Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
L-30389, 12/27/1972)
FACTS:
Petitioners in this appeal by certiorari seek to reverse a decision of
respondent Court of Appeals affirming a lower court judgment
dismissing their complaint to have the Torrens Title of respondent
Aniano David declared null and void. David acquired lawful title
pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application in accordance with
which an order of award and for issuance of a sales patent was
made by the Director of Lands.
ISSUE:
Can petitioners bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title
issued pursuant to avoid patent?
RULING:
NO. Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands, or
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, can bring an
action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void
patent Whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a
question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by
the government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The
legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the
government.
FACTS
Faustino Ignacio filed an application to register a parcel of land
(mangrove) which he alleged he acquired by right of accretion since
it adjoins a parcel of land owned by the Ignacio. His application is
opposed by the Director of Lands, Laureano Valeriano, contending
that said land forms part of the public domain. The Trial Court
dismissed the application holding that said land formed part of the
public domain. Thus the case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the land forms part of the public domain
HELD:
YES. The law on accretion cited by Ignacio in inapplicable in the
present case because it refers to accretion or deposits on the banks
of rivers while this refers to action in the Manila Bay, which is held
to be part of the sea. Although it is provided for by the Law of
Waters that lands added to shores by accretions caused by actions
of the sea form part of the public domain when they are no longer
necessary for purposes of public utility, only the executive and the
legislative departments have the authority and the power to make
the declaration that any said land is no longer necessary for public
use. Until such declaration is made by said departments, the lot in
question forms part of the public domain, not available for private
appropriation or ownership.
FACTS:
A petition for review assailing the CA decision against the
Menguito’s –the petitioners, with promulgated resolution 10-Mos.
later reversing the decision of the RTC of Pasig City. The RTC
decision confirmed the application for the titling of the parcel of land
in accordance with PD 1529. The OSG stated its valid opposition on
the presented documents by the applicants leaving its prayers that
said application be denied and land in question be reverted to the
ownership of the Republic of the Philippines.
ISSUE:
WON the CA’s did not err in its decision to reverse the trial court
findings.
HELD:
No. The petition is without merit. The Court observed that the
petitioners have insufficient evidence on that the possession of the
land is in accordance with Section 48 of CA 141 which must be in an
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious occupation of the land in
the concept of the owner. Unless public land is shown to have been
reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains
part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, occupation thereof in
the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into
ownership and be registered as a title.
4. Mesina vs Sonza (GR No. L-14722, 5/25/1960)
FACTS:
Valentin Susi bought a parcel of land from Apolonio Garcia and Basilio
Mendoza. After the purchase, Susi took possession of the land in an
open, continuous, adverse and public manner and without
interruption but it was interrupted when Angela Razon filed an action
to recover possession of the land which was dismissed by the CFI.
Despite the dismissal, Angela filed for the purchase of the disputed
land with the Director of Lands. Valentin Susi filed his opposition and
asserted his right over the land. However, the Director of Land
overruled the opposition and sold the land the Angela Razon on the
ground that the land was still and public land and Valentin Susi does
not have a title over it.
ISSUE:
WON Valentin Susi already acquired title to the land.
HELD:
YES. The Court held that to acquire a right to a certificate of title over
a land of the public domain, under the provisions of Chapter VI of
Act No. 926, as amended by Chapter VIII of Act No. 2874, an open,
adverse, public and continuous possession from July 26,1894, is
sufficient, provided the possessor makes application therefor under
the provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. In the present case, all
the requirements for a grant were complied with since Susi has been
in possession of the land in question since the year 1880 or for
about forty-five years. By a legal fiction, Susi had acquired the land
in question by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be the
public domain and had become private property, at least by
presumption, of Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands.
