GROUP 4-A

Christian Gabriel Cruz

John Mark Layog
Carla Louise Paragas
Maybelline Ubalde

Facts:

On December 2, 1969, Petitioner sold a 858 sq. m. parcel of land
Camarines Sur, to Gregorio B. Galarosa. The sale was recorded in the
Registry of Property of the Registry of Deeds of Camarines Sur on
December 3, 1969 pursuant to Act No. 3344.
Subsequently, Gregorio sold portions of the land to respondents
Conrado Rodrigo Balilla on November 4, 1976, Jaime Nacion on
January 10, 1977 and spouses Ireneo and Ester Moya in July 1977, and
Juanito Camalla on September 4, 1987. All buyers occupied the portion
they bought, built improvements thereon, and paid the taxes due
thereto.
The controversy arose when petitioner Juanita Naval, the great
granddaughter of Ildefonso, was issued on April 1, 1975 by the Register
of Deeds of Camarines Sur an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
RP-5386 (29791), covering 733 sq. m. of the subject land. She claimed
that she bought the subject land from Ildefonso in 1972.

On November 10, 1977, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of
possession against the repondents. However, the case was dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute the action for an
unreasonable length of time.
Almost 20 years later, or on April 21, 1997, petitioner re-filed the
complaint for recovery of possession with damages before the MCTC
of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, against the petitioners.
The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, then the respondents
appealed the decision to the RTC, which affirmed the assailed decision.
The C.A. then reversed the decision.

In this appeal, the issue for resolution is who has the superior right to a
parcel of land sold to different buyers at different times by its former
owner.

Ruling:
Article 1544 inapplicable to the case at bar since the subject land was
unregistered at the time of the first sale. The registration contemplated
under this provision has been held to refer to registration under the
Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as the operative
act that binds the land.
Act No. 3344, which provides for the registration of all instruments on
land neither covered by the Spanish Mortgage Law nor the Torrens
System. Under this law, registration by the first buyer is constructive
notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer in
good faith.

"The issue of good faith or bad faith of the buyer is relevant only where
the subject of the sale is registered land and the purchaser is buying the
same from the registered owner whose title to the land is clean x x x in
such case the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the registered
owner is protected if he is a purchaser in good faith for value." Since the
properties in question are unregistered lands, petitioners as
subsequent buyers thereof did so at their peril. Their claim of having
bought the land in good faith, i.e., without notice that some other
person has a right to or interest in the property, would not protect them
if it turns out, as it actually did in this case, that their seller did not own
the property at the time of the sale.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED

Facts:
The subject property is a 30,351 square meter parcel of land denominated as Lot
No. 3368, located at Lapu-Lapu City, and part of a total area of 30,777 square
meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20626 in the name of the
late petitioner Go Kim Chuan.
The entire property was originally owned by Esteban Bonghanoy, the great
grand father of the petitioners (the Amodias). The entire property was brought
under the operation of the Torrens System. However, the title thereto was lost
during the Second World War.
The Amodias allegedly executed an Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with
Deed of Absolute Sale whereby they extra-judicially settled the estate of
Esteban Bonghanoy and conveyed the subject property to respondent Aznar
Brothers Realty Company (AZNAR) for a consideration of P10,200.00. The said
Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was
registered under Act 3344 as there was no title on file at the Register of Deeds
of Lapu-Lapu City (Register of Deeds). Thereafter, AZNAR made some
improvements and constructed a beach house thereon.


On February 18, 1989, the Amodias executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Absolute Sale, conveying the subject property in favor
of Go Kim Chuan for and in consideration of P70,000.00. The lost title
covering the subject property was reconstituted pursuant to Republic
Act (RA) No. 26. A reconstituted title particularly designated as
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-2899 was issued in the
name of Esteban Bonghanoy and, subsequently, a derivative title (TCT
No. 20626) was issued in the name of Go Kim Chuan on December 1,
1989. Thereafter, Go Kim Chuan exercised control and dominion over
the subject property in an adverse and continuous manner and in the
concept of an owner.


On February 14, 1990, AZNAR wrote a letter to petitioners Amodias
asking the latter to withdraw and/or nullify the sale entered into
between them and Go Kim Chuan. On the same date, a Notice of
Adverse Claimwas annotated by AZNAR on TCT No. 20626. Because
petitioners did not heed AZNAR's demand, on April 25, 1990, AZNAR
filed a case against petitioners Amodias and Go Kim Chuan for
Annulment of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. 20626 alleging that the
sale to Go Kim Chuan was an invalid second sale of the subject
property which had earlier been sold to it. Petitioners Amodias denied
that they executed the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed
of Absolute Sale in favor of AZNAR, claiming that their purported
signatures thereon were forged. Trial on the merits ensued.

