Sec. of DENR vs.

Yap possession of the land since time

FACTS: immemorial
● The court of appeals granted mayor ● Republic opposed the application,
yap declaratory relief to have a judicial stating that the land is part of public
confirmation of imperfect title or survey domain not subject to private
of land for titling purposes for the land appropriation
they have been occupying and boracay. ● Munoz replied to the opposition
● Yap alleged that Proclamation No. professing that his parents acquired the
1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised land and declared such land for taxation
doubts on their right to secure titles over purposes in his name in 1920
their occupied lands. ● RTC noted a report that such land is
● Yap alleged open, continuous, covered by Free Patent of Munoz’s
exclusive, and notorious possession and mother
occupation since 1945, or since time ● RTC and CA ruled in favor of
immemorial Munoz, and granted the application
● Yap declared land for taxes and ISSUE:
paid realty taxes ● W/N Munoz has proven by
ISSUE: competent evidence that the property is
● W/N Proclamation 1801 and PTA alienable and disposable property of the
Circular 3-82 posed legal obstacles to public domain
Yap et al. and similarly situated RULING:
individuals to acquire titles to their ● SC ruled against CA, stating that
occupied lands in Boracay CA’s basis (report of director of lands)
RULING: is not enough to assume alienability of
● SC ruled against Yap et al. said land
● Proclamation did not convert ● Applications for confirmation of
portions of Boracay into an agricultural imperfect title must be able to prove: a)
land Land is part of alienable and disposable
● Regalian Doctrine states that public domain b) Open, continuous,
unclassified land is State Property exclusive and notorious possesstion
● Claimants cannot apply for judicial under a bona fide claim of ownership
confirmation of imperfect title under since time immemorial or since June 12,
Proclamation 1604, with respect to lands 1945
which were classified as agricultural ● Regalian Doctrine states that all
lands lands of the public domain belong to the
● Yap et al. failed to prove open, State, which means any land not within
continuous, etc possession of their lands private ownership belongs to the state
in Boracay ● Applicants of registration must
establish existence of a positive act of
Republic vs. Munoz govt (Presidential proclamation,
Executive order, administrative action,
and/or statute)
FACTS: ● Munoz failed to prove a positive act
of govt due to lack of CENRO
● Munoz filed an Application for
certificate
Registration of Title of a parcel of
● Republic’s petition is granted
residential land
● Such property was acquired by his
parents through donation inter vivos,
and that their family has been in
 Rural Bank of Anda vs. Roman as pathway, parking space, and
Catholic Archbishop of Lingayen- playground
● Lot 736 was used by the public in
Dagupan general
● Both parties failed to prove their
right over the lot
FACTS: ● Honghok v. David has established
that “No evidence whatever that the
● Lot in dispute is Cadastral Lot 736 property in question was ever
which joins the lot of RC Archbishop’s acquired by the applicants or their
lot ancestors…. Must be held for public
● Rector of the seminary built a fence domain”
separating Lot 736 from the national ● In accordance with Article XII,
road, but has several openings and no Section 2 of the Constitution (Regalian
gate Doctrine) the state owns all lands and
● Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley, waters of the public domain
Pangasinan passed and approved a ● Municipal corporations cannot
resolution converting said lot into a appropriate to themselves public or
commercial lot government lands without prior grant
● Mayor leased a portion of the lot to from the govt.
Rural Bank of Anda ● Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley
● During construction of Rural Bank exceeded its authority in passing the
of Anda’s building, the Mayor and a resolutions, therefore making such
Father of the seminary agreed to stop resolutions void
construction of the building ● Contract of lease between
● A year later, the Mayor told the Municipality of Binmaley, and Rural
Bank that construction of the building Bank of Anda is void
will resume, and that he will discuss
with RC Archbishop about the problem Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR
concerning said lot
● RC Archbishop filed a complaint FACTS:
for Abatement of Illegal Constructions ● Isagani Cruz, and Cesar Europa, as
● RTC granted and issued a writ of
citizens and taxpayers assail the
preliminary injunction and made it
constitutionality of the Indigenous
permanent
People’s Rights Act of 1997
● CA affirmed RTC decision but
● They state that provisions of IPRA
modified awards and expenses, and
amount to unlawful deprivation of the
subsequently denied motion for State’s ownership over lands of the
reconsideration public domain, violating the Regalian
ISSUE: Doctrine
● W/N the Resolution made by
ISSUE:
Sangguniang Bayan of Binmaley is
● Does the IPRA contravene Article
valid
XII, Section 2 of the Constitution
RULING:
(Regalian Doctrine)
● Both RC Archbishop and
RULING:
Municipality of Binmaley admit not ● No, IPRA provisions do not
having a title over the disputed Lot 736 contravene the Constitution
● RC Archbishop claims the lot based
● Nothing in the provisions grants
on open, continuous, adverse, and
Indegenous people ownership over the
uninterrupted possession of said lot, but
natural resources
records show the lot was used by people
 ● Natural resources still belong to the ● CULTIVATED LAND - 20
State YEARS uninterrupted, and
● IPRA merely gives Indigenous UNCULTIVATED LAND - 30 YEARS
people rights as owners and occupants ● Natives without a paper title are not
of the land on which the resources are trespassers.
found, rights to small scale utilization of ● Applicant's possession was not
the resources, and a priority in their unlawful, and no attempt at any such
large scale development and proceedings against him or his father
exploitation ever was made.
● Ancestral lands are not part of TN: It is not enough to declare native
the lands of the public domain, they are title by claiming possession since time
of Native Title (XPN to Regalian immemorial through predecessors, it
Doctrine) must be proven that even before the
● Rights of Indigenous people on Spanish conquest, that the indigenous
the land is a limited form of ownership community has been established.
(They cannot alienate said land)
TN: One person cannot own an Grey Alba v. de la Cruz
ancestral domain, it is of communal Topic: Torrens System of
ownership, therefore privately owned,
but by a community Registration, Meaning
Facts:
Carino vs. Insular Government · The petitioners herein are the he only
heirs of Doña Segunda Alba Clemente and
FACTS: Honorato Grey. The four petitioners, as co-
owners, on Dec. 18, 1906 sought to have
registered a parcel of agricultural land in
● Mateo Carino is an Igorot from the
Bulacan. The petition was accompanied by a
Province of Benguet
plan and technical description of the said lot.
● For more than 50 years before the
After hearing the court, on Feb. 12, 1908,
Treaty of Paris, Carino and his ancestors
entered a decree directing that described in the
has held the land as recognized owners
by the Igorots petition be registered in the names of the 4
● Carino petitioned alleging petitioners.
· On Jun, 1908, Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz
ownership under the mortgage law, but
filed a motion in the Court of Land Registration
only granted him possessory title
(CLR) asking for a revision of the case,
● Even with the possessory title, he
including the decision, upon the ground that he
cannot have it registered, because
is the absolute owner of the 2 parcels of land
Philippine Commission’s Act No. 926
of 1903, excepts Benguet among others described in said motion and which he alleges to
from its operations be included in the lands decreed to the
ISSUE: petitioners. He alleges that the decree of Feb. 12,
1908 was obtained maliciously and fraudulently
● W/N Carino has ownership to the
by the petitioners, thereby depriving him of said
said land, and is entitled to registration
lands. For him, The petitioners deliberately
RULING:
omitted to include in their registration his name
● Spanish Law dictates that where
as one of the occupants of the land so as to be
possessors are unable to produce title
deeds, it is sufficient that they show given notice of registration. He further alleged
ancient possession as a valid title by having inherited the 2 lots from his father,
Baldomero R. de la Cruz, who had a state grant
prescription
for the same (was duly inscribed in the old
register of property in Bulacan on April 6,
1895.)
 · He therefore asked a revision of the case, Legarda vs. Saleeby
and that the said decree be modified so as to Topic: Torrens System of
exclude the two parcels of land described in said
motion. The Land Court upon this motion Registration, Purpose
reopened the case, and after hearing the Facts:
additional evidence presented by both parties, • A stone wall stands between the
rendered, on the Nov. 23, 1908, its decision adjoining lot of Legarda and Saleeby.
modifying the former decree by excluding from • The said wall and the strip of land
the same the two parcels of land claimed by where it stands is registered in the Torrens
Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz. system under the name of Legarda in 1906.
• Six years after the decree of
Issue: WON modification of the decree as to registration is released in favor of Legarda,
exclude said land will prosper. Saleeby, applied for registration of his lot
under the Torrens system in 1912, and the
Ruling: decree issued in favor of the latter included
• No, the main principle of registration the stone wall and the strip of land where it
is to make registered titles indefeasible stands.
• The Torrens Land Registration
System was introduced by Sir Robert Issue:
Torrens in 1857. • Who should be considered as the
• Upon the presentation in court if an owner of the land which has been registered
application for the registration of the title to under the name of two persons?
lands, the theory under the Torrens system Ruling:
is that all occupants, adjoining owners, • Legarda first acquired title and it is
adverse claimants, and other interested binding against the whole world.
persons are notified of the proceedings, and • The first registrant, when issued a
have a right to appear in opposition to such certificate of title over that land, should
application. already rest secured that the title is theirs.
• IOW, the proceeding is against • The real purpose of the Torrens
the world. System of Land Registration is to quiet title
• A proceeding is in rem when the to land; to put a stop forever to any question
object of the action is to bar indifferently of the legality of the title, except claims
all who might be minded to make an which were noted, at the time of registration
objection of any sort against the right in the certificate, or which may arise
sought to be established, and if anyone in subsequent thereto.
the world has a right to be heard on the • Once a title is registered, the owner
strength of alleging facts which, if true, may rest secure, the title is really yours.
show an inconsistent interest. The law guarantees the title of the registered
• In the Torrens system title by owner once it has entered into the Torrens
registration takes the place of “title by system. A land already registered to a
deeds” of the system under the general law. person under the Torrens System cannot
A sale of land, for example, is effected by anymore be subsequently registered by
a registered transfer, upon which a another person even if the prior registrant
certificate of title is issued. did not present an opposition thereto.
