Case Doctrines

Land Titles: Case Doctrines

Kim Raisa O. Uy

Ateneo Law School 2012

SECTIONS 1 TO 13

National Grains Authority vs IAC

"The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and

to stop forever any question as to its legality. "Once a title is

registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of

waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting avoid the possibility of

losing his land." "An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title

is not allowed. The only exception to this rule is where a person

obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he

has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner.

Solid State Multi-Products v CA

registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence of such title over a

particulate property

registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership

Traders Royal Bank v CA

The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts

of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by

giving the public the right to rely on the face of a Torrens certificate of

title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further

Exception: banks and real estate companies can’t rely on the title itself

Aznar Brothers v Aying

In constructive implied trusts, prescription may supervene even if the

trustee does not repudiate the relationship. Necessarily, repudiation of

said trust is not a condition precedent to the running of the prescriptive

period

10-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registatrion

of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, but if

the person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession, the right to

seek reconveayance which if effect seeks to quiet title, does not

prescribe – since the 3 heirs all testified that they had never occupied it,

it’s 10 years.

Moscoso v CA

The rigid rule that the jurisdiction of the Land Registration Court -

being special and limited in character and proceedings, does not extend

to cases involving issues properly litigable in other independent suits,

has time and again been relaxed in special and exceptional

circumstances

The proceeding is an action in rem – no personal notice to all clamaints

of the res is necessary

Arceo v CA

- PD1529 has eliminated the distinction between the general

jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction

conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a

cadastral court

- RTC now has an authority to act not only on applications for

original registration but also over all petitions filed after original

registration of title

- Personal notice to claimant of the land is not necessary because it

is a proceeding in rem

Evangelista vs Santiago

- PD892 divests the Spanish title of any legal force and effect in

establishing ownership over real property – in the absence of an

allegation in petitioner’s complaint that petitioner’s predecessor in

interest complied with PD892, then in could be assumed that they

failed to do so

- Deadline of the use of Spanish Title: August 16, 1976 (6months)

Intestate Estate vs. CA

Under PD 892, the system of registration under Spanish Mortgage

Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish Titles should cause their

lands to be registered under Land Registration Act within 6 months from

date of effectivity or until August 16, 1976.

Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, under PD 892, is inadmissible and

ineffective as evidence of private ownership in special proceedings case.

Since the Titulo was not registered under Land Registration Act, said Titulo

is inferior to the registered title of defendants Ocampo, Buhain and dela


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Cruz. Torrens title of the latter enjoys the conclusive presumption of

validity.

Noblejas vs. Teehankee

Any Bureau Director’s ruling is likewise appealable to the corresponding

department head.

And even if the resolution of the Commissioner is deemed judicial (quasi-

judicial is the proper term since it is an admin agency), the same provision

will show that these are merely incidental to the nature of his

administrative functions.

LABURADA vs. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

Issuance of a Decree Is Not a Ministerial Act

The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of

courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be compelled through

mandamus. The issuance of the final decree can hardly be considered a

ministerial act for the reason that said Chief of the General Land

Registration Office acts not as an administrative officer but as an officer of

the court and so the issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not

an administrative one.

Indeed, it is well-settled that the issuance of such decree is not compellable

by mandamus because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of

discretion.

Republic v CA

- OCT in Register of Deeds supports the authenticity of title on

ownership in property

Baranda v Gustilo

The function of Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of

deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature

Balbin v Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur

1. Instances when the RD may refuse to register Title:

2. When you fail to show all the copies of the title

3. Invalid on its face

4. When there is a pending case in the court where the validity of

conveyance and character of the land is in question

5. Document presented is merely a private instrument, not notarized

Toledo-Banaga v CA

As part of the execution process, it is a ministerial function of the

Register of Deeds to comply with the decision of the court to issue a

title and register a property in the name of a certain person, especially

when the decision had attained finality

Chvez vs PEA

The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is

rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands

and waters of the public domain.

- Registration does not vest a better right to the possession you

already have

- The fact that you registered a property of public domain, it is not

converted to private lands

SECTIONS 14 TO 34

Ong vs Republic

Sec. 14 provides that applicants for registration of title must prove:

1. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable

lands under the public domain

2. That they have been in OCEN possession and occupation of the

same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or

earlier

Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of public

domain because the law requires possession and occupation.


