1. Castillo vs.
Escutin the portion because here cousins sold their parcel and expanded
- Castillo was a judgment creditor of Racquel and she wanted to
settle the debt so she found a parcel of land co-owned by Racquel,
however such land was inside the Summit Point Golf and Country
Club.
- The property was levied in favor of Castillo but a TCT had been
already issued to Summit Realty.
- SC: Title is the lawful cause or ground of possessing that which is
ours. A certificate of title is a mere evidence of ownership and not
title to the land itself Summit Realty acquired title from the
purchase of the land. Catigbac’s title is superior than Castillo’s tax
declaration.
2. Acosta vs. Salazar
- Salazar filed a petition for cancellation of entries annotated in the
OCT which was granted. An urgent motion for the issuance of order
was also granted.
- RTC denied the motion of the Salazar’s and advised them to go to
the LRD en consulta. LRA directed the RD to comply with the RTC
but the petitioner’s opposed and filed for annulment of judgment.
- SC: Registration of Land under the Torrens System is a proceeding
in rem. Quieting of title is not a proceeding in rem but a quasi in
rem. No respondents was impleaded, thus the decision does not
bind them (petitioners) making the decision of the RTC null and
void. The annotation on the title were therefore more than 30yrs
but the Salazar’s remained quiet, thus, laches and prescription
applies.
3. Lamsis vs. Dong-e
- Conflict of ownership and possession over an untitled parcel of
land.
- The first cousins were tolerated in their possession and occupation
of a portion of land owned by Margarita who had title over the said
parcel of land. Margarita filed for recovery and reconveyance of
their portion.
- SC: Margarita was able to prove possession and ownership
sufficiently through documents and testimonies. The family never
abandoned the property and continuously exercised rights of
ownership.
4. Heirs of Tanyag vs. Gabriel
- There were 2 adjacent parcels of land. Lot 1 was owned by Benita
Gabriel and was passed on the Bienvenido. The petitioners took
possession of the land and paid taxes, while Lot 2 was owned by
Ageda Paguinbayan and sold to Araceli.
- Jose Gabriel secured a tax declaration over lot 1 which was an
enlarge area so a case was filed by the petitioners.
- SC: Registration does not create or vests title because it is a mode
of acquiring ownership. A certificate is merely an evidence of
ownership. There was an acquisitive prescription since 1969-2000.
The possession was for 31yrs, thus the Tanyag heirs are entitled to
the 686 square meters of land.
5. Ingusan vs. Heirs of Reyes
- After the death of Leocadio, Aureliano Reyes was designated as
administrator. Then he filed for free patent over the land.
- Petitioner filed for action reinvindicatoria which was dismissed.
- Aureliano died intestate and petitioner paid the sum and the OCT
was given to said petitioner.
- An extrajudicial of settlement of partition of land with
simultaneous deed of sale was executed by petitioner and the
respondents which was notarized but never registered.
- One of the heirs stated that their title over the land was lost and
asked for another duplicate but it was cancelled by the court.
- Petitioner took possession and build a house, therefore this case.
- SC: Deed of Donation, Cancellation of Affidavit of Loss and
Agreement of Subdivision with Sale were falsified documents. The
 OCT remains valid and cannot be attacked collaterally. The public
should be able to rely on a registered title, it is the most effective
measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect
their indefeasibility. The OCT became indefeasible and
incontrovertible after the lapse of 1yr.
6. Republic vs. Herbierto
- Jeremias and David Herbierto (brothers) filed a single application
for the registration of 2 lands claiming to be owners in fee simple.
- Republic filed an opposition.
- SC: MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. They (respondents)
should have filed separate applications for the 2 lots. There was
failure to comply with publication requirements. Land registration
is a proceeding in rem and there must be a constructive seizure
through publication and service of notice to acquire jurisdiction.
There was a late publication for the notice of hearing. The brothers
also failed to comply for the required period of possession of the
subject lots.
7. Munoz vs. Yabut
- A land was given to petitioner in exchange for valuable service.
Petitioner sold the same to Emilia who later on sold the same to
the Go. Petitioner then filed an adverse claim. Munoz claims that
she and her housemates were driven away. Thereafter, the Go
spouses obtained a loan and mortgaged the lot which they failed to
redeem resulting to the execution of a deed of absolute sale in
favor of the Chan spouses. The Chan’s asserted ownership over the
land which Munoz later on discovered, so this case.
- SC: First, the case was in personam which does not bind BPI and
the Chan’s as they are strangers to the judgment. The fact that the
titles were declared null and void does not automatically make the
titles of the Chan and BPI as null and void. They were both
purchasers in good faith and for value. There was no duplication or
overlapping of certificates of titles because there was only one
certificate of title at a time.
8. Republic vs. Medida
- Medida filed for registration of title over the parcels of land and
occupied the same and declared the property for tax purposes.
- SC: There must be establishment of a positive act by the
government. The testimony of Engineer Belleza that the lot is A and
D is not sufficient as proof. The CENRO certificates were not also
sufficient. Alienability and Disposability are not matters which can
be established by mere admissions and agreements of parties.
9. Republic vs. Naguiat
- Celestina filed for application for registration of parcels of land
which the Republic opposed because the lands subject of the claim
are part of the public domain.
- SC: Public Forest Land or Forest Reserves unless declassified by
positive act are not capable of private acquisition. There was no
evidence as to the classification of the land as A and D. Survey map
and technical descriptions are not sufficient to overcome the
presumption that the land is of public domain.
10. Aranda vs. Republic
- A petition for original registration of a lot was filed but the Republic
opposed based on the fact that the land is part of the public
domain and no registrable title is acquired.
- SC: There must be an establishment of a positive act by the
government. There was a certification but there were discrepancies
on the classification. A and D was not clearly established. There
was also no evidence of possession of the property in accordance
with law. Casual cultivation does not bestow ownership, specific
acts of dominion must be shown.