 Traders Royal Bank vs. Descallar Ruling:
Topic: Torrens System of • The court ruled that a Torrens title is
presumed to be valid which purpose is to
Registration, Purpose avoid conflicts of title to real properties. The
Facts: purpose of the Torrens System of
• A parcel of land owned by the spouses Registration is the protection of property
Capay was mortgage to and subsequently rights. When the subsequent buyers bought
extrajudicially foreclosed by Traders Royal the property there was no lis pendens
Bank (TRB). To prevent property sale in annotated on the title.
public auction, the Capays filed a petition • TN: The Capays only raised the issue
for preliminary injunction alleging the of ownership of the subsequent owners after
mortgage was void because they did not 15 years. The SC rules that they are guilty
receive the proceeds of the loan. A notice of of laches. They have slept on their right by
lis pendens (suit pending) was filed before laches. If they wanted to protect their
the Register of Deeds with the notice ownership, they should have made sure that
recorded in the Day Book. it was annotated.
• Meanwhile, a foreclosure sale • Hence, the court ruled that the
proceeded with the TRB as the sole and subsequent buyers obtained the property
winning bidder. The Capays title was from a clean title in good faith and for value.
cancelled and new one was entered in If a person purchases a piece of land on the
TRB’s name without the notice of lis assurance that the seller's title thereto is
pendens carried over the title. valid, he should not run the risk of being told
• The Capays filed recovery of the later that his acquisition was ineffectual
property and damages. Court rendered a after all.
decision declaring the mortgage was void • Every person dealing with a registered
for want of consideration and thus cancelled land may safely rely on the correctness of
TRB’s title and issued new cert. of title for the title and is not obliged to interpret what
the Capays. Pending its appeal before the is beyond the face of the registered title.
court, TRB sold the land to Santiago who • Therefore, the property cannot be
subsequently subdivided and sold to buyers taken away to their prejudice. Thus, TRB is
who were issued title to the land. Court ruled duty bound to pay the Capays the fair
that the subsequent buyers cannot be market value of the property.
considered purchasers for value and in good
faith since they purchase the land after it SM Prime Holdings Inc. Madayag
became a subject in a pending suit before the
court. Although the lis pendens notice was Topic: Torrens System of
not carried over the titles, its recording in the Registration, Indefeasibility
Day Book constitutes registering of the land Facts:
and notice to all persons with adverse claim · In 2001, Madayag filed with the RTC of
over the property. TRB was held to be in bad Urdaneta, Pangasinan an application for
faith upon selling the property while registration of a parcel of land with an area of
knowing it is pending for litigation. The 1,492 s. meters located in Barangay Anonas,
Capays were issued the certificate of title of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Attached to the
the land in dispute while TRB is to pay application was a tracing cloth of Survey Plan
damages to Capays. Psu-01-008438, approved by the LMS-DENR,
Issue: Region 1, San Fernando City.
• WON TRB is liable for damages · SM opposed the application because
• WON the subsequent buyers have a allegedly, the lot encroached on the properties it
better right over the land in dispute. recently purchased from several lot owners. SM
also filed with the DENR a petition for
cancellation of the survey plan. After which, SM
filed with the RTC an Urgent Motion to Suspend agencies because that power settles issues of
Proceeding in the land registration case alleging ownership over the land is already given to the
that the trial court should wait for DENR’s RTC or Land Registration Court.
resolution of the petition.
· After the trial, the RTC suspended the Government of the Philippine
registration proceedings on the ground that the
petition for cancellation of the survey plan filed
Islands vs. Abural
by SM with DENR is prejudicial to the Topic: Torrens System of
determination of the land registration case since a Registration, Indefeasibility
survey plan is one of the mandatory requirements Facts:
in such proceedings. · Cadastral proceedings were commenced in
· When Madayag appealed to CA, the latter the municipality of Hinigaran, Province of
ratiocinated that the survey plan, which was duly Occidental Negros, upon an application of the
approved by the DENR, should be accorded the Director of Lands, on June 16, 1916. Notice of the
presumption of regularity, and that the RTC has proceedings were published in the Official
the power to hear and determine all questions Gazette as provided by law.
arising from an application for registration. · The instant petitioners, Antipas Vazquez
Issue: and Basilio Gayares, although said to reside in
· WON the jurisdiction the RTC has over this municipality, and although said to have
land registration proceedings is affected if there participated in other cadastral cases, did not enter
is a petition filed in DENR to cancel the survey any opposition as to this lot.
plan · A judgement was rendered and the court
Ruling: declared that the Lot No. 1608 is to be registered
· Yes. The Court held that as an incident to to Victoriano Siguenza and Marcela Guanzon.
its authority to settle all questions over the title of · Eight months later, that is, on July 23, 1917,
the subject property, the land registration court but before the issuance by the Land Registration
may resolve the underlying issue of whether the Office of the so-called technical decree, Antipas
subject property overlaps the petitioner’s Vazquez and Basilio Gayares, the latter as
properties without necessarily having to declare guardian of the minor Estrella Vazquez, came
the survey plan as void. into the case for the first time.
· A land registration court has the duty to · The petitioners, after setting forth their right
determine whether the issuance of anew of ownership in lot No. 1608, and that it was
certificate of title will alter a valid and existing included in their "Hacienda Santa Filomena," and
certificate of title. An application for registration after stating that they were in complete ignorance
of an already titled land constitutes a collateral of the proceedings, asked that the judgment of the
attack on the existing title, which is not allowed court be annulled and that the case be reopened to
by law. receive proof relative to the ownership of the lot.
· The SC held that the RTC need not wait for Issue: WON the case can be re-opened.
the decision of the DENR in the petition to cancel Ruling:
the survey plan in order to proceed with the · No. The SC held that it cannot be re-opened
registration proceedings. because the ground for re-opening it was
· PD 1529 grants the Land Registration Court ignorance of the proceedings, in other words they
or RTC the power to settle all issues regarding were not informed. The ground to re-open the
land registration including the survey plan. case must be fraud, not ignorance.
· It is indefeasible because of the power of · The prime purpose of the Torrens System,
the registration court to examine evidence of as established in the Philippine Islands by the
whether or not you really are the owner of the Land
land; it has to go through rigorous proceedings. Registration Law (Act No. 496), is to decree land
· When the decree is given to you confirming titles that shall be final, irrevocable,
ownership over the land, it becomes indefeasible. and indisputable.
There is no need to wait for other administrative
· The title becomes indefeasible and the Agro-Macro property to Borromeo as
incontrovertible one year from its final decree of evidenced by a Deed of Aboslute
registration. The SC said that on the basis of PD Sale/Assignment.
1529, you may attack it on the ground of fraud, · Petitioner filed a complaint against
not ignorance. Descallar for recovery of real property before
· The Torrens system aims to decree land RTC of Mandaue City. Petitioner alleges that the
titles that shall be final, irrevocable, and contracts to Sell and Deed of Absolute Sale with
indisputable, and to relieve the land of the burden Descallar and Jambirch’s names do not reflect the
of known as well as unknown claims. true agreement of the parties since respondent did
· As a general rule, registration of title under not pay a single centavo for the purchase price,
the cadastral system is final, conclusive and considering that it was Jambrich alone who paid
indisputable, after the lapse of the period allowed for the properties using his exclusive funds, that
for an appeal. The prevailing party may then have Jambrich was the real absolute owner of the
execution of the judgment as of right and is properties and the petitioner acquired absolute
entitled to the issuance of a certificate of title. The ownership by virtue of the Deed of Absolute
exception is the special provision providing for Sale/Assignment which Jambrich executed in his
fraud. favor.
· In this case, the ordinal registration · Respondent contends that the title was
proceeding is a proceeding in rem. Once already in her name, and then the title has already
publication is made there is an effect where been indefeasible considering the lapse of 4
publication becomes constructive notice to the years. Descallar also contends that Jambrich
whole world. As long as it was already published, could not own property in the country and
the whole world, including the parties are already therefore could not pass it to Borromeo.
deemed notified. Issue:
· WON Descallar, whose name appears on
the registration alone, is the rightful owner of the
Borromeo vs. Descallar property.
Ruling:
Topic: Torrens System of · No. While there is a certificate of title in
Registration, Indefeasibility her name, the registration confirms nothing.
Facts: Registration is not a mode of acquiring
· Wilhelm Jambrich is an Austrian who was ownership. It is only a means of confirming the
assigned by his company to work in Mindoro. He fact of its existence with notice to the world at
then transferred to Cebu and that’s where he met large. Registration is a mere ministerial act that
respondent Antonietta Descallar. They eventually confirms ownership.
fell in love and decided to live together. Later on, · The rule on indefeasibility of title does not
they transferred to their own house and lots at apply to Descallar. The general rule is that a
Agro-Macro Subdivision, Mandaue City. certificate of title implies that the title is quiet,
· In the Contracts to Sell both Jambrich and and that it is perfect, absolute and indefeasible.
Descallar were referred to as buyers. However However, there are exceptions to this rule, as
when the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented when the transferee is not a holder in good faith
for registration at the Register of Deeds, it was and did not acquire the subject properties for a
refused because Jambrich was a foreigner who valuable consideration. Descallar did not
could not acquire lands. So Jambrich’s name was contribute a single centavo in the acquisition of
erased from the document and the house and lot the properties. She had no income of her own at
was under Descallar’s name. Their relationship that time nor did she have any savings. She and
didn’t last. her two sons were then fully supported by
· In 1989, Jambrich purchased some Jambrich.
speedboat parts from petitioner, Camilo · The SC held that if land is invalidly
Borromeo. Jambrich became indebted to transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes
Borromeo and he sold his rights and interest to a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the
flaw in the original transaction is cured and the his name by the Register of Deeds of
title of the transferee is rendered valid. The Court Cebu.
upheld the sale of Jambrich to Borromeo. · Baguio demanded payment of
rentals from William Michael for the use
BAGUIO V. REPUBLIC of the land occupied by Michael
Slipways, Inc.. He also filed an
FACTS: opposition to Michael's miscellaneous
· This is a petition for review of the sales application covering the land on the
decision of the CA affirming the decision ground that he was the registered owner
of the RTC. thereof.
· Private respondent Ricardo · William Michael protested the
Michael's predecessor-in-interest, issuance by the Bureau of Lands of a free
William Michael, filed with the Bureau patent to petitioner and claimed that he
of Lands an application for foreshore had been in actual possession of the land
lease of the land. The application was since 1963 and that he had introduced
recommended for approval by the land substantial improvements thereon.
investigator who also recommended that · The government filed a petition for
the applicant be granted a provisional cancellation of title and/or reversion of
permit to occupy the land for one year land against Baguio and the Register of
from October 4, 1963 to October 3, 1964. Deeds of Cebu.
