You are on page 1of 6

G.R. No.

L-56613 March 14, 1988


THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IGLESIA NI
CRISTO, respondents

FERNAN, J

INC filed an application with the CFI for registration in its name a parcel of land alleging that it is the
owner in fee simple by virtue of absolute sale for more than 30 years. The dir of lands opposed the
application on the ground that the applicant and is PII did not possess sufficient title and that
neither of them have been in ocen p and o. after trial, the court granted respondent’s application.
The dir of lands appealed believing that the applicant did not sufficiently identify the land in
question for failing to submit the original tracing cloth plan but the CA affirmed the decision. Hence,
this petition for review on certiorari

Issue

Whether or not applicant is disqualified from holding alienable public lands except by lease

Ruling

No

The object of the law in requiring the submission of a tracing cloth of the plan duly approved by the
Bureau of Lands is to establish the true identity—the location —of the land, in terms of degrees and
minutes in order that there is an assurance that it does not overlap a land or portion of land already
covered by a previous land registration, or that there will be no possibility that it will be overlapped
by a subsequent survey of any adjoining land.

In the case at bar, such Identity can be well-established by the white paper plan. To Us, it would not
matter if the plan introduced to establish the Identity of the land is made of cloth or is made of
paper. For one thing, a tracing cloth of the plan is required to be submitted to the Bureau of Lands.
It must have a file copy of the same.

alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his predecessors-in-interest,


openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period [30 years under the Public
Land Act, as amended] is converted to private property by mere lapse or completion of said period,
ipso jure."

The completion by private respondent of this statutory 30-year period has dual
significance in the light of Section 48[b] of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended and prevailing jurisprudence: [1] at this point, the land in question
ceased by operation of law to be part of the public domain; and [2] private
respondent could have its title thereto confirmed through the appropriate
proceedings as under the Constitution then in force, private corporations or
associations were not prohibited from acquiring public lands, but merely
prohibited from acquiring, holding or leasing such type of land in excess of
1,024 hectares.
If in 1966, the land in question was converted ipso jure into private land, it remained so in 1974
when the registration proceedings were commenced. This being the case, the prohibition under the
1973 Constitution would have no application. Otherwise construed, if in 1966, private respondent
could have its title to the land confirmed, then it had acquired a vested right thereto, which the
1973 Constitution can neither impair nor defeat.

G.R. No. 175578


Republic vs Guinto-aldana

PERALTA, J

Respondents filed an application for reg of title over two parcels of land identified in a conversion
consolidation subdi plan. They professed to be co-owners of the lts, having acquired the from theor
ppredecessrs. The trial court then ordered the publication and notice. Petitioner oppoed advancing that
the lots were inalienable lands of the public domain. Because of failure to subit original tracing cloth as
mandated by pd 1529 and failing to prove the nature of possession, the application was denied.

Respondents appealed to the CA which granted the appeal. Petitioners’ MR was denied. Hence, this
present petition.

Issue

Whether or not the submission of the original tracing cloth plan of the property sought to be registeres
is mandatory in registration proceedings to establish the exact identity of the property

Ruling

No

The provision denotes that it is imperative in an application for original registration that the
applicant submit to the court, aside from the original or duplicate copies of the muniments of title,
a copy of a duly approved survey plan of the land sought to be registered. The survey plan is
indispensable as it provides a reference on the exact identity of the property. This begs the question
in the instant case: Does the blueprint copy of the survey plan suffice for compliance with the
requirement? In not so many cases,[32] it was held that the non-submission, for any reason, of the
original tracing cloth plan is fatal to the registration application, since the same is mandatory in
original registration of title. For instance, in the Del Rosario case relied on by petitioner, the Court
ruled that the submission of the original copy of the duly approved tracing cloth plan is a mandatory
condition for land registration as it supplies the means by which to determine the exact metes and
bounds of the property. The applicant in that case was unable to submit the original tracing cloth
plan of the land he was claiming because apparently, as in the present case, it was previously
transmitted by the clerk of court to the LRA. Yet the Court, deeming it the applicants obligation to
retrieve the plan himself and present it in evidence, denied the application,

Yet if the reason for requiring an applicant to adduce in evidence the original
tracing cloth plan is merely to provide a convenient and necessary means to
afford certainty as to the exact identity of the property applied for registration
and to ensure that the same does not overlap with the boundaries of the
adjoining lots, there stands to be no reason why a registration application must
be denied for failure to present the original tracing cloth plan, especially where
it is accompanied by pieces of evidencesuch as a duly
executed blueprint of the survey plan and a duly executed technical description of the
propertywhich may likewise substantially and with as much certainty prove the limits and extent of
the property sought to be registered.

In the case at bar, we find that the submission of the blueprint of Plan Ccs-007601-000040-D,
together with the technical description of the property, operates as substantial compliance with the
legal requirement of ascertaining the identity of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 applied for registration.