Whether or not Go Kim Chuan or AZNAR has the better right over the
subject property.

Ruling :
AZNAR registered the sale in its favor under Act 3344 despite its full
knowledge that the subject property is under the operation of the
Torrens System. To repeat, there can be no constructive notice to the
second buyer through registration under Act 3344 if the property is
registered under the Torrens system.



Moreover, before buying the subject property, Go Kim Chuan made
verifications with the Office of the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu City and
the Register of Deeds. He likewise visited the premises of the subject
property and found that nobody interposed any adverse claim against
the Amodias. After he decided to buy the subject property, he paid all
taxes in arrears, caused the publication of the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Absolute Sale in a newspaper of general circulation,
caused the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title and caused the
issuance of the assailed TCT in his name. Given these antecedents,
good faith on the part of Go Kim Chuan cannot be doubted.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51814 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Facts:
The spouses Elias P. Javier and Maria Sison died on May 8, 1942 and
July 1936, they were survived by their six children and one of them is
Carmen Javier. When Carmen died, she was still single and without any
compulsory heir and survived only be her siblings Encarnacion,
Praxide, Juana and Nicasio. One afternoon, according to the daughter
of Praxide, Milagros, a certain Rosing Cruz went to their house to
borrow P30,000 from her and Rosing offered as collateral a document
which turned out to be a deed of donation dated January 25, 1977
purportedly signed by Carmen in favor of her niece Madelene Javier
Curz, daughter of Juana and sister-in-law of Rosing. After that Milagros
went to the Register of Dees in Lingaye, to verify the existence of such
donation. She found out that is was indeed duly registered.


The respondend filed a case against Madelene praying that the deed of
donation be nullified as well as the subsequent transfers to other
parties of the properties covered by the spurious donation. Respondent
claimed that the deed of donation was fake and this was confirmed by
the handwriting expert of the NBI.

Petitioners filed their answer Dated November 28, 1989, They claimed
that they applied for a free patent over the subject area on August 10,
1987 and on November 26, 1987, they were issued free patent no.
165790. On December 11, 1987, Original Certificate of Title No. P-30187
was registered in their name.

Issue:
Whether or not the free patent that was issued in favor of the
petitioners were valid.


The land was private and since it is private in nature, the Director of
Lands has no authority to grand a free patent over it thus any title
issued pursuant thereto is null and void.


Facts:
Spouses Simon D. Encinas and Esperanze E. Encinas, respondents, are
the registered owners of Lot No. 3517 of the Cadastral Survey of
Sorsogon, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4773. The
subject matter of the controversy is a portion of Lot No. 3517 with an
area of 980 square meters, which the Heirs of Jose Maligaso, Sr. ,
petitioners, continue to occupy despite having received two notices to
vacate from the respondents.


The lot was previously covered by OCT No. 543, which was issued in
the name of Maria Maligaso Ramos, the petitioners' aunt. Maria sold
Lot No. 3517 to Virginia and three years later, Virginia sold it to the
respondents. After approximately thirty years from the time they
purchased the lot, the respondents issued two demand letters to the
petitioners, asking them to vacate the contested area within thirty days
from notice. The petitioners refused to leave, claiming that the subject
area was the share of their father in their grandparents' estate, thus the
respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the
petitioners. The petitioners , in their defense , denied that their
possession of the disputed area was by mere tolerance and claimed title
thereto on the basis of their father's successional rights. years.



That the petitioners' occupation remained undisturbed for more than
thirty years and the respondents' failure to detail and specify the
petitioners' supposedly tolerated possession suggest that they and their
predecessors-in-interest are aware of their claim over the subject area.
The petitioners likewise moved for the dismissal of the complaint,
claiming that the allegations therein indicate that it was actually an
action for reconveyance. Further, laches had already set in view of the
respondents' failure to assail their possession for more than thirty
years.
Issue:
Whether or not the claim of the petitioners' refusal to vacate the lot is
valid.

Ruling:
Laches does not operate to deprive the registered owner of a parcel of
land of his right to recover possession thereof, neither will the sheer
lapse of time legitimize the petitioners' refusal to vacate the subject
area or bar the respondents form gaining possession thereof.


