Land Titles Case Doctrines

LAND TITLES DOCTRINES (Dean Cadiz)
1
st
semester SY 2009-2010
1

CIMAGALA, A.N. | 2D 2012 |

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1529
AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF
PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

SECTIONS 1-13

NGA V. IAC
o The purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality.
o Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the
court, or sitting on the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.

SOLID STATE V. MULTIPRODUCTS CORP
o Registration does not vest title; it is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. Our land
registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has.
o Registration is not a mode to vest ownership.

TRADERS ROYAL BANK V. CA
o Purchasers may rely on the face of the title.
o The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and facilitate
transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title
and to dispense with the need of inquiring further.
o EXCEPT: when party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry
o Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title this issued, acquire rights
over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate.
o In this case, the buyers are considered purchasers in good faith. There was no annotation on or notice of
pending litigation on the title.

AZNAR BROTHERS V. AYING
o Registration of instruments must be done in the proper registry in order to affect and bind the land and, thus,
operate as constructive notice to the world.
o Otherwise, the prescriptive period will only begin to run from the time the adversely affected persons have
actual notice of the deed of sale. [Except: if person claiming ownership is in possession]
o If the sale is registered under the LRA (Torrens title) and it is sold, but the subsequent sale is registered not
under the LRA (Act No. 496) but under Act No. 3344, said document is deemed not registered.

MOSCOSO V. CA
o Land registration is an action in rem, not in personam; hence, personal notice to all the claimants of the res
is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res.
o Neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in registration
proceeding.
o It shall be binding upon all persons, known or unknown.

ARCEO V. CA
o There is no more distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction
conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as cadastral court.
o The Property Registration Decree (Section 2) has simplified land registration proceedings by conferring
upon the required courts the authority to act not only on applications for original registration but over all
petitions filed after the original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising
from such applications or petitions.

1
st
2


EVANGELISTA V. SANTIAGO (2005)
o By virtue of P.D. No. 892 (February 16, 1976), the courts, in registration proceedings under the Torrens
system, are precluded from accepting, confirming, and recording a Spanish title.
o All holders of Spanish titles should have filed applications for registration of their title on or before August 14,
1976. (According to the court, this is 6 months from its effectivity)

INTESTATE ESTATE V. CA (1996)
o By virtue of P.D. No. 892, all owners of Spanish titles or grants should cause their lands covered thereby to
be registered under the LRA within 6 months from the date of effectivity of the decree or until August 16,
1976. (Sir says this is the correct date)

NOBLEJAS V. TEEHANKEE
o The Land Registration Commissioner exercises administrative or executive functions. Their judicial functions
are only incidental.
o He may be investigated and suspended upon finding of grave abuse of discretion under the legislative grant
to the President to discipline and remove administrative officials who are presidential appointees.

LABURADA V. LRA
o The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of the courts and is not a mere
ministerial act which may be compelled through mandamus.
o It is not compellable by mandamus because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion.
o Proper remedy: file a petition en consulate to the LRA

REPUBLIC V. CA
o The existence of a certificate of title supports authenticity of ownership.
o The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public depository of records or documents affecting titles to
lands in the province or city wherein such office is situated.
o The existence of an OCT in the proper registry supports the authenticity of the title.

BARANDA V. GUSTILO
o The function of the Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds, encumbrances,
instruments and the like is ministerial in nature.
o He may not validly refuse to register a deed of sale presented to him for registration. Whether the document
is valid or not is not for the RD to determine; this function belongs properly to a court of competent
jurisdiction.
o The RD does not have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of a Judges Order directing
him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates. In case of doubt as to the proper step,
he should ask for the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration.

BALBIN V. REGISTER
o 3 exceptions to the rule that the Register of Deeds has a ministerial function:
1. Where there are several copies: Where 3 co-owners duplicate certificates of title are issued, a
voluntary instrument cannot be registered without surrendering all the copies of the same title to the
RD so that every copy thereof would contain identical entries of the transactions affecting the land
covered by the title. [All copies of the same title must be annotated to preserve integrity of title]
2. When the voluntary instrument has an infirmity Such as when the property involved is conjugal
property Disposing of conjugal property cannot be registered (ex. deed of donation by husband)
3. Presence of a pending case: Registration may be suspended to await the outcome of the suit to
determine the validity of the different conveyances executed by the person seeking the registration
of the voluntary instrument.
o Another exception: Section 112 Proper form of the instrument:
.Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney and other
voluntary instruments, whether affecting registered or unregistered land, executed in accordance
1
st
3


with law in the form of public instruments shall be registerable: Provided, that, every such
instrument shall be signed by the person or persons executing the same in the presence of at least
two witnesses who shall likewise sign thereon, and shall acknowledged to be the free act and deed
of the person or persons executing the same before a notary public or other public officer
authorized by law to take acknowledgment. etc.

TOLEDO V. CA
o It is a ministerial function of the RD 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.

CHAVEZ V. PEA
o Reiterates that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
o Even if you register public land, the registration will not convert it to private land.

SECTIONS 14-34

ONG V. REPUBLIC
o Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires
possession AND occupation.
o Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. Thus, when the law
added occupation, it sought to limit the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession.
o The words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, taken together with occupation, serves to highlight
the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be mere fiction.
o Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such as a nature as a
party would naturally exercises over his own property.