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Cureg vs IAC

- a decree of registration cars all claims and rights which arose or

may have existed prior to the decree of registration. By the

issuance of the decree, the land is bound and title thereto quited

De Buyser vs Director of Lands

- alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain

and, therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse possession by

private persons. It is outside the commerce of men, unless

otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of

the government.

Republic vs Naguit

- Section 14 merely requires the property sought to be registered as

already alienable and disposable at the time the application for

registration of title is filed

- Need not be alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier

International Hardwood and Veneer Co., of the Philippines vs UP

- when RA No. 3990 was enacted, it ceded and transferred full

ownership to UP. Hence, it removed such lands from public

domain, and divested, relinquished and conveyed its rights and title

to UP. It made UP the absolute owner, subject only to the existing

concession.

Lopez vs De Castro

- Where a party files an application for registration of a parcel of

land which is already the subject of registration proceedings, the

second court could no longer entertain the same

Director of Lands vs Reyes

Was the execution pending appeal applicable in a land registration

proceeding?

No. The execution had dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may

be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment

which may be reversed on appeal. A Torrens title issued on the basis of a

judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit

provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall

be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and

executory. The lower court acted without jurisdiction in ordering the

issuance of a decree of registration despite the timely appeal.

Republic vs Munoz

Best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the

original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands but blueprint

copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification.

*the blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the lot’s technical

description duly certified as to their correctness by the Bureau of Lands are

adequate to identify the land applied for registration. Also, if the survey

plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been

overcome by clear, strong, convincing evidence, the presentation of the

tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with.

Benin vs Tuason

Amendment to Application Need Not Be Published if it Excludes

Portions of Lands

A publication of a new amendment to an application for registration is to

give notice to all persons about the said amendment. If the amendment

INCLUDES an area of land not previously included in the original

application, as published, a new publication of the amended application

must be made. Without new publication, the CLR cannot acquire

jurisdiction over the parcel of land added to the original application. But if

the amendment EXCLUDES an area of land, a new publication is not

necessary, and non-publication will not affect the jurisdiction of the

Court.

Since the amendment in Parcel No. 2 did not include new portions of land,

but in fact excluded 292,791 sqm from the original application, then no new

publication is necessary. And even if the amendment in Parcel No. 1

increased the portion of land (by 27.10 sqm), the added area is too

minimal to be of the decisive factor in the validity of OCT 735.

[EXCEPTION]

Mendoza vs CA

Under Section 29 of the Land Registration Act, the law does not require that

the application for registration be amended by substituting the "buyer" or

the person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the applicant.


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property

has been conveyed" be a party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to

the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1)

that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together

with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application;

and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar

facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements

have been complied with.

How to Prove if the land is alienable or disposable?

1. Presidential proclamation

2. Executive order

3. Law or statute

Lopez vs Enriquez

Motion to lift order of general default prior to the entry of a final judgment

becoming final and executor; after that, you can’t lift order of general

default (Sec. 26 of PD 1529)

A movant, unlike an oppositor, don’t need to file to life the order of general

default

Republic vs CA

The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land

and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain. By

such act, the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even

the government, without need of any further act such as the purchase of the

land or the obtention of a patent over it. As the land had become the private

property of the locators, they had the right to transfer the same, as they did,

to Benguet and Atok.

the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half

agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the

land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the

instant case, as already observed, the land which was originally classified as

forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and completely mineral

— once the mining claims were perfected. As long as mining operations

were being undertaken thereon, or underneath, it did not cease to be so and

become agricultural, even if only partly so, because it was enclosed with a

fence and was cultivated by those who were unlawfully occupying the

surface.

CA 137 - once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever the use to

which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be discontinued by the

State to enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of its

sovereign prerogative. The land is thus converted to mineral land and may

not be used by any private party, including the registered owner thereof, for

any other purpose that will impede the mining operations to be undertaken

therein, For the loss sustained by such owner, he is of course entitled to just

compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation

proceedings.

Director vs CA

The law used the term ―shall‖ in prescribing the work to be done by the

Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latter’s receipt of the court

order setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an

imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute.

It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation

should be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by

publication in the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of

which have already been complied with in the case at hand. The reason is

due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read

and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation,

such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested parties

on time, if at all.

