The document discusses several cases related to land ownership and property rights under Philippine law. It addresses issues like what qualifies as a valid land sale, what can be used to reconstitute a lost title certificate, and the state's ownership of public land. The cases reaffirm principles like the state's ownership and conservation of public land, that full payment is required for a land sale to be valid, and that a certificate of title represents indefeasible ownership rights unless certain legal processes are followed to amend the title.
The document discusses several cases related to land ownership and property rights under Philippine law. It addresses issues like what qualifies as a valid land sale, what can be used to reconstitute a lost title certificate, and the state's ownership of public land. The cases reaffirm principles like the state's ownership and conservation of public land, that full payment is required for a land sale to be valid, and that a certificate of title represents indefeasible ownership rights unless certain legal processes are followed to amend the title.
The document discusses several cases related to land ownership and property rights under Philippine law. It addresses issues like what qualifies as a valid land sale, what can be used to reconstitute a lost title certificate, and the state's ownership of public land. The cases reaffirm principles like the state's ownership and conservation of public land, that full payment is required for a land sale to be valid, and that a certificate of title represents indefeasible ownership rights unless certain legal processes are followed to amend the title.
Transportation Office, is the rightful owner thereof,
and as such, he is entitled to its possession.
PAGE 84 – DOUBLE SALE
TAINA MANIGQUE-STONE VS CATTLEYA LAND, PAGE 132 – REGALIAN DOCTRINE
INC. (G.R. No. 195975, September 5, 2016) “Save in cases of hereditary succession, no REPUBLIC VS SPOUSES BENIGNO (G.R. No. private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified 205492, March 11, 2015) to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.” That Under the Regalian doctrine, "all lands of the public aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are domain belong to the State, and the State is the disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. source of any asserted right to ownership in land and Hence, they are also disqualified from acquiring charged with the conservation of such patrimony." private lands. The primary purpose of the Furthermore, as provided under PD 1529, applicants constitutional provision is the conservation of the must prove: "(1) that the subject land forms part of national patrimony. the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain at the time the application for registration is filed; and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of PAGE 84 – DOUBLE SALE the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
DOMINGO VS MANZANO (G.R. No. 201883,
November 16, 2016) As what the Court ruled in Luzon Development Bank PAGE 133 – ORIGINAL REGISTRATION v. Enriquez, 654 Phil. 315 (2011), since failure to pay the price in full in a contract to sell renders *see page 135 the same ineffective and without force and effect, then there is no sale to speak of. BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT VS BALCOM-TAMBUYAT (G.R. No. 202805, March 23, 2015) In the case at bar, the petitioners failed to pay the purchase price in full, while Aquino did, and thereafter Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for the she was able to register her purchase and obtain a erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of new certificate of title in her name. As far as this Court title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1) when is concerned, there is only one sale - and that is, the registered interests of any description, whether one in Aquino's favor. Since there is only one valid vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have sale, the rule on double sales under Article 1544 of the terminated and ceased; (2) when new interests have Civil Code does not apply. arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (3) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; PAGE 33 – REMEDIES TO RECOVER (4) when the name of any person on the certificate POSSESSION has been changed; (5) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs SIY VS TOMLIN (G.R. No. 205998, April 24, 2017) or creditors will thereby be affected; (6) when a As what the Court ruled in Superlines Transoortation corporation, which owned registered land and has Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within Company, 548 Phil. 354 (2007), “In a complaint for three years after its dissolution; and (7) when there is replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of is either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession title. In the case at bar, the situation falls under (3) of the object sought to be recovered, and that the and (7), where the Registrar of Deeds of Bulacan defendant, who is in actual or legal possession committed an error in issuing TCT T-145321 in the thereof, wrongfully detains the same." In the case at name of "Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. bar, since Ong was able to sell the subject vehicle to Banguis" when, in truth and in fact, respondent Chua, petitioner thus ceased to be the owner thereof. Wenifreda – and not Banguis – is Adriano’s lawful Nor is he entitled to the possession of the vehicle; spouse. together with his ownership, petitioner lost his right of possession over the vehicle. Considering that he was no longer the owner or rightful possessor of the subject vehicle at the time he filed Civil Case No. Q- 11-69644 in July, 2011, petitioner may not seek a return of the same through replevin. Quite the contrary, respondent, who obtained the vehicle from Chua and registered the transfer with the Land PAGE 136 Agreement and Deed of Absolute Sale, and not one to annul title since the certificate of title is still in her name. REPUBLIC VS PASICOLAN (G.R. No. 198543, April It is petitioner who must be protected under the 15, 2015) Torrens System – as the registered owner of the Section 2. Original certificates of title subject property. “A certificate of title serves as shall be reconstituted from such of the evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title sources hereunder enumerated as may to the property in favor of the person whose name be available, in the following order: appears therein. The real purpose of the Torrens (a) The owner's duplicate of the System of land registration is to quiet title to land and certificate of title; put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of (b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or the title.” lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title; (c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of PAGE 131 – TORRENS SYSTEM deeds or by a legal custodian thereof; (d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case REPUBLIC VS. DAYAOEN (G.R. No. 2007773, July may be, pursuant to which the original 8, 2015) certificate of title was issued; Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public (e) A document, on file in the registry of domain belong to the State. The classification and deeds, by which the property, the reclassification of such lands are the prerogative of the description of which is given in said Executive Department. The President may at any time document, is mortgaged, leased or transfer these public lands from one class to another. encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its While judicial notice of Presidential Proclamation No. original had been registered; and 209 may be taken, the DENR certificate of land (f) Any other document which, in the classification status or any other proof of the alienable judgment of the court, is sufficient and and disposable character of the land may not be proper basis for reconstituting the lost dispensed with, because it provides a more recent or destroyed certificate of title. appraisal of the classification of the land as alienable As discussed in Republic vs. Heirs of Julio Ramos, a and disposable, or that the land has not been re- vague Certification by the LRA without stating the classified in the meantime. The applicable law – nature of the decree, as well as the claimant in such Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 – requires that the case cannot be considered as a sufficient and proper property sought to be registered is alienable and basis for reconstituting a lost or destroyed certificate disposable at the time the application for registration of title. Neither do the tax declarations submitted of title is filed; one way of establishing this material support respondents’ cause. As held in Republic of the fact is through the DENR certificate of land Philippines vs. Santua, a tax declaration can only be classification status which is presumed to be the most prima facie evidence of claim of ownership, which, recent appraisal of the status and character of the however, is not the issue in the reconstitution property. proceeding. The non-submission of Affidavit of Loss by the person who was allegedly in actual possession of Such notations or certifications in approved survey OCT No. 8450 at the time of its loss casts doubt on plans refer only to the technical correctness of the respondents’ claim that OCT No. 8450 once existed surveys plotted in the plans and have nothing to do and subsequently got lost. whatsoever with the nature and character of the properties surveyed, and that they only establish that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved alienable and disposable area per verification through survey by the proper government PAGE 130 – TORRENS SYSTEM office; they do not indicate at all that the property sought to be registered is alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. MAHILUM VS ILANO (G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015) Since a new title was never issued in respondents’ favor, and instead, title remained in petitioner’s name, the former never came within the coverage and protection of the Torrens System, where the issue of good or bad faith becomes relevant. Since respondents never acquired a new certificate of title in their name, the issue of their good or bad faith which is central in annulment of title case is of no consequence; petitioner’s case is for annulment of the