Consequently, in selling the land in question to Angela, the Director
of Lands disposed of a land over which he had no longer any title or
control, and the sale thus made was void and of no effect, and
Angela did not thereby acquire any right.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
Apolonio Bautista Jr. acquired a lot through succession. He applied
judicial confirmation of imperfect title before MTC with testimonial
evidence that his father was in possession of the said lot since 1969
and acquired it from Jardin and Villanueva through notarized Deed of
Absolute Sale. The MTC granted the application and declared him as
the owner in fee simple of the said land. The Government of the
Philippines appealed before CA, contending that the testimony of
Apolonio Jr. is an hearsay which should not be given probative value.
The application of judicial confirmation of imperfect title must comply
with Sec. 48(b) of CA 141. The CA affirmed the ruling of MTC, it
pointed out that the Government of the Phil. did not timely object to
the evidence presented.
ISSUE:
WON the grant of judicial confirmation of imperfect title to Apolonio
Jr proper.
HELD:
No. It Court held that the requisite period of possession must
conform with Sec 48(b) of Public Land Act as amended by RA 1942
which provides that any person who applies for judicial
confirmation, he or his predecessor in interest must have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable land of public domain under
the bonafide claim of ownership at least 30 years since June 12,
1945 or earlier. Lack of this evidence does not give the court the
right to grant a judicial confirmation of imperfect title in favor of
Bautista Jr.
E. Non-Registrable Properties
Cases:
1. MIAA vs Court of Appeals (GR No. 155650, 7/20/2006)
FACTS:
MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the
City of Parañaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001 amounting to
624M. The City of Parañaque, through its City Treasurer, also issued
notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and
Buildings. The Mayor of the City of Parañaque threatened to sell at
public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings should MIAA fail to
pay the real estate tax delinquency. MIAA then filed with the Court
of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and injunction, with
prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to
restrain the City of Parañaque from imposing real estate tax on,
levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and
Buildings based on Section 21 of the MIAA Charter is the proof that
MIAA is exempt from real estate tax in relation to the Local
Government Code.
ISSUE:
WON the Land and Buildings of MIAA are part of the public
dominion and thus cannot be the subject of levy and auction sale.
HELD:
Yes. The Court held that the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA
are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or
the Republic of the Philippines. The Airport Lands and Buildings are
devoted to public use because they are used by the public for
international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that
the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public
does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as
properties for public use. The operation by the government of a
tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public
use.
FACTS:
This case involves an application for registration under the Torrens
system of a certain parcel of land. The only opposition of the said
application which was presented by the Director of Lands was that
the land in question was the property of the Government of the
United States under the control and administration of the
Government of the Philippine Islands. The lower court ordered and
decreed that said parcel of land be registered in the name of the
said applicant, J. H. Ankron, subject, however, to the right of the
Government of the Philippine Islands to open a road thereon in the
manner and conditions mentioned in said decision. On appeal,
appellant, contented, among others that, that portions of said land
cannot be registered in accordance with the existing Land
Registration Law for the reason that they are manglares.
ISSUE:
WON the land in question cannot registered.
HELD:
Yes. The Court held that the mere fact that a tract of land has trees
upon it or has mineral within it is not of itself sufficient to declare
that one is forestry land and the other, mineral land. There must be
some proof of the extent and present or future value of the forestry
and of the minerals. The Government under the provisions of Act No.
1148, may, by reservation, decide for itself what portions of public
land shall be considered forestry land, unless private interests have
intervened before such reservation is made. Until private interests
have intervened, the Government, by virtue of the terms of said Act
(No. 1148), may decide for itself what portions of the "public domain"
shall be set aside and reserved as forestry or mineral land.
FACTS:
Edna T. Collado filed with the land registration court an application
for registration of a parcel of land. Attached to the application was a
technical description, stating “this survey is inside IN-12 Mariquina
Watershed.” The Solicitor General filed oppositions to the
application. Petitioners allege that they have occupied the subject
land since time immemorial. Their possession has been open, public,
notorious and in the concept of owners. They paid all real estate
taxes and submitted evidence to prove that there have been 9
transfers of rights among them and their predecessors-in-interest.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners for having presented sufficient
evidence to establish registrable title over the property.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioners acquire private rights over the parcel of land
prior to the issuance of EO 33.