Republic vs Marasigan

OG is sufficient in complying with the publication requirements, but it is

still mandatory to comply with mailing and posting

De Castro vs Marcos

Only the Solicitor General can file an opposition, not a private person


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Fernandez vs Abrotique

Registered land under the Torrens System cannot be acquired by

prescription or adverse possession. Under the Land Registration Act, ―no

title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be

acquired by prescription or adverse possession.‖

A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title. Furthermore, the claim here is

only noted on the survey plan, and such annotation cannot prevail over the

actual decree of registration as reproduced in the certificate. All claims of

third persons to the property must be asserted in the registration

proceedings.

Director vs CA

Notwithstanding absence of opposition from the government, the petitioner

in land registration cases is not relieved of the burden of proving the

imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed

Republic vs Abrille

For an applicant to have his imperfect or incomplete title or claim to a land

to be originally registered under Act 496, the following requisites should all

be satisfied:

1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private

surveyor;

2. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;

3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the Court;

4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with

all the documents or other evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court

to the Land Registration Commission;

5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application and date and place

of the hearing in the Official Gazette;

6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to

have interests in the property by the sheriff;

7. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the

notice or not;

8. Hearing of the case by the Court;

9. Promulgation of judgment by the Court;

10. Issuance of the decree by the Court declaring the decision final and

instructing the Land Registration Commission to issue a decree of

confirmation and registration;

11. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Commission;

12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding

Register of Deeds, and

13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and

the issuance of the owner's duplicate original certificate of title to the

applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed fees.

Gomez vs CA

the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does

not become final after the expiration of 1 year after the entry of the final

decree of registration. As long as a final decree has not been entered by the

Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1)

year has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally

adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be

under the control and sound discretion of the court.

a homestead patent, once registered, becomes indefeasible and

incontrovertible as a Torrens title, and may no longer be the subject of an

investigation for determination or judgment in cadastral proceeding


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Boromeo vs Descallar

Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership

Because respondent is not a holder in good faith whose ownership is not

vested by the Torrens title, Borromeo is entitled to the absolute ownership.

This is an exception to the rule on the indefeasibility of a Torrens Title. The

property was acquired by an alien who could not legally own it, who

subsequently sold the same to Borromeo, a Filipino. Since the property is in

the hands of a Filipino, the defect is cured and public policy prevails.

Evengelista vs Santiago

Action to declare the nullity of the Land Title is filed by a private individual

Action for reversion can only be filed by the State through the solicitor

general

In an action for reversion, if it is a part of public domain, then the reversion

is approved, it is reverted back to the state

In a quieting of title, petitioner should have equitable or legal title over the

land. A Spanish title was not accepted to remove or quiet title.

Spanish title can still prove possession but not ownership exception for the

ground of prescription.

Republic vs Jacob

Possession must not be a mere fiction

OCEN plus OCCUPATION

Malabanan vs Republic

The Public Land Act merely requires possession since June 12, 1945 and

does not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable

during the entire period of possession. The possessor is entitled to secure

judicial confirmation of title as soon as the land it covers is declared

alienable and disposable. This is subject to the December 31, 2020 deadline

imposed by the Public Land Act, as amended by RA 9176

Forest lands has to be classified by the government as alienable and

disposable

Requirements for prescription:

1. Classification as alienable and disposable

2. Express declaration that the property is no longer intended for

public service or for the development of national wealth =

patrimonial (NCC 420 par 2)

Public domain lands become patrimonial property or private property of the

government only upon a declaration that these are alienable or disposable

lands, together with an express government manifestation that the property

is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the

development of national wealth.

Only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period

for the acquisition of property of the public domain begin to run.

Patrimonial property may be acquired through ordinary acquisitive

prescription (possession for at least 10 years in good faith and with just

title) or extraordinary acquisitive prescription (uninterrupted, adverse

possession for at least 30 years regardless of good faith or just title). Under

the NCC, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership over

patrimonial property.

Vencilano vs Vano

In order that there may be res judicata, the following requisites must be

present: (a) The former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been

rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the

parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be,

between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, of subject

matter, and of cause of action. (applies to all cases, including land and

cadastral proceedings)

2 Principles:

1. Can’t re-litigate by final judgment = the court with jurisdiction


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Pending the resolution of a case, the petition was not a bar to the issuance

of the writ of demolition

Republic vs Bacus

Who has the power to re-classify the land?

