RED NOTES 2001-2002

JURISPRUDENCE ON LAND REGISTRATION CASES

1. FRAUD
A title issued pursuant to a patent under administrative proceedings is as indefeasible as a title secured in a judicial proceeding. But even after the lapse of one year from the issuance of the patent, the government may still initiate an action for reversion of the land to the public domain if the land is titled through fraud or misrepresentation as when the applicant stated that subject land is exclusively possessed by him when in truth it overlaps the land of an adjacent owner. (Republic of the Philippines vs. CA and Heirs of Bullongan !"" #CRA $$"%. Generally, a forged deed is void but can be the root of a valid title if registered in the name of the forger then transferred to an innocent purchaser for value absent any showing that the buyer had any part in the anomaly. Hence, the rights of the innocent purchaser for value must be respected. The proper recourse of the true owner is to bring an action for damages against the party who caused the fraud. (&duarte vs. CA !"$ #CRA $'1%. A party deprived of his land by confirmation of title through actual fraud may see for reopening of a decree of registration within one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. Before the expiration of the one year period from the entry of the decree, the court retains control of the decision which, after hearing and actual fraud was proved to exist, may adjudicate the land to any party entitled thereto. (Heirs of (anuel Ro)as and *rinidad De +eon vs. CA !,- #CRA $-'%. Actual fraud or extrinsic fraud proceeds from the intentional deception produced by means of misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. !xtrinsic fraud prevents the party from presenting his entire case to the court. " Heirs of (anuel Ro)as and *rinidad De +eon vs. CA !,- #CRA $-'%. #raud is extrinsic or collateral where a litigant commits acts outside of the trial of the case the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial, a real contest or from presenting his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is no fair submission of the controversy. Accordingly, use of forged document or perjured witness are not extrinsic fraud as it does not preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings . (#trait *i.es /nc. vs. CA !'0 #CRA ,10%. $onstructive trust is created in e%uity in order to prevent unjust enrichment. Thus, one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in e%uity and good conscience so hold, has no valid title to said property and therefore cannot dispose of the same. Hence, a widower who adjudicates the entire conjugal property to himself holds the children&s share in the property in trust. ((ar1ue2 vs. CA $-- #CRA 3"$%. A certificate of title cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate fraud. Any false statement in the application for a land patent shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the same even after the lapse of one year from issuance of said patent pursuant to 'ection ()( of the *ublic +and Act wherein an action may be underta en for the reversion of the land to the public domain. (Francisco Baguio vs. Republic et al. $-1 #CRA 0"-%.

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

!. 455D FA/*H6 /775C&7* PURCHA#&R F5R 8A+U&
,ne who deals with property covered by the Torrens system of registration need not go beyond the title to determine the condition of the property. (+egarda vs. CA !9- #CRA 30!%. Good #aith is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state of condition of mind which can only be judged by actual or fancied to ens or signs. ,therwise stated, good faith is the opposite of fraud and it refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. (+egarda vs. Ca !9- #CRA 30!%. A person dealing with registered land has the right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title without the need of in%uiring further. Hence, a purchaser who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full fair price for the property is a buyer in good faith. (#andoval vs. CA !3- #CRA !9$%. A person in good faith and for value is defined as one who buys property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price of the time of the purchase or before he has notice that other person has a right to, or interest in the property. As a rule, he who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value has the burden of proving said assertion. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises is a safeguard a cautious and prudent purchaser usually ta es and should he find out that the land is occupied by anybody else other than the seller who is not in actual possession, it is incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupants& possessory rights. (#pouses #on:a (atha: and /s.ael (atha: ;r. vs. CA !'" #CRA $"3%. ,ne who introduces improvements on a lot without the consent and nowledge of the registered owner is not a builder in good faith. Hence, the grant of a right of way does not legally entitle the grantee to occupy said right of way and the introduction of improvements thereon ma es him a builder in bad faith. (*he Congregation of the Religion of the 8irgin (ar: vs. CA and Protasio !'1 #CRA $9"%. "a- An .T$ court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an adverse claim. "b- *urchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same on the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. (4#/# vs. CA !0- #CRA ,$,%. The right of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected even if the seller of the property obtained title thereto thru fraud citing 'antos vs. $A, (/0 '$.A declaring that forgery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. (5bse1uio vs. CA !$- #CRA ""-%.

