jurisprudence on land tittles and deeds.pdf

8/10/2019 jurisprudence on land tittles and deeds.pdf

1/50

JURISPRUDENCE ON LAND TITLES AND REGISTRATION

Fabian v. Fabian, G.R. No. L-20449, 29 Janua! "9#$, 22 SCRA 2%", J. Ca&'o.

While under Section 15 of the Friar Lands Act, title to the land sold is reserved to theGovernment until the purchaser makes full payment of all the required instalments and the

interest thereon, this legal reservation refers to the are, naked title! "he equitale and eneficial

title goes to the purchaser the moment he pays the first instalment and is given a certificate of

title!

"he reservation of the title in favor of the Government is made merely to protect the

interest of the Government so as to preclude or prevent the purchaser from encumering or

disposing of the lot purchased efore the payment in full of the purchase price! #utside of this

protection the Government retains no right as an o$ner! "hus, after the issuance of the sales

certificate and pending payment in full of the purchase price, the Government may not sell the lot

to another, encumer it, occupy the land to use or cultivate, nor lease it or even participate orshare in its fruits.

An action for reconveyance of real property ased upon a constructive or implied trust,

resulting from fraud, may e arred y the statute of limitations, and the action therefor may e

filed $ithin % years from the discovery of the fraud, such discovery eing deemed to have taken

place $hen ne$ certificates of title $ere issued e&clusively in the names of adverse claimants!

Fan(i&(o v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. L-%0"#2, %" Auu&' "9$, "/% SCRA %%0, J.

Nava&a.

"he earth is that universal manuscript open to the eyes of all! When a man proposes to

uy or deal $ith realty, his first duty is to read this pulic manuscript, that is, to look and see $ho

is there upon it, and $hat are his rights!

A $ant of caution and diligence $hich an honest man of ordinary prudence is accustomed

to e&ercise in making purchases is in contemplation of la$ a $ant of good faith! A uyer $ho

could not have failed to kno$ or discover that the land sold to him $as in the adverse possession

of another, is a uyer in ad faith, such kno$ledge eing equivalent to registration!

'onsidering that 'asimiro kne$ definitely $here his friend of many years 'andido $asresiding and that the latter and his family had een living in that place for many, many years( that

$hen 'asimiro vie$ed the property then eing sold to him and his rothers and sisters y Felisa,

he could not ut have noticed that 'andido)s house $as in the area( that $hen Felisa pointed out

the * lots to them +i!e! 1 ig lot, and smaller lots-, 'asimiro could not ut have ecome a$are,

if not of the actuality, at least of the possiility, that the smaller contiguous lots ad.acent to the

1


2/50

main streets, and presumaly through or eside $hich they had passed to vie$ the igger lot,

appeared to e that in $hich his friend 'andido $as living( that it ta&es credulity to think that

'asimiro and his sister had limited themselves to vie$ing and asking questions aout the ig lot

only, and had completely refrained from inquiring aout the location and condition of the other

lots su.ect of the pro.ected sale, preferring to place total e&clusive and unquestioning reliance

on Felisa)s certificate of title( under the premises, the only plausile e&planation for such asingular asence of curiosity $ould e their a$areness that the smaller lots $ere not included

in the sale!

'onsidering that there $ere sufficiently strong indications to impel a closer inquiry into

the location, oundaries and condition of the smaller lots emraced in the purchase on the part

of 'asimiro and his co/uyers( that such inquiry $as in truth dictated y common sense,

e&pected of a man of ordinary prudence( that had that inquiry een made, the adverse claim of

'andido over the small lots $ould have immediately come to light( under the premises, the

failure of 'asimiro to undertake such an inquiry precludes their successful invocation of the

character of purchasers in good faith!

0ot eing uyers in good faith, 'asimiro and his co/uyers cannot set/up their certificate

of title to defeat the adverse claim thereto of 'andido $hose good faith has not een placed in

question!

San'o& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. 90%$0, "% S+*'+b+ "990, "$9 SCRA //0,J.

Gan(a!(o.

Land is not affected y operations under the "orrens system, unless there has een an

application to register it, and registration has een made pursuant to such application!

'onsidering that Gorospe had not filed any application for the parcel of land in question(

that there $as no sho$ing that Gorospe satisfactorily complied $ith the application requirements

for homestead under the ulic Land Act( that the adverse claim of Lope2 $as fully supported y

pulic documents +i!e! tracing cloth, microfilm of plan, $hiteprint of plan, inventory ook, inde&

card, consolidated plan, specific plans-( that persons connected $ith the 3ureau of Lands testified

that Lope2 filed a homestead application and complied $ith all the requirements of the la$( that

the homestead application of Lope2 $as approved and a corresponding homestead patent $as

issued in his favor( that there e&ists in the records of the 4egister of eeds of asig original

certificate of title earing 0o! 5*6 ased on a free patent and covering different lots situate in

different municipalities, one in illila, 4i2al the validity and regularity of $hich has never eenquestioned, and the second is the questionale document( under the premises, there are sufficient

ases to declare that #'" 0o! 5*6 is null and void a initio and the land covered therey as

never having een rought under the operation of the "orrens system!

Where the land $as not rought under the operations of the "orrens system, the concept


3/50

of innocent purchaser for value cannot come into play!

A purchaser in good faith and for value is one $ho uys property of another, $ithout

notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair

price for the same, at the time of such purchase or efore he has notice of the claims or interest of

some other person in the property!

A person dealing $ith registered land has the right to rely upon the face of the "orrens

title and to dispense $ith the troule of inquiring further, e&cept $hen the party concerned has

actual kno$ledge of facts and circumstances that $ould impel a reasonaly cautious man to

make inquiry!

Soi1 S'a'+ u'i-Po1u('& Co*oa'ion, v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. $%%$%, # a! "99",

"9# SCRA #%0, J. +1ia1+a.

Friar lands $ere purchased y the government for sale to actual settlers and occupants atthe time said lands $ere acquired y the government! "he 3ureau of Lands shall first issue a

certificate stating that the government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant! "he

latter shall then accept the certificate and agree to pay the purchase price so fi&ed and in the

instalments and at the interest specified in the certificate! Act 0o! 117, Friar Lands Act!

'ommon$ealth Act 0o! *, as amended y 'ommon$ealth Act 0o!*18!

"he conveyance e&ecuted in favor of a uyer or the so called certificate of sale, is a

conveyance of the o$nership of the property, su.ect only to the resolutory condition that the sale

may e cancelled if the price agreed upon is not paid for in full! "he uyer ecomes the o$ner

upon the issuance of the certificate of sale in his favor su.ect only to cancellation thereof in case

the price agreed upon is not paid!

9pon payment of the final installment together $ith all accrued interests, the government

shall then issue a final deed of conveyance in favor of the uyer!

"he sale of such friar lands is valid only if approved y the Secretary of Agriculture and

'ommerce! "he approval y the Secretary of Agriculture and 'ommerce is indispensale for the

validity of the sale!

'onsidering that the acquisition of the lot y Legaspi $as highly irregular and void, and

not in compliance $ith the procedure mandated y la$ for the sale of friar lands( that Legaspiallegedly purchased the land in a sale at pulic auction, $hich procedure is no$here provided in

Act 0o! 117 or in '!A! * as amended y '!A! *18( that the la$s e&pressly state that an actual

occuplant of the land shall purchase the lot occupied y him at a private sale and not in a sale at

pulic auction( that there $as no deed of conveyance issued to Legaspi y the government after

the full payment of the installments on the disputed lot( that the sale $as not approved y the

*


4/50

Secretary of Agriculture and 'ommerce( that asent such approval, the supposed sale $as null

and void a initio( under the premises, Legaspi did not in any manner acquire o$nership over the

land!

"he issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Legaspi did not vest o$nership upon her

over the land, nor did it validate the alleged purchase of the lot $hich $as null and void,inasmuch as registration does not vest title ut is merely evidence of such title over a particular

property! "he registration la$s do not give the holder any etter title than $hat he actually has!

3eing null and void, the sale made to Legaspi and the susequent titles issued pursuant

thereto produced no legal effect $hatsoever! "here eing no title to the land that Legaspi

acquired from the Government, it follo$s that no title to the same land could e conveyed y the

former to :irata!

;ven assuming that :irata $as a purchaser in good faith and for value, the title of

eeneses,

$hich fraud has een confirmed y the appropriate court decision holding the adverse claimants

liale for violation of the Anti/Graft and 'orrupt ractices Act in the issuance of said free patentsand titles, the adverse claimants cannot avail of the principle of indefeasiility of title after the

lapse of the one/year period!

Ta5+1o v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "044$2, 22 Janua! "99#, T6i1 Divi&ion, J.

%


5/50

Pananiban.

=n case of a doule sale, as et$een purchasers, the one $ho registers the sale in his

favor has a preferred right over the other $ho has not registered his title, even if the latter is in

actual possession of the immovale property!