- Exclusive prerogative of the EXECUTIVE, sometimes by the

Judiciary

A property that has not been declassified as forest land is not susceptible of

private ownership

Republic vs CA

Boundaries prevail

SECTIONS 35 TO 38

Municipality of Santiago, Isabela vs CA

Rule: a cadastral proceeding is one IN REM and any decision rendered

therein by the cadastral court is binding against the whole world. Under

this doctrine, parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues

already determined by final judgment

Director vs Benitez

it is necessary that notice thereof be given to those persons who claim an

adverse interest in the land sought to be registered, as well as the general

public, by publishing such notice in two successive issues of the Official

Gazette which shall likewise be posted in a conspicuous place on the new

land to be surveyed, as well as in the municipality building

Merced vs CA

When title to the land in a cadastral proceeding is vested?

the title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon

the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision or

adjudication by the cadastral court, without such an appeal having

been perfected. The certificate of title would then be necessary for

purposes of effecting registration of subsequent disposition of the

land where court proceedings would no longer be necessary.

Expiration of the appeal: 15 days from the decision of the RTC. After that

period, can no longer apply because barred by prescription.

Duran vs Olivia

a homestead patent once registered under the Land Registration Act can not

be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and that any title issued

thereon is null and void.

A homestead patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act,

becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title, and cannot thereafter be the

subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in a cadastral

case. Any new title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is null

and void and should be cancelled. All that the cadastral court may do is to

make correction of technical errors in the description of the property

contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by

two or more co-owners.

Cadastral Proceeding (Constructive Notice)

Remedy:

1. motion to dismiss

2. land registration case

Director vs CA

The defense of res adjudicata when not set up either in a motion to dismiss

or in an answer, is deemed waived.

a Cadastral Court proceeding declaring a land to be public is not the final

decree contemplated in the law1 that would bar subsequent application. As

1 Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act


Kim Raisa O. Uy


long as Applicant: (1) complies with Section 48 of CA 141; and (2) as

long as public land is alienable and disposable, one can still apply.

Manotok Realty vs CLT Realty

If the property is covered by 2 titles, the earlier title prevails

it is only after the transcription of the decree by the register of deeds that the

certificate of title is to take effect.

Once a property is already registered, it cannot be the subject of a cadastral

proceedings

Limitation of Cadastral Court Jurisdiction:

1. necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the

lands, provided such corrections do not impair the substantial

rights of the registered owner, and that such jurisdiction cannot

operate to deprive a registered owner of his title

2. determination of ―which one of the several conflicting registered

titles shall prevail‖

3. What is prohibited in a cadastral proceeding is the registration of

land, already issued in the name of a person, in the name of

another, divesting the registered owner of the title already issued in

his favor, or the making of such changes in the title as to impair his

substantial rights. (unless it is upon the request of the owner)

Heirs of Luzuriaga vs Republic

Here the identity and area of the claimed property are not the subjects of

amendment but other collateral matters, a new publication is not needed.

The amendment in this case was not an amendment of the identity and area

of the disputed lot.

Veranga vs Republic

After trial, what are the additional steps:

- Decision

- Court to declare the final judgment (order LRA to issue

registration)

- LRA to issue decree of registration and title

- RD to issue the certificate of title

SECTIONS 39 TO 50

MWSS vs CA, Heirs of Gonzaga vs CA, the 3 Manotok Cases

a. Cadastral court can no longer acquire jurisdiction on property with

Torrens Title

Exceptions:

i. Errors

ii. One title is preferred over the other

iii. Owner’s request

b. 2 OCT – earlier title prevails

c. Burden of proof on plaintiff – incontrovertible evidence

IN Rem proceedings – cleanses the defect of the title from the very

beginning

Pasino vs Monterroyo

A Counterclaim is Not a Collateral Attack on the Title

- A counterclaim is considered an original complaint and the attack

on the title in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be

considered as a collateral attack on the title

Sarmiento vs CA

A third party complaint is in the nature of an original complaint because it

is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff’s

complaint.

The third party complaint for cancellation of TCT being in the nature of an

original complaint for cancellation of TCT, it constitutes a direct attack of

such TCT

Erasusta vs CA

Attack on a certificate of title is prohibited


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Gregorio Araneta vs RTC

An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the object of

the action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to

which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the

action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On

the other hand, it is indirect or collateral when, in an action or proceeding to

obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as

an incident thereof.