CUREG V. IAC
o Tax declarations of an earlier date cannot defeat an OCT of a later date.
o The OCT indicates true and legal ownership by the registered owners
o The increase in the area of land by accretion (by the river) does not automatically become registered land
just because the lot which receives it is covered by a Torrens title. The accretion must also be registered to
be placed under the operation of the Torrens system.

DE BUYSER V. DIRECTOR
o Lands added by accretion (by the sea) form part of public domain unless no longer needed for public use.
o They are not open to acquisition by adverse possession by private persons.

REPUBLIC V. CA & NAGUIT (2005)
o In registration of alienable and disposable (agricultural) public lands, section 14(1) merely requires the
property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for
registration of title is filed. (not since 06/12/45)
o If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for
alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and
disposable, then there already is an intention on the part of the state to abdicate its exclusive prerogative
over the property.
o It is not necessary that the land be first classified as alienable and disposable before possession; the
requirement is only at filing.
o Under the Property Registration Decree , the requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title
under Section 14(1) are:
1. that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
1
st
4


2. that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation, and;
3. that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD V. UP
o A land grant having been made by a Presidential proclamation and by legislative act, the grantee may apply
for the registration of the land and bring it under the operation of the Torrens system.
o An example of a case falling under section 14(4): In any other manner provided by law when land of
public domain is, by statute or executive act, ceded and transferred in full ownership in favor of a grantee
who may thereafter file an application for the registration thereof
o In this case, the President issued Proclamation No, 791 withdrawing from sale or settlement and reserving
for UP College of Agriculture a parcel of land for its experiment station. The reserved area was ceded and
transferred in full ownership to the University of the Philippines subject to existing concessions, if any (i.e.
Timber License Agreement)

LOPEZ V. DE CASTRO
o Where more than one certificate of title is issued over the land, the person holding a prior certificate is
entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
o The rule refers to the date of certificate of title, NOT to the date of filing for the application for registration of
title.
o Hence, even though an applicant precedes another, he may not be deemed to have priority of right to
register title.
o Doctrine of stale claims: 1 year from issuance of decree of registration to contest

DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. REYES
o In applying for registration, the submission of a tracing cloth plan is a statutory requirement mandatory in
character. The plan and the technical description of the land must be duly approved by the Director of
Lands; otherwise, it has no probative value.
o Reason: One of the distinguishing marks of a Torrens title is the absolute certainty of a registered land. The
primary purpose of which, is to fix the exact or definite identity of the land as shown in the plan and technical
descriptions.

REPUBLIC V. MUNOZ
o The 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 together with other evidence could also provide sufficient
identification.
o GR: Original tracing cloth plan is required
o EX: Blue print copy of the survey plan together with the lots technical descriptions approved by the Bureau
of Lands
o Also, if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Land and its correctness has not been overcome by
clear, strong, convincing evidence, the presentation of the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with

BENIN V. TUASON
o An amendment to an application needs publication only if it consists in the inclusion of additional land.
o The requirements of publication and notice will not affect the jurisdiction of the court if the amendment
excludes an area of land.
o If it is later shown that the decree of registration had included land/s not included in the original application
as published, then the registration proceedings and the decree of registration must be declared null and void
insofar as the land not included in the publication is concerned.
MENDOZA V. CA
o The buyer in whose favour the land subject of registration proceeding may be ordered registered may be a
total stranger thereto provided that certain requisites are met.
o The law does not require that the he be a party to the case. The only requirements are :
1
st
5


The instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion (anytime
after filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree) that the same be considered in
relation with the application.
Prior notice must be given to the parties in the case

LOPEZ V. ENRIQUEZ
o A motion to lift order of general default in LR proceedings should be filed before entry of final judgment.
o This is after the land registration court issues a certificate of finality (after granting the application).

Note: Movants as mere interested parties vs. Movants as intervenors-oppositors It is only in the latter
case that a motion to lift the order of general default is required.

DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. CA & ABISTADO
o Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory even when the law already requires notice by
publication in the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting
o 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. Additionally, such parties may not be owners of neighboring
properties, and may in fact not own any other real estate.

DIRECTOR V. CA
o The publication of notice of initial hearing is mandatory and jursidictional (shall), not directory.
o Publication is sufficient to acquire jurisdiction, but posting/mailing are still required.
o Absent any publication in a newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court cannot validly
confirm and register title of the applicant.
o The all-encompassing in rem nature of land registration cases, the consequences of default orders issued
against the whole world and the objective of disseminating the notice in as wide a manner as possible
demand a mandatory construction of the requirements for publication, mailing and posting.

REPBLIC V. MARASIGAN
o Notice to adjoining owners and actual occupants of land are mandatory, without exceptions. Lapses on the
part of courts or their personnel cannot be made a reason or justification for non-observance of laws
(original copy of the TCT was lost without the fault of the registrants).

DE CASTRO V. MARCOS
o In reopening a cadastral proceeding, publication is not required. Notice to the government is enough.
o Also, only the solicitor general can assert government claim to public property which is why notification to
the Government must be done through him. There is no need to furnish the Director of Forestry a copy of
the reopening petition.

FERNANDEZ V. ABORATIGUE
o A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title. The claim here is an annotation on the survey plan, and such
annotation cannot prevail over an actual decree of registration as reproduced in the certificate.
o All claims of third persons must be asserted in the registration proceedings.
o If the claim is upheld, that portion shall be segregated from the property applied for; if not, the adverse
decision on the claim is deemed resolved with finality subject only to a petition for review of the decree
within one year from its issuance on the ground of fraud (sec. 38 LRA).