· By virtue of a permit granted to · RTC rendered a decision canceling
him by the Bureau of Lands, William the free patent and the certificate of title
Michael made some reclamation on the of Baguio, ordering the reversion of the
land, built a fence around the premises, land to the public domain, and declaring
and constructed a bridge over a portion private respondent Michael the true and
which was under water. lawful occupant of the land.
· Upon the expiration of the permit,
the Highways District Engineer
recommended to the Director of Lands ISSUE:
that the land be leased to Michael. On the · W/N the Regional Trial Court,
other hand, the land investigator erred in finding that petitioner "acted in
recommended granting Michael the bad faith and procured the issuance of the
authority to survey the foreshore land in Free Patent and the Original Certificate
view of the completion of the of Title through fraud and
reclamation made by him on the misrepresentation.
premises. Michael filed a miscellaneous HELD:
sales application covering the reclaimed · Petitioner is guilty of making false
foreshore land.|| statements in his application for a free
· On 1976, petitioner Baguio applied patent thus justifying the annulment of
to the Bureau of Lands for a free patent his title. The indefeasibility of a title does
covering the same land. In his not attach to titles secured by fraud and
application, petitioner stated that the land misrepresentation.
was agricultural land and not claimed or · In his free patent application,
occupied by any other person and that he petitioner declared under oath that the
had been in actual and continuous land in question was an agricultural land
possession and cultivation of the same. not claimed or occupied by any other
On the basis of these representations, a person; that he had continuously
free patent was issued to him and on possessed and occupied it; and that he
1978, Certificate of Title was issued in had introduced improvements thereon.
These declarations constitute fraud and
misrepresentation.
 · Indeed, the indefeasibility of a · Wife Asuncion Tecson filed a
certificate of title cannot be invoked by complaint-in-intervention, claiming that
one who procured the title by means of she never signed any deed of sale
fraud. Public policy demands that one covering any part of their conjugal
who obtains title to public land through property in favor of petitioner. She
fraud should not be allowed to benefit averred that her signature in petitioner's
therefrom. deed of sale was forged thus, said deed
should be declared null and void. She
FUDOT V. CATTLEYA LAND, also claimed that she has discovered only
INC. recently that there was an amorous
relationship between her husband and
petitioner.
FACTS: · Petitioner alleged in her answer
· In July 1992, Cattleya Land, Inc.,
that the spouses Tecson had sold to her
respondent asked someone to check, on
the subject property for P20,000.00 and
its behalf, the titles of nine (9) lots, the
delivered to her the owner's copy of the
subject land included, which it intended
title on December 1986. She claims that
to buy from the spouses Troadio and
she subsequently presented the said title
Asuncion Tecson. Finding no defect on to the Register of Deeds but the latter
the titles, respondent purchased the nine refused to register the same because the
lots through a Deed of Conditional Sale property was still under attachment.
and subsequently executed a Deed of
· According the RTC, respondent
Absolute Sale over the same properties.
had recorded in good faith the deed of
Both were registered with the Register of
sale in its favor ahead of petitioner.
Deeds.
Moreover, based on Asuncion's
· The Register of Deeds refused to convincing and unrebutted testimony, the
actually annotate the deed of sale on the trial court concluded that the purported
titles because of the existing notice of signature of Asuncion in the deed of sale
attachment in connection with Civil Case
in favor of petitioner was forged, thereby
pending before the RTC of Bohol the
rendering the sale void.
attachment was eventually cancelled by
· Petitioner avers that she was the
virtue of a compromise agreement
first buyer in good faith and even had in
between the Tecsons and their attaching
her possession the owner's copy of the
creditor. title so much so that she was able to
· On January 1995, petitioner register the deed of sale in her favor and
presented for registration before the
caused the issuance of a new title in her
Register of Deeds the owner's copy of the
name. She argues that the presentation
title of the subject property, together with
and surrender of the deed of sale and the
the deed of sale purportedly executed by
owner's copy carried with it the
the Tecsons in favor of petitioner on
"conclusive authority of Asuncion
December 1986. Tecson" which cannot be overturned by
· So, respondent sent a letter of the latter's oral deposition.
protest to petitioner's application but · Petitioner insists that the applicable
respondent learned that the Register of
law in this case is P.D. No. 1529, a
Deeds had already registered the deed of
special law dealing precisely with the
sale in favor of petitioner and issued a
registration of registered lands or any
new title in her name.
subsequent sale thereof, and not Article
· Respondent filed its Complaint for
1544 of the Civil Code which deals with
Quieting Of Title &/Or Recovery Of immovable property not covered by the
Ownership, Cancellation Of Title With Torrens System.
Damages before the RTC.
ISSUE: PO SUN TUN V. PRICE
· W/N Fudot has a better right as the
first buyer of the subject property in FACTS:
accordance with Article 1544 of the CC · Gabino Barreto P. Po Ejap was the
on double sale. owner of a certain parcel of land situated
HELD: in the municipality of Tacloban, Province
· The Court held against the of Leyte.
petitioner. There is no double sale to · He sold the land to Po Tecsi for the
speak of. Art. 1544 of the Civil Code sum of P8,000.
which provides the rule on double sale, · Po mortgaged the land to W. S.
applies only to a situation where the same Price in the amount of P17,000. The
property is validly sold to different mortgage was duly noted in the office of
vendees. In this case, there is only one the register of deeds of Leyte.
sale to advert to, that between the spouses · On December 17, 1924, Po
Tecson and respondent. executed a deed of sale of the land to
· The act of registration does not Price in consideration of P17,000. This
validate petitioner's otherwise void sale was recorded with the register of
contract. Registration is a mere deeds.
ministerial act by which a deed, contract, · Price in turn, with the consent of
or instrument is sought to be inscribed in his wife, sold the land to the Province of
the records of the Office of the Register Leyte for P20,570.
of Deeds. · On the date Po Tecsi gave a general
· It is thus essential, to merit the power of attorney including the right to
protection of Art. 1544, second sell to Gabino Barreto P. Po Ejap, acting
paragraph, that the second realty buyer under this power, Gabino sold the land on
must act in good faith in registering his November 22, 1923, for P8,000 to Jose
deed of sale. H. Katigbak. On this document there
· The registration contemplated appears on the upper right-hand margin
under Art. 1544 has been held to refer to the following: "Register of Deeds,
registration under Act 496 Land Received, Dec. 15, 1923, Province of
Registration Act (now PD 1529) which Leyte." In turn Jose H. Katigbak
considers the act of registration as the transferred the property to Po Sun Tun on
operative act that binds the land. On October 12, 1927, for P8,000.
lands covered by the Torrens System, the · As to the possession of the
purchaser acquires such rights and property, it has been under the control of
interest as they appear in the certificate of Price and the Provincial Government of
title, unaffected by any prior lien or Leyte and has not been under the material
encumbrance not noted therein. The control of Po Sun Tun.
purchaser is not required to explore · Predicated on these facts, Po Sun
farther than what the Torrens title, upon Tun began an action in the Court of First
its face, indicates. The only exception is Instance of Leyte to gain the possession
where the purchaser has actual of the property and to secure damages in
knowledge of a flaw or defect in the title the amount of P3,600.
of the seller or of such liens or
encumbrances which, as to him, is ISSUE:
equivalent to registration. · W/N a receipt for the document
evidencing the sale from the office of the
register of deeds amounts to registration?
HELD: · Zoilo’s children Loreto, Efren
· The provision of law relied upon Labiao and Priscilla Espanueva, in view
by the trial judge as authority for his of their father’s death, executed an
decision was the second paragraph of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated
article 1473 of the Civil Code, which January 1987, adjudicating the entire Lot
provides that should it be real property, it No. 1253, covering 4,280 square meters,
shall belong to the purchaser who first to Loreto. A Transfer Certificate of Title
recorded it in the Registry of Deeds." was issued in favor of LORETO, EFREN
· Recalling that the deed of Po Tecsi and PRISCILLA, but on even date, TCT
to Price was duly registered on January No. T16693 was cancelled and TCT No.
22, 1925, and that thereafter a Torrens T-16694, covering the said property, was
title was obtained in the name of Price, issued in the name of LORETO alone.
and that the deed of Gabino Barreto P. Po · On July 1987, Gabino Jr., as
Ejap to Jose H. Katigbak has noted on it petitioner, filed a Petition for the
"Register of Deeds, Received, Dec. 15, Surrender of TCT covering Lot No. 1253
1923, Province of Leyte. against LORETO.
· The American authorities conform · The parties had already reached an
in this respect to the Spanish authorities amicable settlement without the
for of the term "To register" it has been knowledge of their counsels.
said that it means to "enter in a register; · Gabino Jr. paid real estate taxes on
to record formally and distinctly; to the land he bought from Loreto.
enroll; to enter in a list”. · Gabino Jr. thereafter sold the same
· Within the meaning of the law this lot to Wilfredo Vagilidad as per Deed of
latter deed was not ever recorded. Absolute Sale dated December 7, 1989.
· The mere presentation to the office On the same date, Deed of Absolute Sale
of the register of deeds of a document on of a Portion of Land involving the opt-
which acknowledgment of receipt is described property was also executed by
written is not equivalent to recording or Loreto in favor of Wilfredo.
registering the real property. Escriche · On February 1990, the sale of Lot
says that registration, in its juridical No. 1253-B to Wilfredo was registered.
aspect, must be understood as the entry · Spouses Wilfredo and Lolita
made in a book or public registry of obtained a loan from the PNB and
deeds. mortgaged Lot No. 1253-B as collateral
of the said loan and the transaction was
VAGILIDAD V. VAGILILDAD inscribed at the back of TCT.
(WILFREDO T. VAGILIDAD and LOLITA A. · Subsequently, Wilfredo obtained
VAGILIDAD, Petitioners, vs. GABINO another loan from DBP and mortgaged
VAGILIDAD, Jr. and DOROTHY Lot No. 1253-B as collateral of the loan
VAGILIDAD, Respondents.) and the transaction was inscribed at the
back of TCT. The said loan was paid and,
FACTS: consequently, the mortgage was
· A parcel of land (Lot No. 1253) cancelled.
situated in Atabay, San Jose, Antique · Spouses Gabino and Ma. Dorothy
was owned by Zoilo Labiao. Sometime Vagilidad, as plaintiffs, filed a Complaint
in 1931, Zoilo died. for Annulment of Document,
· May 1986, Loreto Labiao, son of Reconveyance and Damages.