Manotok vs Barque

The LRA is powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its

legal effect. Even assuming that the previously issued title is

obviously fraudulent or attended by flaws and as such cannot be

countenanced by the legal system, the corrective recourse lies with

the courts, and not with the LRA. If a petition for administrative

reconstitution is filed with the LRA, and it appears from the official

records that the subject property is already covered by an existing

Torrens title in the name of another person, there is nothing further

the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition.

certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot

be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in

accordance with law

Cabrera vs CA

the title can be attacked directly, but NOT the certificate of title

laches can apply

one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner

thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked

before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that

his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a

court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of

a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only

by one who is in possession.

Degollacion vs Register of Deeds of Cavite

Where two certificates of title purport to include the same land, whether

wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from

which the certificates of title were derived.

Exceptions to indefeasibility of title:

1. Titled

2. Fraud or misrepresentation

3. Not capable of registration

4. Action for cancellation of TCT

Register vs PNB

The indefeasibility of titles under the Torrens System could be claimed only

if a previous valid title to the same parcel of land does not exist. Where

issuance of the title was attended by fraud, the same cannot vest in the titled

owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it; and the person in whose

name the title was issued cannot transmit the same, for he has no true title

thereto. This is a mere affirmation of the recognized principle that a

certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same

land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the same land

is in existence.

Republic vs CA

one of the exceptions of indefeasibility of title:

- If the land is incapable of registration even if it is in the hands of

an innocent purchaser in value

Bornales vs IAC

If title was obtained through fraud – indefeasibility cannot be invoked


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Arguelles vs Timbancaya

The action to annul the title or the action for reconveyance has its basis in

Section 55 of Act 496, as amended which provides that "in all cases of

registration procured by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and

equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud, without prejudice,

however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of

title." This is a remedy which is available as long as the property has not

passed to an innocent third person for value. It is independent and distinct

from that authorized by Section .38 thereof, which has for its purpose the

reopening of the decree of title, on the ground of fraud, within one (1) year

from its issuance.

REMEDIES

Cadiz Notes:

Forged Deed of Sale the buyer will not acquire any title because there

are only 2 titles

Chain of Title Doctrine there should be at least 3 titles

1. Original owner

2. Forged title

3. Buyer’s title

In the example above, the third person will acquire a good title assuming he

is an innocent purchaser for value or mortgagee in good faith

Francisco vs Puno

- A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot file a

petition for relief after his motion has been denied

- Petition for relief and motion for new trial are remedies exclusive

of each other

- It is only in appropriate cases where a party aggrieved by a

judgment has not been able to file a motion for new trial that a

petition for relief can be filed

Neypes vs CA

An appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or

final order appealed from

To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford

litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical

to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal

in the RTC, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new

trial or motion for reconsideration

Cruz vs Navarro

There must be actual fraud to justify the re-opening of decree of

registration. There must be an intentional concealment or omission of a fact

required by law to be stated in the application or a wilful statement of a

claim against the truth, either of which is calculated to deceive or deprive

another of his legal rights. The fraud must also be extrinsic – when it is

employed to deprive a party of his day in court, thereby preventing him

from asserting his right to the property registered in the name of the

applicant.

There is fraud when applicant for land registration failed to inform court of

persons in actual possession of land registered in applicant’s name

Rexlon Realty vs CA

There is no extrinsic fraud where the failure of a party to present its case

was caused by its own inaction, such as when it was not impleaded as a

party to a case because it failed to effect the timely registration of its Deed

of Sale.

Extrinsic fraud is present in cases where a party (1) is deprived of his

interest in land, because of a deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are

not contested when in fact they are; (2) applies for and obtains adjudication

and registration in the name of a co-owner of land which he knows has not

been allotted to him in the partition; (3) intentionally conceals facts and

connives with the land inspector, so that the latter would include in the

survey plan the bed of a navigable stream; (4) deliberately makes a false

statement that there are no other claims; (5) induces another not to oppose

an application; (6) deliberately fails to notify the party entitled to notice; or

(7) misrepresents the identity of the lot to the true owner, causing the latter


Kim Raisa O. Uy


to withdraw his opposition. Fraud, in these cases, goes into and affects the

jurisdiction of the court; thus, a decision rendered on the basis of such fraud

becomes subject to annulment.