$. 5<7&R#H/P = P5##&##/57
An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on constructive or implied trust prescribes in ten "()- years rec oned from the issuance of title or date of registration. This rule applies only when plaintiff or party enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property, but if he is in possession thereof, the right to see reconveyance, which in effect is an action to %uiet title, does not prescribe. (Cabrera vs. CA and Felicio &* Al. !3, #CRA $$'%.

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

1n ejectment cases, even if the %uestion of ownership is raised, the court may pass upon such issue only to determine the %uestion of possession but it cannot dispose with finality the issue of ownership. (Di2on vs. CA and &li2abeth #antiago !30 #CRA $'1%. A party&s failure to raise a restraining arm or a shout of dissent to another party&s possession of a parcel of land in a span of thirty "2)- years is contrary to his claim of ownership. (Heirs of *eodoro Dele Cru2 vs. CA &t Al. !'9 #CRA 1,!%. Torrens system does not vest title because it is not recogni3ed as a mode of ac%uiring ownership. 4hile registered land under the system ma es the title thereto imprescriptible, the same may be lost by laches caused by a party&s inaction or passivity in asserting his rights over the disputed property. (#antiago vs. CA !,9 #CRA 9-$%. 4hen a person has no nowledge that he encroached on his neighbor&s lot, he is deemed a builder in good faith until the latter informed him of his encroachment on his property. Good faith is always presumed and upon him who alleges bad faith of the possessor of his property rests the burden of proof. The right to choose between appropriating the improvement or selling the land where the improvement stands is given to the owner of the land who may also obligate the builder to purchase the land, otherwise, the owner may remove the improvements thereon. The builder is not obliged to purchase the land if its value is more than the building, in which case, he has to pay the rent to the landowner. 1f a sale is agreed upon, it must be based on the prevailing mar et value based not on the time of the ta ing the land but at the time of payment. " &den Ballatan vs. CA &* A+. $-0 #CRA $0%. Tax declaration and tax receipts become strong evidence of ownership ac%uired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession. (5clarit vs. CA !$$ #CRA $'%.

0. PUB+/C +A7D#
1f public land was titled but turned out to be forest land instead of agricultural land, the one year period to file a review of the decree does not apply. ,n the contrary, the land may revert to the public domain upon petition of the 'olicitor General. (Republic vs. CA and Heirs of Riba:a !"9 #CRA !!$%. Absent any publication in newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register the title of the applicant. *ublication of the notice of initial hearing in the ,fficial Ga3ette is not enough to confer jurisdiction to the court because the law re%uires publication also in a newspaper. The word 5shall5 denotes an imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of the statute that publication shall be in the ,fficial Ga3ette and a newspaper of general circulation. (Director of +ands vs. CA !,3 #CRA !,3%. 6nder 'ection 7/ "b- of the *ublic +and Act "$A (7(-, persons who complied with the re%uirements of a claimant to claim title to land such as open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land of the public domain for a 2)8year period prior to the filing of application is deemed to have ac%uired the land by operation of law and the 9irector of +ands has no authority to dispose of the same because the land ceased to be part of the public domain. (Rural Ban> of Co.postela vs. CA !,1 #CRA ,3%. A free patent issued to private land has no effect whatsoever. The remedy of the landowner is to file an action to %uiet title which does not prescribe. (Heirs of (ariano 7agano vs. CA !9! #CRA 0$%.

