land titles and deeds complete compilation of cases

8/19/2019 Land Titles and Deeds Complete Compilation of Cases

1/81

Land Titles and Deeds Case DigestWigmore – II SR Edition

CONCEPT OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION

A. HistoryB. Cone!t o" t#e term $L%nd Tit&e'C. (inds o" Est%tes

D. Ty!es o" Est%tesE. Tit&e )ers*s DeedF. +ode o" %,*isition

SPS DALION -. CA /0012

Petitioners: Spouses DalionRespondents: CA and Sabesaje, Jr.Ponente: Medialdea, J.

Doctrine: A contract of sale is a consensual contract, !ic!"eans t!at t!e sale is perfected b# "ere consent. $o particular for" is re%uired for its &alidit#.

S!ort &ersion: A land as registered in Dalion's na"e. (e

allegedl# sold t!is to Sabesaje. Dalion denies t!e sale e&er

!appened )sa#ing !is signature as forged* and also sa#s t!atassu"ing t!e signature as &alid, sale is still in&alid because itas not e+ecuted in a public docu"ent. SC sa#s Dalion's

argu"ent is rong. n a contract of sale, no particular for" is

re%uired.

A land in Sout!ern Le#te as declared in t!e na"e of SegundoDalion. Sabesaje sued to reco&er oners!ip t!is land based on apri&ate docu"ent of absolute sale, allegedl# e+ecuted b#Segundo Dalion.

Dalion, !oe&er, denied t!e sale, sa#ing t!at:

• T!e docu"ent as fictitious

• (is signature as a forger#, and

• T!at t!e land is conjugal propert#, !ic! !e and !is ife

ac%uired in -/0 fro" Saturnina Sabesaje as e&idenced

b# t!e 12scritura de 3enta Absoluta.1

T!e spouses denied t!e clai"s of Sabesaje t!at after e+ecutinga deed of sale o&er t!e parcel of land, t!e# !ad pleaded it!Sabesaje to be alloed to ad"inister t!e land because Daliondid not !a&e li&eli!ood.

Spouses Dalion ad"itted, !oe&er, ad"inistering 4 parcels of

land in Sout!ern Le#te, !ic! belonged to LeonardoSabesaje, grandfat!er of Sabesaje, !o died in -4/.

T!e Dalions ne&er recei&ed t!eir agreed -05 and -45

co""ission on t!e sales of copra and abaca.

Sabesaje6s suit, t!e# sa#, as intended "erel# to !arass andforestall Dalion6s t!reat to sue for t!ese unpaid co""issions.

TC decided in fa&or of Sabesaje and ordered t!e Dalions todeli&er t!e parcel of land in a public docu"ent.

CA affir"ed.

ISS3E4 7as t!e contract of sale &alid8 92Ss a public docu"ent needed for transfer of oners!ip8 $

HELD4 RE4 -ALIDIT5 OF THE CONTRACTPeople !o itnessed t!e e+ecution of t!e deed positi&el#testified on its aut!enticit#.

T!e# stated t!at it !ad been e+ecuted and signed b# tsignatories.

RE4 P3BLIC DOC3+ENTT!e pro&ision of $CC -;4< on t!e necessit# of a publicdocu"ent is onl# for con&enience, not for &alidit#

enforceabilit#.

T!at t!is be e"bodied in a public instru"ent is not a re%uire"efor t!e &alidit# of a contract of sale of a parcel of land

Dalion argued:

• T!at t!e sale is in&alid because it is e"bodied in

pri&ate docu"ent.

• T!at 1acts and contracts !ic! !a&e for t!eir object t!

creation, trans"ission, "odification or e+tinction of rerig!ts o&er i""o&able propert# "ust appear in a publiinstru"ent.1 )$CC -;4< par. -*

A contract of sale is a consensual contract, !ic! "eans t!at t!sale is perfected b# "ere consent.

• $o particular for" is re%uired for its &alidit#.

• =pon perfection of t!e contract, t!e parties "a#

reciprocall# de"and perfor"ance )$CC ->?4, $CC

i.e., t!e &endee "a# co"pel transfer of oners!ip t!e object of t!e sale, and t!e &endor "a# re%uire t

&endee to pa# t!e t!ing sold )$CC ->4


2/81


LAWS I+PLE+ENTING LAND REGISTRATION

P3RPOSES OF LAND REGISTRATION

LEE TE( SHENG -S. CA

FACTS4 After !is "ot!er's deat!, petitioner Leoncio Lee Te@S!eng filed a co"plaint against !is fat!er )pri&ate respondent*for t!e partition of t!e conjugal properties of !is parents.

T!e pri&ate respondent alleged t!at t!e > parcels of landregistered in petitioner's na"e are conjugal properties.

T!e PR contends t!at t!e lots ere registered under Leoncio'sna"e onl# as a trustee because during t!e registration, Leoncioas t!e onl# ilipino in t!e fa"il#.

Respondent pra#ed for t!e dis"issal of t!e partition case and for t!e recon&e#ance of t!e lots to its rig!tful oner B t!e conjugalregi"e.

To protect t!e interest of t!e conjugal regi"e during t!ependenc# of t!e case, PR caused t!e annotation of a notice of lispendens on TCT


3/81


Sal&ador in !is 1decision1 dated Jul# /, -/< granted t!e petition.

(e found t!at Lot $o. -4 as co&ered b# a transfer certificate of title !ic! as not a&ailable and !ic! as issued to MariaueEa !o sold t!e lot to Laborada. T!e transfer certificate of title co&ering t!e lot as allegedl# destro#ed during t!e ar. T!eplan and tec!nical description for t!e lot ere appro&ed b# t!e

Co""issioner of Land Registration !o reco""ended fa&orableaction on t!e petition.

T!e loer court directed t!e register of deeds of Caloocan Cit# toreconstitute t!e title for Lot $o. -4 in t!e na"e of Laborada.T!e order of reconstitution as not appealed. t beca"e final ande+ecutor#.

Acting on t!e court6s directi&e, t!e register of deeds issued toLaborada on August ->, -/< Transfer Certificate of Title $o.)$.A.* ;H)R*.

Lot $o. -4 as later subdi&ided into se&en lots, Lots $os. -4H A to -4H. T!e Acting Co""issioner of Land Registrationappro&ed t!e subdi&ision plan. T!e register of deeds cancelled

TCT $o. )$.A.* ;H)R* and issued on ctober -4, -/< se&entitles to Laborada.

n anot!er and later case, one rancisco S. o"bast, single,residing at 0- San Marcelino Street, Malate, Manila filed in t!eloer court a petition dated $o&e"ber -/, -/? for t!ereconstitution of t!e title of anot!er lot, t!e afore"entioned Lot$o. -


4/81


proceedings ere si"pl# de&ices e"plo#ed b# petitionersLaborada and o"bast for lan0rabbin0 or for t!e usurpationand illegal appropriation of fift# !ectares of StateHoned urbanland it! considerable &alue.

T!e crucial and decisi&e fact is t!at to &alid and e+istingTorrens titles in t!e na"e of t!e Co""onealt! of t!e

P!ilippines ere needlessl# reconstituted in t!e na"es of Laborada and o"bast on t!e false or perjurious assu"ptiont!at t!e to titles ere destro#ed during t!e ar.

T!at @ind of reconstitution as a braEen and "onstrous fraudfoisted on t!e courts of justice. t as a stultification of t!e judicialprocess.

ne and t!e sa"e judge )-* alloed t!e reconstitution and t!en)* decided t!e to subse%uent cases for t!e cancellation andannul"ent of t!e rongfull# reconstituted titles.

T!e e+istence of t!e to titles of t!e o&ern"ent ipso factonullified t!e reconstitution proceedings and signified t!at t!ee&idence in t!e said proceedings as to t!e alleged oners!ip of

Laborada and o"bast cannot be gi&en an# credence. T!e toproceedings ere s!a" and deceitful and ere filed in bad fait!.Suc! !u"bugger# or i"posture cannot be countenanced andcannot be t!e source of legiti"ate rig!ts and benefits.

Republic Act $o. / pro&ides for a special procedure for t!ereconstitution of Torrens certificates of title t!at are "issing andnot fictitious titles or titles !ic! are e+isting.

t is a patent absurdit# to reconstitute e+isting certificates of titlet!at are on file and a&ailable in t!e registr# of deeds. T!ereconstitution proceedings are &oid because t!e# are contrar# toRepublic Act $o. / and be#ond t!e pur&ie of t!at la since t!etitles reconstituted are actuall# subsisting in t!e registr# of deedsand do not re%uire reconstitution at all.

As a rule, acts e+ecuted against t!e pro&isions of "andator#las are &oid )Art. 4, Ci&il Code*.

To sustain t!e &alidit# of t!e reconstituted titles in t!ese casesould be to allo Republic Act $o. / to be utiliEed as aninstru"ent for landgrabbing or to sanction fraudulent"ac!inations for depri&ing a registered oner of !is land, tounder"ine t!e stabilit# and securit# of Torrens titles and to i"pair t!e Torrens s#ste" of registration.

T!e t!eor# of A A Torrijos 2ngineering Corporation t!at it as apurc!aser in good fait! and for &alue is indefensible because t!etitle of t!e lot !ic! it purc!ased un"ista@abl# s!os t!at suc!title as reconstituted. T!at circu"stance s!ould !a&e alerted its

officers to "a@e t!e necessar# in&estigation in t!e registr# of deeds of Caloocan Cit# and RiEal !ere t!e# could !a&e foundt!at Lot -< is oned b# t!e State.

Republic is !eld as t!e oner.

+ARIA CONS3ELO FELISA RO6AS -S RAFAEL ENRI73E8

FACTS4-* Maria Consuelo applied for a registration of title of > parcels

of land in -0/. )under torrens s#ste"*

* T!e onl# one of said parcels to !ic! attention need gi&en in t!e present appeal is Parcel A.

;* T!e adjoining oners of t!e land ere infor"ed of suapplication, but no one ent to %uestion it so t!e# edeclared in default.

>* T!e sa"e application as publis!ed in to nespapers.4* T!e record s!os t!at eac! of said persons recei&ed a co

of said notice, including t!e representati&e of t!e !eirs Antonio 2nri%ueE )(artigan, Ro!de utierreE*. T!e recofurt!er s!os, b# t!e certificate of Ja"es J. Peterson, s!eof t!e cit# of Manila, t!at said notice as posted upon tland in %uestion. T!e record furt!er s!os t!at said noti!ad been publis!ed in to dail# nespapers of t!e cit# Manila. -he Manila -imes and $a Democracia.

/* T!e Cit# of Manila %uestioned in court t!e borders of Parc A. T!e Court ordered t!e correction but none as e+ecute

?* T!e court appro&ed t!e application and Consuelo as gi&t!e titles.

/.

T!e record also s!os t!at t!e cler@ of t!e Land Court "adecertificate s!oing t!at t!at notice !ad been issued apublis!ed in accordance it! t!e la.

Section ;4 of Act $o. >/ pro&ides: 1f no person appears ananser it!in t!e ti"e alloed, t!e court "a# at once, up"otion of t!e applicant, no reason to t!e contrar# appearinorder a general default to be recorded and the applicati) petition* be taen for confesse .

# t!e description in t!e notice 3-o all whom it ma" concern,3 the worl are mae parties efenant an shall be concl!e b

the efa!lt an orer . T!e court s!all not be bound b# t!e repoof t!e e+a"iner of titles, but "a# re%uire ot!er and furt!er proo

T!e pro&isions of section ;4 see" to be directl# contrar# to t!contention of t!e appellants. t see"s to directl# contradict tre%uire"ents of personal notice as an absolute prere%uisitet!e granting of a &alid title under t!e Torrens s#ste".

