Republic v. Michael Santos, Vanessa Santos and Michelle Santos G.R. No.

180027 July 18, 2012

Facts:

The respondents bought 3 unregistered parcels of land which had previous owners.
They surveyed and consolidated the 3 parcels of land. Upon the application for the
registration of the land the government opposed the claim of the respondents
stating that the parcels of land are still part of the public domain. The respondents
in turn stated that the lands previous owners had continuous and uninterrupted
ownership and possession of the land.

Issue:

Whether or not the land in question is still part of the public domain and therefore
cannot be alienated to the respondents.

Ruling:

Yes, the Supreme Court stated that the land is still part of the public domain. The
land is unregistered thus it is presumed it is a part of the public domain. Those who
seek for an application under the Torrens System must first have acquired an
original title against the State in accordance to law. Also the respondents cannot
affirm their testimonies regarding the open and continuous occupation of their
predecessors-in-interest.

Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. City of Pasig

G.R. No. 166838, June 15, 2011,

Facts:

Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. is the owner of a parcel of land with a TCT
no. 39112, which indicated that it was located in Pasig. Later on, the land covered
by TCT no. 39112 was consolidated by another located in Cainta, with a TCT no.
518403. The consolidated TCTs were then divided into three TCTs, all bearing the
Cainta address. The Municipality of Pasig filed a petition to correct the location
stated in the three TCTs from Cainta to Pasig, which was granted by the court. Pasig
then filed a complaint against Sta. Lucia for collection of real property taxes. Sta.
Lucia claimed that it has been paying real property taxes to Cainta ever since. The
RTC ruled in favour of Pasig, saying that the TCTs are conclusive as to ownership and
location.
Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in ruling in favour of Pasig by just relying on the face of
the TCTs

Ruling:

Yes. A certificate of title shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein and
conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein. However, while
certificates of title are indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole
world, including the government itself, they do not create or vest title. They merely
confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of
fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of other.
Although it is true that Pasig is the locality stated in the TCTs of the subject
properties, both Sta. Lucia and Cainta can aver that the metes and bounds of the
subject properties, as they are described in the TCTs, reveal that they are within
Caintas boundaries.

Vicente Yu Chang and Soledad Yu Chang v. Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 171726, February 23, 2011

Facts:

L. Yu Chang entered into a barter with the Municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur
whereby the former exchanged his 400 square meter land located in the barrio of
San Roque for another 400 square meter land owned by the latter located in the
barrio of San Juan. When L. Yu Chang died, his wife and children inherited the land.
A Deed of Transfer and Renunciation of their rights over the land was executed by
the heirs of L. Yu Chang in favour of Vicente Yu Chang and Soledad Yu Chang. They
filed a petition for registration for the land. They declared that they are the co-
owners of the subject land; that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been
in actual, physical, material, exclusive, open, occupation and possession of the
above described parcels of land for more than 100 years; and that they have
continuously, peacefully, and adversely possessed the property in the concept of
owners. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition claiming that the land
forms part of the public domain and not subject to private appropriation. The RTC
granted the petition but the CA reversed it, saying that there must be a positive act
from the government declassifying the land as forest land before it could be
deemed alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. Petitioners
insist that the subject land could no longer be considered and classified as forest
land since there are buildings, residential houses, and government structures
existing in the land.

Issue:

Whether the application for land registration should be granted

Ruling:

No. Before any land may be declassified from the forest group and converted into
alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a
positive act from the government. A person cannot enter into forest land and by the
simple act of cultivating a portion of that land, earn credits towards an eventual
confirmation of imperfect title. The Government must first declare the forest land to
be alienable and disposable agricultural land before the year of entry, cultivation
and exclusive and adverse possession can be counted for purposes of an imperfect
title.

Republic of the Philippines v. East Silverlane Realty Development

Corporation

G.R. No. 186961, February 20, 2012

Facts:

East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation (ESRDC) filed an application for

registration covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 1309. Portions of the property
were purchased from Francisco Oco pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale and Rosario
Tan, Nemesia Tan, and Mariano Tan pursuant to a Deed of Partial Partition with Deed
of Absolute Sale. ESRDC claims that lot 1309 had been classified by the DENR as
alienable and disposable, and that its predecessors have been in possession of the
land for more than 30 years, thus the land is considered private land and can be
acquired by acquisitive prescription.

Issue:

Whether ESRDC has acquired the land through prescription

Ruling:

No. Without an express declaration that the property is no longer intended for public
service or development of national wealth, the property, even if classified as
alienable or disposable, remains property of the State, and thus, may not be
acquired by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are
expressly declared by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the
development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can
begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly
authorized by law. The DAR converted the same from agricultural to industrial only
on October 16, 1990; therefore, it was only in 1990 that the subject property had
been declared patrimonial and it is only then that the prescriptive period began to
run.

Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Spouses Jose and Magdalena Ybanez

G.R. No. 161380, April 21, 2014

Facts:

Casimiro Ybanez sold to Aznar Brothers Realty Company (Aznar brothers) a parcel of
unregistered agricultural land (Lot 18563) in which they executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Casimiro died intestate leaving as heirs his wife and his children. The
heirs of Casimiro executed a document entitled Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs
with an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person and Deed of Absolute
Sale, whereby they divided and adjudicated among themselves Lot No. 18563. By
the same document, they sold the entire lot to their co-heir, Adriano D. Ybaez who
then sold the lot to Jose R. Ybanez. After the sale, Jose filed a Free Patent application
for Lot 18563 and in due course an OCT was issued over the lot. Aznar brothers
contested the free patent issued in favor of Jose alleging that they are the owners of
Lot 18563 and it was already a private property at the time of application and
therefore free patent cannot be issued.

Issue:

Whether a free patent may be issued over private land

Ruling:

No. Lot 18563 is the private land of Casimiro. In their Deed of Absolute Sale,
Casimiro expressly warranted that the land was his own exclusive property. With the
ownership of Aznar Brothers being established in this case, the free patent issued to
Jose R. Ybaez by the Government was invalid because the Government had no
authority to dispose of land already in private ownership. Private ownership of land
as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory
information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession, by present or previous occupants is not affected by the issuance of a
free patent over the same land, because the Public Land Law applies only to lands
of the public domain. The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to
lands that have ceased to be public in character and have passed to private
ownership. Consequently, a certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead
patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a judicial proceeding only if
the land covered by it is really a part of the disposable land of the public domain.