Facts:
Respondents filed before the RTC an action to recover the ownership and
possession of the subject property from petitioners, seeking as well the
payment of damages. They alleged that it was owned by their predecessor-in-
interest, Emiliana Bacalso, pursuant to Decree No. 98992, though lost during
the last World War, its existence was shown by an LRA certification and a
certified copy from the daybook of cadastral lots issued by the Register of
Deeds (RD) of Cebu City (daybook entry). After Emilianas death, Genaro
Rabadon took over the possession of it and upon his death, his children, herein
respondents, took over its possession until 1988. In 1989, they discovered that
it was already in the possession of petitioner Alejandra Delfin and some of her
children and their families already constructed their houses thereon. Alejandra
claimed that petitioners predecessor-in-interest, Remegio Navares previously
bought the said property; however, the copy of the deed of sale was lost.
Alejandra inherited it by virtue of an extra-judicial settlement. It had been
declared by them for taxation purposes and they paid the corresponding realty
taxes due thereon. Petitioners further contended, inter alia, that respondents
demands were already barred by laches, given that they took about 55 years to
file their complaint.

The RTC rendered ruled in favor of petitioners. Respondents have not
shown any efforts to locate the said title nor to reconstitute the same.
Neither have they attempted to declare it for taxation purposes nor have
they shown any proof that they paid the realty taxes due thereon, thereby
negating their claim of ownership. Respondents were also guilty of laches.
Upon appeal, the CA reversed the RTCs pronouncement. The CA stressed
that tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of
ownership or of the right to possess the land when not supported by other
evidence of actual possession which remained wanting in this case. The
LRA Report could not qualify as proof of possession since the report failed
to mention that the subject property actually belongs to petitioners
predecessor-in-interest. In fact, the LRA Report even affirmed that the it
was covered by a decree issued to Emiliana and her husband, Dionisio
Rabadon. Further, when TCT No. 20910 was sought to be reconstituted by
Alejandra, one Juanito Montenegro (RD representative) of the Cebu City
RD testified that the said title does not cover the subject property and that
the Cebu City RD has no record available for Lot No. 8217. Respondents are
not guilty of laches since there is no evidence that would show that they
omitted to assert their claim over the subject property.


Issue:
Whether or not respondents have the better right to the ownership and possession
of the subject property.

Ruling:
Yes. It is an elemental rule that a decree of registration bars all claims and rights which arose or
may have existed prior to the decree of registration. In the case of Ferrer-Lopez v. CA, the Court
ruled that as against an array of proofs consisting of tax declarations and/or tax receipts which
are not conclusive evidence of ownership nor proof of the area covered therein, an original
certificate of title, which indicates true and legal ownership by the registered owners over the
disputed premises, must prevail. Accordingly, respondents Decree No. 98992 for which an
original certificate of title was issued should be accorded greater weight as against the tax
declarations and tax receipts presented by petitioners in this case. Besides, tax declarations and
tax receipts may only become the basis of a claim for ownership when they are coupled with
proof of actual possession of the property, which petitioners failed to show. As to the issue of
laches, petitioners were not able to adduce any sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
respondents unduly slept on their rights for an unreasonable length of time. Quite the
contrary, records reveal that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the subject property since the 1950's and that they filed their complaint on
October 19, 1993, which is only four years removed from the time petitioners entered the
property in 1989.

Facts:
The lot claimed by Dream Village used to be part of the Hacienda de
Maricaban which is now known as Fort Bonifacio. When R.A. No. 7227
was passed, the title of Fort Bonifacio was transferred to the Bases
Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA).

Charging the BCDA of wrongfully asserting title to Dream Village and
unlawfully subjecting its members to summary demolition, resulting in
unrest and tensions among the residents, the latter filed a letter-
complaint with the COSLAP to seek its assistance in the verification
survey of the subject property, which they claimed is within Lot 1 of
Swo-13-000298 and thus is covered by Proclamation No. 172. They claim
that they have been occupying the area for thirty (30) years "in the
concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously for several
years," and have built their houses of sturdy materials thereon and
introduced paved roads, drainage and recreational and religious
facilities. Dream Village, thus, asserts that the lot is not among those
transferred to the BCDA under R.A. No. 7227, and therefore patent
applications by the occupants should be processed by the Land
Management Bureau (LMB).
Respondent BCDA questioned the jurisdiction of the COSLAP to hear Dream
Villages complaint, while asserting its title to the subject property pursuant to
R.A. No. 7227. It argued that under E.O. No. 561, COSLAPs task is merely to
coordinate the various government offices and agencies involved in the
settlement of land problems or disputes, adding that BCDA does not fall in the
enumeration in Section 3 of said law. On the basis of the DENRs verification
survey report, the COSLAP resolved that Dream Village lies outside of BCDA,
and particularly, outside of Swo-00-0001302. In the case of Baaga v. COSLAP,
the court held that the use of the word "may" does not mean that the COSLAPs
jurisdiction is merely confined to those enumerated in Section 3(2) of E.O. No.
561.
BCDAs Motion Reconsideration was denied.
On Petition for Review to the CA, it ruled that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction
because the complaint is beyond its competence to determine, even as the land
in dispute has been under a private title since 1906, and presently its title is
held by a government agency, the BCDA.

