Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Republic vs Guzman
Facts
Norma Almanzor and Guzman filed conflicting applications for confirmation of imperfect title over
Land X. Almanzor occupied Land X since 1928 and she applied for confirmation of title in 1991.
Before 1965, Land X was classified as forestland. After 1965, Land X was classified as agricultural
land.
Issue
Who should own Land X?
Held
Guzman.
Prior to Land Xs declaration as alienable land, any occupation cant be considered in counting the
30-year prescriptive period. As such, the counting should start only from the time the land was
classified as agricultural land.
In this case, even starting from 1965 Norma Almanzor would still be short 4 years of the required 30year prescriptive period.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Pagkatipunan vs CA
Facts
Pagkatipunan filed an application for judicial confirmation and registration of title to Land X. The
court granted the application. Afterwards, the Government challenged Land Xs registration arguing
Land X was classified as forestland at the time Land X was registered. Therefore, said land was
inalienable and cant be registered.
Issue
Does Pagkatipunan have a better right to Land X against the Government?
Held
No.
Unless its shown the State has reclassified or alienated public land to a private person it remains part
of the inalienable public domain. Occupation, no matter how long, cant ripen into ownership.
The Regalian doctrine states that all lands of the public domain belong to the State and all lands not
appearing to be privately owned are presumed to belong to the State. The classifications of lands
describe not its physical status but rather its legal status.
In this case, Pagkatipunan applied for title while Land X was classified as forestland. No evidence
shows Land X has been reclassified as alienable land by any positive act of Government.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Collado vs CA
Facts
Collado filed an application to register Land X. Land Xs technical description states its inside the
Mariquina Watershed. Collado and co-petitioners alleges their private rights have vested in Land X in
1902, 2 years before Land X was made part of the Mariquina Watershed.
Issue
Does Collado have registrable title over the lot?
Held
No.
A Watershed is a natural resource because it helps provide one of the most basic human needs, water.
Land X became inalienable public land after being made part of the Mariquina Watershed. A land
once classified is presumed to continue as so until clear and convincing evidence of subsequent
declassification is shown.
In asserting ownership over land, the applicant bears the burden of proving he meets all the
requirements to register such land. In this case, Collado failed to prove he acquired ownership over
Land X before 1904, the time when Land X became part of the Watershed. Further, the time of
occupancy after 1904 can no longer be counted in Collados favor because the Public Land Act
applies only to alienable land.
An exception to this case is if Collado acquired private rights over Land X before it was declared part
of the Watershed. Private rights here meaning ownership that can ripen into title.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
10
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
11
Bracewell vs CA
Facts
Bracewell owns Land X. In 1963, Bracewell filed an action for confirmation of imperfect title under
the Public Land Act. Bracewell argues he has a right to Land X because he and his predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of Land X
under a bona fide claim of ownership since 1908. The Government argues Land X was classified as
alienable land only in 1972 and the 30-year possession wasnt met.
Issue
Does Bracewell have a right to Land X under the Public Land Act?
Held
No.
The Public Land Act requires the applicant to prove:
1. The land applied for is alienable public land
2. His open, continues, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same must be
since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act.
Once these conditions are complied with, the applicant acquires by operation of law a governmental
grant without necessity of a certificate of title being issued.
In this case, the Government proved Land X was classified as alienable land only in 1972; 9 years
after Bracewell filed his application. Under the Public Land Act, there can be no imperfect title to be
confirmed over lands not yet classified as alienable. At the time Bracewell filed for confirmation of
title under the Public Land Act, Land X wasnt alienable land.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
12
Calecdan vs Cendana
Facts
In 1947, Calecdans mother executed a deed of donation over Land X in favor of Calecdans brother,
Cendana. Cendana took possession of Land X and lived there until 1998. In 1992, Calecdan filed a
complaint to recover Land X alleging the donation is void. Cendana argues he has already possessed
the land for 45 years.
Issue
Who has the better right to Land X?
Held
Cendana.
Cendana acquired Land X through extraordinary acquisitive prescription. Prescription is another
mode for acquiring ownership and other real rights over immovable property. It involves the lapse of
time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription
over real property requires possession and lapse of time of 30 years. Possession must be in the
concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted.
In this case, the disputed land was unregistered land. Candena has possessed Land X for 45 years,
satisfying the requirements for extraordinary acquisitive prescription. The following proves
Candenas possession of Land X:
1. He built his house and lived on Land X
2. He paid taxes on Land X
3. He acquired Land X under the claim of donation, even if the donation is void.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
13
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
14
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
15
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
16
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
17
Heirs of Roxas vs CA
Facts
Respondent Maguesun Corp. filed an application to register 2 parcels of unregistered land. The case
was filed before the RTC and in support of its application Maguesun Corp. presented a Deed of
Absolute Sale in its favor with Melliza as vendor. Allegedly, Melliza acquired the properties from
plaintiff Trinidad Roxas 2 months earlier evidenced by a Deed of Sale.
The Land Registration Authority sent notices of the initial hearing to interested person that didn't
include Trinidad because she wasn't named as an adjoining owner, occupant, or adverse claimant.
Publication was made in the Official Gazette and Record Newsweekly. While the RTC was hearing
Maguesun's application for registration, the LRA reported the properties were already the subject of a
Land Registration Case by Trinidad but no decision was rendered yet.
Eventually, the RTC granted Maguesun's application for registration and ordered Trinidad's
registration case dismissed. Trinidad learned only of the sale and registration in Maguesun's name
when she was asked to vacate the property. Trinidad filed a case before the RTC to set aside the
decree of registration on the ground Maguesun Corp. committed actual fraud.
Issue
Is Maguesun Corp. guilty of actual fraud?
Held
Yes.
Adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral case doesn't become final and incontrovertible until
the expiration of 1 year after the entry of the final decree. Before such time, the decision remains
under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree. The law recognizes actual
fraud as a valid and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of registration. Such petition
however must be filed within 1 year from the date of entry of said decree, the petitioner has a real and
dominical right over the property, and such property hasn't been transferred to an innocent purchaser.
Actual fraud proceeds from an intentional deception through misrepresentation or concealment of a
material fact. A type of actual fraud is extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud prevents a party from having a
trial, from presenting his entire case to the court, or operates upon matters pertaining to the manner in
which judgment is procured.
In this case, Maguesun Corp. committed actual fraud in obtaining its decree of registration. Maguesun
Corp. knew of Trinidad's ownership over the property because Trinidad is the grandaunt of Maguesun
Corp's president. Further, Maguesun Corp. failed to produce Melliza at trial to prove the sale's
legitimacy. Also, it's reasonable to expect Maguesun Corp. would've inspected the property prior to
the sale with Melliza and discovered Trinidad's caretaker occupying the property.
