Atty. Erwin L.

Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE PHILIPPINES

1. Johnson vs Mackintosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823)

• Discovery Doctrine as basis of State ownership of lands

2. Chaves vs. The United States (175 U.S., 552)

• Property acquired from former sovereign recognized provided that it was issued
regularly and confirmed by the new sovereign.

3. Valenton vs Marciano, 3 Phil. Reports 537, 2 Off. Gaz., 434, March 30, 1904

• Occupant of State lands must make proof to acquire ownership;

• Acquisition is now by operations of law

4. Cariño vs Insular Government, 212 U. S., 449 23

• Possession since time immemorial is equivalent to a title;

• discovery doctrine abandoned in favor of indigenous title

5. Jones vs. Insular Government, G.R. No. L-2506 April 16, 1906 23

• The Land Registration Court does not adjudicate ownership of public lands but is
merely confirming compliance with the condition of a government grant under Section
54 of Act No. 496.

6. Susi vs. Razon and Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-24066, December 9, 1925

• Lands acquired “by operation of law” is no longer part of the public domain, thus, the
Director of Lands has no jurisdiction to dispose it.

• See also Section 8 of C.A. No. 141

7. Kincaid vs. Cabututan, GR No. 100072, November 29, 1916 25

• Spanish titles although evidences of ownership may be lost thru prescription. The
exception, of course, is the Torrens title, expressly recognized to be indefeasible and
imprescriptible

8. Oh Cho vs Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-48321, August 31, 1946

• All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the public domain.

LAND CLASSIFICATION (Old)

9. Mapa vs. Insular Government, G.R. No. L-3793, February 19, 1908

• The only definition that can be said to be given to agricultural lands as used in Act No.
926 means those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral
lands according to their agricultural nature and productiveness

• Early cases

9. de Aldecoa vs Insular Government (G.R. No. 3894. March 12, 1909) 28

• Where land is not mining or forestall in its nature, it must necessarily be included within
the classification of agricultural land, not because it is actually used for the purposes of
agriculture, but because it was originally agricultural and may again become so under
other circumstances.

10. Cornelio Ramos vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 13298 November 19, 1918

• The presumption should be, in lieu of contrary proof, that land is agricultural in nature;
the Director of Forestry should submit to the court convincing proof that the land is not
more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes

11. Jocson vs Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-13756 , January 30, 1919

• The inclusion of manglares in the definition of forestry land in Administrative Code of

1917 does not affect vested rights acquired prior to its enactment.

12. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abella, G.R. No. L-25010 October 27, 1926

• The petitioner should present evidence to show that the land is more valuable to
forestry than to agricultural purposes.

13. Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila (18 G.R. No. L-630. November 15, 1947)

• Residential lands are neither mineral nor timber lands therefore it must be classified as
agricultural lands

LAND CLASSIFICATION (New)

Page 1 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

14. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. vs. Dumyung (GR No. L-31666, April 20, 1979)

• It is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain
classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots
even in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.

15. Heirs of Amunategui vs Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-27873, November 29, 1983

• The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as
"forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of
the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of
imperfect title do not apply.

16. Benguet, Inc. v. Republic and Joey de la Rosa, G.R. No. L-43938 April 15, 1988

• Once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever the use to which it is being devoted
at the time, such use may be discontinued by the State to enable it to extract the
minerals therein in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.

• Recognizes vested rights in mineral lands.

17. Republic vs. Court of Appeals and dela Rosa (GR No. L-43938, April 15, 1988)

• The rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural
and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the land must be either
completely mineral or completely agricultural.

18. Cruz vs. DENR Secretary (G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000)

• Long Summary

19. Sta. Monica Industrial vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150327. June 18, 2003

• Lands registered prior to the present system of land classification are not subject to
reversion notwithstanding its present classification as forest reserves;

• Concept of vested rights.

20. Director of Forestry vs. Villareal (G.R. No. L-32266 February 27, 1989)

• En Banc, the SC clarified the conflicting decisions regarding the classification of

mangroves as part of public forests; said land is not subject to acquisition except if the
applicant acquired vested rights prior to the enactment of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1917 classifying mangroves as part of public forest.

21. Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127245, 30 January 2001.

• En Banc; The land registration court which had the jurisdiction to determine whether the
land applied for was agricultural, forest or timber taking into account the proof or
evidence in each particular case; land classification does not affect private lands.

22. Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Carag and Turingan (G.R. No. 155450,
August 6, 2008)

• Titles adjudicated by the court over forest lands by reason of vested rights prior to
classification as forest valid titles and are not subject to reversion.

