Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests

S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem

Abegail P. Galedo

G.R. No. 213568, July 05, 2016

ALICIA P. LOGARTA v. CATALINO M. MANGAHIS

FACTS:
Respondent Catalino M. Mangahis is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Sta. Rosa,
Laguna. He authorized Venancio Zamora to sell the subject property, who, in turn, delegated his
authority to Victor Peña. Peña entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Carmona Realty
and Development Corporation for the sale to Carmona Realty of contiguous parcels of land
which included the subject property. Carmona Realty agreed to deposit the total consideration
within thirty (30) days from the execution of the MOA. The release of the escrow deposits was
subject to Peña's submission of a number of documents, including the order of conversion from
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) allowing the use of the Malitlit Estate for residential,
industrial, commercial.

The MOA was annotated on the TCT. Respondent filed a petition to cancel the subject entries on
the ground that the MOA was a private document that had no legal effect because the Notary
Public before whom it was acknowledged was not commissioned as such. Petitioner contended
that the MOA was duly notarized in Makati City where the Notary Public, Atty. Loreto Navarro,
was commissioned. She also maintained that Peña had the authority to enter into the MOA at the
time it was executed, considering that respondent expressed his intention to revoke the same only
in the petition.] The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals ordered the cancellation of the
subject entries.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA and the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation of the subject entries.

DISCUSSION:
Yes, the CA and RTC erred in ordering the cancellation of the subject entries. An adverse claim
is a type of involuntary dealing designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real
property by apprising third persons that there is a controversy over the ownership of the land. It
seeks to preserve and protect the right of the adverse claimant during the pendency of the
controversy, where registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the
Property Registration Decree. Before a notice of adverse claim is registered, it must be shown
that there is no other provision in law for the registration of the claimant's alleged right in the
property.

HELD:
In the case at hand, there was no showing that respondent refused or failed to present the owner's
duplicate of TCT No. CLO-763, which would have prompted Carmona Realty to cause the
annotation of the MOA as an adverse claim instead of a voluntary dealing. Petition is granted.

Page 1 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo

G.R. No. 240199, April 10, 2019

SPOUSES ISIDRO R. SALITICO AND CONRADA C. SALITICO v. HEIRS OF

RESURRECCION MARTINEZ FELIX

FACTS:
Amanda is the registered owner of a parcel of land registered in her name under Original
Certificate of Title No. (OCT) P-1908, located in Bambang, Bulacan.
By virtue of a document, the subject property was inherited by the niece of Amanda.
Resurreccion, as the new owner of the subject property, executed a document which transferred
ownership over the parcel of land in favor of the petitioners Sps. Salitico. The latter then took
physical possession of the subject property. Respondent Recaredo was appointed as the executor
of the Huling Habilin, filed and which was eventually approved. Petitioners Sps. Salitico
received a demand letter requiring them to vacate the subject property and surrender possession
over it to the respondents heirs. To protect their interest over the subject property, the petitioners
Sps. Salitico executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim which was denied by the respondent RD.
Petitioners Sps. Salitico sought the delivery and return in their favor of the owner's duplicate
copy

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing petitioners Sps. Salitico's Complaint for Specific
Performance.

DISCUSSION:
The existence of a valid sale in the instant case does not necessarily mean that the RD may
already be compelled to cancel OCT P-1908 and issue a new title in the name of the petitioners
Sps. Salitico. According to Section 92 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529, a new certificate of
title in the name of the transferee shall be issued by the Register of Deeds only upon the
submission of a certified copy of the partition and distribution, together with the final judgment
or order of the court approving the same or otherwise making final distribution, supported by
evidence of payment of estate tax or exemption therefrom, as the case may be. There is no
showing that the Probate Court had issued an order of final distribution or an order in
anticipation of a final distribution, both of which the law deems as requirements before the RD
can issue a new certificate of title in the name of the petitioners Sps. Salitico. The rule does not
state that the transferee may already compel the issuance of a new certificate of title covering the
specific property in his/her name. Before the transferee may compel the issuance of a new
certificate of title covering specific property in his/her name, a final order of distribution of the
estate or the order in anticipation of the final distribution issued by the testate or intestate court
must first be had.

HELD:
The appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

Page 2 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo
Absent of any order of final distribution or an order in anticipation of a final distribution from
the Probate Court, the RD cannot be compelled at this time to cancel OCT P-1908 and issue a
new certificate of title in favor of the petitioners Sps. Salitico.

