Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
1
Wigmore – II SR Edition CONCEPT OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION ISS3E4 7as t!e contract of sale &alid8 92S s a public docu"ent needed for transfer of o ners!ip8 $
A. B. C. D. E. F.
History Cone! Cone!tt o" t#e term term $L%nd $L%nd Tit&e Tit&e'' (ind (inds s o" o" Est Est%t %tes es Ty!es !es o" o" Est Est%t %tes es Tit&e it&e )ers )ers*s *s Deed Deed +ode +ode o" %, %,*i *isi siti tion on SPS DALION -. CA /0012
Petitioners: Spouses Dalion Respondents: CA and Sabesaje, Jr. Ponente: Medialdea, J. Doctri Doctrine: ne: A contra contract ct of sale sale is a consen consensua suall contra contract, ct, !ic! !ic! "eans t!at t!e sale is perfected b# "ere consent. $o particular for" is re%uired for its &alidit#.
HELD4 RE4 -ALIDIT5 OF THE CONTRACT People !o itnessed t!e e+ecution of t!e deed positi&el# testified on its aut!enticit#. T!e# T!e# stat stated ed t!at t!at it !ad !ad been been e+ec e+ecut uted ed and and sign signed ed b# t!e t!e signatories.
RE4 P3BLIC DOC3+ENT T!e pro&ision of $CC -;4< on t!e necessit# of a public docu docu"e "ent nt is onl# onl# for for con& con&en enie ienc nce, e, not not for for &ali &alidi dit# t#
or
enforceabilit#. T!at t!is be e"bodied in a public instru"ent is not a re%uire"ent for t!e &alidit# of a contract of sale of a parcel of land Dalion argued: T!at t!e sale is in&alid because it is e"bodied in a pri&ate docu"ent. T!at 1acts and contracts !ic! !a&e for t!eir object t!e creation, trans"ission, "odification or e+tinction of real rig!ts o&er i""o&able propert# "ust appear in a public instru"ent.1 )$CC -;4< par. -* •
S!ort S!ort &ersio &ersion: n: A land as regist registere ered d in Dalion Dalion's 's na"e. na"e. (e allege allegedl# dl# sold sold t!is t!is to Sabesa Sabesaje. je. Dalion Dalion denies denies t!e sale e&er e&er !appened )sa#ing !is signature as forged* and also sa#s t!at assu"ing t!e signature as &alid, sale is still in&alid because it as not e+ecut e+ecuted ed in a public public docu"e docu"ent. nt. SC sa#s Dalion' Dalion's s argu"ent is rong. n a contract of sale, no particular for" is re%uired.
•
A contract of sale is a consensual contract, !ic! "eans "eans t!at t!e sale is perfected b# "ere consent. $o particular for" is re%uired for its & alidit#. alidit#. =pon perfection of t!e contract, t!e parties "a# •
A land in Sout!ern Le#te as declared in t!e na"e of Segundo Dalion. Sabesaje sued to reco&er oners!ip t!is land based on a pri&at pri&ate e docu"e docu"ent nt of absolu absolute te sale, sale, allege allegedl# dl# e+ecut e+ecuted ed b# Segundo Dalion.
•
reciprocall# reciprocall# de"and perfor"ance perfor"ance )$CC ->?4, $CC*, i.e., t!e &endee "a# co"pel transfer of oners!ip of t!e object of t!e sale, and t!e &endor "a# re%uire t!e &endee to pa# t!e t!ing sold )$CC ->4<*.
Dalion, !oe&er, denied t!e sale, sa#ing t!at: • • •
T!e docu"ent as fictitious (is signature as a forger#, forger#, and T!at t!e land is conjugal propert#, !ic! !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+ecuting a 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 Dalion did 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 Leonardo Sabesaje, grandfat!er of Sabesaje, !o died in -4/. T!e T!e Dali Dalion ons s ne&e ne&err rece recei& i&ed ed t!ei t!eirr agre agreed ed -05 -05 and and -45 -45 co""ission on t!e sales of copra and abaca . Sabesaje6s suit, t!e# sa#, as intended "erel# to !arass and forestall Dalion6s t!reat to sue for t!ese unpaid co""issions. TC decided in fa&or of Sabesaje and ordered t!e Dalions to deli&er t!e parcel of land in a public docu"ent. CA affir"ed.
T!e trial court t!us rig!tl# and legall# ordered Dalion to deli&er to Sabesaje t!e parcel of land and to e+ecute corresponding for"al deed of con&e#ance in a public docu"ent. =nder =nder $CC -><, !en t!e sale sale is "ade "ade t!roug t!roug! ! a public public instru"ent instru"ent,, t!e e+ecution e+ecution is e%ui&alent e%ui&alent to t!e deli&er# of t!e t!ing. Deli&er# "a# eit!er be actual )real* or constructi&e. T!us T!us deli deli&e &er# r# of a parce parcell of land "a# be done b# placin placing g t!e &endee &endee in contro controll and possessio possession n of t!e land land )rea )real* l* or b# e"bo e"bod# d#in ing g t!e t!e sale sale in a publ public ic instru"ent )constructi&e*. •
)ADDT$AL: T!e aut!enticit# of t!e signature of Dalion as pro&en b# t!e testi"on# of se&eral itness including t!e person !o !o "ade "ade t!e t!e deed deed of sale sale.. Dali Dalion on ne&e ne&err pres presen ente ted d an# an# e&idence or itness to pro&e !is clai" of forger#. Dallion's clai" t!at t!e sale is in&alid because it as not "ade in a public docu"ent is of no "erit. T!is argu"ent is "isplaced. T!e pro&ision of Art. -;4< on t!e necessit# of a public docu"ent is onl# for con&enience, not for &alidit# or enforceabilit#. t is not a re%uire"ent for t!e &alidit# of a contract of sale of a parcel of land land t!at t!at t!is t!is be e"bodi e"bodied ed in a public public instru"e instru"ent. nt. Sale is perfected upon "eeting of t!e "inds of bot! parties.*
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition LAWS I+PLE+ENTING LAND REGISTRATION
2
certificate of title "a# !a&e beco"e incontro&ertible one #ear after after issuan issuance, ce, #et contrar# contrar# to !is argu"ent, argu"ent, it does does not bar pri&ate respondent fro" %uestioning !is oners!ip.
P3RPOSES OF LAND REGISTRATION LEE TE( SHENG -S. CA Te@ FACTS FACTS44 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 T!e pri& pri&at ate e resp respon onde dent nt alle allege ged d t!at t!at t!e t!e > parce parcels ls of land land registered in petitioner's na"e are conjugal properties. T!e PR contends t!at t!e lots ere registered under Leoncio's na"e onl# as a trustee because during t!e registration, Leoncio as 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 conjugal regi"e. To prot protec ectt t!e t!e inte intere rest st of t!e t!e conj conjug ugal al regi regi"e "e duri during ng t!e t!e pendenc# of t!e case, PR caused t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT <?<. Petitioner "o&ed for t!e cancellation of said annotation but it as denied b# RTC on t!e grounds t!at: )a* t!e notice as not for t!e purpose of "olesting or !arassing petitioner and )b* also to @eep t!e propert# it!in t!e poer of t!e court pending litigation. CA affir"ed t!e decision. (ence t!is petition. Petitioner's contention: T!e resolution of an incidental "otion for cancellation of t!e notice of lis pendens as i"proper to t!res! out t!e issue of oners!ip of t!e disputed disputed lots since oners!ip oners!ip cannot be passed upon in a partition case and t!at it ould a"ount to a collateral attac@ of !is title obtained "ore t!an < #ears ago. Pri&ate respondent's contention: T!e e&idence of oners!ip is ad"issible in a partition case as t!is is not a probate or land registration proceedings !en t!e c ourt's jurisdiction is li"ited.
A notice notice of lis pendens "a# be cancelled onl# on to grounds: )-* f t!e annotation as for t!e purpose of "olesting t!e title of t!e ad&erse part# )* 7!en t!e annotation is not necessar# to protect t!e title of t!e part# !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 lis pendens is onl# for t!e purpose of announcing Fto t!e !ole orld t!at a particular real propert# is in litigation, ser&ing as a arning 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 propert#.G n t!e contention t!at oners!ip cannot be passed upon in partition case, suffice it to sa# t!at until and unless oners!ip is definitel# resol&ed, it ould be pre"ature to effect partition of t!e propert#. 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@ing annotation to pro&e t!at t!e land belongs to !i". esides, an action for partition is one case !ere t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens is proper.
REP3BLIC -S CA T!ese to cases are about t!e cancellation and annul"ent of reconstitu reconstituted ted Torrens orrens titles titles !ose originals are e+isting e+isting and !ose reconstitution as, t!erefore, uncalled for. lots of t!e Tala 2state, it! areas of "ore t!an tent#Hfi&e and tent# tent#Hfou Hfourr !ectar !ectares, es, respec respecti& ti&el# el#,, locate located d at $o&ali $o&alic!e c!es, s, Caloocan, no IueEon Cit#, are registered in t!e na"e of t!e Commonwealth of the Philippines. Philippines. T!e originals of t!ose titles are on file in t!e registr# of deeds in Pasig, RiEal. T!e# ere not destro#ed during t!e ar. 2&en t!e originals of t!e preceding cancelled titles for t!ose to lots are intact in t!e registr# of deeds.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens is &alid. es. Petiti Petitione oner's r's clai" clai" is not legall# legall# tenabl tenable. e. T!e T!e HELD4 9es. annota annotatio tion n of a notice notice of lis pendens pendens does does not in an# case a"ount nor can it be considered as e%ui&alent to a collateral attac@ of t!e certificate of title for a parcel of land. 7!at cannot be collaterall# attac@ed is t!e certificate of title and not t!e title. Placing a parcel of land under t!e "antle of t!e Torrens s#ste" does not "ean t!at oners!ip t!ereof can no longer be disputed. ners!ip is different fro" a certificate of title. T!e TCT is onl# t!e best proof of oners!ip of a piece of land. esides, t!e certificate cannot ala#s be considered as conclusi&e e&idence of oners!ip. Registration is not t!e e%ui&alent of title, but is onl# t!e best e&idence t!ereof. Title as a concept of oners!ip s!ould not be conf confus used ed it! it! t!e t!e cert certif ific icat ate e of titl title e as e&id e&iden ence ce of suc! 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 being assailed b# pri&ate respondent. 7!at t!e latter disputes is t!e for"er's for"er's clai" of sole oners!ip. oners!ip. T!us, alt!oug! alt!oug! petitioner's petitioner's
T!e reconstitution proceeding started !en ructuosa Laborada, a ido residing at -//4 nterior - Dart Street, Paco, Manila, filed in t!e Court of irst nstance of RiEal at Caloocan Cit# a petition dated $o&e"ber, -/? for t!e reconstitution of t!e title co&ering t!e abo&eH"entioned Lot $o. -4. S!e alleged t!at s!e as t!e oner of t!e lot and t!at t!e title co&ering it, t!e nu"ber of !ic! s!e could not specif#, as 1$.A.1 or not a&ailable. T!e petiti petition on as sorn sorn to on $o&e"b $o&e"ber er -/, -/? before before Manila Manila notar# Do"ingo P. A%uino. n April , -/<, t!e loer court issued an order setting t!e petition for !earing on June ->, -/<. T!e notice of !earing as publis!ed in t!e fficial aEette. Copies t!ereof ere posted in t!ree conspicuous places in Caloocan Cit# and ere furnis!ed t!e suppos supposed ed adjoin adjoining ing oners oners.. T!e T!e regist registers ers of deeds deeds of Calooc Caloocan an Cit# Cit# and RiEal ere not ser&ed ser&ed it! it! copies copies of t!e petition and notice of !earing. State Prosecutor 2nri%ue A. Cube, as supposed counsel for t!e o&ern"ent, did not oppose t!e petition. Laborada presented !er e&idence before t!e deput# cler@ of court. Judge Serafin
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition LAWS I+PLE+ENTING LAND REGISTRATION
2
certificate of title "a# !a&e beco"e incontro&ertible one #ear after after issuan issuance, ce, #et contrar# contrar# to !is argu"ent, argu"ent, it does does not bar pri&ate respondent fro" %uestioning !is oners!ip.
P3RPOSES OF LAND REGISTRATION LEE TE( SHENG -S. CA Te@ FACTS FACTS44 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 T!e pri& pri&at ate e resp respon onde dent nt alle allege ged d t!at t!at t!e t!e > parce parcels ls of land land registered in petitioner's na"e are conjugal properties. T!e PR contends t!at t!e lots ere registered under Leoncio's na"e onl# as a trustee because during t!e registration, Leoncio as 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 conjugal regi"e. To prot protec ectt t!e t!e inte intere rest st of t!e t!e conj conjug ugal al regi regi"e "e duri during ng t!e t!e pendenc# of t!e case, PR caused t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT <?<. Petitioner "o&ed for t!e cancellation of said annotation but it as denied b# RTC on t!e grounds t!at: )a* t!e notice as not for t!e purpose of "olesting or !arassing petitioner and )b* also to @eep t!e propert# it!in t!e poer of t!e court pending litigation. CA affir"ed t!e decision. (ence t!is petition. Petitioner's contention: T!e resolution of an incidental "otion for cancellation of t!e notice of lis pendens as i"proper to t!res! out t!e issue of oners!ip of t!e disputed disputed lots since oners!ip oners!ip cannot be passed upon in a partition case and t!at it ould a"ount to a collateral attac@ of !is title obtained "ore t!an < #ears ago. Pri&ate respondent's contention: T!e e&idence of oners!ip is ad"issible in a partition case as t!is is not a probate or land registration proceedings !en t!e c ourt's jurisdiction is li"ited.
A notice notice of lis pendens "a# be cancelled onl# on to grounds: )-* f t!e annotation as for t!e purpose of "olesting t!e title of t!e ad&erse part# )* 7!en t!e annotation is not necessar# to protect t!e title of t!e part# !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 lis pendens is onl# for t!e purpose of announcing Fto t!e !ole orld t!at a particular real propert# is in litigation, ser&ing as a arning 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 propert#.G n t!e contention t!at oners!ip cannot be passed upon in partition case, suffice it to sa# t!at until and unless oners!ip is definitel# resol&ed, it ould be pre"ature to effect partition of t!e propert#. 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@ing annotation to pro&e t!at t!e land belongs to !i". esides, an action for partition is one case !ere t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens is proper.
REP3BLIC -S CA T!ese to cases are about t!e cancellation and annul"ent of reconstitu reconstituted ted Torrens orrens titles titles !ose originals are e+isting e+isting and !ose reconstitution as, t!erefore, uncalled for. lots of t!e Tala 2state, it! areas of "ore t!an tent#Hfi&e and tent# tent#Hfou Hfourr !ectar !ectares, es, respec respecti& ti&el# el#,, locate located d at $o&ali $o&alic!e c!es, s, Caloocan, no IueEon Cit#, are registered in t!e na"e of t!e Commonwealth of the Philippines. Philippines. T!e originals of t!ose titles are on file in t!e registr# of deeds in Pasig, RiEal. T!e# ere not destro#ed during t!e ar. 2&en t!e originals of t!e preceding cancelled titles for t!ose to lots are intact in t!e registr# of deeds.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens is &alid. es. Petiti Petitione oner's r's clai" clai" is not legall# legall# tenabl tenable. e. T!e T!e HELD4 9es. annota annotatio tion n of a notice notice of lis pendens pendens does does not in an# case a"ount nor can it be considered as e%ui&alent to a collateral attac@ of t!e certificate of title for a parcel of land. 7!at cannot be collaterall# attac@ed is t!e certificate of title and not t!e title. Placing a parcel of land under t!e "antle of t!e Torrens s#ste" does not "ean t!at oners!ip t!ereof can no longer be disputed. ners!ip is different fro" a certificate of title. T!e TCT is onl# t!e best proof of oners!ip of a piece of land. esides, t!e certificate cannot ala#s be considered as conclusi&e e&idence of oners!ip. Registration is not t!e e%ui&alent of title, but is onl# t!e best e&idence t!ereof. Title as a concept of oners!ip s!ould not be conf confus used ed it! it! t!e t!e cert certif ific icat ate e of titl title e as e&id e&iden ence ce of suc! 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 being assailed b# pri&ate respondent. 7!at t!e latter disputes is t!e for"er's for"er's clai" of sole oners!ip. oners!ip. T!us, alt!oug! alt!oug! petitioner's petitioner's
T!e reconstitution proceeding started !en ructuosa Laborada, a ido residing at -//4 nterior - Dart Street, Paco, Manila, filed in t!e Court of irst nstance of RiEal at Caloocan Cit# a petition dated $o&e"ber, -/? for t!e reconstitution of t!e title co&ering t!e abo&eH"entioned Lot $o. -4. S!e alleged t!at s!e as t!e oner of t!e lot and t!at t!e title co&ering it, t!e nu"ber of !ic! s!e could not specif#, as 1$.A.1 or not a&ailable. T!e petiti petition on as sorn sorn to on $o&e"b $o&e"ber er -/, -/? before before Manila Manila notar# Do"ingo P. A%uino. n April , -/<, t!e loer court issued an order setting t!e petition for !earing on June ->, -/<. T!e notice of !earing as publis!ed in t!e fficial aEette. Copies t!ereof ere posted in t!ree conspicuous places in Caloocan Cit# and ere furnis!ed t!e suppos supposed ed adjoin adjoining ing oners oners.. T!e T!e regist registers ers of deeds deeds of Calooc Caloocan an Cit# Cit# and RiEal ere not ser&ed ser&ed it! it! copies copies of t!e petition and notice of !earing. State Prosecutor 2nri%ue A. Cube, as supposed counsel for t!e o&ern"ent, did not oppose t!e petition. Laborada presented !er e&idence before t!e deput# cler@ of court. Judge Serafin
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition 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 Maria ueEa !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!e plan and tec!nical description for t!e lot ere appro&ed b# t!e Co""issioner of Land Registration !o reco""ended fa&orable action on t!e petition. T!e loer court directed t!e register of deeds of Caloocan Cit# to reconstitute 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 and e+ecutor#. Acting on t!e court6s directi&e, t!e register of deeds issued to Laborada on August ->, -/< Transfer Certificate of Title $o. )$.A.* ;H)R*.
3
"issing title of Lot $o. -< in t!e na"e of o"bast. Acting on t!at directi&e, t!e register of deeds issued to o"bast Transfer Certificate of Title $o. $.A. 4(R). i&e i&e "ont "ont!s !s before t!e issuance issuance of t!e reconstit reconstitute uted d title, title, rancisca o"bast, no dentified as single )not ido* and a resident of -//4 Interior 12 Dart Street Paco, Manila, which was the same aress !se b" #r!ct!osa $aboraa )o"bast $aboraa )o"bast used first t!e address 0- San Marcelino Street* sold Lot $o. -< to (erculano M. Deo allegedl# for P>,<<0. Transfer Certificate of Title $o. ;>->/R as issued to Deo. n cto ctobe berr <, <, -/ -/,, Deo Deo sold sold t!e t!e lot lot to A A Torri Torrijo jos s 2ngine 2ngineeri ering ng Corpor Corporati ation on allege allegedl# dl# for P40,0 P40,000. 00. Trans Transfer fer Certificate of Title $o. ;>->?HR as issued to t!e corporation.
Lot $o. -4 as later subdi&ided into se&en lots, Lots $os. -4H A to -4H. T!e Acting Co""issioner of Land Registration appro&ed appro&ed t!e subdi&ision subdi&ision plan. T!e register register of deeds cancelled cancelled TCT $o. )$.A.* ;H)R* and issued on ctober -4, -/< se&en titles to Laborada.
n Ma# 4 and /, -?0, t!e State filed to petitions for t!e cancellation and annul"ent of t!e reconstituted titles and t!e titles titles issued issued subse% subse%uen uentt t!eret t!ereto. o. Judge Judge Sal&ad Sal&ador or,, !o !ad ordered t!e reconstitution of t!e titles and to !o" t!e to cases for cancel cancellat lation ion ere ere assigne assigned, d, issued issued restrai restrainin ning g orders orders enjoining t!e register of deeds, cit# engineer and Co""issioner of Land Registration fro" accepting or recording an# transaction regarding Lots $os. -4 and -<.
n anot!er and later case, one rancisco S. o"bast, single, residing at 0- San Marcelino Street, Malate, Manila filed in t!e loe loerr cour courtt a peti petiti tion on date dated d $o&e $o&e"b "ber er -/, -/, -/? -/? for for t!e t!e reconstitu reconstitution tion of t!e title of anot!er lot, t!e afore"enti afore"entioned oned Lot $o. -<.
T!e respondents in t!e to cases, t!roug! a co""on la#er, file filed d sepa separa rate te ans anser ers s cont contai aini ning ng "ere "ere deni denial als. s. T!e T!e Co""is Co""issio sioner ner of Land Land Regist Registrat ration ion filed filed pro forma forma ansers !erei !erein n !e interp interpose osed d no object objection ion to t!e issuance issuance of t!e preli"inar# injunction soug!t b# t!e State.
S!e could not specif# t!e nu"ber of t!e title. S!e alleged t!at t!e title as 1$.A1 or not a&ailable. S!e clai"ed to be t!e oner of t!e lot and t!at t!e title co&ering it as destro#ed during t!e ar. Li@e t!e first petition, t!e second petition as sorn to on t!e sa"e date, date, $o&e"b $o&e"ber er -/, -/?, -/?, before before Manila Manila notar# notar# Do"ingo P. A%uino. 7!# it as not filed si"ultaneousl# it! Laborada6s petition as not e+plained.
After a joint trial of t!e to c ases, respondents corporation and Labora Laborada da filed filed a"ende a"ended d anser ansers s !erei !erein n t!e# t!e# pleade pleaded d t!e defense t!at t!e# ere purc!asers in good fait! and for &alue.
T!e loer court set t!e second petition for !earing on Januar# ;-, -/. As in Laborada6s petition, t!e notice of !earing for o"bast6s petition as publis!ed in t!e fficial aEette. t as posted in t!ree conspicuous places in Caloocan Cit# and copies t!ereo t!ereoff ere ere sent sent to t!e supposed supposed adjoin adjoining ing oners. oners. ut no copies of t!e petition and notice of !earing ere ser&ed upon t!e registers of deeds of Caloocan Cit# and RiEal, t!e officials !o ould be interested in t!e reconstitution of t!e supposed lost title and !o could certif# !et!er t!e original of t!e title as reall# "issing. o"bast6s petition as assigned also to Judge Sal&ador. t as not opposed b# t!e go&ern"ent la#ers, 2nri%ue A. Cube and Conrado de LeonK Judge Sal&ador in !is order of April ;, -/ granted t!e petition. T!e court found fro" t!e e&idence t!at t!e allegedl# "issing or 1not a&ailable1 title as issued to Regino olleE !o sold t!e land to petitioner o"bast. T!e oner6s duplicate of olleE6s title as supposedl# destro#ed destro#ed during t!e ar. Ta+es Ta+es ere paid for t!at land b# olleE and o"bast. T!e tec!nical description of t!e land land t!e plan ere ere appro& appro&ed ed b# t!e Co""issi Co""issione onerr of Land Land Regi Regist stra rati tion on !o !o sub" sub"it itte ted d a repo report rt reco reco"" ""en endi ding ng t!e t!e reconstitution of t!e title. T!e loer court ordered t!e register of deeds to reconstitute t!e
n June , -?, Judge Sal&ador )!o did not bot!er to in!ibit !i"self* rendered a decision in t!e to cases !olding t!at t!e State%s e&ience was ins!fficient to establish its ownership an possession of $ots 'os. 1 an 1* an that $aboraa an + + -orrios -orrios /n0ineerin0 /n0ineerin0 Corporation were p!rchasers in 0oo faith faith an for &al!e an, conse!entl", their titles are not cancellable an ann!llable. Judge Sal&ador furt!er !eld t!at t!e titles, !ose reconstitution !e !ad ordered ordered allegedl# in confor"it# confor"it# it! la, co!l not be attace collaterall" and, t!erefore, 1t!e reconstituted titles and t!eir deri&ati&es !a&e t!e sa"e &alidit#, force and effect as t!e originals before t!e reconstitution1. T!e State appealed. CA affir"ed RTC and !eld t!at t!e reconstitution can no longer be set set asid aside e and and t!at t!at if t!er t!ere e ere ere irre irregu gula lari riti ties es in t!e t!e reconstitution, t!en, as beteen to innocent parties, t!e State, as t!e part# t!at "ade possible t!e reconstitution, s!ould suffer t!e loss. T!e Court of Appeals cited section -0- of Act >/ to support its &ie t!at a registered oner "a# lose !is land 1b# t!e registration of an# ot!er person as o ner of suc! land1.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e reconstituted titles ere &alid HELD4 $. 7e !old t!at t!e appeal is justified. T!e Appellate Court and t!e trial court grie&ousl# erred in sustaining t!e &alidit# of t!e reconstituted reconstituted titles !ic!, alt!oug! alt!oug! issued issued it! judicial sanction, are no better t!an spurious and forged titles. n all all cand candor or,, it s!ou s!ould ld be stat stated ed t!at t!at t!e t!e reco recons nsti titu tuti tion on
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition procee proceedin dings gs ere ere si"pl# si"pl# de&ice de&ices s e"plo# e"plo#ed ed b# petiti petitione oners rs Laborada Laborada and o"bast o"bast for lan0rabbin0 or for t!e usurpation and illegal appropriation of fift# !ectares of StateHoned urban land it! considerable &alue. T!e crucial crucial and decisi&e decisi&e fact fact is t!at t!at to &alid and e+isti e+isting ng Torren rrens s titl titles es in t!e t!e na"e na"e of t!e t!e Co"" Co""on onea ealt lt! ! of t!e t!e P!ilip P!ilippin pines es ere ere needle needlessl# ssl# recons reconstit titute uted d in t!e na"es na"es of Laborada and o"bast on t!e false or perjurious assu"ption t!at t!e to titles ere destro#ed during t!e ar. T!at @ind of reconstitution as a braEen and "onstrous fraud foisted on t!e courts of justice. t as a stultification of t!e judicial process. 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 and annul"ent of t!e rongfull# reconstituted titles. T!e e+istenc e+istence e of t!e to titles titles of t!e o&ern"e o&ern"ent nt ipso facto nullified nullified t!e reconstitu reconstitution tion proceedings proceedings and signified signified t!at t!e e&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 to proceedings ere s!a" and deceitful and ere filed in bad fait!. Suc! !u"bugger# !u"bugger# or i"posture cannot be countenance countenanced d and cannot be t!e source of legiti"ate rig!ts and benefits. Republic Act $o. / pro&ides for a special procedure for t!e reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title t!at are "issing and not fictitious titles or titles !ic! are e+isting.
4
*
T!e T!e onl# one one of said parc parcel els s to !ic! !ic! atten attenti tion on need need be gi&en in t!e present appeal is Parcel A. ;* T!e T!e adjoin adjoinin ing g oner oners s of t!e t!e land ere ere infor infor"e "ed d of suc! suc! application, but no one ent to %uestion it so t!e# ere declared in default. >* T!e sa"e applicatio application n as as publis!e publis!ed d in to nespapers. nespapers. 4* T!e record record s!os t!at eac! of of said said persons persons recei&e recei&ed d a cop# cop# of said notice, including t!e representati&e of t!e !eirs of Antonio 2nri%ueE )(artigan, Ro!de utierreE*. T!e record furt!er s!os, b# t!e certificate of Ja"es J. Peterson, s!eriff of t!e cit# of Manila, t!at said notice as posted upon t!e land in %uestion. T!e record furt!er s!os t!at said notice !ad been publis!ed in to dail# nespapers of t!e cit# of Manila. -he Manila -imes and $a Democracia. Democracia. /* T!e Cit# Cit# of Manila Manila %uest %uestion ioned ed in court court t!e border borders s of Parcel Parcel A. T!e Court ordered ordered t!e correction but none as as e+ecuted. ?* T!e court court appro appro&ed &ed t!e t!e applica applicatio tion n and Consuel Consuelo o as gi&en gi&en t!e titles. <* n --, --, t!e Cit# Cit# of Manila Manila appli applied ed for t!e t!e correct correction ion of t!e t!e title because it co&ered a public road. * t as as also also in -- -- t!e t!e Consue Consuelo lo ent ent to cour courtt to as@ as@ for a correction of t!e title because t!ere ere buildings !ic! ere ere not not incl includ uded ed in t!e t!e titl title, e, alt! alt!ou oug! g! it as as in t!e t!e application. -0* S!e sold t!e sa"e to Masonic Masonic Te"ple Te"ple Assoc. --* --* During t!e !earing, !earing, t!e t!e !eirs of Antonio Antonio 2nri%ueE 2nri%ueE,, oners of t!e adjoining land, appeared in court %uestioning t!e title. -* T!e Court Court granted granted t!e "otions "otions of t!e Cit# of Manila Manila and Consuelo.
ISS3E ISS3E44 7!et!er or not personal notice to all of t!e persons t is a patent absurdit# to reconstitute e+isting certificates of title t!at t!at are on file file and a&ailabl a&ailable e in t!e registr# registr# of deeds. deeds. T!e reconstitution proceedings are &oid because t!e# are contrar# to Republic Act $o. / and be#ond t!e pur&ie of t!at la since t!e titles reconstituted are actuall# subsisting in t!e registr# of deeds and 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 cases ould ould be to allo Republi Republic c Act Act $o. / to be utiliE utiliEed ed as an inst instru ru"e "ent nt for for land landgr grab abbi bing ng or to sanc sancti tion on frau fraudu dule lent nt "ac!inatio "ac!inations ns for depri&ing depri&ing a registered registered oner of !is land, to under"ine t!e stabilit# and securit# of Torrens titles and to i"pair t!e Torrens Torrens s#ste" of registration. T!e t!eor# of A A Torrijos Torrijos 2ngineering Corporation t!at it as a purc!aser in good fait! and for &alue is indefensible because t!e title 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 found t!at Lot -< is oned b# t!e State. Republic is !eld as t!e oner.
interested in an action for t!e registration of real propert# under t!e Torrens s#ste", is an absolute prere%uisite to t!e &alidit# of said registration. Personal al notice notice of t!e penden pendenc# c# of t!e original original HELD HELD44 NO. NO. Person petition !ad been gi&en and t!at a publication of t!e sa"e !ad been "ade in accordance it! t!e pro&isions of sections ;- and ; of Act $o. >/. T!e record also s!os t!at t!e cler@ of t!e Land Court "ade a cert certif ific icat ate e s!o s!oin ing g t!at t!at t!at t!at noti notice ce !ad !ad been been issu issued ed and and publis!ed in accordance it! t!e la. Section ;4 of Act $o. >/ pro&ides: 1f no person appears and anser it!in t!e ti"e alloed, t!e court "a# at once, upon "otion of t!e applicant, no reason to t!e contrar# appearing, orde orderr a gene genera rall defa defaul ultt to be reco record rded ed and and the applicati application on ) petition* petition* be taen for confesse . # t!e description in t!e notice 3-o all whom it ma" concern,3 all 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 report of t!e e+a"iner of titles, but "a# re%uire ot!er and furt!er proof.1 T!e pro&isions of section ;4 see" to be directl# contrar# to t!e contention of t!e appellants. t see"s to directl# contradict t!e re%uire"ents of personal notice as an absolute prere%uisite to t!e granting of a &alid title under t!e Torrens s#ste".
+ARIA CONS3ELO FELISA RO6AS -S RAFAEL ENRI73E8 FACTS4 -*
Maria Consuelo Consuelo applied applied for a registratio registration n of title title of of > parcels parcels of land in -0/. )under torrens s #ste"*
T!e sa"e idea is furt!er confir"ed b# t!e pro&isions of section ;< of said Act $o. >/. Said section ;< pro&ides t!at: 1/&er" 1 /&er" ecree ecree of re0ist re0istrat ration ion shall bin the lan an !ite !ite the title title thereto, s!bect onl" to the eceptions state in the followin0 section. section. t s!all be conclusi&e upon and against all persons,
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition 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 cause ot!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 is seen t!at t!e applicant is b# e+press pro&ision of la relie&ed fro" 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&e t!e registration and certificate annulled, unless !e co"es it!in t!e pro&isions of section ;<, and e&en t!en !e is it!out a re"ed# against t!e applicant unless !e can s!o, it!in a period of one #ear after t!e decree of registration and t!e granting of t!e certificate, at !e !as been 1depri&ed of land or an# estate or interest t!erein,1 b" fra! , and not e&en t!en, if an 1innocent purc!aser for t!e &alue !as ac%uired and interest.1 n t!e present case fi&e #ears and a !alf !ad transpired and negotiations for t!e sale of t!e land to an innocent purc!aser !ad been ter"inated. T!ere is not inti"ation t!at t!e petitioner is guilt# of fraud, in t!e slig!test degree. T!e proceedings for t!e registration of land, under Act $o. >/, are in rem and not in personam. A proceeding in rem, dealing it! a tangible res, "a# be instituted and carried to judg"ent it!out personal ser&ice upon t!e clai"ants it!in t!e state or notice b# na"e to t!ose outside of it. )ADDT$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 a re%uire"ent of t!e la. Registration is a proceeding in re" and not in persona". t is t!e onl# practical a# t!at allos t!e Torrens s#ste" to fulfill its purpose.*
LEGARDA -S SALEEB5 FACTS: A stoneall stands beteen t!e adjoining lot of Legarda and Saleeb#. T!e said all and t!e strip of land !ere it stands is 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 in fa&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!e latter 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
5
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%uent t!ereto. T!at being t!e purpose of t!e la, once a title is registered 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 !as entered into t!e Torrens s#ste".
TIB3RCIO -S PHHC FACTS4 Tiburcio et al filed an action alleging t!at for "an# #ears prior to Marc! 4, - !en it !as been originall# registered in t!e na"e of defendant's predecessorHinH interest. t furt!er appears t!at so"eti"e in -44 People's (o"esite (ousing Corporation ac%uired fro" t!e original oner a parcel of land e"bracing practicall# all of petitioners' propert#, !ile defendant =ni&ersit# of t!e P!ilippines li@eise ac%uired fro" t!e sa"e oner anot!er portion of land !ic! e"braces t!e re"ainder of t!e propert#.
ISS3E4 W9N !etitioners: rig#t to "i&e t#e !resent %tion #%s !resri;ed< 5ES W9N t#ey %re g*i&ty o" &%#es< 5ES
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 !ere to 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.
HELD4 PHHC %nd 3P o=n t#e s*;>et !ro!erty< Petitioners g*i&ty o" &%#es?%ss*ming %rg*endo t#%t t#eir %tion "or reon)ey%ne #%d not yet !resri;ed.
T!e real purpose of t!e Torrens s#ste" of registration is to %uiet title to landK to put a stop fore&er to an# %uestion of t!e legalit# of
t is, t!erefore, clear t!at t!e land in %uestion !as been registered in t!e na"e of defendant's predecessorHinHinterest since -->
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition 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"ents prescribed 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# instituted t!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 &%nd in 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)ided no innoent !*r#%ser "or )%&*e #%s %,*ired t#e !ro!erty Setion @ At No. 02 n t!e ot!er !and, our la is clear t!at upon t!e e+piration of t!e oneH#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 ;<, Act $o. >/*. 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"e it!in !ic! a clai"ant "a# as@ for its re&ocation. f after title to propert# 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 Torrens s#ste" !ic! is to guarantee t!e indefeasibilit# of t!e Title ould be defeated.
6
1n so"e instance, courts !a&e ta@en judicial notice of proceedings in ot!er causes, because of t!eir close connection it! t!e "atter in contro&ers#. Courts !a&e also ta@en judicial notice of pre&ious cases to deter"ine !et!er or not t!e case pending is a "oot one or !et!er or not a pre&ious ruling is applicable in t!e case under consideration.1 Petitioners do not dispute t!e fact t!at appellant Marcelino Tiburcio, !o instituted t!e present case, is t!e sa"e person !o filed t!e application in Land Registration Case $o. LH; for t!e registration of t!e sa"e parcel of land !ic! application as denied b# t!e court. t appears t!at in t!at registration case t!e oppositors ere t!e People's (o"esite (ousing Corporation, Tuason and Co., and t!e ureau of Lands. Alt!oug! t!e =ni&ersit# of t!e P!ilippines as not an oppositor in t!at case, in effect it as represented b# its predecessorHinHinterest, Tuason and Co. fro" !ic! it ac%uired t!e propert#. t "a# t!erefore be said t!at in t!e to cases t!ere is not onl# identit# of subjectH "atter but identit# of parties and causes of action. ndeed, t!e trial court did not err in dis"issing t!e co"plaint on t!e ground of res judicata.
TRADERS RO5AL BAN( -S. CO3RT OF APPEALS@ PATRIA CAPA5@ ET AL FACTS4 A parcel of land oned b# t!e spouses Capa# as
T!ere is not!ing in t!e co"plaint to s!o t!at !en it ac%uired t!e propert# said defendant @ne of an# defect in t!e title appearing on its face in t!e for" of an# lien or incu"brance. T!e sa"e t!ing is true it! regard to defendant =ni&ersit# of t!e P!ilippines. Said defendants are t!erefore, presu"ed to be purc!asers for &alue and in good fait! and as suc! are entitled to protection 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 go be!ind t!e register to deter"ine t!e condition of t!e propert#. (e is 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. To re%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 !ad not #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!e action seasonabl# after title to t!e propert# !ad been issued under 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"issing t!e co"plaint on t!e ground of res judicata b# ta@ing judicial notice 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 court cannot 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 court and notit!standing t!e facts t!at bot! cases "a# !a&e been tried before t!e sa"e judge. 7!ile t!e principle in&o@ed is considered to be t!e general rule, t!e sa"e is not absolute. T!ere are e+ceptions to t!is rule.
"ortgage to and subse%uentl# e+trajudiciall# foreclosed b# Traders Ro#al an@ )TR*. To pre&ent propert# sale in public auction, t!e Capa#s filed a petition for preli"inar# injunction alleging t!e "ortgage as &oid because t!e# did not recei&e t!e proceeds of t!e loan. A notice of lis pendens )suit pending* as filed before t!e Register of Deeds it! t!e notice recorded in t!e Da# oo@. Mean!ile, a foreclosure sale proceeded it! t!e TR as t!e sole and inning bidder. T!e Capa#s title as cancelled and a ne one as entered in TR's na"e it!out t!e notice of lis pendens carried o&er t!e title. T!e Capa#s filed reco&er# of t!e propert# and da"ages. Court rendered a decision declaring t!e "ortgage as &oid for ant of consideration and t!us cancelled TR's title and issued a ne cert. of title for t!e Capa#s. Pending its appeal before t!e court, TR sold t!e land to Santiago !o subse%uentl# subdi&ided and sold to bu#ers !o ere issued title to t!e land. Court ruled t!at t!e subse%uent bu#ers cannot be considered purc!asers for &alue and in good fait! since t!e# purc!ase t!e land after it beca"e a subject in a pending suit before t!e court. Alt!oug! t!e lis pendens notice as not carried o&er t!e titles, its recording in t!e Da# oo@ constitutes registering of t!e land and notice to all persons it! ad&erse clai" o&er t!e propert#. TR as !eld to be in bad fait! upon selling t!e propert# !ile @noing it is pending for litigation. T!e Capa#s ere issued t!e cert. of title of t!e land in dispute !ile TR is to pa# da"ages to Capa#s.
ISS3E4 7!o !as t!e better rig!t o&er t!e land in dispute8 7!et!er or not TR is liable for da"ages
R3LING4 T!e court ruled t!at a Torrens title is presu"ed to be &alid !ic! purpose is to a&oid conflicts of title to real properties. 7!en t!e subse%uent bu#ers boug!t t!e propert# t!ere as no
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition lis pendens annotated on t!e title. 2&er# person dealing it! a registered land "a# safel# rel# on t!e correctness of t!e title and is not obliged to interpret !at is be#ond t!e face of t!e registered title. (ence t!e court ruled t!at t!e subse%uent bu#ers obtained 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 out t!e status of t!e title upon @noing t!e foreclosure of t!e propert#. n consideration to t!e declaration of t!e "ortgage as null and &oid for ant of consideration, t!e foreclosure proceeding !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 good fait! 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#s t!e fair "ar@et &alue of t!e propert# at t!e ti"e t!e# sold it to Santiago.