T!e sa"e idea is furt!er confir"ed b# t!e pro&isions of secti;< of said Act $o. >/. Said section ;< pro&ides t!at: 1/&eecree of re0istration shall bin the lan an !ite the tithereto, s!bect onl" to the eceptions state in the followisection. t s!all be conclusi&e upon and against all person


5/81


including t!e nsular o&ern"ent, and all t!e branc!es t!ereof,!et!er "entioned b# na"e in t!e application, notice or citations, or included in t!e general description 6-o all whom it ma" concern.61

It will be note also that the petitioner in re0istration cases is not b" law re!ire to 0i&e an" notice to an" person. T!e la

re%uires t!e cler@ of t!e court to gi&e t!e notices. )Sections ;-and ; of Act $o. >/.* t is true t!at 1t!e court "a# also causeot!er or furt!er notice of t!e application to be gi&en in suc! a"anner and to suc! persons as it "a# dee" proper.1 T!us it isseen t!at t!e applicant is b# e+press pro&ision of la relie&edfro" an# obligation !atsoe&er to gi&e "oti&e to an# person of t!e pendenc# of !is application to !a&e !is land registered under t!e Torrens s#ste".

Section -0- and -0 )Act $o. >/* see" to contain a re"ed# for persons !o !a&e suffered da"ages for t!e failure on t!e part of court officials to co"pl# it! t!e la. (is re"ed# is not to !a&et!e registration and certificate annulled, unless !e co"es it!int!e pro&isions of section ;/,are in rem and not in personam. A proceeding in rem, dealingit! a tangible res, "a# be instituted and carried to judg"entit!out personal ser&ice upon t!e clai"ants it!in t!e state or notice b# na"e to t!ose outside of it.

)ADDT$AL: notice as ser&ed to t!e !eirs of 2nri%ueE:Records s!o t!at t!e counsel of 2nri%ueE recei&ed a notice.2&en if it is denied b# t!e part#, personal notification is not are%uire"ent of t!e la. Registration is a proceeding in re" andnot in persona". t is t!e onl# practical a# t!at allos t!eTorrens s#ste" to fulfill its purpose.*

LEGARDA -S SALEEB5

FACTS: A stoneall stands beteen t!e adjoining lot of Legardaand Saleeb#. T!e said all and t!e strip of land !ere it standsis registered in t!e Torrens s#ste" under t!e na"e of Legarda in-0/. Si+ #ears after t!e decree of registration is released infa&or of Legarda, Saleeb# applied for registration of !is lot under

t!e Torrens s#ste" in --, and t!e decree issued in fa&or of t!elatter included t!e stoneall and t!e strip of land !ere it stands.

ISS3E: 7!o s!ould be t!e oner of a land and its i"pro&e"ent!ic! !as been registered under t!e na"e of to persons8

HELD: or t!e issue in&ol&ed, T!e Land Registration Act )Act>/* affords no re"ed#. (oe&er, it can be construed t!at !ereto certificates purports to include t!e sa"e registered land, t!e!older of t!e earlier one continues to !old title and ill pre&ail.

T!e real purpose of t!e Torrens s#ste" of registration is to %uiettitle to landK to put a stop fore&er to an# %uestion of t!e legalit# of

t!e title, e+cept clai"s !ic! ere noted at t!e ti"e registration, in t!e certificate, or !ic! "a# arise subse%uet!ereto. T!at being t!e purpose of t!e la, once a title registered t!e oner "a# rest secure, it!out t!e necessit# aiting in t!e portals of t!e court, or sitting in t!e 5miraor e casa,6 to a&oid t!e possibilit# of losing !is land.

T!e la guarantees t!e title of t!e registered oner once it !entered into t!e Torrens s#ste".

TIB3RCIO -S PHHC

FACTS4 Tiburcio et al filed an action alleging t!at for "an# #eaprior to Marc! 4, -


6/81


under t!e Torrens s#ste" and t!at notit!standing !at t!e#no clai" t!at t!e original title lac@ed t!e essential re%uire"entsprescribed b# la for t!eir &alidit#, t!e# )Petitioners* !a&e ne&er ta@en an# step to nullif# said title until -4? !en t!e# institutedt!e present action.

In ot#er =ords@ t#ey %&&o=ed % !eriod o" ye%rs ;e"ore t#ey

=oe *! to in)oe =#%t t#ey no= &%im to ;e erroneo*s=#en t#e o*rt dereed in /0/ t#e registr%tion o" t#e &%ndin t#e n%me o" de"end%nts: !redeessor?in?interest.

E)ident&y@ t#is %nnot ;e done "or *nder o*r &%= %nd >*ris!r*dene@ % deree o" registr%tion %n on&y ;e set %side=it#in one ye%r %"ter entry on t#e gro*nd o" "r%*d !ro)idedno innoent !*r#%ser "or )%&*e #%s %,*ired t#e !ro!ertySetion @ At No. 02

n t!e ot!er !and, our la is clear t!at upon t!e e+piration of t!eoneH#ear period it!in !ic! to re&ie t!e decree of registration,t!e decree as ell as t!e title issued in pursuance t!ereof beco"es incontro&ertible )Section ;/*.

T!e purpose of t!e la in li"iting to one #ear t!e period it!in!ic! t!e decree "a# be re&ieed is to put a li"it to t!e ti"eit!in !ic! a clai"ant "a# as@ for its re&ocation. f after title topropert# is decreed an action "a# be instituted be#ond t!e oneH#ear period to set aside t!e decree, t!e object of t!e Torrenss#ste" !ic! is to guarantee t!e indefeasibilit# of t!e Title ouldbe defeated.

T!ere is not!ing in t!e co"plaint to s!o t!at !en it ac%uiredt!e propert# said defendant @ne of an# defect in t!e titleappearing on its face in t!e for" of an# lien or incu"brance. T!esa"e t!ing is true it! regard to defendant =ni&ersit# of t!eP!ilippines. Said defendants are t!erefore, presu"ed to bepurc!asers for &alue and in good fait! and as suc! are entitled toprotection under t!e la.

T!e foregoing finds support in t!e folloing ellHsettled principle:1A person dealing it! registered land is not re%uired to gobe!ind t!e register to deter"ine t!e condition of t!e propert#. (eis onl# c!arged it! notice of t!e burdens on t!e propert# !ic!are noted on t!e face of t!e register or t!e certificate of title. Tore%uire !i" to do "ore is to defeat one of t!e pri"ar# objects of t!e Torrens s#ste"G.

Assu"ing arguendo t!at plaintiffs' action for recon&e#ance !adnot #et prescribed, t!eir rig!t !oe&er to bring t!e instant action"a# be considered barred b# lac!es for not !a&ing ta@en t!eaction seasonabl# after title to t!e propert# !ad been issuedunder t!e Torrens s#ste". t appears t!at t!e propert# in%uestion as originall# registered on Ma# ;, --> and it as onl#

on ctober --, -4? t!at appellants asserted t!eir clai" t!ereto!en t!e# broug!t t!e present action.&irtua-a librar#

Appellants finall# clai" t!at t!e loer court erred in dis"issingt!e co"plaint on t!e ground of res judicata b# ta@ing judicialnotice of its on records in Land Registration Case $o. LH;in&o@ing in support of t!eir contention t!e principle t!at a courtcannot ta@e judicial notice of t!e contents of t!e records of ot!er cases e&en !en suc! cases !ad been tried b# t!e sa"e courtand notit!standing t!e facts t!at bot! cases "a# !a&e beentried before t!e sa"e judge. 7!ile t!e principle in&o@ed isconsidered to be t!e general rule, t!e sa"e is not absolute.T!ere are e+ceptions to t!is rule.

1n so"e instance, courts !a&e ta@en judicial notice proceedings in ot!er causes, because of t!eir close connectiit! t!e "atter in contro&ers#.

Courts !a&e also ta@en judicial notice of pre&ious cases deter"ine !et!er or not t!e case pending is a "oot one

!et!er or not a pre&ious ruling is applicable in t!e case undconsideration.1

Petitioners do not dispute t!e fact t!at appellant MarceliTiburcio, !o instituted t!e present case, is t!e sa"e pers!o filed t!e application in Land Registration Case $o. LH; ft!e registration of t!e sa"e parcel of land !ic! application denied b# t!e court. t appears t!at in t!at registration case toppositors ere t!e People's (o"esite (ousing CorporatioTuason and Co., and t!e ureau of Lands. Alt!oug! t=ni&ersit# of t!e P!ilippines as not an oppositor in t!at case,effect it as represented b# its predecessorHinHinterest, Tuasand Co. fro" !ic! it ac%uired t!e propert#. t "a# t!erefore said t!at in t!e to cases t!ere is not onl# identit# of subjec"atter but identit# of parties and causes of action. ndeed, t

trial court did not err in dis"issing t!e co"plaint on t!e ground res judicata.

TRADERS RO5AL BAN( -S. CO3RT OF APPEALS@ PATRICAPA5@ ET AL

FACTS4 A parcel of land oned b# t!e spouses Capa# "ortgage to and subse%uentl# e+trajudiciall# foreclosed Traders Ro#al an@ )TR*. To pre&ent propert# sale in pubauction, t!e Capa#s filed a petition for preli"inar# injunctialleging t!e "ortgage as &oid because t!e# did not recei&e tproceeds of t!e loan. A notice of lis pendens )suit pending* filed before t!e Register of Deeds it! t!e notice recorded in tDa# oo@. Mean!ile, a foreclosure sale proceeded it! t

TR as t!e sole and inning bidder. T!e Capa#s title cancelled and a ne one as entered in TR's na"e it!out tnotice of lis pendens carried o&er t!e title. T!e Capa#s filreco&er# of t!e propert# and da"ages. Court rendered decision declaring t!e "ortgage as &oid for ant consideration and t!us cancelled TR's title and issued a necert. of title for t!e Capa#s.

Pending its appeal before t!e court, TR sold t!e land Santiago !o subse%uentl# subdi&ided and sold to bu#ers ere issued title to t!e land. Court ruled t!at t!e subse%uebu#ers cannot be considered purc!asers for &alue and in goofait! since t!e# purc!ase t!e land after it beca"e a subject inpending suit before t!e court. Alt!oug! t!e lis pendens notias not carried o&er t!e titles, its recording in t!e Da# o

constitutes registering of t!e land and notice to all persons ad&erse clai" o&er t!e propert#. TR as !eld to be in bad faupon selling t!e propert# !ile @noing it is pending for litigatioT!e Capa#s ere issued t!e cert. of title of t!e land in dispu!ile TR is to pa# da"ages to Capa#s.

ISS3E47!o !as t!e better rig!t o&er t!e land in dispute87!et!er or not TR is liable for da"ages

R3LING4 T!e court ruled t!at a Torrens title is presu"ed to &alid !ic! purpose is to a&oid conflicts of title to real propertie7!en t!e subse%uent bu#ers boug!t t!e propert# t!ere as


7/81


lis pendens annotated on t!e title. 2&er# person dealing it! aregistered land "a# safel# rel# on t!e correctness of t!e title andis not obliged to interpret !at is be#ond t!e face of t!eregistered title. (ence t!e court ruled t!at t!e subse%uent bu#ersobtained t!e propert# fro" a clean title in good fait! and for &alue. n one !and, t!e Capa#s are guilt# of latc!es. After t!e#filed t!e notice for lis pendens, t!e sa"e as not annotated in

t!e TR title. T!e# did not ta@e an# action for -4 #ears to find outt!e status of t!e title upon @noing t!e foreclosure of t!epropert#. n consideration to t!e declaration of t!e "ortgage asnull and &oid for ant of consideration, t!e foreclosureproceeding !as no legal effect.

