Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Acosta vs Salazar

FACTS:
On November 19, 1985, respondents Trinidad and
Aniceta Salazar (hereinafter, Salazars), filed a
petition for the cancellation of the entries annotated
at the back of Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. 40287 registered in the names of spouses Juan
Soriano and Vicenta Macaraeg, who died. The
Salazars claim that two of the entries Entry Nos.
19756 and 20102 are void since no consolidation of
rights appear in the Registry of Deeds (RD) of
Tarlac to support the entries; and that Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 9297, which
supposedly cancelled OCT No. 40287, is nonexistent according to a certification issued by the
RD. RTC Branch 63 of Tarlac resolved to grant the
petition and ordered the cancellation of Entry No.
20102. The Salazars filed an urgent motion praying
for the issuance of an order to direct the RD of
Tarlac to recall all titles issued under Entry Nos.
19756 and 20102 and to cancel all the tax
declarations issued based thereon. The motion was
granted.
Herein petitioners together with other
subsequent purchasers for value of the disputed
property twenty-seven (27) in their comment, the
oppositors contended, among others, that they had
acquired their titles in good faith and for value, and
that the lower court, acting as a land registration
court, had no jurisdiction over issues of ownership..
On December 20, 2000, Branch 64 of the
RTC of Tarlac dismissed the complaint. The trial
court faulted the Salazars for failure to present proof
that they are heirs of the late Juan Soriano. It also
declared TCT No. 219121 issued in the name of the
Salazars as null and void, and affirmed TCT No.
9297 as well as all certificates of title derived
therefrom.
ISSUE: WON the cancellation of entries is valid.
HELD:
Invalid. It is true that the registration of land under
the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem and not in
personam. Such a proceeding in rem, dealing with a
tangible res, may be instituted and carried to
judgment without personal service upon the
claimants within the state or notice by mail to those
outside of it. Jurisdiction is acquired by virtue of the
power of the court over the res. Such a proceeding
would be impossible were this not so, for it would
hardly do to make a distinction between
constitutional rights of claimants who were known
and those who were not known to the plaintiff,
when the proceeding is to bar all.
More crucial is the fact that both parties in this case
are dealing with property registered under
the Torrens system. To allow any individual, such as

the Salazars in this case, to impugn the validity of a


Torrens certificate of title by the simple expediency
of filing an ex parte petition for cancellation of
entries would inevitably erode the very reason why
the Torrens system was adopted in this country,
once a title is registered under the Torrens system,
the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of
waiting in the portals of the courts or sitting in
the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility of
losing his land.

THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON,


METRO
MANILA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, MALABON, METRO MANILA,
BRANCH 170, respondent.
FACTS:
On March 17, 1988, a Deed of Absolute Sale of a
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
R-3899 in the name of Salome Castillo in favor of
Jose M. Castillo, was presented to the Register of
Deeds (Atty. Francisco Romero) at the Glovic Bldg.
in Caloocan City for registration. It could not be
given due course because the original of said TCT
No. R-3899 in the Registry of Deeds was missing.
According to the petitioner, the Registry of Deeds
for Malabon became operational on April 5, 1988.
As the missing title covered a parcel of land in
Malabon, Atty. Gaudencio Cena, the Register of
Deeds for Malabon, filed on April 12, 1988 in the
Regional Trial Court of Malabon, a verified petition
for reconstitution of the original of TCT No. R-3899
under Rep. Act No. 26. The petition was given due
course on April 22, 1988. The court directed that a
copy of its order giving due course to the petition
and setting it for hearing on August 17, 1988 be
published in two (2) consecutive issues of the
Official Gazette as provided in Section 9 of
Republic Act No. 26.
At the continuation of the hearing on
November 3, 1988, the certificate of publication
issued by the Director of the National Printing
Office stating that the order of the court dated April
22, 1988 was published in Volume 84, Nos. 21 and
22, May 23 and May 30, 1988 issues of the Official
Gazette and that the May 30, 1988 issue was
released for circulation on October 3, 1988.
Respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court in
Malabon dismissed the petition for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of the petition was
not published in the Official Gazette "at least thirty
(30) days prior to the date of hearing" (Sec. 9, R.A.
No. 26) which had been set on August 17, 1988.

The May 23 and May 30 issues of the Official


Gazette were actually released for circulation on
October 3, 1988, or forty-seven (47) days after the
scheduled hearing of the petition.
ISSUE: WON the actual publication of the notice
of the petition in the Official Gazette forty-seven
(47) days after the hearing, instead of "at least thirty
(30) days prior to the date of hearing" was sufficient
RULING:
Evidently, it did not. The purpose of the publication
of the notice of the petition for reconstitution in the
Official Gazette is to apprise the whole world that
such a petition has been flied and that whoever is
minded to oppose it for good cause may do so
within thirty (30) days before the date set by the
court for hearing the petition. It is the publication of
such notice that brings in the whole world as a party
in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to
hear and decide it.
Apart from the defective publication of the petition,
another reason for its dismissal is that the Register
of Deeds for Malabon is not the proper party to file
the petition for reconstitution. A petition for
reconstitution may now be filed only by "the
registered owner his assigns, or any person who has
an interest in the property" (Section 12, Republic
Act No. 26).
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is denied
for lack of merit. No costs.
Director of lands VS Aquino
Facts:
Hon. Juan P. Aquino is the Judge of
the Court of the First Instance of Abra, where the
Abra Industrial Corporation (AIC for brevity), a
registered corporation engage in the production of
cement applied for the registration in its name the
parcel of land located at Bucay, Abra with an area
of 70 hectares as indicated in survey plan PSU217518, PSU-217519, PSU-217520 with a total
assessed value of Php 6, 724.48.
The 70 hectares land is limestone rich which is an
ingredient essential to cement production. Allegedly
66 hectares of which are within the Central
Cordillera Forest Reserve, but AIC said that its
predecessors-in-interests had been in possession of
the said land since July 26, 1894.
On December 22, 1967 the commissioner of
Land Registration issued Decrees for the
registration of the parcel of land in the name of
AIC.