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 to establis! a "anpoer ser&ices co"pan#. T!e co"pan# ac%uired fi&e parcels of land ere registered in petitioner and respondent's na"es, allegedl# as !usband and ife. 7!en t!eir relations!ip turned sour, t!e# decided to di&ide t!e said properties and ter"inate t!eir business partners!ip b# e+ecuting a Partition Agree"ent. nitiall#, respondent agreed to petitioner's proposal t!at t!e properties in Mal&ar St. and Don 2nri%ue (eig!ts be assigned to t!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 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 partition of t!e said properties. Petitioner's contention: S!e clai"ed t!at t!e# started to li&e toget!er as !usband and ife in -? it!out t!e benefit of "arriage and or@ed toget!er as business partners, ac%uiring real properties a"ounting to P-4,400,000.00.
pre"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 interest o&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! is a 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 cannot be collaterall# attac@ed, but t!at rule is not "aterial to t!e case at bar. 7!at cannot be collaterall# attac@ed is t!e certificate of title and not t!e title itself. T!e certificate referred to is t!at docu"ent issued 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 often t!an not, represented b# t!at docu"ent. Moreo&er, placing a parcel of land under t!e "antle of t!e Torrens s#ste" does not "ean t!at oners!ip t!ereof can no longer be disputed. Mere issuance of t!e certificate of title in t!e na"e of an# person does not foreclose t!e possibilit# t!at t!e real propert# "a# be under coHoners!ip it! persons not na"ed in t!e certificate, or t!at t!e registrant "a# onl# be a trustee, or t!at ot!er parties "a# !a&e ac%uired interest o&er t!e propert# subse%uent to t!e issuance of t!e certificate of title. $eedless to sa#, registration does not &est oners!ip o&er a propert#, but "a# be t!e best e&idence t!ereof. t!er topic: 7!et!er respondent is estopped fro" repudiating coHoners!ip o&er t!e subject realties. 92S. Petitioner !erself ad"itted t!at s!e did not assent to t!e Partition Agree"ent after seeing t!e need to a"end t!e sa"e to include ot!er "atters. Petitioner does not !a&e an# rig!t to insist on t!e contents of an agree"ent s!e intentionall# refused to sign. Moreo&er, to follo petitioner's argu"ent ould be to allo respondent not onl# to ad"it against !is on interest but t!at of !is legal spouse as ell, !o "a# also be lafull# entitled coH oners!ip o&er t!e said properties.
TORRENS S5STE+ Respondent's contention: (e purc!ased t!e properties using !is on personal funds.
A. Cone!t@ B%gro*nd %nd P*r!ose RTC and CA ruled in fa&or or respondent.
ISS3ES4 -. 7$ an action for partition precludes a settle"ent on t!e issue of oners!ip. . 7ould a resolution on t!e issue of oners!ip subject t!e Torrens title issued o&er t!e disputed realties to a collateral attac@8
L3 -S +ANIPON FACTS4 n 4<- Juan Peralta e+ecuted a deed of sale b# install"ent in fa&or of Spouses Manipon !ic! !e agreed to sell b# install"ent to said spouses ;40 s%. "eters of t!e 0?< s%. "eter lot !e oned. T!is said DS as not registered it! t!e RD.
HELD4 -. $o. 7!ile it is true t!at t!e co"plaint in&ol&ed !ere is one for partition, t!e sa"e is pre"ised on t!e e+istence or nonHe+istence of coHoners!ip beteen t!e parties. =ntil and unless t!is issue of coHoners!ip is definitel# and finall# resol&ed, it ould be
7
n /-0<-, Juan Peralta "ortgaged t!e lot to T!rift Sa&ings and Loan Association )TSLA* but !e failed to pa# t!e loan !e obtained for !ic! t!e "ortgage as constituted so it as judiciall# foreclosed and sold to TSLA$ for P/, ?<.-< !o
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition as t!e !ig!est bidder. TSLA t!en sold t!e sa"e for P<0,000.00 to t!e petitioner !o caused t!e subdi&ision of t!e said lot into 4 lots )one of !ic! as Lot 44<HH?HD !ic! as sold to respondents. T!is said lot is no co&ered b# TCT $o -?->?* n ?;0<;, Juan Peralta e+ecuted a DS in fa&or of respondents after t!e couple paid a total a"ount of P
ISS3ES4 7!o !as better rig!t o&er disputed propert#8 7as petitioner a bu#er in bad fait!8 7!at s!ould be t!e purc!ase price of t!e disputed lot8
8
if t!ere !ad been no registration, and t!e &endee !o first too@ possession of t!e real propert# in good fait! s!all be preferred. Petitioner is e&identl# not a subse%uent purc!aser in good fait! so respondents !a&e a better rig!t to t!e propert#. t see"s t!at t!e "ain reason !# petitioner boug!t t!e entire lot fro" TSLA as !is fear of losing t!e ;40 s%.". lot !e boug!t so"eti"e in -<- !ic! also for"s part of Lot 44< H?, !a&ing been aare of t!e defects in t!e title of TSLA is concerned !e cannot no clai" to be a purc!aser in good fait! e&en if !e traces !is oners!ip to TSLA !o as a purc!aser in good fait!H t!e latter not being aare of t!e sale t!at transpired beteen respondents and Juan Peralta before subject lot as sold in a public auction. 2&en assu"ing t!at petitioner as not aare of t!e sale beteen Peralta and respondents, !e cannot be considered a bu#er in good fait! as !e !as personal @noledge of respondents' occupation of lot, t!is s!ould !a&e put !i" on guard. T!e purc!aser "a# not be re%uired to go be#ond t!e title to deter"ine t!e condition of propert# but a purc!aser cannot also ignore facts !ic! ould put a reasonable "an on !is guard and clai" !e acted in good fait! under t!e belief t!at t!ere as no defect in t!e title of t!e &endor. n bad fait!: Petitioner denies being a purc!aser in bad fait!. (e alleges t!at t!e onl# reason !e spo@e to t!e respondents before !e boug!t t!e foreclosed land as to in&ite t!e" to s!are in t!e purc!ase price, but t!e# turned !i" don. Petitioner's contention is untenable. (e "ig!t !a&e !ad good intentions at !eart, but it is not t!e intention t!at "a@es one an innocent bu#er. A purc!aser in good fait! or an innocent purc!aser for &alue is one !o bu#s propert# and pa#s a full and fair price for it, at t!e ti"e of t!e purc!ase or before an# notice of so"e ot!er person's clai" on or interest in it.
HELD4 Petitioner clai"s t!at fro" t!e ti"e t!e# full# paid for t!e lot until t!e# recei&ed a notice to &acate, t!e# did not do an#t!ing to perfect t!eir title and are no estopped for %uestioning !is oners!ip o&er it. T!e court !as !eld t!at in estoppel, a person !o b# deed or conduct induces anot!er to act in a particular "anner is barred fro" adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct t!at causes loss or injur# to anot!er. T!is is not applicable to t!e present case as respondents e+ercised do"inion o&er t!e Opropert# b# occup#ing and building a !ouse on it. Registration is not t!e e%ui&alent of a title, it onl# gi&es &alidit# to t!e transfer or creates a lien upon t!e land. t as not establis!ed as a "eans of ac%uiring title to pri&ate land because it "erel# confir"s but does not confer oners!ip. Preferential rig!t of t!e first registrant of real propert# in case of double sale is ala#s %ualified b# good fait! under Art -4>> of t!e ci&il code. A !older in bad fait! of a certificate of title is not entitled to t!e protection of t!e la, for it cannot be used as s!ield for fraud.
Petitioner's contention is untenable. (e "ig!t !a&e !ad good intentions at !eart, but it is not t!e intention t!at "a@es one an innocent bu#er. A purc!aser in good fait! or an innocent purc!aser for &alue is one !o bu#s propert# and pa#s a full and fair price for it, at t!e ti"e of t!e purc!ase or before an# notice of so"e ot!er person's clai" on or interest in it. Purc!ase Price: T!e CA "odification e+e"pting respondents fro" pa#ing petitioner is flaed, because t!e RTC !ad ordered Juan Peralta to refund t!e P-<,000 paid to !i" b# petitioner as t!e purc!ase price of t!e disputed lot. T!us, t!e trial court correctl# ordered )-* respondents to pa# petitioner P-;,04-.40 plus legal interest for Lot 44<HH?HD and )* t!e t!irdHpart# defendant Peralta to refund to respondents t!e P-<,000 t!e# !ad paid for t!e lot. T!e CA ruling ould unjustl# enric! respondents, !o ould recei&e double co"pensation
LEGARDA -S SALEEB5 7!en t!e registration of a sale is not "ade in good fait!, a part# cannot base !is preference of title t!ereon, because t!e la ill not protect an#t!ing done in bad fait!. ad fait! renders t!e registration futile. T!us, if a &endee registers t!e sale in !is fa&or after !e !as ac%uired @noledge t!at t!ere as a pre&ious sale of t!e sa"e propert# to a t!ird part#, or t!at anot!er person clai"s said propert# under a pre&ious sale, or t!at t!e propert# is in t!e possession of one !o is not a &endor, or t!at t!ere ere flas and defects in t!e &endor's title, or t!at t!is as in dispute, t!e registration ill constitute + + + bad fait!, and ill not confer upon !i" an# preferential rig!t. T!e situation ill be t!e sa"e as
FACTS: A stone all stands beteen t!e adjoining lot of Legarda and Saleeb#. T!e said all and t!e strip of land !ere it stands is 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 in fa&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!e latter included t!e stoneall and t!e strip of land !ere it stands. ISS3E4 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
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition 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 !ere to 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 %uiet title 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%uent t!ereto. T!at being t!e purpose of t!e la, once a title is registered 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 !as entered into t!e Torrens s#ste".
CAPITOL S3BDI-ISIONS -S. PRO-INCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL SCRA 1 /02
9
an alleged rig!t of lease. or t!is reason, t!e deed of pro"ise to sell, e+ecuted b# t!e an@ in fa&our of Carlos P. enares, contained a ca&eat e"ptor stipulation. 7!en, upon t!e e+ecution of t!e deed of absolute sale ->, plaintiff too@ steps to ta@e possession t!e (acienda and it as disco&ered t!at Lot ;?< as t!e land occupied b# t!e Pro&incial (ospital of $egros ccidental. ""ediatel# t!ereafter, plaintiff "ade representations it! or on ctober >, ->, plaintiff "ade representations it! t!e proper officials to clarif# t!e status of said occupation. $ot being satisfied it! t!e e+planations gi&en 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 in %uestion in t!e #ear ->H-4 t!roug! e+propriation proceedings and t!at it too@ possession of t!e lost and began t!e construction of t!e pro&incial !ospital t!ereon. T!e# furt!er clai"ed t!at for so"e reason be#ond t!eir co"pre!ension, title as ne&er transferred in its na"e and it as placed in its na"e onl# for assess"ent purposes.
FACTS4 Lot ;?<, !ic! is t!e subject "atter of t!is case, is part of (acienda Madalagan, registered under t!e na"e of Agustin A"enabar and Pilar A"enabar, co&ered b# riginal Certificate of Title $o. -??/ issued in t!e na"e of t!e afore"entioned in --/. So"eti"e in -0, t!e A"enabars sold t!e afore"entioned (acienda to Jose enares for t!e purc!ase price of P;00,000, pa#able in instal"ents. n ->, t!e riginal Certificate of Title issued in t!e na"e of t!e A"enabars as cancelled, and in lieu t!ereof, enares obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title under !is na"e. Mean!ile, in --, enares "ortgaged t!e (acienda including Lot ;?< to acolodHMurcia Milling Co. And t!en later in -/, !e again "ortgaged t!e (acienda, including said Lot ;?<, on t!e P!ilippine $ational an@, subject to t!e first "ortgage !eld b# t!e acolodHMurcia Milling Co. T!ese transactions ere dul# recorded in t!e office of t!e Register of Deeds of $egros ccidental. T!e "ortgage in fa&or of t!e an@ as subse%uentl# foreclosed and t!e an@ ac%uired t!e (acienda, including Lot ;?<, as purc!aser at t!e foreclosure sale. Accordingl#, t!e TCT in t!e na"e of enares as cancelled and anot!er TCT as issued in t!e na"e of t!e an@. n -;4, t!e an@ agreed to sell t!e (acienda to t!e son of Jose enares, Carlos enares, for t!e su" of P>00,000, pa#able in annual install"ents, subject to t!e condition t!at t!e title ill re"ain it! t!e an@ until full pa#"ent. T!ereafter, Carlos enares transferred !is rig!ts, under !is contract it! t!e an@, to plaintiff !erein, !ic! co"pleted t!e pa#"ent of t!e install"ents due to t!e an@ in ->. (ence, t!e an@ e+ecuted t!e corresponding deed of absolute sale to t!e plaintiff and a transfer certificate of title co&ering Lot ;?< as issued. t s!ould be noted t!at, despite t!e ac%uisition of t!e (acienda in -;> b# t!e an@, t!e latter did not ta@e possession of t!e propert# for Jose enares clai"ed to be entitled to retain it under
And t!at defendant acted in bad fait! in purc!asing t!e lot @noing t!at t!e pro&incial !ospital as situated t!ere and t!at !e did not declare suc! propert# for assess"ent purposes onl# until -40.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not defendant !erein !ad ac%uired t!e lot in %uestion in t!e afore"entioned e+propriation proceedings.
HELD4 T!e Court !eld t!at defendant as not able to sufficientl# pro&e t!at t!e# !a&e ac%uired t!e legal title o&er Lot ;?<. Se&eral circu"stances indicate t!at t!e e+propriation !ad not been consu""ated. irst, t!ere, t!e entries in t!e doc@et pertaining to t!e e+propriation case refer onl# to its filing and t!e publication in t!e nespaper of t!e notices. Second, t!ere as an absence of a deed of assign"ent and of a TCT in fa&our of t!e Pro&ince as regards Lot ;?<. T!ird, t!e propert# as "ortgaged to acolodH Murcia Milling Co. Lot ;?< could not !a&e been e+propriated it!out t!e inter&ention of t!e Milling Co. And #et, t!e latter as not "ade a part# in t!e e+propriation proceedings. And fourt!, a second "ortgage as constituted in fa&our of t!e ac@, !ic! ould not !a&e accepted t!e "ortgage !ad Lot ;?< not belonged to t!e "ortgagor. $eit!er could said lot !a&e been e+propriated it!out t!e an@'s @noledge and participation. urt!er"ore, in t!e deed e+ecuted b# t!e an@ pro"ising to sell t!e (acienda Mandalagan to Carlos enares, it as e+plicitl# stated t!at so"e particular lots !ad been e+propriated b# t!e Pro&incial o&ern"ent of $egros ccidental, t!us indicating, b# necessar# i"plication, t!at Lot ;?< !ad not been e+propriated.
LA(BA5AN -S SA+O5E 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 to establis! a "anpoer ser&ices co"pan#. T!e co"pan# ac%uired fi&e parcels of land ere registered in petitioner and respondent's na"es, allegedl# as !usband and ife. 7!en t!eir
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition relations!ip turned sour, t!e# decided to di&ide t!e said properties and ter"inate t!eir business partners!ip b# e+ecuting a Partition Agree"ent. nitiall#, respondent agreed to petitioner's proposal t!at t!e properties in Mal&ar St. and Don 2nri%ue (eig!ts be assigned to t!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 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 partition of t!e said properties. Petitioner's contention: S!e clai"ed t!at t!e# started to li&e toget!er as !usband and ife in -? it!out t!e benefit of "arriage and or@ed toget!er as business partners, ac%uiring real properties a"ounting to P-4,400,000.00.
t!er topic: 7!et!er respondent is estopped fro" repudiating coHoners!ip o&er t!e subject realties. 92S. Petitioner !erself ad"itted t!at s!e did not assent to t!e Partition Agree"ent after seeing t!e need to a"end t!e sa"e to include ot!er "atters. Petitioner does not !a&e an# rig!t to insist on t!e contents of an agree"ent s!e intentionall# refused to sign. Moreo&er, to follo petitioner's argu"ent ould be to allo respondent not onl# to ad"it against !is on interest but t!at of !is legal spouse as ell, !o "a# also be lafull# entitled coH oners!ip o&er t!e said properties.
B. Ad)%nt%ges o" t#e Torrens System Respondent's contention: (e purc!ased t!e properties using !is on personal funds.
C. Registr%tion *nder t#e Torrens System %s Proeedings In
RTC and CA ruled in fa&or or respondent.
Rem
ISS3ES4
D. +odes o" Registering
-. 7$ an action for partition precludes a settle"ent on t!e issue of oners!ip. . 7ould a resolution on t!e issue of oners!ip subject t!e Torrens title issued o&er t!e disputed realties to a collateral attac@8
E. Proed*re
PD /0 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+istence of coHoners!ip beteen t!e parties. =ntil and unless t!is issue of coHoners!ip is definitel# and finall# resol&ed, it ould be pre"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 interest o&er t!e subject properties.
A. L%nd Registr%tion RICARDO CHENG )s RA+ON GENATO %nd SPS. DA OSE G.R. NO. /01@ Deem;er 0@ /00 FACTS4 •
•
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! is a 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 cannot be collaterall# attac@ed, but t!at rule is not "aterial to t!e case at bar. 7!at cannot be collaterall# attac@ed is t!e certificate of title and not t!e title itself. T!e certificate referred to is t!at docu"ent issued 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 often t!an not, represented b# t!at docu"ent. Moreo&er, placing a parcel of land under t!e "antle of t!e Torrens s#ste" does not "ean t!at oners!ip t!ereof can no longer be disputed. Mere issuance of t!e certificate of title in t!e na"e of an# person does not foreclose t!e possibilit# t!at t!e real propert# "a# be under coHoners!ip it! persons not na"ed in t!e certificate, or t!at t!e registrant "a# onl# be a trustee, or t!at ot!er parties "a# !a&e ac%uired interest o&er t!e propert# subse%uent to t!e issuance of t!e certificate of title. $eedless to sa#, registration does not &est oners!ip o&er a propert#, but "a# be t!e best e&idence t!ereof.
10
•
•
•
•
Ra"on enato is t!e oner of to parcels of land located at Paradise ar"s, San Jose del Monte, ulacan. Septe"ber /, -<: enato entered into an agree"ent it! t!e Da Jose Spouses o&er said land. T!e agree"ent cul"inated in t!e e+ecution of a contract to sell gor !ic! t!e purc!ase price as P<0.00 per s%.". t as in a public instru"ent and contained t!e stipulation t!at: Fafter ;0 da#s, after !a&ing satisfactoril# &erified and confir"ed t!e trut! and aut!enticit# of docu"ents &endee s!all pa# t!e &endor t!e full pa#"ent of t!e purc!ase price.G T!e Da Jose Spouses as@ed for an e+tension of ;0 da#s !en it failed to &erif# t!e said titles on t!e condition t!at a ne set of docu"ents be "ade se&en da#s after. Pending effecti&it# of said e+tension period, and it!out due notice to Spouses Da Jose, enato e+ecuted an affida&it to annul t!e Contract to Sell. T!is as not annotated at t!e bac@ of !is titles rig!t aa#. ctober >, -<: Ricardo C!eng ent to enato's residence and e+pressed interest in bu#ing t!e subject properties. enato s!oed C!eng t!e copies of !is titles and t!e annotations at t!e bac@ t!ereof of !is contract to sell it! t!e Da Jose Spouses. (e li@eise s!oed C!eng t!e affida&it to annul contract to sell. Despite t!ese, C!eng still issued a c!ec@ for P40,000 upon t!e assurance t!at t!e pre&ious contract ill be annulled.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition •
•
T!e Da Jose Spouses "et enato at t!e ffice of t!e Resgistr# of Deeds b# coincidence, and ere later s!oc@ed of enato's decision to annul t!e contract and protested regarding 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#"ent paid. C!eng !oe&er contended t!at t!eir contract to sell said 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.
B. P*r!ose %nd E""et o" Registr%tion in Gener%& LEONCIO LEE TE( SHENG )s CA G.R. No. //1@ *&y /@ /00 FACTS4 •
•
•
HELD4 -. $. n a Contract to Sell, t!e pa#"ent of t!e purc!ase price is a positi&e suspensi&e condition, t!e failure of !ic! is not a breac!, casual or serious, but a situation t!at pre&ents t!e obligation of t!e &endor to con&e# title fro" ac%uiring an obligator# force. Article --- of t!e $e Ci&il Code cannot be "ade to appl# to t!e situation in t!e instant case because no default can be ascribed to t!e Da Jose spouses since t!e ;0Hda# e+tension period !as not #et e+pired. T!e contention of t!e Da Jose spouses t!at no furt!er condition as agreed !en t!e# ere granted t!e ;0Hda# e+tension period fro" ctober ?, -< in connection it! clause ; of t!eir contract to sell s!ould be up!eld. Also, enato could !a&e sent at least a notice of suc! fact, and t!ere being no stipulation aut!oriEing !i" for auto"atic rescission, so as to finall# clear t!e encu"brance on !is titles and "a@e it a&ailable to ot!er ould be bu#ers, it bolstered t!at t!ere as no default on t!e part of t!e Da Jose Spouses. enato is not relie&ed fro" t!e gi&ing of a notice, &erbal or ritten, to t!e Da Jose spouses for !is decision to rescind t!eir contract. . T 7AS A C$TRACT T S2LL. T!e Court ruled t!at if it as assu"ed t!at t!e receipt is to be treated as a conditional contract of sale, it did not ac%uire an# obligator# force since it as subject to suspensi&e condition t!at t!e earlier contract to sell beteen enato and t!e Da Jose spouses s!ould first be cancelled or rescinded Q a condition ne&er "et, as enato, to !is credit, upon realiEing !is error, redee"ed !i"self b# respecting and "aintaining !is earlier contract it! t!e Da Jose spouses. Art.-4>> s!ould appl# because for not onl# as t!e contract beteen !erein respondents first in ti"e, it as also registered long before petitioner6s intrusion as a second bu#er )PRM=S T2MPR2, PRTR J=R2*. )Spouses "ade annotation on t!e title of enato*. Since C!eng as full# aare, or could !a&e been if !e !ad c!osen to in%uire, of t!e rig!ts of t!e Da Jose spouses under t!e Contract to Sell dul# annotated on t!e transfer certificates of titles of enato, it no beco"es unnecessar# to furt!er elaborate in detail t!e fact t!at !e is indeed 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 is t!e entr# "ade in t!e registr# !ic! records sole"nl# and per"anentl# t!e rig!t of oners!ip and ot!er real rig!ts.
11
•
•
•
•
•
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 land registered in petitioner's na"e are conjugal properties. T!e PR contends t!at t!e lots ere registered under Leoncio's na"e onl# as a trustee because during t!e registration, Leoncio as 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 conjugal regi"e. To protect t!e interest of t!e conjugal regi"e during t!e pendenc# of t!e case, PR caused t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT <?<. Petitioner "o&ed for t!e cancellation of said annotation but it as denied b# RTC on t!e grounds t!at: )a* t!e notice as not for t!e purpose of "olesting or !arassing petitioner and )b* also to @eep t!e propert# it!in t!e poer of t!e court pending litigation. CA affir"ed t!e decision. (ence t!is petition. Petitioner's contention: T!e resolution of an incidental "otion for cancellation of t!e notice of lis pendens as i"proper to t!res! out t!e issue of oners!ip of t!e disputed lots since oners!ip cannot be passed upon in a partition case and t!at it ould a"ount to a collateral attac@ of !is title obtained "ore t!an < #ears ago. Pri&ate respondent's contention: T!e e&idence of oners!ip is ad"issible in a partition case as t!is is not a probate or land registration proceedings !en t!e court's jurisdiction is li"ited.
ISS3E4 W9N t#e notie o" &is !endens =o*&d %mo*nt to % o&&%ter%& %tt% o" Leonio:s tit&e o;t%ined more t#%n ye%rs %go. NO W9N %nnot%tion o" % notie o" &is !endens is )%&id. 5ES.2 HELD4 T!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens does not in an# case a"ount nor can it be considered as e%ui&alent to a collateral attac@ of t!e certificate of title for a parcel of land. 7!at cannot be collaterall# attac@ed is t!e certificate of title and not t!e title. Placing a parcel of land under t!e "antle of t!e Torrens s#ste" does not "ean t!at oners!ip t!ereof can no longer be disputed. ners!ip is different fro" a certificate of title. T!e TCT is onl# t!e best proof of oners!ip of a piece of land. esides, t!e certificate cannot ala#s be considered as conclusi&e e&idence of oners!ip. Registration is not t!e e%ui&alent of title, but is onl# t!e best e&idence t!ereof. Title as a concept of oners!ip s!ould not be
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
12
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 being assailed b# pri&ate respondent. 7!at t!e latter disputes is t!e for"er's clai" of sole oners!ip. T!us, alt!oug! petitioner's certificate 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.
ISS3ES4 /. W9N t#e Re!*;&i #%s !ro)en ;y &e%r %nd on)ining e)idene t#%t G*errero !ro*red +ise&&%neo*s S%&es P%tent %nd OCT t#ro*g# "r%*d %nd misre!resent%tion. . W9N G*errero:s tit&e %,*ired t#e #%r%teristi o" inde"e%si;i&ity.
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!e part# !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!e propert# in %uestion, !ile once part of t!e lands of t!e public do"ain and disposed of &ia a "iscellaneous sales arrange"ent, is no co&ered b# a Torrens certificate. rants of public land ere broug!t under t!e operation of t!e Torrens s#ste" b# Act $o. >/, or t!e Land Registration Act of -0;. =nder t!e Torrens s#ste" of registration, t!e go&ern"ent is re%uired to issue an official certificate of title to attest to t!e fact t!at t!e person na"ed is t!e oner of t!e propert# described t!erein, subject to suc! liens and encu"brances as t!ereon noted or !at t!e la arrants or r eser&es.
t "ust be e"p!asiEed t!at t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens is onl# for t!e purpose of announcing Fto t!e !ole orld t!at a particular real propert# is in litigation, ser&ing as a arning 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 in partition case, suffice it to sa# t!at until and unless oners!ip is definitel# resol&ed, it ould be pre"ature to effect partition of t!e propert#. 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@ing annotation to pro&e t!at t!e land belongs to !i". esides, an action for partition is one case !ere t!e annotation of a notice of lis pendens is proper.
REP3BLIC -S BENA+IN G3ERRERO G.R. No. //@ +%r# @ 11 FACTS4 •
•
•
•
Dece"ber -/>: enja"in uerrerro filed it! t!e ureau of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales Application co&ering a parcel of land situated at Pugad Lain, IueEon Cit#. T!is application as appro&ed and Miscellaneous Sales Patent as 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 patent t!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 $atural Resources. T!roug! a MR, an ocular in&estigation and relocation sur&e# found out t!at <; s%. ". of t!e titled propert# of uerrero is under actual p!#sical possession of Marcelo usta"ante, !usband of Angeluna. T!us, upon t!e directi&e of t!e ffice of T!e President, t!e Director of Lands instituted a petition for t!e a"end"ent of plan and tec!nical description. uerrero opposed said "otion t!roug! a "otion to dis"iss but !oe&er as dis"issed t!ereafter. (oe&er, t!e RTC ruled in fa&or of uerrero stating t!at t!e Republic failed to pro&e its allegation t!at uerrero obtained t!e sales patent and certificate of title t!roug! fraud and "isrepresentation. RTC also ruled t!at t!e original certificate of title in t!e na"e of uerrero ac%uired t!e c!aracteristics of indefeasibilit# after t!e e+piration of - #ear fro" t!e entr# of t!e decree of registration. n appeal, t!e CA affir"ed t!e trial court.
HELD4
=pon its registration, t!e land falls under t!e operation of Act $o. >/ and beco"es registered land. Ti"e and again, e !a&e said t!at a Torrens certificate is e&idence of an indefeasible title to 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 of a person depri&ed of land to institute an action to reopen or re&ise a decree of registration obtained b# actual fraud. (oe&er, t!e Republic in t!is case failed to pro&e t!at t!ere is actual and e+trinsic fraud to justif# a re&ie of t!e decree. t !as not adduced ade%uate e&idence t!at ould s!o t!at respondent e"plo#ed actual and e+trinsic fraud in procuring t!e patent and t!e corresponding certificate of title. Petitioner "iserabl# failed to pro&e t!at it as pre&ented fro" asserting its rig!t o&er t!e lot in %uestion and fro" properl# presenting its case b# reason of suc! fraud. . 92S. uerrero's title, !a&ing been registered under t!e Torrens s#ste", as &ested it! t!e gar"ent of indefeasibilit#. $: T!e Torrens s#ste" as adopted in t!is countr# because it as belie&ed to be t!e "ost effecti&e "easure to guarantee t!e integrit# of land titles and to protect t!eir indefeasibilit# once t!e clai" of oners!ip is establis!ed and recogniEed. f a person purc!ases a piece of land on t!e assurance t!at t!e seller's title t!ereto is &alid, !e s!ould not run t!e ris@ of being told later t!at !is ac%uisition as ineffectual after all. T!is ould not onl# be unfair to !i". 7!at is orse is t!at if t!is ere per"itted, public confidence in t!e s#ste" ould be eroded and land transactions ould !a&e to be attended b# co"plicated and not necessaril# conclusi&e in&estigations and proof of oners!ip. T!e furt!er conse%uence ould be t!at land conflicts could be e&en "ore abrasi&e, if not e&en &iolent. T!e go&ern"ent, recogniEing t!e ort!# purposes of t!e Torrens s#ste", s!ould be t!e first to accept t!e &alidit# of titles issued t!ereunder once t!e conditions laid don b# t!e la are satisfied. 7!ile t!e Torrens s#ste" is not a "ode of ac%uiring titles to lands but "erel# a s#ste" of registration of titles to lands, justice and e%uit# de"and t!at t!e title!older s!ould not be "ade to bear t!e unfa&orable effect of t!e "ista@e or negligence of t!e State's agents, in t!e absence of proof of !is co"plicit# in a fraud or of "anifest da"age to t!ird persons. T!e real purpose of t!e Torrens s#ste" is to %uiet title to land and put a stop fore&er to an# %uestion as to t!e legalit# of t!e title, e+cept clai"s t!at ere noted in t!e certificate at t!e ti"e of t!e registration or t!at "a# arise subse%uent t!ereto. t!erise, t!e integrit# of t!e Torrens
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition 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&e regularl# perfor"ed t!eir duties.
LEGARDA -S SALEEB5 G.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 it stands. 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 its im!ro)ement =#i# #%s ;een registered *nder t#e n%me o" t=o !ersons.
13
oner an# better title t!an !e !ad. f !e does not alread# !a&e a perfect title, !e can not !a&e it registered. ee si"ple titles onl# "a# be registered. T!e certificate of registration accu"ulates in open docu"ent a precise and correct state"ent of t!e e+act status of t!e fee !eld b# its oner. T!e certificate, in t!e absence of fraud, is t!e e&idence of title and s!os e+actl# t!e real interest of its oner. T!e title once registered, it! &er# fe e+ceptions, s!ould not t!ereafter be i"pugned, altered, c!anged, "odified, enlarged, or di"inis!ed, e+cept in so"e direct proceeding per"itted b# la. t!erise all securit# in registered titles ould be lost. A registered title can not be altered, "odified, enlarged, or di"inis!ed in a collateral proceeding and not e&en b# a direct proceeding, after t!e lapse of t!e period prescribed b# la.
BARANDA -S G3STILO GR //@ SEPTE+BER @ /0
G3TIERRE8@ R.@ J.:
HELD4 Act >/ pro&iding for t!e registration of titles under t!e torrens s#ste" actuall# pro&ides for no re"ed#. (oe&er, t!e rule is ell settled t!at t!e decree ordering t!e registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation o&er t!e sa"e beteen t!e sa"e parties. n &ie of t!e fact t!at all t!e orld are parties, it "ust follo t!at future litigation o&er t!e title is fore&er barredK t!ere can be no persons !o are not parties to t!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!e torrens s#ste" can ot be defeated b# prescription )section >/, Act $o. >/*. T!e title, once registered, is notice to t!e orld. All persons "ust ta@e notice. $o one can plead ignorance of t!e registration. $: T!e real purpose of t!at s#ste" is to %uiet title 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%uent t!ereto. T!at being t!e purpose of t!e la, it ould see" t!at once a title is registered 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 su casa,1 to a&oid t!e possibilit# of losing !is land. f course, it cannot be denied t!at t!e proceeding for t!e registration of land under t!e torrens s#ste" is judicial. t is clot!ed it! all t!e for"s of 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 its conse%uences t!an does an ordinar# action. All t!e orld are parties, including t!e go&ern"ent. After t!e registration is co"plete and final and t!ere e+ists no fraud, t!ere are no innocent t!ird parties !o "a# clai" an interest. T!e rig!ts of all t!e orld are foreclosed b# t!e decree of registration. T!e go&ern"ent itself assu"es t!e burden of gi&ing notice to all parties. To per"it persons !o are parties in t!e registration proceeding )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!e registered title, ould destro# t!e &er# purpose and intent of t!e la. T!e registration, under t!e torrens s#ste", does not gi&e t!e
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 $o. >4-? of t!e Sta. arbara Cadastre co&ered b# CT $o. />0/ in t!e na"e of Ro"ana (italia. T!e CT as cancelled and TCT $o. -0/0< as issued in t!e na"es of petitioners aranda and (italia. T!e Court issued a rit of possession !ic! regorio PereE, Maria P. otera and Susana Silao refused to !onor on t!e ground t!at t!e# also !a&e TCT $o. 4?? o&er t!e sa"e Lot $o. >4-?. T!e Court found out t!at TCT $o. 4??? as fraudulentl# ac%uired b# PereE, otera and Susana. T!ereafter, t!e court issued a rit of de"olition !ic! as %uestioned b# PereE and ot!ers so a "otion for reconsideration as 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# t!e courts. n t!e "eanti"e, t!e CA dis"issed a ci&il case )R. $. 00<?* in&ol&ing t!e sa"e properties. )$T2: T!is ti"e t!ree cases na ang in&ol&e e+cluding t!e case at bar.* T!e petitioners pra#ed t!at an order be released to cancel $o.TH 4??. Li@eise to cancel $o.TH-0/0< and once cancelled to issue ne certificates of title to eac! of 2duardo S. aranda and Alfonso (italia To cancel $o.TH4??. Li@eise to cancel $o.TH -0/0< and once cancelled to issue ne certificates of title to eac! of 2duardo S. aranda and Alfonso (italia. n co"pliance it! t!e order or t!e RTC, t!e Acting Register of Deeds A&ito Saclauso annotated t!e order declaring TCT TH 4?? null and &oid, cancelled t!e sa"e and issued ne certificate of titles in t!e na"e of petitioners.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition (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 ne certificate of title.
14
AL+IROL -. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AG3SAN G.R. No. L? +%r# 1@ /0 CASTRO@ J.:
T!is pro"pted t!e petitioners to "o&e for t!e cancellation of t!e notice 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 Acting Register 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 to annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.
FACTS4 n June <, -/- Teodoro Al"irol purc!ased fro" Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land situated in t!e "unicipalit# of 2speranEa, pro&ince of Agusan, and co&ered b# original certificate of title PH-;? in t!e na"e of 1Arcenio Abalo, "arried to $icolasa M. Abalo.1 So"eti"e in Ma#, -/ Al"irol ent to t!e office of t!e Register of Deeds of Agusan in utuan Cit# to register t!e deed of sale and to secure in !is na"e a transfer certificate of title. Registration as refused b# t!e Register of Deeds upon t!e folloing grounds:
HELD4 Section -0, Presidential Decree $o. -4 states t!at 1t s!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!all fort!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 accordance it! Section --? of t!is Decree.1 Section --? pro&ides t!at 17!en t!e Register of Deeds is in doubt it! regard to t!e proper step to be ta@en or "e"oranda to be "ade in pursuance of an# deed, "ortgage or ot!er instru"ent presented to !i" for registration or !ere an# part# in interest 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!all be sub"itted to t!e Co""ission of Land Registration b# t!e Register 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!e registration of deeds encu"brances, instru"ents and t!e li@e is "inisterial in nature. T!e respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not !a&e an# legal standing to file a "otion for reconsideration of t!e respondent Judge6s rder directing !i" to cancel 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 pursuance of 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 Land Registration no, t!e Ad"inistrator of t!e $ational Land Title and Deeds Registration Ad"inistration in accordance it! Section --? of Presidential Decree $o. -4.
No room "or onstr*tion "or t#e &%=s on "*ntions o" ROD T!e ele"entar# rule in statutor# construction is t!at !en t!e ords 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 and t!e statute "ust be ta@en to "ean e+actl# !at it sa#s. T!e statute concerning t!e function of t!e Register of Deeds to register instru"ents in a torrens certificate of title is clear and lea&es no roo" for construction.
T!at riginal Certificate of Title $o. PH-;? is registered in t!e na"e of Arcenio Abalo, "arried to $icolasa M. Abalo, and b# legal presu"ption, is considered conjugal propert#K T!at in t!e sale of a conjugal propert# ac%uired after t!e effecti&it# of t!e $e Ci&il Code it is necessar# t!at bot! spouses sign t!e docu"entK but Since, as in t!is case, t!e ife !as alread# died !en t!e sale as "ade, t!e sur&i&ing !usband cannot dispose of t!e !ole propert# it!out &iolating t!e e+isting la. n &ie of suc! refusal, Al"irol ent to t!e Court of irst nstance of Agusan on a petition for "anda"us to co"pel t!e Register of Deeds to register t!e deed of sale and to issue to !i" t!e corresponding transfer certificate of title. n its resolution of ctober -/, -/; t!e loer court, declaring t!at Ft!e Manda"us does not lie because t!e ade%uate re"ed# is t!at pro&ided b# Section > of Rep. Act --4-G dis"issed t!e petition, it! costs against t!e petitioner. (ence, t!is present appeal.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e Register of Deeds as justified in refusing to register t!e transaction appealed to b# t!e petitioner.
HELD4 $o. Alt!oug! t!e reasons relied upon b# t!e respondent s!o a sincere desire on !is part to "aintain in&iolate t!e la on succession and trans"ission of rig!ts o&er real properties, t!ese do not constitute legal grounds for !is refusal to register t!e deed. 7!et!er a docu"ent is &alid or not, is not for t!e register of deeds to deter"ineK t!is function belongs properl# to a court of co"petent jurisdiction. A register of deeds is entirel# precluded b # section > of Republic Act --4- fro" e+ercising !is personal judg"ent and discretion !en confronted it! t!e proble" of !et!er to register a deed or instru"ent on t!e ground t!at it is in&alid. or under t!e said section, !en !e is in doubt as to t!e proper step to be ta@en it! respect to an# deed or ot!er instru"ent presented to !i" for registration all t!at !e is supposed to do is to sub"it and certif# t!e %uestion to t!e Co""issioner of Land Registration !o s!all, after notice and !earing, enter an order prescribing t!e step to be ta@en on t!e doubtful %uestion.
ADD2D 9 SR
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition OSEFINA -. NOBLE8A -S. SHIRLE5 B. N3EGA G.R. NO. /01@ +ARCH //@ 1/ FACTS4 n -<<, !en S!irle# and Rogelio ere still engaged, S!irle# )respondent, t!en or@ing as a do"estic !elper in srael, sent "one# to Rogelio, upon !is re%uest, for t!e purc!ase of a residential lot in Mari@ina !ic! t!e# ill use as t!eir residence !en t!e# e&entuall# "arr# eac! ot!er. n Septe"ber -;, -<, Rogelio purc!ased t!e !ouse and lot. =pon !er arri&al in -<, S!irle# settled t!e balance of t!e e%uit# t!roug! SSS financing and paid t!e succeeding "ont!l# a"ortisation. n ctober ;-, -<, TCT $o. -?-/; as issued b# t!e Registr# of Deeds in Rogelio's na"e. T!e# ere "arried in -0 and li&ed on t!e sa"e propert#. S!irle# t!en returned to srael for or@K t!ereat, s!e recei&ed infor"ation t!at Rogelio broug!t !o"e anot!er o"an in t!e conjugal !ouse, and s!e also learned t!at Rogelio introduced t!e o"an as !er ife. S!e t!en filed to cases against Rogelio, one for Concubinage, and one for Legal Separation and Li%uidation of Propert#K t!e latter s!e it!dre but later reHfiled on Januar# , -;. n beteen, s!e learned of Rogelio's intention to sell t!e propert#. S!e t!us ad&ised t!e interested bu#ers, including Josep!ine $obleEa of t!e pendenc# of t!e cases s!e filed against Rogelio. Still, Rogelio sold t!e propert# to Josep!ine $obleEa )petitioner* t!ru a Deed of Absolute Sale on Dece"ber , -, it!out S!irle#'s consent in t!e deed. n a Decision rendered on Ma# -/, ->, t!e RTC of Pasig Cit# rendered a decision granting t!e petition for legal separation and t!e dissolution of t!e co""unit# propert# of S!irle# and Rogelio. n August ?, -/, S!irle# filed a Co"plaint for Rescission of Sale and R2con&e#ance against Josep!ine before t!e RTC to recon&e# t!e propert# t!e latter boug!t fro" Rogelio. After trial, t!e RTC rendered judg"ent in fa&our of S!irle#, rescinding t!e Deed of Absolute Sale dated Dece"ber , - beteen Rogelio and Josep!ine, and for Josep!ine to recon&e# t!e propert# to S!irle#. Josep!ine appealed to t!e Court of Appeals, but t!e latter affir"ed it! "odification t!e RTC judg"ent. (ence, Josep!ine soug!t recourse it! t!e Supre"e Court &ia petition for re&ie on certiorari.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not Josep!ine is a bu#er in good fait! of t!e propert#.
