Republic of the Philippines vs San Lorenzo Development Corporation G.R. No. 170724 January 29, 2007 GARCIA, J.

: FACTS: San Lorenzo Development Corporation filed with the MTCC of Danao City an application for registration of title to a parcel of land, described as Lot 1 of the Consolidation-Subdivision Plan, being a portion of Lots 3151, 3152, 3158, 3159, 3160 and 3161, Cad. 681-D, in Barangay Maslog, City of Danao,Province of Cebu with an area of 64,909 square meters. The Republic filed its opposition to the application on the same. Respondent, to prove that it and its predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land applied for in the concept of an owner peacefully, continuously, adversely and notoriously presented six witnesses who provided testimonies saying that they had been in possession of the land and have sold their parcels to the respondent and their testimonies were supported by tax declarations and deeds of sale. ISSUE: Whether or not deeds of sale and tax declarations/clearances constitute the well-nigh incontrovertible evidence necessary to acquire title through adverse occupation under C.A. No. 141. HELD: As the law now stands, a mere showing of possession for thirty years or more is not sufficient. It must be shown, too, that possession and occupation had started on June 12, 1945 or earlier. The earliest of the tax declarations presented by the respondent was in the year 1948 for Lots 3152, 3159 and 3161; 1963 for Lot 3151; and 1964 for Lots 3150 and 3160. At best, the respondent corporation can only prove possession since said dates. This does not constitute the evidence necessary to acquire title through adverse occupation under CA 141, as amended.

SPOUSES MARIANO and ERLINDA LABURADA, represented by their attorney-in-fact, MANUEL SANTOS, JR vs LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY G.R. No. 101387 March 11, 1998 PANGANIBAN, J: FACTS: Petitioners were the applicants in LRC Case No. N-11022 for the registration of Lot 3-A, Psd-1372, located in Mandaluyong City. As soon as this decision shall become final, let the corresponding decree be issued in the name of spouses Marciano and Erlinda Laburada, both of legal age, married, with residence and postal address at No. 880 Rizal Ave., Manila. Upon the finality of the decision, the trial court, upon motion of petitioners, issued an order dated March 15, 1991 requiring the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration. However, the LRA refused. Hence, petitioners filed this action for mandamus. ISSUE: Whether or not mandamus is the right remedy HELD: The issuance of the degree is not compellable by mandamus because it is a judicial act which involves the exercise of discretion. The writ of mandamus can only be awarded when a petitioners legal right to the performance of a particular act which is to be compelled is clear and complete. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a clear legal right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law. If the right is clear, such case will be meritous and technical issues will be disregarded but if said right is issued by doubt or dispute the writ of mandamus cannot be issued.

MELENCIO BERBOSO AND CONCEPCION BERBOSO vs COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 141593-94 July 12, 2006

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: FACTS: Private respondents with Manuel, Alberto, Antonio and Rafaelito, all surnamed Carlos, filed with the Bureau of Land Acquisition, DAR, a joint request for the conversion of their parcel of land consisting of 48.2789 hectares of unirrigated riceland situated at Calvario, Iba, and Camalig, Meycauayan, Bulacan, and covered by TCTs No. 48182 and No. 48183. DAR Secretary Conrado F. Estrella issued an Order declaring the said parcels of land suitable for residential, commercial, industrial and other urban purposes. Petitioners Berbosos invoked Presidential Decree No. 27 arguing that upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on 21 October 1972, they are automatically deemed owners of the land in question; that TCTs No. EP-150-M and No. EP-149-M which cover the subject lands, were issued in their favor by the DAR and that said titles cannot be cancelled by the Court of Appeals in the absence of a direct attack by private respondents Carloses and JKM. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a direct attack on the validity of the TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M of the petitioners Berbosos by private respondents Carloses and JKM thus allowing for the cancellation of said titles HELD: There is no doubt that private respondents have attacked and challenged the January 5, 1994 Order of DAR Secretary Garilao which directed the issuance of emancipation patents in favor of petitioners Berbosos. In its November 5, 1999 Manifestation and Motion filed with the CA, JKM specifically prayed that an order be included in its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41568, directing the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, to cancel TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M, and to reinstate cancelled TCTs No. T-114000 (M), No. 120510 (M), No. 102513 (M), No. 120514 (M), No. 120516 (M), and No. 120517 (M) in its name and TCTs No. 122924 (M) and No. 122925 (M) in the name of Wong Lee Lee. Petitioners cannot validly claim that there was no direct attack on their titles thus barring the CA from canceling TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M. A torrens title, is conclusive and indefeasible. P.D. No. 1529, Section 48, provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding. The attack is direct when the object of an action or proceeding is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement while the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.