Maguesun Corp. may have referenced Trinidad during the registration proceedings but this isn't
sufficient compliance with the law. Disclosure of Trinidad's adverse interest must be made at the
appropriate time, namely at the time of application for registration.
Further, the notice of hearing was published in the OG but not in a newspaper of general circulation.
Admittedly, publication in the OG is sufficient to confer jurisdiction but omitting to publish in such
newspaper is relevant in assessing the applicant's right to the land.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
18
Republic vs Herbieto
Facts
The Herbieto brothers filed before the MTC an application to register 2 parcels of land located in
Cebu. They claimed to be the owners in fee simple of the subject lots, which they purchased from
their parents. Along with their application, they filed the necessary documents. The Government
opposed the brothers application to register the lands.
The MTC set the initial hearing, notices were sent to the adjoining owners, notice posted in
conspicuous places on the lands themselves as well as the municipal building, and published in the
OG and newspaper The Freeman Banat News. The MTC issued an order of special default with only
the Government opposing the application.
Later, the MTC promulgated its judgment granting the application and directed the LRA to issue the
decree of registration. The Government appealed and hence this case.
Issue
Did the brothers comply with the publication requirements mandated by the Property Registration
Decree thereby vesting the MTC with jurisdiction?
Held
No.
The Property Registration Decree expressly provides that publication in the OG shall be sufficient to
confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court. But the SC still affirms its declaration that
publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory for the land registration court to
validly confirm and register the applicants title. The notices publication in a newspaper of general
circulation is essential and must be strictly complied with.
In this case, the initial hearing was on September 3. The notice was published in the OG on August 10
but it was published in a newspaper of general circulation only on December 19, 3 months after the
actual date of hearing. Such publication is ineffective and deprived adverse claimants of due process.
Its as if there was no publication at all.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
19
Vergel vs CA
Facts
Vergel and co-petitioners filed an application to register a piece of land in the Laguna RTC. Only the
Government represented by the Director of Lands filed an opposition to the application.
Consequently, the RTC issued an order of general default against the whole world except the
Government.
Afterwards, respondent Gonzales filed with the RTC an Urgent Motion to Set Aside the Order of
General Default alleging in her affidavit that shes claiming the land in question as an owner. The
RTC denied Gonzales motion but the CA reversed settings aside the RTCs decision.
Issue
Did the CA err in setting aside the RTCs decision without making a specific finding of fraud,
negligence, accident, or excusable mistake but relying on its view that substantial justice and speedy
determination of the controversy would be better attained in reversing the RTC?
Held
Yes.
In this case, the CA arbitrarily set aside the RTCs order of general default without factual basis save
for its own gut feeling. Gonzales reason she failed to timely file an opposition because she missed
reading the OG and newspaper that contained the notice of hearing cant be considered excusable
negligence.
Gonzales alleges petitioners are aware of her claim of ownership over the disputed property and the
latter were in bad faith, having filed the application surreptitiously and without notice to her.
However, the CA didnt make any specific finding on this.
Hence, the case is remanded to the CA in order to make findings of fact constituting fraud, accident or
excusable neglect sufficient to reverse the order of general default in the land registration case.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
20
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
21
SSS vs Chavez
Facts
Respondent Sps. Obedencio filed a civil case for specific performance at the RTC praying the SSS be
ordered to:
1. Cancel the mortgage on their properties
2. To release the documents covering said properties
3. And pay damages. SSS replied saying the spouses had an unpaid obligation to it.
The RTC set a pre-trial but it was cancelled because the judge was indisposed and the pre-trial was
reset. At the 2nd pre-trial, SSS counsel failed to attend because he was on an official mission
involving SSS cases. The RTC judge, on motion of the spouses counsel, declared SSS in default and
allowed the spouses to present their evidence ex-parte. SSS appealed and hence this case.
Issue
Did the RTC judge err in declaring SSS in default for failure to appear at pre-trial?
Held
No.
In this case, the records reveal SSS failed not only to appear at pre-trial but failed to comply with the
requirements concerning the motion for reconsideration to lift the default order. SSS motion for
reconsideration was fatally flawed because it lacked verification, notice of hearing, and affidavit of
merit.
Procedural rules arent to be dismissed simply because their non-observance would prejudice a
partys substantive rights. Like all rules, theyre to be followed except only for the most persuasive
reasons can they be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of
his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. SSS failed to provide a
persuasive reason why it should be exempt from abiding by the rules.
However, a judgment of default doesnt imply a waiver of all their rights, except the right to be heard
and to present evidence to support their allegations. The non-defaulting party is still required to
substantiate their allegations in the complaint. Consequently, the spouses still have to prove they
already fully paid their obligation to SSS.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
22
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
23
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
24
Santiago vs CA
Facts
The MWSS filed an application to register title under the Torrens system 11 parcels of land located in
Rizal. Long before WWII, MWSS buried a steel aqueduct pipeline under the disputed lands. Later,
MWSS filed an amended petition alleging ownership over the lands because it and its predecessorsin-interests, NAWASA and MWD, have been in open continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of the lands under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.
The following oppositors appeared alleging ownership over a portion of the disputed lands:
Heirs of Modesto Manahan; evidence are TCT, related papers, and documents
Heirs of Vicente Manah; evidence is an OCT
Carmelino Santiago; evidence is a TCT
Issue
Should the application be granted?
Held
Yes.
A Torrens title covers only the land described therein together with improvements existing thereon, if
any, and nothing more.
In this case, the documents proving ownership such as TCT and OCT are the legs on which the
oppositors claim stands. However, the titles themselves show ownership over the adjoining parcels of
land, not of the lands claimed. Such titles defeat, rather than support, their claim.
Further, MWSS presented tax declarations to buttress its ownership over the land. Tax declarations
dont prove ownership but are strong evidence of ownership when accompanied by possession for a
period sufficient for prescription.
Also, if its true the oppositors merely tolerated MWSS' occupation of the land, they would have taken
steps to register title to it. 60 years is too long a time to not do so, they slept on their rights.
Consequently, MWSS acquired the lands prescription because it possessed said lands for more than
30 years.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
25
Ranola vs CA
Facts
The respondents are the heirs of Alforque and they inherited from Alforque 2 parcels of lands. Later,
the heirs mortgaged the 2 lands to the Rural Bank of Talisay to secure a loan. The heirs failed to pay
the loan and the bank foreclosed the mortgaged property. The Bank sold the foreclosed property to
defendant Ranola. The sold property was 285 sq. meters big. Ranola however couldnt take
possession of it because one of the heirs, Angeles, claims the house built on it wasnt part of the
property sold to Ranola. Ranola then filed an ejectment suit against Angeles but they entered into a
compromise agreement with the latter agreeing to vacate the premises and the house given to Ranola.