11. Director of Forestry vs. Villareal
- The land was of mangroves swamps. Villareal filed for its
registration claiming possession for more than 40yrs which was
opposed by several persons including the Republic.
- SC: The land is a mangrove land and is part of forest land. A mere
existence of a plant does not have an effect of converting a forest
land into an agricultural land. The Director of Forestry has the
authority to determine whether a forest land is more valuable for
agricultural rather than forest uses. No evidence was shown as to
possession. No right of registration was established.
12. Celestial vs. Cachupero
- Jessie Cachupero filed an Miscellaneous Sales Application (NSA)
with the DOL but was dismissed. Celestial filed for ejectment but a
compromise agreement was entered into. Cachupero filed another
MSA while Celestial another protest. Hence, this case.
- SC: No valid claim as to the dried up bed of creeks, as the land is
part of the public domain. There was no declaration that the land
was A and D, and creeks are extensions of a river.
13. Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic
- SC: Section 48 of CA 141 vs. Section 14 of PRD
- Section 48 of CA 141 states that “OCEN possession and occupation
of alienable and disposable lands on or before June 12, 1945
immediately preceding the filing of the application”, while Section
14 of PRD states that “OCEN possession and occupation and
occupation of alienable and disposable land on or before June 12,
1945”
- Section 48 of the CA 141 is more descriptive of the nature of the
right enjoyed by the possessor than Section 14 of the PRD. There
was no substantive evidence to establish that the petitioners were
in possession of property since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
14. Republic vs. Santos (Dried up river bed)
- The respondents did not show that the gradual and imperceptible
deposition of soil through the effects of the current of the rivers
had formed the lot. Their evidence revealed that the property was
the dried up river bed of the Paranaque River. The land was
definitely not an accretion and the respondents had no legal right
to claim ownership.
15. Bagaipo vs. CA (Natural Expropriation)
- The decrease in the petitioners land area and corresponding
expansion of respondents property were the combined effects of
erosion and accretion. Petitioner cannot claim ownership over the
old abandoned river bed because the same is inexistent. Accretion
benefits a riparian owner only when the deposit is gradual and
imperceptible and it resulted from the effects of the current of
water and the accretion takes place over the land that is adjacent
to the river which was sufficiently proven in favor respondents.
16. Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC
- The disputed property was brought for by both the withdrawal of
the waters of manila bay and the accretion formed on the exposed
foreshore land.
- The disputed land is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea
bank. The disputed land is the foreshore of manila bay and is part
of the public domain, only the executive or legislative have the
right and power to make a declaration that the lands so gained by
actions of the sea is no longer necessary for purposes of public
utility or for the cause of establishment of special industries or for
coastguard services.
17. Vda. De Nazareno vs. CA
- The land is public because it is an artificial accretion of Sawdust.
Also the administrative remedies was already exhausted. Alluvium
pertains to gradual and imperceptible accumulation. It is an action
of waters and that it must be adjacent to rivers or banks.
21. Fieldman Agricultural Trading Corp. vs. Republic
- Publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing is a jurisdictional
requirement and non-compliance affects the jurisdiction of the
court. FATCorp complied with the publication requirement but it
did not sufficiently established its ownership over the land.

18. Jagualing vs. CA 22. Republic vs. CA and Ribaya

- The parcel of land is part of an island that formed in a non- - The notice of the hearing of the application of the spouses were
navigable and non-floatable river from a small mass of eroded or published in the official gazette. The requirement of dual
segregated outcrop of land, it increase to its present size due to the publication is one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the
gradual and successive accumulation of alluvial deposits. The island court and is a jurisdictional requisite. Publication in the Official
belongs to the owner of the land along the nearer margin as sole Gazette is not enough. There is defective publication in this case.
owner.
- Petitioners may acquire the property by adverse possession under
acquisitive prescription but they were only in possession of
23. Benin vs. Tuason
property for 15yrs making them non-owners.
- There was no new parcels of land included in the new plan. Thus,
there was no need for a new publication.
19. Republic vs. Espinosa
- The annotation on the survey plan does not constitute an
incontrovertible evidence that would overcome that the property
belongs to the inalienable public domain. A mere surveyor has no
authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. A blueprint of a
survey plan may be offered as evidence of the identity, location
and the boundaries of the property but not as to alienability and
disposability.

20. Chavez vs. PEA

- Juridical Persons can only hold properties of public domain under
the contract of lease and cannot privately own the same.