Gabin v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0#/%, / F+bua! "99#, S+(on1 Divi&ion, J.

Ro+o.

An adverse claim registered under Sec! 117 of Act 0o! %?8 does not confer o$nership

since its validity must still e resolved in a separate proceeding!

S*&. E1ua'+ v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0/994, 9 F+bua! "99#, T6i1 Divi&ion, J.

Fan(i&(o.

>ere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered "orrens title to real

property!

Although the title of the previous registered o$ner $as fraudulently secured, such fact

cannot pre.udice the rights of the holders asent any sho$ing that they had any kno$ledge or

participation in such irregularity!

N+7 Dua7oo1 Co., In(. v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. """%2, 20 F+bua! "99#, T6i1

Divi&ion, J. Pananiban.

A ne$ o$ner)s duplicate of a "orrens certificate of title may not e issued if it is sho$n

that the e&isting o$ner)s copy has not in fact een lost or destroyed!

R+*ubi( o) '6+ P6ii**in+& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0429#, 29 a(6 "99#, S+(on1

Divi&ion, J. +n1o8a.

"he "orrens title issued on the asis of a free patent or homestead patent ecomes as

indefeasile as one $hich $as .udicially secured upon the e&piration of one year from date of

issuance of patent as provided in !! 0o! 15?, Sec! * +formerly Act 0o! %?8, Sec! *@-!

0onetheless, even after the lapse of one year, the State may still ring an action under

Sec! 171 of the ulic Land Act for the reversion to the pulic domain of lands $hich have een

fraudulently granted to private individuals!

5


6/50

+i& o) ian1a v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No&. "09%"2 an1 "2024/, 29 a(6 "99#,

S+(on1 Divi&ion, J. +n1o8a.

#$nership and other real rights over immovale property are acquired y ordinary

prescription through possession for 17 years, if the adverse possession is y virtue of a title and itis in good faith!

Without need of title or of good faith, o$nership and other real rights over immovale

property also prescrie through uninterrupted adverse possession for *7 years!

aii v. Cou' o) In1u&'ia R+a'ion&, G.R. No. L-24$#4, %0 a! "99#, En :an(, J.

+o&i&ia.

A "orrens title cannot e collaterally attacked!

Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the 'ertificate of "itle thus

issued, acquire rights over the property, such rights cannot e disregarded and the total

cancellation of the certificate cannot e ordered!

D+&a*aa1o 31a. 1+ Na8a+no v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. 9$04/, 2# Jun+ "99#, S+(on1

Divi&ion, J. Ro+o.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Art! %56 of the 'ivil 'ode, it requires

the follo$ing +1- that the deposition of soil or sediment e gradual and imperceptile, +- that it

e the result of the action of the $aters of the river, and +*- that the land $here accretion takes

place is ad.acent to the anks of rivers!

Sa;ona& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "02%, / Ju! "99#, S+(on1 Divi&ion, J. To+&, J..

"he cancellation of the adverse claim is necessary to render it ineffective! #ther$ise, the

inscription $ill remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property!

San1ova v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0##/, " Auu&' "99#, S+(on1 Divi&ion, J.Ro+o.

A fraudulent or forged document of sale may give rise to a valid title!

8


7/50

Ca'6oi( :i&6o* o) :aana v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. ""2/"9, "4 Nov+b+ "99#, Fi&'

Divi&ion, J. +o&i&ia, J..

=t is the cardinal principle in land registration that a "orrens title is indefeasile and

imprescriptile!

0onetheless, a registered lando$ner may lose his right to recover the possession of his

registered property y reason of laches!

In'+&'a'+ E&'a'+ o) '6+ La'+ Don aiano San P+1o


8/50

"he reason for this is that one $ho is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to

e the o$ner thereof may $ait until his possession is distured or his title is attacked efore

taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule eing that his undistured possession

gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the

nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his o$n title, $hich right can eclaimed only y one $ho is in possession!

3efore the period of prescription may start, it must e sho$n that +1- the trustee has

performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust, +-

positive acts of repudiation have een made kno$n to the cestui que trust, and +*- the evidence

thereon is clear and positive!

Navao v. In'++1ia'+ A**+a'+ Cou', G.R. No. #$"##, "2 F+bua! "99, Fi&'

Divi&ion, J. +o&i&ia, J.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article %56 of the 'ivil 'ode requires

the concurrence of the follo$ing requisites +1- that the accumulation of soil or sediment e

gradual and imperceptile, +- that it e the result of the action of the $aters of the river, and +*-

that the land $here the accretion takes place is ad.acent to the ank of the river!

Accretion is the process $herey the soil is deposited, $hile alluvium is the soil

deposited on the estate fronting the river ank! "he o$ner of such estate is called the riparian

o$ner!

"he alluvium is automatically o$ned y the riparian o$ner from the moment the soil

deposit can e seen, ut is not automatically registered property! Bence, it is su.ect to

acquisition through prescription y third persons!

4iparian o$ners are distinct from littoral o$ners, the latter eing o$ners of lands

ordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal $aters!

A ay is part of the sea, eing a mere indentation of the same! =t is an opening into the

land $here the $ater is shut in on all sides e&cept at the entrance( an inlet of the sea( an arm of

the sea, distinct from a river, a ending or curing of the shore of the sea or of a lake!

=nasmuch as the disputed land is an accretion not on a river ank ut on a sea ank, or on$hat used to e the foreshore of >anila 3ay $hich ad.oined the claimants) o$n tract of land on

the northern side, such land forms part of the pulic domain pursuant to Article % of the Spanish

La$ on Waters of 1@88! "he >anila 3ay is distinguished from Laguna de 3ay $hich is a lake

the accretion on $hich elongs to the o$ner of the land contiguous thereto y mandate of Article

@% of the cited la$!

@


9/50

As part of the pulic domain, the disputed land is intended for pulic uses, and so long as

the land elongs to the national domain and is reserved for pulic uses, it is not capale of eing

appropriated y any private person, e&cept through e&press authori2ation granted in due form y

a competent authority! #nly the e&ecutive and possily the legislative departments have the right

and the po$er to make the declaration that the lands so gained y action of the sea is no longernecessary for purposes of pulic utility or for the estalishment of special industries or for coast

guard services!

Ca(6o v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "2%%#", % a(6 "99, T6i1 Divi&ion, J. +o.

A land registration proceeding is Cin remC and therefore the decree of registration is

inding upon and conclusive against all persons including the Government and its ranches,

irrespective of $hether or not they $ere personally notified of the filing of the application and

filed an ans$er to said application, ecause all persons are considered as notified y the

pulication required y la$!

A decree of registration that has ecome final shall e deemed conclusive not only on the

questions actually contested and determined, ut also upon all matters that might e litigated or

decided in the land registration proceedings!

"he issuance of the decrees of registration presupposes a prior final .udgment ecause the

issuance of such decrees is a mere ministerial act on the part of the Land 4egistration

'ommission +no$ the 0AL"4A-, upon presentation of a final .udgment!

+i& o) anu+ A. Ro=a& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. ""$4%#, 2" a(6 "99, S+(on1

Divi&ion, J. Ro+o.

Fraud is either actual or constructive! Actual fraud proceeds from an intentional

deception practiced y means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact!

'onstructive fraud is construed as fraud ecause of its detrimental effect on pulic interest and

pulic confidence, even though the act is not done or committed $ith an actual design to commit

positive fraud or in.ury on another person!

Fraud is also either e&trinsic of intrinsic! ;&trinsic fraud is that $hich prevents a party

from from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to court, or $here it operates onmatters pertaining not to the .udgment itself ut to the manner in $hich it is procured, so that

there is not a fair sumission of the controversy! =ntrinsic fraud is $here the fraudulent acts

pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or $here the acts constituting the fraud $ere or

could have een litigated therein!

?


10/50

"he fraud recogni2ed y Section * of residential ecree 0o! 15? as legal asis for

reopening and revising a decree of registration $ithin 1 year from the date of entry of said decree,

is actual and e&trinsic! "his includes an intentional omission of fact required y la$, such as the

omission in the application for registration of the name of a person $ho has a claim to or is an

occupant of the su.ect property!

4egarding the pulication requirements of Section * of residential ecree 0o! 15?, it

may e noted $hile the pulication of the 0otice of =nitial Bearing in the #fficial Ga2ette is

sufficient to confer .urisdiction, the separate pulication in a ne$spaper of general circulation

remains an indispensale procedural requirement! Although .urisdiction of the court is not

affected, the fact that pulication $as not made in a ne$spaper of general circulation is material

and relevant in assessing the applicant)s right or title to the land!

Rua :an> o) Co*o&'+a v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "22$0", $ A*i "99, T6i1

Divi&ion, J. Davi1+, J..