Later, the lands were cadastrally surveyed and the heirs received a survey notification showing their
property and declaring as adjoining owner Ranola with a property 285 sq. meters big. Ranola also
received a survey notification but this one included the property being claimed by the heirs. Ranolas
property in her version of the survey was 500 sq. meters big. Pursuant to his survey notification,
Ranola had a sketch plan prepared.
Consequently, the heirs filed an action to quiet title against Ranola praying they be declared the true
owners of the land in excess of Ranolas 285 sq. meters.
Issue
Who has the better right to the disputed property?
Held
The heirs.
While tax receipts and tax declarations arent conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute
credible proof of a claim of title over property.
In this case, the property the heirs are claiming is distinct from the lot Ranola bought from the Bank.
This is clearly shown by the tax declarations covering the claimed lot from year 1950 until 1980. All
these tax declarations show the claimed land was formerly owned by Alforque and later by his heirs.
Coupled with Alforques actual possession of the property since 1947, the tax declarations become
strong evidence of ownership.
Also, its undisputed the Bank only sold to Ranola a lot 285 sq. meters big as evidenced by a deed of
absolute sale. Further, the lots tax declarations described it as only 285 sq. meters big. Ranoles
himself admitted in the ejectment suit that the lot he bought was only 285 sq. meters big.
Consequently, the tax declarations coupled with the deed of absolute sale and Ranoles judicial
admission proves Ranoles lot is only 285 sq. meters big.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
26
Santiago vs SBMA
Facts
Plaintiff Victoria Rodriguez is the sole heir of Hermogenes Rodriguez. During the lifetime of
Hermogenes, he owned Land A registered in his name under a Certificate of Title denominated as
Titulo de Propriedad de Terrenos of 1891 Royal Decree.
Later, Victoria leased the Land A to Santiago and Mateo. However, SBMA is claiming possessory
and proprietary rights over Land A and demanded Santiago and Mateo vacate Land A. Further, its
actually using Land A for commercial and other purposes. Victoria then filed a complaint to recover
possession of Land A from SBMA.
Issue
Can Spanish Title still be considered evidence of ownership over real property?
Held
No.
Spanish titles have been divested of any evidentiary value to establish ownership over real property.
The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish
Titles and grants should register their lands under the Land Registration Act. Otherwise, noncompliance will result in their lands being classified as unregistered.
In this case, Victoria and co-petitioners anchor their right to recover possession of Land A on a claim
of ownership by Victoria being the sole heir of the named grantee, Hermogenes, in the Spanish Title.
However, since Spanish Titles no longer have any evidentiary value, Victoria and co-petitioners have
no legal or equitable title to Land A.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
27
Vencilao vs Vano
Facts
The heirs of Reyes filed an application to registers parcels of land the former allegedly inherited from
Reyes. The application was granted and an OCT issued.
Later, Vencilao filed a complaint for reconveyance of real properties before the CFI. Vencilao alleges
hes the lawful owner of the parcels of land including the improvements thereon either by purchase or
inheritance, and they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession publicly,
continuously...for more than 30 years. However, the parcels of land were included in the heirs
application either by mistake or fraud. Vencilao discovered the registration in the heirs name when
the latter attempted to enter the parcels of land claiming ownership.
The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata. Further, the RTC issued writs of
possession against Vencilao. However, Vencilao refused to comply with the writ of possession and
the RTC cited Vencilao and co-petitioners in contempt upon Vanos motion.
Later, the RTC likewise issued a writ of demolition upon Vanos motion even while the 2nd case was
on appeal.
Issue
Is Vanos petition barred by res judicata? Was the writ of possession and demolition properly issued?
Held
Res judicata: Yes || Writ of Possession: Yes || Writ of Demolition: Yes
Res Judicata
The principle of res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings, including land registration and
cadastral proceedings. Res judicata makes judgment in one case conclusive in another case provided
the requisites are met.
There are 4 requisites namely:
1. A former judgment which became final
2. Such judgment was rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties
3. It must be a judgment on the merits
4. There is between the 1st and 2nd action: identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of
action.
a. Identity of parties: parties in the 2nd case must be the same parties in the 1st case, or
at least, must be successors in interest or heirs.
Thus, when a person is a party to a registration proceeding or when notified he doesnt want to
participate, and only after the property has been adjudicated to another and the corresponding title has
been issued does he file an action for reconveyance, to give due course to such action is to nullify the
registration proceedings and defeat the laws purpose.
In this case, all the requisites for res judicata are present:
1. A final former judgment: The CFIs judgment granting the application became final
2. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter and parties: The CFI had jurisdiction
3. Judgment on the merits: The CFIs judgment was on the merits.
4. Identity
a. Parties: The petitioners in the 2nd case are children of the oppositors in the case
b. Subject-matter: The lands subject of the 2nd case are part of the lands adjudicated in
the 1st case
c. Cause of action: ownership over parcel of lands although the forms of action are
different. Namely one is an ordinary land registration while the other is reconveyance
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
28
Writ of possession
In a registration case, the judgment confirming applicants title and ordering its registration in his
name necessarily carries with it delivery of possession. Existing laws sanction the issuance of the writ
of possession. Such writ of possession may be issued not only against the person defeated in the
registration case but also against anyone unlawfully occupying the land during the land registration
proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
The Writ of possession directs the sheriff to deliver possession of the property to the rightful owner.
In the process, the sheriff can eject the losing party from the property. Its the sheriff alone who has
the duty to enforce the writ.
Hence, Vencilaos admission they occupied the lands long before the 1st case was filed worked
against them. It proved they unlawfully occupied the lands during the land registration proceedings.
However, Vencilao isnt guilty of contempt. A person can be cited for contempt only when after being
ejected from the property, he enters it again or disturbs the rightful owners possession. Vencilao has
nothing to do with the delivery of possession and he couldnt have prevented the sheriff from
enforcing the writ if the latter knew how to perform his job.
Writ of demolition
In this case, the writ of demolition was properly issued pending resolution of the case.
A writ of possession issued in a land registration proceeding implies the delivery of possession of land
to the rightful owner. A writ of demolition must likewise issue especially considering the writ of
demolition is but a complement of the writ of possession.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
29
Alba vs CA
Facts
Respondent Lachica filed an application for title to Land X claiming he bought Land X from a certain
Raz. At the initial hearing, Alba and 2 other oppositors, Braulio and Raz, opposed the application.
The oppositors oppose the application on the ground they are the rightful owners of a portion of Land
X.
Later, the RTC ruled in Lachicas favor and dismissed the opposition.
Issue
Is Lachica entitled to confirm his ownership in fee simple over Land X worth 4.8 thousand sq.
meters?
Held
No.