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

The grantees& title of ownership of patented land to be perfected should comply with the re%uirements of the law one of which is to eep the property for herself and her family within the prescribed period of five ":- years. 1f the re%uirements are not complied with, the 'tate may ta e action for reversion of the land to the public domain. (Republic vs. CA and ;osefina (orato !91 #CRA 3$'%. 4hen the seawater moves toward the estate of an owner, the invaded property becomes foreshore land and becomes part of the public domain. $iting the case of Government vs. $abangis, the land under the Torrens system which becomes part of the foreshore land reverts to the public domain and the title is annulled. (Republic vs. CA and ;osefina (orato !91 #CRA 3$'%. +ands covered by a sales patent application cannot be validly mortgaged by the applicant because title thereto is not yet released by the government. 4hile it is true that the applicant is in possession of the land, it is because he should comply with the re%uirement prescribed by law in cultivating the land before the final patent could be issued in his favor. (Develop.ent Ban> of the Philippines vs. CA !"$ #CRA 010%. *eriod re%uired in possession and occupation of public land to %ualify as claimant; a. 'ection 7/ "b- of the *ublic +and Act "$A (7(- 8 9ecember (, (02< 8 those who by themselves or through their predecessors8in8interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ac%uisition of ownership except as against the government since =uly ><, (/07. x x x. b. .epublic Act (07> 8 =une >>, (0:? 8 amended 'ection 7/ "b- of $A (7( by prescribing open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation for at least thirty "2)- years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title. c. *residential 9ecree ()?2 8 =anuary >2, (0?? 8 amended further 'ection 7/ "b- of $A (7( by stating that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessors8in8 interest under a bona fide claim of ac%uisition of ownership since =une (>, (07:. "See also Sec. 14 of PD 1529Accordingly, the period of thirty "2)- years of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation would not suffice to confer title to a settler, particularly so when the *resident reserves said public land for a public purpose. (Republic 5pol 7ational #econdar: *echnical #chool vs. 7icanor Doldol !'" #CRA $"'%. A void act cannot be validated or ratified as when a subse%uent release of a forest land as alienable and disposable does not cure any defect in the issuance of a homestead patent for said land. 1t is settled that forest land are not capable of private appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them to private property . (#pouses Federico Re:es &* A+. 8s. CA and Republic !'" #CRA !'3%. #oreshore lands or submerged areas which may be reclaimed under .A (/00 by local governments are part of the public domain which could only be subject of reclamation by the national government under *9 28A. The authority granted to local governments to underta e reclamation projects was a mere grant by the sovereign which, in the exercise of police power, may be withdrawn as shown in *9 28A. (Republic vs. CA and Pasa: Cit: &t Al. (Cultural Center% !'' #CRA 1''%. The prohibition against the alienation of the public lands ac%uired by homestead or free patent commences on the date of approval of the application and the :8year period of prohibition commences from the issuance of the patent, the rec oning point is actually the date of the approval of the application and the prohibition embraces the entire :8year period from and after the grant. Hence, the prohibition will not apply when an execution sale too

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

place before the issuance of the patent. (Pablito *aneo &t Al vs. CA and Abdon 4ilig $-0 #CRA $-9%. 6nder 'ection ()( of the *ublic +and Act "$A (7(- an action for reversion to the public domain of land fraudulently titled may be initiated even after the lapse of one year as said action is not barred by prescription. "Fransico Baguio vs. Republic &t Al. $-1 #CRA 0"-%. The government&s prolonged inaction for twenty ">)- years whereby it failed to correct and recover the increased area in the land of a private party militates against its cause as it is tantamount to laches which is the failure or neglect for unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could have been done earlier. 4hile the general rule is that the state cannot be put in estoppel by the mista es and errors of its officials and its agents, this is subject to exception if it would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. The government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably with its citi3ens and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing. (Republic vs. CA and #t. ;ude &nterprises $-1 #CRA $%. Alluvion gives to the owners of land adjoining the ban s of rivers and streams any accretion which is gradually received from the effects of the current of waters pursuant to Article 7:? of the @ew $ivil code, the rationale being to compensate the owners being continually exposed to the destructive force of water and subjected to various easements citing Agustine vs. 1A$ (/? '$.A >(/ and Binalay vs. Aanalo (0: '$.A 2?7. (Ferrer vs. Bautista !$1 #CRA !",%. 1nalienable public lands cannot be ac%uired irrespective of the period of possession until so classified as alienable and disposable by the executive branch of the government (A.polo1uio vs CA !$! #CRA% "a- The decision of a land registration court, ordering the consolidation and registration of title being the result of a proceeding in rem binds the whole world. "b- .e%uisites for the ac%uisition of property 8 Accretion as a mode of ac%uiring property under Article 7:? @$$ re%uires the concurrence of the ff; (. That the deposition of soil or sediments is gradual and imperceptible. >. That it be the result of the action of the waters of the river. 2. That the land where accretion ta es place is adjacent to riverban s. "c- 6nder the *ublic +and Act where free patent and title was registered in the name of the applicant who employed fraud, the principle of indefeasibility of title is unavailing

".