HELD:
No. The Court held that an applicant must overcome the presumption
that the land he is applying for is part of the public domain and that
he has an interest to warrant registration in his name arising from
an imperfect title (may have been derived from old Spanish grants or
titles). In the case at bar, petitioners were unable to acquire a valid
and enforceable right or title because of the failure to complete the
required period of possession (at least 30 years).
A. Section 53 of CA 141
B. Section 35-38 of PD 1529
Cases:
1. Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (GR No.
14869)
2. Abellera vs Farol (GR No. 48480, 7/30/1943)
Cases:
1. Ong Ching Po vs. Court of Appeals (239 SCRA 341)
2. Frenzel vs Catito (GR No. 143958, July 11, 2003)
3. Muller vs. Muller (GR no. 149615, August 29, 2006)
4. Lee vs. Director of Lands (GR No. 128195, October 3, 2001)
5. Ramirez vs. Vda de Ramirez (111 SCRA 704)
6. Republic vs Court of Appeals (235 SCRA 567)
B. When Proper/improper
Cases:
1. Republic vs Umali (GR No. 80687, 4/10/1989)
2. Piñero vs Director of Lands (GR No. L-36507, 12/14/1974)
Exceptions:
(1) when there is a violation of due process,
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question,
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency concerned,
(5) when there is irreparable injury,
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied
and assumed approval of the latter,
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies
would be unreasonable,
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim,
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case
proceedings,
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy, and
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency
of judicial intervention.
Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests and are not
alienable under the Constitution.
RULE 10
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS
Cases:
1. Casupanan vs. Laroya, August 26, 2002
RULE 11
ARREST
Cases:
1. Pp. vs. Sucro March 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 388
2. People vs. Evaristo 216 S 431
3. Pp. vs. Joselito del Rosario April 14, 1999
4. People vs Del Rosario GR 182601
5. People vs Gerente G.R. No. 95847-48.
6. People vs Tonog G.R. No. 94533
7. People vs. Manlulu April 22, 1994
RULE 12
CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF SEIZED ITEMS, EQUIPMENT,
PARAPHERNALIA, CONVEYANCES AND INSTRUMENTS
RULE 13
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
RULE 14
BAIL
Cases:
1. Paderanga v. Court of Appeals 247 SCRA 741 (1995)
2. Enrile vs Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
3. Borinaga v. Tamin 26 SCRA 206 (1993);
4. Cardines v. Rozete, 242 SCRA 557 (1995).
RULE 15
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
Cases:
1. Pp. vs. Martin Villarama June 23, 1992
RULE 16
PRE-TRIAL
Cases:
1. Abubakar vs. Abubakar Oct 22, 1999
RULE 17
TRIAL
Cases:
1. Abay, Sr. vs. Garcia 162 SCRA 665; Marcelino Rivera, Jr. vs.
Pp August 30, 1990
2. Pp vs. Marcelino A. Bugarin (June 13, 1997)
3. Pp. vs. Elegio Nadera (Feb. 2, 2000)
4. Eligio Madrid vs. CA (May 31, 2000)
5. Myla Paredes Et. Al. vs. Judge Jacinto Manalo May 10, 1995
6. Abraham Ramirez vs. Antonia Corpuz- Macandong Sept. 26,
1986
7. Pp. vs. Omar Mapalao May 14, 1991
8. People vs. Joven De Grano G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009
RULE 19
STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
CRIMINAL CASES
RULE 7
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
RULE 8
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
Cases:
1. Pilar Cañeda Braga v. Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya (GR No.
223076, september 13, 2016
2. Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje, v. Hon. Teodoro a. Casiño (G.r. No.
207257, February 03, 2015)
3. Lnl Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham party list (G.r. No.
209165)
4. Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, [March
7, 2017])
5. Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, [September 16, 2014])
(Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes,
G.R. Nos. 180771 & 181527, [April 21, 2015])