DIRECTOR V CA
o Possession of public lands, however long, never confers title upon the possessor unless the occupant can
prove possession or occupation under claim of ownership for the required period to constitute a grant from
the state.
1
st
6


o Notwithstanding the 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 V. ABARILLE
o 13 Steps/Requirements for registration of imperfect or incomplete title
o 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
o The approval of Subdivision Plans must be with notice to all parties in interest, more particularly the Director
of Lands.
o The increased area in question, which is not a registered land but formerly a river bed, is so big as to give
allowance for a mere mistake in area of the original registration of the tracts of land of the defendant-
appellant formerly belonging to and registered in the name of their grandfather.

GOMEZ V. CA
o Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not
become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the
final decree of registration.
o 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
rendering it.

BORROMEO V. DESCALLAR
[What are the rights of an alien (and his successor-in-interest) who acquired real properties in the country as against his former
Filipina girlfriend in whose sole name the properties were registered under the Torrens system?]
o Alien cannot not acquire alienable lands of the public domain, but when it is placed in the name of a Filipino
and then later on the alien claims the property as he is the true buyer, such defect was already cured when
the title was registered in a Filipinos name who is in possession of the property. Strictly speaking, the
purpose of the law was already served.
o The ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nations land for future generations of Filipinos, that aim is
achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by
naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in dispute is already in
the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no more public policy to be protected. The
objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.
1
st
7


EVANGELISTA, ET AL. V. SATIAGO
o Action for declaration of nullity vs. Action for reversion of title (difference in allegation)
1. Action for declaration of nullity filed by a private person
2. Action for reversion of title filed by the Office of the Solicitor General
The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, is the party-in-interest in an
action for cancellation of a certificate of title illegally issued in the name of a private
individual, because the eventual effect of such cancellation is the reversion of the property
to the State.
o The difference between an action for declaration of nullity of land titles from an action for reversion was
more thoroughly discussed as follows [Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut]
An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not the same as
an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the allegations as to the character of
ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent
allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Hence, in Gabila vs. Barriga
[41 SCRA 131], where the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he has no right to demand the cancellation
or amendment of the defendants title because even if the title were canceled or amended the ownership of
the land embraced therein or of the portion affected by the amendment would revert to the public domain,
we ruled that the action was for reversion and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the
Director of Lands.

On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title
would require allegations of the plaintiffs ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free
patent and certificate of title as well as the defendants fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in
successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case,
the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction
of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefore is
consequently void ab initio. The real party-in-interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-
existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the
defendant

REPUBLIC V. JACOB
o Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. The presumption is that lands of whatever classification belong to the
State. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person
by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain.
o Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private appropriation
and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen
into ownership and be registered as a title.
o No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant from the government, whether express
or implied. It is indispensable that there be a showing of a title from the State.
o Indeed, the law speaks of "possession and occupation." Possession is broader than occupation because it
includes constructive possession. Unless, therefore, the law adds the word "occupation," it seeks to delimit
the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words "continuous,"
"exclusive" and "notorious," the word "occupation" seems to highlight the facts that for an applicant to
qualify, her possession of the property must not be a mere fiction.

HEIRS OF MALABANAN V. REP. OF THE PHILIPPINES
o Two requisites for counting prescription:
1. Classification as alienable/disposable land
2. Proclamation/Law that property is no longer for public service (conversion to patrimonial property
may be acquired by private persons)

1
st
8


REPUBLIC V. BACCUS
o Power to classify is vested in the Executive branch
President upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Director of Forestry for reclassifying forest land to agricultural land

REPUBLIC V. CA
o GR: In case of conflict between the boundaries and the area, the boundaries shall prevail.
Reason: What defines a piece of titled property is not the numerical data indicated as the area of
the land, but the boundaries or "metes and bounds" of the property specified in its technical
description as enclosing it and showing its limits.
o EX: In case of conflicting boundaries, the area is important is determining the rights of owners.

VENCILAO V. VANO
o Res judicata applied to everyone, not only to defeated-oppositors in a land registration case.
o 2 kinds:
Res judicata
There is a final judgment
Rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter & the parties
Judgment based on the merits
Identity of parties, subject matter, issues
Conclusiveness of Judgment
Identity
Decision binding on the other case
o Noted by sir: Writ of possession ministerial duty of the court of there is a final decree
if occupants are lawful possessors a case of ejectment has to be filed
if occupants are not the lawful occupants and the property is in the area or land writ of
demolition goes with the writ of possession

SECTIONS 35-38

MUNICIPALITY OF SANTIAGO ISABELA V. CA
o Cadastral proceedings cannot be reopened if the claimant failed to file an answer. The decision of the
cadastral court is subject to res judicata and therefore precludes parties from relitigating the same issues
already litigated.

DIRECTOR V. BENITEZ
o Act No. 2259 applies to cadastral proceedings regarding the number of publication in the OG (not P.D. No.
1529).
o The claimant must comply with this requirement (twice publication) even if it is only to amend his claim in the
cadastral proceedings to include additional land. A granted petition to reopen cadastral proceeding to
include additional land is void on the grounds of non compliance of publication.

MERCED V. CA
o Under B.P. 129, title [in the absence of fraud] is vested upon the expiration of 15 days upon receipt of
decision and without appeal. This is only applicable to cadastral cases.
o After the lapse of said period, acquisitive prescription does not apply. Note, however, that since there has
been no issuance of title by the RD, said property is still not under the Torrens system.

