Chapter V Heirs of Regalado vs Republic Gr 168155 February 15,2007 Carpio-Morales, J: Facts: Marina Regalado filed an application for registration

of a parcel of land located at Sitio Balubad, Barrio Nangka, Marikina, Metro Manila before the RTC of Pasig. The application was published in Official Gazette and in a newspaper. However, Marina withdrew the application. Later on, she filed for a re-application but was denied. It was denied on the ground that NHA owned the subject property. Marina also alleged that the Land was assigned to her by Tomas Antero. Issue: Whether Marina Regalado was the owner of the property. Held: no.It is worth pointing out that the very reason why the previous owner Tomas Antero of the subject lot failed to secure the corresponding Tax Declaration was because of the apparent hesitation of then Municipality of Marikina, Metro Manila to issue the same, contending that it considered the same as part of the public domain. That attitude of the Municipality of Marikina, Metro Manila could be readily gleaned from the very Tax Declaration No. B-0069187 issued to petitioner Marina C. Regalado, the specific portion thereof is quoted, to wit:

NOTE: It is believed that the land covered by this declaration form [sic] part of the public domain and was assessed upon the insistence of the declarant and upon compliance with Article 5-E of the Assessment Regulation No. 3-75.[40] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)

June 10, 1971 G.R. No. L-29075 APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE, ELDRED FEWKES, applicant-appellant, vs. NACITA VASQUEZ, DOMINGO VASQUEZ, TRINIDAD GERARTE, HEIRS OF AUGUSTO ARAMBURO, SIMEON ARAMBURO, RAMON VELASCO, JOSEFINA VELASCO ISAAC, EMILIA VELASCO SAMSON, HEIRS OF JUAN VELASCO, SEGUNDO CERDENIA, MAURICIO SAYSON, PACITA SAMSON and FLORENCIO DYCOCO, oppositors-appellees. REYES, J.B.L., J. Facts; Eldred Fewkes an American citizen sought to apply for registration of two parcels of land identified as Lot 21-A and Lot 21-B which he bought from the Velascos. The two lots are portions of a bigger land identified as Lot 21. When he filed the application, the technical descriptions of the lands were not included. The court denied the application on the ground that the technical descriptions should have been included in the application. The applicant then submitted a motion praying the court that the Director of Lands and/or the Land Registration Commission be directed to approve subdivision plan Psu-61470, wherein it appeared that the lots sought to be registered are parts of a bigger lot identified in said subdivision plan as Lot No. 21. The court denied the motion reasoning that the application being for registration of land, it had nothing to do with the approval of the subdivision plan. After the initial hearing of case, the court issued an order dismissing the application for warrant of jurisdiction, based on the finding that the properties sought to be registered only formed part of a bigger tract, of land which was described in the plan attached to the application, and that the notice of initial hearing did not delineate accurately the portions of the land involved in the registration proceeding Issue: Whether the technical description of the land sought to be registered is important in an application for registration? Held: It must be remembered that the application in this case filed in the court below was for registration, not of the big parcel of land (Lot No. 1383, Pls-764-D or Lot No. 21), but of certain portions thereof designated by applicant-appellant as Lots Nos. 21-A and 21-B. It is the technical description of these 2 smaller lots, therefore, that must be published in order that the persons who may be affected by their registration may be notified thereof. For, considering that the adjoining owners of Lot No. 21 would not be the same as the owners of the properties adjoining Lots Nos. 21-A and 21-B, the notification of the adjoining owners of the big lot would not be the notice to the adjoining owners or occupants of the smolder lots required by law. In short, it is the publication of the specific boundaries of Lots Nos. 21-A and 21-B that would actually put the interested parties on notice of the registration proceeding, and would confer authority on the land registration court to pass upon the issue of the registerability of said lots in favor of the applicant.

Chapter VI
G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., represented by it Managing PARTNER, GREGORIA ARANETA, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. QUIRINO BOLAOS, defendant-appellant.

REYES, J.: Facts: Petitioner sought to recover a parcel of land. The application was amended for three times with respect to the extent and description of the land to be recovered. On the first amendment, the land measures up to 13 hectares. The second amendment reduced it to 6 hectares. The last amendment returned its measurement to 13 hectares. Defendant claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest has been in possession of the since time in memorial. The answer therefore prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs and plaintiff required to reconvey the land to defendant or pay its value. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment for plaintiff, declaring defendant to be without any right to the land in question and ordering him to restore possession thereof to plaintiff and to pay the latter a monthly rent of P132.62 from January, 1940, until he vacates the land, and also to pay the costs. Issue: whether petitioner is the valid owner of the land in question. Held: Yes. As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff's Torrens certificate of title and was registered in 1914, the decree of registration can no longer be impugned on the ground of fraud, error or lack of notice to defendant, as more than one year has already elapsed from the issuance and entry of the decree. Neither court the decree be collaterally attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land prior to the registration proceedings. (Sorogon vs. Makalintal,1 45 Off. Gaz., 3819.) Nor could title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff, the registered owner, be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496.) Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title.