"he rule that persons dealing $ith registered lands can rely on the certificate of title does

not apply to anks, inasmuch as the usiness of anks is one affected $ith pulic interest,

keeping in trust money elonging to their depositors, $hich they should guard against loss y not

committing any act of negligence $hich amounts to lack of good faith! "hus, anks should

e&ercise more care and prudence in dealings even $ith registered lands, than private individuals!

#ther$ise, they should e denied the protected mantle of the land registration statute, Act 0o!

%?8, e&tended only to purchasers for value and in good faith, as $ell as to mortgagees of the

same character and disposition!

Taa!'a!-Taa Toui&' D+v+o*+n' Co*oa'ion v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0#$"2, "0

Jun+ "99, Fi&' Divi&ion, J. ?a*unan.

"he 4egional "rial 'ourt sitting as a land registration or cadastral court is authori2ed to

order the cancellation of a certificate of title and the issuance of a ne$ title in favor of the

purchaser of the land covered y it if there is no adverse claim or serious o.ection on the part of

any party in interest! #ther$ise, the case ecomes controversial and the same must e threshed

in an ordinary case or in the case $here the incident properly elongs!

Di+('o o) Lan1& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "02$/$, 2$ Ju! "99, T6i1 Divi&ion, J.Pananiban.

'onsidering that the language of Section * of residential ecree 0o! 15? uses the

term CshallC thus indicating the mandatory character of the statute( that land registration is a

proceeding in rem, $hich requires the constructive sei2ure of the land as against all persons

17


11/50

including the state $ho may have rights to or interests in the property, and $hich proceeding is

validated essentially through pulication( that in reality the #fficial Ga2ette is not as $idely read

and circulated as ne$spapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such that notices

pulished therein may not reach the interested parties on time if at all( under the premises, $here

there is no pulication in a ne$spaper of general circulation, the land registration court does not

have the authority to confirm and register the title of the applicant as a matter of due process!

Cava;a v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. 9$%2$, 9 O('ob+ "99, T6i1 Divi&ion, J.

Pananiban.

An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on

the e&isting title and must therefore e dismissed, earing in mind Section %8 of Act 0o! %?8

$hich provides that C+n-o title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered o$ner

shall e acquired y prescription or adverse possession!C

R+*ubi( v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0009, "4 Nov+b+ "99, T6i1 Divi&ion, J.

Pananiban.

3y e&press provision of Section 11@ of 'ommon$ealth Act 0o! 1%1, in conformity $ith

the policy of the la$, any transfer or alienation or encumrance of a free patent or homestead

$ithin five +5- years from the issuance of the patent is proscried! Such transfer nullifies said

issuance of the patent and constitutes a cause for the reversion of the property to the state!

Land that has ecome foreshoreland can no longer e the su.ect of a free patent!

Go1ua v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "229#, " Janua! "99$, S+(on1 Divi&ion, J. Puno.

0o pulic land can e acquired y private persons $ithout any grant, e&press or implied

from the government! =t is indispensale that there e a sho$ing of title over the land from the

state!

=t is $ell settled that forest land is incapale of registration for as long as the reservation

susists, and thus its inclusion in a title nullifies said title!

"he conversion of a forest reserve into pulic alienale land, requires no less than acategorical act of declassification y the resident, upon the recommendation of the proper

department head $ho has the authority to classify the lands of the pulic domain into alienale or

disposale, timer and mineral lands!

"he defense of indefeasiility of a certificate of title issued pursuant to a free patent does

11


12/50

not lie against the state in an action for reversion of the land covered therey $hen such land

forms part of a pulic forest or of a forest reservation, the patent covering forest land eing void

a initio! 0either can the mistake or error of its officials or agents in this regard e invoked

against the government!

aii v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. ""%/%9, "2 a(6 "99$, Fi&' Divi&ion, J. Pananiban.

Durisprudence is consistent that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien $ho

susequently ecomes a citi2en or transfers it to a citi2en, the fla$ in the original transaction is

deemed cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid!

=f the rationale of the an on aliens from acquiring lands is to preserve the nation)s lands

for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose $ould not e th$arted ut achieved y

making la$ful the acquisition of real estate y aliens $ho susequently ecome Filipino citi2ens

y naturali2ation, or the transfer to Filipino citi2ens!

u+va1a, +' a. v. Goio&o, +' a., G.R. No. "2"20, 2 Auu&' "99$, T6i1 Divi&ion, J.

?a*unan.

roceedings under Sec! 11 of the Land 4egistration Act are inadequate to settle the issue

of o$nership over the disputed portion! >atters descried in said section are non/controversial in

nature! "hey are limited to issues so patently insustantial they are not deemed to e genuine

issues! "hese proceedings are summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of

mistakes $hich are merely clerical, and certainly not controversial issues!

"he la$ful o$ners have the right to demand the return of their property at any time for as

long as the possession y the adverse party $as unauthori2ed or merely tolerated if at all! "his

right to recover possession is never arred y laches!

+i& o) Sau1 Di8on Saaa' v. Taa!o, G.R. No. ""0#44, %0 O('ob+ "99$, T6i1

Divi&ion, J. Ro+o.

9nder Article 6%? of the 'ivil 'ode, a transfer of real property from one person to

another cannot take effect as a donation unless emodied in a pulic document!

While a void donation may e the asis of o$nership $hich may ripen into title y

prescription, the concomitant possession to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right must

e adverse and under a claim of title!

>ere actual possession y a co/o$ner may not give rise to the inference that the

1


13/50

possession $as adverse ecause a co/o$ner is after all entitled to possession of the property, co/

o$nership eing a form trust $here each o$ner is a trustee for each other and possession of a co/

o$ner is deemed eneficial to the other co/o$ners!

=n order that the possession of a co/o$ner may e deemed adverse to the cestui que trust

or other co/o$ners, the follo$ing must concur +1- the co/o$ner has performed unequivocal actsof repudiation amounting to ouster of the cestui que trust or other co/o$ners, +- such positive

acts of repudiation have een made kno$n to the cestui que trust or other co/o$ners, and +*- the

sho$ing or evidence thereon is clear and convincing!

C6an v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. ""$/"#, "$ Nov+b+ "99$, T6i1 Divi&ion, J.

Pui&ia.

When certificates of title are issued to different persons covering one and same land

in $hole or in part, the certificate of title earlier in date must prevail! =n the case of successive

registrations $here more than one certificate of title is issued over the same land, the personholding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person $ho relies on a susequent

certificate!

C6+n v. G+na'o, G.R. No. "29#0, 29 D+(+b+ "99$, S+(on1 Divi&ion, J. a'in+8.

9nder Article 15%% of the 'ivil 'ode, in order for the second uyer to e ale to displace

the first uyer the follo$ing must concur +1- the second uyer must sho$ that he acted in good

faith +i!e! in ignorance of the first sale and of the first uyer)s rights- from the time of acquisition

until title is transferred to him y registration or failing registration y delivery of possession, and

+- the second uyer must sho$ continuing good faith and innocence or lack of kno$ledge of the

first sale until his contract ripens into full o$nership through prior registration as provided y

la$!

#ne $ho purchases real estate $ith kno$ledge of a defect of title in his seller cannot

claim that has acquired title in good faith as against an interest therein! "he same rule applies to

one $ho has kno$ledge of facts $hich should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation

as might e necessary to aquaint him $ith the defects in the title of his seller! "he uyer)s mere

refusal to elieve that such a defect e&ists, or his $ilful closing of his eyes to the possiility of

the e&istence of a defect in his seller)s title, $ill not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if

it after$ards develops that the title $as in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice ofthe defect as $ould have led to its discovery had he acted $ith that measure of precaution $hich

may reasonaly e required of a prudent man in a like situation!

4egistration means any entry made in the ooks of the registry, including oth

registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation, and even marginal notes!

1*


14/50

=n its strict sense, registration is the entry made in the registry $hich records solemnly and

permanently the right of o$nership and other real rights!

:auio v. R+*ubi( o) '6+ P6ii**in+&, G.R. No. ""9#$2, 2" Janua! "999, S+(on1 Divi&ion,J. +n1o8a.

#nce a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title issued, the land

covered ceases to e part of the pulic domain and ecomes private property! "he "orrens "itle

issued pursuant to the patent ecomes indefeasile upon the e&piration of 1 year from the date of

the issuance of the patent! Bo$ever, even after the lapse of 1 year, the State may still ring an

action under Section 171 of 'ommon$ealth Act 0o! 1%1 for the reversion to the pulic domain

of land fraudulently granted to private individuals! Such action y the State is not arred y

prescription! "he indefeasiility of a certificate of title cannot e invoked y one $ho procured

the title y means of fraud!

Rao& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. """02, % F+bua! "999, T6i1 Divi&ion, J. Ro+o.

Section *@ of the Land 4egistration Act provides that a decree of registration duly issued

is su.ect to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein y decree

or registration otained through fraud, to file in the 4egional "rial 'ourt a petition for revie$

$ithin 1 year after the entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired

an interest! "he same la$ provides that upon the e&piration of the term of 1 year, every decree or

certificate of title shall e imprescriptile!