Zoilo, sold to Gabino Vagilidad Jr. a · But Wilfredo claimed that they are
portion of Lot No. 1253, measuring the owner the land because they already
1,604 sq m as evidenced by the Deed of bought it to from the former owner who
Absolute Sale executed by Loreto. sold the same to Gabino. Then Gabino
claimed that Wilfredo resort to fraud to
 obtain ownership of the said property. share but not those of the other co-owners
They raised that defendant Wilfredo who did not consent to the sale. Be that
requested Gabino Jr. to transfer the as it may, the co-heirs of Loreto waived
ownership of Lot No. 1253-B in all their rights and interests over Lot No.
defendant Wilfredo’s name for loaning 1253 in favor of Loreto in an
purposes with the agreement that the land Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated
will be returned when the plaintiffs need January 20, 1987.
the same. They added that, pursuant to · They declared that they have
the mentioned agreement, plaintiff previously received their respective
Gabino Jr., without the knowledge and shares from the other estate of their
consent of his spouse, Dorothy, executed parents Zoilo and Purificacion.
the Deed of Sale dated December 7, 1989 · The rights of Gabino, JR. asowner
in favor of defendant Wilfredo receiving over Lot No. 1253-B are thus preserved.
nothing as payment therefor. These rights were not effectively
· The trial court ruled in favor of transferred by Loreto to Wilfredo in the
petitioners. Gabino, Jr. and Dorothy filed Deed of Absolute Sale of Portion of
an appeal with the CA. The CA reversed Land. Nor were these rights alienated
and set aside the decision of the trial from Gabino, Jr. upon the issuance of the
court title to the subject property in the name
ISSUE: of Wilfredo. Registration of property is
· W/N the petitioners are correct in not a means of acquiring ownership. Its
their contention that since the alleged incontrovertibility cannot be
subdivision plan of Lot No. 1253 was successfully invoked by Wilfredo
only approved on January 19, 1987, the because certificates of title cannot be
appellate court can not presume that the used to protect a usurper from the true
aliquot part of Loreto was the parcel owner or be used as a shield for the
designated as Lot 1253-B? commission of fraud.
HELD:
· No. The mere fact that Loreto sold
a definite portion of the co-owned lot by
Tiro vs. Philippine Estates
metes and bounds before partition does Corporation
not, per se, render the sale a nullity.
· We held in Lopez v. Vda. De Facts:
Cuaycong that the fact that an agreement - Petitioners Guillerma Tiro, Domingo Tiro
purported to sell a concrete portion of a Nunes and Maximo Tiro filed a case against
co-owned property does not render the respondent Philippine Estates Corporation
sale void, for it is well-established that which is legally allowed to operate by law
the binding force of a contract must be - Petitioners claimed to be ascendants of some
recognized as far as it is legally possible disputed land properties that were in the name
to do so. of the Philippine Estates Corporation
· In the case at bar, the contract of - Sadly, the said properties were transferred
sale between Loreto and Gabino, Jr. on through the evidence or documents provided
May 12, 1986 could be legally for by the Office of the Register of Deeds
recognized. At the time of sale, Loreto - A property named under Julian and Pedro Tiro
had an aliquot share of one-third of the was cancelled in September 10, 1969 and
4,280-sq m property or some 1,426 placed under Spouses Julio baba and Olimpia
square meters but sold some 1,604 sq m Mesa
to Gabino, Jr. - Petitioners claim, however, Ochea claiming she
· We have ruled that if a co-owner is the only surviving heir turns out to be not
sells more than his aliquot share in the related to Julian and Pedro Tiro and she is not a
property, the sale will affect only his
 legitimate heir she had no right to transfer the - In this case, petitioners directed all allegations
disputed property through testimonies of bad faith solely on Ochea
- Respondent presented the decision made by
Spouses Velayo in support that they are the Cruz vs. Cabanta
owners of the property in the case of Spouses
Velayo v. Spouses Tiro in the Municipal Trial
*Castillo v. Escutin, Mistas, Linatoc,
Court of Lapu-Lapu City indicating that the CA
disputed property is owned by Spises Velayo
Facts:
Issue/s: - In the course of her search for properties to
Whether or not the claim of petitioners Tiro as the satisfy the judgment in her favor, petitioner
owners of the disputed properties is valid? No discovered that Raque, her mother Urbana, and
sister Perla, co-owned a parcel of land which is
Ruling: covered by a Tax Declaration
- Since the main point of the petitioners was - Petitioner was able to prove she was the owner
Ochea, who is not related to the descendants of of the property by providing an order issued by
Juan and Pedro Tiro executed the transfer of the Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. of the
properties is fraudulent is not sufficient Department of Agrarian reform in order to
grounds to cancel all succeeding transfer of convert several agricultural landholdings to
properties residential, commercial and recreational uses
- To add, a person who has fraudulently obtained - There are several documents presented in order
property is concerned, the consequently to prove that the said property was under the
fraudulent registration in the name of such name of co-owners Raque, Urbana and Perla
person would confirm or record title already - When petitioner attempted to pay real estate
existing and vested. taxes for her property (Lot 13713), she found
- The indefeasibility of the torrens title should out that, without giving her notice, her Tax
not be used as a means to perpetrate fraud Declaration was cancelled due to the said
against the rightful owner of real property property being encompassed in and
- Good faith must concur with registration. overlapping with another property (Lot 1-B)
- However, where good faith is established, as in - Petitioners Affidavit Complaint gave rise to
the case of an innocent purchaser for value, a simultaneous administrative and preliminary
forged document may become the root of a (criminal) investigations
valid title - Petitioner pointed out several irregularities in
- A person is considered in law as an innocent the circumstances surrounding the alleged sale
purchaser for value when he bus the property of of Lot 1-B to Summit Realty in the documents
another, without notice that some other person evidencing the same
has a right or an interest in such property, and
pays a full price for the same at the time of such Ruling:
purchase, or person dealing with registered land - The court must clarify that a title is different
may safely rely on the correctness of the from a certificate of title
certificate of the title. - Title is generally defined as the lawful cause or
- In the present case, respondent was clearly an ground of possessing that which is ours
innocent purchaser for value. It purchased the - It is that which is the foundation of ownership
disputed property from Pacific Rehouse of property, real or personal
Corporation, along with other parcels of land - Title therefore, may be defined briefly as that
for a valuable consideration which constitutes a just cause of exclusive
- According to Jurisprudence, it is crucial that a possession, or which is the foundation of
complaint for annulment of title must allege ownership of property
that the purchaser was aware of the defect in the - Certificate of title, on the other hand, is a mere
title, so that the cause of action against him or evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the
her will be sufficient. land itself
- Under the Torrens system, a certificate of title
may be an Original Certificate of Title, which Republic v. Court of Appeals and
constitutes a true copy of the decree of Ribaya
registration; or a Transfer Certificate of Title,
issued subsequent to the original registration
- Summit Realty acquired its title to Lot 1-B, not Facts:
- A parcel of land located in the barrio of
from the issuance of the new owner’s duplicate
Magragondong, Municipality of Ligao,
but from its purchase of the same from Yangin,
Province of Albay, was surveyed by spouses
the attorney-in-fact of Catigbac, the registered
Ribaya by Telesforo Untalan, a Bureau of
owner of the said property
Lands surveyor
- Summit Realty merely sought the issuance of a
new owner’s duplicate in the name of Catigbac - The survey plan was denominated as Plan II-
so that it could accordingly register thereon the 13961 and allegedly approved by Acting
Director of Lands on 3 January 1922
sale in its favor of a substantial portion of Lot 1
- The indefeasibility of title does not lie against
covered by said certificate, later identified as
the State in an action for reversion of land
Lot 1-B to seek the separation of the said
- The respondents allege that the petition merely
portion from the rest of Lot 1-B
raises factual matters and argue that OCT No.
- Petitioner’s reliance on Section 109 of the
Property Registration Decree is totally 3947 is absolutely incontestable, considering
misplaced for it is based on the certificate of that the land was no longer part of the public
title and cannot be related to the cancellation of forest when it was decreed in favor of their
parents
petitioner’s tax declaration
- The spouses-applicants failed to prove
- A certificate of title issued is an absolute and
possession of the land for the period required
indefeasible evidence of ownership of the
by law, and the evidence shows that their
property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein. It is binding and conclusive possession was not open, continuous, exclusive
upon the whole world. All persons must take and notorious under a bona fide claim of
notice, and no one can plead ignorance of the ownership and the amended survey was not
published
registration. Therefore, upon presentation of
- Respondents claim that republication of the
the transfer of certificate title, the Office of the
original survey plan is not applicable for the
City Assessor must recognize the ownership of
first publication has been in compliance with
Lot 1-B by Catigbac and issue in his name a tax
law
declaration for the said property
- And since Lot 1-B is already covered by a tax - The land covered by OCT No. 3947 was then
declaration in the name of Catigbac, part of the forest land, hence,
- inalienable and the accuracy of the land survey
accordingly, any other tax declaration for the
was doubtful
same property or portion thereof in the name of
another person, not supported by any certificate
Issue/s:
of title, such that of petitioner, must be
- Whether or not the land registration court
cancelled
acquired jurisdiction over the four parcels of
land subject of the amended survey plan (Plan
II-13961-Amd) and covered by the decree
issued on 31 July 1926 by the General Land
Registration Office pursuant to the decision of
the said court of 18 September 1925

Ruling:
- The land registration court never acquired
jurisidiction over the land covered by either
the original plan or the amended plan for lack
 of sufficient publication the first and total
want of publication of the second Alba v. De la Cruz
- As found by both the trial court in Civil Case
No. 6198 and the Court of Appeals, the notice Facts:
of the hearing of application of the spouses - Petitioners, Manuela, Jose, Juan and
Ribaya for the registration of the land covered Francisco, surnamed Grey y Alba, are the only
the original plan was published in the 17 heirs of Dona Seguna Alba Clementa and
March 1925 issue of the Official Gazette, In Honorato Grey, deceased
short, there was only one publication thereof. - Remedios Grey y Alba, a sister of the
- Section 31 of No. 496, the governing law petitioners, was married to Vicente Reyes and
then required two publications. Hence, the died without leaving any heirs except her
decision of 18 September 1925 of the land husband
registration court was void for want of the - The four petitioners, as coowners, sought to
required publications have registered the described property
- The requirement of dual publication is one - This parcel of agricultural land is sued for
of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the the raising of rice and sugar cane and is
registration court; it is a jurisidictionalr assessed at $1,000 United States currency.