(oe&er, in as "uc! as t!e Capa#s re"ain to be t!e real oner of t!e propert# it !as alread# been passed to purc!asers in goodfait! and for &alue. T!erefore, t!e propert# cannot be ta@en aa#to t!eir prejudice. T!us, TR is dut# bound to pa# t!e Capa#st!e fair "ar@et &alue of t!e propert# at t!e ti"e t!e# sold it toSantiago.

LACBA5AN -S. SA+O5

FACTS4 ett# Lacba#an )petitioner* and a#ani S. Sa"o#)respondent* !ad an illicit relations!ip. During t!eir relations!ip,t!e#, toget!er it! t!ree "ore incorporators, ere able toestablis! a "anpoer ser&ices co"pan#. T!e co"pan# ac%uiredfi&e parcels of land ere registered in petitioner andrespondent's na"es, allegedl# as !usband and ife. 7!en t!eir relations!ip turned sour, t!e# decided to di&ide t!e saidproperties and ter"inate t!eir business partners!ip b# e+ecutinga Partition Agree"ent.

nitiall#, respondent agreed to petitioner's proposal t!at t!eproperties in Mal&ar St. and Don 2nri%ue (eig!ts be assigned tot!e latter, !ile t!e oners!ip o&er t!e t!ree ot!er properties illgo to respondent. (oe&er, !en Lacba#an anted additional

de"ands to be included in t!e partition agree"ent, Sa"o#refused.

eeling aggrie&ed, petitioner filed a co"plaint for judicial partitionof t!e said properties.

Petitioner's contention: S!e clai"ed t!at t!e# started to li&etoget!er as !usband and ife in -? it!out t!e benefit of "arriage and or@ed toget!er as business partners, ac%uiringreal properties a"ounting to P-4,400,000.00.

Respondent's contention: (e purc!ased t!e properties using !ison personal funds.

RTC and CA ruled in fa&or or respondent.

ISS3ES4-. 7$ an action for partition precludes a settle"ent on t!eissue of oners!ip.. 7ould a resolution on t!e issue of oners!ip subject t!eTorrens title issued o&er t!e disputed realties to a collateralattac@8

HELD4-. $o. 7!ile it is true t!at t!e co"plaint in&ol&ed !ere is one for partition, t!e sa"e is pre"ised on t!e e+istence or nonHe+istenceof coHoners!ip beteen t!e parties. =ntil and unless t!is issueof coHoners!ip is definitel# and finall# resol&ed, it ould be

pre"ature to effect a partition of t!e disputed properties. Moi"portantl#, t!e co"plaint ill not e&en lie if t!e clai"ant, petitioner in t!is case, does not e&en !a&e an# rig!tful intereo&er t!e subject properties.

A careful perusal of t!e contents of t!e soHcalled Partiti Agree"ent indicates t!at t!e docu"ent in&ol&es "atters !i

necessitate prior settle"ent of %uestions of la, basic of !ic!a deter"ination as to !et!er t!e parties !a&e t!e rig!t to freedi&ide a"ong t!e"sel&es t!e subject properties.

. $o. T!ere is no dispute t!at a Torrens certificate of title cannbe collaterall# attac@ed, but t!at rule is not "aterial to t!e casebar. 7!at cannot be collaterall# attac@ed is t!e certificate of tiand not t!e title itself. T!e certificate referred to is t!at docu"eissued b# t!e Register of Deeds @non as t!e TCT. n contrat!e title referred to b# la "eans oners!ip !ic! is, "ore oftt!an not, represented b# t!at docu"ent.

Moreo&er, placing a parcel of land under t!e "antle of tTorrens s#ste" does not "ean t!at oners!ip t!ereof can longer be disputed. Mere issuance of t!e certificate of title in t

na"e of an# person does not foreclose t!e possibilit# t!at treal propert# "a# be under coHoners!ip it! persons nna"ed in t!e certificate, or t!at t!e registrant "a# onl# betrustee, or t!at ot!er parties "a# !a&e ac%uired interest o&er tpropert# subse%uent to t!e issuance of t!e certificate of tit$eedless to sa#, registration does not &est oners!ip o&erpropert#, but "a# be t!e best e&idence t!ereof.

t!er topic:

7!et!er respondent is estopped fro" repudiating coHoners!o&er t!e subject realties.

92S. Petitioner !erself ad"itted t!at s!e did not assent to tPartition Agree"ent after seeing t!e need to a"end t!e sa"e

include ot!er "atters. Petitioner does not !a&e an# rig!t to inson t!e contents of an agree"ent s!e intentionall# refused sign.

Moreo&er, to follo petitioner's argu"ent ould be to allorespondent not onl# to ad"it against !is on interest but t!at !is legal spouse as ell, !o "a# also be lafull# entitled coners!ip o&er t!e said properties.

TORRENS S5STE+

A. Cone!t@ B%gro*nd %nd P*r!ose

L3 -S +ANIPON

FACTS4 n 4


8/81


as t!e !ig!est bidder. TSLA t!en sold t!e sa"e for P


9/81


HELD4 or t!e issue in&ol&ed, T!e Land Registration Act )Act>/* affords no re"ed#. (oe&er, it can be construed t!at !ereto certificates purports to include t!e sa"e registered land, t!e!older of t!e earlier one continues to !old title and ill pre&ail.

T!e real purpose of t!e Torrens s#ste" of registration, is to %uiettitle to landK to put a stop fore&er to an# %uestion of t!e legalit# of

t!e title, e+cept clai"s !ic! ere noted at t!e ti"e of registration, in t!e certificate, or !ic! "a# arise subse%uentt!ereto. T!at being t!e purpose of t!e la, once a title isregistered t!e oner "a# rest secure, it!out t!e necessit# of aiting in t!e portals of t!e court, or sitting in t!e 5miraor e s!casa,6 to a&oid t!e possibilit# of losing !is land.

T!e la guarantees t!e title of t!e registered oner once it !asentered into t!e Torrens s#ste".

CAPITOL S3BDI-ISIONS -S. PRO-INCE OF NEGROSORIENTAL

SCRA 1 /02

FACTS4 Lot ;?

plaintiff too@ steps to ta@e possession t!e (acienda and it adisco&ered t!at Lot ;?< as t!e land occupied b# t!e Pro&inc(ospital of $egros ccidental. ""ediatel# t!ereafter, plain"ade representations it! or on ctober >, ->, plaintiff "arepresentations it! t!e proper officials to clarif# t!e status said occupation. $ot being satisfied it! t!e e+planations gi&b# said officials, it broug!t t!e present action on June -0, -40

n its anser, defendant "aintained t!at it !ad ac%uired t!e lot%uestion in t!e #ear ->H-4 t!roug! e+propriatiproceedings and t!at it too@ possession of t!e lost and began tconstruction of t!e pro&incial !ospital t!ereon. T!e# furt!clai"ed t!at for so"e reason be#ond t!eir co"pre!ension, tias ne&er transferred in its na"e and it as placed in its na"onl# for assess"ent purposes.

And t!at defendant acted in bad fait! in purc!asing t!e @noing t!at t!e pro&incial !ospital as situated t!ere and t!!e did not declare suc! propert# for assess"ent purposes onuntil -40.

ISS3E4 7!et!er or not defendant !erein !ad ac%uired t!e lot%uestion in t!e afore"entioned e+propriation proceedings.

HELD4 T!e Court !eld t!at defendant as not able to sufficienpro&e t!at t!e# !a&e ac%uired t!e legal title o&er Lot ;?


10/81


relations!ip turned sour, t!e# decided to di&ide t!e saidproperties and ter"inate t!eir business partners!ip b# e+ecutinga Partition Agree"ent.

nitiall#, respondent agreed to petitioner's proposal t!at t!eproperties in Mal&ar St. and Don 2nri%ue (eig!ts be assigned tot!e latter, !ile t!e oners!ip o&er t!e t!ree ot!er properties ill

go to respondent. (oe&er, !en Lacba#an anted additionalde"ands to be included in t!e partition agree"ent, Sa"o#refused.

eeling aggrie&ed, petitioner filed a co"plaint for judicial partitionof t!e said properties.

Petitioner's contention: S!e clai"ed t!at t!e# started to li&etoget!er as !usband and ife in -? it!out t!e benefit of "arriage and or@ed toget!er as business partners, ac%uiringreal properties a"ounting to P-4,400,000.00.

Respondent's contention: (e purc!ased t!e properties using !ison personal funds.

RTC and CA ruled in fa&or or respondent.

ISS3ES4-. 7$ an action for partition precludes a settle"ent on t!eissue of oners!ip.. 7ould a resolution on t!e issue of oners!ip subject t!eTorrens title issued o&er t!e disputed realties to a collateralattac@8

HELD4-. $o. 7!ile it is true t!at t!e co"plaint in&ol&ed !ere is one for partition, t!e sa"e is pre"ised on t!e e+istence or nonHe+istenceof coHoners!ip beteen t!e parties. =ntil and unless t!is issueof coHoners!ip is definitel# and finall# resol&ed, it ould bepre"ature to effect a partition of t!e disputed properties. More

i"portantl#, t!e co"plaint ill not e&en lie if t!e clai"ant, or petitioner in t!is case, does not e&en !a&e an# rig!tful interesto&er t!e subject properties.

A careful perusal of t!e contents of t!e soHcalled Partition Agree"ent indicates t!at t!e docu"ent in&ol&es "atters !ic!necessitate prior settle"ent of %uestions of la, basic of !ic! isa deter"ination as to !et!er t!e parties !a&e t!e rig!t to freel#di&ide a"ong t!e"sel&es t!e subject properties.

. $o. T!ere is no dispute t!at a Torrens certificate of title cannotbe collaterall# attac@ed, but t!at rule is not "aterial to t!e case atbar. 7!at cannot be collaterall# attac@ed is t!e certificate of titleand not t!e title itself. T!e certificate referred to is t!at docu"entissued b# t!e Register of Deeds @non as t!e TCT. n contrast,

t!e title referred to b# la "eans oners!ip !ic! is, "ore oftent!an not, represented b# t!at docu"ent.

Moreo&er, placing a parcel of land under t!e "antle of t!eTorrens s#ste" does not "ean t!at oners!ip t!ereof can nolonger be disputed. Mere issuance of t!e certificate of title in t!ena"e of an# person does not foreclose t!e possibilit# t!at t!ereal propert# "a# be under coHoners!ip it! persons notna"ed in t!e certificate, or t!at t!e registrant "a# onl# be atrustee, or t!at ot!er parties "a# !a&e ac%uired interest o&er t!epropert# subse%uent to t!e issuance of t!e certificate of title.$eedless to sa#, registration does not &est oners!ip o&er apropert#, but "a# be t!e best e&idence t!ereof.

t!er topic:

7!et!er respondent is estopped fro" repudiating coHoners!o&er t!e subject realties.

92S. Petitioner !erself ad"itted t!at s!e did not assent to t

Partition Agree"ent after seeing t!e need to a"end t!e sa"e include ot!er "atters. Petitioner does not !a&e an# rig!t to inson t!e contents of an agree"ent s!e intentionall# refused sign.

Moreo&er, to follo petitioner's argu"ent ould be to allorespondent not onl# to ad"it against !is on interest but t!at !is legal spouse as ell, !o "a# also be lafull# entitled coners!ip o&er t!e said properties.