An action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud prescries in % years

from the discovery of the fraud! An action ased on implied or constructive trust prescries in 17

years!

R+*ubi( o) '6+ P6ii**in+& v. I*+ia, J., G.R. No. "%090#, "" F+bua! "999, Fi&'

Divi&ion, J. Davi1+, J..

Foreshore land is part of the alienale land of the pulic domain! Bo$ever, it may e

disposed of only y lease and not other$ise! =t is defined as Cthat part +of the land- $hich iset$een the high and lo$ $ater and left dry y the flu& and reflu& of the tides!C =t is also kno$n

as Ca strip of land that lies et$een the high and lo$ $ater marks and is alternatively $et and dry

according to the tide!C

1%


15/50

3+a Cu8 v. Dua'-o, G.R. No. "2#$%0, "$ a! "999, Fi&' Divi&ion, J. Pa1o.

An action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud may e arred y the

statute of limitations, $hich requires that the action must e commenced $ithin % years from the

discovery of the fraud! =n case of registered land, such discovery is deemed to have taken place

from the date of the registration of the title! "he registration of title constitutes notice to all the$orld!

ananan v. D+o& R+!+&, G.R. No. ""/94, Jun+ "0 "999, Fi&' Divi&ion, J. Pa1o!

"he remedy of the lando$ner E uyer $hose property has een $rongfully or erroneously

registered in the seller)s name is to ring an action in the ordinary courts for reconveyance!

An action for reconveyance ased on an implied or constructive trust prescries in ten

+17- years from the issuance of the "orrens title over the property!

Where the uyer slept on his right for thirty/eight +*@- years counted from the time the

#riginal 'ertificate of "itle $as issued on 1 Danuary 1?*6, until he filed his amended ans$er to

the complaint of seller)s heirs on 1% >arch 1?65, asking for reconveyance of the lots in question,

his right to ring such action $as arred y laches as he took no step to$ards that direction

reasonaly after the title to the property $as issued under the "orrens system!

S*&. 3iai(o @ Fau&'ino v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0/9"2, 2$ Jun+ "999, T6i1

Divi&ion, J. Pui&ia.

Forest lands cannot e o$ned y private persons! ossession thereof, no matter ho$

long, does not open into a registrale title! "he adverse possession $hich may e the asis of a

grant of title or confirmation of an imperfect title refers only to alienale or disposale portions

of the pulic domain!

R+*ubi( o) '6+ P6ii**in+& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "29#9, 2/ Jun+ "999, T6i1

Divi&ion, J. 3i'u!

"he requirement of actual notice to the occupants and the o$ners of the ad.oining

property under Sections 1 and 1* of 4epulic Act 0o! 8 is mandatory in order to vest.urisdiction upon the court in a petition for reconstitution of title and essential to allo$ said court

to take the case on its merits! "he non/oservance of the notice requirement invalidates the

$hole reconstitution proceedings in the trial court!

15


16/50

+i& o) aiano :u&a& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "2#$/, 2# Auu&' "999, S+(on1

Divi&ion, J. :+o&io.

"itle to land once registered under the "orrens sytem cannot e defeated y prescription!

4egistration constitutes notice to the $hole $orld and therefore all persons are ound y it and

no one can plead ignorance of the registration! Where ho$ever a person otains a certificate oftitle to land elonging to another and he has full kno$ledge of the rights of the true o$ner, he is

considered guilty of fraud! Be may therefore e compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded

o$ner as long as the property has not passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value!

R+!+& v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "2#0$, %0 S+*'+b+ "999, S+(on1 Divi&ion, J.

:+o&io.

An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land on the asis of implied or constructive

trust prescries in 17 years! "he point reference is the date of registration of the deed of the date

of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property!

"his rule ho$ever applies only $hen the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of

the property! =f the person claiming to e the o$ner is in actual possession of the property, the

right to seek conveyance $hich in effect seeks to quiet title to the property does not prescrie!

:a(+7+ v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "042, 2/ Janua! 2000, Fi&' Divi&ion,


17/50

=n order that a transfer of the rights of a holder of a certificate of sale of friar lands may e

legally effective, a formal certificate of transfer must e dra$n up and sumitted to the chief of

the 3ureau of Lands for his approval and registration! "he la$ authori2es no other mode of

transferring the rights of a holder of a certificate of sale of friar lands!

Aa&+n v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. ""//0$, "/ F+bua! 2000, Fi&' Divi&ion,


18/50

Pubi( E&'a'+& Au'6oi'! v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G. R. No. ""2"2, 20 Nov+b+ 2000, Fi&'

Divi&ion, Pa1o, J.

An applicant seeking to estalish o$nership of land must conclusively sho$ that he isthe o$ner in fee simple, for the standing presumption is that all lands elong to the pulic

domain of the state, unless acquired from the Government either y purchase or y grant, e&cept

lands possessed y an occupant and his predecessors since time immemorial, for such possession

$ould .ustify the presumption that the land had never een part of the pulic domain, or that it

had een private property even efore the Spanish conquest!I

'onsidering that the survey plan for the land $as approved only in 1??, and claimant

paid the realty ta&es thereon on #ctoer *7, 1??, shortly efore the filing of the suit elo$ for

damages $ith in.unction( under the premises, claimant must e deemed to egin asserting his

adverse claim to Lot 5155 only in 1??!

+0-o pulic land can e acquired y private persons $ithout any grant, e&press or

implied from the government( it is indispensale that there e a sho$ing of a little from the state!

#n the other hand, one claiming private rightsH must prove that he has complied $ith

'!A! 0o! 1%1, as amended, other$ise kno$n as the ulic Land Act, $hich prescried the

sustantive as $ell as procedural requirements for acquisition of pulic lands!

9nder the pulic land act, .udicial confirmation of imperfect title required possession en

concepto de duenosince time immemorial, or since Duly 8, 1@?%! 9nder '!A! 0o! 1%1, this

requirement $as retained! Bo$ever, on Dune , 1?56, 4epulic Act 0o! 1?% $as enacted

amending '!A! 0o! 1%1! "his later enactment required adverse possession for a period of only

thirty +*7- years! #n Danuary 5, 1?66, the resident enacted !! 0o! 176*, further amending '!

A! 0o! 1%1, e&tending the period for filing application for .udicial confirmation of imperfect or

incomplete titles to ecemer *1, 1?@6! 9nder this decree, the provisions of Section %@ +- and

Section %@ +c-, 'hapter :===, of the ulic Land Act are herey amended in the sense that these

provisions shall apply only to alienale and disposale land of the pulic domain $hich have

een in open, continuous, e&clusive and notorious possession and occupation y the applicant

himself or thru his predecessor/in/interest under a ona fide claim of acquisition of o$nership,

since Dune 1, 1?%5!

What is more, +u-nder the ulic Land Act as amended, only titles to alienale anddisposale lands of the pulic domain may e .udicially confirmed! 9nless a pulic land is

reclassified and declared as such, occupation thereof in the concept of o$ner, no matter ho$ long

ago, cannot confer o$nership or possessory rights!I

1@


19/50

D+ Ro&aio v. R+*ubi(, G.R. No. "4$%%$, Jun+ 2002, S+(on1 Divi&ion, J. +n1o8a.

A person cannot enter forest land and earn credits to$ards the eventual confirmation of

imperfect title y the simple act of cultivating a portion of that land! "he government must first

declare the forest land to e alienale and disposale agricultural land, efore any entry,

cultivation and e&clusive and adverse possession can e counted for purposes of confirmation ofan imperfect title!

C6av+8 v. Pubi( E&'a'+& Au'6oi'!, En :an(, G.R. No. "%%2/0, 9 Ju! 2002, Ca*io, J..

"he 1?*5, 1?6* and 1?@6 'onstitutions adopted the 4egalian doctrine sustituting,

ho$ever, the State, in lieu of the Jing, as the o$ner of all lands and $aters of the pulic domain!

"he 4egalian doctrine is the foundation of the time/honored principle of land o$nership that all

lands that $ere not acquired from the Government, either y purchase or y grant, elong to the

pulic domain!I Article **? of the 'ivil 'ode of 1@@?, $hich is no$ Article %7 of the 'ivil

'ode of 1?57, incorporated the 4egalian doctrineK!I

"he an in the 1?6* 'onstitution on private corporations from acquiring alienale lands

of the pulic domain did not apply to ;A since it $as then, and until today, a fully o$ned

government corporation! "he constitutional an applied then, as it still applies no$, only to

private corporations and associations!I 0o! 17@% e&pressly empo$ers ;A to hold lands of

the pulic domainI even in e&cess of the area permitted to private corporations y statute!I

"hus, ;A can hold title to private lands, as $ell as title to lands of the pulic domain!