Rivera vs Moran

When motion for notice and hearing was served upon the lawyer of the

party, it is deemed served as notice to the party

Petition for review if a remedy separate and distinct from a motion for new

trial and the right to the remedy is not affected by the denial of such motion

irrespective of the grounds upon which it may have been presented

Petition for review must be presented before the expiration of one year from

entry of the decree. There can be no possible reason for requiring the

complainant to wait until the final decree is entered before urging his claim

of fraud.

A petition for review may be filed at any time after the rendition of the

court’s decision and before the expiration of 1 year from the entry of the

final decree of registration

Rufloe vs Burgos

A forged deed of sale is null and void and conveyed no title.

The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the

interest of a person over a piece of real property, and serves as a notice and

warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming

an interest on the same or may have a better right than the registered owner

thereof.

Adriano vs Pangilinan

Pangilinan failed to observe due diligence in the grant of the loan and in the

execution of the real estate mortgage. Pangilinan is engaged in the real

estate business, thus Pangilinan is expected to ascertain the status and

condition of the properties offered to him as collaterals, as well as to verify

the identities of the persons he transacts business with. It is clear from the

testimony of Pangilinan that he failed to verify whether the individual

executing the mortgage was really the owner of the property.

Pangilinan knew that the property was being leased, he should have made

inquiries about the rights of the actual possessors

Sandoval vs CA

A fraudulent or forged document of sale may give rise to a valid title if the

certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true

owner to the name indicated by the forger and while it remained as such, the

land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser

Duran vs IAC

The fraudulent and forged document of sale may become the root of a valid

title if the certificate has already been transferred from the name of the true

owner to the name indicated by the forger

Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness

of the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will in no way oblige

him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.

In the absence of anything to excite suspicion, she is under no obligation to

look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor

appearing on the face of said certificate.

Pineda vs CA

No valid TCT can issue from a void TCT unless an innocent purchaser for

value has intervened

The rule is that a mortgage annotated on a void title is valid if the

mortgagee registered the mortgage in good faith

To bind third parties to an unregistered encumbrance, the law requires

actual notice


Kim Raisa O. Uy


The settled rule is that the auction sale retroacts to the date of the

registration of the mortgage putting the auction sale beyond the reach of any

intervening lis pendens, sale or attachment

Heirs of Jose Olviga vs CA

An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or

constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from registration of the deed or date

of issuance of certificate of title. This rule applies only when plaintiff is not

in possession of the property.

Cabrera vs CA

Annulment if a registration under Torrens System should be made with the

utmost caution and cannot be done collaterally

Action for reconveyance may be filed even before the issuance of the decree

of registration

Pino vs CA

Where the certificate of title is in the name of the vendor when the land is

sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears on the

certificate of title. In the absence of anything to excite or arouse suspicion,

said vendee is under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and

investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate

If an action for reconveyance based on constructive trust cannot reach an

innocent purchaser for value, the remedy of the defrauded party is to bring

an action for damages against those who caused the fraud or were

instrumental in depriving him of the property. And it is now well-settled

that such action prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens

Title over the property.

De Guzman vs National Treasurer

The Assurance Fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the

harshness of the doctrine that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of

an indefeasible title to land. It is given to persons who sustain damage or

loss without negligence attributable to mistakes, acts, omissions,

misfeasance etc of Register of Deeds in the performance of their functions.

SECTIONS 51 TO 68

Garcia vs CA

Voluntary Registration Involuntary

Registration

The registration of an

attachment, levy upon

execution, notice of lis

pendens, and the like

(annotation is required)

An entry in the day book

is sufficient notice to all

persons even if the

owner’s duplicate

certificate of title is not

presented to the RD

The buyer becomes the

registered owner the

moment the deed is

entered in the day book

and he surrenders the

owner’s duplicate

certificate of title and

pays the fees

Mingoa vs LRC

The date of mailing of an instrument to the RD for purposes of registration

should be considered the date of filing and receipt by RD. It is the date that

should be entered in the primary entry book of the RD which shall be

regarded as the date of its registration. (NOT the date of actual receipt)