B. Ad)%nt%ges o" t#e Torrens System

C. Registr%tion *nder t#e Torrens System %s Proeedings

Rem

D. +odes o" Registering

E. Proed*re

PD /0

A. L%nd Registr%tion

RICARDO CHENG )s RA+ON GENATO %nd SPS. DA OSEG.R. NO. /01@ Deem;er 0@ /00

FACTS4• Ra"on enato is t!e oner of to parcels of land located

Paradise ar"s, San Jose del Monte, ulacan.

• Septe"ber /, -, -


11/81


• T!e Da Jose Spouses "et enato at t!e ffice of t!e

Resgistr# of Deeds b# coincidence, and ere later s!oc@edof enato's decision to annul t!e contract and protestedregarding t!e "atter. T!e# re"inded enato t!at t!e ;0 da#e+tension period as still in effect and t!e# are illing to pa#t!e donpa#"ent.

• enato later continued it! t!eir contract, infor"ed C!eng

of !i decision and returned to t!e latter, t!e donpa#"entpaid. C!eng !oe&er contended t!at t!eir contract to sellsaid propert# !ad alread# been perfected.

ISS3ES4/. W9N t#e ont%t to se&& ;et=een Gen%to %nd S!o*ses D%

ose =%s )%&id&y resinded.. W9N C#eng:s o=n ontr%t =it# Gen%to =%s not >*st %

ontr%t to se&& ;*t o" % ondition%& ontr%t o" s%&e.

HELD4-. $. n a Contract to Sell, t!e pa#"ent of t!e purc!ase price isa positi&e suspensi&e condition, t!e failure of !ic! is not abreac!, casual or serious, but a situation t!at pre&ents t!eobligation of t!e &endor to con&e# title fro" ac%uiring an

obligator# force. Article --- of t!e $e Ci&il Code cannot be"ade to appl# to t!e situation in t!e instant case because nodefault can be ascribed to t!e Da Jose spouses since t!e ;0Hda#e+tension period !as not #et e+pired.

T!e contention of t!e Da Jose spouses t!at no furt!er conditionas agreed !en t!e# ere granted t!e ;0Hda# e+tension periodfro" ctober ?, -> s!ould appl# because for not onl# as t!e contractbeteen !erein respondents first in ti"e, it as also registeredlong before petitioner6s intrusion as a second bu#er )PRM=S

T2MPR2, PRTR J=R2*. )Spouses "ade annotation on t!etitle of enato*. Since C!eng as full# aare, or could !a&ebeen if !e !ad c!osen to in%uire, of t!e rig!ts of t!e Da Josespouses under t!e Contract to Sell dul# annotated on t!etransfer certificates of titles of enato, it no beco"esunnecessar# to furt!er elaborate in detail t!e fact t!at !e isindeed in bad fait! in entering into suc! agree"ent.

$: 1Registration1, as defined b# Soler and Castillo, "eans an#entr# "ade in t!e boo@s of t!e registr#, including bot!registration in its ordinar# and strict sense, and cancellation,annotation, and e&en "arginal notes. n its strict acceptation, it ist!e entr# "ade in t!e registr# !ic! records sole"nl# andper"anentl# t!e rig!t of oners!ip and ot!er real rig!ts.

B. P*r!ose %nd E""et o" Registr%tion in Gener%&

LEONCIO LEE TE( SHENG )s CAG.R. No. //1@ *&y /@ /00

FACTS4• After !is "ot!er's deat!, petitioner Leoncio Lee Te@ S!e

filed a co"plaint against !is fat!er )pri&ate respondent* t!e partition of t!e conjugal properties of !is parents.

• T!e pri&ate respondent alleged t!at t!e > parcels of la

registered in petitioner's na"e are conjugal properties.

• T!e PR contends t!at t!e lots ere registered und

Leoncio's na"e onl# as a trustee because during tregistration, Leoncio as t!e onl# ilipino in t!e fa"il#.

• Respondent pra#ed for t!e dis"issal of t!e partition ca

and for t!e recon&e#ance of t!e lots to its rig!tful oner

t!e conjugal regi"e.

• To protect t!e interest of t!e conjugal regi"e during t

pendenc# of t!e case, PR caused t!e annotation of a notiof lis pendens on TCT


12/81


confused it! t!e certificate of title as e&idence of suc!oners!ip alt!oug! bot! are interc!angeabl# used. n t!is case,contrar# to petitioner's fears, !is certificate of title is not beingassailed b# pri&ate respondent. 7!at t!e latter disputes is t!efor"er's clai" of sole oners!ip. T!us, alt!oug! petitioner'scertificate of title "a# !a&e beco"e incontro&ertible one #ear after issuance, #et contrar# to !is argu"ent, it does not bar

pri&ate respondent fro" %uestioning !is oners!ip.

A notice of lis pendens "a# be cancelled onl# on to grounds:)-* if t!e annotation as for t!e purpose of "olesting t!e title of t!e ad&erse part#)* !en t!e annotation is not necessar# to protect t!e title of t!epart# !o caused it to be recorded.$eit!er ground for cancellation of t!e notice as con&incingl#s!on to concur in t!is case.

t "ust be e"p!asiEed t!at t!e annotation of a notice of lispendens is onl# for t!e purpose of announcing Fto t!e !oleorld t!at a particular real propert# is in litigation, ser&ing as aarning t!at one !o ac%uires an interest o&er said propert#does so at !is on ris@, or t!at !e ga"bles on t!e result of t!e

litigation o&er said propert#.G

n t!e contention t!at oners!ip cannot be passed upon inpartition case, suffice it to sa# t!at until and unless oners!ip isdefinitel# resol&ed, it ould be pre"ature to effect partition of t!epropert#. or purposes of annotating a notice of lis pendens,t!ere is not!ing in t!e rules !ic! re%uires t!e part# see@ingannotation to pro&e t!at t!e land belongs to !i". esides, anaction for partition is one case !ere t!e annotation of a noticeof lis pendens is proper.

REP3BLIC -S BENA+IN G3ERREROG.R. No. //@ +%r# @ 11

FACTS4• Dece"ber -/>: enja"in uerrerro filed it! t!e ureau

of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales Application co&ering aparcel of land situated at Pugad Lain, IueEon Cit#. T!isapplication as appro&ed and Miscellaneous Sales Patentas issued subse%uent t!ereto.

• Angelina usta"ante later filed a protest it! t!e ureau of

Lands clai"ing t!at uerrero obtained t!e sales patentt!roug! fraud, false state"ent of facts andor o"ission of "aterial facts. T!is as !oe&er dis"issed b# t!e Director of lands and furt!er affir"ed b# t!en Minister of $aturalResources.

• T!roug! a MR, an ocular in&estigation and relocation

sur&e# found out t!at /, or t!e Land Registration Act of -0=nder t!e Torrens s#ste" of registration, t!e go&ern"ent re%uired to issue an official certificate of title to attest to t!e fat!at t!e person na"ed is t!e oner of t!e propert# describet!erein, subject to suc! liens and encu"brances as t!erenoted or !at t!e la arrants or reser&es.

=pon its registration, t!e land falls under t!e operation of Act $>/ and beco"es registered land. Ti"e and again, e !a&e sat!at a Torrens certificate is e&idence of an indefeasible title propert# in fa&or of t!e person !ose na"e appears t!ereon.(oe&er, Section ;< of Act $o. >/ recogniEes t!e rig!t ofperson depri&ed of land to institute an action to reopen or re&ia decree of registration obtained b# actual fraud. (oe&er, tRepublic in t!is case failed to pro&e t!at t!ere is actual ae+trinsic fraud to justif# a re&ie of t!e decree. t !as nadduced ade%uate e&idence t!at ould s!o t!at respondee"plo#ed actual and e+trinsic fraud in procuring t!e patent at!e corresponding certificate of title. Petitioner "iserabl# failed pro&e t!at it as pre&ented fro" asserting its rig!t o&er t!e lot%uestion and fro" properl# presenting its case b# reason of sufraud.

. 92S. uerrero's title, !a&ing been registered under t

Torrens s#ste", as &ested it! t!e gar"ent of indefeasibilit#.

$: T!e Torrens s#ste" as adopted in t!is countr# becauseas belie&ed to be t!e "ost effecti&e "easure to guarantee tintegrit# of land titles and to protect t!eir indefeasibilit# once t!clai" of oners!ip is establis!ed and recogniEed. f a perspurc!ases a piece of land on t!e assurance t!at t!e seller's tit!ereto is &alid, !e s!ould not run t!e ris@ of being told later t!!is ac%uisition as ineffectual after all. T!is ould not onl# unfair to !i". 7!at is orse is t!at if t!is ere per"itted, pubconfidence in t!e s#ste" ould be eroded and land transactioould !a&e to be attended b# co"plicated and not necessarconclusi&e in&estigations and proof of oners!ip. T!e furt!conse%uence ould be t!at land conflicts could be e&en "oabrasi&e, if not e&en &iolent. T!e go&ern"ent, recogniEing t

ort!# purposes of t!e Torrens s#ste", s!ould be t!e first accept t!e &alidit# of titles issued t!ereunder once t!e conditiolaid don b# t!e la are satisfied.

7!ile t!e Torrens s#ste" is not a "ode of ac%uiring titles lands but "erel# a s#ste" of registration of titles to lands, justand e%uit# de"and t!at t!e title!older s!ould not be "ade bear t!e unfa&orable effect of t!e "ista@e or negligence of tState's agents, in t!e absence of proof of !is co"plicit# in a fraor of "anifest da"age to t!ird persons. T!e real purpose of tTorrens s#ste" is to %uiet title to land and put a stop fore&er an# %uestion as to t!e legalit# of t!e title, e+cept clai"s t!at enoted in t!e certificate at t!e ti"e of t!e registration or t!at "aarise subse%uent t!ereto. t!erise, t!e integrit# of t!e Torre


13/81


s#ste" s!all fore&er be sullied b# t!e ineptitude and inefficienc#of land registration officials, !o are ordinaril# presu"ed to !a&eregularl# perfor"ed t!eir duties.

LEGARDA -S SALEEB5G.R. NO. L?0@ Oto;er @ /0/

FACTS4• Legarda and Saleeb# are oners of adjoining lands in

Manila.

• T!ere e+ists a stone all beteen said lots.

• n -0/, t!e said all and t!e land !ere it stands as

registered in t!e Torrens s#ste" under t!e na"e of Legarda.

• n --, Saleeb# also applied for registration of !is lot !ic!

included t!e sa"e stone all and strip of land !ere itstands. T!is as later granted and title as issued in fa&or of Saleeb#.

ISS3E4 W#o s#o*&d ;e t#e o=ner o" t#e &%nd %nd itsim!ro)ement =#i# #%s ;een registered *nder t#e n%me o" t=o !ersons.

HELD4 Act >/ pro&iding for t!e registration of titles under t!etorrens s#ste" actuall# pro&ides for no re"ed#. (oe&er, t!erule is ell settled t!at t!e decree ordering t!e registration of aparticular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation o&er t!e sa"ebeteen t!e sa"e parties. n &ie of t!e fact t!at all t!e orldare parties, it "ust follo t!at future litigation o&er t!e title isfore&er barredK t!ere can be no persons !o are not parties tot!e action. T!is, e t!in@, is t!e rule, e+cept as to rig!ts !ic!are noted in t!e certificate or !ic! arise subse%uentl#, and it!certain ot!er e+ceptions !ic! need not be dis"issed at present.