DURAN V. OLIVIA
o Registered property cannot be the subject matter of cadastral proceedings.
o The existence (and consequent favorable conclusion) of a 1
st
proceeding serves as constructive notice that
property ad litem cant be the subject matter of a 2
nd
proceeding.
1
st
9


o The owner of the land must file a motion to dismiss the 2
nd
land registration proceeding.

MANOTOK REALTY V CLT REALTY (DEC. 17, 2007)
o Cadastral courts have limited jurisdiction over lands already registered in ordinary land registration cases.
o Their jurisdiction is limited to technical errors in the description of the land, provided:
1. Limited to the necessary corrections of technical errors
2. Corrections do not impair the substantial rights of registered owners
3. Cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title
o The cadastral court can rule on conflicting titles (double/several) and determine which one of the several
conflicting registered titles shall prevail.
o What is prohibited is the registration of land already issued in the name of another except if requested by the
registered owner himself.

CADASTRAL PROCEEDING ORIGINAL JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING
Initiator DL (now DENR) upon Presidents
order
Private person
Subject Matter Any piece of unregistered land Private land
Who files Government through SG Person claiming ownership
What to file if you are claiming
ownership
Answer Opposition
Burden of proof rests On claimant/person who filed an
Answer (not government) because of
the nature of the registration
On person who filed the application
Basis of Publication requirement Act 2259 Law on Cadastral
Registration Proceeding, sec 7/8
P.D. 1529
Notice of Hearing Twice in the OG (Sec. 7/8 of Act No.
2259)
Once in the OG/Newspaper of
general circulation
If no other claimants Land becomes public

Land is awarded to private person
Finality Both in rem, 1 year lapse from decree
Res judicata In a one sense, there is no res
judicata even if land is declared public
because a person can still file for
judicial confirmation of an imperfect
title
Res judicata if land is awarded to
applicant

REPUBLIC V. VERA
o Res judicata applies to cadastral land registration cases. Issues that have been litigated cant be relitigated
anew and Court can declare land as part of the public domain.
o Note: The general rule is that the power to classify land solely belongs to the executive branch.

HEIRS OF THE LATE DE LUZURIAGA V. REPUBLIC
o Publication requirement: Where the identity and area of the claimed property are not the subjects of the
amendments but other collateral matters, a new publication is not needed.
o Where the amendment in petitioners application neither altered the area and identity of the subject lot nor
added any territory, no new publication is required.
o Note: Due publication is required to give notice to all interested parties of the claim and identity of the
property that will be surveyed. Any additional territory or change in the area of the claim cannot be included
by amendment of the plan or application without new publication, otherwise the cadastral court does not
acquire jurisdiction over the additional or amended claim.

1
st
10


DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. CA
o The defense of res judicata by the government/third party claimant must be raised in a motion to dismiss or
in an answer upon institution of a land registration proceeding. Otherwise, it is deemed waived.
o A judgment in a cadastral case that a parcel of land is public land does not preclude a person, even the
same applicant, from later seeking judicial confirmation of his title to the same land provided that he
complies with the provisions of CA 141 and that said land remains alienable and disposable. (The person
may petition the Court to perfect his imperfect title over land, registered as public, provided that his claim of
ownership is evidenced by compliance to the requirements of the law and that the public land is alienable
and disposable).

VERANGA V. REPUBLIC
o Following the steps of original registration cases, after the Court renders its decision and there is a
declaration of final judgment, the Court will order the LRA to issue decree (conclusively, the CERT. OF TITLE
is a judicial product or the product of the process of registration).
o Afterwards, the LRA issues DECREE and CERT. OF TITLE and transmits the same to the RD for the proper
registration to the Torrens system (entry in the books).

SECTIONS 39-50

MWSS V. CA
o Where two OCTs purport to include the same land the earlier date prevails. (April 19, 1917)

HEIRS OF GONZAGA V. CA
o Bound by ruling in MWSS V. CA law of the case (April 19,1917)

MANOTOK REALTY V. CLT REALTY (NOV. 29, 2005)
o The trial court may rely on the findings and conclusions of commissioners with expertise in geodetic
engineering. They are in a better position to determine which of the original certificates titles is valid. (April
19, 1917)

MANOTOK REALTY V. CLT REALTY (DEC. 17, 2007)
o Determinative test = Validity of the OCTs
o First 3 cases were abandoned (not the doctrine) because it was shown that ONLY 1 OCT No. 994 existed
(registered and dated on May 3, 1917). All titles derived from OCT 994 dated April 19, 1917 are null and
void.
o Land becomes registered land only upon the transcription of the decree in the original registration book by
the RD (signed and sealed by RD).
o Note: The SC remanded the case to the CA to rule on the facts because the former is not a trier of facts.

MANOTOK REALTY V. CLT REALTY (MAR. 31, 2009)
o Evidence required in proving strength of title: incontrovertible evidence
o In an action to recover property, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. He must be able to present
incontrovertible evidence to support his claim (validity of TCTs).
o Also, the government in an expropriation proceeding, being a proceeding in rem, cleanses the title from any
flaw.

BASIC RULES from Manotok Cases:
If 2 OCTs: Earlier date prevails
If 2 TCTs: Trace back to OCT/s (determine validity)
a) If there are 2 OCTs: earlier OCT prevails & all TCTs derived from it
b) If there is only 1 OCT earlier TCT prevails

1
st
11


PASINO V. MONTERROYO
o A counterclaim is a direct attack, thus it is valid.