=n order for ;A to sell its reclaimed foreshore and sumerged alienale lands of the

pulic domain, there must e legislative authority empo$ering ;A to sell these lands!

Without such legislative authority, ;A could not sell ut only lease its reclaimed

foreshore and sumerged alienale lands of the pulic domain! 0evertheless, any legislative

authority granted to ;A to sell its reclaimed alienale lands of the pulic domain $ould e

su.ect to the constitutional an on private corporations from acquiring alienale lands of the

pulic domain! Bence, such legislative authority could only enefit private individuals!

"he 1?@6 'onstitution, like the 1?*5 and 1?6* 'onstitutions efore it, has adopted the

4egalian doctrine! "he 1?@6 'onstitution declares that all natural resources are o$ned y the

State,I and e&cept for alienale agricultural lands of the pulic domain, natural resources cannot

e alienated!

"he 1?@6 'onstitution continues the State policy in the 1?6* 'onstitution anning

private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienale land of the pulic domain! Like the

1?6* 'onstitution, the 1?@6 'onstitution allo$s private corporations to hold alienale lands of

the pulic domain only through lease! As in the 1?*5 and 1?6* 'onstitutions, the general la$

1?


20/50


21/50

pulic domain among Filipinos, no$ numering over @7 million strong!

"his scheme, if allo$ed, can even e applied to alienale agricultural lands of the pulic

domain since ;A can acquireK any and all kinds of lands!I "his $ill open the floodgates to

corporations and even individuals acquiring hundreds of hectares of alienale lands of the pulic

domain under the guise that in the hands of ;A these lands are private lands! "his $ill result incorporations amassing huge landholdings never efore seen in this country creating the very

evil that the constitutional an $as designed to prevent! "his $ill completely reverse the clear

direction of constitutional development in this country! "he 1?*5 'onstitution allo$ed private

corporations to acquire not more than 1,7% hectares of pulic lands! "he 1?6* 'onstitution

prohiited private corporations from acquiring any kind of pulic land, and the 1?@6 'onstitution

has unequivocally reiterated this prohiitionK!I

"he 4egalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system! Foreshore and sumerged

areas form part of the pulic domain and are inalienale! Lands reclaimed from foreshore and

sumerged areas also form part of the pulic domain and are also inalienale, unless converted

pursuant to la$ into alienale or disposale lands of the pulic domain! Bistorically, landsreclaimed y the government aresui generis, not availale for sale to private parties unlike other

alienale pulic lands! 4eclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for pulic use or

pulic service! Alienale lands of the pulic domain, increasingly ecoming scarce natural

resources, are to e distriuted equitaly among our ever/gro$ing population! "o ensure such

equitale distriution, the 1?6* and 1?@6 'onstitutions have arred private corporations from

acquiring any kind of alienale land of the pulic domain! "hose $ho attempt to dispose of

inalienale natural resources of the state, or seek to circumvent the conditional an on alienation

of lands of the pulic domain to private corporations, do so at their o$n risks!I

Coa1o v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "0#4, 4 O('ob+ 2002, Fi&' Divi&ion, J. Ca*io.

9nder the 4egalian octrine, all lands not other$ise appearing to e clearly $ithin

private o$nership are presumed to elong to the State!I

An applicant for confirmation of imperfect title ears the urden of proving that he

meets the requirements of Section %@ of 'A 1%1, as amended! Be must overcome the

presumption that the land he is applying for ispart of the pulic domain and that he has an

interest therein sufficient to $arrant registration in his name arising from an imperfect title! An

imperfect title may have een derived from old Spanish grants such as a titulo realor royal grant,

a concession especial or special grant, a composition con el estadoor ad.ustment title, or a titulode compra or title through purchase! #r, that he has had continuous, open and notorious

possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the pulic domain under a ona fide claim of

o$nership for at least thirty years preceding the filing of his application as provided in Section

%@+- of 'A 1%1!I

1


22/50

"he ulic Land Act requires that the applicant must prove the follo$ing +a- that the

land is alienale pulic land, and +- that his open, continuous, e&clusive and notorious

possession and occupation of the same must either e since time immemorial, or for the period

prescried in the la$! When the conditions set y la$ are complied $ith, the possessor of the

land, y operation of la$, acquires a right to a government grant, $ithout need of a certificate of

title eing issued!

Section %@+- of 'A 1%1, as amended, applies e&clusively to alienale and disposale

pulic agricultural land! Forest lands, including $atershed reservations, are e&cluded! =t is

a&iomatic that the possession of forest lands or other inalienale pulic lands cannot ripen into

private o$nership! =n >unicipality of Santiago, =saela v! 'ourt of Appeals +17 S'4A 6*%

N1?@*O-, the 'ourt declared that inalienale pulic lands cannot e acquired y acquisitive

prescription! rescription, oth acquisitive and e&tinctive, does not run against the State!HI

=n fine, one claiming private rightsH must prove that has complied $ith '!A! 0o! 1%1, as

amended, other$ise kno$n as the ulic Land Act, $hich prescries the sustantive as $ell as

the procedural requirements for acquisition of pulic lands! "his la$ requires at least thirty +*7-years of open, continuous, e&clusive and notorious possession of agricultural lands of the pulic

domain, under a ona fide claim of acquisition, immediately preceding the filing of the

application for free patent! "he rationale for the *7/year period lies in the presumption that the

land applied for pertains to the State, and that occupants andEor possessors claim an interest

therein only y virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open and notorious possession!I

A positive act +e!g!, an official proclamation- of the ;&ecutive epartment is needed to

declassify land $hich had een earlier classified as a $atershed reservation and to convert it into

alienale or disposale land for agricultural or other purposes! 9nless and until the land

classified as such is released in an official proclamation so that it may form part of the disposale

agricultural lands of the pulic domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply!I

=t is no$ estalished that the Lot, eing a $atershed reservation, is not alienale and

disposale pulic land! "he evidence of the +applicants- do not clearly and convincingly sho$

that the Lot, descried as Lot su/1887, ceased to e a portion of the area classified as a

$atershed reservation of the pulic domain! Any title to the Lot is void ab initio! =n vie$ of this,

the alleged procedural infirmities attending the filing of the petition for annulment of .udgment

are immaterial since the land registration court never acquired .urisdiction over the Lot! All

proceedings of the land registration court involving the Lot are therefore null and void!I

+"-he right of reversion or reconveyance to the State of the pulic properties registeredand $hich are not capale of private appropriation or private acquisition does not prescrie!I

R+*ubi( v. +i& o) An++&, G.R. No. "4"29#, O('ob+ 2002, T6i1 Divi&ion,

Pananiban, J.


23/50

A certificate of title issued on the asis of a free patent is as indefeasile as one secured

.udicially! "his indefeasiility ho$ever cannot ar an investigation y the State as to ho$ such

title has een acquired, $here the purpose of the investigation is to determine $hether or not

fraud has een committed in securing the title! #ne $ho succeeds in acquiring title to pulic

land y fraudulent means cannot e allo$ed to enefit from it!

"he asic rule is that prescription does not run against the State and its sudivisions!

When the government is the real party in interest, seeking to assert its o$n right to recover its

o$n property, there can e no defense of laches or prescription! ulic land fraudulently

included in patents or certificates of title may e recovered or reverted to the State pursuant to

Section 171 of the ulic Land Act! "he right of the State to reversion or reconveyance does not

prescrie!

R+*ubi( v. A+;aa, S., G.R. No. "4#0%0, % D+(+b+ 2002, T6i1 Divi&ion, Pananiban,

J.

"he indefeasiility of title does not attach to titles secured y fraud and

misrepresentation! "he $ell settled doctrine is that the registration of a patent under the "orrens

System does not y itself vest title! 4egistration merely confirms the registrantHs e&isting title!

4egistration under the "orrens System is not a mode of acquiring o$nership!

9nder Section 171 of '!A! 0o! 1%1, the State may ring an action for the reversion to the

pulic domain of land that has een fraudulently granted to private individuals, even after the

lapse of one +1- year! "he indefeasiility of title does not ar an investigation y the State as to

ho$ the title has een acquired, $here the purpose of the investigation is to determine $hether or

not fraud has in fact een committed in securing the title!

C6av+8 v&. Pubi( E&'a'+& Au'6oi'!, En :an(, G.R. No. "%%2/0, # a! 200%, Ca*io, J..