Dream Villages motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issues:
Whether or not the BCDA holds title to Dream Village.
Whether or not COSLAP has jurisdiction over the complaint.

Ruling:
Yes. In the case of Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati, Inc. V
BCDA, the Court ruled that the BCDA's titles over Fort Bonifacio are
valid, indefeasible, and beyond question, since TCT. 61524 was
cancelled in favor of BCDA pursuant to an explicit authority under R.A.
No. 7227, the legal basis for BCDAs takeover and management of the
subject lots. The TCTs were all in the name of the BCDA.

No. Under Article 422 of the Civil Code, public domain lands become
patrimonial property only if there is a declaration that these are
alienable or disposable, together with an express government
manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer
retained for public service or the development of national wealth. Only
when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period
for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.
Also under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, it is provided that before
acquisitive prescription can commence, the property sought to be
registered must not only be classified as alienable and disposable, it
must also be expressly declared by the State that it is no longer
intended for public service or the development of the national wealth,
or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Absent such
an express declaration by the State, the land remains to be property of
public dominion. Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529, the Property Registration
Decree, expressly provides that no title to registered land in derogation
of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession. The subject property having been expressly
reserved for a specific public purpose, the COSLAP cannot exercise
jurisdiction over the complaint of the Dream Village settlers.

The land dispute in Baaga, which was invoked by COSLAP, was
between private individuals who were free patent applicants over
unregistered public lands. In contrast, the present petition involves
land titled to and managed by a government agency which has been
expressly reserved by law for a specific public purpose other than for
settlement. Thus, as we have advised in Longino, the law does not vest
jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem, but it
has to consider the nature or classification of the land involved, the
parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for
immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to persons
and damage or destruction to property.

Facts:
A Petition dated April 17, 1998 filed before the RTC, petitioner sought
for the original registration of two parcels of land situated at Brgy. Sta.
Rita, Batangas City, denominated as Lot Nos. 1298 and 1315 (subject
lots), both of Cad. 264 of the Batangas Cadastre, which consist of 4,155
and 968 square meters, respectively. The case was docketed as Land
Reg. Case No. N-1554 (LRA Rec. No. N-69624) and, as a matter of
course, was called for initial hearing. No oppositor appeared during the
said hearing except Prosecutor Amelia Panganiban who appeared in
behalf of the Office of the Solicitor General (respondent).
Consequently, the RTC issued the corresponding Order of Special
Default and the reception of evidence was delegated to the Branch
Clerk of Court.

For land registration purposes, the subject lots were both investigated
and inspected separately by Special Land Investigator Rodolfo A.
Fernandez and Forester I Loida Y. Maglinao of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) CENRO of Batangas City.
Based on their findings, the subject lots are within the alienable and
disposable zone under project no. 13, lc map no. 718 issued on March
16, 1928. Also, in a letter dated January 18, 1999 from Robert C.
Pangyarihan, Chief of the Surveys Division of the DENR Region IV
Land Management Sector, copy furnished the RTC, it is stated that the
subject lots are not portion of/nor identical to any approved isolated
survey.
During the reception of evidence, the government, through
respondent, was given the opportunity to examine the authenticity of
the documents presented by petitioner in support of its application for
land registration as well as cross-examine the latters witnesses.
Without any objection from the former, all exhibits offered by
petitioner were admitted by the RTC. Meanwhile, respondent did not
present any evidence to contradict petitioners application.

In a Decision

dated December 6, 2004, the CA granted
respondents certiorari petition and thereby, annulled and set aside the
RTC Decision and Amended Order as well as the final decree of
registration issued in favor of petitioner over the subject lots.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC
Decision and Amended Order as well as the final decree of registration
issued in favor of petitioner over the subject lots.
Ruling:
CA correctly pointed out, land registration proceedings are in rem in
nature and, hence, by virtue of the publication requirement, all
claimants and occupants of the subject property are deemed to be
notified of the existence of a cadastral case involving the subject lots. In
this regard, petitioner cannot, therefore, take refuge on the lack of any
personal knowledge on its part previous to its application. Case law
dictates that a cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds the whole
world. Under this doctrine, parties are precluded from re-litigating the
same issues already determined by final judgment.

RTCs Amended Order was issued in violation of the doctrine of
judicial stability. This doctrine states that the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be interfered with by any court of
concurrent jurisdiction. The rationale for the same is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction verily, a court that acquires jurisdiction over
the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of
justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with
this judgment.Therefore, as the RTCs Amended Order was issued in
stark contravention of this rule, the CA correctly ordered its
nullification.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of Court of
Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED .

Facts:
Spouses Vilbar claimed that on July 10, 1979, they and Dulos Realty,
entered into a Contract to Sell involving a 108-square meter lot
designated as Lot 20-B located in Las Pias City and covered by (TCT)
No. S-39849 for P19,440.00. Lot 20-A which is also covered and
embraced by the same certificate of title is the subject of another
Contract to Sell between Elena Guingon (Elena) and Dulos Realty.
Sometime in August 1979, spouses Vilbar took possession of Lot 20-B
in the concept of owners and exercised acts of ownership thereon with
the permission of Dulos Realty after making some advance payment.

Upon full payment of Lot 20, Dulos Realty executed Deed of
Absolute Sale to Vilbar and their co-purchaser Elena. Dulos Realty also
surrendered and delivered the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. S-
39849 covering Lot 20 to the buyers and new owners of the property.
However, spouses Vilbar and Elena were not able to register and
transfer the title in their names because Dulos Realty allegedly failed to
have the lot formally subdivided despite its commitment to do so, until
its President, Juan B. Dulos (Juan), died without the subdivision being
accomplished.

Spouses Vilbar and Dulos Realty also executed a Contract to Sell dated July 10, 1979
covering Lot 21, Block 4 of Airmens Village, with an area of 216 square meters and
covered by TCT No. S-39850 amounting to P128,880.00. To pay for the balance of
the purchase price amounting to P99,216.00, spouses Vilbar obtained a housing
loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) secured by a real estate
mortgageover the said lot. Dulos Realty facilitated the approval of the loan, the
proceeds of which were immediately paid to it as full payment of the purchase price.
In contrast, Opinion claimed that he legally acquired Lots 20 and 21 through extra-
judicial foreclosure of mortgage constituted over the said properties by Otilio
Gorospe, Sr. and Otilio "Lito" Gorospe, Jr. (Gorospes) in his favor. Opinion alleged
that on January 12, 1995, the Gorospes borrowed P440,000.00 and, to secure the
loan, executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgageover the subject lots covered by TCT
Nos. T-44796 (Lot 21) and T-44797 (Lot 20). The Gorospes defaulted, prompting
Opinion to file a Petition for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgagedated October 17, 1995 with the Office of the Notary Public of Las Pias
City. Subsequently, the subject properties were sold at a public auction where
Opinion emerged as the highest bidder. A Certificate of Salewas issued in his favor
on December 18, 1995 and subsequently annotated on the TCTs of the properties.
The Gorospes failed to redeem the properties within the reglementary period
resulting in the eventual cancellation of their titles. Thus, TCT No. T-59010 (Lot 21)
and TCT No. T-59011 (Lot 20) in the name of Opinion were issued on January 22,
1997 by the Registry of Deeds of Las Pias City.

On February 13, 1997, Opinion filed a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possessionagainst
the Gorospes with the RTC of Las Pias City, Branch 253, docketed as LRC Case No. LP-
162. Branch 253 initially issued a Writ of Possession and spouses Vilbar and Elena were
served with a notice to vacate the premises. However, the writ was quashed when spouses
Vilbar filed an urgent motion for the quashal of the writ and presented their title to Lot
21, while Elena presented the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Dulos Realty covering
Lot 20. Consequently, Opinion filed a Complaint for Accion Reinvindicatoria with
Damagesdocketed as Civil Case No. 98-0302 and raffled to Branch 255 of the RTC of Las
Pias City for him to be declared as the lawful owner and possessor of the subject
properties and for his titles to be declared as authentic. He likewise prayed for the
cancellation of the titles of spouses Vilbar and Elena.
During trial, spouses Vilbar presented the Absolute Deed of Sale executed by
Dulos Realty in their favor and the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. S-39849covering
Lot 20. With respect to Lot 21, spouses Vilbar presented the real estate mortgage they
executed in favor of DBP; the official receipts issued by DBP showing that they had paid
the amortizations for the housing loan; the Cancellation of Mortgage issued by DBP as
proof that they have fully paid the loan; tax declarationsand receipts to show that the
propertys tax declaration under the name of Dulos Realty had been cancelled and a new
one had been issued in their name in 1987 and that they have been paying the real
property taxes on the property since 1980. The spouses Vilbar also presented TCT No.
36777/T-17725-A issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City on May 22, 1981, as proof of
their ownership of Lot 21.