A title once registered cannot be defeated, e&en b# an ad&erse,open, and notorious possession. Registered title under t!etorrens s#ste" can ot be defeated b# prescription )section >/,

Act $o. >/*. T!e title, once registered, is notice to t!e orld. Allpersons "ust ta@e notice. $o one can plead ignorance of t!eregistration.

$: T!e real purpose of t!at s#ste" is to %uiet title to landK to puta stop fore&er to an# %uestion of t!e legalit# of t!e title, e+ceptclai"s !ic! ere noted at t!e ti"e of registration, in t!ecertificate, or !ic! "a# arise subse%uent t!ereto. T!at beingt!e purpose of t!e la, it ould see" t!at once a title isregistered t!e oner "a# rest secure, it!out t!e necessit# of aiting in t!e portals of t!e court, or sitting in t!e 1"irador de sucasa,1 to a&oid t!e possibilit# of losing !is land. f course, itcannot be denied t!at t!e proceeding for t!e registration of landunder t!e torrens s#ste" is judicial. t is clot!ed it! all t!e for"sof an action and t!e result is final and binding upon all t!e orld.

t is an action in rem.

7!ile t!e proceeding is judicial, it in&ol&es "ore in itsconse%uences t!an does an ordinar# action. All t!e orld areparties, including t!e go&ern"ent. After t!e registration isco"plete and final and t!ere e+ists no fraud, t!ere are noinnocent t!ird parties !o "a# clai" an interest. T!e rig!ts of allt!e orld are foreclosed b# t!e decree of registration. T!ego&ern"ent itself assu"es t!e burden of gi&ing notice to allparties. To per"it persons !o are parties in t!e registrationproceeding )and t!e# are all t!e orld* to again litigate t!e sa"e%uestions, and to again cast doubt upon t!e &alidit# of t!eregistered title, ould destro# t!e &er# purpose and intent of t!ela. T!e registration, under t!e torrens s#ste", does not gi&e t!e

oner an# better title t!an !e !ad. f !e does not alread# !a&eperfect title, !e can not !a&e it registered. ee si"ple titles on"a# be registered. T!e certificate of registration accu"ulatesopen docu"ent a precise and correct state"ent of t!e e+astatus of t!e fee !eld b# its oner. T!e certificate, in t!e absenof fraud, is t!e e&idence of title and s!os e+actl# t!e reinterest of its oner. T!e title once registered, it! &er# fe

e+ceptions, s!ould not t!ereafter be i"pugned, altered, c!ange"odified, enlarged, or di"inis!ed, e+cept in so"e direproceeding per"itted b# la. t!erise all securit# in registertitles ould be lost. A registered title can not be altered, "odifieenlarged, or di"inis!ed in a collateral proceeding and not e&b# a direct proceeding, after t!e lapse of t!e period prescribed la.

BARANDA -S G3STILOGR //@ SEPTE+BER @ /0

G3TIERRE8@ R.@ J.:

FACTS4 A petition for reconstitution of title as filed it! t!e C)no RTC* of loilo in&ol&ing a parcel of land @non as Lot $>4-? of t!e Sta. arbara Cadastre co&ered b# CT $o. />0/ t!e na"e of Ro"ana (italia.

T!e CT as cancelled and TCT $o. -0/0< as issued in tna"es of petitioners aranda and (italia.

T!e Court issued a rit of possession !ic! regorio PereMaria P. otera and Susana Silao refused to !onor on tground t!at t!e# also !a&e TCT $o. 4?? o&er t!e sa"e L$o. >4-?.

T!e Court found out t!at TCT $o. 4??? as fraudulenac%uired b# PereE, otera and Susana.

T!ereafter, t!e court issued a rit of de"olition !ic! %uestioned b# PereE and ot!ers so a "otion for reconsideratias filed.

Anot!er case as filed b# aranda and (italia )R. $. /0>for t!e e+ecution of judge"ent in t!e resolutions issued b# tcourts.

n t!e "eanti"e, t!e CA dis"issed a ci&il case )R. $. 00


14/81


(oe&er, b# reason of a separate case pending in t!e Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens as annotated in t!e necertificate of title.

T!is pro"pted t!e petitioners to "o&e for t!e cancellation of t!enotice of lis pendens in t!e ne certificates.

Judge Tito ustilo t!en ordered t!e Acting Register of Deeds for t!e cancellation of t!e notice of lis pendens but t!e ActingRegister of Deeds filed a "otion for reconsideration in&o@ing Sec?? of PD -4.

ISS3E4 7!at is t!e nature of t!e dut# of a Register of Deeds toannotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificateof title.

HELD4 Section -0, Presidential Decree $o. -4 states t!at 1ts!all be t!e dut# of t!e Register of Deeds to i""ediatel# register an instru"ent presented for registration dealing it! real or personal propert# !ic! co"plies it! all t!e re%uisites for registration. ... f t!e instru"ent is not registrable, !e s!allfort!it! den# registration t!ereof and infor" t!e presentor of

suc! denial in riting, stating t!e ground or reasons t!erefore,and ad&ising !i" of !is rig!t to appeal b# consulta in accordanceit! Section --? of t!is Decree.1

Section --? pro&ides t!at 17!en t!e Register of Deeds is indoubt it! regard to t!e proper step to be ta@en or "e"orandato be "ade in pursuance of an# deed, "ortgage or ot!er instru"ent presented to !i" for registration or !ere an# part# ininterest does not agree it! t!e action ta@en b# t!e Register of Deeds it! reference to an# suc! instru"ent, t!e %uestion s!allbe sub"itted to t!e Co""ission of Land Registration b# t!eRegister of Deeds, or b# t!e part# in interest t!ru t!e Register of Deeds. ... .1

T#e "*ntion o" ROD is ministeri%& in n%t*re

T!e function of a Register of Deeds it! reference to t!eregistration of deeds encu"brances, instru"ents and t!e li@e is"inisterial in nature. T!e respondent Acting Register of Deedsdid not !a&e an# legal standing to fi le a "otion for reconsideration of t!e respondent Judge6s rder directing !i" tocancel t!e notice of lis pendens annotated in t!e certificates of titles of t!e petitioners o&er t!e subject parcel of land.

n case of doubt as to t!e proper step to be ta@en in pursuanceof an# deed ... or ot!er instru"ent presented to !i", !e s!ould!a&e as@ed t!e opinion of t!e Co""issioner of LandRegistration no, t!e Ad"inistrator of t!e $ational Land Title andDeeds Registration Ad"inistration in accordance it! Section--? of Presidential Decree $o. -4.

No room "or onstr*tion "or t#e &%=s on "*ntions o" RODT!e ele"entar# rule in statutor# construction is t!at !en t!eords and p!rases of t!e statute are clear and une%ui&ocal, t!eir "eaning "ust be deter"ined fro" t!e language e"plo#ed andt!e statute "ust be ta@en to "ean e+actl# !at it sa#s. T!estatute concerning t!e function of t!e Register of Deeds toregister instru"ents in a torrens certificate of title is clear andlea&es no roo" for construction.

AL+IROL -. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AG3SANG.R. No. L? +%r# 1@ /0

CASTRO@ J.:

FACTS4 n June of Rep. Act --4-G dis"issed t!e petition, it! cosagainst t!e petitioner. (ence, t!is present appeal.

ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e Register of Deeds as justified refusing to register t!e transaction appealed to b# t!e petitione

HELD4 $o. Alt!oug! t!e reasons relied upon b# t!e respondes!o a sincere desire on !is part to "aintain in&iolate t!e la succession and trans"ission of rig!ts o&er real properties, t!edo not constitute legal grounds for !is refusal to register tdeed.

7!et!er a docu"ent is &alid or not, is not for t!e register deeds to deter"ineK t!is function belongs properl# to a courtco"petent jurisdiction.

A register of deeds is entirel# precluded b# section > of Repub Act --4- fro" e+ercising !is personal judg"ent and discreti!en confronted it! t!e proble" of !et!er to register a deeor instru"ent on t!e ground t!at it is in&alid. or under t!e sasection, !en !e is in doubt as to t!e proper step to be ta@eit! respect to an# deed or ot!er instru"ent presented to !i" fregistration all t!at !e is supposed to do is to sub"it and certt!e %uestion to t!e Co""issioner of Land Registration !o s!aafter notice and !earing, enter an order prescribing t!e step to ta@en on t!e doubtful %uestion.

ADD2D 9 SR


15/81


OSEFINA -. NOBLE8A -S. SHIRLE5 B. N3EGAG.R. NO. /01@ +ARCH //@ 1/

FACTS4 n -

n t!e case at bar, petitioner clai"s t!at s!e is a bu#er in goofait! of t!e subject propert# !ic! is titled under t!e na"e of tseller Rogelio A. $uega alone as e&idenced b# TCT $o. -?-and Ta+ Declaration $os. DH0-H0>?; and DH0-H0>?>Petitioner argues, a"ong ot!ers, t!at since s!e !as e+a"in

t!e TCT o&er t!e subject propert# and found t!e propert# to !abeen registered under t!e na"e of seller Rogelio alone, s!ean innocent purc!aser for &alue and Fs!e is not re%uired to gbe#ond t!e face of t!e title in &erif#ing t!e status of t!e subjepropert# at t!e ti"e of t!e consu""ation of t!e sale and at tdate of t!e sale.G/

7e disagree it! petitioner.

A bu#er cannot clai" to be an innocent purc!aser for &alue "erel# rel#ing on t!e TCT of t!e seller !ile ignoring all t!e ot!surrounding circu"stances rele&ant to t!e sale.

n t!e case of Spouses Ra#"undo &. Spouses andongpetitioners t!erein B as does petitioner !erein B ere a

!arping t!at due to t!e indefeasibilit# of a Torrens title, t!ere not!ing in t!e TCT of t!e propert# in litigation t!at s!ould !aaroused t!e bu#er's suspicion as to put !er on guard t!at t!eas a defect in t!e title of t!erein seller. T!e Court !eld in t!Spouses Ra#"undo case t!at t!e bu#er t!erein could not !ibe!ind t!e cloa@ of being an innocent purc!aser for &alue "erel# rel#ing on t!e TCT !ic! s!oed t!at t!e registeroner of t!e land purc!ased is t!e seller. T!e Court ruled in t!case t!at t!e bu#er as not an innocent purc!aser for &alue dto t!e folloing attendant circu"stances, &iE.:

n t!e present case, e are not con&inced b# t!e petitioneincessant assertion t!at Jocel#n is an innocent purc!aser &alue. To begin it!, s!e is a grandniece of 2ulalia and residin t!e sa"e localit# !ere t!e latter li&es and conducts !

principal business. t is t!erefore i"possible for !er not to ac%u@noledge of !er grand aunt's business practice of re%uiring !bi#a!eros to surrender t!e titles to t!eir properties and to sigt!e corresponding deeds of sale o&er said properties in !er fa&as securit#. T!is alone s!ould !a&e put Jocel#n on guard for apossible abuses t!at 2ulalia "a# co""it it! t!e titles and tdeeds of sale in !er possession.<

Si"ilarl#, in t!e case of Arrofo &. Iuio, t!e Court !eld t!at !Ft!e la does not re%uire a person dealing it! registered landin%uire furt!er t!an !at t!e Torrens Title on its face indicatest!e rule is not absolute.-0 T!us, finding t!at t!e bu#er t!erefailed to ta@e t!e necessar# precaution re%uired of a prude


16/81


"an, t!e Court !eld t!at Arrofo as not an innocent purc!aser for &alue, &iE.:

n t!e present case, t!e records s!o t!at Arrofo failed to act asa prudent bu#er. True, s!e as@ed !er daug!ter to &erif# fro" t!eRegister of Deeds if t!e title to t!e Propert# is free fro"encu"brances. (oe&er, Arrofo ad"itted t!at t!e Propert# is

it!in t!e neig!bor!ood and t!at s!e conducted an ocular inspection of t!e Propert#. S!e sa t!e !ouse constructed on t!ePropert#. 9et, Arrofo did not e&en bot!er to in%uire about t!eoccupants of t!e !ouse. Arrofo also ad"itted t!at at t!e ti"e of t!e sale, M#rna as occup#ing a roo" in !er !ouse as !er lessee. T!e fact t!at M#rna as renting a roo" fro" Arrofo #etselling a land it! a !ouse s!ould !a&e put Arrofo on !er guard.S!e @ne t!at M#rna as not occup#ing t!e !ouse. (ence,so"eone else "ust !a&e been occup#ing t!e !ouse.