In this case, with the exception of 620 sq. meters, there is no satisfactory showing how Lachica
acquired the remainder of Land X. Lachica alleges he acquired the parcels of land making up Land X
from 3 sources namely:
1. Sale from Martirez covering 840 sq. meters
2. Sale from Raz covering 300 sq. meters
3. And the rest through a Sale from Eugrocino Alba.
Alba doesnt challenge the sale from Martirez but only the other 2 purchases from Raz and
Eugrocino.
The story goes Regado originally owned Land X. Regado then sold 1.3 thousand sq. meters to Raz
and 2.9 thousand sq. meters to Eugrocino. Later, Raz conveyed 840 sq. meters to Martirez and 240 sq.
meters to Braulio. Later, the heirs of Eugrocino sold 676 sq. meters to Alba.
Based on the foregoing transaction, Lachica failed to produce documents to prove the sale from Raz
and Eugrocino in his favor. He relied merely on secondary evidence to prove the sale. Further, there
are glaring variances in the identity and technical description (adjacent owners, tax declarations, land
description, size).
Also, the tax declaration Lachica presented is unreliable because it wasnt satisfactorily explained
how it ballooned from 620 sq. meters to 4.8 thousand sq. meters. All the previous tax declarations
going back to 1947 merely declared 620 sq. meters and then suddenly in 1956 the latest tax
declaration declared 4.8 thousand sq. meters. Further, the sudden increase happened right before the
application for registration was filed. These circumstances raise doubts on Lachicas ownership over
the 4.8 thousand sq. meters of land.
On the other hand, Alba and co-petitioners have provided overwhelming evidence to ownership over
the lands they claim. The evidence clearly indicates Lachica owns only 620 sq. meters. They were
able to clearly trace the transfer of ownership from Regado all the way to them through the Deeds of
Sale.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
30
Tumibay vs Soro
Facts
This case centers on Land X, originally titled under an OCT in Sacdals name, Soros grandmother.
Later, the OCT was cancelled and TCT issued in Tumibays name through a Bilihang Tuluyan ng
Lupa. Tumibay subsequently sold Land X to his co-petitioners in this case and TCT issued in the
latters name. Later, Soro filed an action to annul and recover ownership over Land X against
Tumibay.
The RTC ruled in Soros favor ordering Tumibay and co-petitioners return the land to Soro. The
decision however didnt expressly order the removal of improvements thereon and later became final.
Soro then filed a motion to be restored possession over Land X and to demolish the improvements
thereon. The RTC denied the motion but the CA reversed ordering the RTC to fix the time for
petitioners to remove the improvements on Land X.
Issue
Did the CA err in declaring void the RTCs denial of Soros motion?
Held
No.
A judgment isnt confined to what appears on the decisions face, but extends to those necessarily
included therein. Further, the writ of execution to enforce such judgment must conform strictly to
such judgment.
Under the RoC Rule 39 Sec. 10: removing the improvements placed by the obligor on the property
subject of execution requires a special court order upon the obligees motion after due hearing and
after the obligor has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.
In this case, a judgment of delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to place the
prevailing party in possession of the property. If the obligor refuses to surrender possession, the
sheriff has the authority to oust him and an express order to this effect doesnt need to be stated in the
decision. As to removing improvements on the land, such authority is deemed read into the decision,
subject only to the issuance of a special court order to remove the improvements.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
31
Gomez vs CA
Facts
Jose Gomez filed an application to register several lots. The lots were originally part of Land X that
the SC adjudicated to Consolacion in another case, Government of the Philippines Islands vs Abran.
Jose is the heir of Teodoro Gomez, Consolacions son. Jose inherited the lands after Consolacion and
Teodoro died and when Consolacions other son, Teodoro Gomez, executed a quitclaim in his favor.
Land X was further divided and such division duly approved by the Bureau of Lands. The divided
lands are the subjects of this application.
The RTC issued an order of general default and granted the application. It promulgated judgment
expressly ordering the proper Government officer to issue the corresponding decrees of registration.
The judgment became final.
Later, respondent Perez, Chief of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration,
submitted a report to the RTC stating homestead patents already covered some of the lands. Perez
recommended the RTC set aside its judgment. The RTC set aside its decision.
Issue
Did the RTC err in settings aside its earlier order on account of Perez report?
Held
No.
Judgment in a cadastral or land registration proceeding doesnt become final until after the expiration
of 1-year after the entry of final decree of registration. Before the 1-year period expires, the title isnt
finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the courts
control and sound discretion. Here, the decree of registration hasnt been even entered yet.
Further, the duty of land registration officials to render reports isnt limited to the period before the
courts decision becomes final, but even after its finality until before the expiration of the 1-year
period. Here, theres nothing wrong with Perez submitting the report in the manner he did to the RTC.
Also, Jose cant use the Abran case to his advantage because the Abran case didnt adjudicate to
Consolacion the lots covered by the homestead patent. The homestead patents were registered in 1928
while the Abran case was decided 1931. A homestead patent, once duly registered, becomes
indefeasible and incontrovertible as a Torrens title.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
32
CSC vs Asensi
Facts
The CSC dismissed Asensi from the Bureau of Internal Revenue after an investigation revealed the
latter falsified information relative to her personal background. The CA set aside the CSC resolution
dismissing Asensi. The OSG then filed a motion to extend the deadline for filing a petition for review
of the CA decision. The SC granted such motion.
Meanwhile, CSC, unaware of the OSG actions, filed its own petition for certiorari before the SC. The
OSG, surprised by the CSC's moves, didn't file a petition for review anymore and allowed the CSC to
actively pursue its own case.
Asensi moved to dismiss the certiorari petition on the ground it's an improper remedy, it should've
been a petition for review. Further, the period to file a petition for review had already elapsed.
Issue
Should the petition be dismissed?
Held
Yes.
In this case, the proper remedy is a petition for review and not a certiorari petition. The OSG was
aware of the proper procedure of appeal and took the necessary steps to file the petition for review. If
the CSC had only relied on its counsel, instead of going by its lonesome, it would've avoided this
predicament.
As a general rule, the OSG is primarily responsible for representing the Government in appellate
proceedings. The exception is if the OSG takes a position adverse to that of the pertinent government
office. Here, there's no showing the OSG took a position contrary to the CSC's.
Further, even if the CSC were allowed to represent itself, the instant petition would still be dismissed
because it's an improper remedy. With the period for filing a petition for review already elapsed, CSC
is now barred from challenging the CA decision.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
33
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
34
Valisno vs Plan
Facts
Sps. Valisno purchased from Blanco a parcel of land. Later, Valisno declared the land in their names
for taxation purposes and installed a caretaker on it. Later, respondent Cayaba ousted the caretaker
and took possession of the land. Cayaba claims hes the lands owner by virtue of a deed of sale
executed in his favor by a certain Verano.