23. DENR vs Yap (G.R. No. 167707, October 08, 2008)

• A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable;The classification is

descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the
land actually looks like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an
official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.

24. DOJ Opinion No. 23, Series of 1995.

25. Menguito v. Republic, GR No. 134308, December 14, 2000

• Surveyor’s notation on the plan that the land is inside A and D land is not sufficient
evidence

26. Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, GR No. 154953, June 26, 2008

• SC held that in order to prove that the land is A and D, the applicants must present a
copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary

LAND SURVEYS

Page 2 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

27. Gabriel Lasam v. Director of Lands and Jose Chan hong Hin, et al., G.R. No. L-42859,
March 17, 1938

• An applicant for registration of land, if he relies on a document evidencing his title, must
prove not only the genuiness of his title but the identity of the land

28. Cambridge Realty and Resources Corporation vs. Eridanus Development, Inc. and
Chiton Realty Corp., (G.R. No. 152445, July 4, 2008)

• The court needs technical aid in resolving land boundary conflicts.

29. Felipe de Guzman vs. Manuel de Santos, (G.R. No. 6609. December 2, 1911

• Errors of description, which appear in an old recorded title and which have been
successively repeated in subsequent transfers, do not affect the validity of the
registered title when it is shown that the land sought to be inscribed is exactly the same
as that included in the old deeds; When, according to an old registered title, the land
appears to be slightly greater in area than it actually is, such discrepancy does not
operate to vitiate or to weaken the title thus inscribe

30. Jose and Jose vs. Baltazar, G.R. Nos. L-9543 and L-9703, April 11, 1957

• A land survey that shows a different area from the one originally decreed does not by
itself conclusively prove that the land shown in the new survey is different for the
variance in area may have been due to computational errors committed by the original
surveyor.

31. Benin vs. Tuason, GR No. L-26127. June 28, 1974

• Errors in the plans does not nullify the decrees of registration. It is the land and not the
plan which is registered. Prior to the enactment of Act No. 1875, practically all plans for
land registration were defective especially in regard to errors of closures and areas, but
so far no such errors have been permitted to affect the validity of the decrees. If the
boundaries of the land registered can be determined, the technical description in the
certificate of title may be corrected without cancelling the decree. Such corrections
have been made in this case by approved surveys which embrace all of the land here in
question. To nullify and cancel final decrees merely by reason of faulty technical
descriptions would lead to chaos.

32. Golloy v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 47491, May 4, 1989)

• Effect of errors in survey vs actual occupation

LAND TITLING AND DISPOSITION

33. Director of Lands vs. Abad, G.R. No. L-36992 March 7, 1933

34. MERALCO vs. Judge Castro-Bartolome, G.R. No. L-49623 June 29, 1982

• Lands would cease to be public land only upon the issuance of the certificate of title.

35. Republic vs. Judge Candido Villanueva and INC, G.R. No. L-55289, June 29, 1982

• Corporation soul disqualified to apply for registration of land

36. Director of Lands vs. IAC and Acme Plywood and Veneer Co. Inc. G.R. No. 73002,
December 29, 1986)

• Alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his predecessors-in-

interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period is
converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of said period, ipso jure;
abandoned the ruling in Meralco and Iglesia ni Cristo.

37. Malabanan vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009

• Rule on Prescription and possession in confirmation of imperfect title

38. Evangelista vs. Tabayuyong, G.R. No. L-3361. March 5, 1907

• Tax receipts are no evidence of title to land, unsupported by other proper proof.

POSSESSION / TAX DECLARATION

39. Casimiro vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-4046. January 13, 1908

• That the payment of taxes is not alone sufficient evidence of ownership or possession.

40. Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring, G.R. No. L-4000, January 5, 1909

Page 3 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

• The payment of taxes on property does not “alone” constitute sufficient evidence of title
but constitute good faith on the part of the person occupying and retaining possession
of the land.

41. Province of Camarines Sur vs. Director of Lands, 64 Phil. 600

• Tax declaration not sufficient to claim title if claimant fails to show continuity of
possession by his predecessor.

42. San Miguel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57667 May 28, 1990

• Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership or right of possession over a
piece of land and only become strong evidence of ownership when accompanied by
proof of actual possession.

43. Susana Meguinto, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 134308, December 14,
2000

• Title can be registered only upon presentation of incontrovertible proof of adverse,

notorious and open possession in the concept of owner for a period of thirty years. The
tax declarations presented are of recent vintage and cast serious doubts on petitioner’s
claim of open, continuous, exclusive and adverse passion and occupation of the land.