9nder the 1?*5 'onstitution, private corporations $ere allo$ed to acquire alienale

lands of the pulic domain! 3ut since the effectivity of the 1?6* 'onstitution, private

corporations $ere anned from holding, e&cept y lease, alienale lands of pulic domain! "he

1?@6 'onstitution continued this constitutional prohiitionK!I

+"he- sumerged areas of >anila 3ay, eing part of the sea, are inalienale and eyond

the commerce of man, a doctrine that has remained immutale since the Spanish La$ on Waters

of 1@@8K!I

Since the adoption of the 4egalian doctrine in this .urisdiction, the sea and its foreshore

areas have al$ays een part of the pulic domain! And since the enactment of Act 0o! 185% on

*


24/50

>ay 1@,1?76 until the effectivity of the 1?6* 'onstitution, statutory la$ never allo$ed foreshore

lands reclaimed y the government to e sold to private corporations! "he 1?6* and 1?@6

'onstitution enshrined and e&panded the an to include any alienale land of the pulic

domainK!I

Government o$ned lands, as long as they are patrimonial property, can e sold toprivate parties, $hether Filipino citi2ens or qualified private corporations! "hus, the so/called

Friar Lands acquired y the government under Act 0o! 117 are patrimonial property $hich even

private corporations can acquire y purchase! Like$ise, reclaimed alienale lands of the pulic

domain if sold or transferred to a pulic or municipal corporation for a monetary consideration

ecome patrimonial property in the hands of the pulic or municipal corporation! #nce converted

to patrimonial property, the land may e sold y the pulic or municipal corporation to private

parties, $hether Filipino citi2ens or qualified private corporations!I

R+*ubi( v. Lao, G.R. No. "/04"%, " Ju! 200%, Fi&' Divi&ion,


25/50

What is sought instead is the transfer of the property or its title $hich has een $rongfully or

erroneously registered in another personHs name, to its rightful or legal o$ner, or to the one $ith

a etter right!

0evertheless, the right to seek reconveyance of registered property is not asolute

ecause it is su.ect to e&tinctive prescriptionK! Civil Code, Articles. 1456 and 1144.Presidential Decree No. 152, !ection 5", paragrap# ".

"here is ut one instance $hen prescription cannot e invoked in an action for

reconveyance, that is, $hen the plaintiff is in possession of the land to e conveyed!

=n a series of cases, this 'ourt permitted the filing of an action for reconveyance despite

the lapse of ten years and declared that said action, $hen ased on fraud, is imprescriptile as

long as the land has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value! 3ut in all those cases K on

$hich the appellate court ased its assailed decision, the common factual ackdrop $as that the

registered o$ners $ere never in possession of the disputed property! =nstead, it $as the persons

$ith the etter right or the legal o$ners of the land $ho had al$ays een in possession of thesame! "hus, the 'ourt allo$ed the action for reconveyance to prosper in those cases despite the

lapse of more than ten years from the issuance of title to the land! "he e&ception $as ased on

the theory that registration proceedings could not e used as a shield for fraud or for enriching a

person at the e&pense of another!I

S*ou&+& No+ an1 Jui+ Abio v. Roana D+ 3+a, G.R. No. "/4409, 2" Jun+ 2004, Fi&'

Divi&ion, Pananiban, J..

3et$een t$o uyers of the same immovale property registered under the "orrens

system, the la$ +Article 15%% of the 'ivil 'ode- gives o$nership priority to +1- the first

registrant in good faith( +- then, the first possessor in good faith( and +*- finally, the uyer $ho

in good faith presents the oldest title! "his provision, ho$ever, does not apply if the property is

not registered under the "orres systemK!

#ther$ise stated, the la$ provides that a doule sale of immovales transfers o$nership

to +1- the first registrant in good faith( +- then, the first possessor in good faith( and +*- finally,

the uyer $ho in good faith presents the oldest title! "here is no amiguity in the application of

this la$ $ith respect to lands registered under the "orrens system!

"his principle is in full accord $ith Section 51 of 15? $hich provides that no deed,mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument e&cept a $ill purporting to convey or affect

registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or ind the land until its registration! "hus, if the

sale is not registered, it is inding only et$een the seller and the uyer ut it does not affect

innocent third personsK!

5


26/50

A "orrens title, once registered, serves as a notice to the $hole $orld! All persons must

take notice, and no one can plead ignorance of the registration!

We have consistently held that Article 15%% requires the second uyer to acquire the

immovale in good faith and to register it in good faith! >ere registration of title is not enough(

good faith must concur $ith the registrationK!

;qually important, under Section %% of 15?, every registered o$ner receiving a

certificate of title pursuant to a decree of registration, and every susequent purchaser of

registered land taking such certificate for value and in good faith shall hold the same free from all

encumrances, e&cept those noted and enumerated in the certificate! "hus, a person dealing $ith

registered land is not required to go ehind the registry to determine the condition of the

property, since such condition is noted on the face of the register or certificate of title! Follo$ing

this principle, this 'ourt has consistently held as regards registered land that a purchaser in good

faith acquires a good title as against all the transferees thereof $hose rights are not recorded in

the 4egistry of eeds at the time of the saleK!

+'-onstructive notice to the second uyer through registration under Act **%% does not

apply if the property is registered under the "orrens systemK!I

S*ou&+& oan1a'+ v. Cou' o) A**+a&, G.R. No. "2%/$#, "2 Auu&' 2004, S+(on1

Divi&ion, Au&'ia-a'in+8, J.

A complaint for reversion involves a serious controversy, involving a question of fraud

and misrepresentation committed against the government and it seeks the return of the disputed

portion of the pulic domain! =t seeks to cancel the original certificate of registration, and nullify

the original certificate of title, including the transfer certificate of title of the successor/in/interest

ecause the same $ere all procured through fraud and misrepresentation!

"he State, as the party alleging that fraud and misrepresentation attended the application

for free patent, ears the urden of proof! "he circumstances evidencing fraud and

misrepresentation are as varied as the people $ho perpetrate it in each case! =t assumes different

shapes and forms and may e committed in as many different $ays! "herefore, fraud and

misrepresentation are never presumed ut must e proved y clear and convincing evidence,

mere preponderance of evidence not eing adequateK!

+"-he mistake or error of the officials of the +3ureau of Lands- in this regard cannot einvoked against the government $ith regard to property of the pulic domain! =t has een said

that the State cannot e estopped y the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents!

=t is $ell/recogni2ed that if a person otains a title under the ulic Land Act $hich

includes, y oversight, lands $hich cannot e registered under the "orrens system, or $hen the

8


27/50

irector of Lands did not have .urisdiction over the same ecause it is a pulic domain, the

grantee does not, y virtue of the said certificate of title alone, ecome the o$ner of the land or

property illegally included! #ther$ise stated, property of the pulic domain is incapale of

registration and its inclusion in a title nullifies that title!

"he present controversy involves a portion of the pulic domain that $as merelyerroneously included in the free patent! A different rule $ould apply $here fraud is convincingly

sho$n! "he asence of clear evidence of fraud $ill not invalidate the entire title of the

>orandarte spouses!

Accordingly, the 1,18 square meter portion traversed y the >iputak 4iver and the

1*,**? square meter portion covered y the fishpond lease agreement of the Lacaya spouses

$hich $ere erroneously included in Free atent 0o! +=M/@- 6@5 and #riginal 'ertificate of "itle

0o! /1?6 should e reconveyed ack to the StateK!I

=t is a settled rule that unless a pulic land is sho$n to have een reclassified as

alienale or actually alienated y the State to a private person, that piece of land remains part ofthe pulic domain! Bence, Antonio A! >orandarteHs occupation thereof, ho$ever long, cannot

ripen into private o$nership!I

Dia8-Eniu+8 v. R+*ubi(, G.R. No. "4"0%", %" Auu&' 2004, S+(on1 Divi&ion, Ca+;o, S.

J.

"here are t$o facts that the applicant must prove to support an application for

registration! "he first is that the land sought to e registered is the same land descried in the

application( the second is that the applicant must e the o$ner of the land!

=t is settled that a person $ho seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove the

claim y clear and convincing evidence! +ia2/;nrique2- $as then duty ound to identify

sufficiently and satisfactorily that the lot sought to e registered is the same or part of the lot she

purchased from the ere


28/50

cases is incument on the applicant $ho must sho$ that she is the real and asolute o$ner in fee

simple of the land applied forK!

=n the case at ar, +ia2/;nrique2- failed to prove that she and her predecessors/in/

interest had een in open, continuous, e&clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the

su.ect property under a ona fide claim of o$nership since time immemorial or since Dune 1,1?%5!I

?a'on v. Paan(a, J., G.R. No. "/""49, 0 S+*'+b+ 2004, T6i1 Divi&ion, Pananiban, J.

=n an action for nullification of title or declaration of its nullity, the complaint must

contain the follo$ing allegations 1- that the contested land $as privately o$ned y the plaintiff

prior to the issuance of the assailed certificate of title to the defendant( and - that the defendant

perpetuated a fraud or committed a mistake in otaining a document of title over the parcel of

land claimed y the plaintiff! =n these cases, the nullity arises not from fraud or deceit, ut from

the fact that the director of the Land >anagement 3ureau had no .urisdiction to esto$ title(hence, the issued patent or certificate of title $as void ab initio.