euqisite. The petition, which was filed on the 18th of
- Land registration is proceeding in rem and December 1906, was accompanied by a plan
jurisdiction in rem cannot be acquired unless and technical description of the above-
there be constructive seizure of the Land described parcel of land
through publication and service of notice - After hearing the proofs presented, the court
- The decision of 18 September 1925 was entered, on the 12 th of February, 1908, a
entirely based on an alleged original survey decree in accordance with the provisions of
plan. The fact remains, however, that in paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926,
November of that year the original plan was directing that the land described in the petition
amended and the amended plan was not be registered by the names of the four
published at all and there is no evidence in petitioners, as coowners, subject to the
court that the court amended its decision to usufructuary right of Vicente widower of
conform to the amended plan, neither is there Remedios Grey
a showing that the parties even attempted - On the 16 th of June, 1908, Anacleto Ratilla
publication thereof de la Cruz filed a motion in the court of Land
- However, the decree that was subsequently Registration asking for a revision of the case,
issued was based on the amended plan insofar including the decision, upon the ground that
as the four lots were concerned he is the absolute owner of the two parcels of
- A decree of registration is required to recite land which are described in the said motion
the description of the land. On the basis of the - He alleged that the decree of February 12,
decree, OCT No. 3947 was issued. It follows 1908 was obtained fraudulently
then the land registration court may have - Respondent claims he is the absolute owner
amended its decision to conform to the of the parcel of land for he has inherited them
amended plan for the four lots which from his father, Baldomero R. de la Cruz, who
ultimately found their way into the decree had a state of grant for the same
issued by the General Land Registration - It is admitted that the time appellants
Office, and finally into OCT No. 3947. presented their petition in this case the
- Whether it did so or not and the General appellee was occupying the two parcels of
Land Registration Office merely adjusted the land in question.
decree to conform to the amended plan, such - Petitioners claim that they inherited this land
aims were fatally flawed due to the absence of from their parents, who acquired the same,
publication of the amended plan. As such, the including the two small parcels in question, by
land registration court acquired no jurisdiction purchase, as is evidenced by a public
over the land embraced by the amended plan
 document dated the 26 th of November, 1864, application. In other words, the proceeding is
duly executed before Francisco Iriarte, alcalde against the whole world.
mayor and judge of the Court of First Instance - This system was evidently considered by the
of Bulacan Legislature to be a public project when it
- Baldomero R. dela Cruz, father of the passed Act No. 496. The interest of the
appellee, obtained in March, 1895, a state community at large was considered to be
grant for the several parcels of land in question preferred to that of private individuals.
as inscribed in the old register of property in - Compensation for errors from assurance
Bulacan on the 6 th of April of the same year funds is provided in all countries in which the
- It is also admitted that the name of the Torrens system has been enacted
appellee does not appear in the said petition as - The court below held that the failure on the
an occupant of the said two parcels part of the petitioners to include the name of
- The petitioners insist that the appellee was the appellee in their petition, as an occupant of
occupying these parcels only as a tenant these two parcels fo land, was a violation of
- On the 13 th of June, 1882, Jose Grey, uncle Section 21 of Act No. 496, and that this is
and representative of the petitioners who were constituted fraud within the meaning of
then minors, rented the land owned by the section 38 of said Land Registration Act
petitioners’ deceased parents and rented it to
Baldomero R. de la Cruz, father of the Moscoso v. CA
appellee for 6 mponths
- The two small parcels of land in question Facts:
were purchased and made a sale of that year to - Petitioner applied for land registration of a
Baldomero Ratilla dela Cruz in 1895 parcel of residential land which she alleged
among others that the property is her share in
Ruling: the estate of her late father in partition she
- The Land Registration Act requires that all entered with her five other siblings
occupants be named in the petition and given - The application was opposed by three
notice by registered mail. This did not do the alleged children of applicant’s father in a
appellee any good, as he was not notified; but common law union prior to his marriage with
he was made a party defendant, as we have applicant’s mother
said, by means of the publication "to all whom - After the presentation of evidence, the trial
it may concern." If this section of the Act is to court rendered decision finding that applicant
be upheld this must be declared to be due is not the exclusive owner fo the property and
process of law directing the registration of the land in co-
- Before examining the validity of this part of ownership with applicant and the three
the Act it might be well to note the history and oppositors
purposes of what is known as the "Torrens - Applicant filed motion for reconsideration
Land Registration System." This system was - After hearing, the trial court modified its
introduced in south Australia by Sir Robert decision finding that the three oppositors, only
Torrens in 1857 and was there worked out in one was able to prover her being an
its practicable form acknowledged natural child fo applicant’s
- The main principle of registration is to make father by competent proof, hence the
registered titles indefeasible. applicant’s share would be 13/14
- As we have said, upon the presentation in - CA affirmed the decision,
the Court of Land Registration of an - Applicant contends that the trial court, acting
application for the registration of the title to as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction
lands, under this system, the theory of the law to pass the issue whether oppositor is
is that all occupants, adjoining owners, acknowledged natural child of his father
adverse claimants, and other interested
persons are notified of the proceedings, and
have a right to appear in opposition to such
Issue: The subject property is a 30,351 square meter
Whether or not the court, acting in its limited parcel of land particularly denominated as Lot
jurisdiction as a land registration court, No. 3368, located at Suba-basbas, Marigondon,
competent to determine the right of the oppositor Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, and part of total area of
to inherit? 30,777 square meters covered by TCT No. 20626
in the name of the late petitioner Go Kim Chuan.
Ruling: The entire property was originally owned by
- The proceedings for the registration of title Esteban Bonghanoy who had only one child,
to land under the Torrens system is an action Juana Bonghanoy-Amodia, mother of the late
in rem, not in personam Leoncia Amodia and petitioners Amodias. The
- Hence, personal notice to all claimants of entire property was brought under the operation
the res is not necessary to give the court of the Torrens System. However, the title thereto
jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res, was lost during the Second World War.
and neither may lack of such personal notice On July 10, 1964, the Amodias allegedly
vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued executed an Extra-Judicial Partition of Real
in a registration proceeding, for the State, as Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale whereby they
sovereign over the land situated within it, may extra-judicially settled the estate of Esteban
provide for the adjudication of title in a Bonghanoy and conveyed the subject property to
proceeding in rem or in the nature of a respondent Aznar Brothers Realty Company for a
proceeding in rem, which shall be binding consideration of P10,200.00. On August 10,
upon all persons, known or unknown 1964, the said Extra-Judicial Partition of Real
- Under the above doctrine, petitioner's Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was registered
assailment that `(t)he judicial pronouncement under Act 3344 as there was no title on file at the
(referring to the holding that the oppositor Register of Deeds of Lapiu-Lapu City.
Maximina L. Moron is the acknowledged Thereafter, AZNAR made some improvements
natural child of Pascual Monge) which will and constructed a beach house theron.
become conclusive and far reaching and in On February 18, 1989, petitioners executed a
effect binds the other heirs of Pascual Monge Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute
consisting of the brothers and sisters as well as Sale, conveying the subject property in favor of
the nephews and nieces of the petitioner who Go Kim Chuan for and in consideration of
are not parties in this proceedings," is P70,000.00. Aznar then filed a case against
untenable. petitioners Amodias and Go Kim Chuan for
- The final adjudication made by the trial court Annulment of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No.
in its Order dated May 25, 1975 (affirmed by 20626 alleging that the sale to Go Kim Chuan was
the Court of Appeals) directed the registration an invalid second sale.
of the land in question in the name of the co-
ownership of petitioner Andrea M. Moscoso ISSUE: WON there is a valid certification and
for 13/14 share and Maximina L. Moron, the verification by only one of the plaintiffs?
oppositor, for 1/14 share
- There were no documentary evidence of HELD: Yes, the Court reiterated the ruling in the
Monge recognizing the other illegitimate case of Iglesia ni Cristo, 505 SCRA 828, that
children as his natural children Commonality of interest is material and crucial to
- Therefore, decision has been modified relaxation of the Rules. The Rules may be
reasonably and liberally construed to avoid a
TWO SYSTEMS OF patent denial of substantial justice, because it
cannot be denied, that the ends of justice are
REGISTRATION better served when cases are determined on the
I. Vda. de Melencion v. CA merits- after all parties are given full opportunity
GR No. 148846, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA to ventile their causes and defenses – rather than
62 on technicality or some procedural imperfections.
FACTS:
 The same liberality should likewise be MCIAA later caused the issuance in its name of a
applied to the certification against forum Tax Declarations of the 2 lots.
shopping. The general rule is that the certification Respondents soon asked the agents of MCIAA to
must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case and the cease giving third persons permission to occupy
signature of only one of them is insufficient. the lots but the same was ignored.