R3LING4 7e den# t!e petition. Petitioner is not a bu#er in good fait!. An innocent purc!aser for &alue is one !o bu#s t!e propert# of anot!er, it!out notice t!at so"e ot!er person !as a rig!t or interest in t!e propert#, for !ic! a full and fair price is paid b# t!e bu#er at t!e ti"e of t!e purc!ase or before receipt of an# notice of clai"s or interest of so"e ot!er person in t!e propert#.t is t!e part# !o clai"s to be an innocent purc!aser for &alue !o !as t!e burden of pro&ing suc! assertion, and it is not enoug! to in&o@e t!e ordinar# presu"ption of good fait!. To successfull# in&o@e and be considered as a bu#er in good fait!, t!e presu"ption is t!at first and fore"ost, t!e Fbu#er in good fait!G "ust !a&e s!on prudence and due diligence in t!e e+ercise of !is!er rig!ts. t presupposes t!at t!e bu#er did e&er#t!ing t!at an ordinar# person ould do for t!e protection and defense of !is!er rig!ts and interests against prejudicial or injurious concerns !en placed in suc! a situation. T!e prudence re%uired of a bu#er in good fait! is Fnot t!at of a person it! training in la, but rat!er t!at of an a&erage "an !o eig!s facts and circu"stances it!out resorting to t!e calibration of our tec!nical rules of e&idence of !ic! !is
15
@noledge is nil.6G; A bu#er in good fait! does !is !o"eor@ and &erifies t!at t!e particulars are in order suc! as t!e title, t!e parties, t!e "ode of transfer and t!e pro&isions in t!e deedcontract of sale, to na"e a fe. To be "ore specific, suc! prudence can be s!on b# "a@ing an ocular inspection of t!e propert#, c!ec@ing t!e titleoners!ip it! t!e proper Register of Deeds alongside t!e pa#"ent of ta+es t!erefor, or in%uiring into t!e "inutiae suc! as t!e para"eters or lot area, t!e t#pe of oners!ip, and t!e capacit# of t!e seller to dispose of t!e propert#, !ic! capacit# necessaril# includes an in%uir# into t!e ci&il status of t!e seller to ensure t!at if "arried, "arital consent is secured !en necessar#. n fine, for a purc!aser of a propert# in t!e possession of anot!er to be in good fait!, !e "ust e+ercise due diligence, conduct an in&estigation, and eig! t!e surrounding facts and circu"stances li@e !at an# prudent "an in a si"ilar situation ould do. > n t!e case at bar, petitioner clai"s t!at s!e is a bu#er in good fait! of t!e subject propert# !ic! is titled under t!e na"e of t!e seller Rogelio A. $uega alone as e&idenced b# TCT $o. -?-/; and Ta+ Declaration $os. DH0-H0>?; and DH0-H0>?>.4 Petitioner argues, a"ong ot!ers, t!at since s!e !as e+a"ined t!e TCT o&er t!e subject propert# and found t!e propert# to !a&e been registered under t!e na"e of seller Rogelio alone, s!e is an innocent purc!aser for &alue and Fs!e is not re%uired to go be#ond t!e face of t!e title in &erif#ing t!e status of t!e subject propert# at t!e ti"e of t!e consu""ation of t!e sale and at t!e date of t!e sale.G/ 7e disagree it! petitioner. A bu#er cannot clai" to be an innocent purc!aser for &alue b# "erel# rel#ing on t!e TCT of t!e seller !ile ignoring all t!e ot!er surrounding circu"stances rele&ant to t!e sale. n t!e case of Spouses Ra#"undo &. Spouses andong,? petitioners t!erein B as does petitioner !erein B ere also !arping t!at due to t!e indefeasibilit# of a Torrens title, t!ere as not!ing in t!e TCT of t!e propert# in litigation t!at s!ould !a&e aroused t!e bu#er's suspicion as to put !er on guard t!at t!ere as a defect in t!e title of t!erein seller. T!e Court !eld in t!e Spouses Ra#"undo case t!at t!e bu#er t!erein could not !ide be!ind t!e cloa@ of being an innocent purc!aser for &alue b# "erel# rel#ing on t!e TCT !ic! s!oed t!at t!e registered oner of t!e land purc!ased is t!e seller. T!e Court ruled in t!is case t!at t!e bu#er as not an innocent purc!aser for &alue due to t!e folloing attendant circu"stances, &iE.: n t!e present case, e are not con&inced b# t!e petitioners' incessant assertion t!at Jocel#n is an innocent purc!aser for &alue. To begin it!, s!e is a grandniece of 2ulalia and resides in t!e sa"e localit# !ere t!e latter li&es and conducts !er principal business. t is t!erefore i"possible for !er not to ac%uire @noledge of !er grand aunt's business practice of re%uiring !er bi#a!eros to surrender t!e titles to t!eir properties and to sign t!e corresponding deeds of sale o&er said properties in !er fa&or, as securit#. T!is alone s!ould !a&e put Jocel#n on guard for an# possible abuses t!at 2ulalia "a# co""it it! t!e titles and t!e deeds of sale in !er possession.< Si"ilarl#, in t!e case of Arrofo &. Iuio, t!e Court !eld t!at !ile Ft!e la does not re%uire a person dealing it! registered land to in%uire furt!er t!an !at t!e Torrens Title on its face indicates,G t!e rule is not absolute. -0 T!us, finding t!at t!e bu#er t!erein failed to ta@e t!e necessar# precaution re%uired of a prudent
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition "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 as a prudent bu#er. True, s!e as@ed !er daug!ter to &erif# fro" t!e Register 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!e Propert#. 9et, Arrofo did not e&en bot!er to in%uire about t!e occupants 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 #et selling 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, and if 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 as pa#ing rentals to Iuino, not to Renato and M#rna, !o clai"ed to on t!e Propert#.--
16
Dece"ber , -. (oe&er, t!e Co""unit# Ta+ Certificates of t!e itnesses t!erein ere dated Januar# and 0, -;.-; 7!ile t!is irregularit# is not a direct proof of t!e intent of t!e parties to t!e sale to "a@e it appear t!at t!e Deed of Absolute Sale as e+ecuted on Dece"ber , - B or before S!irle# filed t!e petition for legal separation on Januar# , -; B it is circu"stantial and rele&ant to t!e clai" of !erein petitioner as an innocent purc!aser for &alue. T!at is not all. n t!e Deed of Absolute Sale dated Dece"ber , -, t!e ci&il status of Rogelio as seller as not stated, !ile petitioner as bu#er as indicated as Fsingle,G &iE.: R2L A. $=2A, of legal age, ilipino citiEen and it! postal address at HAH Ladislao Dia St., Concepcion, Mari@ina, Metro Manila, !ereinafter referred to as t!e 32$DR And JS2$A 3. $L2UA, of legal age, ilipino citiEen, single and it! postal address at $o. LHHAH; Ladislao Dia St., Concepcion, Mari@ina, Metro Manila, !ereinafter referred to as t!e 32$D22.->
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!e seller Rogelio !i"self !o as t!erein also described as FsingleG. (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 subject propert# 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 Ladislao Dia 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!e subject 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!ase of t!e subject propert# because of t!e cases s!e !ad filed against Rogelio. Petitioner denies t!at respondent !ad gi&en suc! arning to !er neig!bors, !ic! includes !er sister, t!erefore arguing t!at suc! arning could not be construed as FnoticeG 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!e instant petition failed to present an# con&incing e&idence for t!is Court to re&erse suc! factual finding. To be sure, it is not it!in our pro&ince to secondHguess t!e courts a %uo, and t!e reH deter"ination of t!is factual issue is be#ond t!e reac! of a petition 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!at s!e is a bu#er in good fait!. As correctl# obser&ed b# bot! courts a %uo, t!e Deed of Absolute Sale as e+ecuted and dated on
t puEEles t!e Court t!at !ile petitioner !as repeatedl# clai"ed t!at Rogelio is FsingleG under TCT $o. -?-/; and Ta+ Declaration $os. DH0-H0>?; and DH0-H0>?>, !is ci&il status as seller as not stated in t!e Deed of Absolute Sale B furt!er creating a cloud on t!e clai" of petitioner t!at s!e is an innocent purc!aser for &alue. As to t!e second issue, e rule t!at t!e appellate court did not err !en it "odified t!e decision of t!e trial court and declared t!at t!e Deed of Absolute Sale dated Dece"ber , - is &oid in its entiret#. T!e trial court !eld t!at !ile t!e TCT s!os t!at t!e oner of t!e subject propert# is Rogelio alone, respondent as able to pro&e at t!e trial court t!at s!e contributed in t!e pa#"ent of t!e purc!ase price of t!e subject propert#. T!is fact as also settled it! finalit# b# t!e RTC of Pasig Cit#, ranc! ?0, and affir"ed b# t!e CA, in t!e case for legal separation and li%uidation of propert# doc@eted as JDRC Case $o. 4-0. T!e pertinent portion of t!e decision reads: V++ Clearl#, t!e !ouse and lot jointl# ac%uired b# t!e parties prior to t!eir "arriage for"s part of t!eir co""unit# propert# regi"e, +++ ro" t!e foregoing, S!irle# sufficientl# pro&ed !er financial contribution for t!e purc!ase of t!e !ouse and lot co&ered b# TCT -?-/;. T!us, t!e present lot !ic! for"s part of t!eir co""unit# propert# s!ould be di&ided e%uall# beteen t!e" upon t!e grant of t!e instant petition for legal separation. (a&ing establis!ed b# preponderance of e&idence t!e fact of !er !usband's guilt in contracting a subse%uent "arriage +++, S!irle# alone s!ould be entitled to t!e net profits earned b# t!e absolute co""unit# propert#.-4 (oe&er, t!e nullit# of t!e sale "ade b# Rogelio is not pre"ised on proof of respondent's financial contribution in t!e purc!ase of t!e subject propert#. Actual contribution is not rele&ant in deter"ining !et!er a piece of propert# is co""unit# propert# for t!e la itself defines !at constitutes co""unit# propert#.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
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 all t!e propert# oned b# t!e spouses at t!e ti"e of t!e celebration of 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!ose e+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 properties of 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!ose e+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 "arriage or co""unit# is dissol&ed, t!at co""on "ass is di&ided beteen t!e spouses, or t!eir respecti&e !eirs, e%uall# or in t!e proportion t!e parties !a&e establis!ed, irrespecti&e of t!e &alue eac! 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!e absolute co""unit# propert# of S!irle# and Rogelio. Regardless of 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 appears in t!e TCT as oner, t!e propert# is oned jointl# b# t!e spouses S!irle# and Rogelio. Respondent and Rogelio ere "arried on Septe"ber -, -0. Rogelio, on !is on and it!out t!e consent of !erein respondent as !is spouse, sold t!e subject propert# &ia a Deed of Absolute Sale dated Dece"ber , - B or during t!e subsistence of a &alid contract of "arriage. =nder Article / of 2+ecuti&e rder $o. 0, ot!erise @non as T!e a"il# Code of 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 to recourse to t!e court b# t!e ife for a proper re"ed#, !ic! "ust be a&ailed of it!in fi&e #ears fro" t!e date of t!e contract i"ple"enting suc! decision.
ot!er spouse. n t!e absence of suc! aut!orit# or consent, t!e disposition or encu"brance s!all be &oid. (oe&er, t!e transaction s!all be construed as a continuing offer on t!e part of t!e consenting spouse and t!e t!ird person, and "a# be perfected as a binding contract upon t!e acceptance b# t!e ot!er spouse or aut!oriEation b# t!e court before t!e offer is it!dran b# eit!er or bot! offerors.-? t is clear under t!e foregoing pro&ision of t!e a"il# Code t!at Rogelio could not sell t!e subject propert# it!out t!e ritten consent of respondent or t!e aut!orit# of t!e court. 7it!out suc! consent or aut!orit#, t!e entire sale is &oid. As correctl# e+plained b# t!e appellate court: n t!e instant case, defendant Rogelio sold t!e entire subject propert# to defendantHappellant Josefina on Dece"ber - or during t!e e+istence of Rogelio's "arriage to plaintiffHappellee S!irle#, it!out t!e consent of t!e latter. T!e subject propert# for"s part of Rogelio and S!irle#'s absolute co""unit# of propert#. T!us, t!e trial court erred in declaring t!e deed of sale null and &oid onl# insofar as t!e 44.04 s%uare "eters representing t!e oneH!alf )-* portion of plaintiffHappellee S!irle#. n absolute co""unit# of propert#, if t!e !usband, it!out @noledge and consent of t!e ife, sells )t!eir* propert#, suc! sale is &oid. T!e consent of bot! t!e !usband Rogelio and t!e ife S!irle# is re%uired and t!e absence of t!e consent of one renders t!e entire sale null and &oid including t!e portion of t!e subject propert# pertaining to defendant Rogelio !o contracted t!e sale it! defendantHappellant Josefina. Since t!e Deed of Absolute Sale + + + entered into b# and beteen defendantHappellant Josefina and defendant Rogelio dated Dece"ber -, during t!e subsisting "arriage beteen plaintiffHappellee S!irle# and Rogelio, as it!out t!e ritten consent of S!irle#, t!e said Deed of Absolute Sale is &oid in its entiret#. (ence, t!e trial court erred in declaring t!e said Deed of Absolute Sale as &oid onl# insofar as t!e - portion pertaining to t!e s!are of S!irle# is concerned.-< inall#, consistent it! our ruling t!at Rogelio solel# entered into t!e contract of sale it! petitioner and ac@noledged recei&ing t!e entire consideration of t!e contract under t!e Deed of Absolute Sale, S!irle# could not be !eld accountable to petitioner for t!e rei"burse"ent of !er pa#"ent for t!e purc!ase of t!e subject propert#. =nder Article > of t!e a"il# Code, t!e absolute co""unit# of propert# s!all onl# be Fliable for + + + OdWebts and obligations contracted b# eit!er spouse it!out t!e consent of t!e ot!er to t!e e+tent t!at t!e fa"il# "a# !a&e been benefited + + +.G As correctl# stated b# t!e appellate court, t!ere being no e&idence on record t!at t!e a"ount recei&ed b# Rogelio redounded to t!e benefit of t!e fa"il#, respondent cannot be "ade to rei"burse an# a"ount to petitioner.- 7(2R2R2, in &ie of t!e foregoing, t!e petition is D2$2D. T!e assailed Decision and Resolution of t!e Court of Appeals dated Ma# ->, 0-0 and Jul# -, 0-0, respecti&el#, in CAH.R. C3 $o. ?0;4 are ARM2D. Costs against petitioner. S RD2R2D.
n t!e e&ent t!at one spouse is incapacitated or ot!erise unable to participate in t!e ad"inistration of t!e co""on properties, t!e ot!er spouse "a# assu"e sole poers of ad"inistration. T!ese poers do not include t!e poers of disposition or encu"brance it!out t!e aut!orit# of t!e court or t!e ritten consent of t!e
17
+ODES OF AC73IRING LAND TITLES
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
A. Tit&e ;y P*;&i Gr%nt /.
18
n a decision rendered on Marc! 4, -<-, t!e respondent Judge appro&ed t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent and confir"ed t!e title and oners!ip of t!e parties in accordance it! its ter"s.
T#e Reg%&i%n Dotrine@ Cone!ts %nd E""ets
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )s. HON. SOFRONIO G. SA5O
T!e Solicitor eneral, in be!alf of t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines, !as ta@en t!e present recourse in a bid to !a&e t!e Marc! 4, -<- decision annulled as being patentl# &oid and rendered in e+cess of jurisdiction or it! gra&e abuse of discretion. T!e Solicitor eneral contends t!at Q
G.R. No. L?1/ Oto;er /@ /001
NAR-ASA@ J.: FACTS4 T!e spouses, Casiano Sando&al and LuE Mar%ueE, filed an 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! ;, -<- !en a co"pro"ise agree"ent as entered into b# and a"ong all t!e parties, assisted b# t!eir respecti&e counsel, na"el#: t!e (eirs of Casiano Sando&al )!o !ad since died*, t!e ureau of Lands, t!e ureau of orest De&elop"ent, t!e (eirs of Liberato a#aua, and t!e P!ilippine Cacao and ar" Products, nc. =nder t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent, t!e (eirs of Casiano Sando&al )as applicants* renounced t!eir clai"s and ceded Q
-* no e&idence !ate&er as adduced b# t!e parties in support of t!eir petitions for registrationK * neit!er t!e Director of Lands nor t!e Director of orest De&elop"ent !ad legal aut!orit# to enter into t!e co"pro"ise agree"entK ;* as counsel of t!e Republic, !e s!ould !a&e been but as not gi&en notice of t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent or ot!erise accorded an opportunit# to ta@e part t!ereinK >* t!at !e as not e&en ser&ed it! notice of t!e decision appro&ing t!e co"pro"iseK it as t!e Sangguniang Panlalaigan of Iuirino Pro&ince t!at dre !is attention to t!e 1patentl# erroneous decision1 and re%uested !i" to ta@e i""ediate re"edial "easures to bring about its annul"ent.
T!e respondents "aintain, on t!e ot!er !and, t!at t!e Solicitor eneral6s argu"ents are pre"ised on t!e proposition t!at Lot ?>4> is public land. According to t!e", as pointed out in t!e application for registration, t!e pri&ate c!aracter of t!e land is de"onstrated b# t!e folloing circu"stances, to it:
-* in fa&or of t!e ureau of Lands, an area of >,-0 !ectaresK * in fa&or of t!e ureau of orest De&elop"ent, -,;>!ectaresK
-* t!e possessor# infor"ation title of t!e applicants and t!eir predecessorsHinHinterestK
;* in fa&or of t!e (eirs of Liberato a#aua, >,000 !ectaresK and
* t!e fact t!at Lot ?>4> as ne&er clai"ed to be public land b# t!e Director of Lands in t!e proper cadastral proceedingsK
>* in fa&or of P!ilippine Cacao ar" Products, nc., <,000 !ectares.
T!e re"aining area of 4,400 !ectares as, under t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent, adjudicated to and ac@noledged as oned b# t!e (eirs of Casiano Sando&al, but out of t!is area, -,400 !ectares ere assigned b# t!e Casiano (eirs to t!eir counsel, Jose C. Re#es, in pa#"ent of !is attorne#6s fees.
;* t!e preHar certification of t!e $ational Librar# dated August -/, -; to t!e effect t!at t!e ) /staistica e Propieaes* of sabela issued in -</ and appearing in t!e ureau of Arc!i&es, t!e propert# in %uestion as registered under t!e 6Spanis! s#ste" of land registration as pri&ate propert# oned b# Don Liberato a#aua, applicants6 predecessorsHinHinterestK >* t!e proceeding for registration, broug!t under Act >/ )t!e Torrens Act* presupposes t!at t!ere is alread# a title to be confir"ed b# t!e court, distinguis!ing it fro" proceedings under t!e Public Land Act !ere t!e presu"ption is ala#s t!at t!e land in&ol&ed belongs to t!e State.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
19
t t!us appears t!at t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent and t!e
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e pri&ate respondents !a&e registrable rig!ts o&er Lot ?>4>. No
>*dgment %!!ro)ing it m*st ;e@ %s t#ey %re #ere;y@ de&%red n*&& %nd )oid@ %nd set %side. Consider%tions o" "%irness #o=e)er indi%te t#e rem%nd o" t#e %se to t!e Registration Court so t!at t!e pri&ate parties "a# be afforded an opportunit# to establis! b# co"petent e&idence t!eir respecti&e clai"s to t!e propert#.
HELD4 =nder t!e Regalian Doctrine all lands not ot!erise appearing to be clearl# it!in pri&ate oners!ip are presu"ed to belong to t!e State. Hene@ it is t#%t %&& %!!&i%nts in &%nd
registr%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 and con&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 to substantiate !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.
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES &s. THE INTER+EDIATE APPELLATE CO3RT@ ESTEBAN +ENDO8A %nd LEON PASAHOL G.R. No. / No)em;er @ /0
G3TIERRE8@ R.@ J.:
FACTS4 n Dece"ber -<, -/<, a petition as filed b# 2steban MendoEa and Leon Pasa!ol it! t!e t!en Court of irst nstance of ataan, ranc! , alleging oners!ip of t!e land in %uestion )Lot >>>* b# purc!ase fro" its original oners and t!ereafter, actual, continuous, public and ad&erse possession b# t!e" tac@ed on to t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest for a period e+ceeding ;0 #ears.
In t#e !roeeding %t ;%r@ it appears t!at t!e principal docu"ent relied 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!e o&ern"ent6s (/staistica e Propieaes) of sabela issued in -</, t!e propert# in %uestion as registered under t!e Spanis! s#ste" of land registration as pri&ate propert# of Don Liberato a#aua.
ut, as t!is Court !as alread# !ad occasion to rule, t!at Spanis! docu"ent, t!e (/staistica e Propieaes,) cannot be considered a title to propert#, it not being one of t!e grants "ade during t!e Spanis! regi"e, and ob&iousl# not constituting pri"ar# e&idence of oners!ip. t is an inefficacious docu"ent on !ic! to base an# finding of t!e pri&ate c!aracter of t!e land in %uestion. T!e assent of t!e Directors of Lands and orest De&elop"ent to t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent did not and could not suppl# t!e absence of e&idence of title re%uired of t!e pri&ate r espondents.
Petitioners6 predecessorsHinHinterest failed to anser in t!e cadastral court for lac@ of @noledge of t!e e+istence of an ongoing cadastral proceeding because of !ic! Lot $o. >>> as declared public land b# C ataan.
n appeal, t!e nter"ediate Appellate Court affir"ed t!e trial court6s decision !ic! granted t!e pri&ate respondents6 petition to reopen t!e cadastral registration proceeding of t!e lot in dispute and ordering its registration in t!e na"es of t!e respondents.
n t!is instant petition, t!e petitioner c!allenges t!e decision of t!e appellate court as being contrar# to la on t!e ground t!at it !eld t!at t!e subject land is agricultural and alienable land of t!e public do"ain and t!at t!e sa"e can be subject to ac%uisiti&e prescription of t!irt# );0* #ears of open, continuous and uninterrupted possession.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition Deem;er @ /01 3STICE HOL+ES
T!e petitioner "aintains t!at unless t!e President upon t!e reco""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 land re"ains unaltered and no a"ount of p!#sical occupation and culti&ation t!ereof can c!ange it to agricultural land and bring it it!in t!e pro&isions of t!e Public Land Act.
HOW IT REACHED THE CO3RT4
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not respondents !a&e a bona fie clai" of
FACTS4 Plaintiff, an gorot, possessed t!e land for "ore t!an ;0
oners!ip as to entitle t!e" to registration and title o&er t!e subject land. NO
HELD4 T!e Supre"e Court !eld t!at t!e fact re"ains t!at t!e subject land !as not #et been released fro" its classification as part of t!e "ilitar# reser&ation Eone and still !as to be reclassified as alienable public land it! t!e appro&al of t!e President 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!at t!e land in dispute is no longer part of t!e "ilitar# reser&ation on t!e basis of a "ere proposal to classif# t!e sa"e as alienable and disposable land of t!e public do"ain. A proposal cannot ta@e t!e place of a for"al act declaring forest land released for disposition as public agricultural land. To sustain t!e appellate ruling ould be to preHe"pt t!e e+ecuti&e branc! of t!e go&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 /<, /H/;* t!at:
T#e &%ssi"i%tion o" !*;&i &%nds is %n eJ&*si)e !rerog%ti)e o" t#e EJe*ti)e De!%rtment o" t#e Go)ernment %nd not o" t#e Co*rts. In t#e %;sene o" s*# &%ssi"i%tion@ t#e &%nd rem%ins %s *n&%ssi"ied &%nd *nti& it is re&e%sed t#ere"rom %nd rendered o!en to dis!osition@ T#is is %&so in onson%ne =it# t#e Reg%&i%n dotrine t#%t %&& &%nds o" t#e !*;&i dom%in ;e&ong to t#e St%te )Secs. < -0, Art. V3, -?; Constitution*, and t!at t!e State is t!e source of an# asserted rig!t to oners!ip in land and c!arged it! t!e conser&ation of suc! patri"on# )Republic &. Court of Appeals, < SCRA />< O-?W*
Since t!e subject propert# is still unclassified, !ate&er possession Applicant "a# !a&e !ad, and, !oe&er long, cannot ripen into pri&ate oners!ip.
+ATEO CARINO -S. INS3LAR GO-ERN+ENT OF THE PHILIPPINES / 3S 0@ / PHILG.R. No. L?
20
Plaintiff applied for registration of a certain land. nitiall# it as t!e go&ern"ent of t!e =nited States appealed to t!e Court of first instance of enguet )t!e# ere ta@ing t!e propert# for public and "ilitar# purposes. T!e C dis"issed t!e application )for registration* and t!is as affir"ed b# t!e P!ilippine Supre"e Court. T!is as broug!t to t!e =S Supre"e court b# rit of error.
#ears before t!e treat# of Paris. (e and !is ancestors !ad !eld t!e land for #ears. T!e local co""unit# recogniEes t!e" as t!e oners of t!e said land. (is grandfat!er li&ed upon it and "aintained fences around t!e propert#. (is fat!er raised cattle on t!e propert# and !e !ad in!erited t!e land according to gorot custo". T!ere as no docu"ent of title issued for t!e land !en !e applied for registration. T!e go&ern"ent contends t!at t!e land in %uestion belonged to t!e state. =nder t!e Spanis! La, all lands belonged to t!e Spanis! Cron e+cept t!ose it! per"it pri&ate titles. Moreo&er, t!ere is no prescription against t!e Cron. (e tried tice to !a&e it registered during t!e Spanis! occupation but to no a&ail. n -0- !e filed a petition alleging oners!ip of t!e land but !e as onl # granted a possessor# title.
PRE+ILINAR5 ISS3ES4 T!at e&en if Carino as able to !a&e a title o&er t!e land, !e could not !a&e it registered because enguet as one of t!e e+cluded pro&inces in t!e P!ilippine Co""ission's act no. / )A$ ACT PR2SCR$ R=L2S A$D R2=LAT$S 32R$$ T(2 (M2ST2AD$, S2LL$, A$D L2AS$ PRT$S T(2 P=LC DMA$ T(2 P(LPP$2 SLA$DS...*. ut t!at la dealt it! ac%uisition of ne titles and perfecting of titles begun under t!e Spanis! la. Carino argued t!at !e could register t!e land under P!ilippine Co""issions Act no. >/ !ic! co&ered t!e entire P!ilippine arc!ipelago. (ol"es !eld t!at !e could register t!e land if oners!ip can be "aintained.
+AIN ISS3E4 7$ t!e land in %uestion belonged to t!e Spanis! Cron under t!e Regalian Doctrine. o&ern"ent's argu"ent: Spain !ad title to all t!e land in t!e P!ilippines e+cept t!ose it sa fit to per"it pri&ate titles to be ac%uired. T!at t!ere as a decree issued b# Spain t!at re%uired registration it!in a li"ited ti"e. Carino's land asn't registered and so in effect it beca"e public land.
HELD4 $o. La and justice re%uire t!at t!e applicant s!ould be granted title to !is land. =SSC: 7!ate&er t!e position of Spain as on t!e issue, it does not follo t!at t!e =S ould &ie plaintiff to !a&e lost all !is rig!ts to t!e land B t!is ould a"ount to a denial of nati&e titles t!roug!out enguet just because Spain ould not !a&e granted to an#one in t!e pro&ince t!e r egistration of t!eir lands. rganic act of Jul# -, -0 pro&ides t!at all t!e propert# and rig!ts ac%uired t!ere b# t!e =S ould be for t!e benefit of t!e in!abitants t!ereof. T!is sa"e statute "ade a bill of rig!ts e"bod#ing t!e safeguards of t!e constitution, it pro&ides t!at F6no la s!all be enacted in said islands !ic! s!all depri&e an# person of life, libert#, or propert# it!out due process of la, or den# to an# person t!erein t!e e%ual protection of t!e lasG. t ould be !ard to belie&e t!at t!at Fan# personG didn't include t!e
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition in!abitants of enguet. $or it "eant Fpropert#G to refer onl# to t!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.
!a&e ala#s sustained t!e public c!aracter for !a&ing been for"ed b# recla"ation )as opposed to peittioners contention t!at it is accretion* X
Alt!oug! in sec. -> of t!e organic act, it is said t!at t!e P!ilippine co""ission "a# prescribe rules and regulations for perfecting titles to public lands, it s!ould be noted t!at t!is section refers to t!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 still re"ains: !at propert# and rig!ts did t!e =S ac%uire8
21
T!e onl# re"ed#: action for recon&e#ance on t!e ground of fraud H ut t!ere as no fraud in t!is case.
ISS3ES4 7$ Lee (ong No@ can %uestion t!e grant. H $ X 7$ Da&id !as original ac%uisition of title. H 92S
HELD4 Court of Appeals Affir"ed. )no legal justification for n cases li@e t!is one, t!e presu"ption ould and s!ould be against 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!e con%ueror to dictate !o to deal it! t!e P!ilippine tribes if it reall# "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 turn all t!e in!abitants into trespassers. Principle of prescription as ad"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, -<<0 t!at re%uired e&er#one to get a docu"ent of title or else lose !is land, it does not appear t!at it "eant to appl# to all but onl# t!ose !o rongfull# occupied ro#al lands. T doesn't appear t!at t!e land of Carino as considered as Ro#al land nor as it considered to !a&e been rongfull# occupied. To articles of t!e sa"e decree pro&ided t!at titles ould be attributed to t!ose !o "a# pro&e possession for t!e necessar# ti"e. T!ere ere indications t!at registration as e+pected but it didn't "ean t!at oners!ip actuall# gained ould be lost. T!e effect of t!e proof as not to confer title to t!e" but to establis! it.
$L%= %nd >*stie re,*ire t#%t t#e %!!&i%nt s#o*&d ;e gr%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.
X
X
X X
X X
X X X X
nl# t!e o&ern"ent, represented b# t!e Director of Lands, or t!e Secretar# of Agriculture and $atural Resources, can bring an action to cancel a &oid certificate of title issued pursuant to a &oid patent. T!e legalit# of t!e grant is a %uestion beteen t!e grantee and t!e go&ern"ent. Pri&ate parties li@e t!e plaintiffs cannot clai" t!at t!e patent and title issued for t!e land in&ol&ed are &oid since t!e# are not t!e registered oners t!ereof nor !ad t!e# been declared as oners in t!e cadastral proceedings of $aga Cadastre after clai"ing it as t!eir pri&ate propert #. 7ellHsettled Rule: no public land can be ac%uired b# pri&ate persons it!out an# grant, e+press or i"plied, fro" t!e go&ern"ent. Cabacug &. Lao: !older of a land ac%uired under a free patent is "ore fa&orabl# situated t!an t!at of an oner of registered propert#. $ot onl# does a free patent !a&e a force and effect of a Torrens Title, but in addition t!e person to !o" it is granted !as li@eise in !is fa&or t!e rig!t to repurc!ase it!in a period of 4 #ears. "periu" &. Do"iniu" "periu" H go&ern"ent aut!orit# possessed b# t!e state !ic! is appropriatel# e"braced in t!e concept of so&ereignt# Do"iniu" H capacit# to on or ac%uire propert#. T!e use of t!is ter" is appropriate it! reference to lands !eld b # t!e state in its proprietar# c!aracter. n suc! capacit#, it "a# pro&ide for t!e e+ploitation and use of lands and ot!er natural resources, including t!eir disposition, e+cept as li"ited b# t!e Constitution.
LEE HONG (O( -. DA-ID G.R. NO. L?10 DECE+BER @ /0
HEIRS OF A+3NATEG3I -S DIRECTOR OF FORESTR5
FACTS4 Aniano Da&id ac%uired laful title pursuant to !is
FACTS4 T!ere ere to petitions for re&ie on certiorari
"iscellaneous sales application in accordance it! !ic! an order of aard and for issuance of a sales patent )si"ilar to public auction* as "ade b# t!e Director of Lands on June -<, -4<, co&ering Lot <. X
nullif#ing t!e rig!t of Da&id to t!e disputed lot arising fro" t!e grant "ade in !is fa&or b# respondent officials*
n t!e basis of t!e order of aard of t!e Director of Lands t!e =ndersecretar# of Agriculture and $atural Resources issued on August /, -4, Miscellaneous Sales Patent $o. 3H -0 pursuant to !ic! CT $o. 4-0 as issued b# t!e Register of Deeds of $aga Cit# on ctober -, -4. Land in %uestion is not a pri&ate propert# as t!e Director of Lands and t!e Secretar# of Agriculture and $atural Resources
%uestioning t!e decision of t!e Court of Appeals !ic! declared t!e disputed propert# as forest land, not subject to titling in fa&or of pri&ate persons, orre and A"unategui. T!e Director of orestr#, t!roug! t!e Pro&incial iscal of CapiE, also filed an opposition to t!e application for registration of title clai"ing t!at t!e land as "angro&e sa"p !ic! as still classified as forest land and part of t!e public do"ain. Anot!er oppositor, 2"eterio ereber filed !is opposition insofar as a portion of Lot $o. <<4 containing --?,4/ s%uare "eters as concerned and pra#ed t!at title to said portion be confir"ed and registered in !is na"e.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition ISS3E4 7$ t!e lot in %uestion can be subject of registration and 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# as strengt!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# as con&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 it as classified as 1public forestG. A forested area classified as forest land of t!e public do"ain does not lose suc! classification si"pl# because loggers or settlers "a# !a&e stripped it of its forest co&er. 1orest lands1 do not !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, and ot!er trees groing in brac@is! or sea ater "a# also be classified 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.
22
of a certain land. nitiall# it as t!e go&ern"ent of t!e =nited states appealed to t!e Court of first instance of enguet )t!e# ere ta@ing t!e propert# for public and "ilitar# purposes. T!e C dis"issed t!e application )for registration* and t!is as affir"ed b# t!e P!ilippine Supre"e Court. T!is as broug!t to t!e =S Supre"e court b # rit of error.
FACTS4 Plaintiff, an gorot, possessed t!e land for "ore t!an ;0 #ears before t!e treat# of Paris. (e and !is ancestors !ad !eld t!e land for #ears. T!e local co""unit# recogniEes t!e" as t!e oners of t!e said land. (is grandfat!er li&ed upon it and "aintained fences around t!e propert#. (is fat!er raised cattle on t!e propert# and !e !ad in!erited t!e land according to gorot custo". T!ere as no docu"ent of title issued for t!e land !en !e applied for registration. T!e go&ern"ent contends t!at t!e land in %uestion belonged to t!e state. =nder t!e Spanis! La, all lands belonged to t!e Spanis! Cron e+cept t!ose it! per"it pri&ate titles. Moreo&er, t!ere is no prescription against t!e Cron. (e tried tice to !a&e it registered during t!e Spanis! occupation but to no a&ail. n -0- !e filed a petition alleging oners!ip of t!e land but !e as onl # granted a possessor# title.
PRE+ILINAR5 ISS3ES4 T!at e&en if Carino as able to !a&e a . T#e Reg%&i%n Dotrine )s RA / IPRA ISAGANI CR38 -. DEPT. OF ENERG5 AND NAT3RAL RESO3RCES G.R. NO. /@ DECE+BER @ 111 FACTS: CruE, a noted constitutionalist, assailed t!e &alidit# of t!e RA <;?- or t!e ndigenous People's Rig!ts Act on t!e ground t!at t!e la a"ount to an unlaful depri&ation of t!e State's oners!ip o&er lands of t!e public do"ain as ell as "inerals and ot!er natural resources t!erein, in &iolation of t!e regalian doctrine e"bodied in Section , Article V of t!e Constitution. T!e PRA la basicall# enu"erates t!e rig!ts of t!e indigenous peoples o&er ancestral do"ains !ic! "a# include natural resources. CruE et al content t!at, b# pro&iding for an allH enco"passing definition of Fancestral do"ainsG and Fancestral landsG !ic! "ig!t e&en include pri&ate lands found it!in said areas, Sections ;)a* and ;)b* of said la &iolate t!e rig!ts of pri&ate landoners.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e PRA la is unconstitutional.
title o&er t!e land, !e could not !a&e it registered because enguet as one of t!e e+cluded pro&inces in t!e P!ilippine Co""ission's act no. / )A$ ACT PR2SCR$ R=L2S A$D R2=LAT$S 32R$$ T(2 (M2ST2AD$, S2LL$, A$D L2AS$ PRT$S T(2 P=LC DMA$ T(2 P(LPP$2 SLA$DS...*. ut t!at la dealt it! ac%uisition of ne titles and perfecting of titles begun under t!e Spanis! la. Carino argued t!at !e could register t!e land under P!ilippine Co""issions Act no. >/ !ic! co&ered t!e entire P!ilippine arc!ipelago. (ol"es !eld t!at !e could register t!e land if oners!ip can be "aintained
+AIN ISS3E4 7$ t!e land in %uestion belonged to t!e Spanis! Cron under t!e Regalian Doctrine. o&ern"ent's argu"ent: Spain !ad title to all t!e land in t!e P!ilippines e+cept t!ose it sa fit to per"it pri&ate titles to be ac%uired. T!at t!ere as a decree issued b# Spain t!at re%uired registration it!in a li"ited ti"e. Carino's land asn't registered and so in effect it beca"e public land.
HELD4 $o. La and justice re%uire t!at t!e applicant s!ould be granted title to !is land.
HELD4 T!e SC deliberated upon t!e "atter. After deliberation t!e# &oted and reac!ed a ?H? &ote. T!e# deliberated again and t!e sa"e result transpired. Since t!ere as no "ajorit# &ote, CruE's petition as dis"issed and t!e PRA la as sustained. (ence, ancestral do"ains "a# include natural resources B so"e!o against t!e regalian doctrine.
. Cone!t o" N%ti)e Tit&e +ATEO CARINO -S. INS3LAR GO-ERN+ENT OF THE PHILIPPINES / 3S 0@ / PHILG.R. No. L? Deem;er @ /01 3STICE HOL+ES HOW IT REACHED THE CO3RT4 Plaintiff applied for registration
=SSC: 7!ate&er t!e position of Spain as on t!e issue, it does not follo t!at t!e =S ould &ie plaintiff to !a&e lost all !is rig!ts to t!e land B t!is ould a"ount to a denial of nati&e titles t!roug!out enguet just because Spain ould not !a&e granted to an#one in t!e pro&ince t!e r egistration of t!eir lands. rganic act of Jul# -, -0 pro&ides t!at all t!e propert# and rig!ts ac%uired t!ere b# t!e =S ould be for t!e benefit of t!e in!abitants t!ereof. T!is sa"e statute "ade a bill of rig!ts e"bod#ing t!e safeguards of t!e constitution, it pro&ides t!at F6no la s!all be enacted in said islands !ic! s!all depri&e an# person of life, libert#, or propert# it!out due process of la, or den# to an# person t!erein t!e e%ual protection of t!e lasG. t ould be !ard to belie&e t!at t!at Fan# personG didn't include t!e in!abitants of enguet. $or it "eant Fpropert#G to refer onl# to t!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
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
23
!eard of. Alt!oug! in sec. -> of t!e organic act, it is said t!at t!e P!ilippine co""ission "a# prescribe rules and regulations for perfecting titles to public lands, it s!ould be noted t!at t!is section refers to t!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 still re"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 be against 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!e con%ueror to dictate !o to deal it! t!e P!ilippine tribes if it reall# "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 turn all t!e in!abitants into trespassers. Principle of prescription as ad"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, -<<0 t!at re%uired e&er#one to get a docu"ent of title or else lose !is land, it does not appear t!at it "eant to appl# to all but onl# t!ose !o rongfull# occupied ro#al lands. T doesn't appear t!at t!e land of Carino as considered as Ro#al land nor as it considered to !a&e been rongfull# occupied. To articles of t!e sa"e decree pro&ided t!at titles ould be attributed to t!ose !o "a# pro&e possession for t!e necessar# ti"e. T!ere ere indications t!at registration as e+pected but it didn't "ean t!at oners!ip actuall# gained ould be lost. T!e effect of t!e proof as not to confer title to t!e" but to establis! it.