Opinion, on the other hand, justified the legality of his claim over the properties by tacking
his rights on the rights passed on to him by the Gorospes. He traced his rights over the
properties by claiming that Gorospe, Sr. was the former chairman of the Board of Directors
and CEO of Dulos Realty. He was offered substantial benefits and privileges by Dulos Realty
as compensation for the positions he held, including a residential house and lot in Airmens
Village, Las Pias City valued at P180,000.00 and various allowances. However, Dulos Realty
was not able to give to Gorospe, Sr. the promised allowances despite repeated demands.
Thus, Gorospe, Sr. was constrained to file a Complaint for Sum of Money, Specific
Performance and Damages dated May 12, 1981 with the then CFI of Manila. Subsequently,
Juan signed a compromise agreement and based thereon the trial court rendered a Decision
dated April 1, 1982 ordering Dulos Realty to pay Gorospe, Sr. the total amount of
P578,000.00. A Writ of Execution and Alias Writ of Execution were issued by the trial court
in its Orders dated May 7, 1982 and September 30, 1983, respectively. Dulos Realty filed
several cases challenging the validity of the compromise agreement and seeking to nullify
the writs of execution, as well as the consequent levy and public auction sale of its
properties. One of the cases it filed was Civil Case No. 88-2800seeking the nullification,
cancellation and reconveyance of title on the ground, among others, that during the auction
sale its properties were undervalued. All of its efforts, however, proved futile. Meanwhile,
real properties of Dulos Realty were levied on October 31, 1984, which included Lots 20 and
21 covered by TCT Nos. S-39849 and S-39850, respectively. The disputed properties were
eventually sold at public auction on June 24, 1985 where Gorospe, Sr. emerged as the highest
bidder. On June 2, 1987, the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City issued Lot 20 and 21 in the name
of Gorospe, Sr. and his wife. Upon the death of Gorospe, Sr.s wife, the Gorospes transferred
the titles in their names resulting in the issuance of Lot 20 and 21 by the Registry of Deeds of
Las Pias City.

Whether or Not Opinion has better rights over Lot 20 and 21
Whether or Not Opinion was a purchaser in bad faith

Ruling:
Registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or
creates a lien upon the land.
TCT No. 36777 does not indicate where it came from. The issuance of
the said title also becomes suspect in light of the fact that no Deed of
Absolute Sale was ever presented as basis for the transfer of the title
from Dulos Realty. In fact, the spouses Vilbar do not even know if a
Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot 21 was executed in their favor. As the
evidence extant on record stands, only a Contract to Sell which is
legally insufficient to serve as basis for the transfer of title over the
property is available. At most, it affords spouses Vilbar an inchoate
right over the property. Absent that important deed of conveyance over
Lot 21 executed between Dulos Realty and the spouses Vilbar, TCT No.
36777 issued in the name of Bernadette Vilbar cannot be deemed to
have been issued in accordance with the processes required by law.



Opinion was proven to be in good faith when he dealt with the
Gorospes and relied on the titles presented to him. Spouses Vilbar, on
the other hand, failed to present substantial evidence to prove
otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby
DENIED. The Decision dated May 26 2006 of he Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R CV No. 84409 affirming the Decision dated January 31, 2005 of
the Regional Trial Court Branch 255 Las Pias City in Civil Case No. 98-
0302 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Facts:
The respondent filed a complaint against spouses Sarili and the Register
of Deeds of Caloocan City alleging that he is the owner of a certain parcel of
land situated in Caloocan City and has been religiously paying the real estate
taxes since its acquisition on November 29, 1974. He is a resident of California,
USA, and that during his vacation in the Philippines, he discovered that a new
certificate of title to the subject property was issued by the RD in the name of
Victorino by virtue of a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 16, 1978
by him and his w3ife. He averred that the said deed of was fraudulent and is
committed by spouses Sarili and the RD in order to acquire the subject
property.
The spouses Sarili maintained that they are innocent purchasers for
value, having purchased the subject property form Ramon Rodriguez, who
possessed and presented a Special Power of Attorney to sell/dispose of the
same, and, in such capacity, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November
20, 1992 conveying the said property in their favor. In this relation, they denied
any participation in the preparation of the February 16, 1978 deed of sale,
which may have been merely devised by the fixer they hired to facilitate the
issuance of the title in their names.

Issues:
Whether or not there was a valid conveyance of the subject
property to spouses Sarili and whether or not the TCT in the name of
Victorino married to Isabel should be annulled and the respondent's
name should be reinstated.

Ruling:
It is well-settled that even if the procurement of a certificate of
title was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation, such defective title
may be the source of a completely legal and valid title in the hands of
and innocent purchaser for value. Where innocent third persons,
relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire
rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and
order the total cancellation of the certificate.


However, a higher degree of prudence is required from on who buys
from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object
of the transaction is registered. In such a case, the buyer is expected to
examine not only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances
necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the
transferor. The buyer also has the duty to ascertain the identity of the
person with whom he is dealing with and the latter's legal authority to
convey the property.