Valisno filed suit against Cayaba to recover possession but the courts ruled in Cayabas favor. Cayaba
then filed an application to register in his name the title to the land that Valsino opposed. Cayaba filed
a motion to dismiss on the groud of res judicata against Valsino that the lower court granted. Valsino
appealed and hence this case.
Issue
Is the motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata allowed in land registration proceedings?
Held
Yes.
The RoC applies in a suppletory character to land registration proceedings when practicable and
convenient. Answers in a cadastral proceeding partake of an action to recover title, as real rights are
involved therein. Further, res judicata applies in a cadastral case to defeat the alleged rights of another
claimant.
Here, res judicata applies:
1. A prior final judgment - the earlier case for action reinvidicatoria became final
2. Court with jurisdiction satisfied
3. Judgment on the merits satisfied
4. Identity of parties, subject matter, cause of action
a. Same parties are involved
b. Same land
c. Issue is ownership over the land
Consequently, Cayaba can successfully have Valisnos opposition dismissed because the latter is
already barred by prior judgment.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
35
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
36
Eslaban vs Onorio
Facts
Onorio owns Land X on which Eslaban, as Project Manager of the National Irrigation Administration
(NIA), approved an irrigation canals construction. Onorio agreed to the construction but he should be
properly compensated for the portions of Land X affected.
Later, a Right-of-Way agreement was executed between NIA and Onorio. The same year, Eslaban
offered P35 thousand as compensation Onorio refused demanding a higher compensation from
Eslaban but the latter refused.
Issue
Does the Irrigation Canal constitute a valid encumbrance on Land X despite not appearing on the
Torrens title?
Held
No.
Here, Land X is covered by a TCT duly registered and originally covered by an OCT.
True, the Land Registration Act provides as an exception to the noted in said certificate requirement
the following:
Any public...or any government irrigation canal...where the certificate of title doesnt state
the boundaries of such...irrigation canal..have been determined.
However, such exception doesnt apply in this case because it applies only when the easement has
been pre-existing at the time the land was registered. If the easement was built only after the land was
registered, then proper expropriation proceedings and just compensation are in order.
Here, the irrigation canal was constructed after Land X was registered. Consequently, the exception
doesnt apply.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
37
NIA vs CA
Facts
Vicente Manglapus received a free patent over 3 hectares of Land X and registered under an OCT.
The grant was subject to the following proviso:
and subject finally to all conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized and
prescribed by law especially those mentioned in CA 141 Sec. 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 and
114.
Later, respondent Dick Manglapus acquired Land X from Vicente and had a new TCT issued in his
name. Afterwards, NIA entered into a contract with Villamar Development Corp. The contract
stipulated that NIA was to build canals and NIA entered a portion of Dicks land to make diggings.
Dick then filed suit against NIA.
Issue
Should NIA pay Dick just compensation for taking a portion of Land X for use as easement of a right
of way?
Held
No.
Here, both the OCT and TCT covering Land X contained a reservation granting the government a
right of way over Land X.
The TCT itself states the Title shall be subject further to such conditions contained in the original
title as may be subsisting. Under the OCT, there was a reservation under CA 141 Sec. 112 that
provides ...subject to a right of way not exceeding 20 meters in width for...irrigation ditches... Such
reservation isnt limited by any time period and therefore is a subsisting condition.
The canal NIA constructed was only 11 meters in width.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
38
Republic vs Orfinada
Facts
This case is a complaint for annulment of title against the Sps. Orfinada. The Republic alleges the
Sps. Orfinada obtained their TCT by making it appear that it originated from an OCT in Guillermos
name. However, the OCT was actually issued in Paulinos name. Paulinos OCT was issued pursuant
to a Free Patent covering Land X that the Governor General issued in 1932.
Meanwhile, Guillermos OCT was based on a Free Patent covering Land Y that the Philippine
President granted in 1935. However, the Free Patent was issued under the Public Land Act that took
effect only in 1936.
In their defense, the Sps. Orfinada claim that Guillermos Free Patent was actually issued in 1937.
Further, they bought the land from Guillermo in 1955 under a Deed of Absolute Sale duly registered
with the Registry of Deeds. Later, they sold the land to Insurance Savings and Investment Agency
(ISIA).
Issue
Is the Sps. Orfinadas TCT spurious due to the alleged conflicting OCTs?
Held
No.
The Republic itself admitted that only the Free Patent is on file with the Registry of Deeds while
Paulinos OCT itself is no longer available. While the Governor General may have issued a Free
Patent in Paulinos name, it doesnt follow an OCT was actually issued as well.
Further, fraud isnt immediately presumed just because there are 2 conflicting copies of the same
OCT. This is because the Free Patents that are the basis of the 2 OCTs respectively cover 2 different
lands, namely Land X and Land Y. In other words, theres no overlapping of boundaries.
Also, Republics allegation that Guillermos Free Patent was defective because the same was issued
in 1935 while the Public Land Act was passed only in 1936 is untenable. The Sps. Orfinadas TCT
itself stipulates the Free Patent was issued in 1937.
Lastly, even assuming Guillermos OCT was defective, the Sps. Orfinada are buyers in good faith and
have acquired rights over Land Y.
A Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership of the land referred therein, and a strong
presumption exists that a Torrens title was regularly issued and valid. A Torrens title is
incontrovertible against any other title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the
Torrens title. Moreover, a person dealing with property covered by a Torrens title isnt required to go
beyond what appears on its face provided he has no knowledge of any circumstance which would
raise the suspicion of a reasonable man.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
39
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
40
De Pedro vs Romasan
Facts
The Sps. Pedro filed a complaint for damages against respondent Romasan. The complaint alleges the
Sps. Pedro own Land X evidenced by an OCT in their name. Later, Romasan installed fences on the
perimeter of the adjacent property and during construction the Sps. Pedros farm house and
plantations were destroyed. Further, Romasan claimed a portion of Land X and prevented the Sps.
Pedro from entering such portion.
Meanwhile, Romasan defended itself by presenting a TCT in its name that includes the disputed
portion.
A relocation survey on Property X was conducted which revealed that the disputed portion was
indeed part of the OCT. However, the TCTs technical description also included the disputed portion.
In short, there is an overlapping of boundaries.
Issue
Who really owns Land X? Sps. Pedro through their OCT or Romasan through its TCT?
Held
Undetermined || The case is a prohibited collateral attack on a Torrens title.
Here, resolving the issue will involve altering, correcting, or modifying either the OCT or TCT. If the
property belongs to the Sps. Pedro, Romasans TCT technical description will have to be corrected. If
its the other way around, then the property covered by the Sps. Pedros OCT will have to be
corrected instead.
However, the correction of both titles can be made only through an action for said purpose because a
Torrens title isnt subject to a collateral attack. It cant be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law.