$L%= %nd >*stie re,*ire t#%t t#e %!!&i%nt s#o*&d ;e gr%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. $
Tabangao Realt# alleged t!at t!e plant of t!e Li%uefied Petroleu" as )LP* Co"pan# is partl# erected on t!e subject lots !ic! i"pro&e"ents are oned b# it )applicant*. YT!ere is a lease contract beteen LP and TabangaoZ S!ould t!e propert# registration decree in&o@ed not be alloed, t!e applicant in t!e alternati&e applied for t!e benefits under CA $o. ->- as a"ended and t!us alleged t!at toget!er it! its predecessorsHinHinterest it !ad been in open, continuous, public, peaceful and ad&erse possession of t!e subject lots for "ore t!an ;0 #ears. eron )Tabango's itness* testified t!at t!e applicantHcorporation as dul# organiEed and registered it! t!e Securities and 2+c!ange Co""ission and is aut!oriEed to ac%uire land b# purc!ase and de&elop, subdi&ide, sell, "ortgage, e+c!ange, lease and !old for in&est"ent or ot!erise, real estate of all @inds. (e also testified t!at t!e subject properties in t!is case ere purc!ased b# Tabangao Realt# as e&idenced b# Deed of Sale and t!at t!e ta+es of t!e properties ere properl# paid b# t!e corporation. Marasigan corroborated t!e testi"on# of Ro"eo eron it! regard to t!e oners!ip, possession and t!e status of t!e lots subject of t!e application. Loida Maglinao )fro" t!e ureau of orest De&elop"ent* testified t!at t!e subject properties are it!in t!e alienable and disposable area of t!e public do"ain and no forestr# interest is ad&ersel# interposed b# t!e ureau of orest De&elop"ent. RTC and CA granted t!e petition of Tabangao. (ence, t!is appeal b# t!e Republic.
ISS3E4 7$ Tabangao Realt#, nc. !as registerable title o&er t!ree );* parcels of land situated in Tabangao, atangas Cit# applied for.
HELD4 $. T!e ruling of t!e CA as erroneous. T!ere is a presu"ption t!at all lands belong to t!e public do"ain of t!e State.
Judg"ent re&ersed.
. Cone!t o" Time Immemori%& Possession REP3BLIC -S. CA AND TABANGAO REALT5 FACTS4 n Januar# <, --, Tabangao Realt#, nc. filed an application for riginal Registration of Title o&er t!ree parcels of land. Applicant Tabangao Realt#, nc. alleged in its application t!at it ac%uired t!e abo&eH"entioned lots b# purc!ase fro" its pre&ious oners as e&idenced b# t!e corresponding Deeds of SaleK t!at it is t!e oner of all adjoining lotsK t!at it !ad been in actual possession of t!e lots since t!e ti"e it ac%uired t!e sa"e fro" t!e pre&ious oners up to t!e presentK and t!at its possession and occupation as oners including t!at of its predecessorHinH interest !as been open, peaceful, continuous, ad&erse to t!e !ole orld and in t!e concept of an oner.
An applicant see@ing to establis! oners!ip o&er land "ust conclusi&el# s!o t!at !e is t!e oner t!ereof in fee si"ple, for t!e standing presu"ption is t!at all lands belong to t!e public do"ain of t!e State, unless ac%uired fro" t!e o&ern"ent eit!er b# purc!ase or b# grant, e+cept lands possessed b# an occupant and !is predecessors since ti"e i""e"orial, for suc! possession ould justif# t!e presu"ption t!at t!e land !ad ne&er been part of t!e public do"ain or t!at it !ad been pri&ate propert# e&en before t!e Spanis! con%uest. T!e land in %uestion is ad"ittedl# public. T!e applicant !as no title at all. ts clai" of ac%uisition of oners!ip is solel# based on possession. n fact, t!e parcels of land applied for ere declared public land b# decision of t!e Cadastral Court. Suc! being t!e case, t!e application for &oluntar# registration under P. D. $o. -4 )Propert# Registration Decree* is barred b# t!e prior judg"ent of t!e Cadastral Court. T!e land !a&ing been subjected to co"pulsor# registration under t!e Cadastral Act and declared public land can no longer be t!e
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition subject of registration b# &oluntar# application under Presidential Decree $o. -4. T!e second application is barred b# resH judicata. As pre&iousl# !eld, 1O7W!ere t!e applicant possesses no title or oners!ip o&er t!e parcel of land, !e cannot ac%uire one under 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!e lands for ;0 #ears. Applicant failed to pro&e specific acts s!oing t!e nature of its possession and t!at of its predecessors in interest. 1T!e applicant "ust present specific acts of oners!ip to substantiate t!e clai" and cannot just offer general state"ents !ic! are "ere conclusions of la t!an factual e&idence of possession.1 1Actual 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 be denied. )Ruled in fa&or of t!e Republic.*
24
and occupation of t!e subject land under abona fideclai" of oners!ip fro" June -, ->4 or earlier. Respondents !a&e not presented tangible proof to establis! t!is @ind of possession. At best, t!e# !a&e onl# gi&en a ta+ declaration on ->, but t!is is "erel# indicia of oners!ip. nd ssue: To o&erco"e t!is presu"ption, incontro&ertible e&idence "ust be establis!ed t!at t!elandsubject of t!eapplication )or clai"* isalienable ordisposable. To support t!is, Respondents !a&e "erel# relied on t!e sur&e# plan of a geodetic engineer. T!is is insufficient under t!e la. Respondents failed to sub"it a certification fro" t!e proper go&ern"ent agenc# to establis! t!at t!e subject land are part of t!e alienable and disposable portion of t!e public do"ain.
Petition GRANTED. T#e registr%tion is DENIED. INTESTATE ESTATE OF DON +ARIANO SAN PEDRO -. CO3RT OF APPEALS FACTS4 T!is is a clai" of a !uge parcel of land co&ering lands in t!e pro&inces $ue&a ecija, ulacan, and in cities including IueEon Cit#. )T!e "ost fantastic land clai" ..*
. B*rden o" Proo" to De"e%t Dotrine REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES -. A-ELINO R. DELA PA8@ ARSENIO R. DELA PA8@ OSE R. DELA PA8@ AND GLICERIO R. DELA PA8@ REPRESENTED B5 OSE R. DELA PA8 PERALTA@ .4 FACTS4 Respondents filed a case to register a parcel of land co&ering al"ost 4,<00 s%uare @ilo"etres situated in Taguig. T!e# alleged t!at t!e# ca"e into t!e possession of t!e land t!ru t!eir parents !o !a&e been continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, ad&erse possession of t!e sa"e, in t!e concept of oner since -
T!is case in&ol&es cases, !ic! prior to being decided b# t!e SC ere consolidated. T!e first case as a co"plaint for reco&er# of possession and da"ages against ca"po, u!ain, and Dela CruE. n t!e co"plaint, it as alleged t!at t!e defendants )ca"po H Dela CruE* ere able to secure fro" t!e Registr# of Deeds of IueEon Cit# titles to a portions of t!e clai"ed estate. n t!e end, t!e loer courts ruled in fa&or of ca"po H Dela CruE, declaring t!at t!e Torrens titles of t!e defendants cannot be defeated b# t!e alleged Spanis! title, Titulo Propriedad no. >;-/. T!e nd case is a petition for letters of adi"inistration o&er t!e intestate estate of t!e late Mariano San Pedro 9 2steban. T!is in&ol&es a pra#er to be declared as ad"inistrator. T!is case e&entuall# ended in t!e sa"e "anner as t!e first case H t!e Titulo de Prorpriedad as declared &oid and of no legal force, t!erefore t!e lands co&ered b# t!e Titulo are not it!in t!e estate of t!e deceased.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e Titulo de Propriedad is null and &oid and Petitioner t!en appeals to t!e Supre"e Court.
t!erefore t!e lands co&ered or clai"ed under suc! title are not included in t!e estate of t!e deceased.
ISS3E4 -. 7!et!er or not t!e continuous, uninterrupted, open, public and ad&erse possession as sufficientl# establis!ed b# e&idence. . 7!et!er t!e land is part of t!e alienable part of public do"ain.
HELD4 $o. t !as not been sufficientl# establis!ed.
HELD4 T!e Titulo is null and &oid. t !as been defeated b# t!e title of t!e defendants under t!e Torrens s#ste". t is settled t!at b# &irtue of Pd no < !ic! tool effect on eb -/ -?/ t!e s#te of registration under t!e Spanis! Mortgage La as abolis!ed and all !olders of Spanis! titles or grants s!ould cause t!eir lands co&erd t!ereb# to be registered under t!e Land Registration Act it!in /"os fro" date of effecti&it# of t!e said decree.
Ci&il La: Land Registration -st ssue: Respondents need to pro&e t!at )-* t!e land for"s part of t!e alienable and disposable land of t!e public do"ainK and )* t!e#, b# t!e"sel&es or t!roug! t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest, !a&e been in open, continuous, e+clusi&e, and notorious possession
Proof of co"pliance )Certificate of Title* it! t!e said decree s!ould !a&e been presented during trial.
B. Tit&e ;y A,*isiti)e Presri!tion /.
Ty!es o" Presri!tion
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition . . . .
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 -. TAN3ATCO A!ri& /@ 110
FACTS4 Petitioner $e Regent Sources, nc. )$RS* filed a Co"plaint for RescissionDeclaration of $ullit# of Contract, Recon&e#ance and Da"ages against respondent Tanjuatco and t!e Register of Deeds of Cala"ba. $RS alleged t!at in ->, it aut!oriEed Cue&as, its C!air"an and President, to appl# on its be!alf, for t!e ac%uisition of to parcels of land b# &irtue of its rig!t of accretion. Cue&as purportedl# applied for t!e lots in !is na"e b# pa#ing P<,>00.;< to t!e ureau of Lands. n Januar# , -4, Cue&as and !is ife e+ecuted a 3oting Trust Agree"ent o&er t!eir s!ares of stoc@ in t!e corporation. T!en, pending appro&al of t!e application it! t!e ureau of Lands, Cue&as assigned !is rig!t to Tanjuatco for t!e su" of P<4,000. n Marc! -, -/, t!e Director of Lands released an rder, !ic! appro&ed t!e transfer of rig!ts fro" Cue&as to Tanjuatco. Transfer Certificates of Titles ere t!en issued in t!e na"e of Tanjuatco. $RS anc!ors its clai" o&er t!e lands subjects of t!is case on t!e rig!t of accretion. t sub"itted in e&idence, titles to four parcels of land, !ic! allegedl# adjoin t!e lots in t!e na"e of Tanjuatco.
ISS3ES4 -*
7$ t!e co"plaint for rescissiondeclaration of nullit# of contract, recon&e#ance and da"ages against Tanjuanco "a# prosper
*
7n $RS !as clai" o&er t!e subject propert# base on t!e rig!t of accretion
;*
7$ Cue&as is an innocent purc!aser in good fait!
R3LINGS4 -. $o. An action for recon&e#ance is one t!at see@s to transfer propert#, rongfull# registered b# anot!er, to its rig!tful and legal oner. n an action for recon&e#ance, t!e certificate of title is respected as incontro&ertible. 7!at is soug!t instead is t!e transfer of t!e propert#, specificall# t!e title t!ereof, !ic! !as been rongfull# or erroneousl# registered in anot!er person's na"e, to its rig!tful and legal oner, or to one it! a better rig!t.
25
To arrant a recon&e#ance of t!e land, t!e folloing re%uisites "ust concur: )-* t!e action "ust be broug!t in t!e na"e of a person clai"ing oners!ip or do"inical rig!t o&er t!e land registered in t!e na"e of t!e defendantK )* t!e registration of t!e land in t!e na"e of t!e defendant as procured t!roug! fraud or ot!er illegal "eansK );* t!e propert# !as not #et passed to an innocent purc!aser for &alueK and )>* t!e action is filed after t!e certificate of title !ad alread# beco"e final and incontro&ertible but it!in four #ears fro" t!e disco&er# of t!e fraud, or not later t!an -0 #ears in t!e case of an 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 Article >4? of t!e Ci&il Code re%uires t!e concurrence of t!e folloing re%uisites: )-* t!at t!e deposition of soil or sedi"ent be gradual and i"perceptibleK )* t!at it be t!e result of t!e action of t!e aters of t!e ri&erK and );* t!at t!e land !ere accretion ta@es place is adjacent to t!e ban@s of ri&ers.
t is not enoug! to be a riparian oner in order to enjo# t!e benefits of accretion. ne !o clai"s t!e rig!t of accretion "ust s!o b# preponderant e&idence t!at !e !as "et all t!e conditions pro&ided b# la. Petitioner !as notabl# failed in t!is regard as it did not offer an# e&idence to pro&e t!at it !as satisfied t!e foregoing re%uisites.
urt!er, it is undisputed t!at Tanjuatco deri&ed !is title to t!e lands fro" riginal Certificate of Title )CT* registered in t!e na"e of t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines. Said parcels of land for"ed part of t!e Dried San Juan Ri&er ed, !ic! under Article 40 )-* of t!e Ci&il Code rig!tl# pertains to t!e public do"inion. T!e Certification issued b# t!e forester confir"s t!at said lands ere &erified to be it!in t!e Alienable and Disposable lands certified and declared as suc! on Septe"ber <, -<-. Clearl#, t!e Republic is t!e entit# !ic! !ad e&er# rig!t to transfer oners!ip t!ereof to respondent. ;. 9es. Tanjuatco's titles ere deri&ed fro" riginal Certificates of Title in t!e na"e of no less t!an t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines. (ence, e cannot &alidl# and fairl# rule t!at in rel#ing upon said title, Tanjuatco acted in bad fait!. A person dealing it! registered land "a# safel# rel# upon t!e correctness of t!e certificate of title issued t!erefor and t!e la ill in no a#
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition oblige !i" to go be!ind t!e certificate to deter"ine t!e condition of t!e propert#. T!is applies e&en "ore particularl# !en t!e seller !appens to be t!e Republic, against !ic!, no i"proper "oti&e can be ascribed. T!e la, no doubt, considers Tanjuatco an innocent purc!aser for &alue. An innocent purc!aser for &alue is one !o bu#s t!e propert# of anot!er, it!out notice t!at so"e ot!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!e propert#.
26
respondent filed an application for registration of t!e to lots pursuant to Section ><)b* of t!e Public Land La alleging t!at it and its predecessorHinHinterest !ad possessed t!e land for "ore t!an ;0 #ears. T!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines opposed t!e application on t!e ground t!at t!e glesia $i Cristo, as a corporation sole, is dis%ualified under t!e Constitution to !old alienable lands of t!e public do"ain and t!at t!e land applied for is a public land. After !earing, t!e trial court ordered t!e registration of t!e to lots in t!e na"e of pri&ate respondent. (ence t!is appeal b# t!e Republic.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not glesia ni Cristo "a# ac%uire or !old lands of public do"ain.
.
E&ements o" Aretion< Art o" t#e NCC
D. Tit&e ;y Re&%m%tion /. .
RA /00 O=ners#i! o" Re&%imed L%nd
E. Tit&e ;y -o&*nt%ry Tr%ns"er /.
+odes o" -o&*nt%ry Tr%ns"er in gener%&
F. Tit&e ;y In)o&*nt%ry A&ien%tion o)er)ie=2 /. .
Fori;&e A,*isition ;y t#e Go)ernment Fori;&e A,*isition ;y Pri)%te Persons
G. Tit&e ;y Desent or De)ise H@ Tit&e ;y Em%ni!%tion P%tent or Gr%nt /. .
Certi"i%te o" L%nd Tr%ns"er is not Tit&e Conditions "or A,*isition o" %n Em%ni!%tion
.
P%tent Tr%ns"er%;i&ity
I. L%nds o" t#e P*;&i Dom%in
HELD4 T!e Supre"e Court !eld t!at t!e Constitution pro!ibits a corporation sole or a juridical person li@e t!e glesia $i Cristo fro" ac%uiring or !olding lands of t!e public do"ainK t!at said c!urc! is not entitled to a&ail of t!e benefits of Section ><)b* of t!e Public Land La !ic! applies onl# to ilipino citiEens or natural personsK and t!at t!e subject lots are not pri&ate lands because possession b# t!e applicant and !is predecessorsHinH interest !as not been since ti"e i""e"orial and because land registration proceeding under Section ><)b* of t!e Public Land La presupposes t!at t!e land is public. T!e pro&ision in t!e Constitution t!at 1$o pri&ate corporation or association "a# !old alienable lands of t!e public do"ain e+cept b# lease not to e+ceed one t!ousand !ectares in areaK Art. V3, Sec. of t!e Constitution is not t!e decisi&e consideration for t!e denial of t!e registration in fa&or of appellee. t is t!e &ie t!at t!e ill of Rig!ts pro&ision on religious freedo" !ic! bans t!e enact"ent of an# la pro!ibiting its free e+ercise, t!e 1enjo#"ent of religious profession and ors!ip it!out discri"ination or preference. )being* fore&er . . . alloed.1 (ere t!e glesia $i Cristo, as a corporation sole, see@s t!e registration. T!e area in&ol&ed in t!e to parcels of land in %uestion is ;-; s%uare "eters. As ad"itted in t!e opinion of t!e Court, a c!apel is t!erein located. t is t!at basic consideration t!at leads to t!e conclusion t!at t!e balancing process, !ic! finds application in constitutional la adjudication, e%uall# re%uires t!at !en to pro&isions in t!e Constitution "a#be rele&ant to a certain factual situation, it calls for t!e affir"ance of t!e decision of respondent Judge alloing t!e registration.
+ANILA ELECTRIC CO+PAN5 -S. 3DGE FLORELIANA CASTRO?BARTOLO+E // SCRA 00 3NE 0@ /0 FACTS4 T!e Manila 2lectric Co"pan# purc!ased to lots )-/4
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES@ re!resented ;y t#e Diretor o" L%nds vs. 3DGE CANDIDO P. -ILLAN3E-A@ o" t#e Co*rt o" First Inst%ne o" B*&%%n@ +%&o&os Br%n# -II@ %nd IGLESIA NI CRISTO@ %s % or!or%tion so&e@ re!resented ;y ERAKO G. +ANALO@ %s EJe*ti)e +inister G.R. No. L?0. *ne 0@ /0 FACTS4 n -;;, glesia ni Cristo, pri&ate respondent, a corporation sole dul# e+isting under P!ilippine las, ac%uired to lots it! a total area of ;-; s%uare "eters fro" Andres PereE, !o !ad possessed t!e propert# since -;; and !ad declared t!e sa"e for ta+ purposes. n Septe"ber -;, -??, pri&ate
s%".* it! an assessed &alue of P;?0 in Tana#, RiEal fro" t!e Piguing spouses on August -;, -?/, !o !ad conse%uentl# purc!ased it fro" l#"pia Ra"os on t!e ;rd of Jul# ->?, t!e original oner of t!e land e&en before ->-. T!e# conse%uentl# filed for t!e confir"ation of title on Dec. -, -?/, a "otion t!at as rejected b# t!e Court of irst nstance. T!e Meralco conse%uentl# filed an appeal it! t!e folloing contentions: -. T!e land after !a&ing been possessed b# li"pia Ra"os and t!e Piguing spouses for "ore t!an t!irt# #ears !ad essentiall# been con&erted to pri&ate land b# &irtue of ac%uisiti&e prescription. T!us, t!e constitutional pro!ibition banning a pri&ate corporation fro" ac%uiring alienable public land is not applicable.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition . t !ad in&o@ed section >
ISS3ES4
.
7$ t!e constitutional pro!ibition against t!eir ac%uisition b# pri&ate corporations or associations appliesH $
HELD4
-. 7!et!er or not t!e Meralco, as a juridical person, is %ualified to appl# for a judicial confir"ation of an i"perfectinco"plete title. . 7!et!er or not t!e con&ersion of t!e land in %uestion is recogniEed. ;. 7!et!er or not t!e con&ersion of t!e land fro" public to pri&ate propert# is contingent on t!e judicial confir"ation of title.
-. 92S
R3LING4 -. $. According to Sec. > of t!e -?; Constitution pro!ibits pri&ate corporations fro" !old alienable lands of t!e public do"ain e+cept b# lease, not to e+ceed -000 !ectares in area. n fine, onl# natural persons and citiEens of t!e P!ilippines are alloed to appl# for confir"ation under t!e PLA. . $. t as !eld t!at t!e con&ersion fro" public land to pri&ate propert# is contingent upon )-* fulfilling t!e necessar# condition of possession b# t!e predecessorsHinHinterest for t!e statutor# period of ;0 #earsK and )* t!e judicial confir"ation of t!e title b# t!e Court of irst nstance. C.J. ernando concurred it! t!e decision, but accepted t!at a con&ersion indeed too@ place. $ote: J. Tee!an@ee dissented and traced t!e line of jurisprudence fro" Carino to Susi to (erico !ic! "aintained t!at t!e con&ersion or ac%uisition effecti&el# !appens b# t!e operation of la, ipso jure, as soon as it can be conclusi&el# presu"ed, juris et de jure, t!at all t!e conditions for t!e confir"ation of t!e grant !a&e been "et. According to !is reasoning, upon t!e fulfill"ent of t!e afore"entioned conditions, t!e confir"ation of an i"perfect title is onl# a for"alit#.
DIRECTOR OF LAND -S IAC AND AC+E FACTS4 Ac"e Pl#ood 3eneer Co., nc., a corp. represented b# Mr. Rodolfo $aEario, ac%uired fro" Mariano and Acer nfiel, "e"bers of t!e Du"agat tribe 4 parcels of land. T!e possession of t!e nfiels, "e"bers of Du"agat tribes, o&er t!e land dates bac@ before t!e P!ilippines as disco&ered b# Magellan. T!e possession of t!e applicant Ac"e Pl#ood 3eneer Co., nc., is continuous, ad&erse andpublic fro" -/ to t!e present and tac@ing t!e possession of t!e nfiels !o ere granted fro" !o" t!e applicant boug!t said land on ctober , -/, !ence t!e possession is alread# considered fro" ti"e i""e"orial. T!e land soug!t to be registered is a pri&ate land pursuant to RA ;4M ort! of i"pro&e"ents. T!e oners!ip and possession of t!e land soug!t to be registered as dul# recogniEed b# t!e go&ern"ent !en t!e Municipal fficials of Maconacon, sabela. Ac"e donated part of t!e land as t!e tonsite of Maconacon sabela.
ISS3ES4 -.
27
7$ t!e land is alread# a pri&ate land H 92S
alread# ac%uired, b# operation of la not onl# a rig!t to a grant, but a grant of t!e o&ern"ent, for it is not necessar# t!at a certificate of title s!ould be issued in order t!at said grant "a# be sanctioned b# t!e courts, an application t!erefore is sufficient it !ad alread# ceased to be of t!e public do"ain and !ad beco"e pri&ate propert#, at least b# presu"ption T!e application for confir"ation is "ere for"alit#, t!e lac@ of !ic! does not affect t!e legal sufficienc# of t!e title as ould be e&idenced b# t!e patent and t!e Torrens title to be issued upon t!e strengt! of said patent. T!e effect of t!e proof, !ere&er "ade, as not to confer title, but si"pl# to establis! it, as alread# conferred b# t!e decree, if not b# earlier la
. $. f it is acceptedHas it "ust beHt!at t!e land as alread# pri&ate land to !ic! t!e nfiels !ad a legall# sufficient and transferable title on ctober , -/ !en Ac"e ac%uired it fro" said oners, it "ust also be conceded t!at Ac"e !ad a perfect rig!t to "a@e suc! ac%uisition. T!e onl# li"itation t!en e+tant as t!at corporations could not ac%uire, !old or lease public agricultural lands in e+cess of -,0> !ectares.
-ICTORIA ONG DE OCSIO &s. t#e RELIGIO3S OF THE -IRGIN +AR5 Fe;. @ /002 FACTS4 A cadastral proceedings initiated b# t!e Director of Lands, in be!alf of t!e Republic, for t!e settle"ent and adjudication of title to a large tract of land situated in t!e Cit# of ligan. 3ictoria ng de csio )!erein petitioner* seasonabl# presented an anser to t!e petition. S!e alleged t!at s!e as t!e oner, b# purc!ase, of to )* parcels of land it! specific boundaries co"pre!ended in t!e cadastral proceeding. As oner, s!e !ad been in possession of bot! lots for fifteen )-4* #ears, and !er predecessorsHinHinterest, for si+t# )/0* #ears. Title to t!e sa"e parcels of land as !oe&er clai"ed b# t!e Religious of t!e 3irgin Mar#. n its anser, it a&erred t!at it !ad boug!t t!e lots fro" 3ictoria ng de csio and !ad been in possession as oner t!ereof for o&er four #ears, and its possession and t!at of its predecessors as i""e"orial. T!e Cadastral Court rendered judg"ent, declaring t!at t!e e&idence satisfactoril# establis!ed t!at 3ictoria ng de csio !ad in trut! sold t!e lot to t!e Religious of t!e 3irgin Mar# in &irtue of a deed of sale dated April -, -4/. De csio no asserts t!at as t!e pri&ate respondent is a religious corporation, it is dis%ualified to obtain judicial confir"ation of an i"perfect title under Section ><)b* of t!e Public Land Act !ic! grants t!at rig!t onl# to natural persons.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e contention as correct.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition HELD4 $o. Pri&ate respondent, a religious corporation, "a# obtain judicial confir"ation of an i"perfect title. pen, continuous and e+clusi&e possession of alienable public land for at least t!irt# );0* #ears in accordance it! t!e Public Land Act ipso !re con&erts t!e land to pri&ate propert#, and a juridical person !o t!ereafter ac%uires t!e sa"e "a# !a&e title t!ereto confir"ed in its na"e. n t!is case, a pri&ate corporation !ad purc!ased t!e land originall# of t!e public do"ain fro" parties !o !ad, b# t!e"sel&es and t!roug! t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest, possessed and occupied it since ti"e i""e"orial. t !ad t!ereafter instituted proceedings for confir"ation of title under Section ><)b* of t!e Public Land Act. T!e pro!ibitions in t!e -?; and -
28
rder $o. >0 into t!e 1Tii (ot Spring $ational Par@,1 under t!e control, "anage"ent, protection and ad"inistration of a di&ision of t!e ureau of orest De&elop"ent. T!e area as ne&er released as alienable and disposable portion of t!e public do"ain and, t!erefore, is neit!er susceptible to disposition under t!e pro&isions of t!e Public Land La )CA ->-* nor registrable under t!e Land Registration Act )Act $o. >/*.
n ctober --, -?>, t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines filed a ci&il case for t!e annul"ent and cancellation of Certificates of Title in&ol&ing t!e -4 parcels of land registered in t!e na"e of t!e petitioners.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e alleged original certificate of titles issued pursuant to t!e order of t!e Court of irst nstance in --/H--? and t!e subse%uent TCTs issued in -4; pursuant to t!e petition for reconstitution are &alid.
HELD4 $o. T!e CT and t!e subse%uest TCTs are not &alid. T!e lands are still not capable of appropriation. T!e ad&erse possession !ic! "a# be t!e basis of a grant of title in confir"ation of i"perfect title cases applies onl# to alienable lands of t!e public do"ain.
IGNACIO PALO+O &s. CO3RT OF APPEALS %n*%ry /@ /002
FACTS4 n June -;, --;, t!en o&ernor eneral of t!e P!ilippine slands, issued 2+ecuti&e rder $o. >0 !ic! reser&ed for pro&incial par@ purposes a land situated in t!e Pro&ince of Alba# pursuant to t!e pro&isions of Act />< of t!e P!ilippine Co""ission.
Subse%uentl#, t!e t!en Court of irst nstance of Alba# ordered t!e registration of -4 parcels of land co&ered b# 2+ecuti&e rder $o. >0 in t!e na"e of Diego Palo"o. Diego Palo"o donated t!ese parcels of land to !is !eirs, !erein petitioners, gnacio and Car"en Palo"o to "ont!s before !is deat! in April -;?.
Clai"ing t!at t!e aforesaid original certificates of title ere lost during t!e Japanese occupation, gnacio Palo"o filed a petition for reconstitution it! t!e Court of irst nstance of Alba#. T!e Register of Deeds of Alba# issued Transfer Certificates of Titles.
T!ere is no %uestion t!at t!e lands in t!e case at bar ere not alienable lands of t!e public do"ain. As testified b# t!e District orester, records in t!e ureau of orestr# s!o t!at t!e subject lands ere ne&er declared as alienable and disposable and subject to pri&ate alienation prior to --; up to t!e present. Moreo&er, as part of t!e reser&ation for pro&incial par@ purposes, t!e# for" part of t!e forest Eone.
t is ele"entar# in t!e la go&erning natural resources t!at forest land cannot be oned b# pri&ate persons. t is not registrable and possession t!ereof, no "atter !o lengt!#, cannot con&ert it into pri&ate propert#, unless suc! lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable.
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )s. CO3RT OF APPEALS +%r# /@ /02 FACTS4 Lot $o. / of t!e Mari&eles Cadastre as declared public land in a decision rendered before t!e last ar in Cadastral Case $o. -, LRC Cadastral Record $o. -0?.
n Jul# -0, -4> President Ra"on Magsa#sa# issued Procla"ation $o. >? con&erting t!e area e"braced b# 2+ecuti&e
n Jul# /, -/4, Lot / as segregated fro" t!e forest Eone
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition and released and certified b# t!e ureau of orestr# as an agricultural land for disposition under t!e Public Land Act. n April /, -/?, Respondents filed in t!e Court of irst nstance of ataan a petition to reopen Cadastral Case $o. -, LRC Cadastral Record $o. -0? to perfect t!eir rig!ts and register t!eir titles to said lots, !a&ing allegedl# ac%uired oners!ip and possession of said parcels of land b# purc!ase fro" t!e original oners t!ereof, !ose possession of t!e sa"e including t!at of t!e !erein Respondents, !as ala#s been continuous, open, acti&e, e+clusi&e, public, ad&erse, and in t!e concept of oners t!ereof for "ore t!an ;0 #ears.
T!e petition as appro&ed and t!e Co""issioner of Land Registration as directed to issue t!e corresponding decrees of registration of said land.
n Ma# ?, -?, petitioner Republic of t!e P!ilippines filed a petition for re&ie of t!e decrees of registration under Section ;<, of Act $o. >/, as a"ended, and t!e corresponding decision of t!e loer court, on t!e grounds t!at t!e parcels of land subject "atter of t!e petition to reHopen cadastral proceedings are portions of t!e public do"ain, ad"ittedl# it!in t!e unclassified public forest of Mari&eles, ataan, opened for disposition onl# on or about Jul# /, -/4K t!at subse%uentl#, respondents do not !a&e a registerable title to t!e land subject "atter of t!e proceedings.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e lots clai"ed b# respondents could legall# be t!e subject of a judicial confir"ation of title under t!e Public Land Act, as a"ended.
HELD4 $o. t cannot be clai"ed b# t!e respondents. Section ><)b* of C.A. $o. ->-, as a"ended, applies e+clusi&el# to public agricultural land. orest lands or areas co&ered it! forests are e+cluded. T!e# are incapable of registration and t!eir inclusion in a title, !et!er suc! title be one issued during t!e Spanis! so&ereignt# or under t!e present Torrens s#ste" of registration, nullifies t!e title. T!us, possession of forest lands, !oe&er long, cannot ripen into pri&ate oners!ip. A parcel of forest land is it!in t!e e+clusi&e jurisdiction of t!e ureau of orestr# and be#ond t!e poer and jurisdiction of t!e cadastral court to register under t!e Torrens S#ste".
29
Conse%uentl#, under t!e abo&e "entioned jurisprudence, neit!er pri&ate respondents nor t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest could !a&e possessed t!e lots for t!e re%uisite period of t!irt# );0* #ears as disposable agricultural land.
REP3BLIC &s. DE G38+AN Fe;. @ 1112 FACTS4 Conflicting applications for confir"ation of i"perfect title ere filed b# $or"a Al"anEor and pri&ate respondent Sal&ador De uE"an o&er parcels of land located in Silang, Ca&ite. After trial on t!e "erits, t!e loer court rendered judg"ent in fa&or of pri&ate respondent De uE"an. T!e Republic no raised t!e issue in a petition t!at t!e trial court erred in not declaring t!at t!e de uE"an !a&e not o&ert!ron t!e presu"ption t!at t!e lands are portions of t!e public do"ain belonging to t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines and t!at t!e# !a&e fulfilled t!e ti"e re%uired b# la to justif# confir"ation of an i"perfect title. t is not disputed t!at t!e subject parcels of land ere released as agricultural land onl# in -/4 !ile t!e petition for confir"ation of i"perfect title as filed b# pri&ate respondents onl# in --. T!us t!e period of occupanc# of t!e subject parcels of land fro" -/4 until t!e ti"e t!e application as filed in -as onl# tent# si+ )/* #ears, four )>* #ears s!ort of t!e re%uired t!irt# );0* #ear period possession re%uire"ent under Sec . 14, P .D. 2and R .+. 'o. 748 .
n finding t!at pri&ate respondents6 possession of t!e subject propert# co"plied it! la, t!e Court of Appeals reasoned out t!at Q )7*!ile it is true t!at t!e land beca"e alienable and disposable onl# in Dece"ber, -/4, !oe&er, records indicate t!at as earl# as -<, Pedro 2r"itao, appellees6 predecessorHinHinterest, as alread# in possession of t!e propert#, culti&ating it and planting &arious crops t!ereon. t follos t!at appellees6 possession as of t!e ti"e of t!e filing of t!e petition in -- !en tac@ed to Pedro 2r"itao6s possession is /; #ears or "ore t!an t!e re%uired ;0 #ears period of possession. T!e land, !ic! is agricultural, !as been con&erted to pri&ate propert#.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e ti"e re%uired b# la to justif# confir"ation of an i"perfect tile is satisfied in t!is case.
T!us, e&en if t!e reopening of t!e cadastral proceedings as at all possible, pri&ate respondents !a&e not %ualified for a grant under Sec. ><)b* of Co""onealt! Act ->-, t!e facts being t!at pri&ate respondents could onl# be credited it! - #ear, "ont!s and 0 da#s possession and occupation of t!e lots in&ol&ed, counted fro" Jul# /, -/4, t!e date !en t!e land area in sitio San Jose, barrio Cabcaban, Mari&eles, ataan, !ic! includes t!e lots clai"ed b# respondents, !ad been segregated fro" t!e forest Eone and released b# t!e ureau of orestr# as an agricultural land for disposition under t!e Public Land Act.
HELD4 $o. t is not satisfied. n t!e case before us, t!e propert# subject of pri&ate respondents6 application as onl# declared alienable in -/4. Prior to suc! date, t!e sa"e as forest land incapable of pri&ate appropriation. t cannot be registered and possession t!ereof, no "atter !o lengt!#, could not con&ert it into pri&ate propert#, )unless* and until suc! lands ere reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. n su""ar#, t!erefore, prior to its declaration as alienable land in -/4, an# occupation or possession t!ereon cannot be
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition considered in t!e counting of t!e t!irt# #ear possession re%uire"ent.
Molde+ Realt# also opposed, stating t!at a part of one of t!e parcels of t!e land o&erlapped it! lands it oned.
T!e rules on t!e confir"ation of i"perfect titles do not appl# unless and until t!e land classified as forest land is released in an official procla"ation to t!at effect so t!at it "a# for" part of t!e disposable agricultural lands of t!e public do"ain.
T!e RTC !anded don its Judg"ent granting t!e respondents application for registration oft!e first lot but deferred t!e appro&al of registration of t!e second lot pending t!e segregation of >,>; s%uare "eter portion t!ereof !ic! as found to belong to Molde+. t rendered an a"ended judg"ent later, granting registration of t!e second lot. T!e S and Molde+ appealed it! t!e CA, !ic! reinstated t!e earlier RTC decision. T!e S appealed.
30
7!ile e ac@noledge t!e Court of Appeals6 finding t!at pri&ate respondents and t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest !a&e been in possession of t!e subject land for si+t# t!ree )/;* #ears at t!e ti"e of t!e application of t!eir petition, our !ands are tied b# t!e applicable las and jurisprudence in gi&ing practical relief to t!e". T!e fact re"ains t!at fro" t!e ti"e t!e subject land as declared alienable until t!e ti"e of t!eir application, pri&ate respondents6 occupation t!ereof as onl# tent# si+ )/* #ears. 7e cannot consider t!eir t!irt# se&en );?* #ears of possession prior to t!e release of t!e land as alienable because absent t!e fact of declassification prior to t!e possession and culti&ation in good fait! b# petitioner, t!e propert# occupied b# !i" re"ained classified as forest or ti"berland, which he co!l not ha&e ac!ire b" prescription. urt!er, jurisprudence is replete it! cases !ic! reiterate t!at forest lands or forest reser&es are not capable of pri&ate appropriation and possession t!ereof, !oe&er long, cannot con&ert t!e" into pri&ate propert#. Possession of t!e land b# pri&ate respondents, !et!er spanning decades or centuries, could ne&er ripen into oners!ip.
Applicants for registration of title under Section ->)-* of P.D. $o. -4 in relation to Section ><)b* of Co""onealt! Act ->-, as a"ended b# Section > of P.D. $o. -0?; "ust sufficientl# establis!: )-* t!at t!e subject land for"s part of t!e disposable and alienable lands of t!e public do"ainK )* t!at t!e applicant and !is predecessorsHinHinterest !a&e been in open, continuous, e+clusi&e and notorious possession and occupation of t!e sa"eK and );* t!at it is under a bona fide clai" of oners!ip since June -, ->4, or earlier. T!ese t!e respondents "ust pro&e b# no less t!an clear, positi&e and con&incing e&idence.
OCENPO
T!e respondents best e&idence to pro&e possession and oners!ip o&er t!e subject propert# ere t!e ta+ declarations issued in t!eir na"es. =nfortunatel#, t!ese ta+ declarations toget!er it! t!eir unsubstantiated general state"ents and "ere +ero+ copies of deeds of sale are not enoug! to pro&e t!eir rig!tful clai".
REP3BLIC -S 3ANITO +ANI+TI+ G.R. No. /000 +%r# /@ 1//2
7ell settled is t!e rule t!at declarations and receipts are not conclusi&e e&idence of oners!ip or of t!e rig!t to possess land !en not supported b# an# ot!er e&idence. T!e fact t!at t!e disputed propert# "a# !a&e been declared for ta+ation purposes in t!e na"es of t!e applicants for registration or of t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest does not necessaril# pro&e oners!ip. T!e# are "erel# indicia of a clai" of oners!ip.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e respondents !ad a &alid clai" o&er t!e to parcels of land )$*
HELD4 T!e folloing are t!e re%uisites re%uired b# la for t!e registration of land.
FACTS4 Respondents filed it! t!e RTC to applications for registration and confir"ation of t!eir title o&er to )* parcels of land located in aranga# Sunga#, Taga#ta# Cit#. T!e respondents alleged t!at t!e# are t!e oners pro indi&iso and in fee si"ple of t!e subject parcels of landK t!at t!e# !a&e ac%uired t!e subject parcels of land b# purc!ase or assign"ent of rig!tsK and t!at t!e# !a&e been in actual, open, public, and continuous possession of t!e subject land under clai" of title e+clusi&e of an# ot!er rig!ts and ad&erse to all ot!er clai"ants b# t!e"sel&es and t!roug! t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest since ti"e i""e"orial. n support of t!eir applications, t!e respondents sub"itted blueprint plans of Lot ;<4? and Lot ;<4<, tec!nical descriptions, certifications in lieu of lost geodetic engineers certificates, declarations of real propert# ta+, official receipts of pa#"ent of ta+es, real propert# ta+ certifications, and deeds of absolute sale. T!e S opposed t!e petition, alleging, a"ong ot!ers, t!at t!e respondents !a&e not pro&en actual, open, public, and continuous possession of t!e land fro" June -, ->4 or earlier.