D&CR&& 5F R&4/#*RA*/57
As long as a final decree has not been entered by the +.A and the period of one year has not yet elapsed from the date of entry of such decree the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision of the court in the registration proceedings continuous to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it. (Ra.os vs Rodrigue2 !00 #CRA 019%. 4hen the court decision has become final and the court directs the +.A to issue a decree of registration the +.A is not legally obligated to follow the court&s order when the land sought to be registered is discovered to have been already decreed and titled in the name of another. (Ra.os vs Rodrigue2 !00 #CRA 019%. *arty deprived of his property in a cadastral proceeding may file within one year from entry of the decree a petition for review. (+in2ag vs Ca !'1 #CRA $-0%.

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

An action for reconveyance of land if the property is not yet transferred to an innocent purchaser value, attac s not only the judgment of the cadastral court but see s confirmation by the court of plaintiff&s title to the land. (+in2ag vs Ca !'1 #CRA $-0%.

3.

C&R*/F/CA*& 5F */*+&
.eal purpose of Torrens system of registration is to %uiet title to land and put a stop to any %uestion of legality of title except claims which have been recorded in the certificate of title at the time of registration. !very registered owner and every subse%uent purchaser for value in good faith holds title to land free from all encumbrances, except those provided by law. Hence, a registered owner who executed a deed of sale in favor of another without any consideration "except their common8law relationship- and caused the registration of said conveyance validly transmits the property which can be conveyed to an innocent purchaser for value. (4loria Cru2 vs. CA !91 #CRA 0'!%. 4here two ">- certificates of title purport to cover the same land, the certificate bearing the earlier date prevails. Hence, in cases where two certificates cover the same land, a certificate of title is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the land had already been registered and an earlier certificate is in existence. ((<## vs. CA !1" #CRA ,9$%. $ertificate of title merely confirms or records the title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another. Hence, one who loses his property and review of decree is no longer available, the e%uitable remedy of reconveyance may be restored to. (&s1uivas vs. CA !,! #CRA 9-$%. A certificate of title is conclusive evidence with respect to ownership of the land described therein and other matters that can be litigated and decided in land registration proceedings. Hence, an application for registration of land already covered by an existing title constitutes a collateral attac . 1t is therefore the duty of a land registration court to determine whether the issuance of a new certificate will alter a valid and existing certificate of title . (Carva?al vs. CA !9- #CRA $"1%. A land registration proceeding is in rem and therefore a decree of registration issued thereafter is binding upon and conclusive against all persons including the government. A decree of registration that has become final shall be conclusive not only on %uestions actually contested and determined but also upon all matters that ought to be litigated or decided in land registration proceedings. (*eofilo Cacho vs. CA !3' #CRA $"'%. .egistration does not vest title but is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. The defense of indefeasibility of Torrens title does not extend to a transferee thereof who ta es the certificate of title with notice of a flaw in the title. (Cabrera vs. CA and Felicio &t Al. !3, #CRA $$'%. A certificate of title is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence. 4here two titles have been issued on different dates to two different persons for the same parcel of land, even if both are presumed to be titleholders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. Assuming that there was regularity in registration leading to the issuance of title, the better approach is to trace the original certificate from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived, should there be one common original title, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration. (#pouses #on:a (atha: and /s.ael (atha: ;r. vs. CA !'" #CRA $"3%.

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

Annotation in the certificate of title that a parcel of land is not tenanted are not conclusive proof and therefore not binding upon the courts. (Policarpio 7isnisan vs. CA !'0 #CRA 1,$%. !very person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title to determine the condition of the property. Thus, all the property of the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or wife. (Heirs of the #pouses Benito 4anico vs. CA !91 #CRA 0'"%. 4hen the certificate of title is issued in the name of the original buyer on installment who died before completion of payment, the heirs who continued the installment payments may invo e 'ection ()/ of *9 (:>0 to correct the error and have the land registered in their names. (&rnesto Da@son &t Al. vs. Register of Deeds of Aue2on Cit: and R*C AC !'" #CRA ,$$ citing the case of Cru2 vs. *an '$ Phil $09%.

,.

+ACH&#
+aches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier or negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or has declined to assert it. ((argolles vs. CA !$- #CRA ',%.