SARMIENTO V. CA
o A third party claim is a direct attack. It is separate and distinct from the plaintiffs complaint. Thus, it is valid.
o It is direct attack if the third party claim is an original complaint for the cancellation of a TCT.

ERASUSTA V. CA
o The law prohibits any collateral attack on certificate of title and not title/ownership of the land. Hence,
collateral or direct attack is valid when it questions the validity of title or better right over the land.

GREGORIO ARANETA V. RTC
o If the title/ownership itself is void; then there is no need to distinguish between direct or collateral attack.

MANOTOK V. BARQUE (DEC. 18, 2008)
o The LRA/CA has no power to declare a Certificate of Title is null and void.
o Also, a petition for reconstitution is a COLLATERAL attack; hence invalid.

CABRERA V. CA
o Doctrine of Laches: Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or declined to assert it
o Prescription = delay vs. Laches = unreasonable delay
o 30 years of inaction and inequity prevents an owner from recovering property; he is barred by laches.

DEGOLLACION V. REGISTER OF DEEDS
o If there are two TCTs, tracing of title should not be limited to which of the two is the earlier TCT. The better
approach is to trace title (OCTs) from which the TCTs are derived from.

REGISTER V. PNB
o The existence of a superior title
o Where a valid TCT has been previously issued to another party (by virtue of a sale of a Datu), a
subsequent TCT issued is defeated by the earlier TCT.

REPUBLIC V. CA
o Property not capable of registration (such as mineral/forest land).

BORNALES V. IAC
o Title acquired through fraud or misrepresentation (in the case, there was a clear scheme to dispossess
another party of her share in the property; buyers were lessees who knew that the land was conjugal
property).

ARGUELLES V. TIMBANCAYA
o The 1 year rule in which to contest decree of registration does not apply to case which involves the
annulment of a TCT (not the validity of an OCT).
(Next four cases)
Exceptions to Indefeasibility of Title (GR):
1. Prior title
2. Extrinsic Fraud, Misrepresentation,
Mistake
3. Property not capable of registration
4. Question on validity of TCT
1
st
12


o Section 28 1 year rule from final decree on the ground of fraud is not applicable. Another provision
applies.

REMEDIES

FRANCISCO V. PUNO
o A MOTION FOR TRIAL and PETITION FOR RELIEF are exclusive of each other.
o A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot file a petition for relief after his motion has been
denied.
o A petition for relief is only in appropriate cases where a party aggrieved by a judgment who has not been
able to file a motion for new trial.

NEYPES V. CA
o APPEAL; FRESH PERIOD RULE: When petitioners file a motion for reconsideration, a fresh period of 15
days is counted from the notice of final order. During the 15-day period, petitioners may file a notice of
appeal. (The old rule consisted of only 8 days)
o Remember that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege and may be exercise only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law.

CRUZ V. NAVARRO
o REQUISITES for a PETITION FOR REVIEW of the decree of registration:
1. Petitioner has a real or dominical interest or right or the petitioners lien or interest in the land
does not appear in the decree or title issued in the name of the applicant
2. The petitioner has been deprived of such lien or interest or interest thereon was omitted through
fraud
3. The property has not yet been transferred to an IPFV (innocent purchaser for value)
4. Petition for review is filed within 1 year from issuance of decree
o The fraud required to justify a re-opening of decree of registration is ACTUAL.
o Actual Fraud v. Extrinsic Fraud
Actual intentional concealment or omission of a fact required by law to be stated in the application or a
willful statement of a claim against a truth, either of which is calculated to deceive or deprive another of
this legal rights
Extrinsic acts done outside of the court 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

REXLON REALTY V. CA
o 7 instances/examples of ACTUAL FRAUD; 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 to withdraw his opposition
o 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

1
st
13


Note: There is no extrinsic fraud where the failure of the 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 affect the timely registration
of its Deed of Sale.
The alleged fraud in this case was perpetrated during the trial (forged instruments and perjured
testimonies
Had the party concerned timely and effectively registered the deed, it would have been able to
oppose the issuance of the new duplicate title, rebut the registrants testimony, and prove that he
had already bought the same

RIVERA V. MORAN
o A PETITION FOR REVIEW must be filed after a final decree is issued and before the expiration of one year
from the entry of the final decree of registration. It is premature if there is not final decree yet. (Section 38)

RUFLOE, ET AL. V. BURGOS
o GR: Every person dealing with registered land may rely on the correctness of the certificate of title (in good
faith + for value = IPFV)
o EX: Actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such
inquiry
Example: When purchaser has knowledge of a defect or lack of title of the vendor (in this case,
the property was sold pending a case claiming adverse possession and there was notice of
adverse claim. Beside the notice, the vendee did not verify with the Register of Deeds despite the
fact that the vendor was not in possession of the property.)

ADRIANO V. PANGILINAN
o A purchaser or mortgagee cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard
o A mortgagee cannot be considered an innocent mortgagee for value when he fails to exercise the diligence
required to determine the validity of the mortgagors title over the property under REM (Here, mortgagee
conducted an ocular inspection mainly to appraise the property not to verify ownership - and was therefore
guilty of negligence.) The mortgage constituted against the property shall not be respected.