The Sps. Pedros action is one to recover possession of Land X and damages. However, such action is
a collateral attack of the TCT. Even Romasan collaterally attacked the OCT by setting up as defense
the fact Land X was already covered by the TCT.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
41
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
42
Herce vs Cabuyao
Facts
Juanita Carpena applied to judicially register Land X consisting 44 parcels of land. The RTC granted
the application and directed the decree of registration be issued for Land X. However, only 42 of 44
parcels of land were issued decrees of registration. Parcel 43 was subjected to a Cadastral proceeding.
Herce opposed in the Cadastral proceeding claiming ownership over Parcel 43, arguing he purchased
the same from Jose Carpena, Juanitas predecessor-in-interest. The RTC awarded Parcel 43 to Herce
but the decree of registration couldnt be issued because it was previously included in in the judicial
registration case.
Herce then filed a petition to modify the decision in the judicial registration case to exclude Parcel 43
that the RTC granted. With no more legal impediments, a decree of registration was issued in Herces
favor. However, the Municipality of Cubao petitioned to reopen the decree of registration issued in
Herces favor claiming a decree of registration over Parcel 43 was issued in its name since 1911. The
RTC granted Cubaos petition and set aside the decree of registration in Herces favor.
Issue
Is Cubao precluded from reopening the decree of registration?
Held
No.
Indefeasibility and imprescriptibility are the cornerstones of land registration proceedings. Once a
decree of registration is issued and the 1-year period from date of record has passed, Title is perfected
and cant be collaterally attacked later on.
Here, the evidence shows a decree of registration was issued in Cubaos name since 1911 and
therefore has become indefeasible. Cubaos claim of ownership is based on the entry in the Ordinary
Decree Book that is a public document and is prima facie proof of the entires appearing therein.
Consequently, its presumed the decree of registration was regularly issued in the absence of contrary
proof. Herces decree of registration was issued in 1997 and clearly, more than 1 year has elapsed
since Cubaos decree of registration was issued.
Further, Parcel 43 isnt susceptible to prescription because the same is registered land. Also, estoppel
or laches isnt a defense against the Government asserting its own rights or recovering its own
property.
Finally, land already decreed and registered in an ordinary registration proceeding cant again be the
subject of adjudication. Cubao rightfully owns Parcel 43.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
43
The TCT was issued because of a Compromise Agreement in the case but was subsequently cancelled in the
same case because the Compromise Agreement was void. Thats why it isnt a collateral attack.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
44
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
45
Heirs of Nagano vs CA
Facts
Respondents filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of OCT issued pursuant to a Free Patent in
Petitioners name covering Land X. The Respondents allege the issuance of title was done with
Petitioners committing fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Respondents even filed an information
for perjury against Petitioners who unlawfully attested that Land X wasnt occupied or being claimed
by other persons.
Respondents allege that part of Land X was owned by their predecessors-in-interest and possessed the
same since 1920. Recently, they discovered Land X was registered in Petitioners name. Respondents
demanded Petitioners convey to them the portion of Land X they claim but the latter refused.
The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground the Solicitor General shouldve filed the same, the
action being reversion of Land X to the Government. The CA reversed.
Issue
Was the RTCs order dismissing the complaint on the ground the Solicitor General shouldve filed the
same correct?
Held
No.
The allegations in the complaint show Respondents claim ownership over a portion of Land X having
adversely possessed the same in the concept of an owner since 1920. The claim asserts the disputed
portion is private land, or even assuming it was public land, it subsequently became private land by
operation of law through the Public Land Act.
Consequently, the disputed portion is outside the Director of Bureau of Lands jurisdiction and
couldnt be the subject of a Free Patent. It wasnt necessary, in fact shouldnt, for the Solicitor
General to file the case.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
46
Lacsamana vs CA
Facts
Leon and Amparo are the registered owners of Land X in equal shares. Later, Amparo sold her share
to El Dorado. Meanwhile, Leon died in 1969 but a Deed of Absolute Sale bearing Leons signature
was somehow executed in 1971 selling his share to Nestor, Nestor then sold the same to LBJ
Development Corp. El Dorado then sold its share to LBJ making the latter Land Xs absolute owner.
TCT was issued in LBJs name as sole owner.
Afterwards, the Heirs of Leon filed suit to recover Leons share in Land X alleging Leons signature
was forged considering he was already dead at the time of the alleged sale.
Issue
Has the action prescribed considering it was filed in 1983 and the alleged sale took place in 1971?
Held
No.
Here, the Heirs' action is imprescriptible because the right to file an action for reconveyance on the
ground that the certificate of title was obtained by means of a fictitious deed of sale is virtually an
action for declaration of nullity, which is imprescriptible.
Next, LBJ isnt a buyer in good faith as the following circumstances show:2
1. LBJ didnt even bother to inquire how Nestor acquired Leons share in Land X.
2. El Dorado, LBJs sister company, had a co-owners duplicate copy of the TCT which
conflicted with the TCT Nestor presented.
3. The Deed of Absolute Sale in Nestors favor was registered only 8 years after the transaction.
If LBJ was a buyer in good faith, the Heirs cant legally compel LBJ to compel Leons share to them.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
47
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
48
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
49
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
50
Heirs of Tuazon vs CA
Facts
The Heirs of Tuazon filed a case for the issuance of a 2nd owners duplicate copy of OCT over Land
X in lieu of the lost copy, which was granted causing an OCT to be issued in the Heirs name. Later,
Respondents filed a case for Quieting of Title and Nullification and Cancellation of Title to cancel the
OCT issued in Petitioners favor.
The Respondents allege Nazario de Guzman originally owned Land X and his surviving spouse later
sold it to Alejandro. Alejandro then sold the same to the Sps. Jacinto, then to Gabriel, then to Isidro,
then to the Respondents. In all these transactions, the sellers Torrens title was cancelled and a new
one issued in the buyers name. As it stands, the Respondents hold a TCT over Land X.
Simply put, the Heirs of Tuazon knew their predecessor already sold Land X to a 3rd person but still
fraudulently procured an OCT over Land X claiming the original was lost, when in fact it was
cancelled due to it being sold.
Issue
Is the Respondents action to Quiet Title correct?
Held
Yes.
Here, the Respondents action is to remove cloud on their title and affirm their ownership over Land
X. In the process, Respondents pray that the Heirs OCT be cancelled.
The instant case isnt one merely to annul a courts final order, but rather to Quiet Title, and
nullification and cancellation of title.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
51
Sps. Santiago vs CA
Facts
Paula Arcega owned Land X evidenced by a TCT. Later, Paula executed a deed of conditional sale
over Land X in the Petitioners favor. The buyers would make a down payment and upon full
payment of the balance, the seller would execute and deliver to the former the absolute deed of sale.