REP3BLIC -S TEODORO RI8AL-O G.R. No /1// +%r# @ 1//2 FACTS4 n Dece"ber ?, 000, respondent Teodoro P. RiEal&o, Jr. filed before t!e MTC of auang, La =nion, acting as a land registration court, an application for t!e registration of a parcel of land referred to in Sur&e# Plan PsuH00?0/, located in auang, La =nion. Respondent alleged t!at !e is t!e oner in fee si"ple of t!e subject parcel of land, t!at !e obtained title o&er t!e land b# &irtue of a Deed of Transfer dated Dece"ber ;-, -/, and t!at !e is currentl# in possession of t!e land. n support of !is clai", !e presented, a"ong ot!ers, Ta+ Declaration $o. 0/ for t!e #ear -> in !is na"e, and Proof of Pa#"ent of real propert# ta+es beginning in -4 up to t!e ti"e of filing of t!e application. n April 0, 00-, t!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral )S* filed an pposition alleging t!at neit!er respondent nor !is predecessorsHinHinterest !ad been in open, continuous, e+clusi&e and notorious possession and occupation of t!e subject propert#
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition since June -, ->4or earlier and t!at t!e ta+ declarations and ta+ pa#"ent receipts did not constitute co"petent and sufficient e&idence of oners!ip. T!e S also asserted t!at t!e subject propert# as a portion of public do"ain belonging to t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines and !ence not subject to pri&ate ac%uisition. T!e Land n&estigatornspector Dionisio L. Picar of t!e Co""unit# 2n&iron"ent and $atural Resources ffice )C2$R* of San ernando, La =nion t!ereafter certified t!at t!e subject parcel of land as it!in t!e alienable and disposable Eone and t!at t!e applicant as in actual occupation and possession of t!e land. T!e MTC, acting as a land registration court, appro&ed t!e application for registration, !ic! t!e S appealed.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e respondent as in open, continuous, ad&erse, and public possession )C2$P* of t!e land in %uestion in t!e "anner and lengt! of ti"e re%uired b# la as to entitle respondent to judicial confir"ation of i"perfect title. )$*
31
t!at t!e propert# !as been con&erted into patri"onial. T!ere as no suc! declaration in t!is case.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS -S HON. SAL-ADOR RE5ES AND PIDC AND TA+A5O GR No L?0 No)em;er @ /02 FACTS4 Applicant Alipio Alinsunurin soug!t t!e registration of title under Act >/ a &ast tract of land, containing an area of -/,<00 !ectares, "ore or less, situated at t!e "unicipalit# of Laur, pro&ince of $ue&a 2cija. n Ma# 4, -//, t!e Director of Lands, Director of orestr#, and t!e Ar"ed orces of t!e P!ilippines opposed t!e application, clai"ing t!at t!e applicant as it!out sufficient title and as not in open, e+clusi&e, continuous and notorious possession and occupation of t!e land in %uestion for at least t!irt# );0* #ears i""ediatel# preceding t!e filing of t!e applicationK t!at appro+i"atel# -;,4? !ectares of said land consist of t!e "ilitar# reser&ation of ort Magsa#sa# establis!ed under Procla"ation $o. ;?.
HELD4 Re%uisites for t!e registration of a title: =nder Section -> )-* of t!e Propert# Registration Decree, applicants for registration of title "ust sufficientl# establis! first, t!at t!e subject land for"s part of t!e disposable and alienable lands of t!e public do"ainK second, t!at t!e applicant and !is predecessorsHinHinterest !a&e been in open, continuous, e+clusi&e and notorious possession and occupation of t!e sa"eK and t!ird, t!at it is under a bona fide clai" of oners!ip since June -, ->4, or earlier. T!e first re%uire"ent as satisfied in t!is case. T!e certification and report dated Jul# -?, 00- sub"itted b# Special n&estigator Dionisio L. Picar of t!e C2$R of San ernando Cit#, La =nion, states t!at t!e entire land area in %uestion is it!in t!e alienable and disposable Eone. Respondent !as li@eise "et t!e second re%uire"ent as to oners!ip and possession. T!e MTC and t!e CA bot! agreed t!at respondent !as presented sufficient testi"onial and docu"entar# e&idence to s!o t!at !e and !is predecessorsHinH interest ere in open, continuous, e+clusi&e and notorious possession and occupation of t!e land in %uestion. Said findings are binding upon t!is Court absent an# s!oing t!at t!e loer courts co""itted error.
n -//, t!e applicant Alipio Alinsunurin filed a "otion for substitution of parties, re%uesting t!at t!e Paraa%ue n&est"ent and De&elop"ent Corporation be considered as t!e applicant in !is place, it !a&ing ac%uired all !is rig!ts, interests, oners!ip and do"inion o&er t!e propert# t is clai"ed b# t!e applicant t!at Melecio Padilla ac%uired t!e land b# &irtue of a possessor# infor"ation title issued during t!e Spanis! regi"e and upon !is deat! in -00, !e trans"itted t!e oners!ip and possession t!ereof to !is daug!ter and sole !eir, Maria Padilla. T!e latter in turn continued to culti&ate t!e land t!ru tenants and utiliEed portions for pasture, until !er deat! so"eti"e in ->>. T!e loer court rendered decision !olding t!at t!e parcel of land applied for is adjudicated to and ordered to be registered in fa&or of Paraa%ue n&est"ent and De&elop"ent Corporation ); of t!e land as adjudicated to PDC*, and t!e re"aining -; portion to Ta"a#o.
ISS3E4 7$ PDC or its predecessorsHinHinterest !a&e been in C2$P of t!e subject propert# )$*
HELD4 T!e applicant relies on a purported titulo de infor"acion (oe&er, t#e t#ird re,*irement #%s not ;een s%tis"ied. Respondent onl# "anaged to present oral and docu"entar# e&idence of !is and !is "ot!ers oners!ip and possession of t!e land since -4< t!roug! a p!otocop# of t!e Deed of Absolute Sale dated Jul# <, -4< beteen 2ufrecina $a&arro and ibiana P. RiEal&o. (e presented Ta+ Declaration $o. --0?< for t!e #ear ->< in t!e na"e of 2ufrecina $a&arro and real propert# ta+ receipts beginning in -4. 7!at is re%uired b# la is open, continuous, e+clusi&e, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide clai" of oners!ip since June -, ->4or earlier. =nder Section ->)* applicant is li@eise not entitled to registration of title t!roug! prescription, since t!e ;0H#ear period ill onl# co""ence fro" t!e "o"ent t!e State e+pressl# declares t!at t!e public do"inion propert# is no longer intended for public ser&ice or t!e de&elop"ent of t!e national ealt! or
posesoria issued in t!e na"e of Melecio Padilla. (oe&er, neit!er t!e original of t!e said titulo de infor"acion posesoria, nor a dul# aut!enticated cop# t!ereof, as sub"itted in e&idence, and t!ere are serious flas on t!e faces of t!e alleged copies of t!e docu"ent. Moreo&er, according to t!e official records of t!e Register of Deeds, on t!e basis of t!e 1List of Possessor# nfor"ation Titles )Spanis! Titles* of $ue&a 2cija1, t!e corresponding supporting docu"ents of !ic! are @ept in t!e &ault of said office, t!e na"e of Melecio Padilla does not appear a"ong t!ose listed as !olders of infor"acion posesoria titles. T!ere is anot!er factor !ic! eig!s !ea&il# against t!e clai" of t!e applicant. T!e alleged infor"acion posesoria co&ers an area of 1seis "il %uiiones, poco "as e "enos1 or an e%ui&alent of -/,<00 !ectares. =nder t!e Ro#al Decrees in force at t!e ti"e of t!e supposed ac%uisition, no one could ac%uire public land in e+cess of -,000 !ectares. T!us, t!e Ro#al Decrees of $o&e"ber 4,
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
32
-<<0 and ctober /, -<<-, pro!ibited an# grant of public land in e+cess of one t!ousand )-,000* !ectares
possessor# infor"ation title dated Ma# 0, -</ under t!e Ro#al Decree of ebruar# -;, -<>.
Also under Spanis! la, in order t!at an infor"acion posesoria "a# be considered as title of oners!ip, it "ust be pro&en t!at t!e !older t!ereof !as co"plied it! t!e pro&isions of Article ;; of t!e Spanis! Mortgage La.
T!e Director of Lands t!roug! t!e Assistant Pro&incial iscal of IueEon filed !is opposition to t!e application alleging t!at neit!er t!e applicants nor t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest !ad sufficient title of t!e land applied for nor !ad t!e# been in possession t!ereof for a period of at least t!irt# );0* #ears i""ediatel# preceding t!e filing of t!e application and t!at t!e sa"e is public land.
t cannot be clai"ed t!at t!e registration of possession !as been legall# con&erted into a registration of oners!ip because Melecio Padilla !ad not co"plied it! t!e re%uire"ents of Article ;; of t!e Spanis! Mortgage La, to it: 1t!at t!e applicant !as been in open possession of t!e landK t!at an application to t!is effect be filed after t!e e+piration of 0 #ears fro" t!e date of suc! registrationK t!at suc! con&ersion be announced b# "eans of a procla"ation in a proper official bulletinK t!at t!e Court order t!e con&ersion of t!e registration of possession into a record of oners!ipK and t!at t!e Registrar "a@e t!e proper record t!ereof in t!e Registr#.1
Constancio dela Pena Tan li@eise filed an opposition e&en as !e supported t!e go&ern"ent6s contention t!at t!e lands applied for are part of t!e public do"ain. Tan a&erred t!at !e !ad possessed t!e land as lessee for a period of "ore t!an t!irt# fi&e );4* #ears. S!e said t!at t!e lands ere con&erted into fis!ponds and !ad been subject of a sales application so"eti"e in -/;. -- T!e application to purc!ase filed b# Constancio is still pending before t!e ureau of Lands.
2&identl#, Melecio Padilla, !a&ing died on ebruar# , -00, barel# fi&e )4* #ears after t!e inscription of t!e infor"acion posesoria, could not !a&e con&erted t!e sa"e into a record of oners!ip tent# )0* #ears after suc! inscription, pursuant to Article ;; of t!e Spanis! Mortgage La.
Loer court decision: After !earing, t!e trial court rendered judg"ent adjudicating Lot $os. ;, > and 4 in fa&or of t!e applicants and declaring Lot $os. - and as oned b# t!e go&ern"ent subject to t!e rig!ts of t!e lessee, Constancio dela Pena Tan, pending t!e appro&al of !is sales application.
t see"s ob&ious, on t!e basis of t!e facts in t!e record, t!at neit!er applicant Paraa%ue n&est"ent and De&elop"ent Corporation nor Alipio Alinsunurin nor t!e latter6s predecessorsH inHinterest !a&e been 1in open, continuous, e+clusi&e, and notorious possession and occupation1 of t!e propert# in %uestion, 1under a bona fide clai" of ac%uisition or oners!ip, for at least t!irt# #ears i""ediatel# preceding t!e filing of t!e application for confir"ation of title.1
T!e CA ruled t!at lots -H4 s!ould be registered under t!e na"es of Tesalona's siblings.
A "ere casual culti&ation of portions of t!e land b# t!e clai"ant, and t!e raising t!ereon of cattle, do not constitute possession under clai" of oners!ip. n t!at sense, possession is not e+clusi&e and notorious so as to gi&e rise to a presu"pti&e grant fro" t!e State. 7!ile graEing li&estoc@ o&er land is of course to be considered it! ot!er acts of do"inion to s!o possession, t!e "ere occupanc# of land b# graEing li&estoc@ upon it, it!out substantial inclosures or ot!er per"anent i"pro&e"ents, is not sufficient to support a clai" of title t!ru ac%uisiti&e prescription. T!e possession of public land, !oe&er long t!e period "a# !a&e e+tended, ne&er confers title t!ereto upon t!e possessor because t!e statute of li"itations it! regard to public land does not operate against t!e State, unless t!e occupant can pro&e possession and occupation of t!e sa"e under clai" of oners!ip for t!e re%uired nu"ber of #ears to constitute a grant fro" t!e State.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS -S TESALONA GR No. /1 Se!tem;er @ /002 FACTS4 n June ;, -?-, sabel, Consuelo and Serapia Tesalona filed an application for registration of fi&e )4* parcels of land it! t!e C of IueEon, u"aca ranc!. T!e# alleged t!at t!e# ac%uired t!e lands t!roug! succession fro" t!eir "ot!er Magdalena. T!e# said t!at t!eir great grand "ot!er Maria Rosita LorenEo ac%uired ?.>;>; !ectares of land located in IueEon under a
T!e Director of lands filed t!e instant petition.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e !eirs !a&e rig!ts o&er lots - . )$*
HELD: Sub"ission of tracing clot! plan is "andator# !ic! t!e Tesalonas ere not able to co"pl#. To begin it!, t!e original tracing clot! plan of t!e land applied for as not sub"itted in e&idence b# pri&ate respondents. Suc! o"ission is fatal to t!eir application as t!e sub"ission of t!e original tracing clot! plan is a statutor# re%uire"ent of "andator# c!aracter. 7!ile a blue print of sur&e# Plan Psu -4;< as sur&e #ed for t!e (eirs of Magdalena LiEada as presented before t!e trial court, t!e sa"e falls s!ort of t!e "andator# re%uire"ent of la. T!e original tracing clot! plan, toget!er it! t!e duplicate cop# of t!eir application for registration of land title ere under t!e custod# of t!e Land Registration Co""ission )LRC* at t!at ti"e. ut suc! does not relie&e t!e pri&ate respondents of t!eir dut# to retrie&e t!e said tracing clot! plan and s ub"it it before t!e court. n t!e case of Director of Lands &. Re#es, t!is Court clearl# declared t!at if t!e original tracing plan as forarded to t!e LRC, 1t!e applicants "a# easil# retrie&e t!e sa"e t!erefro" and sub"it t!e sa"e in e&idence.1 T!is as not done. Assu"ing t!at t!e sa"e as in t!eir possession during t!e trial, pri&ate respondents s!ould !a&e "ade it a&ailable to t!e trial court for &erification. T!e proofs presented b# Tesalona's ere %uestionable and t!e basis of t!e clai" of t!e (eirs of Tesalona, !erein pri&ate respondents, is a Spanis! title, a possessor# infor"ation title issued on Ma# 0, -</ to Maria Rosita LorenEo pursuant to t!e Ro#al Decree of ebruar# -;, -<> for -.0><- !ectares. ut pri&ate respondents did not sub"it t!e original of t!e possessor#
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition infor"ation title. 7!at as sub"itted as an unclear, illegible cop# of a Spanis! docu"ent purporting to be t!e title e&idencing t!e land grant of -</. )Also t!is part of t!e Court's decision is "ore connected it! t!e topic of C2$P*
Lot Nos. / %nd =ere &%ssi"ied %s s=%m!y %re% %nd =ere %s e%r&y %s /0@ "i&&ed =it# m%ngro)e trees. T!is belies t!e contention of !erein pri&ate respondents t!at said lots ere planted to coconuts in -0 and, t!ereafter, to pala# and ot!er seasonal crops. eing sa"p# area co&ered b# "angro&e trees and t!e li@e, t!ese lots "a# &er# ell be considered and classified as forest lands. n t!e case of 9eirs of :ose +m!nate0!i &. Director of #orestr" e declared t!at: FA forested area classified as forest land of t!e public do"ain does not lose suc! classification si"pl# because loggers or settlers "a# !a&e stripped it of its forest co&er. Parcels of land classified as forest land "a# actuall# be co&ered it! grass or planted to crops b# @aingin culti&ators or ot!er far"ers. 1orest lands1 do not !a&e to be on "ountains or in out of t!e a# place. Swamp" areas co&ere b" man0ro&e trees, nipa palms, an other trees 0rowin0 in bracish or sea water ma" also be classifie as forest lan . T!e classification is descripti&e of its legal nature or status and does not !a&e to be descripti&e of !at t!e land actuall# loo@s li@e. =nless and until t!e land classified as 1forest1 is released in an official procla"ation to t!at effect so t!at it "a# for" part of t!e disposable agricultural lands of t!e public do"ain, t!e rules on confir"ation of i"perfect title do not appl#.G Moreo&er, ellHentrenc!ed is t!e rule t!at possession of forest lands, no "atter !o long, cannot ripen into pri&ate oners!ip. ts inclusion in a title, !et!er t!e title be issued during t!e Spanis! regi"e or under t!e Torrens S#ste", nullifies t!e title.
-ICTORIA - REP3BLIC FACTS4 n $o&e"ber , 00> petitioner $ati&idad Sta. Ana 3ictoria applied for registration under t!e la of a -,?Hs%uare "eter lot in a"bang, Cit# of Taguig, before t!e Metropolitan Trial Court )MeTC* of t!at cit#. T!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral )S*, representing t!e respondent Republic of t!e P!ilippines, opposed t!e application in t!e usual for". T!e Con&ersionSubdi&ision Plan 3ictoria presented in e&idence s!oed t!at t!e land is inside t!e alienable and disposable area under Project ?H as per L.C. Map /;, as certified b# t!e ureau of orest De&elop"ent on Januar# ;, -/<. 3ictoria testified t!at s!e and !er predecessorsHinHinterest !a&e been in possession of t!e propert# continuousl#, uninterruptedl#, openl#, publicl#, ad&ersel# and in t!e concept of oners since t!e earl# ->0s or for "ore t!an ;0 #ears and !a&e been declared as oners for ta+ation purposes for t!e last ;0 #ears. n Januar# 4, 00/ t!e MeTC rendered a decision granting t!e application for registration and finding t!at 3ictoria.
33
T!e Republic appealed t!e MeTC decision to t!e Court of Appeals )CA*, pointing out in its brief t!at 3ictoria failed to present e&idence t!at t!e subject propert# is alienable and disposable land of t!e public do"ain and t!at s!e failed to establis! t!e @ind of possession re%uired for registration. 3ictoria in !er repl# attac!ed to !er brief a Certification dated $o&e"ber /, 00/ issued b# t!e Depart"ent of 2n&iron"ent and $atural Resources )D2$R*, &erif#ing t!e subject propert# as it!in t!e alienable and disposable land of t!e public do"ain. Ca re&ersed MeTC's decision.
ISS3E4 -. 7!et!er or not 3ictoria a"pl# pro&ed t!at t!e subject lot is alienable and disposable land of t!e public do"ainK and . 7!et!er or not s!e !as a"pl# pro&ed !er clai" of oners!ip of t!e propert#.
R3LING4 Section ->)-* of t!e Propert# Registration Decree !as t!ree re%uisites for registration of title: )a* t!at t!e propert# in %uestion is alienable and disposable land of t!e public do"ainK )b* t!at t!e applicants b# t!e"sel&es or t!roug! t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest !a&e been in open, continuous, e+clusi&e and notorious possession and occ upationK and )c* t!at suc! possession is under a bona fide clai" of oners!ip since June -, ->4 or earlier. A si"ilar rig!t is granted under Sec. ><)b* of t!e Public Land Act. T!ere are no "aterial differences beteen Sec. ->)-* of t!e Propert# Registration Decree and Sec. ><)b* of t!e Public Land Act. Sec. ->)-* operationaliEes t!e registration of suc! lands of t!e public do"ain. To pro&e t!at t!e land subject of t!e application for registration is alienable, an applicant "ust establis! t!e e+istence of a positi&e act of t!e go&ern"ent suc! as a presidential procla"ation or an e+ecuti&e orderK an ad"inistrati&e actionK in&estigation reports of ureau of Lands in&estigatorsK and a legislati&e act or statute. T!e applicant "a# secure a certification fro" t!e go&ern"ent t!at t!e lands applied for are alienable and disposable, but t!e certification "ust s!o t!at t!e D2$R Secretar# !ad appro&ed t!e land classification and released t!e land of t!e pubic do"ain as alienable and disposable, and t!at t!e land subject of t!e application for registration falls it!in t!e appro&ed area per &erification t!roug! sur&e# b# t!e P2$R or C2$R. T!e applicant "ust also present a cop# of t!e original classification of t!e land into alienable and disposable, as declared b# t!e D2$R Secretar# or as proclai"ed b# t!e President. esides, t!e record s!os t!at t!e subject propert# as co&ered b# a cadastral sur&e# of Taguig conducted b# t!e go&ern"ent at its e+pense. Suc! sur&e#s are carried out precisel# to encourage landoners and !elp t!e" get titles to t!e lands co&ered b# suc! sur&e#. t does not "a@e sense to raise an objection after suc! a sur&e# t!at t!e lands co&ered b# it are inalienable land of t!e public do"ain, li@e a public forest. T!is is t!e Cit# of Taguig in t!e "iddle of t!e "etropolis.
SO3TH CIT5 HO+ES - REP3BLIC
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition T!e subject of t!is dispute )lot $o.4004* is a strip of land beteen to lots oned b# t!e petitioner. T!e record s!os t!at Lot ;<- as purc!ased on install"ent basis b# asilia Di"aranan, and Lot ; t is t!e position of t!e petitioner t!at Lot $o. 4004 s!ould be registered in its na"e for eit!er of to reasons. T!e first is t!at t!e disputed strip of land reall# for"ed part of Lots ;<- and ;
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e petitioner on Lot 4004. R3LING4 To argue t!at Lot $o. 4004 is reall# a part of t!e ot!er to lots oned b# t!e petitioner is to oppose t!e ob&ious. 7!at is ob&ious is t!e tec!nical descriptions of t!e to lots !ose areas do not include t!e strip of land beteen t!e". T!e petitioner points to t!e original sur&e# of t!e lands in -0/ !ic! states t!at t!e to lots adjoin eac! ot!er, it!out "ention of !at is no Lot $o. 4004. ut it forgets t!at it !as itself suggested t!at t!e old sur&e#s ere inaccurate, !ic! could e+plain t!e o"ission. f it is true t!at t!ere as no canal beteen t!e to lots at t!e ti"e of t!eir sur&e#, t!en t!e disputed strip of land s!ould !a&e been included as part of eit!er of t!e to adjoining lots. t as not. T!e petitioner itself insists t!at t!e canal, if t!ere e&er as
34
one, !ad disappeared after it !ad been filled it! silt and dirt. T!e result as t!e segregation of a t!ird and separate lot, no @non as Lot $o. 4004. $otabl#, t!e area of t!at driedHup canal is not negligible as to co"e under !at t!e petitioner calls t!e alloable "argin of error in t!e original sur&e#. As e !a&e alread# rejected t!e contention t!at t!e t!ird lot as part of t!e ot!er to lots, t!e petitioner "ust fall bac@ on its clai" of ac%uisiti&e prescription o&er it as a separate lot. ts sub"ission is t!at its possession of t!e lot dates bac@ to 1ti"e i""e"orial,1 b# !ic! tired p!rase it is intended to con&e# t!e idea t!at t!e start of suc! possession can no longer be recollected. ndeed, it can be. T!e petitioner6s possession does not in fact go bac@ to 1ti"e i""e"orial,1 but onl# to t!e r ecent re"e"bered past. t s!ould also be noted t!at, according to Article --;4 of t!e Ci&il Code: n case t!e ad&erse clai"ant possesses b# "ista@e an area greater, or less, t!an t!at e+pressed in !is title, prescription s!all be based on t!e possession. T!is possession, folloing t!e abo&e %uoted rulings, s!ould be li"ited onl# to t!at of t!e successorHinHinterestK and in t!e case of t!e !erein petitioner, it s!ould begin fro" -<- !en it ac%uired t!e to adjacent lots and occupied as ell t!e lot in %uestion t!in@ing it to be part of t!e ot!er to. t follos t!at !en t!e application for registration of t!e lot in t!e na"e of t!e petitioner as filed in -<;, t!e applicant !ad been in possession of t!e propert# for less t!an t!ree #ears. T!is as far too s!ort of t!e prescripti&e period re%uired for ac%uisition of i""o&able propert#, !ic! is ten #ears if t!e possession is in good fait! and t!irt# #ears if in bad fait!, or if t!e land is public. T!e ea@ness of t!e petitioner6s position pre&ents t!is Court fro" affir"ing t!e clai" to t!e lot in %uestion eit!er as part of t!e to ot!er lots or b# &irtue of ac%uisiti&e prescription. And !a&ing "ade t!is ruling, e find it unnecessar# to deter"ine !et!er t!e land is patri"onial in nature or part of t!e public do"ain. 7(2R2R2, t!e petition is D2$2D, it! costs against t!e petitioner.
SEC CHING - CA FACTS4 # &irtue of a sale to C!ing Leng it! postal address at $o. >> Libertad Street, Pasa# Cit#, Transfer Certificate of Title $o. --;? as issued on Septe"ber -<, -/- and T.C.T. $o. ?
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition t!e !earing on Dece"ber -/, -/4, conse%uentl# after presentation of e&idence petitioner Alfredo C!ing as appointed ad"inistrator of C!ing Leng6s estate on Dece"ber <, -/4 and letters of ad"inistration issued on Januar# ;, -// )pp. 4-H 4;, Rollo*. T!e land co&ered b# T.C.T. $o. --;? as a"ong t!ose included in t!e in&entor# sub"itted to t!e court )p. ?4, Ibi .*.
R3LING4 T!e co"plaint for cancellation of C!ing Leng6s Torrens
T!irteen )-;* #ears after C!ing Leng6s deat!, a suit against !i" as co""enced on Dece"ber ?, -?< b# pri&ate respondent Pedro Asedillo it! t!e Court of irst nstance of RiEal )no RTC*, ranc! VV3, Pasa# Cit# doc@eted as Ci&il Case $o. /<<
Section -- of t!e sa"e la re%uires 1notice to all parties in interest.1 Since C!ing Leng as alread# in t!e ot!er orld !en t!e su""ons as publis!ed !e could not !a&e been notified at all and t!e trial court ne&er ac%uired jurisdiction o&er !is person. T!e e;parte proceedings for cancellation of title could not !a&e been !eld.
An a"ended co"plaint as filed b# pri&ate respondent against C!ing Leng andor 2state of C!ing Leng on Januar# ;0, -? alleging 1T!at on account of t!e fact t!at t!e defendant !as been residing abroad up to t!e present, an it is not nown whether the efenant is still ali&e or ea, he or his estate "a# be ser&ed b# su""ons and ot!er processes onl# b# publicationK1 )p. ;<, Ibi .*. Su""ons b# publication to C!ing Leng andor !is estate as directed b# t!e trial court in its order dated ebruar# ?, -?. T!e su""ons and t!e co"plaint ere publis!ed in t!e 12cono"ic Monitor1, a nespaper of general circulation in t!e pro&ince of RiEal including Pasa# Cit# on Marc! 4, - and -, -?. Despite t!e lapse of t!e si+t# )/0* da# period it!in !ic! to anser defendant failed to file a responsi&e pleading and on "otion of counsel for t!e pri&ate respondent, t!e court a !o in its order dated Ma# 4, -?, alloed t!e presentation of e&idence e;parte. A judg"ent b# default as rendered on June -4, -?, t!e decretal portion of !ic! reads: 7(2R2R2, finding plaintiffs causes of action in t!e co"plaint to be dul# substantiated b# t!e e&idence, judg"ent is !ereb# rendered in fa&or of t!e plaintiff and against t!e defendant declaring t!e for"er )Pedro Asedillo* to be t!e true and absolute oner of t!e propert# co&ered b# T.C.T. $o. --;?K ordering t!e defendant to recon&e# t!e said propert# in fa&or of t!e plaintiffK sentencing t!e defendant C!ing Leng andor t!e ad"inistrator of !is estate to surrender to t!e Register of Deeds of t!e Pro&ince of RiEal t!e oner6s cop# of T.C.T. $o. --;? so t!at t!e sa"e "a# be cancelled failing in !ic! t!e said T.C.T. $o. --;? is !ereb# cancelled and t!e Register of Deeds of t!e Pro&ince of RiEal is !ereb# ordered to issue, in lieu t!ereof, a ne transfer certificate of title o&er t!e said propert# in t!e na"e of t!e plaintiff Pedro Asedillo of legal age, and a resident of 2strella Street, Ma@ati, Metro Manila, upon pa#"ent of t!e fees t!at "a# be re%uired t!erefor, including t!e realt# ta+es due t!e o&ern"ent. T S S RD2R2D.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not an action for recon&e#ance of propert# and cancellation of title is in personam, and if so, ould a dead "an andor !is estate be bound b# ser&ice of su""ons and decision b# publication.
35
Title "ust be filed in t!e original land registration case, RTC, Pasig, RiEal, sitting as a land registration court in accordance it! Section -- of t!e Land Registration Act )Act $o. >/, as a"ended* not in C Pasa# Cit# in connection it!, or as a "ere incident in Ci&il Case $o. /<< SCRA ?>< O-<W*.
ailure to ta@e steps to assert an# rig!ts o&er a disputed land for - #ears fro" t!e date of registration of title is fatal to t!e pri&ate respondent6s cause of action on t!e ground of lac!es. Lac!es is t!e failure or neglect, for an unreasonable lengt! of ti"e to do t!at !ic! b# e+ercising due diligence could or s!ould !a&e been done, earlierK it is negligence or o"ission to assert a rig!t it!in a reasonable ti"e arranting a presu"ption t!at t!e part# entitled to assert it eit!er !as abandoned it or declined to assert it )ailonHCasilao &. Court of Appeals, .R. $o. ?<-?<, April -4, -<-40<, June ?, -<<*. T!e real purpose of t!e Torrens s#ste" is to %uiet title to land and to stop fore&er an# %uestion as to its legalit#. nce a title is registered, t!e oner "a# rest secure, it!out t!e necessit# of aiting in t!e portals of t!e court, or sitting on t!e 1"irador su casa,1 to a&oid t!e possibilit# of losing !is land )$ational rains Aut!orit# &. AC, -4? SCRA ;<< O-<, Act >/*. A strong presu"ption e+ists t!at Torrens titles are regularl# issued and t!at t!e# are &alid. A Torrens title is incontro&ertible against an# 1infor"ation possessoria1 or title e+isting prior to t!e issuance t!ereof not annotated on t!e title.
CITI8ENSHIP RE73IRE+ENT A. For Indi)id*%&s RA+IRE8 -. -DA. DE RA+IRE8 FACTS4 Jose 2ugenio Ra"ireE, a ilipino national, died in Spain on Dece"ber --, -/>, it! onl# !is ido as co"pulsor# !eir. (is ill as ad"itted to probate b# t!e Court of irst nstance of Manila, ranc! V, on Jul# ?, -/4. Maria Luisa Palacios as appointed ad"inistratri+ of t!e estate.
n June ;, -//, t!e ad"inistratri+ sub"itted a project of partition as follos: t!e propert# of t!e deceased is to be di&ided into to parts. ne part s!all go to t!e ido F en plenoominioG in satisfaction of !er legiti"eK t!e ot!er part or Ffree portionG s!all go to Jorge and Roberto Ra"ireE Fen n!apropriea .G urt!er"ore, one t!ird )-;* of t!e free portion is c!arged it!
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition t!e ido‟s usufruct and t!e re"aining toHt!ird );* it! a usufruct in fa&or of 7anda de 7robles@i.
Respondents opposed suc! partition, arguing t!at t!e granting of a usufruct in fa&or of 7anda is in&alid because it &iolates t!e constitutional pro!ibition on aliens oning propert# in t!e P!ilippines )Sec. 4, Art. V, -;4 Constitution*.
ISS3E4 7n t!e granting of usufruct to 7anda is &alid. HELD4 92S, usufruct of 7anda is 3ALD. +rt Sa&e in cases of hereitar" s!ccession, no pri&ate a0ric!lt!ral lan shall be transferre or assi0ne ecept to ini&i!als, corporations, or associations !alifie to ac!ire or hol lan of the p!blic omain in the Philippines.
T!e loer court up!eld t!e usufruct t!in@ing t!at t!e Constitution co&ers not onl# succession b# operation of la but also testa"entar# succession =T SC is of t!e opinion t!at t!is pro&ision does not appl# to testa"entar# succession for ot!erise t!e pro!ibition ill be for naug!t and "eaningless.
An# alien ould circu"&ent t!e pro!ibition b# pa#ing "one# to a P!ilippine landoner in e+c!ange for a de&ise of a piece of land =T an alien "a# be bestoed =S=R=CT=AR9 R(TS o&er a parcel of land in t!e P!ilippines.
T!erefore, t!e usufruct in fa&or of 7anda, alt!oug! a real rig!t, is up!eld because it does not &est title to t!e land in t!e usufructuar# )7anda* and it is t!e &estin0 of title to lan in fa&or of aliens which is proscribe b" the Constit!tion.
36
Lessee to !er,1 Justina Santos e+ecuted on $o&e"ber -4, -4?, a contract of lease in fa&or of 7ong, co&ering t!e portion t!en alread# leased to !i" and anot!er portion fronting lorentino Torres street. T!e lease as for 40 #ears, alt!oug! t!e lessee as gi&en t!e rig!t to it!dra at an# ti"e fro" t!e agree"entK t!e "ont!l# rental as P;,-0. Ten da#s later )$o&e"ber 4*, t!e contract as a"ended so as to "a@e it co&er t!e entire propert#, including t!e portion on !ic! t!e !ouse of Justina Santos stood, at an additional "ont!l# rental of P;/0. n Dece"ber - s!e e+ecuted contract gi&ing 7ong t!e option to bu# t!e leased pre"ises for P-0,000, pa#able it!in ten #ears at a "ont!l# install"ent of P-,000. T!e option as conditioned on !is obtaining P!ilippine citiEens!ip, a petition for !ic! as t!en pending in t!e Court of irst nstance of RiEal. n $o&e"ber -<, -4< s!e e+ecuted to ot!er contracts, one e+tending t!e ter" of t!e lease to #ears, and anot!er fi+ing t!e ter" of t!e option at 40 #ears. ot! contracts are ritten in Tagalog. n to ills e+ecuted on August > and , -4, s!e bade !er legatees to respect t!e contracts s!e !ad entered into it! 7ong, but in a codicil of a later date )$o&e"ber >, -4* s!e appears to !a&e a c!ange of !eart. Clai"ing t!at t!e &arious contracts ere "ade b# !er because of "ac!inations and induce"ents practised b# !i", s!e no directed !er e+ecutor to secure t!e annul"ent of t!e contracts. ot! parties !oe&er died, 7ong (eng on ctober -, -/ and Justina Santos on Dece"ber <, -/>. 7ong as substituted b# !is ife, Lui S!e, t!e ot!er defendant in t!is case, 7!ile Justina Santos as substituted b# t!e P!ilippine an@ing Corporation. Justina Santos "aintained Q no reiterated b# t!e P!ilippine an@ing Corporation Q t!at t!e lease contract s!ould !a&e been annulled along it! t!e four ot!er contracts because it lac@s "utualit#, a"ong ot!ers. Paragrap! 4 of t!e lease contract states t!at 1T!e lessee "a# at an# ti"e it!dra fro" t!is agree"ent.1 t is clai"ed t!at t!is stipulation offends article -;0< of t!e Ci&il Code !ic! pro&ides t!at 1t!e contract "ust bind bot! contracting partiesK its &alidit# or co"pliance cannot be left to t!e ill of one of t!e".1
ISS3E4 7as t!e contract beteen 7ong and Justina Santos enforceable8
HELD4 $o. T!e contract of lease, as in t!is case, cannot be PHIL. BAN(ING CORP. -. L3I SHE FACTS4 Justina Santos # Canon austino and !er sister LorenEa ere t!e oners in co""on of a piece of land in Manila. T!e sisters li&ed in one of t!e !ouses, !ile 7ong (eng, a C!inese, li&ed it! !is fa"il# in t!e restaurant. 7ong !ad been a longHti"e lessee of a portion of t!e propert#, !a&ing a "ont!l# rental of P,/0. n Septe"ber , -4? Justina Santos beca"e t!e o ner of t!e entire propert# as !er sister died it! no ot!er !eir. T!en alread# ell ad&anced in #ears, being at t!e ti"e 0 #ears old, blind, crippled and an in&alid, s!e as left it! no ot!er relati&e to li&e it!, but s!e as ta@en cared of b # 7ong. 1n grateful ac@noledg"ent of t!e personal ser&ices of t!e
sustained. (oe&er, to be sure, a lease to an alien for a reasonable period as &alid, so as an option gi&ing an alien t!e rig!t to bu# real propert# on condition t!at !e is granted P!ilippine citiEens!ip. ut if an alien as gi&en not onl# a lease of, but also an option to bu#, a piece of land, b# &irtue of !ic! t!e ilipino oner cannot sell or ot!erise dispose of !is propert#, t!is to last for 40 #ears, t!en it beca"e clear t!at t!e arrange"ent as a &irtual transfer of oners!ip !ereb# t!e oner di&ested !i"self in stages not onl# of t!e rig!t to enjo# t!e land ) !s possieni , !s !teni , !s fr!eni and !s ab!teni * but also of t!e rig!t to dispose of it ) !s isponeni * Q rig!ts t!e su" total of !ic! "a@e up oners!ip. t as just as if toda# t!e possession is transferred, to"orro, t!e use, t!e ne+t da#, t!e disposition, and so on, until ulti"atel# all t!e rig!ts of !ic! oners!ip is "ade up are consolidated in an alien. And #et t!is as just e+actl# !at t!e parties in t!is case did it!in t!is pace of one #ear, it! t!e result t!at Justina
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition Santos6 oners!ip of !er propert# as reduced to a !ollo concept. f t!is can be done, t!en t!e Constitutional ban against alien land!olding in t!e P!ilippines, is indeed in gra&e peril. T!e contracts in %uestion are annulled and set asideK t!e land subjectH"atter of t!e contracts as ordered returned to t!e estate of Justina Santos as represented b# t!e P!ilippine an@ing Corporation.
REP3BLIC -. 73ASHA FACTS4 Respondent 7illia" (. Iuas!a, an A"erican citiEen, ac%uired b# purc!ase a parcel of land it! per"anent i"pro&e"ents t!ereon locates at Mola&e Place, orbes Par@, Municipalit# of Ma@ati, Pro&ince of RiEal. T!e said propert# !ad an area of ,/-/ s%. "., described in and co&ered b# TCT $o. ;/
37
FACTS4 Petitioner Jacobus ern!ard (ulst and !is spouse, bot! Dutc! nationals, entered into a Contract to Sell it! respondent PR uilders, nc., for t!e purc!ase of a -0Hs%. ". residential unit in respondent's ton!ouse project in aranga# $i#ugan, Laurel, atangas. Petitioner filed a co"plaint for rescission of contract it! interest, da"ages and attorne#'s fees before t!e (ousing and Land =se Regulator# oard )(L=R* upon respondent's failure to co"pl# it! its &erbal pro"ise to co"plete t!e project b# June -4. T!e co"plaint as t!en decided in fa&or of (ulst, !ic! as folloed upon b# a 7rit of 2+ecution issued on August -, -?. Pursuant to a subse%uent Alias 7rit of 2+ecution, t!e S!errif le&ied on respondent's -4 parcels of land. T!e respondent t!en filed an =rgent Motion to Iuas! 7rit of Le&# on t!e ground t!at t!e S!errif "ade an o&erle&# since t!e aggregate appraised &alue of t!e le&ied properties at P /,400 per s%. ". is P <;,/-/,000 !ic! is o&er and abo&e t!e judg"ent aard. T!e said le&# as t!en set aside pursuant to an rder.
ISS3E4 7n petitioner s!ould be entitled to reco&er# despite t!e Contract to Sell !e entered into it! respondent is &oid for &iolating t!e Constitutional pro!ibition against aliens oning real propert# in t!e P!ilippines.
HELD4 9es. Sec. ?, Art. V of t!e -0 )-* and )?* of t!e Ci&il Code. (oe&er, &oid contracts suc! as t!e one in t!e present case are subject to e+ceptions, in t!e case at bar being pro&ided in Article ->-> of t!e Ci&il Code. Suc! e+ception allos a part# to reco&er !ate&er !e lost pro&ided t!at t!e illegal purpose of t!e &oid contract !as not #et been acco"plis!ed.
ISS3E4 7n respondent's ac%uisition of t!e propert# in %uestion is &alid despite !is status as an alien.
HELD4 $o. T!e Court, upon e+a"ination of t!e Parit# A"end"ent, found t!at t!e sa"e onl# establis!es an e+press e+ception on to pro&ision of t!e )-;4* Constitution, to it: )a* Sec. -, Art. V, regarding disposition, e+ploitation, de&elop"ent and utiliEation of agricultural, ti"ber and "ineral lands of public do"ain and ot!er natural resources of t!e P!ilippinesK and )b* Sec. <, Art. V3, regarding operation of public utilities. Moreo&er, t!e Court reiterated t!at in cases of las suc! as t!e Parit# A"end"ent, t!e sa"e s!all be gi&en a strict construction. Since t!e said A"end"ent "erel# e+tended t!e rig!t in %uestion to A"ericans it! respect to public lands, t!e said A"end"ent could not be furt!er construed to "ean t!at t!e# can also do t!e sa"e to pri&ate lands suc! as t!e propert# in %uestion. urt!er"ore, Iuas!a's argu"ent t!at =S citiEens are ala#s %ualified to ac%uire lands &ia t!e -;4 Constitution is untenable, for t!at a pro&ision of t!e rdinance appended to t!e -;4 Constitution )Sec. -?*, !ic! is reHenforced b# Sec. -? of t!e Public Land Act of -;/ )CA ->-* pro&ides t!at suc! rig!ts of nonHilipinos onl# e+ist during t!e e+istence of t!e Co""onealt! and ;e"ore t#e Re!*;&i o" t#e P#i&i!!ines is est%;&is#ed. T!erefore, it is clear t!at =S citiEens can onl# ac%uire and utiliEe lands of public do"ain &ia t!e i"ple"entation of t!e Parit# A"end"ent.