However, the Court has also stressed in a number Respondents thereupon filed a Complaint for
of cases that the rules on forum shopping were Quieting of Title, Legal Redemption with Prayer
designed to promote and facilitate the orderly for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against
administration of justice and thus should not be MCIAA before the RTC of Lapu-lapu City.
interpreted with such absolute literalness as to Respondents further alleged that neither they nor
subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. their predecessors-in-interests sold, alienated or
The rule of substantial compliance may be disposed of their shares in the lots of which they
availed of with respect to the contents of the have been in continuous peaceful possession.
certification. This is because the requirement of Respondents furthermore alleged that neither
strict compliance with the provisions merely petitioner nor its predecessor-in-interest had
underscored its mandatory nature in that the given them any written notice of its acquisition of
certification cannot be altogether dispensed with the ¼ share of Tito Dignos.
or its requirements completely disregarded. The Republic, represented by the MCIAA in its
Answer with Counterclaim, maintained that from
II. REPUBLIC VS. HEIRS OF the time the lots were sold to its predecessor-in-
interest CAA, it has been in open, continuous,
FRANCISCA DIGNOS-SORONO exclusive, and notorious possession thereof;
G.R. No. 171571
through acquisitive prescription, it had acquired
March 24, 2008
valid title to the lots since it was a purchaser in
FACTS: 2 were adjudicated by the then Court of
good faith and for value; and assuming arguendo
First Instance of Cebu in favor of the following in that it did not have just title, it had, by possession
four equal shares: for over 30 years, acquired ownership thereof by
a) Francisca Dignos, married to Blas Sorono ¼ extraordinary prescription. At all events,
share in the two lots;
petitioner contended that respondents action was
b) Tito Dignos ¼ share in the two lots;
barred by estoppel and laches.
c) predecessors-in-interest of the respondents ¼
The trial court found for respondents. the CA
share in the two lots; and
affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence, the
d) predecessors-in-interest of the respondents ¼
present petition for review on certiorari
share in the two lots ISSUE:
It appears that the two lots were not partitioned 1. WON the sale of the entire 2 lots by the heirs
by the adjudicatees.
of Tito binding to the respondents
It appears further that the heirs of Tito Dignos,
2. WON estoppel and laches should work against
who was awarded ¼ share in the two lots, sold the
respondents
entire two lots to the then Civil Aeronautics
Administration (CAA) via a public instrument
HELD: the petition is denied
entitled ”Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale” 1. NO. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides:
without the knowledge of respondents whose Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of
predecessors-in-interest were the adjudicatees of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining
the rest of the ¾ portion of the two lots.
thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or
In 1996, CAAs successor-in-interest, the Mactan
mortgage it, and even substitute another person in
Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA),
its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
erected a security fence one of the lot and
involved. But the effect of the alienation of the
relocated a number of families, who had built
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be
their dwellings within the airport perimeter, to a limited to the portion which may be allotted to
portion of said lot to enhance airport security. him in the division upon the termination of the
co-ownership.
Apropos is the following pertinent portion of this hundreds of millions of pesos, the law is not on
Courts decision in Bailon-Casilao v. CA: its side.
As early as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if Thus, Article 1088 of the Civil Code provides
a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights
sale will affect only his own share but not those to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the
of the other co-owners who did not consent to co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the
thesale.This is because under the aforementioned purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the
codal provision, the sale or other disposition sale, provided they do so within the period of one
affects only his undivided share and the month from the time they were notified in writing
transferee gets only what would correspond to his of the sale by the vendor. The Court may take
grantor in the partition of the thing owned in judicial notice of the increase in value of the lots.
common. As mentioned earlier, however, the heirs of Tito
From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since Dignos did not notify respondents about the sale.
a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, At any rate, since the Extrajudicial Settlement
a sale of the entire property by one co-owner and Sale stipulates, thus:
without the consent of the other co-owners is
NOT null and void. However, only the rights of That the HEIRS-VENDORS, their heirs, assigns
the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby and successors, undertake and agree to warrant
making the buyer a co-owner of the property. and defend the possession and ownership of the
Petitioners predecessor-in-interest CAA thus property/ies herein sold against any and all just
acquired only the rights pertaining to the sellers- claims of all persons whomsoever and should the
heirs of Tito Dignos, which is only ¼ undivided VENDEE be disturbed in its possession, to
share of the two lots. prosecute and defend the same in the Courts of
2. NO. Registered lands cannot be the subject of Justice.
acquisitive prescription. Petitioners’ insistence Petitioner is not without any remedy. This
that it acquired the property through acquisitive decision is, therefore, without prejudice to
prescription, if not ordinary, then extraordinary, petitioners right to seek redress against the
does not lie. It bears emphasis at this juncture that vendors-heirs of Tito Dignos and their
in the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale forged by successors-in-interest.
CAA and Tito Dignos heirs the following
material portions thereof validate the claim of EFFECT OF REGISTRATION
respondents that the two lots were registered: x x I. Legarda vs. Saleeby
xx
That since the OCT of Title of the above- G.R. No. 8936
mentioned property/ies has/have been lost and/or October 2, 1915
FACTS: The plaintiffs and the defendant occupy,
destroyed… and the VENDEE hereby binds itself
as owners, adjoining lots in the district of Ermita
to reconstitute said title/s at its own expense and
in the city of Manila. There exists and has existed
that the HEIRS-VENDORS, their heirs,
a number of years a stone wall between the said
successors and assigns bind themselves to help in
lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the
the reconstitution of title so that the said lot/s may
be registered in the name of the VENDEE in plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, March 2, 1906,
accordance with law x x x x presented a petition in the Court of Land
NOTES: Registration for the registration of their lot, which
decreed that the title of the plaintiffs should be
As for petitioners argument that the redemption
registered and issued to them the original
price should be ¼ of the prevailing market value,
certificate provided for under the Torrens system.
not of the actual purchase price, since, so it
Said registration and certificate included the wall.
claims, (1) the respondents received just
Later the predecessor of the defendant presented
compensation for the property at the time it was
purchased by the Government; and, (2) the a petition in the Court of Land Registration for
property, due to improvements introduced by the registration of the lot now occupied by him.
On March 25, 1912, the court decreed the
petitioner in its vicinity, is now worth several
registration of said title and issued the original or the other of the parties, before the error is
certificate provided for under the Torrens system. discovered, transfers his original certificate to an
The description of the lot given in the petition of “innocent purchaser.” The general rule is that the
the defendant also included said wall. vendee of land has no greater right, title, or
On December 13, 1912 the plaintiffs discovered interest than his vendor; that he acquires the right
that the wall which had been included in the which his vendor had, only. Under that rule the
certificate granted to them had also been included vendee of the earlier certificate would be the
in the certificate granted to the defendant .They owner as against the vendee of the owner of the
immediately presented a petition in the Court of later certificate.
Land Registration for an adjustment and It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when
correction of the error committed by including two persons have acquired equal rights in the
said wall in the registered title of each of said same thing, to hold that the one who acquired it
parties. first and who has complied with all the
The lower court however, without notice to the requirements of the law should be protected.
defendant, denied said petition upon the theory In view of our conclusions, above stated, the
that, during the pendency of the petition for the judgment of the lower court should be and is
registration of the defendant’s land, they failed to hereby revoked. The record is hereby returned to
make any objection to the registration of said lot, the court now having and exercising the
including the wall, in the name of the defendant. jurisdiction heretofore exercised by the land
ISSUE: Who is the owner of the wall and the land court, with direction to make such orders and
occupied by it? decrees in the premises as may correct the error
HELD: The decision of the lower court is based heretofore made in including the land in the
upon the theory that the action for the registration second original certificate issued in favor of the
of the lot of the defendant was a judicial predecessor of the appellee, as well as in all other
proceeding and that the judgment or decree was duplicate certificates issued.
binding upon all parties who did not appear and
oppose it II. G.R. No. 171531 January 30, 2009
Granting that theory to be correct one , then the GUARANTEED HOMES, INC., Petitioner,
same theory should be applied to the defendant vs.
himself. Applying that theory to him, he had HEIRS OF MARIA P. VALDEZ, (EMILIA V.
already lost whatever right he had therein, by YUMUL and VICTORIA V. MOLINO),
permitting the plaintiffs to have the same HEIRS OF SEVERINA P. TUGADE
registered in their name, more than six years (ILUMINADA and LEONORA P. TUGADE,
before. Having thus lost hid right, may he be HEIRS OF ETANG P. GATMIN (LUDIVINA
permitted to regain it by simply including it in a G. DELA CRUZ (by and through ALFONSO
petition for registration? G. DELA CRUZ), HILARIA G. COBERO
and ALFREDO G. COBERO) and SIONY G.
TEPOL (by and through ELENA T. RIVAS
For the difficulty involved in the present case the and ELESIO TEPOL, JR.), AS HEIRS OF
Act (No. 496) provides for the registration of DECEDENT PABLO PASCUA, Respondents.
titles under the Torrens system affords us no
remedy. There is no provision in said Act giving Facts: The descendants of Pablo Pascua filed a
the parties relief under conditions like the present. complaint (in their complaint respondents alleged
There is nothing in the Act which indicates who that Pablo died intestate sometime in June 1945
should be the owner of land which has been and was survived by his four children, one of
registered in the name of two different persons. whom was the deceased Cipriano) seeking
We have decided, in case of double registration reconveyance of a parcel of land with an area of
under the Land Registration Act, that the owner 23.7229 hectares situated in Cabitaugan, Subic,
of the earliest certificate is the owner of the land. Zambales with Original Certificate of Title
May this rule be applied to successive vendees of (OCT) No. 404 in the name of Pablo. In the
the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one
alternative, the heirs of Valdez prayed that reasonably be inferred that petitioner had any
damages be awarded in their favor. actual knowledge of facts that would impel it to
OCT No. 404 was attached as one of the annexes make further inquiry into the title of the spouses
of respondents’ complaint. It contained several Rodolfo.
annotations in the memorandum of Secondly, while the Extrajudicial Settlement of a
encumbrances which showed that the property Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales executed by
had already been sold by Pablo during his lifetime Cipriano alone despite the existence of the other
to Alejandria Marquinez and Restituto Morales. heirs of Pablo, is not binding on such other heirs,
It was further averred in the complaint that Jorge nevertheless, it has operative effect under Section
Pascua, Sr., son of Cipriano, filed a petition 44 of the Property Registration Decree (SEC. 44.
before the RTC of Olongapo City for the issuance Statutory Liens Affecting Title).
of a new owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 404. Lastly, respondents’ claim against the Assurance
However, the RTC denied the petition and held Fund also cannot prosper. Section 101 of P.D.
that petitioner was already the owner of the land, No. 1529 clearly provides that the Assurance
noting that the failure to annotate the subsequent Fund shall not be liable for any loss, damage or
transfer of the property to it at the back of OCT deprivation of any right or interest in land which
No. 404 did not affect its title to the property. may have been caused by a breach of trust,
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint whether express, implied or constructive. Even
on the grounds that the action is barred by the assuming arguendo that they are entitled to claim
Statute of Limitations, more than 28 years having against the Assurance Fund, the respondents’
elapsed from the issuance of TCT No. T-10863 claim has already prescribed since any action for
up to the filing of the complaint, and that the compensation against the Assurance Fund must
complaint states no cause of action as it is an be brought within a period of six (6) years from
innocent purchaser for value, it having relied on the time the right to bring such action first
the clean title of the spouses Rodolfo. occurred, which in this case was in 1967.
The RTC granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss. The petition is GRANTED.
The appellate court further held that the ruling of
the RTC that petitioner is an innocent purchaser III. CASE 1: RABAJA RANCH
for value is contrary to the allegations in
respondents’ complaint.