=n an alternative action for reconveyance, the title certificate of title is K respected as

incontrovertile, ut the transfer of the property or title thereto is sought to e nullified on the

ground that it $as $rongfully or erroneously registered in the defendantHs name! As $ith an

annulment of title, a complaint must allege t$o facts that, if admitted, $ould entitle the plaintiff

to recover title to the disputed land +1- that the plaintiff $as the o$ner of the land, and +- that

the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff of the property! "herefore, the defendant $ho

acquired the property through mistake or fraud is ound to hold and reconvey to the plaintiff the

property or title theretoK!

Section 171 of the ulic Land Act categorically declares that only the solicitor general

or the officer in his stead may institute K an action +for reversion-! A private person may not

ring an action for reversion or any other action that $ould have the effect of cancelling a free

patent and its derivative title, $ith the result that the land therey covered $ould again form part

of the pulic domain!

"hus, $hen the plaintiff admits in the complaint that the disputed land $ill revert to the

pulic domain even if the title is cancelled or amended, the action is for reversion( and the proper

party $ho may ring action is the government, to $hich the property $ill revert! A mere

homestead applicant, not eing the real party in interest, has no cause of action in a suit forreconveyance! As it is, vested rights over the land applied for under a homestead may e validly

claimed only y the applicant, after approval y the director of the Land >anagement 3ureau of

the formerHs final proof of homestead patentK!

+A-ssuming that +Jaton- is the proper party to ring the action for annulment of title or

@


29/50

its reconveyance, the case should still e dismissed for eing time/arred! =t is not disputed that a

homestead patent and an #riginal 'ertificate of "itle $as issued to alanca on Feruary 1,

1?66, $hile the 'omplaint $as filed only on #ctoer 8, 1??@! 'learly, the suit $as rought $ay

past ten years from the date of issuance of the 'ertificate, the prescriptive period for

reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property!

=t must like$ise e stressed that alancaHs title/$hich attained the status of

indefeasiility one year from the issuance of the patent and the 'ertificate of "itle in Feruary

1?66/is no longer

open to revie$ on the ground of actual fraud! Pane2 v! =ntermediate Appellate 'ourt ruled that

a certificate of title, issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent, is

as indefeasile as one issued under a .udicial registration proceeding one year from its issuance(

provided, ho$ever, that the land covered y it is disposale pulic land, as in this case!I

+i& o) C+ia Gao& v. +i& o) Juiana Fan1o, G.R. No. "49"", "# D+(+b+ 2004,

T6i1 Divi&ion, Pananiban, J.

"he hilippine 'onstitution provides that all lands of the pulic domain Kare o$ned

y the state!I "hey are classified into agricultural, forest or timer, mineral lands and national

parksK! Alienale lands of the pulic domain shall e limited to agricultural lands!I

"he origin of the foregoing provisions can e traced to the 4oman la$ concept of

dominium, the po$er of the state to o$n or acquire property 9nder this concept, $hich ecome

the asis for the regalian theory predominant during the Spanish times, all lands elonged to the

Spanish 'ro$n! =n our present repulican form of government, the concept remains, aleit

stripped of its colonial overtones 0o$ o$nership of all lands of the pulic domain is vested in

the State!

As in ordinary o$nership, dominium emraces the capacity to alienate the property

o$ned! "he constitutional limitation on the stateHs po$er to alienate agricultural lands of the

pulic domain is intended to prevent monopoly and foreign control of our natural resources, as

$ell as to enale the government to control the e&ploitation, development and utili2ation thereof

for the enefit of all!

rivate person gain title to agricultural lands of the pulic domain y virtue of a grant,

adverse possession +prescription-, accretion and /in certain cases / reclamation! #ne $ho seeks to

register oneHs title has the urden of proving that it has een acquired through any of theforegoing modes, y virtue of $hich the land has effectively een segregated from the pulic

domainK!!

isposal of pulic agricultural land through a sales patent, as in the instant case, is

governed y 'ommon$ealth Act 0o!1%1, the ulic Land Act! 9nder this la$, as sales patent

?


30/50

may e granted to a Filipino citi2en $ho may or may not e of la$ful age, provide that one $ho

is elo$ the age of ma.ority is the head of the family! "he la$ provides that after $inning the

id and paying the price, the applicant must comply $ith the necessary requirements /

specifically the cultivation, occupation and introduction of improvement over at least one fifth of

the land applied for!

After the applicant meets the legal requirement !the director of lands then orders the

survey of the land and the issuance of the sales patent in the applicantHs favor! Section 176 of

'ommon$ealth Act 1%1 further requires the registration of the patent under the Land

4egistration Act y furnishing the registration of deeds a certified copy thereof, after $hich the

corresponding certificate of title $ould accordingly e issued to the patenteeK!

Given the full payment of the purchase price as $ell as the compliance $ith all the

requirements for the grant for a sales patent the 3ureau had no reason to deny the issuance of

such patent to Frando! Ber compliance $ith all requirements effectively vested in her and her

successors/in/interest an equitale title to the property applied forK!

"hus, $hen the cadastral survey $as susequently conduct in Sta! >agdalena in 1?5@!

the disputed property / already held in private o$nership / $as no longer part of the pulic

domain! "he director of lands had no move authority to grant to a third person a patent covering

the same tract that had already passed to private o$nership! "hus, the issuance of the free patent

to 'erila Gamos, insofar as it encroached the portion already granted to Frado, had no legal asis

at all,

"he denial of the sales patent not$ithstanding, Duliana Frando is deemed to have

acquired equitale title to the property, ecause +her heirs- adequately proved during trial her

open, continuous, and notorious possession and occupation of alienale and disposale land of

the pulic domainK!!

=n line $ith !usi v. $a%on+ %@ hil! %%N 1?5O -, possession of a parcel of agricultural

land of the pulic domain for the prescried period of the *7 year ipso &urecoverts the lot into

private propertyK!

'learly, the mere application for a patent, coupled $ith the fact of e&clusive, open,

continuous and notorious possession for the required period is sufficient to vest in the applicant

the grant for! =n sum, the application y Duliana Frado for the sales patent, coupled $ith her open,

e&clusive, uninterrupted and notorious possession of the land applied for is, for all purposes,

equivalent to a patent already perfected and granted !

"he susequent entry of +the heirs of 'erila Gamos- and their occupation of the property

in question $as in ad faith, given the prior possession thereof y +the heirs of Duliana Frando-!I

*7


31/50

+i& o) a=io San;o;o v. +i& o) anu+


32/50

individual!I

Li v. C6ua'o(o G.R. No. "#"$$", "" a(6 200/ S+(on1 Divi&ion, Tina, J.

'onsistently, this court has ruled that every person dealing $ith registered land maysafely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore and the la$ $ill in no $ay

olige him to go eyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property! A person is

charged $ith notice only of such urden and claims as are annotated on the title! "hus, $here

there nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the o$nership of the

property, or any encumrance thereon, the purchaser is not require to e&plore further than $hat

the torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may

susequently defeat his right thereto!I

"he general rule remains that the purchaser is not oligated to look eyond the title! "his

long entrenched rule cannot e dispensed $ith y the occasion of a mere shado$ of a dout! =t

may e gainsaid that there is nothing unusually suspicious $ith the mere fact that a deed oftransfer or conveyance over titled property is registered three years after the e&ecution of the

deed! =n fact, there is nothing in our land registration la$ that requires the registration or

encoding of such deeds $ithin a definite prescried period of time! "he only legal effect of such

non/registration is that implied under Section 51 of the roperty 4egistration ecree, $hich

provides that the act of registration ecomes the operative act to convey or effect the land insofar

as third persons are concerned, though prior to registration, it operates as a contract et$een the

parties and as evidence of authority to the 4egister of eeds to make registration!

"hus, the mere fact that the deed of sale $as recorded $ith the 4egister of eeds only

three years after its date of e&ecution did not, in itself, impugn the validity of the instrument!I

Evan+i&'a +' a v. San'iao G.R. No. "/44, 29 A*i 200/ S+(on1 Divi&ion, C6i(o-

Na8aio, J.

An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of the

title is not the same as an action for reversion! "he difference et$een lies in the allegations as to

the character of o$nership of the realty $hose title is sought to e nullified! =n an action of

reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint $ould admit State o$nership of the disputed

land! Bence, in 'abila v. (arrigaN%1 S'4A 1*1O, $here the plaintiff in his complaint admits

that he has no right to demand the cancellation pr amendment of the defendantHs title ecauseeven if the title $ere canceled or amended the o$nership of the land emraced therein or of the

portion affected y the amendment $ould revert to the pulic domain, $e ruled that the action

$as for reversion and that the person or entity entitled to relief $ould e the director of the land!