H3LST -. PR B3ILDERS
t is i"portant to ta@e note t!at t!e contract in %uestion is a Contract to Sell and not a contract of sale. T!erefore oners!ip is not transferred to t!e alien )(ulst* #et, and as an effect no illegal purpose !as been acco"plis!ed. Article ->-> t!erefore finds application in t!e instant case. n &ie of t!is, petitioner is entitled to reco&er !at !e !as paid, but onl# it! respect to t!e a"ount of P ;,-
FILO+ENA GERONA DE CASTRO &s. OA73IN TENG 73EEN TAN@ TAN TENG BIO@ DOLORES TAN@ ROSARIO TAN H3A ING@ %nd TO O. HIAP FACTS4 Re&ie on certiorari of t!e order of t!e for"er Court of irst nstance of Sorsogon dis"issing petitioner6s action for annul"ent of contract it! da"ages.n -;<, petitioner ilo"ena erona de Castro sold a -,4< s%. ". residential lot in ulan, Sorsogon to Tan Tai, a C!inese. n -4/, Tan Tai died lea&ing !erein respondents Q !is ido, To . (iap, and c!ildren Joa%uin Teng Iueen Tan, Tan Teng io, Dolores Tan and Rosario Tan (ua ng. efore t!e deat! of Tan Tai or on August --, -4/, one of !is sons, Joa%uin, beca"e a naturaliEed ilipino. Si+ #ears after Tan Tai6s deat!, or on $o&e"ber -<, -/, !is !eirs e+ecuted an e+traHjudicial settle"ent of estate
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition it! sale, !ereb# t!e disputed lot in its entiret# as alloted to Joa%uin.
38
t!e P!ilippines.
R3LING4 T!e sale of t!e land in %uestion as consu""ated n Jul# -4, -/<, petitioner co""enced suit against t!e !eirs of Tan Tai for annul"ent of t!e sale for alleged &iolation of t!e -;4 Constitution pro!ibiting t!e sale of land to aliens.
ISS3E4 7!et!er t!e !eirs are not alloed to in!erit t!e land oned b# Tan Tai because t!e sale of t!e land to !i" &iolated t!e -;4 Constitution pro!ibiting t!e sale of land to aliens.
HELD4 2+cept for respondent Tan Teng io !o filed an anser to t!e co"plaint, respondents "o&ed to dis"iss t!e co"plaint on t!e grounds of )a* Lac@ of cause of action, t!e plaintiff being in pari elicto it! t!e &endee, and t!e land being alread# oned b# a P!ilippine citiEenK )b* Lac!esK and )c* Ac%uisiti&e prescription. T!e court a !o dis"issed t!e co"plaint, sustaining t!e first to grounds in&o@ed b# t!e "o&ants.ndependentl# of t!e doctrine of pari elicto, t!e petitioner cannot !a&e t!e sale annulled and reco&er t!e lot s!e !erself !as sold. 7!ile t!e &endee as an alien at t!e ti"e of t!e sale, t!e land !as since beco"e t!e propert#, of respondent Joa%uin Teng, a naturaliEed P!ilippine citiEen, !o is constitutionall# %ualified to on land. T!e litigated propert# is no in t!e !ands of a naturaliEed ilipino. t is no longer oned b# a dis%ualified &endee. Lac!es also "ilitates against petitioner6s cause. S!e sold t!e disputed lot in -;<. S!e instituted t!e action to annul t!e sale onl# on Jul# -4, -/<. 7!at t!e Court said in t!e cited Sarsosa case applies it! e%ual force to t!e petitioner. it is li@eise inescapable t!at petitioner 2pifania !ad slept on !er rig!ts for / #ears fro" -;/ to -/. # !er long inaction of ine+cusable neglect, s!e s!ould be !eld barred fro" asserting !er clai" to t!e litigated propert#. Respondent, t!erefore, "ust be declared to be t!e rig!tful oner of t!e propert#.T!e appealed order is affir"ed.
so"eti"e in Marc! -;/, during t!e effecti&it# of t!e -;4 Constitution. =nder t!e -;4 Constitution, aliens could not ac%uire pri&ate agricultural lands, sa&e in cases of !ereditar# succession. T!us, Lee Liong, a C!inese citiEen, as dis%ualified to ac%uire t!e land in %uestion. T!e constitutional proscription on alien oners!ip of lands of t!e public or pri&ate do"ain as intended to protect lands fro" falling in t!e !ands of nonHilipinos. n t!is case, !oe&er, t!ere ould be no "ore public polic# &iolated since t!e land is in t!e !ands of ilipinos %ualified to ac%uire and on suc! land. Ff land is in&alidl# transferred to an alien !o subse%uentl# beco"es a citiEen or transfers it to a citiEen, t!e fla in t!e original transaction is considered cured and t!e title of t!e transferee is rendered &alid.G SC sets aside t!e order of reconstitution of title.
RA 0 REP3BLIC - CA AND SPS LAPINA FACTS4 n June -?, -?<, respondent spouses boug!t Lots ;>? and ;><, Cad. s;-*. At t!e ti"e of t!e purc!ase, respondent spouses !ere t!en naturalHborn ilipino citiEens. n ebruar# 4, -
ELI8ABETH LEE %nd PACITA 53 LEE )s. REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
n t!e "ain, petitioner see@s to defeat respondents6 application for registration of title on t!e ground of foreign nationalit#.
FACTS4 So"eti"e in Marc! -;/, Rafael, Car"en, rancisco,
ISS3E4 Can a foreign national appl# for registration of title o&er a
Jr., Ra"on, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Manuel, RiEal and Ji""#, all surna"ed Dinglasan sold to Lee Liong, a C!inese citiEen, a parcel of land it! an appro+i"ate area of -,/;- s%uare "eters, designated as Lot ;< and co&ered b# riginal Certificate of Title $o. ;;<, situated at t!e corner of Ro+as A&enue and Pa&ia Street, Ro+as Cit#.
parcel of land !ic! !e ac%uired b# purc!ase !ile still a citiEen of t!e P!ilippines, fro" a &endor !o !as co"plied it! t!e re%uire"ents for registration under t!e Public Land Act )CA ->-*8
(oe&er, in -><, t!e for"er oners filed it! t!e Court of irst nstance, CapiE an action against t!e !eirs of Lee Liong for annul"ent of sale and reco&er# of land. T!e plaintiffs assailed t!e &alidit# of t!e sale because of t!e constitutional pro!ibition against aliens ac%uiring oners!ip of pri&ate agricultural land, including residential, co""ercial or industrial land. Rebuffed in t!e trial court and t!e Court of Appeals, plaintiffs appealed to t!e Supre"e Court.
ISS3E4 7!et!er Lee Liong !as t!e %ualification to on land in
R3LING4 n t!e case at bar, pri&ate respondents ere undoubtedl# naturalHborn ilipino citiEens at t!e ti"e of t!e ac%uisition of t!e properties and b# &irtue t!ereof, ac%uired &ested rig!ts t!ereon, tac@ing in t!e process, t!e possession in t!e concept of oner and t!e prescribed period of ti"e !eld b# t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest under t!e Public Land Act. n addition, pri&ate respondents !a&e constructed a !ouse of strong "aterials on t!e contested propert#, no occupied b# respondent Lapias "ot!er.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
ut !at s!ould not be "issed in t!e disposition of t!is case is t!e fact t!at t!e Constitution itself allos pri&ate respondents to register t!e contested parcels of land in t!eir fa&or. Sections ? and < of Article V of t!e Constitution contain t!e folloing pertinent pro&isions, to it:
Sec. ?. Sa&e in cases of !ereditar# succession, no pri&ate lands s!all be transferred or con&e#ed e+cept to indi&iduals, corporations, or associations %ualified to ac%uire or !old lands of t!e public do"ain.
Sec. <. $otit!standing t!e pro&isions of Section ? of t!is Article, a nat!ral;born citi?en of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citi?enship ma" be a transferee of pri&ate lans, s!bect to limitations pro&ie b" law . )2"p!asis supplied*
Section <, Article V of t!e -
Sec. -4. $otit!standing t!e pro&isions of Section -> of t!is Article, a naturalHborn citiEen of t!e P!ilippines !o !as lost !is citiEens!ip "a# be a transferee of pri&ate land, for use b# !i" as !is residence, as t!e atasang Pa"bansa "a# pro&ide.
39
ro" t!e adoption of t!e -4 or since -;?. T!e la pro&ides t!at a naturalHborn citiEen of t!e P!ilippines !o !as lost !is P!ilippine citiEens!ip "a# be a transferee of a pri&ate land up to a "a+i"u" area of -,000 s%."., if urban, or one )-* !ectare in case of rural land, to be used b# !i" as !is residence )P -<4*. t is undisputed t!at pri&ate respondents, as &endees of a pri&ate land, ere naturalHborn citiEens of t!e P!ilippines. or t!e purpose of transfer andor ac%uisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant !et!er pri&ate respondents are no longer ilipino citiEens at t!e ti"e t!e# purc!ased or registered t!e parcels of land in %uestion. 7!at is i"portant is t!at pri&ate respondents ere for"erl# naturalHborn citiEens of t!e P!ilippines, and as transferees of a pri&ate land, t!e# could appl# for registration in accordance it! t!e "andate of Section <, Article V of t!e Constitution. Considering t!at pri&ate respondents ere able to pro&e t!e re%uisite period and c!aracter of possession of t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest o&er t!e subject lots, t!eir application for registration of title "ust perforce be appro&ed.
+ATHEWS -S TA5LOR Pursuant t!ereto, atas Pa"bansa lg. -<4 as passed into la, t!e rele&ant pro&ision of !ic! pro&ides: Sec. . An# naturalHborn citiEen of t!e P!ilippines !o !as lost !is P!ilippine citiEens!ip and !o !as t!e legal capacit# to enter into a contract under P!ilippine las "a# be a transferee of a pri&ate land up to a "a+i"u" area of one t!ousand s%uare "eters, in t!e case of urban land, or one !ectare in t!e case of rural land, to be used b# !i" as !is residence. n t!e case of "arried couples, one of t!e" "a# a&ail of t!e pri&ilege !erein grantedK Pro&ided, T!at if bot! s!all a&ail of t!e sa"e, t!e total area ac%uired s!all not e+ceed t!e "a+i"u" !erein fi+ed. n case t!e transferee alread# ons urban or rural lands for residential purposes, !e s!all still be entitled to be a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes !ic!, !en added to t!ose alread# oned b# !i", s!all not e+ceed t!e "a+i"u" areas !erein aut!oriEed.
FACTS4 n June ;0, -<<, respondent enja"in A. Ta#lor )enja"in*, a ritis! subject, "arried Josel#n C. Ta#lor )Josel#n*, a -?H#ear old ilipina. n June , -<, !ile t!eir "arriage as subsisting, Josel#n boug!t fro" Diosa M. Martin a -,> s%uareH"eter lot )oraca# propert#* situated at ManocH Manoc, oraca# sland, Mala#, A@lan, for and in consideration of P-,000.00. T!e sale as allegedl# financed b# enja"in. Josel#n and enja"in, also using t!e latter's funds, constructed i"pro&e"ents t!ereon and e&entuall# con&erted t!e propert# to a &acation and tourist resort @non as t!e Ad"iral en o nn. All re%uired per"its and licenses for t!e operation of t!e resort ere obtained in t!e na"e of inna Celestino, Josel#n's sister. (oe&er, enja"in and Josel#n !ad a falling out, and Josel#n ran aa# it! Ni" P!ilippsen. n June <, -, Josel#n e+ecuted a Special Poer of Attorne# )SPA* in fa&or of enja"in, aut!oriEing t!e latter to "aintain, sell, lease, and subH lease and ot!erise enter into contract it! t!ird parties it! respect to t!eir oraca# propert#. n Jul# 0, -, Josel#n as lessor and petitioner P!ilip Matt!es as lessee, entered into an Agree"ent of Lease )Agree"ent* in&ol&ing t!e oraca# propert# for a period of 4 #ears, it! an annual rental of P-,000.00. T!e agree"ent as signed b# t!e parties and e+ecuted before a
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition $otar# Public. Petitioner t!ereafter too@ possession of t!e propert# and rena"ed t!e resort as Music arden Resort. Clai"ing t!at t!e Agree"ent as null and &oid since it as entered into b# Josel#n it!out !is )enja"in's* consent, enja"in instituted an action for Declaration of $ullit# of Agree"ent of Lease it! Da"ages against Josel#n and t!e petitioner. enja"in clai"ed t!at !is funds ere used in t!e ac%uisition and i"pro&e"ent of t!e oraca# propert#, and coupled it! t!e fact t!at !e as Josel#n's !usbandK an# transaction in&ol&ing said propert# re%uired !is consent.
ISS3E4 7$ an alien !usband can nullif# a lease contract entered into b# !is ilipina ife boug!t during t!eir "arriage. $
HELD4 T!e rule is clear and infle+ible: aliens are absolutel# not alloed to ac%uire public or pri&ate lands in t!e P!ilippines, sa&e onl# in constitutionall# recogniEed e+ceptions. T!ere is no rule "ore settled t!an t!is constitutional pro!ibition, as "ore and "ore aliens atte"pt to circu"&ent t!e pro&ision b# tr#ing to on lands t!roug! anot!er. n a long line of cases, e !a&e settled issues t!at directl# or indirectl# in&ol&e t!e abo&e constitutional pro&ision. 7e !ad cases !ere aliens anted t!at a particular propert# be declared as part of t!eir fat!er's estateK t!at t!e# be rei"bursed t!e funds used in purc!asing a propert# titled in t!e na"e of anot!erK t!at an i"plied trust be declared in t!eir )aliens'* fa&orK and t!at a contract of sale be nullified for t!eir lac@ of consent. en>%min #%s no rig#t to n*&&i"y t#e Agreement o" Le%se
;et=een ose&yn %nd !etitioner. Ben>%min@ ;eing %n %&ien@ is %;so&*te&y !ro#i;ited "rom %,*iring !ri)%te %nd !*;&i &%nds in t#e P#i&i!!ines. Considering t!at Josel#n appeared to be t!e designated F&endeeG in t!e Deed of Sale of said propert#, s!e ac%uired sole oners!ip t!ereto. T!is is true e&en if e sustain enja"in's clai" t!at !e pro&ided t!e funds for suc! ac%uisition. # entering into suc! contract @noing t!at it as illegal, no i"plied trust as created in !is fa&orK no rei"burse"ent for !is e+penses can be alloedK and no declaration can be "ade t!at t!e subject propert# as part of t!e conjugalco""unit# propert# of t!e spouses. n an# e&ent, !e !ad and !as no capacit# or personalit# to %uestion t!e subse%uent lease of t!e oraca# propert# b# !is ife on t!e t!eor# t!at in so doing, !e as "erel# e+ercising t!e prerogati&e of a !usband in respect of conjugal propert#. To sustain suc! a t!eor# ould countenance indirect contro&ersion of t!e constitutional pro!ibition. f t!e propert# ere to be declared conjugal, t!is ould accord t!e alien !usband a substantial interest and rig!t o&er t!e land, as !e ould t!en !a&e a decisi&e &ote as to its transfer or disposition. T!is is a rig!t t!at t!e Constitution does not per"it !i" to !a&e.
(RI-EN(O -. REGISTER OF DEEDS G.R. NO. L?1. NO-E+BER /@ /0
40
land, being an alien. (ence, t!is petition.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not an alien "a# on pri&ate lands in t!e P!ilippines.
HELD: $o. Sec. -, Art -; of t!e Constitution tal@s about t!e conser&ation and utiliEation of natural resources. T!e said pro&ision e"braces all lands of an# @ind of t!e public do"ain. ts purpose is to establis! a per"anent and funda"ental polic# for t!e conser&ation and utiliEation of all natural resources of t!e nation. Alt!oug! it "entions agricultural, ti"ber, and "ineral lands, t!e court !eld t!at in deter"ining !et!er a parcel of land is agricultural, t!e test is not onl# !et!er it is actuall# agricultural, but also its susceptibilit# to culti&ation for agricultural purposes. (ence, Fpublic agricultural landG as construed as referring to t!ose lands t!at ere not ti"ber or "ineral. T!erefore, it includes residential lands )e+cept b# !ereditar# succession*.
ADDITIONAL E6PLANATION PARA +AS +AINTINDIHAN2 T!e Court ruled t!at in deter"ining !et!er a parcel of land is agricultural, t!e test is not onl# !et!er it is actuall# agricultural, but also its susceptibilit# to culti&ation for agricultural purposes. ut !ate&er t!e test "ig!t be, t!e fact re"ains t!at at t!e ti"e t!e Constitution as adopted, lands of t!e public do"ain ere classified in our las and jurisprudence into agricultural, "ineral, and ti"ber, and t!at t!e ter" 1public agricultural lands1 as construed as referring to t!ose lands t!at ere not ti"ber or "ineral, and as including residential lands. t "a# safel# be presu"ed, t!erefore, t!at !at t!e "e"bers of t!e Constitutional Con&ention !ad in "ind !en t!e# drafted t!e Constitution as t!is ellH@non classification and its tec!nical "eaning t!en pre&ailing. T!erefore, t!e p!rase 1public agricultural lands1 appearing in section - of Article V of t!e Constitution "ust be construed as including residential lands, and t!is is in confor"it# it! a legislati&e interpretation gi&en after t!e adoption of t!e Constitution. t is true t!at in section of said Co""onealt! Act $o. ->-, 1alienable or disposable public lands1 !ic! are t!e sa"e 1public agriculture lands1 under t!e Constitution are classified into agricultural, residential, co""ercial, industrial and for ot!er purposes. Section -, Article V )no V* of t!e Constitution classifies lands of t!e public do"ain in t!e P!ilippines into agricultural, ti"ber and "ineral. T!is is t!e basic classification adopted since t!e enact"ent of t!e Act of Congress of Jul# -, -0, @non as t!e P!ilippine ill. At t!e ti"e of t!e adoption of t!e Constitution of t!e P!ilippines, t!e ter" 6agricultural public lands6 and, t!erefore, ac%uired a tec!nical "eaning in our public las. T!e Supre"e Court of t!e P!ilippines in t!e leading case of Mapa &s. nsular o&ern"ent, -0 P!il., -?4, !eld t!at t!e p!rase 6agricultural public lands6 "eans t!ose public lands ac%uired fro" Spain !ic! are neit!er ti"ber nor "ineral lands. T!is definition !as been folloed b# our Supre"e Court in "uc! subse%uent case.
FACTS4 Ale+ander Nri&en@o, an alien, boug!t a residential lot fro" Magdalena 2state nc. in Dece"ber ->-. T!e registration as interrupted b# t!e ar. n Ma# ->4, !e soug!t to acco"plis! t!e said registration but as denied b# t!e Register of Deeds of Manila on t!e grounds t!at !e is a foreigner and !e cannot ac%uire a land in t!is jurisdiction. Nri&en@o broug!t t!e case to t!e C of Manila. T!e C ruled t!at !e cannot on a
Residential, co""ercial, or industrial lots for"ing part of t!e public do"ain "ust !a&e to be included in one or "ore of t!ese classes. Clearl#, t!e# are neit!er ti"ber nor "ineral, of necessit#K t!erefore, t!e# "ust be classified as agricultural. t is t!us clear t!at t!e t!ree great depart"ents of t!e
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition o&ern"ent Q judicial, legislati&e and e+ecuti&e Q !a&e ala#s "aintained t!at lands of t!e public do"ain are classified into agricultural, "ineral and ti"ber, and t!at agricultural lands include residential lots. Scope of Pri&ate +0ric!lt!ral $ans Sec. 4. Sa&e in cases of !ereditar# succession, no pri&ate agricultural land ill be transferred or assigned e+cept to indi&iduals, corporations, or associations %ualified to ac%uire or !old lands of t!e public do"ain in t!e P!ilippines. T!is constitutional pro&ision closes t!e onl# re"aining a&enue t!roug! !ic! agricultural resources "a# lea@ into aliens6 !ands. t ould certainl# be futile to pro!ibit t!e alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, t!e# "a# be freel# so alienated upon t!eir beco"ing pri&ate agricultural lands in t!e !ands of ilipino citiEens. =ndoubtedl#, as abo&e indicated, section 4 is intended to insure t!e polic# of nationaliEation contained in section -. ot! sections "ust, t!erefore, be read toget!er for t!e# !a&e t!e sa"e purpose and t!e sa"e subject "atter. t "ust be noticed t!at t!e persons against !o" t!e pro!ibition is directed in section 4 are t!e &er# sa"e persons !o under section - are dis%ualified 1to ac%uire or !old lands of t!e public do"ain in t!e P!ilippines.1 T!e subject "atter of bot! sections is t!e sa"e, na"el#, t!e nonHtransferabilit# of 1agricultural land1 to aliens. Since 1agricultural land1 under section - includes residential lots, t!e sa"e tec!nical "eaning s!ould be attac!ed to 1agricultural land under section 4. f t!e ter" 1pri&ate agricultural lands1 is to be construed as not including residential lots or lands not strictl# agricultural, t!e result ould be t!at 1aliens "a# freel# ac%uire and possess not onl# residential lots and !ouses for t!e"sel&es but entire subdi&isions, and !ole tons and cities,1 and t!at 1t!e# "a# &alidl# bu# and !old in t!eir na"es lands of an# area for building !o"es, factories, industrial plants, fis!eries, !atc!eries, sc!ools, !ealt! and &acation resorts, "ar@ets, golf courses, pla#grounds, airfields, and a !ost of ot!er uses and purposes t!at are not, in appellant6s ords, strictl# agricultural.1 )Solicitor eneral6s rief, p. /.* T!at t!is is obno+ious to t!e conser&ati&e spirit of t!e Constitution is be#ond %uestion. ne of t!e funda"ental principles underl#ing t!e pro&ision of Article V of t!e Constitution and !ic! as e"bodied in t!e report of t!e Co""ittee on $ationaliEation and Preser&ation of Lands and ot!er $atural Resources of t!e Constitutional Con&ention, is 1t!at lands, "inerals, forests, and ot!er natural resources constitute t!e e+clusi&e !eritage of t!e ilipino nation. T!e# s!ould, t!erefore, be preser&ed for t!ose under t!e so&ereign aut!orit# of t!at nation and for t!eir posterit#.1 ) Aruego, ra"ing of t!e ilipino Constitution, p. 44.* Lands and natural resources are i""o&ables and as suc! can be co"pared to t!e &ital organs of a person6s bod#, t!e lac@ of possession of !ic! "a# cause instant deat! or t!e s!ortening of life. f e do not co"pletel# nationaliEe t!ese to of our "ost i"portant belongings, a" afraid t!at t!e ti"e ill co"e !en e s!all be sorr# for t!e ti"e e ere born. ur independence ill be just a "oc@er#, for !at @ind of independence are e going to !a&e if a part of our countr# is not in our !ands but in t!ose of foreigners81 )2"p!asis ours.*
41
+ppro&al of R.+. 'o. 1== And, finall#, on June ->, ->?, t!e Congress appro&ed Republic Act $o. -;; !ic! allos "ortgage of 1pri&ate real propert#1 of an# @ind in fa&or of aliens but it! a %ualification consisting of e+pressl# pro!ibiting aliens to bid or ta@e part in an# sale of suc! real propert# as a conse%uence of t!e "ortgage. T!is pro!ibition "a@es no distinction beteen pri&ate lands t!at are strictl# agricultural and pri&ate lands t!at are residential or co""ercial. T!e pro!ibition e"braces t!e sale of pri&ate lands of an# @ind in fa&or of aliens, !ic! is again a clear i"ple"entation and a legislati&e interpretation of t!e constitutional pro!ibition. (ad t!e Congress been of opinion t!at pri&ate residential lands "a# be sold to aliens under t!e Constitution, no legislati&e "easure ould !a&e been found necessar# to aut!oriEe "ortgage !ic! ould !a&e been dee"ed also per"issible under t!e Constitution. ut clearl# it as t!e opinion of t!e Congress t!at suc! sale is forbidden b# t!e Constitution and it as suc! opinion t!at pro"pted t!e legislati&e "easure intended to clarif# t!at "ortgage is not it!in t!e constitutional pro!ibition. 7e are satisfied, !oe&er, t!at aliens are not co"pletel# e+cluded b# t!e Constitution fro" t!e use of lands for residential purposes. Since t!eir residence in t!e P!ilippines is te"porar#, t!e# "a# be granted te"porar# rig!ts suc! as a lease contract !ic! is not forbidden b# t!e Constitution. S!ould t!e# desire to re"ain !ere fore&er and s!are our fortunes and "isfortunes, ilipino citiEens!ip is not i"possible to ac%uire. or all t!e foregoing, e !old t!at under t!e Constitution aliens "a# not ac%uire pri&ate or public agricultural lands, including residential lands, and, accordingl#, judg"ent is affir"ed, it!out costs.
EPIFANIA SARSOSA -DA. DE BARSOBIA PACITA W. -ALLAR &s -ICTORIANO T. C3ENCO G.R. No. L?1. A!ri& /@ /0 FACTS4 T!e lot in contro&ers# is a oneH!alf portion )on t!e nort!ern side* of to adjoining parcels of coconut land located at arrio Mancapagao, Saga#, Ca"iguin, Misa"is riental )no Ca"iguin pro&ince*. T!e entire land as oned pre&iousl# b# a certain Leocadia alisado, !o !ad sold it to t!e spouses Patricio arsobia )no deceased* and 2pifania Sarsosa, !o ere ilipino citiEens. 2pifania !o as t!en a ido, sold t!e land in contro&ers# to a C!inese, ng Ning Po !o later too@ actual possession and enjo#ed t!e fruits of t!e propert#. ng Ning Po later litigated t!e propert# to 3ictoriano Cuenco, a naturaliEed ilipino !o i""ediatel# too@ possession of t!e propert#. 2pifania later usurped t!e contro&erted propert# !o later sold oneH!alf of t!e propert# to Pacita 3allar. 2pifania clai"ed t!at it as not !er intention to sell t!e propert# as it as onl# to e&idence !er indebtedness to ng Ning Po.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition Cuenco t!en filed a case for orcible 2ntr# against 2pifania before t!e MTC !ic! as later dis"issed since t!e %uestion of possession could not be properl# deter"ined it!out first settling t!e issue on oners!ip. Cuenco later filed a case in t!e C for reco&er# of possession and oners!ip of t!e said land. T!e C rendered a decision in fa&or of 2pifania and 3allar. T!e CA later re&ersed t!e Decision decreeing instead t!at Cuenco as t!e oner of t!e litigated propert#.
ISS3E4 7!o is t!e rig!tful oner of t!e propert#8 C3ENCO. HELD4 No !ri)%te &%nds s#%&& ;e tr%ns"erred or on)eyed to %&iens. T!ere s!ould be no %uestion t!at t!e sale of t!e land in %uestion in -;/ b# 2pifania to ng Ning Po as ine+istent and &oid fro" t!e beginning, because it as a contract e+ecuted against t!e "andator# pro&ision of t!e -;4 Constitution, !ic! is an e+pression of public polic# to conser&e lands for t!e ilipinos. (ad t!is been a suit beteen 2pifania and ng Ning Po, s!e could !a&e been declared entitled to t!e litigated land. ut t!e factual setHup !as c!anged. T!e litigated propert# is no in t!e !ands of a naturaliEed ilipino. t is no longer oned b# a dis%ualified &endee. Respondent, as a naturaliEed citiEen, as constitutionall# %ualified to on t!e subject propert#. T!ere ould be no "ore public polic# to be ser&ed in alloing petitioner 2pifania to reco&er t!e land as it is alread# in t!e !ands of a %ualified person. 7!ile, strictl# spea@ing, ng Ning Po, pri&ate respondent6s &endor, !ad no rig!ts of oners!ip to trans"it, it is li@eise inescapable t!at petitioner 2pifania !ad slept on !er rig!ts for / #ears fro" -;/ to -/. # !er long inaction or ine+cusable neglect, s!e s!ould be !eld barred fro" asserting !er clai" to t!e litigated propert#. Respondent, t!erefore, "ust be declared to be t!e rig!tful oner of t!e propert#.
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )s. INTER+EDIATE APPELLATE CO3RT@ G3ILLER+O GON8AL-ES G.R. No. /1 *&y /@ /00
Respondent contended t!at t!e con&e#ances to C!ua Ni" ere "ade !ile !e as still an alien, i.e., prior to !is ta@ing oat! as a naturaliEed P!ilippine citiEen on Januar# ?, -??, at a ti"e !en !e as dis%ualified to ac%uire oners!ip of land in t!e P!ilippines )ART V, S2C. 4, -;4 ConstitutionK ART. V3, Sec. ->, -?; Constitution*K !ence, !is asserted titles are null and &oid.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e registration of t!e lots under t!e na"e of C!ua Ni" as &alid. 5ES HELD4 Con)ey%ne o" residenti%& &%nd to %n %&ien !rior to #is %,*isition o" Fi&i!ino itiMens#i! ;y n%t*r%&iM%tion is )%&id . e t!is as it "a#, t!e ac%uisition b# C!ua Ni" of P!ilippine citiEens!ip s!ould foreclose an# furt!er debate regarding t!e title to t!e propert# in contro&ers#, in line it! t!is Court6s rulings relati&e to persons si"ilarl# situated. n Sarsosa 3da. de arsobia &. Cuenco, --; SCRA 4>?, for instance, t!e ruling as as follos: ...T!e litigated propert# is no in t!e !ands of a naturaliEed ilipino. t is no longer oned b# a dis%ualified &endee. Respondent, as a naturaliEed citiEen, as constitutionall# %ualified to on t!e subject propert#. T!ere ould be no "ore public polic# to be ser&ed in alloing petitioner 2pifania to reco&er t!e land as it is alread# in t!e !ands of a %ualified person.
T#e &ots in ,*estion =ere on)eyed to Gregorio Reyes 3y 3n in Deem;er /0@ so /0 onstit*tion is not %!!&i%;&e. Plainl#, t!e con&e#ances ere "ade before t!e -;4 Constitution ent into effect, i.e., at a time =#en t#ere =%s no
!ro#i;ition %g%inst %,*isition o" !ri)%te %gri*&t*r%& &%nds ;y %&iens. regorio Re#es =# =n t!erefore ac%uired good title to t!e lands t!us purc!ased b# !i", and !is oners!ip as not at all affected eit!er: b# t!e principle subse%uentl# enunciated in t!e -;4 Constitution t!at aliens ere incapacitated to ac%uire lands in t!e countr#, since t!at constitutional principle !as no retrospecti&e application, or b# !is and !is successor6s o"ission to procure t!e registration of t!e propert# prior to t!e co"ing into effect of t!e Constitution.
FACTS4 T!e case principall# concerns C!ua Ni" =# [ Teng e, !o beca"e a naturaliEed ilipino citiEen in -??. C!ua Ni" as t!e adopted son of regorio Re#es =# =n. 7!en regorio Re#es =# =n died, !is adopted son C!ua Ni", too@ possession of t!e properties ac%uired b# !i" in -;>. C!ua Ni" filed a petition for t!e issuance of confir"ation and registration of title of t!e lots to !is na"e. (is petition as granted b# t!e C of IueEon. T!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines, t!roug! t!e Solicitor eneral, c!allenged t!e correctness of t!e rder and appealed it to t!e Court of Appeals. (oe&er, CA affir"ed RTC's ruling. (ence t!is appeal.
42
C#*% (im %,*ired t#e &ots t#ro*g# s*ession in /0. Since t!e deat! of regorio Re#es =# =n in San $arciso, IueEon, in ->/, C!ua Ni" [ =# Teng e !ad been in continuous possession of t!e lands in concept of oner, as t!e putati&e !eir of !is adopti&e fat!er it!out protest !ate&er fro" an# person. $ote: C!ua Ni" because a naturaliEed ilipino citiEen onl# on Januar# -??. t as indeed C!ua Ni"6s being in possession of t!e propert# in concept of oner, and !is status as adopted son of regorio Re#es, t!at ere t!e factors t!at caused !is in&ol&e"ent in Ci&il Case $o. CH;<4 of t!e C at Calauag, IueEon, at t!e instance of t!e original parties t!ereto, and !is participation in t!e Co"pro"ise Agree"ent later e+ecuted b# all parties. As alread#
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition "entioned, t!at co"pro"ise agree"ent, appro&ed b# judg"ent rendered on Jul# , -?0, i"plicit# recogniEed C!ua Ni"6s title to t!e lands in %uestion.
43
on a defect in t!e contract !ic! in&alidates it independentl# of suc! lesion or da"ages.
ONG CHING PO )s CA %nd SOLEDAD PARIAN G.R. Nos. //? Deem;er 1@ /00
SOCORRO -AS73E8 &s.LI SENG GIAP %nd LI SENG GIAP SONS G.R. No. L?@ %n*%ry /@ /0
FACTS4 Spouses Soledad Parian and ng 9ee boug!t a parcel
FACTS4 3as%ueE sold and transferred to Li Seng iap, t#en C#inese itiMen, a parcel of land toget!er it! a !ouse in Tondo,
of land in undidor Street, San $icolas fro" ng Joi Jong. T!e transfer as in a notariEed Deed of Sale and as also registered )2+!ibit A*. Subse%uentl#, ng 9ee died.
Manila. n ->0: Li Seng iap sold and transferred unto Li Seng iap Sons, nc., !ose s!are!oldings t!en ere oned b# C!inese citiEens, t!e propert#, toget!er it! t!e i"pro&e"ents t!ereon, and dul# registered under a TCT. Li Seng iap as dul# naturaliEed as a ilipino citiEen on /0/, Li Seng iap Sons, nc. is no= a ilipino corporation, /./? per cent of its stoc@ being oned b# ilipinos, and dul# aut!oriEed b# its articles of incorporation to on, ac%uire or dispose of real properties. 3as%ueE filed an action to rescind t!e s ale on t!e ground t!at t!e Li Seng iap as an alien and under t!e Constitution incapable to on and !old title to lands. T!e Court rendered judg"ent dis"issing t!e co"plaint it! cost against 3as%ueE.
ISS3E: 7$ Li Seng iap Sons, nc. is alloed to ac%uire t!e propert#. 5ES. HELD4 T#e s*;se,*ent n%t*r%&iM%tion o" Gi%! %nd tr%ns"er to % Fi&i!ino or!or%tion *red t#e de"et. T!e "ajorit# of t!e Court !as ruled t!at in Sales of real estate to aliens incapable of !olding title t!ereto b# &irtue of t!e pro&isions of t!e Constitution bot! t!e &endor and t!e &endee are dee"ed to !a&e co""itted t!e constitutional &iolation and being t!us in pari elicto t!e courts ill not afford protection to eit!er part#. 3as%ueE argued t!at if at t!e ti"e of t!e con&e#ance of t!e real propert# iap as incapable of !olding title to suc! real estate, t!e contract of sale as null or &oid and "a# be annulled, and !is subse%uent naturaliEation as a ilipino citiEen cannot retroact to t!e date of t!e con&e#ance to "a@e it laful and &alid. (oe&er, if t!e ban on aliens fro" ac%uiring not onl# agricultural but also urban lands, as construed b# t!is Court in t!e Nri&en@o case, is to preser&e t!e nation6s lands for future generations of ilipinos, t#%t %im or !*r!ose =o*&d not ;e t#=%rted ;*t
%#ie)ed ;y m%ing &%="*& t#e %,*isition o" re%& est%te ;y %&iens =#o ;e%me Fi&i!ino itiMens ;y n%t*r%&iM%tion. T!e title to t!e parcel of land of t!e iap, a naturaliEed ilipino citiEen, being &alid t!at of t!e do"estic corporation to !ic! t!e parcel of land !as been transferred, "ust also be &alid, /./? per cent of its capital stoc@ being oned b# ilipinos.
Soledad filed unlaful detainer against !er brot!erHinHla ng C!ing Po contending t!at s!e entrusted t!e ad"inistration of t!e !ouse to ng C!ing Po !ile t!e spouses ere residing in loHilo but !en !er !usband ng 9ee died, s!e as@ed ng C!ing Po to lea&e t!e !ouse. n t!e ot!er !and, ng C!ing Po filed an action of recon&e#ance and da"ages against Soledad contending t!at !e !as t!e rig!t o&er t!e land because ng Joi Jong sold it to !i". T!e Deed of Sale )2+!ibit * presented b# ng C!ing Po sa#s t!at t!e reason !# t!e title is constituted in t!e na"e of Soledad as t!at ng C!ing Po as not #et a ilipino citiEen.
ISS3E4 W#i# o" t#e t=o Deed o" S%&es #%s more !ro;%ti)e )%&*e So&ed%d P%ri%n:s or Ong C#ing Po:s2 HELD4 t is t!e Deed of Sale in fa&or of Soledad Parian t!at "ust be gi&en &alue. 7e cannot go along it! t!e clai" t!at petitioner ng C!ing Po "erel# used pri&ate respondent as a du""# to !a&e t!e title o&er t!e parcel of land registered in !er na"e because being an alien !e as dis%ualified to on real propert# in t!e P!ilippines. To sustain suc! an outrageous contention ould be gi&ing a !ig! pre"iu" to a &iolation of our nationaliEation las. Petitioner ng C!ing Po as a C!inese citiEenK t!erefore, !e as dis%ualified fro" ac%uiring and oning real propert#. Assu"ing t!at t!e genuineness and due e+ecution of 2+!ibit 11 !as been establis!ed, t!e sa"e is null and &oid, it being contrar# to la. n t!e ot!er !and, t!e Deed of Sale presented b# Soledad Parian is dul# notariEed docu"ent.
Ot#er iss*es4 W%s t#e s%&e m%de =it# d*e onsider%tion 9es it appears t!at t!e price for t!e land as paid out of Soledad Parian and ng 9ee's conjugal funds. Suc! transaction is a co""on practice in ilipinoHfa"il# affairs.
W%s t#ere de&i)ery 9es. 2&en t!oug! t!ere as no p!#sical possession of t!e spouses because t!e# ere residing in loHilo, under Article ->< of t!e Ci&il Code of t!e P!ilippines, 1!en t!e sale is "ade t!roug! a public instru"ent, t!e e+ecution t!ereof s!all be e%ui&alent to t!e deli&er# of t!e object of t!e contract, if fro" t!e deed t!e contrar# does not appear or cannot clearl# be inferred.1
Ation "or %nn*&ment not Resission T!e action is not of rescission because it is not postulated upon an# of t!e grounds pro&ided for in Article -- of t!e old Ci&il Code and because t!e action of rescission in&ol&es lesion or da"age and see@s to repair it. t is an %tion "or %nn*&ment under C!apter 3, Title , oo@ , on nullit# of contracts, based
ALFRED FRIT8 FREN8EL )s. EDERLINA P. CATITO G.R. No. /0. *&y //@ 11 FACTS4 Petitioner Alfred ritE renEel is an Australian citiEen of er"an descent. (e is an electrical engineer b# profession, but
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition or@ed as a pilot it! t!e $e uinea Airlines. (e arri&ed in t!e P!ilippines in -?>, started engaging in business in t!e countr# to #ears t!ereafter, and "arried Teresita Santos, a ilipino citiEen. n -<-, Alfred and Teresita separated fro" bed and board it!out obtaining a di&orce. So"eti"e in ebruar# -<;, Alfred arri&ed in S#dne#, Australia for a &acation. (e ent to Ning6s Cross, a nig!t spot in S#dne#, for a "assage !ere !e "et respondent 2derlina Catito, a ilipina and a nati&e of ajada, Da&ao Cit#. =n@non to Alfred, s!e resided for a ti"e in er"an# and as "arried to Nlaus Muller, a er"an national. S!e left er"an# and tried !er luc@ in S#dne#, Australia, !ere s!e found e"plo#"ent as a "asseuse in t!e Ning6s Cross nig!tclub. Alfred folloed 2derlina to t!e P!ilippines !ere t!e# co!abited toget!er in a co""onHla relations!ip. During t!e period of t!eir co""onHla relations!ip, Alfred ac%uired in t!e P!ilippines real and personal properties &alued "ore or less at P?>,000.00. Since Alfred @ne t!at as an alien !e as dis%ualified fro" oning lands in t!e P!ilippines, !e agreed t!at onl# 2derlina6s na"e ould appear in t!e deeds of sale as t!e bu#er of t!e real properties, as ell as in t!e title co&ering t!e s a"e. Alfred and 2derlina6s relations!ip deteriorated. Alfred rote 2derlina6s fat!er co"plaining t!at 2derlina !ad ta@en all !is life sa&ings and because of t!is, !e as &irtuall# penniless. (e furt!er accused t!e Catito fa"il# of ac%uiring for t!e"sel&es t!e properties !e !ad purc!ased it! !is on "one#. (e de"anded t!e return of all t!e a"ounts t!at 2derlina and !er fa"il# !ad 1stolen1 and turn o&er all t!e properties ac%uired b# !i" and 2derlina during t!eir co&erture. Alfred filed a co"plaint against 2derlina it! t!e Regional Trial Court, Da&ao Cit#, for specific perfor"ance, declaration of oners!ip of real and personal properties, su" of "one#, and da"ages.