Pilapil vs CA

Registration retoacts to the date of entry in the book

Egao vs CA, Francisco vs CA, Quiniano vs CA, PNB vs CA & Borneles

vs CA

General Rule: the buyer can rely on the title

Exceptions:


Kim Raisa O. Uy


1. Facts and circumstances that would compel a reasonable prudent

man to investigate

2. Land sold is in possession of another owner

3. When you buy the property NOT from the registered owner

4. Annotation of lis pendens is present

If the vendee has actual knowledge of the defects equals to registration

Solivel vs Francisco

A buyer is deemed to be in bad faith if he did not ascertain the seller, hence

the buyer cannot acquire the property and the doctrine of chain of title

cannot apply

Llanto vs Alzona

Mortgagee in good faith is a mortgagee who relied on the title of the

mortgagor who has a title on its name.

As a general rule, you cannot mortgage a property is you are not the owner

Philippine Veterans Bank vs Montillas

The prior registered mortgage and the foreclosure proceedings already

conducted prevail over subsequent annotation of the notices of lis pendens

on the titles to the property. A prior registration of a lien creates preference;

hence, the subsequent annotation of an adverse claim cannot defeat the

rights of the mortgagee, or the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights

were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered

Land Bank vs Republic

Mortgagees of non-disposable lands, titles to which were erroneously issued

acquire no protection under the Land Registration Law

Forest lands cannot be owned by private persons. It is not registerable.

A certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain

classified as forest or timber or mineral land. Any title issued covering non-

disposable lots even in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value

shall be cancelled

Since the title is void, it could not have become incontrovertible. Even

prescription may not be used as a defense

SECTIONS 69 to 92

Caviles vs Bautista

In the case at bar, the notice of attachment covering the subject property

was annotated in the entry book of the Register of Deeds of Pasay City on

October 6, 1982, while the new transfer certificate of title in the name of

respondent spouses was issued on October 18, 1982, the date when Plata

sold the property to said respondents.

This Court has repeatedly held that in involuntary registration, such as an

attachment, levy on execution, lis pendens and the like, entry thereof in the

day book or entry book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse

claim. Petitioners' lien of attachment was properly recorded when it was

entered in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds on October 6,

1982.

We have also consistently ruled that an auction or execution sale retroacts

to the date of levy of the lien of attachment. When the subject property was

sold on execution to the petitioners, this sale retroacted to the date of

inscription of petitioners' notice of attachment on October 6, 1982. The

earlier registration of the petitioners' levy on preliminary attachment gave

them superiority and preference in rights over the attached property as

against respondents.

Sajones vs CA

Annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest

of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such

interest or right not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or

Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves a

warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming

an interest on the same or a better right than that of the registered owner

Under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act which gives

validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.


Kim Raisa O. Uy


Cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective,

otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien

upon the property.

A notice of levy cannot prevail over an existing adverse claim inscribed on

the certificate of title

Rodriguez vs CA

Any prudent buyer of real property, before parting with his money, is

expected to first ensure that the title to the property he is about to purchase

is clear and free from any liabilities and that the sellers have the proper

authority to deal on the property.

Deed of sale with assumption of mortgage is a registrable instrument. In

order to bind third parties, it must be registered with the Office of the

Register of Deeds.

Ligon vs CA

Under our land registration law, no voluntary instrument shall be registered

by the Register of Deeds unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented

together with such instrument, except in some cases or upon order of the

court for cause shown. In case the person in possession of the duplicate

certificates refuses or fails to surrender the same to the Register of Deeds so

that a voluntary document may be registered and a new certificate issued

the regional trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for

original registration but also over all petitions filed after original

registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising

upon such applications or petitions.

Even while Sec. 107 of P.D. 1529 speaks of a petition which can be filed by

one who wants to compel another to surrender the certificates of title to the

Register of Deeds, this does not preclude a party to a pending case to

include as incident therein the relief stated under Sec. 107, especially if the

subject certificates of title to be surrendered are intimately connected with

the subject matter of the principal action.

Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title which subsists should

be incorporated in or carried over to the new transfer certificates of title.

Magdalena Homeowners vs CA

a notice of lis pendens is proper in the following cases, viz.:

a) An action to recover possession of real estate;

b) An action to quiet title thereto;

c) An action to remove clouds thereon;

d) An action for partition and

e) Any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title to

the land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.

a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court, "after

proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse

party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused

it to be recorded."