Later, the Petitioners paid the balance and Paula executed the deed of absolute sale over Land X in
Petitioners favor. The TCT in Paulas name was cancelled and a new TCT was issued in Petitioners
name. Paula then died leaving as heirs 2 brothers, including Respondent Quirico Arcega.
Incidentally, before Paula died she continued living together with Petitioners in Land X despite the
sale. Quirico then filed suit to nullify the sale on the ground the same was fictitious.
Issue
Can Quirico recover Land X despite the lapse of 14 years from the time the sale was executed?
Held
Yes.
The evidence shows the sale is void because there was never intent to convey property from Paula to
Petitioners for valuable consideration. Rather, the transaction was merely used so Petitioners can take
out a loan from SSS using Land X as collateral. In short, there was merely accommodation.
However, is Quirico barred from recovering Land X considering the instant case was filed 14 years
after the sale was executed?
No, an action to declare a contract void doesnt prescribe. Further, even laches wont apply if the
contract is void.3
An action to recover land based on a void contract is neither susceptible to prescription nor laches. Except if
the land has passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
52
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
53
The case is silent if Mananzan actually possessed Land Y, because if so possessed his action isnt barred by
either prescription or laches. Further, the case says Mananzan is Respondents tenant that means that if
Mananzan even actually possessed the same, prescription would still run. Because the possession the law
contemplates to stop prescription is possession in the concept of an owner, not mere tenancy.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
54
If the Sps. Exequiel were innocent purchasers for value, then the Sps. Eduardo would have no right to
reconveyance, but only damages against Villadares.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
55
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
56
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
57
Romero vs CA
Facts
Eugenio bought Land X from the Sps. Jaug & Macan. Land X was then public land and Eugenio
applied for a homestead patent over the same. But the Bureau of Lands disapproved the application
because Eugenio already applied for a homestead patent for 24 hectares and was disqualified from
owning Land X, which is 12 hectares big.
Eugenio then placed the application in the name of his eldest son, Eutiquio, allegedly in trust for all
his children. The application was subsequently transferred from Euitiquio to Lutero, then to Ricardo.
Later, Eugenio died and Land X was divided among his children. Later, Lutero was allegedly forced
by the Mayor, his mother, and his sisters to sell Land X to his sisters. Lutero refused on the ground
the 5-year prohibition hasnt elapsed but the Mayor prevailed on him. The Mayor told him his sisters
will get Land X after 5 years and if the sisters dont pay, hell get Land X back.
Further, Land X is titled in Luteros name after the homestead patent was issued in his favor.
Issue
Is the sale of Land X valid despite the sale occurring during the 5-year prohibited period for
alienations and encumbrances?
Held
No.
The sale of Land X is void because CA 141 Sec. 118 prohibits the alienation of a homestead within 5
years from the issuance of the patent and grant.
The conveyance of a homestead patent before the expiration of the 5-year prohibitory period
following the issuance of the homestead patent is null and void and cant be enforced. Here, the sale
was made 2 years after the homestead patent was issued, well within the 5-year prohibitory period.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
58
Abejeron vs Nabasa
Facts
Abejeron possessed and occupied Land X, unregistered land. Later, Nabasa fraudulently procured a
homestead patent over Land X and OCT was issued in Nabasas name. Abejeron then filed suit to
cancel Nabasas title.7
Issue
Is Abejeron the proper party to file suit?
Held
No.
Abejeron isnt the proper party to file the suit because he failed to prove title in himself. Abejeron
failed to prove he satisfied the requisites under the Public Land Act in order to claim ownership over
Land X, thereby converting the same from public land to private land.
If Abejeron proved ownership in him under the Public Land Act, he wouldve been the proper party.
Further, Nabasas title wouldve been void because the State has no right to dispose private land by
means of patent. But as it stands, the case must be dismissed.
Consequently, the proper party to file suit is the Government, through the Solicitor General, because
the action is one of reversion. Its the State who granted title, and its the State that has the right to
recover the same, if title was issued fraudulently.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
59
Republic vs CA
Facts
Irene Bullungan applied for a Free Patent covering Land X. The application was granted and OCT
issued in Irenes name. In her application, Irene claimed that Land X was neither claimed nor
occupied by any other person and that it was public land which she had continuously occupied and
cultivated since 1925.
Later, Vicente Carrabacan filed a protest, alleging Land X, and by extension the Free Patent,
overlapped Land Y, which he was occupying.
The State investigated the matter and found that Vicente had been actually occupying and cultivating
Land Y since 1947. The State then filed a complaint to cancel the Free Patent and OCT on the ground
of fraud and misrepresentation.8
Issue
Can the State still file an action for reversion despite the lapse of 1-year from the time the patent was
issued?
Held
Yes.
Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be
part of the pubic domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands no longer
has control or jurisdiction. The Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or homestead patent
becomes as indefeasible as one that was judicially secured upon the expiration of 1-year from the date
of issuance of patent.
However, even after the lapse of 1-year, the State may still bring an action for the reversion to the
public domain of lands that have been fraudulently granted to private individuals.
Here, Irenes failure to disclose that Vicente possessed Land Y, which is part of Land X, constitutes
fraud and is a ground for annulling her title.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
60
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
61
Sps Morandarte vs CA
Facts
The Sps. Morandarte filed a Free Patent application over Land X that was approved, and OCT issued
in their names. Later, the Sps. Morandarte divided Land X into 2 parcels, X-1 and X-2, and then
mortgaged X-1 to DBP as security for a loan.
Later, the State filed suit to annul the Sps. Morandartes title over Land X alleging Land X covered a
river, consequently cant be registered. The State alleged the Sps. Morandarte employed fraud and
misrepresentation in order to conceal the River when applying for the Free Patent.
Issue
In the absence of fraud, should the entire Title of the Sps. Morandarte be nullified or only the portion
covering the River?
Held
Only the portion covering the River.
A complaint for reversion involves question of fraud and misrepresentation committed against the
State and seeks the return of the disputed portion of the public domain. It seeks to cancel the original
certificate of registration, and nullify the original certificate of title, including the transfer certificate
of title of the successors-in-interest because the same were all procured through fraud and
misrepresentation.
The State has the burden of proving fraud and misrepresentation. Further, fraud and misrepresentation
are never presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Here, the State failed to prove that fraud and misrepresentation attended the application for free
patent. Though the Sps. Morandarte admitted that reversion is warranted due to the inalienability of
the River and essentially agreed to a reconveyance of the portion covering the River. Such admission
cant be considered proof that fraud and misrepresentation attended the application for free
patent. This fact, standing alone, does not prove fraud and misrepresentation.