44
t!e purc!ase of t!e parcels of land ould be sub&ersi&e of public polic#.
+3LLER ). +3LLER G.R. No. /0/ A*g*st 0@ 11 FACTS4 Petitioner 2lena uena&entura Muller and respondent (el"ut Muller ere "arried in (a"burg, er"an# on Septe"ber , -<. T!e couple resided in er"an# at a !ouse oned b# respondent's parents but decided to "o&e and reside per"anentl# in t!e P!ilippines in -.
# t!is ti"e, respondent !ad in!erited t!e !ouse in er"an# fro" !is parents !ic! !e sold and used t!e proceeds for t!e purc!ase of a parcel of land in Antipolo, RiEal at t!e cost of P4<,000.00 and t!e construction of a !ouse a"ounting to P,;00,000.00.
T!e Antipolo propert# as registered in t!e na"e of petitioner under Transfer Certificate of Title $o. ->;< 4 of t!e Register of Deeds of Mari@ina, Metro Manila.
Due to inco"patibilities and respondent's alleged o"aniEing, drin@ing, and "altreat"ent, t!e spouses e&entuall# separated.
n Septe"ber /, ->, respondent filed a petition for separation of properties before t!e Regional Trial Court of IueEon Cit#.
T!e trial court rendered judg"ent in fa&or of 2derlina. Alfred appealed t!e decision to t!e Court of Appeals !ic! affir"ed in toto t!e decision of t!e RTC. (ence, t!e present petition.
ISS3E4 7$ petitioner is entitled to reco&er t!e propert#. HELD4 $o. T!e Supre"e affir"ed t!e decision of t!e Court of Appeals. According to t!e Court, petitioner cannot feign ignorance of t!e constitutional proscription, nor clai" t!at !e acted in good fait!, let alone assert t!at !e is less guilt# t!an t!e respondent. Petitioner is full# aare t!at !e asdis%ualified fro" ac%uiring and oning lands under P!ilippine la e&en before !e purc!ased t!e properties in %uestionK and, to s@irt t!e constitutional pro!ibition, !e !ad t!e deed of sale placed under t!e respondent6s na"e as t!e sole &endee t!ereof. eing a part# to an illegal contract, petitioner cannot co"e into a court of la and as@ to !a&e !is illegal objecti&e carried out because one !o loses !is "one# or propert# b# @noingl# engaging in a contract or transaction !ic! in&ol&es !is on "oral turpitude "a# not "aintain an action for !is losses. To allo petitioner to reco&er t!e properties or t!e "one# used in
n August -, -/, t!e trial court rendered a decision !ic! ter"inated t!e regi"e of absolute co""unit# of propert# beteen t!e petitioner and respondent. t also decreed t!e separation of properties beteen t!e" and ordered t!e e%ual partition of personal properties located it!in t!e countr#, e+cluding t!ose ac%uired b# gratuitous title during t!e "arriage.
7it! regard to t!e Antipolo propert#, t!e court !eld t!at it as ac%uired using parap!ernal funds of t!e respondent. (oe&er, it ruled t!at respondent cannot reco&er !is funds because t!e propert# as purc!ased in &iolation of Section ?, Article V of t!e Constitution.
Respondent appealed to t!e Court of Appeals !ic! rendered t!e assailed decision "odif#ing t!e trial court's Decision. t !eld t!at respondent "erel# pra#ed for rei"burse"ent for t!e
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
45
purc!ase of t!e Antipolo propert#, and not ac%uisition or transfer of oners!ip to !i". t also considered petitioner's oners!ip o&er t!e propert# in trust for t!e respondent. As regards t!e !ouse, t!e Court of Appeals ruled t!at t!ere is not!ing in t!e Constitution !ic! pro!ibits respondent fro" ac%uiring t!e sa"e.
n Dece"ber -, -/?, t!e petitioner ceded t!e "ajor portion of a lot !ic! !e ac%uired b# purc!ase under t!e deed of sale in fa&or of !is engineer son, eli+ 9ap, !o as also a ilipino citiEen because of t!e ilipino citiEens!ip of !is "ot!er and t!e naturaliEation of !is fat!er Donato Re#es 9ap.
ISS3E4 7$ respondent is entitled to rei"burse"ent of t!e
Subse%uentl#, Lourdes Rico, aunt and coH!eir of respondent Jose A. Rico, son of "a+i"ino Rico, sold t!e re"aining portion of t!at lot to t!e petitioner !o !ad !is rig!ts.
funds used for t!e ac%uisition of t!e Antipolo propert#.
HELD4 $o. Respondent as aare of t!e constitutional pro!ibition and e+pressl# ad"itted !is @noledge t!ereof to t!is Court. (e declared t!at !e !ad t!e Antipolo propert# titled in t!e na"e of petitioner because of t!e said pro!ibition. (is atte"pt at subse%uentl# asserting or clai"ing a rig!t on t!e said propert# cannot be sustained. T!e Court of Appeals erred in !olding t!at an i"plied trust as created and resulted b# operation of la in &ie of petitioner's "arriage to respondent. Sa&e for t!e e+ception pro&ided in cases of !ereditar# succession, respondent's dis%ualification fro" oning lands in t!e P!ilippines is absolute. $ot e&en an oners!ip in trust is alloed. esides, !ere t!e purc!ase is "ade in &iolation of an e+isting statute and in e&asion of its e+press pro&ision, no trust can result in fa&or of t!e part# !o is guilt# of t!e fraud. To !old ot!erise ould allo circu"&ention of t!e constitutional pro!ibition.
n&o@ing t!e principle t!at a court is not onl# a court of la but also a court of e%uit#, is li@eise "isplaced. t !as been !eld t!at e%uit# as a rule ill follo t!e la and ill not per"it t!at to be done indirectl# !ic!, because of public polic#, cannot be done directl#. (e !o see@s e%uit# "ust do e%uit#, and !e !o co"es into e%uit# "ust co"e it! clean !ands. T!us, in t!e instant case, respondent cannot see@ rei"burse"ent on t!e ground of e%uit# !ere it is clear t!at !e illingl# and @noingl# boug!t t!e propert# despite t!e constitutional pro!ibition.
urt!er, t!e distinction "ade beteen transfer of oners!ip as opposed to reco&er# of funds is a futile e+ercise on respondent's part. To allo rei"burse"ent ould in effect per"it respondent to enjo# t!e fruits of a propert# !ic! !e is not alloed to on.
DONATO RE5ES 5AP %nd +ELITONA +ARA-ILLAS )s. HON. E8E(IEL S. GRAGEDA G.R. No. L?/1 +%r# @ /0
Donato Re#es 9ap, !as been in possession of t!e lots in %uestion since -;, openl#, publicl#, continuousl#, and ad&ersel# in t!e concept of oner until t!e present ti"e.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e sale of residential lot in %uestion to a C!inese national is null and &oid in spite of t!e fact t!at t!e &endee !ad been a naturaliEed born ilipino citiEen.
HELD4 T!e litigated propert# is no in t!e !ands of a naturaliEed ilipino. t is no longer oned b# a dis%ualified &endee. Respondent, as a naturaliEed citiEen, as constitutionall# %ualified to on t!e subject propert#. T!ere ould be no "ore public polic# to be ser&ed in alloing petitioner 2pifania to reco&er t!e land as it is alread# in t!e !ands of a %ualified person. Appl#ing b# analog# t!e ruling of t!is Court in 3as%ueE &s. iap and Leng Seng iap Sons: ... if t!e ban on aliens fro" ac%uiring not onl# agricultural but also urban lands, as construed b# t!is Court in t!e Nri&en@o case, is to preser&e t!e nation6s lands for future generations of ilipinos, t!at ai" or purpose ould not be t!arted but ac!ie&ed b# "a@ing laful t!e ac%uisition of real estate b# aliens !o beca"e ilipino citiEens b# naturaliEation.
-ICENTE GODINE8 )s. FONG PA( L3EN G.R. No. L?/ %n*%ry @ /0
FACTS4 T!e plaintiffs filed a case to reco&er a parcel of land sold b# t!eir fat!er Jose odineE to defendant ong Pa@ Luen. Said defendant e+ecuted a poer of attorne# in fa&our of !is coH defendant Nan Pun Ming, !o con&e#ed and sold t!e abo&e described parcel of land to coHdefendant Trinidad S. $a&ata.
$a&ata as aare of and it! full @noledge t!at ong Pa@ Luen is a C!inese citiEen as ell as Nan Pun Ming, !o under t!e la are pro!ibited and dis%ualified to ac%uire real propert#K t!at ong Pa@ Luen !as not ac%uired an# title or interest in said parcel of land as purported contract of sale e+ecuted b# Jose odineE alone as contrar# to la and considered nonHe+istent.
FACTS4 Ma+i"ino Rico e+ecuted a Deed of Absolute Sale in fa&or of t!e petitioner Donato Re#es 9ap !o as t!en a C!inese national. After t!e lapse of nearl# fifteen #ears fro" and after t!e e+ecution of t!e deed of absolute sale, Donato Re#es 9ap as ad"itted as a ilipino citiEen and alloed to ta@e !is oat! of allegiance to t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines.
T!e defendant filed !er anser t!at t!e co"plaint does not state a cause of action since it appears fro" t!e allegation t!at t!e propert# is registered in t!e na"e of Jose odineE so t!at as !is sole propert# !e "a# dispose of t!e sa"eK t!at t!e cause of
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition action !as been barred b# t!e s tatute of li"itations as t!e alleged docu"ent of sale e+ecuted b# Jose odineE on $o&e"ber ?, ->-, con&e#ed t!e propert# to defendant ong Pa@ Luen as a result of !ic! a title as issued to said defendantK t!at under Article -->>)-* of t!e Ci&il Code, an action based upon a ritten contract "ust be broug!t it!in -0 #ears fro" t!e ti"e t!e rig!t of action accruesK t!at t!e rig!t of action accrued on $o&e"ber ?, ->- but t!e co"plaint as filed onl# on Septe"ber ;0, -//, be#ond t!e -0H#ear period pro&ided b # la. T!e trial court issued an order dis"issing t!e co"plaint. A "otion for reconsideration as filed b# plaintiffs but as denied.
46
T!e RTC appro&ed reconstitution of t!e lost or destro#ed certificate of title in t!e na"e of Lee Liong on t!e basis of an appro&ed plan and tec!nical description. Solicitor eneral filed it! t!e Court of Appeals a petition for annul"ent of t!e RTC decision alleging t!at t!e RTC !ad no jurisdiction o&er t!e case. T!e Solicitor eneral contended t!at t!e petitioners ere not t!e proper parties in t!e reconstitution of title, since t!eir predecessorHinHinterest Lee Liong did not ac%uire title to t!e lot because !e as a C!inese citiEen and as constitutionall# not %ualified to on t!e subject land. CA declared t!e reconstitution &oid. (ence t!is petition.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e sale as null and &oid ab initio since it &iolates applicable pro&isions of t!e Constitution and t!e Ci&il Code.
HELD4 $o. Prescription "a# ne&er be in&o@ed to defend t!at !ic! t!e Constitution pro!ibits. (oe&er, e see no necessit# fro" t!e facts of t!is case to pass upon t!e nature of t!e contract of sale e+ecuted b# Jose odineE and ong Pa@ Luen !et!er &oid ab initio, illegal per se, or "erel# pro!ibited. t is enoug! to stress t!at insofar as t!e &endee is concerned, prescription is una&ailing. ut neit!er can t!e &endor or !is !eirs rel# on an argu"ent based on i"prescriptibilit# because t!e land sold in ->- is no in t!e !ands of a ilipino citiEen against !o" t!e constitutional prescription as ne&er intended to appl#.
2liEabet! and Pacita e"p!asiEed t!at t!e oners!ip of t!e land !ad been settled in to pre&ious cases of t!e Supre"e Court, !ere t!e Court ruled in fa&or of t!eir predecessorHinHinterest, Lee Liong. T!e# also pointed out t!at t!e# ac%uired oners!ip of t!e land t!roug! actual possession of t!e lot and t!eir consistent pa#"ent of ta+es o&er t!e land for "ore t!an si+t# #ears. n t!e ot!er !and, t!e Solicitor eneral sub"itted t!at t!e decision in t!e reconstitution case as &oidK ot!erise, it ould a"ount to circu"&enting t!e constitutional proscription against aliens ac%uiring oners!ip of pri&ate or public agricultural lands.
ISS3ES4 7$ Lee Liong !as t!e %ualification to on land in t!e P!ilippines. NO 7$ t!e reconstitution as &alid. NO
HELD4 Lee Liong as not %ualified but t!e oners!ip of t!e As earlier "entioned, ong Pa@ Luen, t!e dis%ualified alien &endee later sold t!e sa"e propert# to $a&ata, a ilipino citiEen %ualified to ac%uire real propert#.
$a&ata, as a naturaliEed citiEen, as constitutionall# %ualified to on t!e subject propert#.
LEE -S. DIRECTOR OF LANDS G.R. No. //0 Oto;er @ 11/ FACTS4 So"eti"e in Marc! -;/, t!e Dinglasans sold to Lee Liong )C!inese citiEen* a parcel of land situated at t!e corner of Ro+as A&enue and Pa&ia Street, Ro+as Cit#. n -;, 2liEabet! ManuelHLee and Pacita 9u Lee filed it! t!e RTC of Ro+as Cit# a petition for reconstitution of title of t!e lot. )Alleging t!at t!e transfer certificate of title issued to Lee Liong as lost or destro#ed during 7orld 7ar .* Petitioners 2liEabet! and Pacita alleged t!at t!e# ere t!e idos of t!e deceased Lee ing (oo and Lee un Ting, !o ere t!e !eirs of Lee Liong, t!e oner of t!e lot.
lot as alread# ac%uired b# ilipino citiEens Lee Liong as dis%ualified to ac%uire t!e land under t!e -;4 Constitution. T!e sale of t!e land in %uestion as consu""ated so"eti"e in Marc! -;/, during t!e effecti&it# of t!e -;4 Constitution. =nder t!e -;4 Constitution aliens could not ac%uire pri&ate agricultural lands, sa&e in cases of !ereditar# succession. T!us, Lee Liong, a C!inese citiEen, as dis%ualified to ac%uire t!e land in %uestion. T!e fact t!at t!e Court did not annul t!e sale of t!e land to an alien did not &alidate t!e transaction. t as still contrar# to t!e constitutional proscription against aliens ac%uiring lands of t!e public or pri&ate do"ain. T!e proper part# to assail t!e sale is t!e Solicitor eneral. T!is as !at as done in t!is case !en t!e Solicitor eneral initiated an action for annul"ent of judg"ent of reconstitution of title. 7!ile it too@ t!e Republic "ore t!an si+t# #ears to assert itself, it is not barred fro" initiating suc! action. Prescription ne&er lies against t!e State. T!e land is no in t!e !ands of ilipinos. T!e original &endee, Lee Liong, !as since died and t!e land !as been in!erited b# !is !eirs and subse%uentl# t!eir !eirs, petitioners !erein. Petitioners are ilipino citiEens, a fact t!e Solicitor eneral does not dispute.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition T!e constitutional proscription on alien oners!ip of lands of t!e public or pri&ate do"ain as intended to protect lands fro" falling in t!e !ands of nonHilipinos. n t!is case, !oe&er, t!ere ould be no "ore public polic# &iolated since t!e land is in t!e !ands of ilipinos %ualified to ac%uire and on suc! land.
As a result of a %uasiHreorganiEation of P(LS2C to settle its !uge obligations to P$, t!e $ational o&ern"ent6s s!are!oldings in P(LS2C increased to ?.>-5 t!ereb# reducing NA7ASAN6s s!are!oldings to .45.
Ff land is in&alidl# transferred to an alien !o subse%uentl# beco"es a citiEen or transfers it to a citiEen, t!e fla in t!e original transaction is considered cured and t!e title of t!e transferee is rendered &alid.G
After a series of negotiations beteen t!e APT and NA7ASAN, t!e# agreed t!at t!e latter6s rig!t of first r efusal under t!e J 3A be 1e+c!anged1 for t!e rig!t to top b# fi&e percent )45* t!e !ig!est bid for t!e said s!ares. T!e# furt!er agreed t!at NA7ASAN ould be entitled to na"e a co"pan# in !ic! it as a stoc@!older, !ic! could e+ercise t!e rig!t to top.
T!us, t!e subse%uent transfer of t!e propert# to %ualified ilipinos "a# no longer be i"pugned on t!e basis of t!e in&alidit# of t!e initial transfer. T!e objecti&e of t!e constitutional pro&ision to @eep our lands in ilipino !ands !as been ac!ie&ed.
n Septe"ber ?, -0, NA7ASAN infor"ed APT t!at P!il#ards (oldings, nc. )P(* ould e+ercise its rig!t to top.
ncidentall#, it "ust be "entioned t!at reconstitution of t!e original certificate of title "ust be based on an oner's duplicate, secondar# e&idence t!ereof, or ot!er &alid sources of t!e title to be reconstituted. Reconstitution as &oid for lac@ of factual support n t!is case, reconstitution as based on t!e plan and tec!nical description appro&ed b# t!e Land Registration Aut!orit#. T!is renders t!e order of reconstitution &oid for lac@ of factual support. A judg"ent it! absolutel# not!ing to support it is &oid. As earlier "entioned, a reconstitution of title is t!e reH issuance of a ne certificate of title lost or destro#ed in its original for" and condition. t does not pass upon t!e oners!ip of t!e land co&ered b# t!e lost or destro#ed title. An# c!ange in t!e oners!ip of t!e propert# "ust be t!e subject of a separate suit. T!us, alt!oug! petitioners are in possession of t!e land, a separate proceeding is necessar# to t!res! out t!e issue of oners!ip of t!e land. T!e SC Court R232RS2S and S2TS ASD2 t!e decision of t!e CA.
B. For Cor!or%tions G S3++IT -. CA G.R. No. /0 %n*%ry /@ 11 FACTS4 Januar# ?, -? H t!e $ational n&est"ent and De&elop"ent Corporation )$DC*, a go&ern"ent corporation, entered into a Joint 3enture Agree"ent )J3A* it! Naasa@i (ea&# ndustries, Ltd. of Nobe, Japan )NA7ASAN* for t!e construction, operation and "anage"ent of t!e Subic $ational S!ip#ard, nc. )S$S* !ic! subse%uentl# beca"e t!e P!ilippine S!ip#ard and 2ngineering Corporation )P(LS2C*. =nder t!e J3A, t!e $DC and NA7ASAN ill contribute P;;0 "illion for t!e capitaliEation of P(LS2C in t!e proportion of /05H>05 respecti&el#.
47
J S=MMT (LD$S, one of t!e bidders objected to t!is rig!t to top agree"ent. C$T2$T$ J S=MMT: T!at a s!ip#ard li@e P(LS2C is a public utilit# !ose capitaliEation "ust be si+t# percent )/05* ilipinoHoned. Conse%uentl#, t!e rig!t to top granted to NA7ASAN under t!e Asset Specific idding Rules )ASR* drafted for t!e sale of t!e 05 e%uit# in t!e s!ip#ard.
ISS3E4 7$ NA7ASAN !ad a &alid rig!t of first refusal o&er P(LS2C s!ares under t!e J3A, considering t!at P(LS2C oned land until t!e ti"e of t!e bidding and NA7ASAN alread# !eld >05 of P(LS2C's e%uit#. 5ES\
HELD4 T!e rig!t of first refusal is a propert# rig!t of P(LS2C s!are!olders, NA7ASAN and $DC, under t!e ter"s of t!eir J3A. T!is rig!t allos t!e" to purc!ase t!e s!ares of t!eir coHs!are!older before t!e# are offered to a t!ird part#. T!e agree"ent of coHs!are!olders to "utuall# grant t!is rig!t to eac! ot!er, b# itself, does not constitute a &iolation of t!e pro&isions of t!e Constitution li"iting land oners!ip to ilipinos and ilipino corporations. As P(L9ARDS correctl# puts it, if P(LS2C still ons land, t!e rig!t of first refusal can be &alidl# assigned to a %ualified ilipino entit# in order to "aintain t!e /05H>05 ratio. T!is transfer, b# itself, does not a"ount to a &iolation of t!e AntiHDu""# Las, absent proof of an# fraudulent intent. T!e transfer could be "ade eit!er to a no"inee or suc! ot!er part# !ic! t!e !older of t!e rig!t of first refusal feels it can co"fortabl# do business it!.
ne of its salient features is t!e grant to t!e parties of t!e rig!t of first refusal s!ould eit!er of t!e" decide to sell, assign or transfer its interest in t!e joint &enture.
Alternati&el#, P(LS2C "a# di&est of its land!oldings, in !ic! case NA7ASAN, in e+ercising its rig!t of first refusal, can e+ceed >05 of P(LS2C's e%uit#. n fact, it can e&en be said t!at if t!e foreign s!are!oldings of a land!olding c orporation e+ceeds >05, it is not t!e foreign stoc@!olders' oners!ip of t!e s!ares !ic! is ad&ersel# affected but t!e capacit# of t!e corporation to on landB t!at is, t!e corporation beco"es dis%ualified to on land. T!is finds support under t!e basic corporate la principle t!at t!e corporation and its stoc@!olders are separate juridical entities.
$o&e"ber 4, -
n t!is &ein, t!e rig!t of first refusal o&er s!ares pertains to t!e s!are!olders !ereas t!e capacit# to on land pertains to t!e
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition corporation. (ence, t!e fact t!at P(LS2C ons land cannot depri&e stoc@!olders of t!eir rig!t of first refusal. $o la dis%ualifies a person fro" purc!asing s!ares in a land!olding corporation e&en if t!e latter ill e+ceed t!e alloed foreign e%uit#, !at t!e la dis%ualifies is t!e corporation fro" oning land.
REGISTER OF DEEDS RI8AL -S. 3NG S3I SI TE+PLE G.R. No. L? +%y /@ /0 FACTS: T!e Register of Deeds for t!e pro&ince of RiEal refused to accept for record a deed of donation e+ecuted in due for" b# Jesus D#, a ilipino citiEen, con&e#ing a parcel of residential land, in Caloocan, RiEal in fa&or of t!e unregistered religious organiEation 1=ng Siu Si Te"ple1, operating t!roug! t!ree trustees all of C!inese nationalit#. T!e donation as dul# accepted b# 9u Juan, of C!inese nationalit#, founder and deaconess of t!e Te"ple, acting in representation and in be!alf of t!e latter and its trustees. 7!en ele&ated, t!e loer court up!eld t!e decision b# sa#ing t!at appearing fro" t!e record t!at =$ S= S T2MPL2 is a religious organiEation !ose deaconess, founder, trustees and ad"inistrator are all C!inese citiEens, t!is Court is of t!e opinion and so !old t!at in &ie of t!e pro&isions of t!e sections - and 4 of Article V of t!e Constitution of t!e P!ilippines li"iting t!e ac%uisition of land in t!e P!ilippines to its citiEens, or to corporations or associations at least si+t# per centu" of t!e capital stoc@ of !ic! is oned b# suc! citiEens adopted after t!e enact"ent of said Act $o. ?-, and t!e decision of t!e Supre"e Court in t!e case of Nri&en@o &s. t!e Register of Deeds of Manila, t!e deed of donation in %uestion s!ould not be ad"itted for ad"itted for registration. (ence, t!is appeal.
ISS3E4 7$ a deed of donation of a parcel of land e+ecuted in fa&or of a religious organiEation !ose founder, trustees and ad"inistrator are C!inese citiEens s!ould be registered or not.
HELD4 NO. T!e Constitution "a@es no e+ception in fa&or of religious associations. T!e Constitution pro&ides t!at FSa&e in cases of !ereditar# succession, no pri&ate agricultural land s!all be transferred or assigned e+cept to indi&iduals, corporations or associations %ualified to ac%uire or !old lands of t!e public do"ain in t!e P!ilippines.G $eit!er is t!ere an# suc! sa&ing found in sections - and of Article V, restricting t!e ac%uisition of public agricultural lands and ot!er natural resources to 1corporations or associations at least si+t# per centu" of t!e capital of !ic! is oned b# suc! citiEens1 )of t!e P!ilippines*. T!e purpose of t!e si+t# per centu" re%uire"ent is ob&iousl# to ensure t!at corporations or associations alloed to ac%uire agricultural land or to e+ploit natural resources s!all be controlled b# ilipinos. T!e fact t!at t!e appellant religious organiEation !as no capital stoc@ does not suffice to escape t!e Constitutional
48
in!ibition, since it is ad"itted t!at its "e"bers are of foreign nationalit#. T!e purpose of t!e si+t# per centu" re%uire"ent is ob&iousl# to ensure t!at corporations or associations alloed to ac%uire agricultural land or to e+ploit natural resources s!all be controlled b# ilipinosK and t!e spirit of t!e Constitution de"ands t!at in t!e absence of capital stoc@, t!e controlling "e"bers!ip s!ould be co"posed of ilipino citiEens. To per"it religious associations controlled b# nonHilipinos to ac%uire agricultural lands ould be to dri&e t!e opening edge to re&i&e alien religious land !oldings in t!is countr#.
RO+AN CATHOLIC AD+INISTRATOR OF DA-AO -S. LRC G.R. NO. L?/ DECE+BER 1@ /0 FACTS4 Mateo Rodis, a ilipino citiEen and resident of Da&ao Cit#, e+ecuted a deed of sale of a parcel of land in Da&ao Cit# in fa&our of t!e Ro"an Cat!olic Apostolic Ad"inistrator of Da&ao, nc. )RCAAD nc.*. RCAAD, nc. is a corporation sole organiEed in accordance it! P!ilippine las, it! Msgr. Clo&is T!ibault, a Canadian national, as actual incu"bent )or ad"inistrator*. T!e Register of Deeds )RD* Da&ao re%uired t!e said corporation to sub"it an affida&it declaring t!at /0 per cent of t!e "e"bers t!ereof are ilipino CitiEens for purposes of registration. n t!e re%uired affida&it, RCAAD nc. said t!at t!e totalit# of t!e Cat!olic Population of Da&ao ould beco"e t!e oner of t!e propert# boug!t to be registered. RD being doubtful as to t!e registerabilit#' of t!e land, t!e "atter as referred to t!e Land Registration Co""ission )LRC*. After proper !earing, LRC rendered a resolution !olding t!at t!e &endee RCAAD nc. as not %ualified to ac%uire pri&ate lands in t!e P!ilippines in t!e absence of confor"it# to t!e constitutional re%uire"ent of at least /05 of t!e capital, propert#, or assets belonging to a ilipino CitiEen, as postulated under Sections - and 4 of Article < of t!e Constitution. T!at it is not oned b# t!e ilipino CitiEens but rat!er t!e onl# incu"bent Msgr. T!ibault !o is a Canadian CitiEen, !ence, t!e denial of registration of t!e subject propert# to RD Da&ao. A "otion for reconsideration as filed but later denied. Subse%uentl#, an action for "anda"us before t!e SC is filed. RCAAD nc. alleges t!at under t!e Corporation La as ell as t!e settled jurisprudence on t!e "atter, petitioner is %ualified to ac%uire pri&ate lands for t!e establis!"ent and "aintenance of places of ors!ip. T!at b# ac%uiring pri&ate lands, t!e petitioner is not considered t!e oner but rat!er a "ere ad"inistrator. T!at t!ere are "ore t!an <05 of ilipino CitiEens !o are Ro"an Cat!olic in Da&ao as per t!e ureau of Census' records !ic! signifies t!at t!e "entioned constitutional re%uire"ent !as been full# satisfied. n t!e ot!er !and, respondent a&erred t!at t!oug! t!e petitioner does not on t!e land, #et !e !as control o&er t!e sa"e. 7it! full poer to ad"inister, alienate, encu"ber, and sell or dispose of t!ereb# e+ercising all rig!ts of oners!ip on t!e propert#. Also, respondents sa# t!at a conglo"eration of people cannot just be pointed out as t!e recipient beneficiaries of t!e Cat!olic C!urc!. T!is setHup, according to t!e petitioners, falls s!ort of trust.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition ISS3E: 7$ t!e petitioner RCAAD nc. is %ualified to on pri&ate agricultural lands in t!e P!ilippines pursuant to t!e pro&isions of Article < of t!e Constitution8 5ES
HELD4 =nder t!e circu"stances of t!e present case, it is safe to state t!at e&en before t!e establis!"ent of t!e P!il. Co""onealt! and of t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines e&er# corporation sole )special for" of corporation usuall# associated it! clerg#*t!en organiEed and registered !ad b# e+press pro&ision of la, t!e Corporation La or Public Act $o. ->4, t!e necessar# poer and %ualification to purc!ase in its na"e pri&ate lands located in t!e territor# in !ic! it e+ercised its functions or "inistr#. A corporation sole is created not onl# to ad"inister c!urc! properties but also to !old and trans"it t!e sa"e to !is successor in said office. T!at t!e Ro"an Cat!olic Apostolic C!urc! of t!e Constitution !as no nationalit# and did not !a&e in "ind t!e religious corporation sole !en t!e# pro&ided t!at /05 of t!e capital t!ereof be oned b# ilipino CitiEens. T!us, if t!is constitutional pro&ision ere not intended for corporation sole, it is ob&ious t!at t!is could not be regulated or restricted b# said pro&ision. Corporation soles cannot be considered aliens because t!e# !a&e no nationalit# at all. n deter"ining, t!erefore, !et!er t!e constitutional pro&ision re%uiring /0 5 ilipino capital is applicable to corporations sole, t!e nationalit# of t!e constituents of t!e diocese, and not t!e nationalit# of t!e actual incu"bent of t!e paris!, "ust be ta@en into consideration. n t!e case at bar, e&en if t!e %uestion of nationalit# be considered, t!e afore"entioned constitutional re%uire"ent is full# "et and satisfied considering t!at t!e corporation sole in %uestion )RCAAD nc.* is co"posed of an o&er!el"ing "ajorit# of ilipinos. 7it! t!ese, t!e LRC resolution !ic! !olds t!at t!e petitioner corporation sole is not %ualified to ac%uire pri&ate land is !ereb# re&ersed. T!e RD is ordered to register t!e deed of sale subject of t!e litigation.
3NITED CH3RCH BOARD FOR WORLD +INISTRIES@ %s o=ner o" BRO(ENSHIRE +E+ORIAL HOSPITAL &s. HON. 3DGE ALEANDRO E. SEBASTIAN@ %s Presiding *dge o" t#e CFI o" D%)%o de& Norte@ %nd +ELENCIO B. DELENA %nd +A3RO GE+ENTI8A %s Co?EJe*tors o" t#e Test%te Est%te o" DA-ID@ %o;son CRUZ, J.:
FACTS4 Da&id Jacobson as an A"erican citiEen !o !ad been a resident of t!e P!ilippines for "ore t!an t!irt# #ears and up to t!e ti"e of !is deat! in -?0. (e left a ill in !ic! !e 1de&ised and be%ueat!ed1 to t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital /05 of !is s!ares of stoc@s in t!e Tagdangua Plantation Co., inc. !ic! as incorporated under P!ilippine la in -><. T!is corporation as t!e registered oner of a tract of land in Pantu!an Da&ao del $orte, it! a total area of about >>4 !ectares ac%uired b# &irtue of a sales patent issued to it in -4;. Judge Sebastian disalloed t!e abo&eHdescribed legac# on t!e ground t!at it as in effect an alienation of pri&ate agricultural
49
land in fa&or of a transferee !ic! as not %ualified under t!e Constitution of -;4. T!e finding as t!at t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital as oned b# t!e =nited C!urc! oard for 7orld Ministries )=C7M* !ic! as a nonHstoc@ corporation organiEed in t!e =nited States b# &irtue of a c!arter granted b# t!e state legislature of Massac!ussets . T!e basis of t!is ruling as Article V, Sections and 4 of t!e -;4 Constitution, !ic! barred foreigners, including A"ericans, fro" ac%uiring agricultural lands in t!is countr# e+cept onl# b# !ereditar# succession. =nited C!urc! ca"e to t!is Court, contending t!at t!e constitutional pro&isions ere not applicable because t!e object of t!e legac# as not land but s!ares of stoc@s. Moreo&er, e&en assu"ing t!at !at as reall# in&ol&ed as a transfer of land, t!e petitioner as nonet!eless %ualified to ac%uire it under t!e pro&isions of t!e Parit# A"end"ent and t!e LaurelHLangle# Agree"ent. T!e Solicitor eneral disagreed at first, insisting t!at t!e legac# as pro!ibited b# t!e -;4 Constitution and did not co"e under an# of t!e alloed e+ceptions. During t!e protracted e+c!ange of pleadings a"ong t!e parties, !oe&er, certain e&ents transpired to considerabl# c!ange t!e original situation and, conse%uentl#, also t!e position of go&ern"ent. T!e docu"ents sub"itted in t!is case t!at at t!e ti"e t!e ill as e+ecuted in -//, t!e land on !ic! t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital as situated as alread# registered in t!e na"e of t!e Mindanao District Conference, an affiliate of t!e =nited C!urc! of C!rist in t!e P!ilippines )P=CC*. t as t!is nonHstoc@ corporation, organiEed in -> under P!ilippine la it! a -005 ilipino "e"bers!ip, t!at oned and as operating t!e (ospital at t!e ti"e of Jacobson6s deat!. Later, t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital as itself incorporated as a c!aritable institution, it! ilipinos constituting t!e "ajorit# of its "e"bers!ip, and on Dece"ber -/,-?0, beca"e t!e successorH inHinterest of t!e =CCP to t!e de&ised parcel of land. To pro&e t!ese ro@ens!ire presented t!e articles of incorporation of t!e =CCP and t!e (ospital and t!eir corresponding certificates of registration issued b# t!e Securities and 2+c!ange Co""ission, t!e licenses issued b# t!e oard of Medical Sciences for t!e operation of t!e (ospital to t!e =CCP fro" -/< to -? and to t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital, nc. fro" -?; to -?>, and t!e certificate of title o&er t!e subject land in t!e na"e of t!e 1Mindanao District Conference, co""onl# @non as t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital.1 T!ese facts ere not broug!t earlier to t!e attention of t!e probate court b# t!e for"er counsel of t!e (ospital, Att#. Juan 3. aune for reasons t!at do not appear in t!e record. t as for suc! o"ission )t!e ne counsel ould call it 1"isrepresentation1* t!at Att#. aune as replaced b# Att#. Rodolfo D. de la CruE, !o disa&oed !is predecessor6s representations. At an# rate, t!e abo&eHstated docu"ents !a&e no "ade it clear t!at t!e =nited C!urc! for C!rist in t!e P!ilippines and not t!e =nited C!urc! oard for 7orld Ministries as t!e oner of t!e (ospital at t!e ti"e of t!e e+ecution of t!e in in -// and of t!e testator6s deat! in -?0. t is also not disputed t!at suc! oners!ip passed to t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital itself upon its incorporation in -?0 !en it t!us beca"e t!e proper part#HinHinterest to clai" t!e propert# directl# de&ised b# Jacobson to it.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition ISS3E4 Ma# ro@ens!ire be registered as t!e o ner8 92S HELD4 2&en on t!e assu"ption t!at t!e =C7$ as reall# t!e oner of t!e (ospital at t!e ti"e of t!e effecti&it# of t!e ill and t!at t!e de&ise as for t!at reason unenforceable, t!e defect in t!e ill s!ould be dee"ed rectified b# t!e subse%uent transfer of t!e propert# to t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital, nc. ur consistent ruling on t!is "atter is t!at if land is in&alidl# transferred to an alien !o subse%uentl# beco"es a citiEen or transfers it to a ctitiEen, t!e fla in t!e original transaction is considered cured and t!e title of t!e transferee is rendered &alid. T!us,in Sarsosa &da. de arsobia &. Cuenco, !ere a ilipino citiEen sold !er land to an alien !o later sold it to a ilipino, e !eld t!at t!e in&alidit# of t!e initial transfer to t!e alien as corrected b# t!e subse%uent transfer of t!e propert# to a citiEen. A si"ilar ruling as "ade in odineE &. ong Pa@ Luen, in&ol&ing a si"ilar set of facts, !ere e also cited 3as%ueE &. Li Seng iap, and (errera &. Lu# Ning uan. n 9ap &. Mara&illas, e &alidated t!e sale of agricultural land to an alien !o, after t!e purc!ase, as naturaliEed as a ilipino and so beca"e %ualified to ac%uire it. T!e facts ere slig!tl# different in De Castro &. Teng, !ere, upon t!e deat! of an alien !o !ad purc!ased a residential lot, !is !eirs entered into an e+trajudicial partition of !is estate and transferred t!e land to one of !is sons !o as a naturaliEed ilipino. 7e also sustained t!e sale. 7(2R2R2, t!e ro@ens!ire Me"orial (ospital, nc. is !ereb# substituted for t!e =nited C!urc! oard for 7orld Ministries as petitioner in t!is case and D2CLAR2D to be %ualified to accept t!e legac# of t!e late Da&id Jacobson. T!e petition as t!us "odified is RA$T2D. T!e order of t!e respondent judge dated Dece"ber , -?-, and !is Resolution dated Dece"ber , -?-, are S2T ASD2. T!is decision is i""ediatel# e+ecutor#. $o costs.
50
After notice and publication, and t!ere being no opposition to t!e application, t!e trial court issued an order of general default. n August 4, -<-, t!e court rendered its decision adjudicating t!e subject lots in o"eE et al's fa&or. T!e decision beca"e final and e+ecutor# !ence t!e court directed t!e C!ief of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice )LR* to issue t!e corresponding decrees of registration o&er t!e lots adjudicated. LR C!ief Sil&erio PereE opposed t!e adjudication and petitioned for its setting aside. (e disco&ered t!at t!e - parcels of land ere for"erl# part of a titled land !ic! as alread# granted b# !o"estead patent in -. =nder t!e la, land alread# granted b# !o"estead patent can no longer be t!e subject of anot!er registration. T!e loer court granted Sil&erio's reco""endation. o"eE et al in&o@ed Sec. ;0 and ; of PD -4 )Land Registration Act* !ic! pro&ides t!at after judg"ent !as beco"e final and e+ecutor#, t!e court s!all fort!it! issue an order to t!e Co""issioner of Land Registration for t!e issuance of t!e decree of registration and certificate of title. T!at once t!e judg"ent beco"es final and e+ecutor# under Sec ;0, t!e decree of registration "ust issue as a "atter of course.
ISS3E4 -.
.
7!et!er or not to set aside t!e loer court's initial ruling on appro&ing t!e adjudication e&en after it !ad beca"e final and e+ecutor#. 5ES 7!et!er or not t!e respondents Acting Land Registration Co""issioner and 2ngr. Sil&erio PereE, C!ief, Di&ision of riginal Registration, Land Registration Co""ission, !a&e no alternati&e but to issue t!e decrees of registration pursuant to t!e decision of 4 August -<- and t!e order for issuance of decrees, dated / ctober -<-, t!eir dut# to do so being purel# "inisterial. $
HELD4 NAT3RE OF D3T5 TO ISS3E DECREE4 +INISTERIAL ATT5. OSE S. GO+E8@ DELFINA GO+E8 ESTRADA@ ENRI73ITA GO+E8 O6CIANO@ BENITA GO+E8 GARLITOS@ RE5NALDO GO+E8 ESPEO@ AR+ANDO GO+E8@ ERLINDA GO+E8 G3ICO@ E3GENIA GO+E8 CALICDAN@ A83CENA GO+E8 ORENCIA@ TEODORO S. GO+E8@ R.@ %nd ALEO S. GO+E8 no= dee%sed2 re!resented ;y #is =i"e@ LETICIA 5. GO+E8@ %nd #i&dren@ n%me&y@ +ARGIE GO+E8 GOB@ ACINTO 5. GO+E8@ ALEO 5. GO+E8@ R.@ %nd +AR5 ANN 5. GO+E8 &s. HON. CO3RT OF APPEALS@ HON. PEDRO G. AD3CA5EN *dge Region%& Tri%& Co*rt@ S%n C%r&os City P%ng%sin%n2 Br%n# L-I@ HON. CHIEF@ LAND REGISTRATION CO++ISSION@ 7*eMon City@ +etro +%ni&%@ %nd SIL-ERIO G. PERE8@ C#ie"@ Di)ision o" Origin%& Registr%tion@ L%nd Registr%tion Commission@ 7*eMon City@ +etro +%ni&% P+DI$$+, :.>
FACTS4 A court ruling )Philippine Islans &s +bran* settled t!at - parcels of land belonged to one Consolacion o"eE. Consolacion later died and t!e - parcels of land ere in!erited b# Jose o"eE et al B !er !eirs. T!e !eirs agreed to di&ide t!e propert# a"ong t!e".
