TAGUINOD VS COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
President Ferdinand E. Marcos promulgated PD 27 for the
emancipation of tenant-farmers from private agricultural lands they
till that are primarily devoted to rice and corn. DAR launched
Operation Land Transfer (OLT) to implement the law. When OLT was
launched, Salud Alvarez Aguila was the registered owner of the
disputed lots. The TCTs over the two lots were issued based on
homestead patents. The first TCT was transferred to Vic Aguila (who
was then 14 yrs old), and the second TCT was transferred to Josephine
Taguinod. Both lots were placed under coverage of OLT. Salud Aguila,
on behalf of Vic Aguila, filed a notice for retention. When Vic Aguila
became of age, he filed a notice for exemption. Taguinod also filed a
notice for exemption.
Meanwhile, the two subject lots were surveyed and a subdivision plan
of the lots parceled to the farmer-beneficiaries was prepared and
approved. The DAR Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)
recommended to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) the
approval of the applications of Salud A. Aguila/Vic A. Aguila and
Josephine A. Taguinod for retention of rights. The PARO granted the
application for retention rights. Respondents-farmer-beneficiaries
opposed the decision. The RD affirmed the PAROs decision but stated
that the transfer made by Salud Aguila to petitioners is null and void,
but that Salud Aguila should be granted the retention rights. Private
respondents opposed this decision. Taguinod also filed a motion
contending that Aguila was not the real owner of the land as such was
by Taguinod from her biological mother and that the same was only
mortgaged to Aguila which property she had already redeemed. The
DAR Secretary affirmed the decision of the RD and denied Taguinods
motion. Upon motion for reconsideration, the DAR Secretary ruled that
Salud Aguila was disqualified in retention rights because she owned
several other properties. Petitioners appealed to the Office of the
President. The OP ruled that the said lots, having stemmed from
homestead patents, are exempt from the coverage of PD 27. On
appeal, the CA ruled in favour of private respondents. The CA however
agreed with the OP that the rights of the homesteader and his/her
heirs to own and cultivate personally their land acquired under the
"homestead laws" are superior over those of tenants invoking the
"agrarian reform laws. However, it found that petitioners Taguinod
and Aguila failed to discharge the burden of adducing evidence to
prove the identities of the original homestead patentees and that they
are the direct compulsory heirs of the original patentees.

Whether or not the subject lands are exempted from coverage of PD

27
HELD:
The petition is bereft of merit.
Settled in this jurisdiction is the rule that the rights of a holder of a
homestead patent are superior over the rights of the tenants
guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform Law. We agree with the
petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the emancipation of
tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them
ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation, a
remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts
of the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be invoked to
defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or
Commonwealth Act No. 141. Thus,
"The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and
protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of
land where he may build a modest house for himself and
family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the
satisfaction of lifes other needs. The right of the citizens to
their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence
is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live with
a certain degree of comfort as x x x human beings, and the
State which looks after the welfare of the peoples happiness is
under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right."
It is therefore incumbent upon petitioners to identify substantial
evidence on record to support the OPs finding that their lots are
excluded from the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
In fact, as aptly put by private respondents, petitioners never averred
before the DAR and OP that Salud Aguila was the original homestead
patentee or a direct compulsory heir of the homestead patentee.
Without any substantial evidence that would show that petitioner
Aguila or Salud Aguila was entitled to the exemption pursuant to the
homestead laws, the lot is indubitably under the coverage of the
OLT.More importantly, the records are bereft of any showing that
petitioner Taguinod had indeed repurchased or redeemed subject
property from landowner Salud Aguila. Thus, absent any evidence to
the contrary, the lot is still owned by the owner of record, Salud
Aguila.
LIGON VS COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:

ISSUE:

IDP (Islamic Directorate of the Phils) sold to INK (Iglesia Ni Kristo) 2

parcels of land. . The parties stipulated in the deed of sale that the
IDP shall undertake to evict all squatters and illegal occupants in the
property within forty-five (45) days from the execution of the contract.
IDP failed to fulfill this obligation. Hence INK prayed that the trial court
order IDP to comply with its obligation. IDP alleged in its answer that it
was INK which violated the contract by delaying the payment of the
purchase price and prayed that the contract of sale be rescinded. The
trial court rendered judgment in favor of INK. INK, then, filed a motion
praying that petitioner Leticia Ligon, who was in possession of the
certificates of title over the properties as mortgagee of IDP, be
directed to surrender the certificates to the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City for the registration of the Absolute Deed of Sale in its
name.
The trial court rendered decision ordering Ligon to surrender the
duplicate copies to INK. This was subsequently amended and Ligon
was ordered to surrender such copies to the Register of Deeds.

questions arising upon such applications or petitions." Aimed at

avoiding multiplicity of suits the change has simplified registration
proceedings by conferring upon 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.
The principal action filed by INK before the trial court was for specific
performance with damages based on a document of sale. Such action
was well within the exclusive jurisdictions of the Regional Trial Court.
When INK filed a motion for the issuance of an order from the same
court to compel the holder of the duplicate certificates of title to
surrender the same to the Register of Deeds for the registration of the
deed of sale subject of the principal action, the motion was a
necessary incident to the main case.

Right of INC over the owners duplicate copies

The order of the trial court directing the surrender of the certificates
to the Register of Deeds in order that the deed of sale in favor of INK
can be registered, cannot in any way prejudice her rights and interests
as a mortgagee of the lots. Any lien annotated on the previous
certificates of title which subsists should be incorporated in or carried
ISSUE:
over to the new transfer certificates of title. 9 It is clear therefore that
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to order the surrender of the the surrender by petitioner of the certificates of title to the Register of
owners duplicate copies
Deeds as ordered by the trial court will not create any substantial
Whether or not INK is entitled to the owners duplicate copies
injustice to her. To grant the petition and compel INK to file a new
action in order to obtain the same reliefs it asked in the motion before
HELD:
the trial court is to encourage litigations where no substantial rights
Jurisdiction of RTC
are prejudiced. This end should be avoided.
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 OLIVA VS REPUBLIC
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 FACTS:
the same to the Register of Deeds so that a voluntary document may Petitioner Doris Chiongbian-Oliva is the registered owner of a parcel of
be registered and a new certificate issued, Sec. 107, Chapter 10, of
land. This title originated from a free patent granted CA No. 141. The
P.D. No. 1529 clearly states that the party in interest may file a
petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of free patent contained the condition that a 40-meter legal easement
Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or from the bank of any river or stream shall be preserved as permanent
any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same timberland. Petitioner filed a petition for reduction of legal easement
and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such alleging that the property is residential thus the applicable easement
surrender.
should be 3meters. The DENR countered that the property is
Under Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529, it is now provided that "Courts of First inalienable. It also claimed that the applicant agreed on the fortyInstance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have exclusive jurisdiction
meter legal easement when the free patent was applied for.
over all applications for original registration of titles to lands, including
improvements and interest therein and over all petitions filed after The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner. On appeal, the Court of
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all Appeals reversed the trial courts decision. It upheld the DENRs claim
that the property was inalienable.

ISSUE:
Is the property public or private land?
Is the applicable legal easement forty or three meters?
HELD:
The property is a private land
Only alienable or disposable lands may be disposed of through any of
the forms of concession enumerated in the law. 14 A free patent is one
of such concessions15 and once it is registered and the corresponding
certificate of title issued, the land covered by them ceases to be part
of the public domain and becomes private property.
Verily, by the issuance of a free patent, the property in this case had
become private land. It is inconsistent for an alienable land of the

public domain to be covered by a free patent and at the same time

retain its character as public land.
The applicable legal easement is 3 meters
Since the property in this case was originally alienable land of the
public domain, the application for free patent contained the condition
that a forty-meter legal easement from the banks on each side of any
river or stream found on the land shall be demarcated and preserved
as permanent timberland. However, after the property was
administratively titled, it underwent several surveys for purposes of
subdivision, consolidation, or consolidation-subdivision. Thus,
presently only three meters is required to be demarcated and
preserved as permanent timberland.