ACCRETION
44. Republic vs. C.A. and Tancinco, et al., G.R. No. L-61647 October 12, 1984;

• Requisite of accretion. The the deposit is gradual and imperceptible; that it be made
through the effects of the current of the water; and that the land where accretion takes
place is adjacent to the banks of the water. Alluvion must be exclusive work of nature
and not as a result of a dike.

45. Republic vs. Santos III and Santos, Jr., November 12, 2012, 2012G.R. No. 160453

• By law, accretion - the gradual and imperceptible deposit made through the effects of
the current of the water- belongs to the owner of the land adjacent to the banks of
rivers where it forms. The drying up of the river is not accretion. Hence, the dried-up
river bed belongs to the State as property of public dominion, not to the riparian owner,
unless a law vests the ownership in some other person.

46. Ignacio Grande vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-17652, June 30, 1962

• Owners of registered lands where accretion occurs may loose the accretion by
prescription through adverse possession. The accretion does not automatically
becomes registered lands and does not enjoy the benefit of imprescriptibility.

47. Mindanao, et al. vs. Director of Lands, L-19535, July 10, 1967

49. Balboa vs. Farrales, G.R. No. L-27059, February 14, 1928;

• The execution and delivery of the patent after the right to it has become complete are
the mere ministerial acts of the officers charged with that duty. The right to a patent
became vested and is, as against the government, equivalent to a patent actually
issued.

PATENTS
50. Julian v. Apostol, Secretary of DANR, et al, G.R. No. 29040. December 14, 1928

• Under the provisions of section 70 of Act No. 926, in relation with section 4 of Act No.
2874, the decision of the Director of Lands is final and conclusive upon all questions of
fact relating to homesteads which fall within the scope of his authority, when said
decision is approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

51. Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, G.R. No. 39919. January 30, 1934

• A decision rendered by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, upon a question of fact is conclusive and not
subject to be reviewed by the courts, in the absence of a showing that such decision
was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition or mistake, other than error of
judgment in estimating the value or effect of evidence.

52. Clotilde Mejia vda. de Alfafara vs. Secretary Mapa and Compana G.R. No. L-7042, May
28, 1954

Page 4 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

• The decision of the Secretary of the DENR upon a question of fact is conclusive and not
subject to review by the court in the absence of fraud, impositions or mistake. However,
such decisions, as relates to a question of law is in no sense conclusive upon the
courts, but is subject to review. Any action of the Secretary with is base upon a
misconstruction of the law can be corrected by the courts.

54. Republic vs. Diamonon, G.R. No. L-7813, October 31, 1955;

• Violation of conditions of the patent shall produce the effect of annulling and cancelling
the grant.

55. Republic vs. Judge Animas, Du Timbol, G.R. No. L-37682 March 29, 1974

• A patent is void at law if the officer who issued the patent had no authority to do so. If a
person obtains a title under the Public Land Act which includes, by mistake or
oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens System, or when the
Director of Lands did not have jurisdiction over the same because it is a public forest,
the grantee does not, by virtue of said certificate of title alone, become the owner of the
land illegally included.

56. Diaz and Reyes vs. Macalinao, et al, G.R. No. L-10747, January 31, 1958, En Banc

• A homesteader who has been granted entry for a homestead by the Director of Lands
and thereafter deprived by another of the possession thereof, can bring an action in
court for the recovery of the same. A homestead entry having been permitted by the
Director of Lands the homestead is segregated from the public domain and the Director
of Lands divested of the control and possession thereof except if the application is
finally disapproved and the entry annulled or revoked.

57. Pascua vs. Talens, G.R. No. L-348 April 30, 1948

• R.A. No. 11231 removes only the right of redemption in Free Patents but not in
Homestead Patents

58. Dauan vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ilarde, et al., G.R. No.
L-19547. January 31, 1967, En Banc

• A transfer of rights without the previous approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources "shall result in the cancellation of the entry and the refusal of the
patent" of the appellee but the cancellation is not automatic and as long as the
Government has not chosen to act, the rights of appellee must stand.

59. Simeon v. Peña, GR No. L-29049, December 29, 1970;

• The purpose of the repurchase was conclusively found to be for the speculative
purpose of redeeming the land only to dispose of it again for greater profit in violation of
the law’s policy and spirit.

60. Benzonan vs CA and Pe, GR No. 97973, January 27, 1992

• Pe utilized the land given to him for free by the Government for agricultural purpose as
commercial lot. He was not the kind of poor farmer for whom homesteads and free
patents were intended by the law.