T!us, Arrofo s!ould !a&e in%uired !o occupied t!e !ouse, andif a lessee, !o recei&ed t!e rentals fro" suc! lessee. Suc!in%uir# ould !a&e led Arrofo to disco&er t!at t!e lessee aspa#ing rentals to Iuino, not to Renato and M#rna, !o clai"edto on t!e Propert#.--

An analogous situation obtains in t!e case at bar.

T!e TCT of t!e subject propert# states t!at its sole oner is t!eseller Rogelio !i"self !o as t!erein also described asFsingleG. (oe&er, as in t!e cases of Spouses Ra#"undo and

Arrofo, t!ere are circu"stances critical to t!e case at bar !ic!con&ince us to affir" t!e ruling of bot! t!e appellate and loer courts t!at !erein petitioner is not a bu#er in good fait!.

irst, petitioner's sister (ilda autista, at t!e ti"e of t!e sale,as residing near Rogelio and S!irle#'s !ouse B t!e subjectpropert# B in Ladislao Dia 3illage, Mari@ina Cit#. (ad petitioner been "ore prudent as a bu#er, s!e could !a&e easil# c!ec@ed if Rogelio !ad t!e capacit# to dispose of t!e subject propert#. (ad

petitioner been "ore &igilant, s!e could !a&e in%uired it! suc!facilit# B considering t!at !er sister li&ed in t!e sa"e LadislaoDia 3illage !ere t!e propert# is located B if t!ere as an#person ot!er t!an Rogelio !o !ad an# rig!t or interest in t!esubject propert#.

To be sure, respondent e&en testified t!at s!e !ad arned t!eir neig!bors at Ladislao Dia 3illage B including petitioner's sister

B not to engage in an# deal it! Rogelio relati&e to t!e purc!aseof t!e subject propert# because of t!e cases s!e !ad filedagainst Rogelio. Petitioner denies t!at respondent !ad gi&ensuc! arning to !er neig!bors, !ic! includes !er sister,t!erefore arguing t!at suc! arning could not be construed asFnoticeG on !er part t!at t!ere is a person ot!er t!an t!e seller !i"self !o !as an# rig!t or interest in t!e subject propert#.

$onet!eless, despite petitioner's ada"ant denial, bot! courts a%uo ga&e probati&e &alue to t!e testi"on# of respondent, and t!einstant petition failed to present an# con&incing e&idence for t!isCourt to re&erse suc! factual finding. To be sure, it is not it!inour pro&ince to secondHguess t!e courts a %uo, and t!e reHdeter"ination of t!is factual issue is be#ond t!e reac! of apetition for re&ie on certiorari !ere onl# %uestions of la "a#be re&ieed.-

Second, issues surrounding t!e e+ecution of t!e Deed of Absolute Sale also pose %uestion on t!e clai" of petitioner t!ats!e is a bu#er in good fait!. As correctl# obser&ed b# bot! courtsa %uo, t!e Deed of Absolute Sale as e+ecuted and dated on

Dece"ber , -. (oe&er, t!e Co""unit# Ta+ Certificatest!e itnesses t!erein ere dated Januar# and -;.-; 7!ile t!is irregularit# is not a direct proof of t!e intentt!e parties to t!e sale to "a@e it appear t!at t!e Deed

Absolute Sale as e+ecuted on Dece"ber , - B or befoS!irle# filed t!e petition for legal separation on Januar# , -

B it is circu"stantial and rele&ant to t!e clai" of !erein petition

as an innocent purc!aser for &alue.

T!at is not all.

n t!e Deed of Absolute Sale dated Dece"ber , -, t!e cistatus of Rogelio as seller as not stated, !ile petitioner bu#er as indicated as Fsingle,G &iE.:

R2L A. $=2A, of legal age, ilipino citiEen and postal address at HAH Ladislao Dia St., Concepcion, Mari@inMetro Manila, !ereinafter referred to as t!e 32$DR

AndJS2$A 3. $L2UA, of legal age, ilipino citiEen, single ait! postal address at $o. LHHAH; Ladislao Dia SConcepcion, Mari@ina, Metro Manila, !ereinafter referred to

t!e 32$D22.->

t puEEles t!e Court t!at !ile petitioner !as repeatedl# clai"t!at Rogelio is FsingleG under TCT $o. -?-/; and TDeclaration $os. DH0-H0>?; and DH0-H0>?>, !is ci&il statas seller as not stated in t!e Deed of Absolute Sale B furt!creating a cloud on t!e clai" of petitioner t!at s!e is an innocepurc!aser for &alue.

As to t!e second issue, e rule t!at t!e appellate court did nerr !en it "odified t!e decision of t!e trial court and declart!at t!e Deed of Absolute Sale dated Dece"ber , - is &oin its entiret#.

T!e trial court !eld t!at !ile t!e TCT s!os t!at t!e oner

t!e subject propert# is Rogelio alone, respondent as able pro&e at t!e trial court t!at s!e contributed in t!e pa#"ent of tpurc!ase price of t!e subject propert#. T!is fact as also settlit! finalit# b# t!e RTC of Pasig Cit#, ranc! ?0, and affir"ed t!e CA, in t!e case for legal separation and li%uidation propert# doc@eted as JDRC Case $o. 4-0. T!e pertineportion of t!e decision reads:

V++Clearl#, t!e !ouse and lot jointl# ac%uired b# t!e parties prior t!eir "arriage for"s part of t!eir co""unit# propert# regi"e,+++

ro" t!e foregoing, S!irle# sufficientl# pro&ed !er financcontribution for t!e purc!ase of t!e !ouse and lot co&ered

TCT -?-/;. T!us, t!e present lot !ic! for"s part of t!eco""unit# propert# s!ould be di&ided e%uall# beteen t!eupon t!e grant of t!e instant petition for legal separation. (a&iestablis!ed b# preponderance of e&idence t!e fact of !!usband's guilt in contracting a subse%uent "arriage +++, S!irlalone s!ould be entitled to t!e net profits earned b# t!e absoluco""unit# propert#.-4

(oe&er, t!e nullit# of t!e sale "ade b# Rogelio is not pre"iseon proof of respondent's financial contribution in t!e purc!ase t!e subject propert#. Actual contribution is not rele&ant deter"ining !et!er a piece of propert# is co""unit# propefor t!e la itself defines !at constitutes co""unit# propert#.


17/81


Article - of t!e a"il# Code t!us pro&ides: Art. -. =nless ot!erise pro&ided in t!is C!apter or in t!e"arriage settle"ents, t!e co""unit# propert# s!all consist of allt!e propert# oned b# t!e spouses at t!e ti"e of t!e celebrationof t!e "arriage or ac%uired t!ereafter.T!e onl# e+ceptions fro" t!e abo&e rule are: )-* t!ose e+cluded

fro" t!e absolute co""unit# b# t!e a"il# CodeK and )* t!osee+cluded b# t!e "arriage settle"ent.

=nder t!e first e+ception are properties enu"erated in Article of t!e a"il# Code, !ic! states:

Art. . T!e folloing s!all be e+cluded fro" t!e co""unit#propert#:)-* Propert# ac%uired during t!e "arriage b# gratuitous title b#eit!er spouse, and t!e fruits as ell as t!e inco"e t!ereof, if an#,unless it is e+pressl# pro&ided b# t!e donor, testator or grantor t!at t!e# s!all for" part of t!e co""unit# propert#K)* Propert# for personal and e+clusi&e use of eit!er spouseK!oe&er, jeelr# s!all for" part of t!e co""unit# propert#K);* Propert# ac%uired before t!e "arriage b# eit!er spouse !o!as legiti"ate descendants b# a for"er "arriage, and t!e fruits

as ell as t!e inco"e, if an#, of suc! propert#.

As !eld in Iuiao &. Iuiao:-/

7!en a couple enters into a regi"e of absolute co""unit#, t!e!usband and t!e ife beco"es joint oners of all t!e propertiesof t!e "arriage. 7!ate&er propert# eac! spouse brings into t!e"arriage, and t!ose ac%uired during t!e "arriage )e+cept t!osee+cluded under Article of t!e a"il# Code* for" t!e co""on"ass of t!e couple's properties. And !en t!e couple's "arriageor co""unit# is dissol&ed, t!at co""on "ass is di&idedbeteen t!e spouses, or t!eir respecti&e !eirs, e%uall# or in t!eproportion t!e parties !a&e establis!ed, irrespecti&e of t!e &alueeac! one "a# !a&e originall# oned.

Since t!e subject propert# does not fall under an# of t!e

e+clusions pro&ided in Article , it t!erefore for"s part of t!eabsolute co""unit# propert# of S!irle# and Rogelio. Regardlessof t!eir respecti&e contribution to its ac%uisition before t!eir "arriage, and despite t!e fact t!at onl# Rogelio's na"e appearsin t!e TCT as oner, t!e propert# is oned jointl# b# t!e spousesS!irle# and Rogelio.

Respondent and Rogelio ere "arried on Septe"ber -, -0.Rogelio, on !is on and it!out t!e consent of !ereinrespondent as !is spouse, sold t!e subject propert# &ia a Deedof Absolute Sale dated Dece"ber , - B or during t!esubsistence of a &alid contract of "arriage. =nder Article / of 2+ecuti&e rder $o. 0, ot!erise @non as T!e a"il# Codeof t!e P!ilippines, t!e said disposition of a co""unal propert# is&oid, &iE.:

Art. /. T!e ad"inistration and enjo#"ent of t!e co""unit#propert# s!all belong to bot! spouses jointl#. n case of disagree"ent, t!e !usband's decision s!all pre&ail, subject torecourse to t!e court b# t!e ife for a proper re"ed#, !ic! "ustbe a&ailed of it!in fi&e #ears fro" t!e date of t!e contracti"ple"enting suc! decision.

n t!e e&ent t!at one spouse is incapacitated or ot!erise unableto participate in t!e ad"inistration of t!e co""on properties, t!eot!er spouse "a# assu"e sole poers of ad"inistration. T!esepoers do not include t!e poers of disposition or encu"branceit!out t!e aut!orit# of t!e court or t!e ritten consent of t!e

ot!er spouse. n t!e absence of suc! aut!orit# or consent, tdisposition or encu"brance s!all be &oid. (oe&er, ttransaction s!all be construed as a continuing offer on t!e partt!e consenting spouse and t!e t!ird person, and "a# perfected as a binding contract upon t!e acceptance b# t!e ot!spouse or aut!oriEation b# t!e court before t!e offer is it!drab# eit!er or bot! offerors.-?

