JOSE YULO AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION v.

SPOUSES
PERLA CABAYLO DAVIS AND SCOTT DAVIS
G.R. No. 197709, August 03, 2015

FACTS: The petitioner’s lot was subdivided into several lots. One of
which was mortgaged with Nation Bank and was subsequently
foreclosed, making the said Bank its absolute owner. The said lot has
already improvements when the land was purchased by the
respondents from the Nation Bank. Several parts of the lot was further
subdivided into several sub lots.
The respondent, filed an action to quiet title after they received
several demands from the petitioner as well as other persons that has
claim in the disputed property. The RTC ruled in favor of the
respondent. Hence, an appeal was filed by herein petitioner but to no
avail the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC. The CA found that the
titles that the parties are depending to are pertaining to same portions
of land. Thereby, ruling further that “where two certificates (of title)
purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails”. Thus, the
present case.
Issue: Which certificate of title should prevail.
HELD: The general rule is that where two certificates of title purport to
include the same land, the earlier in date prevails.
In successive registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in
respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming
under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and the
person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder
of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who
was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereto.
CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v. HI-GRADE
FEEDS CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 160684, September 02, 2015
FACTS:
Both parties derive their titles over the disputed property to the
Mother title OCT 994. The petitioner OCT No. is dated 19 April 1917
and the respondents OCT No. 994 is dated 3 May 1917.
Based on Decree No. 36455 in Land Registration Case No. 4429,
the decree registering OCT No. 994, the date of the issuance is 19 April
1917 while on the other hand, OCT No. 994 was received for
transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917. In this case, the
date which should be reckoned as the date of registration of the title is
the date when the mother title was received for transcription, 3 May
1917.
ISSUE: WHEN IS THE DATE OF REGISTRATION TO BE
RECKONED?
HELD:
A title can only have one date of registration, as there can only be one
title covering the same property. The date of registration is reckoned
from the time of the titles transcription in the record book of the Registry
of Deeds. Therefore, the date appearing on the face of the title refers to
the date of issuance of the decree of registration.
Therefore, as the date of transcription in the record book of the Registry
of Deeds is 3 May 1917, we rule that the genuine title is the title of Hi-
Grade.
Any title that traces its source to a void title, is also void. The spring
cannot rise higher than its source.
While tax declarations and receipts are inconclusive evidence of
ownership or of the right to possess land, they are prima facie proof of
ownership or possession and may become the basis of a claim for
ownership when it is coupled with proof of actual possession of the
property.

THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND THE

NATIONAL TREASURER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
v. OSCAR ANGLO, SR., and ANGLO AGRICULTURAL
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 171804, August 05, 2015
FACTS: Anglo SR., conveyed in exchange of shares of stocks, the
property disputed in this case, to Anglo Agricultural Corp (AAC).
Anglo Sr., acquired said land from de Ocampo under conditional sale.
The agreement between them was made when the registration
proceeding of the subject lot was still pending and was under the
objection of Bureau of Education. The CFI (now RTC) decided in favor
of de Ocampo. Notice of lis pendens was caused by the petitioners. The
petitioner filed a relief from judgment but was dismissed by the CFI.
Despite the notice, Anglo Sr. conveyed the lots to AAC. The petitioner
appealed to the CA but it was also denied. Hence, the case found its
way to the Supreme Court which ordered the case be remanded to the
CA. Consequently, the CA reversed the decision of the CFI, thus
invalidating the claims of the herein respondents. By virtue of the
decision of the CA, the respondents filed a complaint for damages from
the assurance funds against the ROD of Negros Occidental and The
National Treasurer of the Republic. The RTC granted the claim and the
CA, on appeal, affirmed the judgment with modification. Hence, the
instant case.
ISSUE: WON THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
FROM THE ASSURANCE FUNDS
HELD: We rule that respondent Anglo, Sr. in the sale transaction on
January 6, 1966 acted in good faith. However, he no longer had an
interest over the lots after he had transferred these to respondent Anglo
Agricultural Corporation in exchange for shares of stock. Hence, he no
longer has a claim from the Assurance Fund. On the other hand,
respondent Anglo Agricultural Corporation cannot be considered a
transferee in good faith, considering it was aware of the title’s notices
of lis pendens. Hence, it also has no right to claim damages from the
Assurance Fund.
This court further explained that “[t]he Assurance Fund is intended to
relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a
certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land.
Based solely on Section 95 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the
following conditions must be met: First, the individual must sustain loss
or damage, or the individual is deprived of land or any estate or interest.
Second, the individual must not be negligent. Third, the loss, damage,
or deprivation is the consequence of either (a) fraudulent registration
under the Torrens system after the land’s original registration, or (b) any
error, omission, mistake, or misdescription in any certificate of title or in
any entry or memorandum in the registration book. Fourth, the
individual must be barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of
any law from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or the
estate or interest therein.
The Assurance Fund is only liable in the last resort, as suggested under
Section 97 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The person causing the
fraud or the error should be liable first.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINO O. ALORA and

OSCAR O. ALORA, G.R. No. 210341, July 1, 2015
FACTS: On 6 June 2010, the respondents file a verified application for
registration of title before the RTC. Among other pieces of evidence,
the respondents presented the certification of CENRO that the land
applied for registration in an alienable and disposable land. The RTC
granted the application and further ruled that the applicable
jurisprudence is the case of Republic v. Serrano promulgated on 24
February 2010, wherein the SC allowed the approval of a land
registration even without the submission of certification from the DENR
Secretary, and not the case of Rep. v. T.A.N, promulgated on 26 June
2008, which categorically requires all applicants for land registration
must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR
Secretary and certified true copy by the legal custodian of the official
records. The petioner appealed with the CA, however, the latter
affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this instant case.
ISSUE: Whether the certification by the CENRO is sufficient evidence
to show that the subject parcel of land falls within the disposable and
alienable lands of the public domain.
HELD:
No.
Admittedly, we declared in Republic v. Vega that trial courts may grant
applications for registration despite the absence of a certification from
the DENR Secretary. It should be emphasized, however, that Republic
v. Vega applies on a pro hac vice basis only. After Republic v. Vega,
we pointed out in Republic v. San Mateo 27 that:

In Vega, the Court was mindful of the fact that the trial court rendered
its decision on November 13, 2003, way before the rule on strict
compliance was laid down in T.A.N Properties on June 26, 2008. Thus,
the trial court was merely applying the rule prevailing at the time, which
was substantial compliance. Thus, even if the case reached the
Supreme Court after the promulgation of T.A.N Properties, the Court
allowed the application of substantial compliance, because there was
no opportunity for the registrant to comply with the Court's ruling in
T.A.N Properties, the trial court and the CA already having decided the
case prior to the promulgation of T.A.N Properties.
In the case here, however, the RTC Decision was only handed down
on November 23, 2010, when the rule on strict compliance was already
in effect. Thus, there was ample opportunity for the respondents to
comply with the new rule, and present before the RTC evidence of the
DENR Secretary's approval of the DENR-South CENRO Certification.
This, they failed to do.