SANDOVAL V. CA
o This case illustrates the exception to the GR that a person has the right to rely on the face of the title
(ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES).
o Here, the following circumstances showed actual knowledge:
Lawyer verified with the Register of Deeds he should have come across the 2 copies of the TCT
The deed contained an erroneous address of the seller. There is no way that the buyer could have
actually met with him.
There was a lack of consistency in his enumeration and recollection of buyers alleged meeting
with seller
The several and varying addresses of the seller should have alerted the buyer of questionability
of title
There was a false certification that the property was not tenanted buyer should have permitted
such falsehood to taint the instrument

DURAN V. IAC
o GR: A direct result of a previous illegal contract cannot be valid (A fraudulent sale cannot validly transfer
title)
o EX: Estoppel by laches

Note: Circe Duran could have discovered fraud when husband obtained a building permit earlier. Also, the
Durans could have intervened in the foreclosure proceedings resulting from the mortgage entered into by the
mother. However, they kept silent until almost the last moment, before the sheriffs sale, to file a third-party claim)
1
st
14


PINEDA V. IAC
o A mortgage annotated on a void title is valid if the mortgagee was in GF.
o The nullity of the TCT did not automatically carry with it the nullity of the annotation of the mortgage.

HEIRS OF JOSE OLVIGA V. CA
o If the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, an ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE based on an implied
or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the date of registration of the deed or date of issuance of
the certificate.
o If the plaintiff-owner is in possession, the action does not prescribe. (Here the action for reconveyance is
actually a suit to quiet title)

CABRERA V. CA
o An ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE may be filed even before the issuance of the decree of registration.
There is no reason why one has to wait until the land is registered before he can sue for reconveyance!

Note: Here, there was no notification to interested parties. The plaintiffs did not wish to recognize the registration
proceedings for lack of compliance with the notification requirement. If the registration is granted pending the
action for reconveyance, theres no problemthe latter action is all the more deemed filed within the 1-year
reglementary period.

PINO V. CA
o An ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE based on constructive trust cannot reach an IPFV. The proper remedy
of the defrauded party is to file an action for damages within 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens
title. (Here the OCT and TCT were both dated more than 10 years ago!)

DE GUZMAN, JR. V. NATIONAL TREASURER
o PERSONS who may recover from the ASSURANCE FUND
Any person who sustains LOSS OR DAMAGE under the following conditions may recover from the
Assurance Fund
a. there was no negligence on his part; and
b. the loss or damage sustained was through any omission, mistake or malfeasance of the
court personnel, or the Registrar of Deeds, his deputy, or other employees of the Registry
in the performance of their respective duties under the provisions of the Land Registration
Act, now, the Property Registration Decree; or
Any person who has been DEPRIVED OF ANY LAND OR INTEREST THEREIN under the
following conditions:
a. there was no negligence on his part;
b. he was deprived as a consequence of registration (bringing of his land or interest therein
under the provisions of the Property Registration Decree)
i. by himself
ii. by the registration by any other person as owner of such land; or
iii. by mistake, omission or misdescription in any certificate of owners duplicate or in
any entry or memorandum in the register or other official book or by any
cancellation; and
c. he is barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of such land
or interest therein, or claim upon the same
o If the requisites are not met, the proper remedy of the petitioner is to go against the persons who defrauded
him (impostor-couple).

Note: The Assurance Fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a
certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title as to land.

1
st
15


SECTIONS 51-68

GARCIA V. CA
o In case of two certificates of title purporting to include the same land, the earlier date prevails whether the
land comprised in the latter certificate by wholly or in part of the land comprised in the earlier one.
o In VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION, entry in the day book is sufficient registration
o In INVOLUNTARY REGISTRATION, there must be entry in the day book + annotation of the claim

Note: Remember that registration involves the following stepspresentation of deed of sale or other title, entry in
the day book, surrendering of title, payment of feed

MINGOA V. LRC
o DATE OF MAILING = DATE OF FILING of the document with the Register of Deeds (not date of receipt!)
o Rule 13, Section 1 Rules of Court is suppletory to the Land Registration Decree. Under the rule, the date of
mailing of the motion, pleading, or any other papers. is considered as the date of filing.

PILAPIL V. CA
o Registration retroacts to the date of entry in the primary book. (This is what sir emphasized in class)
o GR: The non-production of the owners duplicate may invalidate a vendees claim of ownership of the lot
involved (Section 53)
o EX: Where the purchasers were aware validity of a title because there was actual or constructive notice of a
prior sale
o Privity of relationship = constructive knowledge`

EGAO V. CA
o The law requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the owner when
the land object of the transaction is registered land.
o While one who buys from the REGISTERED OWNER need not look behind the certificate of title, one who
buys from another who is NOT THE REGISTERED OWNER is expected to examine not only the certificate
of title but also all the factual circumstances necessary to determine if there are any flaws in the title or
capacity to transfer of the vendor.
o If the purchaser fails to make inquiries as to the title of the vendor when facts and circumstances compel a
reasonable man to investigate is tantamount to bad faith.

FRANCISCO V. CA
o One of the buyers here was a friend of the possessor for many years. He could not have failed to notice that
the land being offered to them included the house of his friend when they viewed the property.
o Knowledge of anothers adverse possession is equivalent to registration and puts the buyer in bad faith
GENERAL RULE:
A buyer may rely on the face of the title.