Next, the Bureau of Lands previously concluded that Morandarte is a qualified applicant and
recommended that a free patent be granted to him. This error culminated in the erroneous grant of a
free patent covering the River. Be that as it may, the mistake or error of the officials or agents of the
BOL in this regard cant be invoked against the government with regard to property of the public
domain. It has been said that the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its
officials or agents. Property of the public domain is incapable of registration and its inclusion in a title
nullifies that title.
The present controversy involves a portion of the public domain that was merely erroneously included
in the free patent. A different rule would apply where fraud is convincingly shown. The absence of
clear evidence of fraud will not invalidate the entire title of the Morandarte spouses. Accordingly,
only the portion covering the River should be reconveyed back to the State while the rest of the Title
remains valid.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
62
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
63
Flores vs Bagaoisan
Facts
This case involves Land X, in the name of Flores, with OCT issued pursuant to a Homestead Patent
given in 1973. In 1976, Flores executed a Deed of Confirmation & Quitclaim in Lazos favor
agreeing to convey Land X to Lazo. Later, Marciano bought Land X from Lazo in a sale.
Flores then executed an Affidavit confirming the conveyance of Land X to Lazo and Lazos
possession of the same. Further, Flores stipulated that Land X was mistakenly included in his
Homestead Patent application.
Bagaoisan then filed suit to quiet title and be declared the lawful owners of Land X.
Issue
Is the Deed of Confirmation & Quitclaim valid despite being executed within 3 years after the
Homestead Patent was granted?
Held
No.
Here, Flores Deed of Confirmation & Quitclaim in Lazos favor is void because it violated the 5-year
prohibitory period against alienation of lands acquired through homestead patent. Using the words
confirmation and quitclaim in the documents title was an obvious attempt to circumvent the
prohibition imposed by law. Labeling the deed as a confirmation of non-ownership or as a quitclaim
of rights would actually make no difference, as the effect would still be the alienation or conveyance
of the property. The act of conveyance would still fall within the ambit of the prohibition.
The conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the 5-year prohibitory period from the
issuance of the homestead patent is null and void and cannot be enforced. There is, therefore, no
doubt that the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim, which was executed three years after the
homestead patent was issued, is void and cannot be enforced.
In closing, the execution of the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim within the 5-year prohibitory
period also makes the homestead patent susceptible to cancellation, and Land X being reverted to the
public domain. It is the Solicitor General, on the governments behalf, who is by law mandated to
institute an action for reversion.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
64
Heirs of Ragua vs CA
Facts
??
Issue
Is the Petitioners judicially reconstituted OCT valid despite the fact they failed to comply with the
publishing and notice requirement the law prescribes?
Held
No.
Here, Petitioners didnt comply with the requirements the Law imposed in reconstituting Titles
namely:
1. The nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to
the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or
improvements,
2. The names and addresses of the occupants of the adjoining property and of all persons who
may have any interest in the property and
3. That no deeds or other instrument affecting the property have been presented for registration.
Neither do these data appear in the notice of hearing. Besides, Petitioners also didn't comply with the
notice and publication requirement under Section 13 because the order directed that the notice be
posted at the Caloocan City Hall, not in Quezon City, where the land is situated.
Failing to comply with the required publication and posting of notices is fatal to the courts
jurisdiction. Hence, non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirements renders its decision
approving the reconstitution of OCT No. 632 and all proceedings therein utterly null and void.
Next, the Petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the reconstitution of Title. None of
the source documents presented were reliable.10
10
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
65
11
Respondents were guilty of extrinsic fraud and lack of notice, but they still won because Petitioners were
guilty of laches and res judicata. The case was filed 20 years after learning of the reconstitution of the OCT and
a prior quieting of title case was already decided in Respondents favor.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
66
Veterans Federation vs CA
Facts
The object of the instant controversy is a parcel of land situated near the public market of San Pablo
City. The then owner, Manila Railroad Company of the Philippine Islands (now known as the
Philippine National Railways or PNR) sold the subject property to the Veterans Federation of the
Philippines (VFP for brevity). The parties executed the Absolute Deed of Sale and said document
was registered at the Office of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City.
Consequently, T.C.T. was issued in favor of the VFP. However, the technical description that was
inscribed in the certificate of title was different from what was stated in the deed of sale.
Meanwhile, the VFP proceeded to clear and fence the property, following the boundaries as stated in
the certificate of title, not realizing that the technical descriptions appearing in the deed of sale and the
certificate of title did not match on almost all points. Some eighteen (18) years thereafter, the VFP
decided to erect a building on the subject property to serve as its headquarters. This plan did not
materialize when upon inspection of the subject property, it was discovered that the fence had long
been dismantled and that there were now several permanent structures standing thereon. The VFP
then learned that the residents had been leasing portions of the subject property from the PNR
unbeknownst to VFP.
When the residents refused to heed the VFPs demand to vacate the premises, the matter was brought
before the Barangay authorities, but no settlement was reached thereat.
Issue
Can Veterans TCT be cancelled because the technical description contained therein didnt match the
deed of sale which was the basis for Veterans TCT? Can a new TCT be issued in Veterans name
matching the technical description in the deed of sale?
Held
Yes || Yes
Here, the technical descriptions appearing in the deed of sale and the TCT vary on almost all
points. The property described in the TCT isnt the same property as that intended by the parties to be
the object of their sales agreement under the deed of sale.
Stated bluntly, the technical description in the TCT is erroneous. The RTC therefore correctly ordered
the TCT's cancellation and the issuance of a new TCT in Veterans name reflecting the true technical
description as appearing in the deed of sale
Errors in the Torrens Title that relate to the technical description and location can't just be disregarded
as mere clerical aberrations that are harmless in character, but must be treated seriously so as not to
jeopardize the integrity and efficacy of the Torrens System of registration of real rights to
property. Thus, when the technical description appearing in the title is clearly erroneous, the courts
have no other recourse but to order its cancellation and cause the issuance of a new one that would
conform to the mutual agreement of the buyer and seller as laid down in the deed of sale.
Next, simply possessing a certificate of title isnt necessarily conclusive of the holders true
ownership of all the property described therein for said holder doesnt by virtue of said Torrens Title
alone become the owner of what has been either illegally or erroneously included.
Veterans can only claim right of ownership over the land covered by the deed of sale and nothing
else. Hence, the RTC was correct in canceling the TCT and in directing the Register of Deeds to issue
a new one, with the correct technical description as embodied in the deed of sale.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
67
In a litigation such as the one at bar, the court may decree that the Torrens Title be cancelled and a
correct one issued in the buyers favor, without having to require the seller to execute in favor of the
buyer an instrument to effect the sale and transfer of the property.
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it
68
Republic vs Planes
Puzon vs Sta. Lucia Realty
Premiere Bank vs CA
Feel free to use and share this digest with anyone who needs it