G.R. No. 192393, March 27, 2019

FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC., v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
SPOUSES SANTIAGO T. GO AND NORMA C. GO

FACTS:
Spouses Santiago and Norma Go filed a petition for registration over three (3) parcels of land the
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City which was eventually granted. Oppositors-appellants Fil-
Estate Management, Inc., Peaksun Enterprises and Export Corporation, entered their Opposition.
On October 3, 2002, the court a quo issued an order of general default except against the State
and the oppositors. Despite the opposition, the application for title was granted by the court a
quo. The CA held that spouses Go failed to prove (1) that the land applied for is alienable public
land; and (2) they openly, continuously, exclusively and notoriously possessed and occupied the
same since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that all lands applied for by spouses Go are lands of the
public domain

DISCUSSION:

RTC acted conformably with Section 25 of PD 1529, which provides that "if the opposition or
the adverse claim of any person covers only a portion of the lot and said portion is not properly
delimited on the plan attached to the application, conflicting claims of ownership or possession,
or overlapping of boundaries, the court may require the parties to submit a subdivision plan duly
approved by the Director of Lands." It is discretionary on the part of the land registration court
to require the parties to submit a subdivision plan duly approved by the appropriate government
agency. Regardless of how the said court exercises its discretion, the burden remains with the
oppositor or adverse claimant to convince by preponderance of evidence the land registration
court that there is an overlapping of boundaries. In this case, petitioners failed to do so.

HELD:

Petition is DENIED.

Page 3 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo

G.R. No. 190028 February 26, 2014

LETICIA P. LIGON vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI
CITY AND ITS PRESIDING JUDGE, JUDGE REYNALDO M. LAIGO, ET AL.,

FACTS:
Petitioner Leticia P. Ligon filed an amended complaint before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City for collection of sum of money and damages, rescission of contract, and
nullification of title with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. Ligon
alleged that Rosario Baladjay enticed her to extend a short-term payable in a month’s time and
secured by an Allied Bank post-dated check for the same amount. That they represented that she
and her husband Saturnino were in the process of selling their property. The check was
dishonored upon and Ligon discovered that the subject property had already been transferred to
Polished Arrow which is a dummy corporation of Sps. Baladjay’s. Ligon learned that the Makati
City RTC directed Atty. Garing, as the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City to register the Final
Deed of Sale and cancel TCT No. 8502 in the name of Sps. Baladjay and issue a new title in the
name of Ting, free from any liens and encumbrances.

Atty. Garing submitted the matter en consulta to the Land Registration Authority (LRA) as he
was uncertain whether the annotations on TCT No. 9273 should be carried over to TCT No.
8502. The Court directed Atty. Garing to comply with the First Assailed Order under pain of
contempt and pronounced that it was Atty. Garing’s ministerial duty "to promptly cancel TCT
No. 8502/T-44 in the name of defendant-spouses Baladjay and to issue a new Transfer
Certificate of Title in the name of the highest bidder, Leonardo J. Ting."

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Laigo acted with grave abuse of discretion.

DISCUSSION:

NO, the Court finds that Ligon failed to sufficiently show how the acts of each of the
respondents or Judge Laigo, constituted any of the acts punishable as a wilful disregard or
disobedience of a public authority. Laigo merely performed his judicial functions pursuant to the
December 9, 2004 Decision in the Makati City Case which had already attained finality. Thus,
without Ligon's proper substantiation, considering too that Judge Laigo's official acts are
accorded with the presumption of regularity, the Court is constrained to dismiss the indirect
contempt charges in this case.

HELD:

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City
is DIRECTED to carry over and annotate on TCT No. 31001 in the name of respondent Benito

Page 4 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo
G. Techico the original attachment lien of petitioner Leticia P. Ligon as described in this
Decision.

G.R. No. 217336, October 17, 2018

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. ILDEFONSO
ALEJANDRE AND ZENAIDA FERRER ALEJANDRE, RESPONDENTS

FACTS:
Spouses Alejandre filed an application for the registration of Lot No. 6487 under P.D. No. 1529.
They alleged that they are the owners of the subject property by virtue of a deed of sale or
conveyance; that the subject property was sold to them by its former owner Angustia Lizardo
Taleon by way of a Deed of Absolute Sale. The trial court granted the applicant spouses' motion
to submit original tracing cloth plan and technical description for purposes of facilitating the
approval of the re-surveyed plans as well as the submission of the new plan for the scrutiny and
approval of the LRA. LRA submitted its Final Report stating that it applied the corrected
technical description of the subject lot and no more discrepancy exists, however, the area was
increased by six (6) meters. Republic filed its Opposition to the application based on the
following grounds that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question
since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject land belongs to public domain

DISCUSSION:
Public lands not shown to have been classified, reclassified or released as alienable agricultural
land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable lands of public
domain. Therefore, the onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the
land subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant.