DEVELOPMENT VS. AFP
Hence, the present petition for review. RETIREMENT AND
Issue: The sole issue before this Court revolves SEPARATION BENEFITS
around the propriety of the RTC’s granting of the SYSTEM 592SCRA 201
motion to dismiss and conversely the tenability of GR NO: 177181, July 7, 2009
the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the RTC’s FACTS: Rabaja Ranch Development
ruling. Corporation (petitioner), a domestic
Held: The petition is meritorious. corporation, is a holder of Transfer Certificate of
It is well-settled that to sustain a dismissal on the Title(TCT)No.T88513 covering the subject
ground that the complaint states no cause of property
action, the insufficiency of the cause of action particularlyidentifiedasLot395,Pls47,withanare
must appear on the face of the complaint, and the aof211,372 square meters more or less, and
test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the located at Barangay (Brgy.) Conrazon,
complaint to constitute a cause of action is Bansud, Bongabon, OrientalMindoro.
whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement
court could render a valid judgment upon the and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS)
same in accordance with the prayer of the is a government corporation, which manages the
complaint. pension fund of the Armed Forces of the
Firstly, the complaint does not allege any defect Philippines (AFP), is a holder of TCT No. T-
with TCT No. T-8242 in the name of the spouses 51382 covering the same subjectproperty.
Rodolfo, who were petitioner’s predecessors-in-
interest, or any circumstance from which it could
September 1, 1998, RABAJA filed a Complaint Farm Incorporated (JMC),
for Quieting of Title and/or Removal of Cloud which was
from Title before the RTC. then issued TCT No. 18529.
September 6, 1955, Free
Patent No. V-19535 (Free On August 30, 1985, JMC
Patent) was issued in the name obtained a loan from AFP-
of Jose Castromero (Jose), RSBS in the amount of
registered, and Original P7,000,000.00, with real
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. estate mortgage over several
P-2612 covering the subject parcels of land including the
property was issued in the subject property. JMC failed
name of Jose. to pay; hence, after extra-
o Jose sold the subject judicial foreclosure and public
property to Spouses Sigfriedo sale, respondent, being the
and Josephine Veloso highest bidder, acquired the
(spouses Veloso), and subject property and was
TCTNo.T- issued TCT No. T-51382 in its
17104wasissuedinfavorofthel name. AFP-RSBS contended
atter. that from the time it was
Spouses Veloso, in turn, sold issued a title, it took
the subject property to possession of the subject
RABAJA RANCH property until RABAJA
DEVELOPMENT CORPO disturbed AFP- RSBS's
RATION for the sum of possession thereof sometime
P634,116.00 on January 17, in1997.
1997, and TCT No. T-88513
was issued in petitioner’s RTC ruled in favor of the RABAJA on the
name. ground that RABAJA's title emanated from a
title older than that of AFP- RSBS. Moreover,
AFP-RSBS averred, title over the subject the RTC held that there were substantial and
property was protected by the Torrens system, numerous infirmities in the Homestead
as it was a buyer in good faith and for value; Patent of Charles. The RTC found that there
and that it had been in continuous possession was NO record in the Bureau of Lands that
of the subject property since November 1989, Charles was a homestead applicant or a grantee
way ahead of RABAJA's alleged possession of Homestead Patent No. 113074. Upon
in February1997. inquiry, the RTC also found that a similar
April 30, 1966, Homestead Patent Homestead Patent bearing No.V 113074 was
No. 113074 (Homestead actually issued in favor of one Mariano
Patent) was issued in the name Costales over a parcel of land with an area of
of Charles 8.7171 hectares and located in Bunawan,
Soguilon (Charles). Agusanin Mindanao, per Certification issued by
On May 27, 1966, the the Lands Management Bureau dated February
Homestead Patent was 18, 1998. Thus, the RTC held that Charles's
registered and OCT No. RP- Homestead Patent was fraudulent and
110 (P-6339) was issued in spurious, and respondent could not invoke the
Charles's name, covering the protection of the Torrens system, because the
same property. system does not protect one who committed
fraud or misrepresentation and holds title in
On October 18, 1982, Charles sold bad faith.
the subject property to JMC
- Aggrieved, AFP-RSBS appealed to the CA.
 o the CA reversed and set Charles supposedly secured the fake and
aside the RTC's Decision spurious Homestead Patent.
upon the finding that
Charles's Homestead Patent In Republic v. Umali, court held that, in a
was earlier registered than reversion case, even if the original grantee of a
Jose's Free Patent. The CA patent and title has obtained the same through
held that fraud, reversion will no longer prosper as the
Jose slept on his rights, land had become private land and the
and thus, respondent had a fraudulentacquisitioncannotaffectthetitlesofinn
better right over the subject ocentpurchasersforvalue.
property. Further, the CA
opined that while “it is This conclusion rests very firmly on Section 32
interesting to note that of P.D. No. 1529, which states:
petitioner's claim that
Homestead Patent No.V- Section 32. Review of decree of registration;
113074 was issued to Mariano Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of
Costales, per Certification registration shall not be reopened or revised by
issued by the Lands reason of absence, minority, or other disability of
Management Bureau, there is any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any
nothing in the proceeding in any court for reversing judgments,
subject, however, to the right of any person,
record which would show that said Homestead including the government and the branches
Patent No.V 113074 and Homestead Patent thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or
No.113074 granted to Charles were one and the interest therein by such adjudication or
same. confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to
file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition
RABAJA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, for reopening and review of the decree of
which the CA, however, denied. registration not later than one year from and after
the date of the entry of such decree of registration,
Filed a petition in SC. but in no case shall such petition be entertained
by the court where an innocent purchaser for
ISSUE: value has acquired the land or an interest therein,
whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the
WON RESPONDENT'S TITLE WHICH phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an
ORIGINATED FROM A FAKE AND equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall
SPURIOUS HOMESTEAD PATENT, IS be deemed to include an innocent lessee,
SUPERIOR TO PETITIONER'S TITLE mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
WHICH ORIGINATED FROM A VALID
AND EXISTING FREE PATENT. (who, Upon the expiration of
between the petitioner and respondent, has a said period of one year, the
better right over the subject property) decree of registration and the
HELD: certificate of title issued shall
Petition is DENIED and the assailed Court of become incontrovertible. Any
Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED person aggrieved by such
decree of registration in any
Petitioner did not convincingly show that the case may pursue his remedy
Homestead Patent issued to Charles is indeed by action for damages against
spurious. More importantly, petitioner failed to the applicant or any other
prove that respondent took part in the alleged person responsible for the
fraud which dated back as early as 1966 when fraud. (Underscoring ours)
No valid TCT can issue from a void TCT, unless Respondent's transfer certificate of title, having
an innocent purchaser for value had intervened. been derived from the Homestead Patent which
An innocent purchaser for value is one who was registered under the Torrens system on
buys the property of another, without notice that May27,1966, was thus vested with the
some other person has a right to or habiliments of indefeasibility.
interestintheproperty,forwhichafullandfairprice
ispaidbythebuyeratthetimeofthepurchaseorbefo OTHER NOTES:
rereceipt of any notice of the claims or interest Fraud is of two kinds: actual or
of some other person in the property. The constructive.
protection given to innocent purchasers Actual or positive fraud proceeds
for value is necessary to uphold a certificat from an intentional deception
e of title's efficacy and conclusiveness, whi practiced by means of the
ch the Torrens system ensures misrepresentation or concealment of a
material fact.
AFP-RSBS is an innocent purchaser in good Constructive fraud is
faith and for value. Thus, as far as respondent is construed as a fraud because
concerned, TCT No. 18529, shown to it by of its detrimental effect upon
JMC, was free from any flaw or defect that public interests and public or
could give rise to any iota of doubt that it was private confidence, even
fake and spurious, or that it was derived from a though the act is not done
fake or spurious Homestead Patent. Likewise, with an actual design to
respondent was not under any obligation to commit positive fraud or
make an inquiry beyond the TCT itself when, injury upon other persons.
significantly, a foreclosure sale was conducted
and respondent emerged as the highest bidder. Fraud may also be either extrinsic or
intrinsic.
The general rule that the direct result of a Fraud is regarded as
previous void contract cannot be valid will not intrinsic where the
apply in this case as it will directly contravene fraudulent acts pertain to an
the Torrens system of registration. Where issue involved in the original
innocent third persons, relying on the action, or where the acts
correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, constituting the fraud were or
acquire rights over the property, this Court could have been litigated
cannot disregard such rights and order the therein.
cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such The fraud is extrinsic if it is
outright cancellation will be to impair public employed to deprive parties
confidence in the certificate of title. The sanctity of their day in court and thus
of the Torrens system must be preserved; prevent them from asserting
otherwise, everyone dealing with the property their right to the property
registered under the system will have to inquire registered in the name of the
in every instance as to whether the title had been applicant.
regularly or irregularly issued, contrary to the
evident purpose of the law. Every person In Republic v. Court of Appeals, this
dealing with the registered land Court distinguished a Homestead
Patent from a Free Patent, to wit:
may safely rely on the correctness of the Homestead Patent and Free Patent are
certificate of title issued therefor, and the law some of the land patents granted by the
will, in no way, oblige him to go behind the government under the Public Land Act. While
certificate to determine the condition of the similar, they are not exactly the same. A
property. Homestead Patent is one issued to: any
citizen of this country; over the age of 18 years
or the head of a family; who is not the owner and convey the land, and in all cases
of more than twenty-four (24)hectares of land under this Decree, registration shall
in the Philippines or has not had the benefit of be made in the office of the Register of
any gratuitous allotment of more than twenty- Deeds of the province or city where
four(24)hectares of land since the occupation the land lies. The fees for registration
of the Philippines by the United States. The shall be paid by the grantee. After due
applicant must show that he has complied with registration and issuance of the
the residence and cultivation requirements of certificate of title, such land shall be
the law; must have resided continuously for atl deemed to be registered land to all
east one year in the municipality where the intents and purposes under this
land is situated; and must have cultivated at Decree.
least one-fifth of the land applied for.