REGISTRATION and OWNERSHIP

61. Director of Lands vs. Abache, et al.,G.R. No. L-47566, July 3, 1942

• Registration is void if the registered owner does not claim ownership; Registered
interest on void certificate is recognized if claimant is an innocent purchaser for value

62. Juan Galanza vs. Sotero Nuesa, GR No. L-6628, August 31, 1954

• Sale between the contracting parties binds them even if not registered; Redemption
under Section 119 is the date of sale in so far as redemption of the land by the patentee
is concern

63. Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals and Lee Tek Sheng (G.R. No. 115402, July
15, 1998)

• The Supreme Court recognizes that there could be equitable interest in a registered
title; ownership can still be disputed even if the ownership is registered under the
Torrens System

Page 5 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

64. Jose Ma. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Magpayo and PBC G.R. No. 133140.
August 10, 1999

• Registration does not confer ownership but is merely evidence of such ownership; the
deed of sale operates as a formal or symbolic delivery of the property sold.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM

65. Tyler vs. Judges of the Court of Registration, 175 Mass. 71

• Petition for prohibition against the judges of the Court of Registration of Massachusetts
because it deprives all persons except the registered owner of of any interest on the
land without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US
Constitution.

66. Title and Document Restoration Co. v. Kerrigan, 150 Cal, 289

• On Notice by Publication: The legislature may provide entirely novel and unprecedented
methods of procedure, provided that they afford the parties affected the substantial
securities against arbitrary and unjust spoliation which are embraced within the system
of jurisprudence prevailing throughout the land.

67 Robinson vs. Kerrigan, 151 Cal. 40 (1907)

• Robinson wants to compel defendant judge to act on his petition for registration under
the Torrens System. Kerrigan refused saying that the act is unconstitutional and void.

TORRENS SYSTEM
68. Manuel Grey Alba, et al. vs. Anacleto De la Cruz, G.R. No. 5246, September 16, 1910

• Explained the purpose of the torrens system; actual fraud as distinguish from
constructive fraud

69. City of Manila vs Lack, G.R. No. 5987. April 7, 1911 96

• The purpose of the Torrens system is to bring the land titles of the Philippine Islands
under one comprehensive and harmonious system, the cardinal features of which are
indefeasibility of title and the intervention of the State as a prerequisite to the creation
and transfer of titles and interests with the resultant increase in the use of land as a
business asset by reason of the greater certainty and security of title. It does not create
a title nor vest one. It simply confirms a title already created and already vested,
rendering it forever indefeasible.

70. Duran v. IAC, GR No. L-64159, Sep. 10, 1985

71. Virginia Yumul vs. Cayetano Rivera and Julia Rita Dizon, GR No. L-23242, January 26,
1937

• Strong presumption exist that Torrens certificates of title have been regularly issued and
are valid;

EFFECT OF LAND REGISTRATION; IN REM

70. Maria Roxas vs. Rafael Enriquez, et al., G.R. No. L-8539 December 24, 1914

• The proceedings for the registration of land, under Act No. 496, are in rem and not in
personam. A proceeding in rem, dealing with a tangible res, may be instituted and
carried to judgment without personal service upon the claimants within the state or
notice by name to those outside of it.

73. Consuelo Legarda vs N.M. Saleeby, G.R. No. L-8936, Oct. 2, 1915

• The case discusses the effects of registration in the torrens system

• In Rem; Notice to the whole world; After the registration is complete and final and there
exists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who may claim an interest.

74. Lucio Buzon vs. Maximo Licauco, G.R. No. L-4966, March 27, 1909

• Unrecorded sale does not bind the land; inferior against a recorded lien

75. Tuason vs. Raymundo, G.R. No. L-9372 December 15, 1914

• Registered sale superior as against an earlier unregistered sale

76. Sikatuna vs. Guevarra and Francisco, G.R. No. L-18336, March 15, 1922

• A registered sale prevailed against a Court decision affirming an unregistered right to

purchase

Page 6 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

77. Dean Worcester vs. Gervacio Ocampo, G.R. No. L-8452 August 2, 1916

• The act of registration is the operative act that binds registered land

78. Bass v. De la Rama, G.R. No. L-47662, September 30, 1942

• Encumbrances becomes effective, in so far the third persons are concern, only upon
annotation in the certificate of title

NOTICE IS EQUIVALENT TO REGISTRATION

79. Obras Pias de la Sagrada Mitra del Arzobispado de Manila vs. Felizarda Ignacio et al.,
G.R. No. 5052, September 16, 1910

• Actual notice is equivalent to registration

• The case is under the Spanish Mortgage Law; this rule is applied in other registration
system

