LTD Procedure Case Doctrines

Director of Lands v. Reyes

Execution pending appeal is not allowed in land registration proceedings even if you posted
a bond, unlike in civil proceedings.
Annotation made by the Director of Lands of Lis Pendens in the title/Notice of Lis Pendens
should serve as a warning that the land has encumbrance.
And although the superimposition of the survey plan as surveyed for the applicants in the
military map was for the sole purpose of showing that the land applied for is situated within
the military reservation, the applicants is still not relieved from submitting in evidence the
original survey cloth plan because it is a statutory requirement of mandatory character as
the purpose of which is to fix the exact or definite identity of the land as shown in the plan
and technical description.
A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land and the raising thereon of cattle, do not
constitute possession under claim of ownership because in this case there were no
permanent fences, building or improvements initiated by the supposed owner of the
property.
Benin v. Tuazon
The need of a new publication where additional area is included in the application is
stressed: the settled rule is that once the registration court had acquired jurisdiction over
a certain parcel, or parcels, of land in the registration proceedings in virtue of the
publication of the application, that jurisdiction attaches to the land or lands mentioned and
described in the application. If it is later shown that the decree of registration had included
land or lands not included in the original application as published, then the registration
proceedings and the decree of registration must be declared null and void insofar as the
land not included in the publication is concerned.
Conversely, if the amendment does not involve an addition, BUT A REDUCTION of the
original area that was published, no new publication is required.
SM Primeholdings v. Madayag
In this case, RTC cancelled the land registration proceedings in the DENR because the area
sought to be registered encroached upon the property of SM. But the SC said that RTC
should not have cancelled the proceedings because a tracing cloth plan only establishes
the identity of the property sought to be registered.
Also it was emphasized in this case that the jurisdiction of the RTC is no longer limited as it
can already exercise general jurisdiction that even the determination as to the validity of a
survey plan that is lodged to the DENR is included.
Generoso Mendoza v. CA
A stranger or a third party may be dealt with in the land registration proceedings. The only
requirements of the law are:

(1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a
motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and
(2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case.
Even if the decree of registration is issued, there would be instances where the decree
would be under the name of another person, especially if during the proceedings of the
case, a property has been disposed of or alienated because it would burden a burden to
the new owner to initiate a new proceedings where it can be done in just one trial.
Director of Lands v. CA
Publication requirement under Section 23 [of PD 1529] has a two-fold purpose;
the first, which is mentioned in the provision of the aforequoted provision refers to
publication in the Official Gazette, and is jurisdictional;
while the second, which is mentioned in the opening clause of the same paragraph,
refers to publication not only in the Official Gazette but also in a newspaper of
general circulation, and is procedural. Neither one nor the other is dispensable.
As to the first, publication in the Official Gazette is indispensably necessary because
without it, the court would be powerless to assume jurisdiction over a particular land
registration case. As to the second, publication of the notice of initial hearing also in a
newspaper of general circulation is indispensably necessary as a requirement of procedural
due process; otherwise, any decision that the court may promulgate in the case would be
legally infirm.
Adviento v. Alvarez
If the land is in adversely possession of another person, such fact has to be indicated in the
petition in order that the notice of hearing be mailed to such possessor to afford them of
due process and to prevent the use on the ground of fraud or intrinsic fraud.
While personal notice is not indispensable, it should be noted that it is necessary.
Garcia v. Bello
Garcia does not have to be a party to the case for the land registration case decision to
bind him or to affect his interest because land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and
therefore, the decision rendered is binding upon the whole world - including him.
De Castro v. Marcos
In a cadastral case amending the official plan so as to make it include land not previously
included therein is a nullity unless new publication is made as a preliminary to such step"
and that "additional territory cannot be included by amendment of the plan without new
publication." Upon the other hand, the jurisdiction of a court to issue orders providing for
exclusion of land included in the original plan is not affected by failure to order a new
publication.
Although an opponent in a land registration proceeding could not show title in himself, he is
not discapacitated from opposing the registration sought by another. All that is necessary
to enable anyone to exert the faculty of opposition is that he should appear to have an
interest in the property." "it is immaterial whether this interest is in the character of legal
owner or is of a purely equitable nature as where he is the beneficiary in a trust."

Valisno v. Cayaba
While the Land Registration Act (Act 496) does NOT provide for a pleading similar or
corresponding to a motion to dismiss, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, however, allows the
application of the rules contained therein in land registration proceedings in a suppletory
character or whenever practicable and convenient.
The opposition partakes of the nature of an answer with a counterclaim. In ordinary civil
cases, the counterclaim would be considered a complaint, this time with the original
defendant becoming the plaintiff. The original plaintiff, who becomes defendant in the
counterclaim may either then answer the counterclaim or be declared in default, or may file
a motion to dismiss the same.
Re Res Judicata: When a court of competent jurisdiction has tried and decided a right or
fact, so long as the decision remains unreversed, it is conclusive on the parties and those in
privity with them. It does not require absolute identity of the parties but merely substantial
identity of parties.
There is no substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of
interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did
not implead the latter.
RP v. Lee
The bare assertion that the spouses Urbano Diaz and Bernarda Vinluan had been in
possession of the property for more than twenty (20) years found in private respondent's
declaration is hardly the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence required in cases of this
nature. Private respondent should have presented specific facts that would have shown the
nature of such possession. The phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in
concept of owner" by which she described her own possession in relation to that of her
predecessors-in-interest are mere conclusions of law which require factual support and
substantiation.
That the representing fiscal did not cross-examine her on this point does not help her cause
because the burden is upon her to prove by clear, positive and absolute evidence that her
predecessors' possession was indeed adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in
concept of owner. And it is not the fiscal, but the court which should be convinced.
RP v. Sayo
Under the Regalian doctrine, all land not appearing to be within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. Hence, it is upon the applicant to overcome the
presumption that the property sought to be registered is of the public domain.
In the case at bar, the found found that the principal document relied upon by the
applicants, was merely a photocopy of a certification from the National Library stating that
the land was registered as a private land under the Spanish Law.
Further, under the Spanish Mortgage Law, possessory evidence can be considered a mode
of acquiring title to public lands, subject to two (2) conditions:
FIRST, the inscription thereof in the Registry of Property, and