9. R&(&D/&#
(. *he <rit of Possession. A writ of possession is an order issued by the land registration court commanding the sheriff to enter the land and to deliver the possession thereof to the successful registrant. A. A writ of possession may be availed of by a successor8in8interest. B. 1t is ministerial and it can be invo ed as a matter of right. The court has no discretion and a judge who refuses it can be compelled by mandamus to issue the writ. (De +una vs. Ba:anan 31 #CRA 0'%. $. A collateral attac on the title does not bar the issuance of a writ of possession. #orsogon vs. (a>alintal 9- Phil !"'%. 9. A writ is available against all "(- persons who answered and appearedB ">persons who were served with notice but did not appear or answerB "2- persons who were defeated in the caseB and persons who unlawfully occupied the land during the proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree. !. However, a judgment in a land registration cannot be executed by the issuance of a final decree of registration while the case is on appeal. .ule 20 of the .ules of $ourt which allows execution while the case is on appeal cannot be applied because it violates *9 @o. (:>0 which provides that a final decree of registration can only be issued after the decision has become final. But more than that it is fraught with dangerous conse%uences and goes against the very essence of the torrens system of land registration. (Director of +ands vs. Re:es 39 #CRA 1,,%. >. (otion for 7e@ *rial or Reconsideration. A remedy found in the .ules of $ourt, it is available during the period within which to appeal "(: days from receipt- to losing party in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character and may be granted on the following grounds; A. #raud, accident, mista e or inexcusable neglect which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which the movant&s rights have been impaired.

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

B. @ewly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered prior to the trial with the exercise of our diligence and which is of such character as would probably alter the outcome of the case. $. The evidence is not sufficient to support the decisionB and 9. The decision is contrary to law. 2. Appeal. This remedy may be availed of within fifteen "(:- days from notice of judgment. An appeal can be perfected thru the simple expedient of serving a notice of appeal upon the adverse party and the court. The record on appeal and the appeal bond have been eliminated under the new rules promulgated by the 'upreme $ourt under B* @o. (>0. 7. Petition for Relief fro. ;udg.ent. 4hen a party is unjustly deprived of a hearing or has been prevented from ta ing an appeal due to fraud, accident, mista e or excusable negligence he may file a petition for relief from judgment with the same court within six "<months from the entry of judgment. :. Petition for Revie@ of the Degree of Registration . A remedy expressly provided in 'ection 2> of *9 @o. (:>0 "formerly 'ection 2/, Act 70<-, this remedy has the following elements; A. This petition must be filed by a person claiming dominical or other real rights to the land registered in the name of another. B. The registration of the land in the name of the respondent was procured by means of actual, "not just constructive- fraud, which must be extrinsic. #raud is actual if the registration was made through deceit or any other intentional act of down right dishonesty to enrich oneself at the expense of another. $. The petition, must be filed within one "(- year from the date of the issuance of the decree. 9. Title to the land was not passed to an innocent purchaser for value. (+ibudan vs. 4il 09 #CRA !,6 Pabico vs. Arrelane $- #CRA "$'6 R& vs. CA ",9 4R 7o. 0-0-! (arch 13 1'9,%. <. Action for Reconve:ance . This remedy is in the nature of an action in personam that may be availed of by a person claiming to own the land which was wrongfully registered in the name of defendant. 1t is based on 'ection 2>, par. >, which provided that upon the expiration of the period of one year the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall be incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud. 1ts purpose is not to annul the decree because at this stage annulment thereof is no longer possible. #or this remedy to succeed, the following elements must be present; A. The action must be filed by a person claiming ownership or dominical rights over the land which was registered in the name of the defendant. B. That the registration of the land in the defendant&s name was procured by fraud or mista e. $. That the action is brought within four "7- years from the date of discovery of the fraud or mista e but not later than ten "()- years from the date of registration. 9. That the property was not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value. (Ciriaco vs. #orsogon &t Al. 4R 7o. +C"'9,' (a: 1$ 1'9"%. Hence, it is an established rule that; a. 4here a trustee registers a piece of entrusted land in his name, the real owner can always as for reconveyance of the title. But if the trustee has repudiated the trust and such act has been made nown to the cestui %ue trust, and evidence of such repudiation is clear and conclusive, the prescription will lie and reconveyance barred. (Ra.os vs. Ra.os 4.R. 7o. +C1'9,! Dec. $ 1',0%.