The strength of the buyer's inquiry on the seller's capacity or
legal authority to sell depends on the proof of capacity of the seller. If
the proof of capacity consists of a special power of attorney duly
notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public document already
constitutes sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of attorney is
provided or there is on but there appears to be flaws in its notarial
acknowledgment, mere insertion of the document will not do; the
buyer must show that his investigation went beyond the document
and into the circumstances of its execution.

Spouses Sarili purchased the subject property form Ramos on the
strength of the latter's ostensible authority to sell under the subject
SPA. The said document, however, readily indicates flaws in its notarial
acknowledgment since the respondent's community tax certificate
(CTC) number was not indicated. Despite this irregularity, spouses
Sarili failed to show that they conducted an investigation beyond the
subject SPA thus they cannot be considered as innocent purchasers for
value. Spouses Sarili knew or at the very least, should have known that
they were dealing with a person who possibly had no authority to sell
the subject property considering the palpable irregularity in the SPA'
acknowledgment. Yet, relying solely on said document and without any
further investigation on Ramos's capacity to sell, they still chose to
proceed with its purchase and even built a house thereon. Based on the
foregoing, it cannot be seriously doubted that spouses Sarili were
actually aware of a flaw of defect in their title or mode of acquisition
and have consequently built the house on the subject property in bad
faith under
Facts:
On December 19, 1990, Paraguya filed before the RTC a Complaint
against Sps. Crucillo and the RD for the annulment of OCT No. P-17729
and other related deeds, with prayer for receivership and damages,
alleging that Escurel obtained the aforesaid title through fraud and
deceit. Paraguya claimed that she is the lawful heir to the subject
properties left by her paternal grandfather, the late Ildefonso Estabillo
while Escurel was merely their administrator and hence, had no right
over the same.
On January 18, 1991, the RD filed its answer and denied any
involvement in the aforesaid fraud, maintaining that its issuance of
OCT No. P-17729 was his ministerial duty. Thereafter, or on February 7,
1991, Sps. Crucillo filed their answer with motion to dismiss, averring
that Paraguya's complaint had already been barred by laches and/or
prescription. They further alleged, among others, that Escurel,
through her father, the late Angel Escurel, applied for a free patent over
the subject properties, resulting in the issuance of Free Patent No. V-3
005844 under OCT No. P-17729 in her name.



In a Decision dated April 22, 2009, the RTC granted Paraguya s
complaint, ordering the annulment of OCT No. P-17729. Accordingly, it
directed the RD to cancel the said title and Sps. Escurillo to surrender
ownership and possession of the subject properties to Paraguya.
On May 15, 2009, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the Heirs of
Sps. Crucillo, who had substituted the latter due to their supervening
death. The said motion was, however, denied on December 16, 2009,
prompting them to elevate the case to the CA.
In a Decision dated June 27, 2011, the CA reversed the RTC's ruling and
ordered the dismissal of Paraguya's complaint.


The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly
dismissed Paraguya' s complaint for annulment of title.

Ruling:
It is an established rule that a Torrens certificate of title is not
conclusive proof of ownership. Verily, a party may seek its
annulment on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. However,
such action must be seasonably filed, else the same would be
barred.
In this relation, Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the period to
contest a decree of registration shall be one (1 year from the date
of its entry and that, after the lapse of the said period, the
Torrens certificate of title issued thereon becomes
incontrovertible and indefeasible.


In view of the foregoing, the Court is impelled to sustain the CAs
dismissal of Paraguya's complaint for annulment of OCT No. P-17729
since it was filed only on December 19, 1990, or more than eleven (11)
years from the title's date of entry on August 24, 1979.Based on Section
32 Of PD 1529, said title had become incontrovertible and indefeasible
after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of Its entry, thus barring
Paraguyas action for annulment of title.


In the case of Naval vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167412 dated February 22,
2006. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of good faith or bad faith of the
buyer is relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered land and the
purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner whose title to the land
is clean. In such case the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the
registered owner is protected if he is a purchaser in good faith for value. Since
the properties in question are unregistered lands, petitioners as subsequent
buyers thereof did so at their peril. Their claim of having bought the land in
good faith, without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in
the property, would not protect them if it turns out, as it actually did in this
case, that their seller did not own the property at the time of the sale.

In the case of Vda. De Melencio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148846
dated September 25, 2007. The Supreme Court ruled that Go Kim Chuans
actions such as verification with the Office of the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu
City and the Register of Deeds, visiting the premises of the subject property
and found that nobody interposed any adverse claim against the Amodias,
paying all taxes in arrears after he had decided to buy the subject property,
causing the publication of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute
Sale in a newspaper of general circulation, causing the reconstitution of the
lost certificate of title and caused the issuance of the assailed TCT in his name.
Is a sign of good faith in registered lands.