80. Victoria T. de Winkleman and C.L. Winkleman vs. Filemon Veluz, G.R. No. L-17314, July
3, 1922

• Purpose of Registration

• Notice is equivalent to registration; what is involved is unregistered land; DOCTRINAL

CASE

81. Mercedes Gustilo, et al. v. Herminiano Maravilla, G.R. No. L-23386, December 12, 1925

• Notice is equivalent to registration; unregistered lease has to be respected if the buyer

has actual knowledge of the fact

82. Vicente Sapto, et al., v. Apolonia Fabiana, GR No. L-11285, May 16, 1958

• Heirs of the seller cannot recover land where the certificate of title was not registered/
transferred to the buyer; actual notice is equivalent to registration

WHEN IS THE TRANSACTION CONSIDERED REGISTERED

83. Development Bank of the Philippines v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija UDK
No. 7671 June 23, 1988

• Submission of all the requirements and entry in the primary entry book is sufficient
registration when the original certificate was lost in the Registry

84. NHA vs. Basa, G.R. No. 149121, April 20, 2010

• Submission of all the requirements and entry in the primary entry book is sufficient
registration when the certificate was burned in the registry

85. Jose Agbulos vs. Jose Alberto, G.R. No. L-17483, July 31, l962

• It is registration of the certificate of sale is the reckoning period in determining period of

redemption not the date of actual sale

86. Reyes vs. Noblejas, G.R. No. L-23691, November 25, 1967

• The deed of sale does not ‘take effect as a conveyance, or bind the land’ until it is
registered

INDEFEASIBLE TITLE
87. Lopez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-49739, January 20, 1989

• Buyer relied in what is written in the certificate of title; unregistered interest of the
deceased wife was disregarded by the court

88. Felipa Faja vs. CA and Levine Frial, GR No. L.-45045, February 28, 1977

• Presentation of the certificate of title not conclusive to the court if the action is for
reconveyance base on fraud

89. Solid State Multi-Products Corp. v. CA, Estate of Virata and DBP, GR No. 8338, May 6,
1991

• Null and void title does not vest ownership; friar lands; infirmities in the acquisition;

Conrado Fule and Lourdes Aragon v. Emilia De Legare, G.R. No. L-17951, February 28,
1963

• Presentation of Owner’s Duplicate certificate of title is conclusive authority from the

registered owner to proceed with the registration

90. Marcos De la Cruz vs. Fabie, G.R. No. 8160, October 27, 1916

Page 7 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

• Plaintiff filed 3 consecutive cases to recover land lost through a fraudulent deed, first for
annulment of deed, second for damages against the fraudster and the Insular Treasurer
and third, against the holder of the certificate; the holder is an IPV BGF,Liz pendent was
after the sale thus, plaintiff cannot recover, good faith deemed admitted by plaintiff in
the demurrer, negligence of plaintiff in the commission of the fraud.

91. Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Tan, et al. G.R. No. 117609.
December 29, 1998

• Indefeasibility of title should be upheld absent any clear, positive and convincing
evidence of forgery; good faith is presumed

92. Consorcia Tenio-Obsequio vs. CA and Spouses Ponciano Alimpoos, G.R. No. 107967
March 1, 1994

• Negligence of the registered owner made the forgery possible, thus he must bear the
loss; constructive notice 22 years from registration of forged deed 138

93. Lilia Gonzales vs. IAC and the Rural Bank of Pavia, G.R. No. L-69622 January 29, 1988

• Banks had the right to rely on what appeared on the certificate of title but are required
to exercise more care and prudence in its dealing even with registered land for their
business is affected with public interest keeping money in trust for their depositor

94. Artemio Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78728 December 8, 1988 140

• Titles emanating from Herogennes Rodriguez certificate could not a valid source of title
even if acquired in good faith

95. Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Rural Bank of Pavia., G.R. No. L-69622,
January 29, 1988

• Reconstitution; Mortgage in Good Faith; Foreclosure Sale with Lis Pendens

96. Rural Bank of Sariaya, Inc. vs. Yacon et al., G.R. No. 78011, July 5, 1989;

97. Juanita Pineda and Lilia Sayoc vs. Court of Appeals and Teresita Gonzales, G.R. No.
114172. August 25, 2003

• An annotation on a void certificate of title, if done in good faith, binds the property; Void
certificate because the court has no jurisdiction to re-issue another owners duplicate if
the first certificate is not loss or damage;

98. Director of Lands vs. Basilio Abache, et al., G.R. No. L-47566 July 3, 1942

• Encumbrance of a voided certificate of title was carried to the new certificate issued to
another person; registration in good faith and for value