EXCEPTIONS (next 5 cases, the 6
th
in general):
1. Land bought from a vendor who is not the registered owner
2. Buyer has full or actual knowledge of adverse possession equivalent to
registration
3. Title of vendor is based on a mere annotation on the certificate of a prior sale to
him bad faith
4. Notice of lis pendens
5. Buyer has full or actual knowledge of vendors defect in title bad faith
6. Purchaser fails to make inquiries when facts or circumstances compel a
reasonable man to investigate
1
st
16


QUINIANO V. CA
o An annotation of the sale on the certificate of title is not sufficient to make a purchaser an innocent one for
value.
o Where a person buys land not from the registered owner but from one whose right to the land has been
merely annotated on the COT is not considered a subsequent purchaser of registered land who is an IPFV
protected from any encumbrance except those in the certificate.

PNB V. CA
o A purchaser is in bad faith when at the time of the sale a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on the
COT covering the property

Note: instrumental witness vs. one who signs in conformity with what the document says the former cannot be
deemed estopped by what the document stipulates

BORNALES V. IAC
o The fact alone that petitioners purchased the property with full knowledge of the flaws and title of the vendor
is enough proof of their bad faith (absent any anomalous findings)
o The vendor was a lessee of the owners for a long time. In fact, he had met the legal wife of the deceased
owner-spouse years before the mistress sold the property to him.
o Even without the findings of: a) short time interval between the registration and the sale and b) abnormal
increase in the consideration between the first and second sale, the vendees knowledge alone make him in
bad faith.

SOLIVEL V. FRANCISCO
o The chain of title rule applies does NOT apply when there are only two titles: one of the owners and the
second of the IPFVs.
o The impostor/fraudulent vendor must have a title to the property (under his name) in order for the
purchaser to be protected by the Chain of Title Theory.
o The innocent purchaser for value protected by the law. The IPFV protected is one who purchases a titled
land by the registered owner himself, not by a forged deed.
o Reason: the owners who were defrauded will have no remedy against the Assurance Fund unlike if the IPFV
purchased from the registered owner who are impostors (The registered deed must be under the fraudulent
seller in order to have a mistake in the registration a requirement)

LLANTO V. ALZONA
o An IPFV includes an innocent mortgagor or lessee.
o To be considered as mortgagees in good faith, jurisprudence requires that they should take the
necessary precaution expected of a prudent man to ascertain the status and condition of the properties
offered as collateral, and to verify the identity of the persons they transact business with.
o A mortgagee has the right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor and in the absence
of any sign that might arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation. Even if the
mortgagor is not the rightful owner of, or does not have valid title to the mortgaged property, the mortgagee
is in good faith who is entitled to protection (as long as there is reasonable diligence)

PHIL. VETERANS BANK V. MONILLAS
o Prior registration of a lien creates a preference.
o The subsequent annotation of an adverse claim (lis pendens) cannot defeat the rights of the
mortgagee/purchaser at an auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered.
o A contrary rule will make a prior registration of a mortgage or any lien meaningless.
o The doctrine applies with greater force in this case considering that the annotation of lis pendens was made
not only AFTER the registration of the mortgage, but also after the conclusion of the foreclosure sale.

LAND BANK V. REPUBLIC
1
st
17


o Mortgagees of lands that are not disposable are not protected by the Land Registration Decree and may be
recovered even from an IPFV.
o Reason: A certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain classified as forest, timber, or
mineral land. Any title issued covering the non-disposable property shall be canceled even if found in the
hands of an IPFV.
o The remedy of the mortgagees is to pursue their claims against their respective mortgagors and debtors

Note: Prescription and estoppel do not apply to the Government.

SECTIONS 69-92

CAVILES, JR. V. BAUTISTA
o In involuntary registration, such as an attachment, levy upon execution, lis pendens and the like, it has been
held that entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim.
o Entry alone produces the effect of registration, whether the transaction entered is a voluntary or involuntary
one, so long as the registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and
annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds.
o Presumption of Regularity: The notice should be annotated on the back of the corresponding original
certificate of title. This is an official duty of the register of deeds which may be presumed to have been
regularly performed. Thus, a party which delivers its notice of attachment to the register of feeds and pays
the corresponding fees has a right to presume that the official would perform his duty properly.

SAJONAS V. CA
o The law, taken together, simply means that the 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. For if the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period, its
cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of cancellation would be a useless ceremony.
o It should be noted that the law employs the phrase may be cancelled, which obviously indicates, as
inherent in its decision making power, that the court may or may not order the cancellation of an adverse
claim, notwithstanding such provision limiting the effectivity of an adverse claim for thirty days from the date
of registration. The court cannot be bound by such period as it would be inconsistent with the very authority
vested in it.
o To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as absolute and without qualification limited to thirty
days defeats the very purpose for which the statute provides for the remedy of an inscription of adverse
claim, as the 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 is not otherwise provided for by the
Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves as a
warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest or the same or a
better right than the registered owner thereof.
o The reason why the law provides for a hearing where the validity of the adverse claim is to be threshed out
is to afford the adverse claimant an opportunity to be heard, providing a venue where the propriety of his
claimed interest can be established or revoked, all for the purpose of determining at last the existence of any
encumbrance on the title arising from such adverse claim.

RODRIGUEZ V. CA
o The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of
property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the law on
registration of real property.
Sec. 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to
the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no
other provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in
writing setting forth his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference
1
st
18


to the number of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered
owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed. Xxx
o The deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by respondents Calingo and Barrameda is a
registrable instrument. In order to bind third parties, it must be registered with the Office of the Register of
Deeds. It was not shown in this case that there was justifiable reason why the deed could not be registered.
Hence, the remedy of adverse claim cannot substitute for registration.