Respondents are claiming ownership over the land subject of their application for registration by
virtue of tradition, as a consequence of the contract of sale, and by succession in so far as their
predecessors-in-interest are concerned. Both modes are derivative modes of acquiring
ownership. Yet, they failed to prove the nature or classification of the land.  In the absence of
such incontrovertible proof of private ownership, the well-entrenched presumption arising from
the Regalian doctrine that the subject land is of public domain or dominion must be overcome.
Respondents failed to do this.

Page 5 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo
HELD:
Petition is hereby GRANTED.

G.R. No. 224515, July 3, 2017

REMEDIOS V. GEÑORGA vs. HEIRS OF JULIAN MELITON

FACTS:
Julian Meliton and the other Melitons are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Naga
City. During his lifetime, Julian sold portions of the subject land to various persons, among
others, to petitioner Remedios V. Geñorga's (petitioner) husband, Gaspar Geñorga, who took
possession and introduced improvements on the portions respectively sold to them. However,
Julian failed to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 8027 to enable the buyers,
including petitioner's husband, to register their respective deeds of sale, which eventually led to
the filing of a Petition for the surrender of the owner's duplicate copy. RTC of Naga City decided
in favor of the buyers. The said decision became final and executory on September 10, 2006 but
remained unexecuted due to the sheriff's failure to locate and serve the writ of execution on Ma.
Fe despite diligent efforts. Respondents filed a Complaint against petitioner seeking the
surrender of the subject owner's duplicate title with damages. They claimed that they are entitled
to the possession as registered owners.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the function of the Register of Deeds in registration of deeds is only ministerial.

DISCUSSION:
Yes, it is only ministerial. The Court finds that there is a partial factual partition or termination of
the co-ownership, which entitles the buyers to the segregation of their respective portions, and
the issuance of new certificates of title in their names upon compliance with the requirements of
law. Section 58 of PD 1529, otherwise known as the "Property Registration Decree," provides
the procedure for the registration of deeds or conveyances, and the issuance of new certificates of
titles involving only certain portions of a registered land, as in this case.

Upon the approval of the plan and technical descriptions, the original of the plan, together with a
certified copy of the technical descriptions shall be filed with the Register of Deeds for
annotation in the corresponding certificate of title. Section 53 of PD 1529 requires the
presentation of the owner's duplicate title for the annotation of deeds of sale. It bears to stress
that the function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds is only
ministerial in nature.41 Thus, the RD-Naga cannot be expected to retain possession of the subject
owner's duplicate title longer than what is reasonable to perform its duty. In the absence of a
verified and approved subdivision plan and technical description duly submitted for registration
on TCT No. 8027, it must return the same to the presenter, in this case, petitioner who, as
aforesaid, failed to establish a better right to the possession of the said owner's duplicate title as
against respondents.

Page 6 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo
HELD:
The petition is DENIED. 

G.R. No. 205004, August 17, 2016

SPOUSES ERNESTO IBIAS, SR. and GONIGONDA IBIAS, 
vs. BENITA PEREZ MACABEO

FACTS:
Benita filed a complaint for annulment of title against Spouses Ibias. She averred that she is one
of the heirs of Albina Natividad Y. Perez and Marcelo Ibias, both deceased and registered
owners of the parcel of land. That Ernesto executed an Affidavit of Loss alleging that the
Owner’s Duplicate of TCT No. 24605 was missing among his files. He testified that said
owner’s duplicate of title was lost while in his parents’ possession. Benita filed a perjury case
against defendant appellant Ernesto. Defendant-appellant Ernesto countered that he is the
registered owner of the land described in TCT No. 245124. He claimed that he and his late
brother Rodolfo are the only heirs of Marcelo and Albina Ibias.

ISSUE:
Whether or not CA commit any reversible error in cancelling TCT No. 245124 and reinstating
TCT No. 24605.

DISCUSSION:
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-
issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition. It does not
determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A
reconstituted title, like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the
land or estate covered. Section 109 applies only if the owner’s duplicate certificate is indeed lost
or destroyed. If a certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another
person, then the reconstituted title is void and the court that rendered the decision had no
jurisdiction. In the present case, the allegedly lost owner’s duplicate copy was in the possession
of Benita. The lost TCT was offered in evidence during the trial. The Spouses Ibias did not
contest the genuineness and authenticity of said TCT.

If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or
if not any reason the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may
order the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu
thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the
annulment of the outstanding duplicate.

HELD:
Petition is denied.

