortgag6 annotated thereon if th mottgago annotqted the mortgage in good faith. What la void b lhe reconstitut9d TCT' not tho title of ownership of MoJice or Gonzales. (ld.)

The fact that the orlginal ovrner (Moiica) had knowledge of a first unregistered mortgage did nbt constituh ac'tual notice to the scond aBnt proof thct he lettor had actual mortiaoee (Gonzales), 'unregistored mortgag., The subsequent bf such xnorieige annotation of lis P.ndcm do33 not dsfeat lhc rlghtt of the qrortgagee (Gonzal6) who' rrglltred hlS mortgagc whan the notlco of lis ilendens vrras not yi snnotated or tho puftfi8lar et the auction sale rnho derives hig rlghB from the mortgag.o. Thc rule is that the
auction sale retroaCts to the dat6 of the regiatrauon of the mortgage. (td.)

Where clalm of po$ession of land startod ln 1962, such B not ' sufficient basis td apply for registratlon of sudl land whlch under PD1073 and 1529 gh6uld have started slnca Junc 12, 1945 ot
earlier. (Nadela v. City of Cebu, 411 SCRA 315)

The orivato oartior are precluded from clalmlng ownership of the 'ln land dEDuta as the lssue of o,vnershlp by UP ha3 long been settled in ;umerous decisions of lho Suprcm Court and have thereforc b.comc lnconto3table. (Pael v. CA, 416 SCRA 451)