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

?. *he Assurance Fund. This is a special fund created under the torrens system for the compensation of certain persons who sustain losses by the operation of the system. A. 'ource of #und. 1t is made up of one8fourth of (C of the assessed value of the real estate, to be paid upon the original registration of a certificate of title of a building or other improvement on the land, or upon the entry of a certificate of title in the name of the registered owner. B. !lements re%uired for compensation to prosper; (. The claimant must be a person who sustains damages or is deprived of his land or any estate therein as a conse%uence of bringing the land under the operations of the Torrens 'ystem. (Urbana vs. Bernardo 3! #CRA 3-$%. >. The claimant must not be guilty of negligence or laches (Dela Cru2 vs. Fabie $" Phil 1006 &strellado vs. (artine2 $9 Phil. !"3%. 2. The loss or damage was due to fraud or in conse%uence of any error, omission, mista e or malfeasance of personnel of the register of deeds in the performance of their duties. (Aa:anadato vs. *reasurer of the Philippines 0' Phil.6 Hernande2 vs. Alcana2 +a@:ers ;ournal !$-%. 7. The plaintiff is barred or otherwise precluded from bringing an action for the review of the decree or recovery of such land or estate or interest therein, or damages from the party causing the loss or damage. (Pascual vs. Bingco.e (acleod6 CA 8/// +a@:erDs ;ournal ,3,%. :. The action must be brought within six "<- years from the issuance of the certificate of title. (8illanueva vs. &nri1ue2 00 Phil 99"%. <. The loss is not caused by breach of trust, whether express, implied or constructive committed by any registered owner. (#ec 1- PD 1"!'%. After the lapse of one year, a decree of registration is no longer open to review or attac but the aggrieved party may file a civil action for reconveyance which is in personam provided that the property has not yet been ac%uired by an innocent purchaser for value. 1t is essential that in order to recover the ownership of the real property that the person claiming has a better right must not only prove his ownership but also satisfactorily prove the identity of the land. (;avier vs. A !$1 #CRA 0'9%.

'. AD8&R#& C+A/(

The purpose of the annotation of adverse claim is to protect the interest of a person over real property where the registration of such right or interest is not otherwise provided under the Torrens system. Aere registration of adverse interest does not ma e such claim valid nor is it permanent in character because judicial determination of the issue of ownership is still necessary. (4arbin vs. CA !"$ #CRA 19,%. 4hile the law states that the adverse claim is effective within 2) days, the annotation thereof remains and cancellation is necessary, otherwise the inscription will continue as a lien on the title. To limit to 2) days the effectivity of an adverse claim will defeat the very purpose for which the law provides for the remedy of inscription of the adverse claimD Hence, a sheriff&s levy on property already covered by an adverse claim is considered subservient to said claim. (#a?onas vs. CA !"- #CRA ,$,%. A court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an adverse claim and, if found to be invalid, order the cancellation of said adverse claim. (4#/# vs. CA !0#CRA ,$,%. A notice of adverse claim annotated on the title of a registered owner remains valid even after the lapse of thirty "2)- days. As long as no petition for its cancellation has been filed, the notice of adverse claim remains. A hearing must first be conducted wherein the parties are given the opportunity to prove the propriety or impropriety of the adverse claim. Hence,

CIVIL LAW

RED NOTES 2001-2002

the cancellation automatically being done by the .egister of 9eeds after the lapse of 2) days from registration is improper. (Rogelio Duarte vs. CA &t Al. !'9 #CRA $99%.