t is clear under t!e foregoing pro&ision of t!e a"il# Code t!Rogelio could not sell t!e subject propert# it!out t!e ritteconsent of respondent or t!e aut!orit# of t!e court. 7it!out suconsent or aut!orit#, t!e entire sale is &oid. As correce+plained b# t!e appellate court:

n t!e instant case, defendant Rogelio sold t!e entire subjepropert# to defendantHappellant Josefina on Dece"ber -or during t!e e+istence of Rogelio's "arriage to plaintiffHappellS!irle#, it!out t!e consent of t!e latter. T!e subject propefor"s part of Rogelio and S!irle#'s absolute co""unit# propert#. T!us, t!e trial court erred in declaring t!e deed of sanull and &oid onl# insofar as t!e 44.04 s%uare "eterepresenting t!e oneH!alf )-* portion of plaintiffHappell

S!irle#. n absolute co""unit# of propert#, if t!e !usbanit!out @noledge and consent of t!e ife, sells )t!eir* propersuc! sale is &oid. T!e consent of bot! t!e !usband Rogelio at!e ife S!irle# is re%uired and t!e absence of t!e consent one renders t!e entire sale null and &oid including t!e portiont!e subject propert# pertaining to defendant Rogelio contracted t!e sale it! defendantHappellant Josefina. Since tDeed of Absolute Sale + + + entered into b# and betedefendantHappellant Josefina and defendant Rogelio dated Dece"ber -, during t!e subsisting "arriage beteplaintiffHappellee S!irle# and Rogelio, as it!out t!e rittconsent of S!irle#, t!e said Deed of Absolute Sale is &oid in entiret#. (ence, t!e trial court erred in declaring t!e said Deed

Absolute Sale as &oid onl# insofar as t!e - portion pertainingt!e s!are of S!irle# is concerned.-<

inall#, consistent it! our ruling t!at Rogelio solel# entered int!e contract of sale it! petitioner and ac@noledged recei&it!e entire consideration of t!e contract under t!e Deed

Absolute Sale, S!irle# could not be !eld accountable to petitionfor t!e rei"burse"ent of !er pa#"ent for t!e purc!ase of tsubject propert#. =nder Article > of t!e a"il# Code, tabsolute co""unit# of propert# s!all onl# be Fliable for + +OdWebts and obligations contracted b# eit!er spouse it!out tconsent of t!e ot!er to t!e e+tent t!at t!e fa"il# "a# !a&e beebenefited + + +.G As correctl# stated b# t!e appellate court, t!ebeing no e&idence on record t!at t!e a"ount recei&ed Rogelio redounded to t!e benefit of t!e fa"il#, respondecannot be "ade to rei"burse an# a"ount to petitioner.-

7(2R2R2, in &ie of t!e foregoing, t!e petition is D2$2T!e assailed Decision and Resolution of t!e Court of Appeadated Ma# ->, 0-0 and Jul# -, 0-0, respecti&el#, in CAH.C3 $o. ?0;4 are ARM2D.

Costs against petitioner.

S RD2R2D.

+ODES OF AC73IRING LAND TITLES


18/81


A. Tit&e ;y P*;&i Gr%nt

/. T#e Reg%&i%n Dotrine@ Cone!ts %nd E""ets

REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )s. HON. SOFRONIO G.SA5O

G.R. No. L?1/ Oto;er /@ /001

NAR-ASA@ J.:

FACTS4 T!e spouses, Casiano Sando&al and LuE Mar%ueE, filedan original application for registration of a tract of land identified

as Lot $o. ?>4> !a&ing an area of ;;,40 !ectares.

ppositions ere filed b# t!e o&ern"ent, t!roug! t!e Director of Lands and t!e Director of orestr#.

T!e case dragged on for about tent# )0* #ears until Marc! ;,--!ectaresK

;* in fa&or of t!e (eirs of Liberato a#aua, >,000 !ectaresK and

>* in fa&or of P!ilippine Cacao ar" Products, nc., 4> is public land. According to t!e", as pointed out in tapplication for registration, t!e pri&ate c!aracter of t!e landde"onstrated b# t!e folloing circu"stances, to it:

-* t!e possessor# infor"ation title of t!e applicants and t!predecessorsHinHinterestK

* t!e fact t!at Lot ?>4> as ne&er clai"ed to be public land bt!e Director of Lands in t!e proper cadastral proceedingsK

;* t!e preHar certification of t!e $ational Librar# dated Augu-/, -; to t!e effect t!at t!e )/staistica e Propieaes* sabela issued in -


19/81


ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e pri&ate respondents !a&e registrablerig!ts o&er Lot ?>4>. No

HELD4 =nder t!e Regalian Doctrine all lands not ot!eriseappearing to be clearl# it!in pri&ate oners!ip are presu"ed tobelong to t!e State. Hene@ it is t#%t %&& %!!&i%nts in &%ndregistr%tion !roeedings #%)e t#e ;*rden o" o)eroming t#e!res*m!tion t#%t t#e &%nd t#*s so*g#t to ;e registered"orms !%rt o" t#e !*;&i dom%in.

=nless t!e applicant succeeds in s!oing b# clear andcon&incing e&idence t!at t!e propert# in&ol&ed as ac%uired b#!i" or !is ancestors eit!er b# co"position title fro" t!e Spanis!o&ern"ent or b# possessor# infor"ation title, or an# ot!er

"eans for t!e proper ac%uisition of public lands, t!e propert#"ust be !eld to be part of t!e public do"ain.

T!e applicant "ust present co"petent and persuasi&e proof tosubstantiate !is clai"K !e "a# not rel# on general state"ents, or "ere conclusions of la ot!er t!an factual e&idence of possession and title.

In t#e !roeeding %t ;%r@ it appears t!at t!e principal docu"entrelied upon and presented b# t!e applicants for registration, to

pro&e t!e pri&ate c!aracter of t!e large tract of land subject of t!eir application, as a p!otocop# of a certification of t!e$ational Librar# dated August -/, -; )alread# abo&e"entioned* to t!e effect t!at according to t!eo&ern"ent6s (/staistica e Propieaes) of sabela issued in-* b# purc!ase fro" its original oners and t!ereaftactual, continuous, public and ad&erse possession b# t!etac@ed on to t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest for a period e+ceedi;0 #ears.

Petitioners6 predecessorsHinHinterest failed to anser in tcadastral court for lac@ of @noledge of t!e e+istence of ongoing cadastral proceeding because of !ic! Lot $o. >>> declared public land b# C ataan.

n appeal, t!e nter"ediate Appellate Court affir"ed t!e trcourt6s decision !ic! granted t!e pri&ate respondents6 petitito reopen t!e cadastral registration proceeding of t!e lot dispute and ordering its registration in t!e na"es of trespondents.

n t!is instant petition, t!e petitioner c!allenges t!e decisiont!e appellate court as being contrar# to la on t!e ground t!a!eld t!at t!e subject land is agricultural and alienable land of t!public do"ain and t!at t!e sa"e can be subject to ac%uisitiprescription of t!irt# );0* #ears of open, continuous auninterrupted possession.


20/81


T!e petitioner "aintains t!at unless t!e President upon t!ereco""endation of t!e Secretar# of $atural Resources,reclassifies and declares a particular land as agricultural or disposable, its status as "ilitar# reser&ation or forest landre"ains unaltered and no a"ount of p!#sical occupation andculti&ation t!ereof can c!ange it to agricultural land and bring itit!in t!e pro&isions of t!e Public Land Act.

ISS3E4 7!et!er or not respondents !a&e a bona fie clai" of oners!ip as to entitle t!e" to registration and title o&er t!esubject land. NO

HELD4 T!e Supre"e Court !eld t!at t!e fact re"ains t!at t!esubject land !as not #et been released fro" its classification aspart of t!e "ilitar# reser&ation Eone and still !as to bereclassified as alienable public land it! t!e appro&al of t!ePresident of t!e P!ilippines as re%uired b# t!e Public Land Act

)Co""onealt! Act $o. ->-* and Republic Act $o. -?4.

T!erefore, t!e SC cannot sustain t!e appellate court6s ruling t!att!e land in dispute is no longer part of t!e "ilitar# reser&ation ont!e basis of a "ere proposal to classif# t!e sa"e as alienableand disposable land of t!e public do"ain. A proposal cannot ta@et!e place of a for"al act declaring forest land released for disposition as public agricultural land. To sustain t!e appellateruling ould be to preHe"pt t!e e+ecuti&e branc! of t!ego&ern"ent fro" e+ercising its prerogati&e in classif#ing lands of t!e public do"ain.

t as ruled in t!e case of Director of $ans &. Co!rt of +ppeals, )- SCRA /


21/81


in!abitants of enguet. $or it "eant Fpropert#G to refer onl# tot!ose lands !ic! !ad beco"e suc! under a cere"on# )of registration* "an# of t!e people of t!e land "a# !a&e not e&en!eard of.

Alt!oug! in sec. -> of t!e organic act, it is said t!at t!e P!ilippineco""ission "a# prescribe rules and regulations for perfecting

titles to public lands, it s!ould be noted t!at t!is section refers tot!ose cases !ere t!e land as ad"itted to be public land. T!e=S SC !esitates to suppose t!at it as intended to declare e&er#nati&e !o !ad not a paper title, a trespasser. T!e %uestion stillre"ains: !at propert# and rig!ts did t!e =S ac%uire8

n cases li@e t!is one, t!e presu"ption ould and s!ould beagainst t!e go&ern"ent. As far bac@ as "e"or# goes, t!e land!as been !eld b# indi&iduals under a clai" of pri&ate oners!ip,it as ne&er public land. t ould not be proper to just let t!econ%ueror to dictate !o to deal it! t!e P!ilippine tribes if itreall# "eant to use t!e rig!ts ac%uired b# t!e" Ffor t!e benefit of t!e in!abitants t!ereofG.

T!e nati&es ere recogniEed b# t!e Spanis! las to on so"e

lands, irrespecti&e of an# ro#al grant. T!e# didn't intend to turnall t!e in!abitants into trespassers. Principle of prescription asad"itted: t!at if t!e# eren't able to produce title deeds, it issufficient if t!e# s!o ancient possession, as a &alid title b#prescription.

Alt!oug! t!ere as a decree in June 4, -*stie re,*ire t#%t t#e %!!&i%nt s#o*&d ;egr%nted =#%t #e sees %nd s#o*&d not ;e de!ri)ed o" =#%t@;y t#e !r%tie %nd ;e&ie" o" t#ose %mong =#om #e &i)ed@=%s #is !ro!erty@ t#ro*g# % re"ined inter!ret%tion o" %n%&most "orgotten &%= o" S!%in. $Judg"ent re&ersed.

LEE HONG (O( -. DA-IDG.R. NO. L?10 DECE+BER @ /0

FACTS4 Aniano Da&id ac%uired laful title pursuant to !is"iscellaneous sales application in accordance it! !ic! anorder of aard and for issuance of a sales patent )si"ilar topublic auction* as "ade b# t!e Director of Lands on June -


22/81


ISS3E4 7$ t!e lot in %uestion can be subject of registrationand confir"ation of title in t!e na"e of t!e pri&ate person.

HELD4 T!e opposition of t!e Director of orestr# asstrengt!ened b# t!e appellate court6s finding t!at ti"ber licenses!ad to be issued to certain licensees and e&en Jose A"unategui!i"self too@ t!e trouble to as@ for a license to cut ti"ber it!in

t!e area. t as onl# so"eti"e in -40 t!at t!e propert# ascon&erted into fis!pond but onl# after a pre&ious arning fro"t!e District orester t!at t!e sa"e could not be done because itas classified as 1public forestG.