A. Doronilla Resources vs CA

The two remedies, notice of lis pendens and adverse claim, are not

contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the existence of one

automatically nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be

considered unnecessary or superfluous, it would be the notice is pendens,

and not the annotation of an adverse claim which is more permanent and

cannot be cancelled without adequate hearing and proper disposition of the

claim involved

Statement that the property is subject to consulta, unlike a statement of

adverse claim, cannot serve as warning and notice to third persons dealing

with the property

Lopez vs Enriquez

The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect. First, it keeps the

subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry

of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by

successive alienations. Second, it binds a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the

land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will


Kim Raisa O. Uy


promulgate subsequently. However, the filing of a notice of lis pendens

does not create a right or lien that previously did not exist.

A notice of lis pendens may involve actions that deal not only with title or

possession of a property, but also with the use or occupation of a property.

Persons who are mere movants are not original parties to an action

contemplated in Sec. 76 of PD 1529 who may file an application for a

notice of lis pendens with the RD

One should be careful, however, to distinguish between movants as mere

interested parties prescribed under Section 22 of PD 1529 and movants as

intervenors-oppositors to the land registration proceedings. It is only in the

latter case that a motion to lift the order of general default is required.

San Lorenzo Development Corporation vs CA

The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right)

gains greater significance in case of double sale of immovable property.

When the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and

first records it in the Registry of Property, both made in good faith, shall be

deemed the owner. Verily, the act of registration must be coupled with good

faith— that is, the registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack

of title of his vendor or must not have been aware of facts which should

have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to

acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor

Article 1544 does not apply to a case where there was a sale to one party of

the land itself while the other contract was a mere promise to sell the land or

at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the same land.

Accordingly, there was no double sale of the same land in that case.

SECTIONS 93 to 106

Torres vs CA

The doctrine of a forged deed becoming a root of a valid title cannot be

applied where the owner still holds valid and existing certificate of title

covering the same interest in a realty

Remedy of buyer from a person who pretended to be owner of registered

and after procuring a false claim of loss of owner’s duplicate in court, is

against the latter or the Assurance Fund

Blanco vs Esquierdo

A mortgagee had the right to rely on what appeared in the certificate and, in

the absence of anything to excite suspicion, was under no obligation to look

beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing

on the face of said certificate.

Being thus an innocent mortgagee for value, its right or lien upon the land

mortgaged must be respected and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained

her title there thru fraud. The remedy of the persons prejudice bring an

action for damages against those causing fraud, and if the latter are

insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be filed for

the recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.

Treasurer vs CA

It is a condition sine qua non that the person who brings an action for

damages against the Assurance Fund be the registered owner and as the

holders of TCT, that they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for

value.

Ybanez vs IAC

Public land certificate of title issued to a person attains the status of

indefeasibility 1 year after the issuance of patent

Del Castillo vs Orciga

A Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) is a document issued to a tenant-

farmer, which proves inchoate ownership of an agricultural land primarily

devoted to rice and corn production. It is issued in order for the tenant-

farmer to acquire the land. This certificate prescribes the terms and

conditions of ownership over said land and likewise describes the

landholding––its area and its location. A CLT is the provisional title of

ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full


Kim Raisa O. Uy


payment of the land’s value or for as long as the beneficiary is an

"amortizing owner."

Land transfer under PD No. 27 is effected in two (2) stages: (1) issuance of

a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary as soon as DAR transfers the landholding to

the farmer-beneficiary in recognition that said person is a "deemed owner";

and (2) issuance of an Emancipation Patent as proof of full ownership of the

landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or lease rentals

by the farmer or beneficiary.

De los Angeles vs Santos

land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel

of land for registration of title thereto could NOT be divested of said

jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by

the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of

land

Pasino vs Monterroyo

Non-Registration of Homestead Patent Rendered it

Functus Officio: It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to

affect and convey the land

Tengco vs Aliwalas

An original certificate of title issued on the strength of a homestead patent

partakes of the nature of a certificate of title issued in a judicial proceeding

Title acquired through a homestead patent registered under the Land

Registration Act is imprescriptible. Thus, prescription cannot operate

against a registered owner

Case Doctrines

Documents

Transcript of Case Doctrines