In de Guzman vs. Agbagala, G.R. no. 163566 dated February 19, 2008. The
Supreme Court ruled that since the land subject to the dispute is private in
nature, the Director of Lands has no authority to grant a free patent over it
making the issuance pursuant thereto is null and void. The Director of land can
only grant free patent over lands that is public in nature.

In the case of the Maligaso vs. Encinas, G.R. No. 182716 dated June 20,
2012. The Supreme Court held that latches does not operate to deprive the
registered owner of a parcel of land of his right to recover possession thereof,
neither will the sheer lapse of time legitimize the refusal of the other party to
vacate the subject land bar him from gaining possession thereof.

In the case of Delfin vs. Rabadon, G.R. No. 165014 dated July 31, 2013. The
Supreme Court held that an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) will be given
greater weight over tax declarations and or tax receipts since tax declarations do
not make a conclusive evidence of ownership and can only became the basis of
a claim for ownership when they are coupled with proof of actual possession of
property which they failed to show or present.


In the case of Dream Village vs. BCDA, G.R. No. 192896 dated July 24,
2013. The Supreme Court held that BCDA's titles over Fort Bonifacio are
valid, indefeasible, and beyond question, since TCT. 61524 was
cancelled in favor of BCDA pursuant to an explicit authority under R.A.
No. 7227, the legal basis for BCDAs takeover and management of the
subject lots. The TCTs were all in the name of the BCDA.

In the case of First Gas Power Corporation vs. Republic, G.R. No.
169461 dated September 2, 2013. The Supreme Court held that Land
Registration Proceeding are in rem in nature thus it is binds the whole
world and by virtue of the publication requirement, all claimants and
occupants of the subject property are deemed to be notified of the
existence of a cadastral case involving the subject lots. Therefore one
cannot take refuge on the lack of any personal knowledge on its part
previous to its application.



In the case of Vilbar vs Opinion, G.R. No. 176043 dated January 15, 2014.
The Supreme Court ruled that Opinion was proven to be in good faith
when he dealt with the Gorospes and relied on the titles presented to
him. Spouses Vilbar, on the other hand, failed to present substantial
evidence to prove otherwise.The doctrine of the mortgagee in good
faith based on the rule that all persons dealing with property covered
by a Torrens Certificate of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public
interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as
evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance
thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon
what appears on the face of the certificate of title.

In the case of Paraguya vs. Sps Crucillo The Court Ruled that Upon the
expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his
remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other
persons responsible for the fraud. The Court impelled to sustain the
CAs dismissal of Paraguya's complaint for annulment of OCT No. P-
17729 since it was filed only on December 19, 1990, or more than eleven
(11) years from the title's date of entry. Based on Section 32 of PD 1529,
said title had become incontrovertible and indefeasible after the lapse
of one (1) year from the date of its entry, thus barring Paraguya's action
for annulment of title. Complaint for annulment of title is dismissed
since she merely relied on the titulo posesorio issued in favour of
Estabillo sometime in 1893 or 1895.

In the case of the Heirs of Victorino Sarili vs. Lagrosa, the Supreme
Court held that even if the procurement of a certificate of title was
tainted with fraud and misrepresentation, such defective title may be
the source of a completely legal and valid title in the hands of and
innocent purchaser for value.
However, a higher degree of prudence is required from on who
buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land
object of the transaction is registered. In such a case, the buyer is
expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual
circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in
the title of the transferor. The buyer also has the duty to ascertain the
identity of the person with whom he is dealing with and the latter's
legal authority to convey the property.

From the above cases, the Supreme Court held that the verification of the
subject property to the Office of the City Assessor, actual surveillance of the
subject property to find out if there is an adverse claim, and the publication of
the Deed of extra Judicial Settlement of Absolute Sale in the newspaper of
general circulation constitute good faith. Good faith and bad faith of the buyer
is relevant only where the subject of the sale is a registered land and the
purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner whose title to the land
is clean.

The Supreme Court also held in the case of de Guzman v. Agbagala that the
Director of lands can only grant free patent on lands that are public in nature.

In case of latches, it does not deprive the registered owner of a parcel of land of
his right to recover possession thereof. The OCT will be given greater weight
over tax declarations since tax declaration do not make a conclusive evidence of
ownership and need actual proof of actual possession in order for it to be
appreciated.

Land Registration Proceedings are in rem in nature which means that they are
binding against the whole world and no person can take refuge for lack of any
personal knowledge on its part previous to its application.