SECOND, actual, public, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of the land for twenty
(20) years (later reduced to ten)
In the instant case, however, since there is no substantial fulfillment of these conditions
then the the informacion posesoria claimed by the Heirs cannot be considered as anything
more than prima facie evidence of possession.

Ong v. Republic
While tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, they constitute good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner and a claim of title over the subject property
Possession alone is NOT sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain
because the law requires possession AND occupation.
Republic v. Aldana
Section 17 denotes that it is imperative in an application for original registration that the
applicant submit to the court, aside from the original or duplicate copies of the muniments
of title, a copy of the duly approved survey plan of the land sought to be registered. The
survey plan is indispensable as it provides a reference on the exact identity of the
land.
General Rule: submission of the original tracing cloth plan is mandatory
Exception: submission of the blueprint of the survey plan together with the technical
description of the property, operates as substantial compliance with the legal
requirement of ascertaining the identity of the lots applied for registration.
The original tracing cloth plan is always with the LRA, but regardless of such fact, it is not
the duty of the LRA to submit it because the tracing cloth plan can be retrieved by the
party and it is incumbent for the party to present a tracing cloth plan himself. The burden of
presenting it is not with the LRA, so it cannot be raised as a petition that the said plan is
with the LRA or that the latter is responsible for not submitting it, or say that it can be
checked with the LRA.
RP v. CA & Chavez
While the best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes was the original
tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands, blueprint copies and other evidence could also
provide for sufficient identification. The fact that the plan was written on a white paper
instead of a tracing cloth should not detract from the probative value thereof.
If Chavez really planted those trees, it is not sufficient to prove possession but at the most
would constitute a mere casual cultivation. A mere casual cultivation of portions of the
land by the claimant does not constitute possession under claim of ownership. In that
sense, 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 to constitute a grant from the state."
Sierra v. CA

In a land registration case, a writ of possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of
registration in an original land registration proceedings "not only against the person who
has been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely occupying the
land or any portion thereof during the proceedings up to the issuance of the decree."
It cannot however, be issued in a petition for reconstitution of an allegedly lost or destroyed
certificate of title. Reconstitution does not confirm or adjudicate ownership over the
property covered by the reconstituted title as in original land registration proceedings
where, in the latter, a writ of possession may be issued to place the applicant-owner in
possession.
It should be noted also, that the motion for cancellation of the reconstituted titles filed by
the petitioners in the cadastral case, contained serious charges against the reconstitution
proceedings which if proven would result in the nullity of the reconstituted titles.
Republic v. LA Nillas
Manotok Realty v. LLT Realty
The OCT is issued on the date the decree of registration is transcribed. It is the valid dateof
registration. It is only after transcription that the OCT/TCT is to take effect. There is a
marked difference between the "entry of the decree" and the "entry of the certificate of
title:
Entry of decree made by Clerk of Court of Land Registration Court
Entry of Certificate of Title made by RoD (transcription)
Immediately upon issuance and entry of the decree of registration, RoD transcribes the
same in the Registration Book and issues an owner's duplicate certificate of title to the
applicant upon payment of registration fees.
The entry made by RoD in the Registration Book is actually the original copy of the
OCT, and shall be signed and sealed by him
When it is transcribed, the page on which the transcription is made becomes the OCT
The land becomes a registered land only upon transcription in the Registration Book.
Rosales v. Burgos
As a general rule, every person dealing with registered land, as in this case, may safely rely
on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and will in no way oblige him to
go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. However, this rule
admits of an unchallenged exception: A person dealing with registered land has a right to
rely on the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further
except when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a
defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent
man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. The presence of
anything, which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond
the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of said
certificate. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent
purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the protection
of the law.

Pajomayo v. Manipon
If a party is declared to be the owner of a parcel of land pursuant to a valid certificate of
title said party is entitled to the possession of the land covered by said valid title. The
decree of registration issued in the cadastral proceedings does NOT have the effect of
annulling the title that had previously been issued in accordance with the provisions of the
land Registration Law (Act 496).
Once a homestead patent granted in accordance with the Public Land Act is registered
pursuant to Section 122of Act 496 the certificate of title issued in virtue of said patent has
the force and effect of a Torrens Title under the Land Registration Act.
The procedure under the Land Registration Law and under the provisions of the Public Land
Law are the same in that both are against the whole world, both take the nature of judicial
proceedings, and for both the decree of registration issued is conclusive and final.
Upon the expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title becomes
irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.