99. Crisanta Seno, et al vs. Marcos Mangubat, et al., G.R. No. L-44339 December 2, 1987

• Buyer in good faith - purchaser relied on decision of the court and the certificate of title
in buying the land

100. Bonifacio Lopez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Pedro Pinohermoso et al., G.R. No.
L-49739, January 20, 1989)

• The presumption is that the transferee of registered land is not aware of any defect in
the title of the property he purchased

101. Emiliano Casipit v. CA, spouses Severino and Zenaida Diaz, et al. GR No. 96829, Dec.
9, 1991

102. Socorro Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, Norma San Jose and Diana Torres, GR No.
91383, May 31, 1991

• Bad Faith; lawyer knows the defect; closed the eyes to things which should put a
reasonable man on guard

103. State Investment House vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115548. March 5, 1996

• Financial Institution cannot simply rely on an examination of the torres certificate;

constructive knowledge of the defect due to its negligence to investigate

104. Aurelia de Lara and Rufino de Guzman vs. Jacinto Ayroso, G.R. No. L-6122, May 31,
1954

• Failure to verify the identity of the seller is bad faith

105. Jose T. Abad vs. Spouses Vivian and Ceasar Guimba, G.R. No. 157002, July 29, 2005

Page 8 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

• There is bad faith when the buyer did not ascertain the identity of the seller

106. Embrado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51457 June 27, 1994

• Sale is in bad faith; also, a deed of sale of a conjugal property executed by the wife
without her husband's consent is null and void

107. Angela Blondeau vs. Nano and Vallejo, G.R. No. L-41377 , July 26, 1935

• Negligence of the registered owner in parting with his owner’s duplicate; a forged
transfer may become the root of a valid title in a bona fide purchaser

108. C.N. Hodges vs. Dy Buncio, et al., G.R. No. L-16096, October 30, 1962.

• Claim of indefeasibility can only be made if the previous title from which it was derived
in a valid or existing title; not possible if the title was acquired by way of a collateral
attack

109. Treasurer of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Eduardo and Nora
Ocson, G.R. No. L-42805 August 31, 1987

• Collateral Attack; Transfer of title when the registered owner has the owner’s duplicate
162

110. Register of Deeds vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-17641, January 30, 1965

• A claim of good faith (indefeasibility of title) cannot prevail if a previous valid title to land
does not exist; collateral attack

111. Toyota Motors Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Sun Valley Manufacturing and
Development Corporation,G.R. No.102881 December 7, 1992

• Collateral Attack action for reformation

112. Mariano Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals and Jose Paguia, GR No. L-28591, October 31,
1969

• Questioning the validity of the certificate of title in an Answer is a Collateral Attack;

Prescription of action to contest is 10 years; Presumption of regularity of Issuance of
Patent

113. Fortunate Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations, Halili Bus Drivers Union [G.R. No.
L-24864. May 30, 1996

• Collateral Attack NLRC sold land

114. Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

• A counter-claim is a direct attack on the title

115. Gabriel Leyson v. Naciansion Bontuyan and Maurecia Bontuyan, GR No. 156357, Feb.
18, 2005

• There is no prescription if you are in possession

• A counter-claim is a direct attack on the title

• Badly written decision

116. Celso Ledesma v. Municipality of Iloilo (49 Phil. 769 [1926]

• Mistake in the inclusion of lots in the certificate of title; the holder of the certificate
claims ownership and compensation from the municipality

117. Pacifico Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, PNB, Carolina Lapuz-Gozon, G.R. Nos. L-48971
& 49011 January 22, 1980

• The Levin vs. Bass case not applicable; a void title cannot be a source of a valid title

118. Heirs of Gonzaga v. CA and Spouses Leelin, G.R. No. 96259. September 3, 1996

• Mistakes that causes the issuance of two titles over the same land; a case of collateral
attack; the second certificate is not conclusive proof of ownership

EQUITABLE TITLES
119. Vivencia Estrellado vs. Proceso Martinez, G.R. No. L-23847, November 18, 1925

• Period to challenge decrees

120. Benta Salao, et al vs. Juan Salao, et al. G.R. No. L-26699 March 16, 1976

• Express, Implied and Resulting Trust explained; laches; prescription of action

121. Maximo Carantes v. CA and Bilad Carantes, et al., G.R. No. L-33360 April 25, 1977

• Constructive trust; Continuing trust; Prescription of action

Page 9 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

122. Eufemia Pajarillo vs. IAC, Salud Suterio and Pedro Matias, G.R. No. 72908, August 11,
1989

• Action for reconveyance base on constructive trust prescribed in ten (10) years;
Relatives fighting for land