On May 22, 1968 the Republic of the


Philippines thru the Solicitor General filed a
petition for review in the Court of the first Instance
of Abra invoking section 38 of Act no. 496, that the
land purchased by AIC was only 24 hectares but the
application included 46 hectares of the Central
Cordillera Forest Reserve, AIC employed actual
fraud.
On November 27, 1969 the lower court
denied the petition it said that judicial error is not
synonymous with actual fraud. So this petition for
review on certiorari under R.A. 5440 was filed by
the Solicitor General to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:WON forest land or Forest Reserve can be
alienated from public domain.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that under the
Commonwealth Act no. 141 the power to exclude or
reclassify area from the forest zone belongs to the
President
of the Philippines
upon the
recommendation of the secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources and not to the District Forester or
even the Director of Forestry, their failure to appear
in the case should not affect the resolution of the
case.
The Supreme Court found the contention of
the petitioner meritorious for it is enshrined in the
Constitution through the regalian doctrine, in which
all lands of public domain, waters, mineral, coal,
forest or timber and other natural resources are
owned by the state.
Even though the Forest Land had not been
denuded and its actual occupants resort to
agriculture it does not mean that the area had been
cancelled and de-established from its original
classification. Henceforth the decision of the lower
court are hereby reversed and set aside by the
Supreme Court.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
v. REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., represented
by RONNIE P. INOCENCIO, Respondent.
FACTS:
On December 3, 2001, Remman Enterprises,
Inc. (respondent), filed an application with the RTC
for judicial confirmation of title over two parcels of
land, Lot Nos. 3068 and 3077 situated in Barangay
Napindan, Taguig, Metro Manila.
On December 13, 2001, the RTC
granted respondent's application for registration.
Thereafter, following the required publication and
posting, a scheduled hearing was set. However, on

May 30, 2002, only the Laguna Lake Development


Authority (LLDA) appeared as oppositor. Hence,
the RTC issued an order of general default except
LLDA, which was given 15 days to submit its
comment/opposition to the respondent's application
for registration.
On June 4, 2002, the LLDA filed its
Opposition to the respondent's application for
registration, asserting that the lots are not part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
Respondent's witnesses showed that the
respondent and its predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession of the said parcels of land long before
June 12, 1945. The respondent purchased Lot Nos.
3068 and 3077 from Conrado Salvador (Salvador)
and Bella Mijares (Mijares), respectively, in 1989.
The subject properties were originally owned and
possessed by Veronica Jaime (Jaime), who
cultivated and planted different kinds of crops in the
said lots, through her caretaker and hired farmers,
since 1943. Sometime in 1975, Jaime sold the said
parcels of land to Salvador and Mijares, who
continued to cultivate the lots until the same were
purchased by the respondent in 1989.
The
RTC
granted
the respondent's application for registration of title
to the subject properties. The RTC found that the
respondent was able to prove that the subject
properties form part of the alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain.
The RTC opined that the elevations of the
subject properties are very much higher than the
reglementary elevation of 12.50 m and, thus, not
part of the bed of Laguna Lake.
The RTC likewise found that the respondent was
able to prove that it and its predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession of the subject properties as
early as 1943.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC
Decision which granted the application for
registration filed by the respondent.
HELD: The Court of Appeals decision is overruled.

The first requirement was not satisfied in


this case. To prove that the subject property forms
part of the alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain, the respondent presented two
certifications issued by Calamno, attesting that Lot
Nos. 3068 and 3077 form part of the alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. However, the
said certifications presented by the respondent are
insufficient to prove that the subject properties are
alienable and disposable.
Respondent failed to do so because the
certifications presented by respondent do not, by
themselves, prove that the land is alienable and
disposable.Anent the second and third requirements,
the Court finds that the respondent failed to present
sufficient evidence to prove that it and its
predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject properties since June 12,
1945, or earlier.
"A mere casual cultivation of portions of the
land by the claimant does not constitute possession
under claim of ownership. For him, possession is
not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a
presumptive grant from the state. The possession of
public land, however long the period thereof may
have extended, never confers title thereto upon the
possessor because the statute of limitations with
regard to public land does not operate against the
state, unless the occupant can prove possession and
occupation of the same under claim of ownership
for the required number of years." Del Rosario v.
Republic of the Philippines, 432 Phil. 824
Further, the Court notes that the tax
declarations over the subject properties presented by
the respondent were only for 2002. The respondent
failed to explain why, despite its claim that it
acquired the subject properties as early as 1989, and
that its predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the subject property since 1943, it was
only in 2002 that it started to declare the same for
purposes of taxation. "While tax declarations are
not conclusive evidence of ownership, they
constitute proof of claim of ownership." Aide v.
Bernal, G.R. No. 169336, March 18, 2010

Potrebbero piacerti anche