#n the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and

*


33/50

certificate of the title $ould require allegations of the plaintiffHs o$nership of the contested lot

prior of the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title, as $ell as the defendantHs fraud or

mistakes, as the case may e, in successfully otaining these documents of title over the parcel of

land claimed y plaintiff! =n such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit ut

from the fact that the land is eyond the .urisdiction of the 3ureau of Lands to esto$ and

$hatever patent or certificate of title otained therefore is consequently void ab initio! "he real/party/interest is not the state ut the plaintiff $ho alleges a pre/e&isting right of o$nership over

the parcel of land in question even efore the grant of title to the defendant!I

4egistration proceedings under the "orrens systems do not create or vest title, ut only

confirm and record the title already created and vested! 3y virtue of !! 0o! @?, the courts, in

registration proceedings under the "orrens system, are precluded from accepting, confirming and

recording a Spanish title! 4eason therefore dictates that courts, like$ise, are prevented and

indirectly confirming such Spanish title in some other form of action rought efore them +i!e!,

removal of cloud on or quieting of title-, only short of ordering its recording or registration! "o

rule other$ise $ould open the doors to the circumvention of !! 0o! @?, and give rise to the

e&istence of land titles, recogni2ed and affirmed y the courts, ut $ould never e recordedunder the "orrens system of registration! "his $ould definitely undermine the "orrens system

and cause confusion and instaility in property o$nership that !! 0o! @? intended to

eliminate!I

Article %68 of the 'ivil 'ode, on a removal of a cloud on or quieting of title, provides

that, $henever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, y reason of any

instrument, record, claim, encumrance or proceedings $hich is apparently valid or effective ut

is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidale, or unenforceale, and may e pre.udicial to

said title, an action may e rought to remove such cloud or quiet the title!

An action may also e rought to prevent a cloud from eing cast upon title to real

property or any interest therein!I

A cloud on title is an outstanding instrument, record, claim, encumrance or proceedings

$hich is actually invalid or inoperative, ut $hich may nevertheless impair or affect in.uriously

the title to property! "he matter complained of must have prima )acieappearance of validity or

legal efficacy! "he cloud on title is a semlance of title $hich appears in some legal form ut

$hich is in fact unfounded! "he invalidity or inoperativeness of the instrument is not apparent on

the face of such instrument, and it has to e proved y e&trinsic evidence!

According to Article %66 of the 'ivil 'ode, the plaintiff, in an action to remove a cloudon or to quiet title, must have legal or equitale title to, or interest in, the real property $hich is

the su.ect matter of the action!

"itle to real property refers to that upon $hich o$nership is ased! =t is the evidence of

the right of the o$ner or the e&tent of his interest, y $hich means he can maintain control and,

**


34/50

as a rule, assert right to e&clusive possession and en.oyment of the property!I

A8na :o'6+& R+a'! Co*an! v. A!in G.R. No. "44%, "# a! 200/ S+(on1 Divi&ion,

Au&'ia-a'in+8, J.

+"he heirs- alleged in their amended complaint that not all the co/o$ners of the land in

question signed or e&ecuted the document conveying o$nership thereof to +the realty company-

and made the conclusion that said document is null and void! We agree $ith the ruling of the

4"' and the 'A that the e&tra/.udicial partition of 4eal ;state $ith eed of Asolute Sale is

valid and inding only as to their $ho participated in the e&ecution thereof, hence, the heirs of

;miliano, Simeon and 4oerta Aying, $ho undisputedly did not participate therein cannot e

ound y said documents!

Bo$ever, the facts on record sho$ that +the realty company- acquired the entire parcel

of land $ith the mistaken elief that all the heirs have e&ecuted the su.ect document! "hus, the

trial court is correct that the provision of la$ applicale to this case is Article 1%58 of the 'ivil'ode $hich states

A4"! 1%58! =f property is required through mistake or fraud, the person otaining it is, y

force of la$, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the enefit of the person from

$hom the property comes!

=n *da. De +sconde vs. Court o) Appeals+5* S'4A 88 N1??8O-, the court e&pounded

thus

'onstruing this provision of the 'ivil 'ode, in hilippine 0ational 3ank v! 'ourt of

Appeals, the court stated

A deeper analysis of Article 1%58 reveals that it is not a trust in the technical sense for

typical trust, confidence is reposed in one person $ho is named a trustee for the enefit of

another $ho is called the cestui que trust, respecting property $hich is held y the trustee

for the enefit of the cestui que trust! A constructive trust, unlike an e&press trust, does

not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation! While in e&press trust, a eneficiary

and a trustee are linked y the confidential or fiduciary relations, in a constructive trust,

there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so/called trustee

neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the eneficiary!I

"he concept of constructive trusts $as further elucidated in the same case, as follo$s

+=-mplied trusts are those $hich, $ithout eing e&pressed, are deducile from the nature

of the transaction as matters as intent or $hich are superinduced on the transaction y

operation of la$ as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the

parties! =n turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts! "hese t$o are

*%


35/50

differentiated from each other as follo$s

4esulting trusts are ased on the equitale doctrine that valuale consideration and not

legal title determines the equitale title or interest and are not presumed al$ays to have

een contemplated y the parties! "hey arise from the nature of circumstances of the

consideration involved in a transaction $herey one person therey ecomes invested$ith legal title ut is oligated in equity to hold his legal title for the enefit of another!

#n the other hand, constructive trusts are created y the construction of equity in order to

satisfy the demands of .ustice and prevent un.ust enrichment! "hey arise contrary to

intention against one $ho, y fraud, duress or ause of confidence, otains or hold the

legal rights to property $hich he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold!I

3ased on such concept of constructive trusts, the court ruled in said case that

B"he rule that a trustee cannot acquire y prescription o$nership over property entrusted

to him until and unless he repudiates the trust, applies to e&press trusts and resulting

implied trusts! Bo$ever, in constructive implied trusts, prescription may supervene evenif the trustee does not repudiate the relationship! 0ecessarily, repudiation of said trust is

not a condition precedent to the running of the prescriptive period!I

"he ne&t question is, $hat is the applicale prescriptive periodQ

=n Amerol v. (agumbaran +15% S'4A *?8 N1?@6O-, the court e&pounded on the

prescriptive period $ithin $hich to ring an action for reconveyance of property ased on

implied or constructive trust, to $it

+9-nder the present 'ivil 'ode, $e find that .ust as an implied or constructive trust is an

offspring of the la$ +Art! 1%58, 'ivil 'ode-, so is the corresponding oligation toreconvey the property and the title thereto in favor of the true o$ner! =n this conte&t, and

vis/R/vis prescription, Article 11%% of the 'ivil 'ode is applicale!

Article 11%% the follo$ing actions must e rought $ithin ten years form the time

the right of action accrues

+1- 9pon a $ritten contract(

+- 9pon an oligation created y la$(

+*- 9pon a .udgmentK

An action for reconveyance ased on an implied or constructive trust must perforce

prescried in ten years and not other$ise! A long line of decision of this court, and ofvery recent vintage at that, illustrate this rule! 9ndoutedly, it is no$ $ell/settled that an

action for reconveyance ased on an implied or constructive trust prescried in ten years

from the issuance of the "orrens title over the property!

=t also had een ruled that the ten/year prescriptive period egins to run from the date of

*5


36/50

registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property, ut

if the person claiming to e the o$ner thereof is an actual possession of the property, the right to

seek reconveyance, $hich in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescrie!I

S*&. u'(6i&on v. :u&(a& G.R. No. "/$//4, 2# a! 200/ S+(on1 Divi&ion, Puno, J.

=n civil cases, the la$ requires that the party $ho alleges a fact and sustantially asserts

of the affirmative of the issue has the urden of proving it! "his evidentiary rule is ased on the

principle that the suitor $ho relies upon the e&istence of the fact should e called upon to prove

it!

Article %*% of the 0e$ 'ivil 'ode provides that to successfully maintain an action to

recover the o$nership of a real property, a person $ho claims a etter right to it must prove t$o

+- things first, the identity of the land claimed, and( second, his title thereto! =n the case at ar,

$e find that +the claimant- failed to estalish these t$o +- legal requirements!

"he first requisite the identity of the land! =n an accion reinvindicatoria, the person $ho

claims that he has a etter right to the property must first fi& the identity of the land he is

claiming y descriing the location, area and oundaries thereof! Anent the second requisite, i!e!,

the claimantHs title over the disputed area, the rule is that a party can claim a right of o$nership

only over the parcel of the land that $as the o.ect of the deed! +"he claimant- sought to prove

these legal requisites y anchoring his claim on the uitclaim eed over a portion of land $hich

$as e&ecuted y Arrastia in his favor! Bo$ever, a cursory reading of the uitclaim eed sho$s

that the su.ect land $as descried, thus

+A- portion of that property situated at San Duan, Luao, ampanga $hich portion

su.ect of this sale consists of 6,5@1 square meters more or less, as indicated particularly in theherein attached plan as anne& AI and made an integral part hereof, and the su.ect property

$ith an MI sign!I

"hus, the uitclaim eed specified only the e&tent of the area sold, i!e!, 6,5

jurisprudence on land tittles and deeds.pdf

Documents