LIGON V. CA
o 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.
o This is true even in the case of a real estate mortgage because pursuant to Art. 2126 of the Civil Code, it
directly and immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the possessor may be, to
the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted.
o It is inseparable from the property mortgaged as it is a right in rem a lien on the property whoever its
owner may be. It subsists notwithstanding a change in ownership; in short, the personality of the owner is
disregarded.
o Thus, all subsequent purchasers must respect the mortgage whether the transfer to them be with or without
the consent of the mortgagee, for such mortgage until discharged follows the property.

MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS V. CA
o According to Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and Section 76 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, 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. DORONILLA RESOURCES V. CA
o A 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
o If any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary or superfluous, it would be the notice of lis
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.

LOPEZ V. ENRIQUEZ
o The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect
1. 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.
2. 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 promulgate subsequently. However, the filing of a notice of lis pendens
does not create a right or lien that previously did not exist.
o The doctrine of lis pendens has no application in the following cases:
a) Preliminary attachments;
b) Proceedings for the probate of wills;
c) Levies on execution;
d) Proceedings for administration of estate of deceased persons; and
e) Proceedings in which the only object is the recovery of a money judgment.
o As decreed by Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis pendens should contain
1. a statement of the institution of an action or proceeding, the court where the same is pending, and
the date of its institution
1
st
19


2. a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the land, an adequate description of the land
affected and its registered owner.
o There must be an original petition or complaint upon which the ROD will base its action

SLDC V. CA
o If a vendee in a double sale registers the sale after he has acquired knowledge of a previous sale, the
registration constitutes a registration in bad faith and does not confer upon him any right.
o If the registration is done in bad faith, it is as if there is no registration at all, and the buyer who has taken
possession first of the property in good faith shall be preferred.
o Rules on double sales order of priority
1. Priority of entry in the registry of property (no priority of such entry because of bad faith here)
2. Priority of possession
3. In the absence of the two priorities, date of title, with good faith

Note: Since SLDC acquired possession of the property in good faith in contrast to Babasanta, who neither
registered nor possessed the property at any time, SLDCs right is definitely superior to that of Babasantas.

SECTIONS 93-106

TORRES V. CA
o The remedy of a buyer from a person who pretended to be the owner of registered land after procuring a
false claim of loss of owners duplicate in court is against the impostor or the Assurance Fund.

BLANCO V. ESQUIERDO
o The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value upon the land mortgaged must be respected and
protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title thereto through fraud
o The remedy of the prejudiced mortgagee is to bring an action for damages against those who caused the
fraud and if the latter is insolvent, an action against the Assurance Fund.

TREASURER V. CA
o A person who purchases land from a seller who had no title thereto cannot recover from the Assurance
Fund.
o An invalid sale made by a spurious seller transfers no title or interest to the land for the simple reason that
the supposed vendor had no title or interest to transfer. He was not the owner of the land. He had no right
thereto he could convey.
o Recall: Recovery from the Assurance Fund could be demanded by:
1) Any person who sustains loss or damage under the following conditions:
a) that there was no negligence on his part; and
b) that the loss or damage was sustained through any omission, mistake, or misfeasance of the
clerk of court, or the register of deeds, his deputy or clerk, in the performance of their respective
duties under the provisions of the land Registration Act,' or
2) Any person who has been deprived of any land or any interest therein under the following conditions:
a) that there was no negligence on his part;
b) that he was deprived as a consequence of the bringing of his land or interest therein under the
provisions of the Property Registration Decree; or by the registration by any other persons as
owner of such land; or by mistake, omission or misdescription in any certificate or owner's
duplicate, or in any entry or memorandum in the register or other official book, or by any
cancellation; and
c) that he is barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of such land
or interest therein, or claim upon the same.

YBANEZ V. IAC
1
st
20


o Petitioners cannot collaterally question the validity of an OCT issued pursuant to the grant of patents by the
Government (Section 103 of P.D. 1259) in a civil action for recovery of possession.
o Rule 48 states that the attack on the validity of an OCT must be direct.
o It must be emphasized that a certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a
homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial
registration proceeding, provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land within the
contemplation of the Public Land Law.

DEL CASTILLO V. ORCIGA
o 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 landholdingits area and its location. A CLT is the provisional title of
ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of the lands value or for as long
as the beneficiary is an "amortizing owner."
o 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.
o PD No. 27 explicitly provides that:
Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall
not be transferable except by the hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with
the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reform and other existing laws and regulations
(par. 13).

DE LOS ANGELES V. SANTOS
o Proceedings for land registration are in rem whereas proceedings for acquisition of homestead patent
are not [in rem].
o A homestead patent, therefore, does not finally dispose of the public or private character of the land as far
as courts upon proceedings in rem are concerned Applicants thereof should thus be given opportunity to
prove registrable title to the land.

PASINO V. MONTERROYO
o Section 103 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 mandates the registration of patents, and registration is the
operative act to convey the land to the patentee.
.The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall
not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the
Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey
the land
o Non-registration of a homestead patent renders it functus officio

TENGCO V. ALWALAS
o The rule is well-settled that 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, as long as the land
disposed of is really part of the disposable land of the public domain, and becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the promulgation of the order of the Director
of Lands for the issuance of the patent.

Note: Dr. Aliwalas' title to the property having become incontrovertible, such may no longer be collaterally
attacked. If indeed there had been any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the title, an action for reversion
instituted by the Solicitor General would be the proper remedy.

Land Titles Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Titles Case Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAND TITLES DOCTRINES (Dean Cadiz)

You might also like