123. Marcelino Agne, et al. vs. Director of Lands, Presentation Agpoon Gascon, et al, G.R.
No. L-40399 February 6, 1990 184

• Indefeasibility will not attach if the title is void (jurisdiction); No laches on actual
possessor

124. Juliana Caragay-Layno v. CA and Salvador Estrada, G.R. No. L-52064 December 26,
1984

• No laches in an action for reconveyance if the claimant is in possession; land that had
been wrongfully registered in the name of another, but which had not yet passed into
the hands of third parties, can properly seek its reconveyance

125. Galiciano Golloy v. CA and Jose Valdez, Jr. et al., (G.R. No. 47491. May 4, 1989.

• Laches defeats indefeasible title; overlapping of two (2) registered lands, long time
possession was given premium

126. Consuelo Vda. De Recinto v. Ruperto Inciong, G.R. No. L-26083 May 31, 1977

• Laches does not apply to actual possessor; Torrens system not a shield for the
commission of fraud; mere possession of a certificate of title does not make the
possessor the owner.

ACTIONS FOR RECONVEYANCE

128 Fabiola Severino vs. Guillermo Severino, G.R. No. 18058. January 16, 1923.

• The principal’s right of action to compel a reconveyance is not extinguished through the
registration of the land in favor of the agent; though the final decree of registration may
not be reopened after the expiration of one year from the date of its entry, there appears
to be no reason why the agent should not be compelled, through a suit in equity, to
make such reparation as may lie within his power for the breach of trust committed by
him, and as long as the land stands registered in his name such reparation may take the
form of a conveyance or transfer of the title to the cestui que trust, i.e., the principal.

129. Monserrat Palet vs. Gabriel Tejedor, et al., G.R. No. L-34048, March 10, 1931

• A co-heir who obtained a certificate of title in fraud may be compelled to reconvey so

long as it remains registered in his name, and a third party has not acquired it in good
faith for a valuable consideration.

130. Vda. De Jacinto v. Vda de Jacinto G.R. No. L-17955, May 31, 1962

• Reconveyance of a co-heir does not prescribe

131. Municipality of Hagonoy vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, G.R. No.
L-27595 October 26, 1976

• When to file an action for reconveyance; action for reconveyance when the party claims
that the land is private property 193

132. Aznar Brothers Realty vs. Court of Appeals and Aying, et al. G.R. No. 128102, March 7,
2000

133. Laurentio Armentia v. Erlinda Patricia, et al., G.R. No. L-18210, December 29, 1966

• Discovery must be reckoned to have taken place from the time the document was
registered in the office of the register of deed; Prescription of action to annul a contract
base on fraud must be filed without four years from discovery; facts of the case should
be consider to appreciate the decision of the court

134. Consuelo Cultura, et al. v. Hon. Lauro Tapucar Benarda Andaya and Andaya Realty
Corporation, G.R. No. L-48430 December 3, 1985

• An action to annul contract prescribes in four years from registration of the deed.

135. Liwalug Amerol, et al. v. Molok Bagumbaran, G.R. No. L-33261. September 30, 1987

• Prescription on action for reconveyance explained; constructive trust vs fraudulent

instrument

Page 10 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

• Encumbrance to the cancelled title was not carried to the new certificate

136. Eliseo Caro, et al. vs. CA, Serafin, Jose and Gemme Ronzales, G.R. No. 76148
December 20, 1989

• Supreme Court explained prescription of action base on implied trust vs. fraud 201

137. Paz Villagonzalo, et al. v. IAC and Cecilia Villagonzalo, GR No. 71110, Nov. 22, 1988

• Implied trust prescription of action ten years

138. Concordia Lucas vs. Andres Gamponia, GR No. L-9335, Oct. 31, 1956

• Registered owner defeated by laches

• Violation of prohibition to transfer of free patent ignored by the court

139. Flora Campanero, et al. vs. Apolonio Coloma, L-11908, January 30, 1960

• Sale in violation of Section 118 is null and void, original patentee re-acquire the land.