1-. +/# P&7D&7#

,ne who deals with property subject of lis pendens cannot invo e the right of a purchaser in good faithB neither can he ac%uire a better right than that of his predecessor8in8interest. (Eu vs. CA !"1 #CRA "-'%. ,nce annotated upon the original copy of the title, the notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation serving as a warning that one who ac%uires an interest over said property does so at his own ris . (Eu vs. CA !"1 #CRA "-'%. The notice of lis pendens is but an incident in an action. 1t does not affect the merits thereof. 1t is intended merely to constructively advice or warn all people who deal with the property that they deal with it at their own ris and whatever rights they may ac%uire in the property are subject to the result of the action. (Heirs of (aria (arasigan vs. /AC 1"! #CRA !"$%. The cancellation of lis pendens is a mere incident in the action and may be ordered by the court at any given time. ((agdalena Ho.eo@ners Association /nc. vs. CA 190 #CRA $!"%. 11. R&C57#*/*U*/57 .econstitution of lost or destroyed certificates in the office of the .9 can be done only thru judicial proceedings. @otice of hearings shall be sent to the .9 and the +. $ommissioner. 9ecision on .econstitution becomes final only after 2) days from receipt thereof by said officials. (. 4hen it is conceded that some deficiencies exist in the formal re%uisites for the issuance of a transfer certificate of title covering a parcel of land with an increased or expanded area, and where the .egister of 9eeds noting such facts has recommended the cancellation of the certificate of title pursuant to +.$ $ircular @o. (<?, there is a serious or substantial controversy as to the ownership of the expanded area. This ind of controversy can only be heard in the exercise of the courtsE general jurisdiction, the proper remedy would be a petition for declaratory relief under 'ection <7 of the .ules of $ourt. (#antos vs. A1uino 4R 7o. $!'0' 7ov. !9 1'9-%. >. 1n reconstitution of allegedly lost certificate of title, greatest caution must be exercised in acting on such petitions, especially when it is filed after an inexplicable delay of >: years. 1t is mandatory that; a- Aside from publication actual and personal notice be duly served to indispensable parties, i.e. the actual owners and possessors of the land involved.B b- The land has in fact been previously registered under Act 70< but the corresponding certificate of title has been lost or destroyed. 1n other words, the title is no longer subsisting. The reconstitution of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of .A @o. >< denotes the restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. $ourts must proceed with extreme caution in proceedings for reconstitution of titles under .A @o. ><, and should not only re%uire strict compliance therewith but also establish the

CIVIL LAW

10

RED NOTES 2001-2002

identity of every person who files the petition. 1f filed by some other person than the registered owner, no effort should be spared to assure itself of the authenticity and due execution of petitioner&s authority to institute the proceedings. 1t should avoid itself being unwittingly used as a tool of swindlers and impostors robbing someone of his title. (Heirs of Pedro Pinoto vs. Hon. ;ude Dula: 4R 7o. "93'0 ;ul: ! 1''-%. The essential re%uirements in the reconstitution of title should be complied with are the following; a- @otice of petition should be published in the ,fficial Ga3ette and posted on the main entrance of the provincial and municipal building where the land is situatedB b- The notice should state the number of the lost or destroyed title, the name of the registered owner, occupants or persons in possessionB the names of adjoining owners and interested partiesB the area and boundaries of the property and stating the date on which all interested parties must appearB c- $opy of the notice must also be sent by registered mail or otherwise to every person named therein or to the occupant or adjoining owners whose addresses are nown, at least 2) days prior to the hearingB d- At the date of the hearing of the petition, the petitioner must submit proof of publication, posting and service of notice as re%uired by the court. (Calalang vs. Registr: of Deeds of Aue2on Cit: !$1 #CRA 996 5rtigas vs. 8elasco !$0 #CRA 0""%.

1!. ;UR/#D/C*/57
The distinction between general jurisdiction vested in the .T$ and the limited jurisdiction when acting as a land registration court has been eliminated by 'ec. > of *9 (:>0. Hence, the .T$s now have authority to act on %uestions after original registration with power to hear and decide substantial and contentious issues to avoid multiplicity of suits. (/gnacio vs. CA !03 #CRA !0$%. The land registration court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue regarding the existence or non8existence of tenancy relationship under .A 2/77 "Agricultural .eform $ode as amended by .A <2/0- since exclusive jurisdiction over such relationship was vested by the law to the $ourt of Agrarian .elations, now the .egional Trial $ourt pursuant to B* (>0. (5uano vs. CA !$, #CRA 1!!%. *residential 9ecree (:>0 abolished the difference between the general jurisdiction of regular courts and the limited jurisdiction of the land registration court such that pursuant to 'ection > of *9 (:>0, the court may issue a writ of possession to effectuate the result of a tax sale, citing the leading case of Averia vs. $aguion, (7< '$.A where it was declared that a land registration court has jurisdiction to decide contentious and substantial issues after original registration. (Clo.a vs. CA !$0 #CRA 33"%. "a- @o voluntary instrument shall be registered by the .egister of 9eeds unless the owner&s duplicate certificate is presented together with the instrument except in some cases or upon order of the court for cause shown. "b- Any lien annotated on the previous certificate of title which subsist should be incorporated in or carried over to the new T$T. (+eticia +igon vs. CA and /glesia ni Bristo !00 #CRA 3'$%.

CIVIL LAW

11