G.R. No. 112905 February 3, 2000

THE HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ vs. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO, MARIA SOCORRO DE CASTRO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Pedro lopez filed an application for registration over a land claimed to be part of their inheritance.
The court ordered the registration of title in their favor. However, upon review of records for the
purpose of issuing the decree, the LRC found out that part of the land had been decreed in favor of
priv respo honesto de castro et al

Only after seven years from actual knowledge of respondents’ prior registration, the heirs of pedro
lopez filed a complaint for execution of judgment nd cancellation of titles of defendants and PII. The
defendants interposed the defenses of prescription, laches and or estoppel. The court dismissed the
complaint for being improper and immature. A MR was filed but it was denied. They sought
recourse before the CA but the latter dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition.

Issue

Whether or not petitioners exercised due diligence required of them as applicants for land
registration
Ruling

No

In land registration proceedings, all interested parties are obliged to take care of their interests and
to zealously pursue their objective of registration on account of the rule that whoever first acquires
title to a piece of land shall prevail. To illustrate, 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.36 It should be stressed that said rule refers to the date of the
certificate of title and not to the date of filing of the application for registration of title. Hence, even
though an applicant precedes another, he may not be deemed to have priority of right to register
title. As such, while his application is being processed, an applicant is duty-bound to observe
vigilance and to take care that his right or interest is duly protected.
Petitioners failed to exercise the due diligence required of them as applicants for land registration.
Under these circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that petitioners neglected for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, they
could or should have done earlier. They neglected or omitted to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting the presumption that they either had abandoned

[G.R. No. 156117. May 26, 2005]


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JEREMIAS AND DAVID HERBIETO, respondents.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

The herbieto brohers filed a single application for registration of two parcels pf land located in
cebu. Petitioner opposed the application arguing that applicants failed to comply with the period
of adverse possession required by law. After hearing, the court ordered the registration and
confirmation of the title of the applicants. Petitioner appealed but the decision was affirmed.
Hence, this present petition arguing that the proceedings beld before the trial vourt is void since
respondents failed to comply with the procedure for land registration

Issue

Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case

Ruling

no

A land registration case is a proceeding in rem,[28] and jurisdiction in rem cannot


be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through publication
and service of notice.[29]
Section 23 of the Property Registration Decree requires that the public be given Notice of the Initial
Hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3)
posting

It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation should be


deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by publication in the
Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of which have already
been complied with in the case at hand. The reason is due process and the
reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as
newspaper 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. In sum, 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.[

in this case, While


the Notice thereof was printed in the issue of the Official Gazette, dated 02 August
1999, and officially released on 10 August 1999, it was published in The Freeman Banat News, a
daily newspaper printed in Cebu City and circulated in the province and cities of Cebu and in the
rest of Visayas and Mindanao, only on 19 December 1999, more than three months after the initial
hearing.

G.R. No. L-26127 June 28, 1974


(Civil Case No. 3621)
VICTOR BENIN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MARIANO SEVERO TUASON y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.,
defendants. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

ZALDIVAR, J.:p

Three sets of plaintiffs filed three separate complaints climing they are the owners and possessors
of the subject lot. In their respective omplaint, they alleged that herein respondent illegally entered
and demolished their dwellings. They claim that their lands had either been fraudulently or
erroneously included by fraud in the name of herein respondents. They now prayed for their
declaration as owners of the land. JM Tuason filed a motion to dismiss but it was denied by the trial
cpourt. Likewise, its MR was denied. It then filed an anser arguing that the plaintiffs cause of action
is barred by res judicata. After trial, the court rendered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

G.R. No. L-36637 July 14, 1978


GENEROSO MENDOZA, substituted by his wife and administratrix DIEGA DE LEON VDA. DE
MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DANIEL GOLE CRUZ and DOLORES
MENDOZA, respondents.

SANTOS, J.:

Generoso Mendoza filed an application for reg of two parcels of land. The registration court
ordered the registration of the lands in the names of vendees Daniel cruz and Dolores Mendoza,
subject to usufructuary rights of vendors generoso and diega Mendoza. Applicant-vendor filed a
motion for the issuance of the decree and it was granted. However, generoso filed an urgent
petition to cancel the certificate since vendees had failed to pay the purchase price. the court
ordered the cancellation the OCT and directed the registration of the lands in the names of spouses,
Generoso Mendoza and Diega de Leon. The court of appeals set aside the order of the land reg.
hence, this present petition.

Issue
Whether or not the registration court could legally order the reg of the land in the nmes of
responsents who were neither applicants nor oppositors in the reg case

Ruling

Yes

Section 29 of the Land Registration Act which expressly authorizes the registration of the land
subject matter of a registration proceeding in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the
land has been conveyed by an instrument executed during the interval of time between the filing of
the application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title,

The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the
interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar facts and
circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been complied with.

Whether or not there was fraud in failure to pay the purchase price
No

You might also like