Page 7 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo

G.R. No. 186639, February 5, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EMMANUEL C. CORTEZ

FACTS:
Respondent Emmanuel C. Cortez filed with the RTC an application for judicial confirmation of
title over a parcel of land. Cortez submitted documents such as tax declarations for various years
from 1966 until 2005 and survey plan of the property, with the annotation that the property is
classified as alienable and disposable. As there was no opposition, the RTC issued an Order of
General Default and Cortez was allowed to present his evidence ex-parte. The Court granted the
application.

The Republic of the Philippines appealed to the CA alleging that the RTC erred in granting the
application for registration despite the failure of Cortez to comply with the requirements for
original registration of title. Petitioner alleged that there was no certification from any
government agency that the subject property had already been declared alienable and disposable.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision which granted the application for
registration filed by Cortez.

DISCUSSION:
Applicants for original registration of title to land must establish compliance with the provisions
of Section 14 of P.D. No. 1529. The first requirement was not satisfied in this case. Cortez
reliance on the foregoing annotation in the survey plan is amiss; it does not constitute
incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the subject property remains part of
the inalienable public domain. It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be
presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To prove
that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive
order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a
legislative act or statute. The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that
the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.

In the case at bar, while the Advance Plan bearing the notation was certified by the Lands
Management Services of the DENR, the certification refers only to the technical correctness of
the survey plotted in the said plan and has nothing to do whatsoever with the nature and
character of the property surveyed. Respondents failed to submit a certification from the proper
government agency to prove that the lands subject for registration are indeed alienable and
disposable.

Page 8 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo

HELD:
Petition is granted.

G.R. No. 211845, August 9, 2017

PEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and LAS BRISAS RESORT CORPORATION
vs.
MARTINEZ LEYBA, INC.

FACTS:
Plaintiff-Appellee Martinez Leyba, Inc. is a corporation and the registered owner of three (3)
contiguous parcels of land situated in Antipolo, Rizal. Defendants-Appellants Pen Development
Corporation and Las Brisas Resorts Corporation are also domestic corporations duly organized
and existing under Philippine laws. Appellants merged into one corporate entity under the name
Las Brisas Resmis Corporation. Martinez noticed that the construction of Las Brisas' fence
seemed to encroach on its land. Upon verification by surveyors, Martinez was informed that the
fence of Las Brisas overlaps its property. Martinez sent a Letter informing Las Brisas that the
fence it constructed encroaches on Martinez's land and requested Las Brisas to refrain from
further intruding on the same. Las Brisa5 did not respond to Martinez's letter and continued
developing its land. Martinez sent two (2) more Letters and eventually filed a Complaint for
Quieting of Title. Las Brisas denied that it encroached on Martinez's land and that it constructed
the Las Brisas Resort Complex within the land covered by TCT No. 153101.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is a builder in bad faith.

DISCUSSION:
Yes, there is no question that petitioners should be held liable to respondent for their obstinate
refusal to abide by the latter's repeated demands to cease and desist from continuing their
construction upon the encroached area. While petitioners may have been innocent purchasers for
value with respect to their land, this does not prove that they are equally innocent of the claim of
encroachment upon respondent's lands. The evidence suggests otherwise: despite being apprised
of the encroachment, petitioners turned a blind eye and deaf ear and continued to construct on
the disputed area. They did not bother to conduct their own survey to put the issue to rest, and to
avoid the possibility of being adjudged as builders in bad faith upon land that did not belong to
them.

The right of the owner of the land to recover damages from a builder in bad faith is clearly
provided for in Article 451 of the Civil Code. Jurisprudence consistently holds that ‘prescription
and laches cannot apply to registered land covered by the Torrens system' because 'under the

Page 9 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo
Property Registration Decree, no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

Under Section 47 of the Property Registration Decree, or Presidential Decree No. 1529, “No title
to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession."

HELD:
Petition is DENIED.

G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA

FACTS:
Respondent was the purchaser for value of the parcel of land situated in the Province of Aklan,
and subdivided. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the application for original
registration of title, contending that the respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had not been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the lands in question
since June 12, 1945. The court granted the application.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent failed to prove possession over the property applied for registration in
the concept required by law.

DISCUSSION:
Yes, respondent did not establish his required possession. The respondent did not satisfactorily
demonstrate that his or his predecessors-in-interest's possession and occupation were of the
nature and character contemplated by the law. None of his witnesses testified about any specific
acts of ownership exercised by him or his predecessors-in-interest on the lands.

The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the
conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other.
Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his
possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation
of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own
property.

In sum, the respondent did not prove that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in
continuous, exclusive, and adverse possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owners.
Hence, his application for original land registration fails.

Page 10 of 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests
S.Y. 2019-2020 – 1st Sem
Abegail P. Galedo

HELD:
The Court grants the petition for review on certiorari.

Page 11 of 11