A forested area classified as forest land of t!e public do"aindoes not lose suc! classification si"pl# because loggers or settlers "a# !a&e stripped it of its forest co&er. 1orest lands1 donot !a&e to be on "ountains or in out of t!e a# places.Sa"p# areas co&ered b# "angro&e trees, nipa pal"s, andot!er trees groing in brac@is! or sea ater "a# also beclassified as forest land. T!e possession of forestlands, no"atter !o long, cannot ripen into pri&ate oners!ip. T!erefore,t!e lot in %uestion ne&er ceased to be classified as forestland of public do"ain.

. T#e Reg%&i%n Dotrine )s RA / IPRA

ISAGANI CR38 -. DEPT. OF ENERG5 AND NAT3RALRESO3RCES

G.R. NO. /@ DECE+BER @ 111

FACTS: CruE, a noted constitutionalist, assailed t!e &alidit# of t!e RA / !ic! co&ered tentire P!ilippine arc!ipelago. (ol"es !eld t!at !e could regist!e land if oners!ip can be "aintained

+AIN ISS3E4 7$ t!e land in %uestion belonged to tSpanis! Cron under t!e Regalian Doctrine.

o&ern"ent's argu"ent: Spain !ad title to all t!e land in tP!ilippines e+cept t!ose it sa fit to per"it pri&ate titles to bac%uired. T!at t!ere as a decree issued b# Spain t!at re%uirregistration it!in a li"ited ti"e. Carino's land asn't registerand so in effect it beca"e public land.

HELD4 $o. La and justice re%uire t!at t!e applicant s!ould granted title to !is land.

=SSC: 7!ate&er t!e position of Spain as on t!e issue, it donot follo t!at t!e =S ould &ie plaintiff to !a&e lost all !rig!ts to t!e land B t!is ould a"ount to a denial of nati&e titlt!roug!out enguet just because Spain ould not !a&e grant

to an#one in t!e pro&ince t!e registration of t!eir lands.

rganic act of Jul# -, -0 pro&ides t!at all t!e propert# arig!ts ac%uired t!ere b# t!e =S ould be for t!e benefit of tin!abitants t!ereof. T!is sa"e statute "ade a bill of rig!e"bod#ing t!e safeguards of t!e constitution, it pro&ides t!F6no la s!all be enacted in said islands !ic! s!all depri&e aperson of life, libert#, or propert# it!out due process of la, den# to an# person t!erein t!e e%ual protection of t!e lasG.ould be !ard to belie&e t!at t!at Fan# personG didn't include tin!abitants of enguet. $or it "eant Fpropert#G to refer onl# t!ose lands !ic! !ad beco"e suc! under a cere"on# registration* "an# of t!e people of t!e land "a# !a&e not e&


23/81


!eard of.

Alt!oug! in sec. -> of t!e organic act, it is said t!at t!e P!ilippineco""ission "a# prescribe rules and regulations for perfectingtitles to public lands, it s!ould be noted t!at t!is section refers tot!ose cases !ere t!e land as ad"itted to be public land. T!e=S SC !esitates to suppose t!at it as intended to declare e&er#

nati&e !o !ad not a paper title, a trespasser. T!e %uestion stillre"ains: !at propert# and rig!ts did t!e =S ac%uire8

n cases li@e t!is one, t!e presu"ption ould and s!ould beagainst t!e go&ern"ent. As far bac@ as "e"or# goes, t!e land!as been !eld b# indi&iduals under a clai" of pri&ate oners!ip,it as ne&er public land. t ould not be proper to just let t!econ%ueror to dictate !o to deal it! t!e P!ilippine tribes if itreall# "eant to use t!e rig!ts ac%uired b# t!e" Ffor t!e benefit of t!e in!abitants t!ereofG.

T!e nati&es ere recogniEed b# t!e Spanis! las to on so"elands, irrespecti&e of an# ro#al grant. T!e# didn't intend to turnall t!e in!abitants into trespassers. Principle of prescription asad"itted: t!at if t!e# eren't able to produce title deeds, it is

sufficient if t!e# s!o ancient possession, as a &alid title b#prescription.

Alt!oug! t!ere as a decree in June 4, -- as a"ended and t!us alleged t!at toget!er it! predecessorsHinHinterest it !ad been in open, continuous, pubpeaceful and ad&erse possession of t!e subject lots for "ot!an ;0 #ears.

eron )Tabango's itness* testified t!at t!e applicantHcorporatias dul# organiEed and registered it! t!e Securities a2+c!ange Co""ission and is aut!oriEed to ac%uire land purc!ase and de&elop, subdi&ide, sell, "ortgage, e+c!anglease and !old for in&est"ent or ot!erise, real estate of @inds.

(e also testified t!at t!e subject properties in t!is case epurc!ased b# Tabangao Realt# as e&idenced b# Deed of Sa

and t!at t!e ta+es of t!e properties ere properl# paid b# tcorporation.

Marasigan corroborated t!e testi"on# of Ro"eo eron regard to t!e oners!ip, possession and t!e status of t!e losubject of t!e application.

Loida Maglinao )fro" t!e ureau of orest De&elop"etestified t!at t!e subject properties are it!in t!e alienable adisposable area of t!e public do"ain and no forestr# interestad&ersel# interposed b# t!e ureau of orest De&elop"ent.

RTC and CA granted t!e petition of Tabangao. (ence, tappeal b# t!e Republic.

ISS3E4 7$ Tabangao Realt#, nc. !as registerable title o&t!ree );* parcels of land situated in Tabangao, atangas Capplied for.

HELD4 $. T!e ruling of t!e CA as erroneous. T!ere ispresu"ption t!at all lands belong to t!e public do"ain of tState.

An applicant see@ing to establis! oners!ip o&er land "uconclusi&el# s!o t!at !e is t!e oner t!ereof in fee si"ple, ft!e standing presu"ption is t!at all lands belong to t!e pubdo"ain of t!e State, unless ac%uired fro" t!e o&ern"ent eit!b# purc!ase or b# grant, e+cept lands possessed b# an occupaand !is predecessors since ti"e i""e"orial, for supossession ould justif# t!e presu"ption t!at t!e land !ad ne&

been part of t!e public do"ain or t!at it !ad been pri&apropert# e&en before t!e Spanis! con%uest.

T!e land in %uestion is ad"ittedl# public. T!e applicant !as title at all. ts clai" of ac%uisition of oners!ip is solel# based opossession. n fact, t!e parcels of land applied for ere declarepublic land b# decision of t!e Cadastral Court. Suc! being tcase, t!e application for &oluntar# registration under P. D. $-4 )Propert# Registration Decree* is barred b# t!e pr

judg"ent of t!e Cadastral Court.

T!e land !a&ing been subjected to co"pulsor# registration undt!e Cadastral Act and declared public land can no longer be t


24/81


subject of registration b# &oluntar# application under PresidentialDecree $o. -4. T!e second application is barred b# resH

judicata. As pre&iousl# !eld, 1O7W!ere t!e applicant possesses notitle or oners!ip o&er t!e parcel of land, !e cannot ac%uire oneunder t!e Torrens S#ste" of registration.1

T!ere is no sufficient e&idence t!at Tabangao Realt# as in

open, continuous, e+clusi&e and notorious possession of t!elands for ;0 #ears.

Applicant failed to pro&e specific acts s!oing t!e nature of itspossession and t!at of its predecessors in interest. 1T!eapplicant "ust present specific acts of oners!ip to substantiatet!e clai" and cannot just offer general state"ents !ic! are"ere conclusions of la t!an factual e&idence of possession.11Actual possession of land consists in t!e "anifestation of acts of do"inion o&er it of suc! a nature as a part# ould naturall#e+ercise o&er !is on propert#.1

n ot!er ords, facts constituting possession "ust be dul#establis!ed b# co"petent e&idence.

(ence, t!e application for registration of t!e properties "ust bedenied. )Ruled in fa&or of t!e Republic.*

. B*rden o" Proo" to De"e%t Dotrine

REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES -. A-ELINO R. DELA PA8@ARSENIO R. DELA PA8@ OSE R. DELA PA8@ AND GLICERIO

R. DELA PA8@ REPRESENTED B5 OSE R. DELA PA8

PERALTA@ .4FACTS4 Respondents filed a case to register a parcel of landco&ering al"ost 4,


25/81


. Presri!tion )s L%#es. Periods "or A,*isit)e Presri!tion. Presri!tion@ Co?o=ners#i! %nd Tr*sts. E""et o" Fr%*d

C. Tit&e ;y Aretion

/. Cone!t o" Aretion

NEW REGENT SER-ICES -. TAN3ATCOA!ri& /@ 110

FACTS4 Petitioner $e Regent Sources, nc. )$RS* filed aCo"plaint for RescissionDeclaration of $ullit# of Contract,Recon&e#ance and Da"ages against respondent Tanjuatco andt!e Register of Deeds of Cala"ba. $RS alleged t!at in ->, itaut!oriEed Cue&as, its C!air"an and President, to appl# on itsbe!alf, for t!e ac%uisition of to parcels of land b# &irtue of itsrig!t of accretion. Cue&as purportedl# applied for t!e lots in !isna"e b# pa#ing P00.;< to t!e ureau of Lands. n Januar#, -4, Cue&as and !is ife e+ecuted a 3oting Trust Agree"ento&er t!eir s!ares of stoc@ in t!e corporation. T!en, pendingappro&al of t!e application it! t!e ureau of Lands, Cue&asassigned !is rig!t to Tanjuatco for t!e su" of P* t!e action is filed after t!e certificate of title !ad alreabeco"e final and incontro&ertible but it!in four #ears fro" tdisco&er# of t!e fraud, or not later t!an -0 #ears in t!e case of i"plied trust.

Petitioner failed to s!o t!e presence of t!ese re%uisites.

. $o. Accretion as a "ode of ac%uiring propert# under Artic>4? of t!e Ci&il Code re%uires t!e concurrence of t!e folloire%uisites:)-* t!at t!e deposition of soil or sedi"ent be gradual ai"perceptibleK)* t!at it be t!e result of t!e action of t!e aters of t!e ri&erK a);* t!at t!e land !ere accretion ta@es place is adjacent to tban@s of ri&ers.

t is not enoug! to be a riparian oner in order to enjo# t!benefits of accretion. ne !o clai"s t!e rig!t of accretion "us!o b# preponderant e&idence t!at !e !as "et all tconditions pro&ided b# la. Petitioner !as notabl# failed in t!regard as it did not offer an# e&idence to pro&e t!at it !satisfied t!e foregoing re%uisites.

urt!er, it is undisputed t!at Tanjuatco deri&ed !is title to tlands fro" riginal Certificate of Title )CT* registered in tna"e of t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines. Said parcels of lafor"ed part of t!e Dried San Juan Ri&er ed, !ic! under Artic40 )-* of t!e Ci&il Code rig!tl# pertains to t!e public do"inioT!e Certification issued b# t!e forester confir"s t!at said lanere &erified to be it!in t!e Alienable and Disposable lancertified and declared as suc! on Septe"ber


26/81


oblige !i" to go be!ind t!e certificate to deter"ine t!e conditionof t!e propert#. T!is applies e&en "ore particularl# !en t!eseller !appens to be t!e Republic, against !ic!, no i"proper "oti&e can be ascribed. T!e la, no doubt, considers Tanjuatcoan innocent purc!aser for &alue. An innocent purc!aser for &alueis one !o bu#s t!e propert# of anot!er, it!out notice t!at so"eot!er person !as a rig!t or interest in suc! propert# and pa#s t!e

full price for t!e sa"e, at t!e ti"e of suc! purc!ase or before !e!as notice of t!e clai"s or interest of so"e ot!er person in t!eproper

land titles and deeds complete compilation of cases

Documents