• No indefeasibility of title, the prohibition is annotated in the certificate of title

140. Republic v. Ramono Ruiz, et al., GR No. L-23712, April 29, 1968

• Violation of Section 118 is a cause for reversion and renders the deed of conveyance
null and void

141. Nestro Lacsamana, El Dorado Plantation, LBJ Corp. and Conrad Levisted vs. CA,
Ester Robles, et al. GR No. 121658, March 27, 1988

• An action for reconveyance base of fictitious deed does not prescribe; Not a buyer in
good faith due to the circumstances

142. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank as Administrator of the Testate Estate of
Charles Hodges v. Nemeriano Villalva, David Lozada and CA, G.R. No. L-28194 November
24, 1972

• Torrens certificate of title not a shield to fraud; no prescription in implied trust if contract
is fictitious; bad faith

143. Bernardo Lopez, et al. vs. Emilio and Alberto Padilla, G.R. No. L-27559 May 18, 1972

• Only in the Solicitor General can institute the action for reversion; the only exception is
in instances of enforcement of a constructive trust

144. Antonio Pinero, Jr. et al. vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-36507 June 14, 1974

• Registration of Patents not a bar to subsequent right of the Director of Lands to

investigate patentees for fraud in the application; title to the land has not yet been
transferred to an innocent purchaser for value

145. Heirs of Tanak Pangawaran Patiwayan v. Hon. Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-49027 June
10, 1986

• Differentiated Reversion from Reconveyance; prescriptive period to file an action for

recovery base on implied trust is 10 years

146. Egao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-79787, June 29, 1989

• Prohibition on sale free patent; Reversion only the the Solicitor General; Negligence is
equivalent to bad faith

147. Republic vs. Judge Umali, Remedios Miclat, et al. G.R. No. 80687, April 10, 1989

• Torrens title acquired it in good faith by the holder not subject to reversion even if the
land was acquired from the government through fraud by the original grantee

ADVERSE CLAIM
148. Elisa Gabriel vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal and Juanita Domingo, G.R. No. L-17956,
Sept. 30, 1963

• Conditions for the annotation of adverse claim; excludes frivolous claims

149. Alfredo and Conchita Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals, Sheriff & RD of Markina, G. R. No.
102377, July 5, 1996

150. Felipa Garbin vs. CA and Spouses Antonio Julian and Casimira Garbin, G.R. No.
107653, February 5, 1996

• Effect of Adverse Claim - Bad Faith; Constructive Notice to buyer

PRIORITY OF RIGHTS
152. Vicente Lopez vs. Vijandre, et al. G.R. No. L-47551 April 25, 1941

Page 11 of 12
 Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson

Land Titles and Deeds

List of Cases V.3

• Prior registered mortgage is superior to an attachment sale

153. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Noblejas, 105 Phil. 418.

• Equitable claims registered after registration of mortgage were not carried to the new
certificate upon foreclosure; innocent purchaser for value protected against equitable
claims

154. Asturias Sugar Central, Inc vs Corazo Segovia and FZ Ledda and Co. L-15590, August
31, 1960

• Priority of rights thereon is generally determined by the priority of registratioN

155. Heirs of Luis Gonzaga v. CA and Spouses Jose Leelin and Lilia Sevilla, G.R. No.
96259, September 3, 1996

• Earlier registration prevails; subsequent registration null if the land is already decreed
and/or registered; Collateral attack

156. Sales Entrerprise, Inc. V. IAC, 154 SCRA 327

• Earlier registration prevails; subsequent registration null if the land is already decreed
and/or registered; Collateral attack

157. Leonardo and Rosa Azarcon v. Leopoldo Vallarta, et al. G.R. No. L-43679 October 28,
1980

• Prior registration rule not valid if the title is defective; claim that the land is public land
when in fact it is private makes free patent defective

158. DBP v. Mangawang, 11 SCRA 405

• One owner, two certificates in his name; first buyer wins

REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 113 OF PD NO. 1529

159. Lucio Buzon vs. Maximo Licauco, GR No. 4966. March 27, 1909

160. Casimiro vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-4046. January 13, 1908

161. Juan Dacasin v. Court of Appeals, Felipe Capua, et al. GR No. L-32723, Oct 28, 1977

• Registered deed must prevail over unregistered deed; obiter used as supporting
argument only; period of prescription not sufficient was the primary reason by the SC

162. Iluminado Hanopol vs. Perfecto Pilapil, G.R. No. L-19248, February 28, 1963

163. National Grain Authority vs. IAC, Melencio Magcamit, et al. G.R. No. L-68741 January
28, 1988

• Claim of prior registration of sale under Act No. 3344 (Section 113 of PD No. 1529) not
sufficient to defeat acquisition in good faith under Section 44 of PD No. 1529

CONSULTA
164. Teodoro Almirol vs. The Register of Deeds of Agusan, G.R. No. L-22486, March 20,
1968

• Petition for Mandamus is not the remedy if RD refused to register

165. Blanco v. Esquierdo, G.R. No. L-15182, December 29, 1960

• "As between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of a
breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the
loss.”

Page 12 of 12