The Torrens system is not a mode of
On the other hand, a acquiring titles to lands; it is merely
Free Patent may be issued a system of registration of titles to
where the applicant is a lands. However, justice and equity
natural-born citizen of the demand that the titleholder should
Philippines; not the owner of not be made to bear the unfavorable
more than twelve (12) effect of the mistake or negligence of
hectares of land; that he has the State's agents, in the absence of
continuously occupied and proof of his complicity in a fraud or
cultivated, either by himself of manifest damage to third persons.
or through his predecessors- The real purpose of the Torrens
in-interests, a tract or system is to quiet title to land and put
tracts of agricultural public a stop forever to any question as to
lands subject to disposition the legality of the title, except claims
for at least 30 years prior to that were noted in the certificate at
the effectivity of Republic Act the time of the registration or that
No. 6940; and that he has may arise subsequent thereto.
paid the real taxes thereon Otherwise, the integrity of the
while the same has not been Torrens system shall forever be
occupied by any person. sullied by the ineptitude and
inefficiency of land registration
Homestead Patent, once registered under the officials, who are ordinarily
Land Registration presumed to have regularly
Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens performed their duties.
Title. Verily, Section 103 of P.D. No. 1529 6. Jurisdiction
mandates the registration of patents, and such AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS
registration is the operative act to convey the RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF
land to the patentee, thus: PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
SECTION 2. Nature of Registration Proceedings;
Sec.103.............. The deed, grant, patent Jurisdiction of Courts. — Judicial proceedings
or instrument to f conveyance from the for the registration of lands throughout the
Government to the grantee Shall not take Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on
effect as a conveyance or bind the land the generally accepted principles underlying the
but shall operate only as a contract Torrens system.
between the Government and the · Courts of First Instance shall
grantee and as evidence of authority to have exclusive jurisdiction over all
the Register of Deeds to make applications for original registration of
registration. It is the act of registration title to lands, including improvements
that shall be the operative act to affect and interests therein, and over all
 petitions filed after original registration properties as well as her share in the
of title, with power to hear and determine conjugal partnership of gains
all questions arising upon such · Such will was subjected to a
applications or petitions. The court probate in CFI of Cebu in which Jose
through its clerk of court shall furnish the contested on the ground that it impaired
Land Registration Commission with two his legitime. Eventually, the will was
certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, allowed probate but it was dismissed
orders, and decisions filed or issued in because Jesus neglected to perform his
applications or petitions for land duties as the estate’s executor.
registration, with the exception of Consequently, the probate court was not
stenographic notes, within five days from able to adjudicate to the heirs their
the filing or issuance thereof. respective shares.
Agcaoili: The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial · As a result to this, Jose filed a
Courts over matters involving the registration of complaint of partition with damages against
lands and lands registered under the Torrens his six brothers in the CFI of Cebu Branch 13.
system is conferred by Section 2 of PD No. 1529, The decision was in favor of Jose and entitled
while jurisdiction over petitions for amendments him to his share and has become final and
of certificates of title is provided for by Section executory in Aug. 10, 1978.
108 of the Decree. · Inasmuch as the herein respondents
Concepcion v. Concepcion have not yet complied with the
FACTS aforementioned August 10, 1978 decision of
· The parties in this case are CFI-Cebu, Branch 13, the same court issued
descendants of the late spouses Regino an Order dated 27 May 1987 , directing its
Concepcion and Concepcion Famador. branch sheriff Candido A. Gadrinab to
· Petitioner Emmanuel is a son of the execute a deed of conveyance covering the
late spouses while the other petitioners Zulueta property in favor of Jose.
Betty, Jimmy, Rosario and Jernie (all · Unfortunately, when Jose presented the
surnamed Concepcion) and the same deed for registration, the Register of
respondents Antonio Concepcion, Deeds required him to surrender the owner's
Lourdes C. Watts and Ida C. Horvat are duplicate copy of TCT No. T-52227 covering
grandchildren of the spouses. the Zulueta property, which title was then in
· The deceased spouses Regino the possession of the petitioners. Despite
Concepcion, Sr. and Concepcion demands, petitioners refused delivery of the
Famador had seven children namely: title. Hence, Jose filed in RTC at Cebu City
Jose (father of respondents Antonio Branch 5 a petition for cancellation of TCT
Concepcion, Lourdes Watts and Ida No. T-52227 for which the Court granted
Horvat), Jesus (father of petitioners Jose’s petition and hereby ordered defendant
Betty Concepcion and Jimmy Jesus to surrender the copy to the Register of
Concepcion), Maria, Vicente, Regino, Jr. Deeds.
(father of petitioners Rosario Vda. De · CA affirmed the decision.
Concepcion and Jernie Concepcion), Issue: Whether or not the cadastral court
Elena and Emmanuel. (RTC Branch 5) had authority to order the
· The deceased spouses acquired a surrender to the respondents the copy of TCT
certain property in Zulueta Street, Cebu covering the Zulueta property
City. RULING
· Regino, Sr. died in 1944. Ten (10) · SC Ruled in favor of the
years later or in 1954, his wife, petitioners.
Concepcion Famador, also passed away. · The pleadings before us
Upon the latter's death, she left a will disclose that in the proceedings
disposing of all her paraphernal before the cadastral court, petitioners
filed an opposition claiming that the
 action of Sheriff Gadrinab in Angeles and seven co-applicants. Among
levying the Zulueta property was other things it alleged that "applicants are
with grave abuse of authority since owners pro-indiviso and in fee simple of
said property is not within the the aforesaid land."
scope of the dispositive portion of · This was set for an initial hearing
the decision dated August 10, 1978 in May 27, 1960. However, the Director
of CFI-Cebu, Branch 13. of Lands filed an opposition stating that
· In Junio vs. De Los Santos and the land is a portion of public domain.
Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, the · At the initial hearing, the Province
Court of First Instance (now the of Rizal and 11 private oppositors
Regional Trial Court), as a Land appeared therein. The private oppositors,
Registration Court, can hear cases among them Julio Hidalgo, filed a
otherwise litigable only in ordinary written opposition claiming that they are
civil actions, since the Court of the lawful owners of the parcels of land
First Instance are at the same time, in question for having acquired
[c]ourts of general jurisdiction homestead patents over the said lots (11).
· Under Sec. 2 of P.D. 1529, it They have recommended to the Court
is now provided that 'Courts of that the case be dismissed with respect to
First Instance (now Regional Trial lot 11 which was previously patented.
Courts) shall have exclusive · On August 15, 1961 applicants
jurisdiction over all applications for filed an "opposition to motion to
original registration of titles of lands. dismiss.” But on September 18, 1961 the
· We must emphasize, however, court issued an order dismissing the
that there is nothing in the August application But, the motion for
10, 1978 decision of said court reconsideration was denied and
which authorizes the surrender applicants appealed to this Court.
and/or delivery of the title covering Issue: Whether a land registration court which
the Zulueta property. has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel
· It merely required the of land for registration of title thereto could be
defendants therein to "contribute divested of said jurisdiction by a subsequent
proportionately to the completion of administrative act consisting in the issuance by
the plaintiff's legitime the Director of Lands of a homestead patent
· The subsequent issuance of the covering the same parcel of land.
order dated May 27, 1987 which RULING
amends the final and executory · SC ruled in favor of petitioner.
decision dated August 10, 1978 Lower court erred in dismissing the
cannot be allowed. We have application for registration as regards to
repeatedly held that a judgment that the lot over which homestead patent was
has become final and executory can issued by the Director of Lands during
no longer be amended or corrected the pendency of the registration
except for clerical errors and proceeding.
mistakes. The 1987 decision of RTC · To start with, it is well settled that
Branch 13 is a nullity. the Director of Lands' jurisdiction,
administrative supervision and
De los Angeles v. Santos executive control extend only over
FACTS lands of the public domain and not to
· On November 21, 1959 an lands alreadyof private ownership.
application for registration of title to 12 · Accordingly, a homestead patent
parcels of land in Ampid, San Mateo, issued by him over land not of the
Rizal was filed in the Court of First public domain is a nullity, devoid of
Instance of Rizal by Leonor de los force and effect against the owner
 · The petitioners contended that they
were owners pro-indiviso on Nov. 21, ●The venue of real actions shall be the proper
1959 of the aforesaid land. If they court which has territorial jurisdiction over the
successfully prove this and thereby show area wherein the real property involved, or a
the registrable title to the land, it would portion thereof, is situated. The venue of personal
mean that Julio Hidalgo’s homestead actions is the court where the plaintiff or any of
patent which was issued over lot 11 on the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the
June 12, 1961, was no longer public. defendant or any of the principal defendants
· The land registration court,in that resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant
event, would have to order a decree of where he may be found, at the election of the
title issued in applicants' favor and plaintiff. (Rule 4, Rules of Court)
declare the aforesaid homestead
patent a nullity. 8. Title vs. Certificate of Title
· Case was remanded to the court Title is generally defined as the lawful cause
a quo. or ground of possessing that which is ours. It
is that which is the foundation of ownership
of property, real or personal. Title, therefore,
7. Real Actions v. Personal Actions may be defined briefly as that which
(Google) constitutes a just cause of exclusive
possession, or which is the foundation of
An action is 'real' when it affects title to or ownership of property.
possession of real property, or an interest therein Certificate of title, on the other hand, is a
(Sec. 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court). All other actions mere evidence of ownership; it is not the title
are personal action (Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules of to the land itself. Under the Torrens system,
Court). a certificate of title may be an Original
Certificate of Title, which constitutes a true
copy of the decree of registration; or a
In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of Transfer Certificate of Title, issued
real property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of subsequent to the original registration.
Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to
real property or for the recovery of possession, or Castillo vs. Escutin
for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure FACTS
of a mortgage on, real property. (Paderanga vs.
Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475, September 28, 1993)
An action for damages to real property, while
involving realty is a personal action because
although it involves real property, it does not
involve any of the issues mentioned. An action to
recover possession of real property plus damages
is a real action because possession of the real
property is involved. Types of Certificate of Title

● The distinction between real action and (Google)

personal action is important for the purpose of
determining the venue of the action. A real action The Owner’s Duplicate Certificate is either an
is “local”, which means that its venue depends Original Certificate of Title (OCT), if it is the first
upon the location of the property involved in the title issued on the land, or a Transfer Certificate
litigation. A personal action is “transitory”, which of Title (TCT), if it was issued subsequent to the
means that its venue depends upon the residence first title. A TCT is usually issued after the title is
of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of transferred to someone from the first registered
the plaintiff. owner, with the OCT being canceled. All
subsequent transfers (whether by sale, donation
or any other legal means) will also result in the
issuance of a TCT.