-. =nli@e ordinar# ci&il actions, t!e adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not beco"e final, in t!e sense of incontro&ertibilit# until after t!e e+piration of one )-* #ear after t!e entr# of t!e final decree of registration. T!e Supre"e Court !as !eld t!at as long as a final decree !as not been entered b# t!e Land Registration Co""ission )no $LTDRA* and t!e period of one )-* #ear !as not elapsed fro" date of entr# of suc! decree, t!e title is not finall# adjudicated and t!e decision in t!e registration proceeding continues to be under t!e control and sound discretion of t!e court rendering it. . Petitioners insist t!at t!e dut# of t!e respondent land registration officials to issue t!e decree is purel# "inisterial. t is "inisterial in t!e sense t!at t!e# act under t!e orders of t!e court and t!e decree "ust be in confor"it# it! t!e decision of t!e court and it! t!e data found in t!e record, and t!e# !a&e no discretion in t!e "atter. (oe&er, if t!e# are in doubt upon an# point in relation to t!e preparation and issuance of t!e decree, it is t!eir dut# to refer t!e "atter to t!e court. T!e# act, in t!is respect, as officials of t!e court and not as ad"inistrati&e officials, and t!eir act is t!e act of t!e court. T!e# are specificall# called upon to Fe+tend assistance to courts in ordinar# and cadastral land registration proceedings .G
REP3BLIC - NILLAS G.R. No. /00 %n*%ry @ 11
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition FACTS4 n -0 April -?, respondent Lourdes Abiera $illas )$illas* filed a Petition for Re&i&al of Judg"ent it! t!e Regional Trial Court )RTC* of Du"aguete Cit#. n -? Jul# ->-, t!e t!en Court of irst nstance )C* of $egros riental rendered a decision, acting as a cadastral court, adjudicated se&eral lots, toget!er it! t!e i"pro&e"ents t!ereon, in fa&or of na"ed oppositors !o !ad establis!ed t!eir title to t!eir respecti&e lots and t!eir continuous possession t!ereof since ti"e i""e"orial and ordered t!e C!ief of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice, upon t!e finalit# of t!e decision, to issue t!e corresponding decree of registration. ne of t!ese lots as adjudicated to 2ugenia Calingacion and 2ngracia Calingacion. $illas' parents, Serapion and Josefina A. Abierra, b# a# of a Deed of Absolute Sale, ac%uired t!e said lot t!roug! &arious purc!ases t!e# effected fro" t!e 2ugenia and !er !eirs beteen t!e #ears -?4 to -<. T!ese purc!ases ere e&idenced b# t!ree separate Deeds of Absolute Sale all in fa&or of t!e Spouses Abierra. n turn, $illas ac%uired t!e lot fro" !er parents t!roug! a Deed of Iuitclai" dated ;0 June ->. Despite t!e rendition of t!e ->C Decision, no decree of registration !as e&er been issued. T!us, $illas soug!t t!e re&i&al of t!e ->- Decision and t!e issuance of t!e corresponding decree of registration. n / April 000, t!e RTC rendered a Decision finding "erit in t!e petition for re&i&al of judg"ent, and ordering t!e re&i&al of t!e ->- Decision, as ell as directing t!e Co""issioner of t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# )LRA* to issue t!e corresponding decree of confir"ation and registration based on t!e ->Decision. n appeal, t!e Court of Appeals reiterated t!at t!e pro&isions of Section /, Rule ; of t!e Rules of Court, !ic! i"pose a prescripti&e period for enforce"ent of judg"ents b# "otion, refer to ordinar# ci&il actions and not to 1special1 proceedings suc! as land registration cases. n t!e present petition, t!e S strongl# argues t!at contrar# to t!e opinion of t!e Court of Appeals, t!e principles of prescription and lac!es do appl# to land registration cases. T!e S notes t!at Article -->> of t!e Ci&il Code establis!es t!at an action upon judg"ent "ust be broug!t it!in ten #ears fro" t!e ti"e t!e rig!t of action accrues. urt!er, Section / of Rule ; of t!e -? Rules of Ci&il Procedure establis!es t!at a final and e+ecutor# judg"ent or order "a# be e+ecuted on "otion it!in fi&e )4* #ears fro" t!e date of its entr#, after !ic! ti"e it "a# be enforced b# action before it is barred b # statute of li"itations.
ISS3E4 7$ prescription or lac!es "a# bar a petition to re&i&e a judg"ent in a land registration case. $ )7!at is t!e nature of dut# to issue Decree8 Ministerial.*
proceedings to declare b# judicial fiat a status, condition or fact. (ence, upon t!e finalit# of a decision adjudicating suc! oners!ip, no furt!er step is re%uired to effectuate t!e decision and a "inisterial dut# e+ists ali@e on t!e part of t!e land registration court to order t!e issuance of, and t!e LRA to issue, t!e decree of registration. T!e Republic obser&es t!at t!e Propert# Registration Decree )PD $o. -4* does not contain an# pro&ision on e+ecution of final judg"entsK !ence, t!e application of Rule ; of t!e -? Rules of Ci&il Procedure in suppletor# fas!ion. Iuite t!e contrar#, it is precisel# because PD $o. -4 does not specificall# pro&ide for e+ecution of judg"ents in t!e sense ordinaril# understood and applied in ci&il cases, t!e reason being t!ere is no need for t!e pre&ailing part# to appl# for a rit of e+ecution in order to obtain t!e title, t!at Rule ; of t!e -? Rules of Ci&il Procedure is not applicable to land registration cases in t!e first place. Section ; of PD $o. -4 la#s don t!e procedure t!at interposes beteen t!e rendition of t!e judg"ent and t!e issuance of t!e certificate of title. $o obligation !atsoe&er is i"posed b# Section ; on t!e pre&ailing applicant or oppositor e&en as a precondition to t!e issuance of t!e title. T!e obligations pro&ided in t!e Section are le&ied on t!e land court )t!at is to issue an order directing t!e Land Registration Co""issioner to issue in turn t!e corresponding decree of registration*, its cler@ of court )t!at is to trans"it copies of t!e judg"ent and t!e order to t!e Co""issioner*, and t!e Land Registration Co""issioner )t!at is to cause t!e preparation of t!e decree of registration and t!e trans"ittal t!ereof to t!e Register of Deeds*. A&& t#ese o;&ig%tions %re ministeri%& on
t#e o""iers #%rged =it# t#eir !er"orm%ne %nd t#*s gener%&&y ;eyond disretion o" %mendment or re)ie=. T!e failure on t!e part of t!e ad"inistrati&e aut!orities to do t!eir part in t!e issuance of t!e decree of registration cannot oust t!e pre&ailing part# fro" oners!ip of t!e land. $eit!er t!e failure of suc! applicant to follo up it! said aut!orities can. T!e ulti"ate goal of our land registration s#ste" is geared toards t!e final and definiti&e deter"ination of real propert# oners!ip in t!e countr#, and t!e i"position of an additional burden on t!e oner after t!e judg"ent in t!e land registration case !ad attained finalit# ould si"pl# frustrate suc! goal. Clearl#, t#e !e*&i%r !roed*re pro&ided in t!e Propert# Registration La fro" t!e ti"e decisions in land registration cases beco"e final is om!&ete in itse&" %nd does not need to ;e "i&&ed in . ro" anot!er perspecti&e, t!e judg"ent does not !a&e to be e+ecuted b# "otion or enforced b# action it!in t!e pur&ie of Rule ; of t!e -? Rules of Ci&il Procedure.
R*&e 0@ %s in)oed ;y t#e Re!*;&i@ %!!&ies on&y to ordin%ry i)i& %tions@ not to ot#er or eJtr%ordin%ry !roeedings not eJ!ress&y go)erned ;y t#e R*&es o" Ci)i& Proed*re ;*t ;y some ot#er s!ei"i &%= or &eg%& mod%&ity s*# %s &%nd registr%tion %ses. =nli@e in ordinar# ci&il actions go&erned b#
T#ere is not#ing in t#e &%= t#%t &imits t#e !eriod =it#in =#i# t#e o*rt m%y order or iss*e % deree. T#e re%son is JJJ t#%t t#e >*dgment is mere&y de&%r%tory in #%r%ter %nd does not need to ;e %sserted or en"ored %g%inst t#e %d)erse !%rty. F*rt#ermore@ t#e iss*%ne o" % deree is % ministeri%& d*ty ;ot# o" t#e >*dge %nd o" t#e L%nd Registr%tion Commission< "%i&*re o" t#e o*rt or o" t#e &er to iss*e t#e deree "or t#e re%son t#%t no motion t#ere"or #%s ;een "i&ed %n not !re>*die t#e o=ner@ or t#e !erson in =#om t#e &%nd is ordered to ;e registered .
t!e Rules of Ci&il Procedure, t!e intent of land registration proceedings is to establis! oners!ip b# a person of a parcel of land, consistent it! t!e purpose of suc! e+traordinar#
inall#, t!e Republic faults t!e Court of Appeals for pronouncing t!at t!e ->- Decision constituted res !icata t!at barred
HELD4 NO, t!e Supre"e Court denied certiorari and instead affir"ed t!e assailed rulings of t!e loer courts.
51
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition subse%uent attac@s to t!e adjudicates' title o&er t!e subject propert#. T!e Republic sub"its t!at said decision ould operate as res !icata onl# after t!e decree of registration as issued, !ic! did not !appen in t!is case. 7e doubt t!at a final decision's status as res !icata is t!e i"pelling ground for its &er# on e+ecutionK and indeed res !icata is "ore often in&o@ed as a defense or as a factor in relation to a different case altoget!er. Still, t!is fault# ter"inolog# aside, t!e Republic's argu"ents on t!is point do not dissuade fro" our central !olding t!at t!e ->- Decision is still susceptible to effectuation b# t!e standard decree of registration notit!standing t!e dela# incurred b# $illas or !er predecessorsHinHinterest in see@ing its effectuation and t!e reasons for suc! dela#, folloing t!e prostracted failure of t!e t!en Land Registration Co""issioner to issue t!e decree of registration. n t!is case, all t!at $illas needed to pro&e as t!at s!e !ad dul# ac%uired t!e rig!ts of t!e original adjudicates B !er predecessorsHinHinterestHin order to entitle !er to t!e decree of registration albeit still in t!e na"es of t!e original pre&ailing parties !o are !er predecessorsHin interest. ot! t!e trial court and t!e Court of Appeals ere satisfied t!at suc! fact as pro&en, and t!e Republic does not offer an# co"pelling argu"ent to dispute suc! proof.
52
-04, t!e issuance of a decree of registration to petitioners ill run counter to said principle. T!e issuance of a decree of registration is part of t!e judicial function of courts and is not a "ere "inisterial act !ic! "a# be co"pelled t!roug! "anda"us. t is not legall# proper to re%uire t!e LRA to issue a decree of registration.
T!e issuance of a decree of registration is part of t!e judicial function of courts and is not a "ere "inisterial act !ic! "a# be co"pelled t!roug! "anda"us. T!us, t!is Court !eld in@almonte an :acinto &s. 'able:
Moreo&er, after t!e rendition of a decision b# a registration or cadastral court, t!ere re"ain "an# t!ings to be done before t!e final decree can be issued, suc! as t!e preparation of a"ended plans and a"ended descriptions, especiall# !ere t!e decision orders a subdi&ision of a lot, t!e segregation t!erefro" of a portion being adjudicated to anot!er part#, to fit t!e said decision. As said b# t!is Court in t!e case of De los Re#es &s. De 3illa, >< P!il., ?, ;>:
SPO3SES +ARIANO %nd ERLINDA LAB3RADA@ re!resented ;y t#eir %ttorney?in?"%t@ +AN3EL SANTOS@ R. vs. LAND REGISTRATION A3THORIT5 PANGANIBAN@ J 4 FACTS4 Sps. Laburada applied for t!e registration of Lot ;HA !ic! as appro&ed b# t!e trial court. =pon "otion of petitioners, t!e trial court issued an order re%uiring t!e LRA to issue t!e corresponding decree of registration. (oe&er, t!e LRA refused. (ence, petitioners filed an action for "anda"us. T!e LRA re&ealed t!at based on records, Lot ;HA !ic! soug!t to be registered b# Sps. Laburada is part of Lot $o. ;, o&er !ic! TCT $o. /44 !as alread# been issued. =pon t!e ot!er !and, Lot ;H of said Lot ; is co&ered b# Transfer Certificate of Title $o. ;;? issued in t!e na"e of Pura 2scurdia 3da. de uenaflor, !ic! as issued as a transfer fro" TCT $o. /44. T!e LRA contended t!at to issue t!e corresponding decree of registration soug!t b# t!e petitioners, it ould result in t!e duplication of titles o&er t!e sa"e parcel of land, and t!us contra&ene t!e polic# and purpose of t!e Torrens registration s#ste", and destro# t!e integrit# of t!e sa"e.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e LRA "a# be co"pelled b# "anda"us to issue a decree of registration if it !as e&idence t!at t!e subject land "a# alread# be included in an e+isting Torrens certificate of title8 $
HELD4 $. t is settled t!at a land registration court !as no jurisdiction to order t!e registration of land alread# decreed in t!e na"e of anot!er in an earlier land registration case. A second decree for t!e sa"e land ould be null and &oid, since t!e principle be!ind original registration is to register a parcel of land onl# once. T!us, if it is pro&en t!at t!e land !ic! petitioners are see@ing to register !as alread# been registered in -0> and
2+a"ining section >0, e find t!at t!e decrees of registration "ust be stated in con&enient for" for transcription upon t!e certificate of title and "ust contain an accurate tec!nical description of t!e land. T!is re%uires trained tec!nical "en. Moreo&er, it fre%uentl# occurs t!at onl# portions of a parcel of land included in an application are ordered registered and t!at t!e li"its of suc! portions can onl# be roug!l# indicated in t!e decision of t!e court. n suc! cases a"end"ents of t!e plans and so"eti"es additional sur&e#s beco"e necessar# before t!e final decree can be entered. T!at can !ardl# be done b# t!e court itselfK t!e la &er# isel# c!arges t!e c!ief sur&e#or of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice it! suc! duties )Ad"inistrati&e Code, section -??*.
urt!er"ore, alt!oug! t!e final decree is actuall# prepared b# t!e C!ief of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice, t!e ad"inistrati&e officer, t!e issuance of t!e final decree can !ardl# be considered a "inisterial act for t!e reason t!at said C!ief of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice acts not as an ad"inistrati&e officer but as an officer of t!e court and so t!e issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not an ad"inistrati&e one . ndeed, it is ellHsettled t!at t!e issuance of suc! decree is not co"pellable b# "anda"us because it is a judicial act in&ol&ing t!e e+ercise of discretion. Li@eise, t!e rit of "anda"us can be aarded onl# !en t!e petitioners legal rig!t to t!e perfor"ance of t!e particular act !ic! is soug!t to be co"pelled is clear and co"plete. =nder Rule /4 of t!e Rules of Court, a clear legal rig!t is a rig!t !ic! is indubitabl# granted b# la or is inferable as a "atter of la. f t!e rig!t is clear and t!e case is "eritorious, objections raising "erel# tec!nical %uestions ill be disregarded. ut !ere t!e rig!t soug!t to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, as in t!is case, "anda"us cannot issue.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
A court "a# be co"pelled b# "anda"us to pass and act upon a %uestion sub"itted to it for decision, but it cannot be enjoined to decide for or against one of t!e parties. As stated earlier, a judicial act is not co"pellable b# "anda"us. T!e court !as to decide a %uestion according to its on judg"ent and understanding of t!e la. t is not legall# proper to re%uire t!e LRA to issue a decree of registration. (oe&er, to a&oid "ultiplicit# of suits and needless dela#, t!is Court dee"s it "ore appropriate to direct t!e LRA to e+pedite its stud#, to deter"ine it! finalit# !et!er Lot ;HA is included in t!e propert# described in TCT $o. /44, and to sub"it a report t!ereon to t!e court of origin it!in si+t# )/0* da#s fro" receipt of t!is Decision, after !ic! t!e said court s!all act it! deliberate speed according to t!e facts and t!e la.
Case is R2MA$D2D to t!e court of origin in Pasig Cit#. T!e LRA, on t!e ot!er !and, is RD2R2D to sub"it to t!e court a %uo a report deter"ining it! finalit# !et!er Lot ;HA is included in t!e propert# described in TCT $o. /44, it!in si+t# )/0* da#s fro" notice. After receipt of suc! report, t!e land registration court, in turn, is ordered to ACT, it! deliberate and judicious speed, to settle t!e issue of !et!er t!e LRA "a# issue t!e decree of registration, according to t!e facts and t!e la as !erein discussed.
RE+EDIES HEIRS OF +AN3EL RO6AS -S CA FACTS4 Maguesun Corporation filed an Application for Registration of to parcels of unregistered land located in Taga#ta#. n support of its application for registration t!e# presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June -0, -0, e+ecuted b# Uenaida MelliEa as &endor !o boug!t t!e propert# fro" Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as to and a !alf "ont!s earlier, as e&idenced b# a Deed of Sale dated Marc! /, -0 and an Affida&it of SelfHAdjudication dated Marc! >, -0. $otices of t!e initial !earing ere sent b# t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# to (ilario Luna, Jose il and Leon Luna !ile Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as as not notified because s!e as not na"ed as an adjoining oner, occupant or ad&erse clai"ant. Publication as "ade in t!e fficial aEette and t!e Record $esee@l#. After an rder of general default as issued, t!e trial court proceeded to !ear t!e land registration case. n ctober >, -0, LRA reported t!at t!e subject parcels of land !ad pre&iousl# been applied for registration at t!e C of Ca&ite b# Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon but no decision !as been "ade. ebruar# -;, -- t!e RTC granted Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration. Conse%uentl# RTC issued t!e rder for ssuance of t!e Decree on Marc! ->, --, after it ordered
53
t!e application of Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon dis"issed. t as onl# !en t!e careta@er of t!e propert# as being as@ed to &acate t!e land t!at petitioner Trinidad de Leon 3da. de Ro+as learned of its sale and t!e registration of t!e lots in Maguesun Corporation6s na"e. (ence, s!e filed a petition for re&ie before t!e RTC to set aside t!e decree of registration on t!e ground t!at Maguesun Corporation co""itted actual fraud, alleging t!at !er signature as forged in bot! t!e Deed of Sale and t!e Affida&it of SelfHAdjudicationK t!at Maguesun Corporation intentionall# o"itted !er na"e as an ad&erse clai"ant, occupant or adjoining oner in t!e application for registration sub"itted to t!e LRA, suc! t!at t!e latter could not send !er a $otice of nitial (earing RTC t!at Maguesun Corporation did not co""it actual fraud and dis"issed t!e petition for re&ie of decree of registration April -4, -. CA affir"ed t!e findings of RTC, ruling t!at Ro+as' failed to and de"onstrate t!at t!ere as actual or e+trinsic fraud, not "erel# constructi&e or intrinsic fraud, a prere%uisite for purposes of annuling a judg"ent or re&ieing a decree of registration. (ence t!is petition.
ISS3E4 7as t!ere actual fraud on t!e part of Maguesun Corp. to arrant t!e reopening and t!e setting aside of t!e registration decree8
HELD4 T!e Court !ere finds t!at respondent Maguesun Corp. co""itted actual fraud in obtaining t!e decree of registration soug!t to be re&ieed b# Ro+as. +ct!al #ra!A Define. raud is of to @inds: actual or constructi&e. Actual or positi&e fraud proceeds fro" an intentional deception practiced b# "eans of t!e "isrepresentation or conceal"ent of a "aterial fact. Constructi&e fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detri"ental effect upon public interests and public or pri&ate confidence, e&en t!oug! t!e act is not done or co""itted it! an actual design to co""it positi&e fraud or injur# upon ot!er persons. raud "a# also be eit!er e+trinsic or intrinsic. raud is regarded as intrinsic !ere t!e fraudulent acts pertain to an issue in&ol&ed in t!e original action, or !ere t!e acts constituting t!e fraud ere or could !a&e been litigated t!erein, and is regarded as e+trinsic !ere it pre&ents a part# fro" !a&ing a trial or fro" presenting !is entire case to t!e court, or !ere it operates upon "atters pertaining not to t!e judg"ent itself but to t!e "anner in !ic! it is procured, so t!at t!ere is not a fair sub"ission of t!e contro&ers#. 2+trinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to t!e transaction sued upon. T!e distinctions are significant because onl# actual fraud or e+trinsic fraud !as been accepted as grounds for a judg"ent to be annulled or, as in t!is case, a decree of registration reopened and re&ieed. T!e 1fraud1 conte"plated b# t!e la in t!is case )Section ;, P.D. $o -4* is actual and e+trinsic, !ic! includes an intentional o"ission of fact re%uired b# la. Intentional Bmission of 'ame n t!e corporation6s application for registration filed it! t!e RTC onl# t!e folloing na"es appeared: (ilario Luna, Jose il, Leon Luna, Pro&incial Road. T!e court found t!at t!e so"e ords are
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition t#ped in it! a different t#periter, it! t!e first fi&e letters of t!e ord 1pro&incial1 t#ped o&er correction fluid. (oe&er, Maguesun Corporation, anne+ed a differentl#Horded application for t!e petition to re&ie t!e application of t!e Ro+as' !ere in instead of PR3$CAL RAD, t!e na"e RVAS appeared.T!e discrepanc# !ic! is une+plained appears intentional. t is reasonable to assu"e t!at t!e reason is to "islead t!e court into t!in@ing t!at 1Ro+as1 as placed in t!e original application as an adjoining oner, encu"brancer, occupant or clai"ant, t!e sa"e application !ic! for"ed t!e basis for t!e LRA in sending out notices of initial !earing. Section -4 of Presidential Decree $o. -4 also re%uires t!e applicant for registration to state t!e full na"es and addresses of all occupants of t!e land and t!ose of adjoining oners, if @non and if not @non, t!e e+tent of t!e searc! "ade to find t!e". Maguesun Corporation failed to co"pl# it! t!is re%uire"ent. Possession in BC/'B T!e trut! is t!at t!e Ro+as fa"il# !ad been in possession of t!e propert# uninterruptedl# t!roug! t!eir careta@er, Jose Ra"ireE. Maguesun Corporation also t!at t!e subject land as unoccupied !en in trut! and in fact, t!e Ro+as fa"il# careta@er resided in t!e subject propert#. Maguesun Corporation is li@eise c!arged it! t!e @noledge of suc! possession and occupanc#, for its President, !o signed t!e Deed of Sale o&er t!e propert#, @ne full# ell t!at !er grandaunt Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as oned t!e propert#. t is reasonable to e+pect !er as a bu#er to !a&e inspected t!e propert# prior to t!e sale suc! t!at t!e ascertain"ent of t!e current possessors or occupants could !a&e been "ade facilel#. Maguesun Corporation intentional conceal"ent and representation of Ro+as' interest in t!e subject lots as possessor, occupant and clai"ant constitutes actual fraud justif#ing t!e reopening and re&ie of t!e decree of registration. Concealment of the /istence of -rinia Roas Mention of t!e late President6s na"e as ell as t!at of Trinidad as "ade principall# in t!e or"al ffer of 2+!ibits for Maguesun Corporations ta+ declarations and as predecessorHinH interest. (oe&er, t!is is not sufficient co"pliance it! !at t!e la re%uires to be stated in t!e application for registration. Disclosure of petitioner6s ad&erse interest, occupation and possession s!ould be "ade at t!e appropriate ti"e, i .e., at t!e ti"e of t!e application for registration, ot!erise, t!e persons concerned ill not be sent notices of t!e initial !earing and ill, t!erefore, "iss t!e opportunit# to present t!eir opposition or clai"s. P!blication of 'otice of Initial 9earin0 7!ile publication of t!e notice in t!e fficial aEette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon t!e court, publication in a nespaper of general circulation re"ains an indispensable procedural re%uire"ent. Couc!ed in "andator# ter"s, it is a co"ponent of procedural due process and ai"ed at gi&ing 1as ide publicit# as possible1 so t!at all persons !a&ing an ad&erse interest in t!e land subject of t!e registration proceedings "a# be notified t!ereof. Alt!oug! jurisdiction of t!e court is not affected, t!e fact t!at publication as not "ade in a nespaper of general circulation is "aterial and rele&ant in assessing t!e applicant6s rig!t or title to t!e land.
54
#or0er" an Discrepancies A close scrutin# of t!e e&idence on record leads t!e Court to t!e irresistible conclusion t!at forger# as indeed attendant in t!e case at bar. Alt!oug! t!ere is no proof of respondent Maguesun Corporation6s direct participation in t!e e+ecution and preparation of t!e forged instru"ents, t!ere are sufficient indicia !ic! pro&es t!at Maguesun Corporation is not t!e 1innocent purc!aser for &alue1 !o "erits t!e protection of t!e la. T!e %uestioned signatures ta@en fro" t!e Deed of Sale and Affida&it of SelfHAdjudication are star@l# different fro" t!e sa"ple signatures in se&eral docu"ents e+ecuted b# Trinidad. T!e %uestioned signatures are s"oot! and rounded and !a&e none of t!e jagged and s!a@# c!aracter of petitioner6s signatures c!aracteristic of t!e pen"ans!ip of elderl# persons. T!e fact t!at petitioner as not t!e sole !eir as @non to t!e general public, as ell as t!e de"ise of t!e late President on April -4, ->/ !ile deli&ering a speec! at Clar@ ield, Pa"panga. T!e afore"entioned irregularities are too glaring to !a&e been ignored. f Tinidad did in fact e+ecute said Affida&it, t!ere is no reason !# s!e s!ould state facts ot!er t!an t!e unadulterated trut! concerning !erself and !er fa"il#.
HEIRS OF RO6AS &s. CO3RT OF APPEALS G.R. No. // +%r# /@ /00
FACTS4 n Jul# , -0, Maguesun Manage"ent and De&elop"ent Corporation )Maguesun Corporation* filed an Application for Registration of to parcels of unregistered land. n support of its application for registration, Maguesun Corporation presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June -0, -0, e+ecuted b# Uenaida MelliEa as &endor and indicating t!e purc!ase price to be P-?0,000.00. Uenaida MelliEa in turn, boug!t t!e propert# fro" t!e original petitioner !erein, Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as for P00,000.00 to and a !alf "ont!s earlier, as e&idenced b# a Deed of Sale dated Marc! /, -0 and an Affida&it of SelfHAdjudication dated Marc! >, -0.
$otices of t!e initial !earing ere sent b# t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# )t!e $ational Land Titles and Deeds Registration Aut!orit# or $ALTDRA* to ; parties on t!e basis of Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration. Since Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as as not na"ed as an adjoining oner, occupant or ad&erse clai"ant, s!e as not sent a notice of t!e proceedings. Publication as "ade. After an rder of general default as issued, t!e trial court proceeded to !ear t!e land registration case. n ctober >, -0, t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# reported, a"ong ot!er t!ings, t!at t!e subject parcels of land !ad pre&iousl# been applied for registration in Land Registration Case b# Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon but no decision !as been rendered t!ereon. 2&entuall#, on ebruar# -;, -- t!e Regional Trial Court granted Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
Conse%uentl#, on ebruar# ->, --, Land Registration Case applied for b# Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon, dis"issed.
t as onl# !en t!e careta@er of t!e propert# as being as@ed to &acate t!e land t!at petitioner Trinidad de Leon 3da. de Ro+as learned of its sale and t!e registration of t!e lots in Maguesun Corporation6s na"e.
(ence, on April -, --, petitioner filed a petition for re&ie before t!e Regional Trial Court, to set aside t!e decree of registration on t!e ground t!at Maguesun Corporation co""itted actual fraud. S!e alleged t!at t!e lots ere a"ong t!e properties s!e in!erited fro" !er !usband, for"er President Manuel A. Ro+as, and t!at !er fa"il# !ad been in open, continuous, ad&erse and uninterrupted possession of t!e subject propert# in t!e concept of oner for "ore t!an t!irt# #ears before t!e# applied for its registration under t!e Torrens S#ste" of land titling. Petitioner furt!er denied t!at s!e sold t!e lots to Uenaida MelliEa !o" s!e !ad ne&er "et before and t!at !er signature as forged in bot! t!e Deed of Sale and t!e Affida&it of SelfH Adjudication. n support of !er clai"s, s!e also listed a nu"ber of irregularities in t!e docu"ents to pro&e actual fraud. n addition, and per!aps "ore significantl#, s!e clai"ed t!at Maguesun Corporation intentionall# o"itted !er na"e as an ad&erse clai"ant, occupant or adjoining oner in t!e application for registration sub"itted to t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# suc! t!at t!e latter could not send !er a $otice of nitial (earing. As a result, an order of general default as issued and Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration as granted.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e petion for re&ie of t!e registration "a# be granted.
55
t!e date of entr# of said decree, t!at t!e petitioner !as a real and do"inical rig!t and t!e propert# !as not #et been transferred to an innocent purc!aser.
raud is of to @inds: actual or constructi&e. Actual or positi&e fraud proceeds fro" an intentional deception practiced b# "eans of t!e "isrepresentation or conceal"ent of a "aterial fact. /0 Constructi&e fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detri"ental effect upon public interests and public or pri&ate confidence, e&en t!oug! t!e act is not done or co""itted it! an actual design to co""it positi&e fraud or injur# upon ot!er persons.
raud "a# also be eit!er e+trinsic or intrinsic. raud is regarded as intrinsic !ere t!e fraudulent acts pertain to an issue in&ol&ed in t!e original action, or !ere t!e acts constituting t!e fraud ere or could !a&e been litigated t!erein, and is regarded as e+trinsic !ere it pre&ents a part# fro" !a&ing a trial or fro" presenting !is entire case to t!e court, or !ere it operates upon "atters pertaining not to t!e judg"ent itself but to t!e "anner in !ic! it is procured, so t!at t!ere is not a fair sub"ission of t!e contro&ers#. 2+trinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to t!e transaction sued upon.
T!e distinctions are significant because onl# actual fraud or e+trinsic fraud !as been accepted as grounds for a judg"ent to be annulled or, as in t!is case, a decree of registration reopened and re&ieed. T!e 1fraud1 conte"plated b# t!e la in t!is case )Section ;, P.D. $o -4* is actual and e+trinsic, !ic! includes an intentional o"ission of fact re%uired b# la. or fraud to justif# a re&ie of a decree, it "ust be e+trinsic or collateral, and t!e facts upon !ic! it is based !a&e not been contro&erted or resol&ed in t!e case !ere t!e judg"ent soug!t to be annulled as rendered. Persons !o ere fraudulentl# depri&ed of t!eir opportunit# to be !eard in t!e original registration case are entitled to a re&ie of a decree of registration.
HELD4 92S. Registration of untitled land under t!e Torrens S#ste" is done pursuant to Presidential Decree $o. -4, t!e Propert# Registration Decree !ic! a"ended and codified las relati&e to registration of propert#. Adjudication of land in a registration )or cadastral* case does not beco"e final and incontro&ertible until t!e e+piration of one #ear after t!e entr# of t!e final decree. efore suc! ti"e, t!e decision re"ains under t!e control and sound discretion of t!e court rendering t!e decree, !ic! court after !earing, "a# set aside t!e decision or decree and adjudicate t!e land to anot!er part#. Absence, "inorit# or ot!er disabilit# of an# person affected, or an# proceeding in court for re&ersing judg"ents, are not considered grounds to reopen or re&ise said decree. (oe&er, t!e rig!t of a person depri&ed of land or of an# estate or interest t!erein b# adjudication or confir"ation of title obtained b# actual fraud is recogniEed b# la )Section ; of Presidential Decree $o. -4* as a &alid and legal basis for reopening and re&ising a decree of registration. t is furt!er re%uired t!at a petition for reopening and re&ie of t!e decree of registration be filed it!in one #ear fro"
T!e Court !ere finds t!at respondent Maguesun Corporation co""itted actual fraud in obtaining t!e decree of registration soug!t to be re&ieed b# petitioner.
Petitioner 3da. de Ro+as contended t!at Maguesun Corporation intentionall# o"itted t!eir na"e, or t!at of t!e Ro+as fa"il#, as !a&ing a clai" to or as an occupant of t!e subject propert#.
T!e trut! is t!at t!e Ro+as fa"il# !ad been in possession of t!e propert# uninterruptedl# t!roug! t!eir careta@er, Jose Ra"ireE. Respondent Maguesun Corporation also declared in nu"ber 4 of t!e sa"e application t!at t!e subject land as
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition unoccupied !en in trut! and in fact, t!e Ro+as fa"il# careta@er resided in t!e subject propert#. Respondent corporation6s intentional conceal"ent and representation of petitioner6s interest in t!e subject lots as possessor, occupant and clai"ant constitutes actual fraud justif#ing t!e reopening and re&ie of t!e decree of registration. T!roug! suc! "isfeasance, t!e Ro+as fa"il# as @ept ignorant of t!e registration proceedings in&ol&ing t!eir propert#, t!us effecti&el# depri&ing t!e" of t!eir da# in court.
56
pro&ided t!at no innocent purc!aser for &alue ill be injured t!ereb#.
ESCONDE &s.DELFIN G.R. No. L?@ *&y /@ /0
TIONGCO &s. DE LA +ERCED G.R. No. L? *&y @ /0 FACTS4 Petitioner Tiongco and t!e ot!er clai"ants of t!e lots in %uestion ere depri&ed of t!eir rig!ts it!out due process of la, t!roug! t!e fraudulent "ac!inations of deput# cler@ of court Pascual Cando. T!ere as in t!at case a pronounce"ent b# t!is Court, t!at e&en if a decree in a cadastral proceeding is infected it! nullit# in &ie of a clear denial of procedural due process, still an innocent purc!aser for &alue rel#ing on a Torrens title issued in pursuance t!ereof is protected. T!e best t!at could be is to stress !at as considered its obiter aspect. T!at does not suffice, for t!e reference to t!e rig!ts &ested in an innocent purc!aser for &alue is based on e+press statutor# language, alloing t!e filing of a petition for re&ie it!in one #ear after entr# of t!e decree, pro&ided no innocent purc!aser for &alue !as ac%uired an interest.
ISS3E4 7!et!er under t!e circu"stance of t!ere being an
FACTS4 Pri&ate respondent Ra"on 3. Delfin is t!e applicant in t!e 1Application for Registration of Title1. T!e application as granted in a 1Decision1, and pri&ate respondent recei&ed cop# t!ereof on t!e sa"e date. Said parcel of land is no co&ered b# an CT .n ebruar# -;, -?< said pri&ate respondent Ra"on filed !is 1Petition for 7rit of Possession1 against t!e spouses rancisco and asilisa 2sconde.T!e petitions filed a "otion to %uas! !ic! as t!en denied.
n $o&e"ber -?, -<;, pri&ate respondent "o&ed for a second alias rit of possession in &ie of t!e failure of t!e petitioner to turn o&er possession of t!e pre"ises to pri&ate respondent and t!e sa"e as granted in t!e rder of $o&e"ber -, -<;. Petitioner t!en filed it! Judge A&elino M. Constantino of t!e Regional Trial Court of ulacan a Motion to Iuas! andor to (old in Abe#ance 2+ecution of Second Alias 7rit of Possession on t!e ground t!at t!e# !a&e filed a ci&il action for recon&e#ance.
innocent purc!aser for &alue, t!ere could still be a re&ie of a decree of registration8
ISS3E4 Ma# t!e action for recon&er#ance prosper8 HELD4 $o. A decree of registration secured t!roug! fraud is &alid, alt!oug! annulable, upon petition filed it!in one )-* #ear after entr# of t!e decree, in t!e absence of an innocent purc!aser for &alue, !ereas a decision rendered it!out notice to t!e parties of record is &oid for lac@ of due process.
ndeed, acts of Congress, as ell as t!ose of t!e 2+ecuti&e, can den# due process onl# under pain of nullit#, and judicial proceedings suffering fro" t!e sa"e fla are subject to t!e sa"e sanction, an# statutor# pro&ision to t!e contrar# notit!standing.1 $onet!eless, t!e ne+t paragrap! as e+plicit on t!e point t!at t!e reopening on t!e ground of fraud as predicated on 1no innocent purc!aser for &alue ObeingW injured t!ereb#.1 T!us: 1$o t!en, if a decree issued in pursuance of a &ali decision, obtained b# fraud, "a# be annulled it!in )-* #ear fro" entr# of said decree, t!ere is "ore reason to !old t!at t!e sa"e, if entered in co"pliance it! a decision suffering fro" a fatal infir"it#, for ant of due process, "a# be re&ieed, set aside and cancelled upon petition filed it!in t!e sa"e period,
HELD4 An action for recon&e#ance is a legal and e%uitable re"ed# granted to t!e rig!tful oner of land !ic! !as been rongfull# or erroneousl# registered in t!e na"e of anot!er for t!e purpose of co"pelling t!e latter to transfer or recon&e# t!e land to !i". T!e pre&ailing rule in t!is jurisdiction does not bar a landoner !ose propert# as rongfull# or erroneousl# registered under t!e Torrens S#ste" fro" bringing an action, after one #ear fro" t!e issuance of t!e decree, for t!e recon&e#ance of t!e propert# in %uestion. Suc! an action does not ai" or purport to reHopen t!e registration proceeding and set aside t!e decree of registration, but onl# to s!o t!at t!e person !o secured t!e registration of t!e %uestioned propert# is not t!e real oner t!ereof. An ordinar# ci&il action for recon&e#ance does not see@ to set aside t!e decree but respecting t!e decree as incontro&ertible and no longer open to re&ie, see@s to transfer or recon&e# t!e land fro" t!e registered oner to t!e rig!tful oner.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition =nder t!e circu"stances in t!e case at bar, it is apparent t!at recon&e#ance is not t!e proper re"ed#. As earlier stated, t!ere as no proof of irregularit# in t!e issuance of title, nor in t!e proceedings incident t!ereto, nor as it establis!ed t!at fraud !ad indeed inter&ened in t!e issuance of s aid title, and t!e period of one #ear it!in !ic! intrinsic fraud could be clai"ed !ad long e+pired. =nder si"ilar conditions, t!e Court ruled t!at t!e land s!ould be adjudicated to t!e registered oner.
Moreo&er, petitioner6s action for recon&e#ance !ad alread# prescribed. An action for recon&e#ance of real propert# on t!e ground of fraud "ust be filed it!in four )>* #ears fro" t!e disco&er# of t!e fraud. Suc! disco&er# is dee"ed to !a&e ta@en place fro" t!e issuance of an original certificate of title.
57
t!at since t!e# are also c!ildren of Rafael Mar%ueE, Sr., t!e# are entitled to t!eir respecti&e s!ares o&er t!e land in %uestion. =nfortunatel#, efforts to settle t!e dispute pro&ed una&ailing since pri&ate respondents ignored petitioners6 de"ands.
n &ie of t!e pri&ate respondents6 indifference, petitioners, no joined b# Rafael Jr., filed a co"plaint on Ma# ;-, -- for 1Recon&e#ance and Partition it! Da"ages1 before t!e trial court alleging t!at bot! t!e 1Affida&it of Adjudication1 and 1Deed of Donation nter 3i&os1 ere fraudulent since t!e pri&ate respondents too@ ad&antage of t!e ad&anced age of t!eir fat!er in "a@ing !i" e+ecute t!e said docu"ents.
n t!eir Anser, pri&ate respondents argued t!at petitioner6s action as alread# barred b# t!e statute of li"itations since t!e sa"e s!ould !a&e been filed it!in four #ears fro" t!e date of disco&er# of t!e alleged fraud.
+AR73E8 &s. CO3RT OF APPEALS G.R. No. // Deem;er 0@ /00 ISS3E4 7!et!er t!eir action for recon&e#ance !ad prescribed.
FACTS4 During t!eir lifeti"e, t!e spouses Rafael Mar%ueE, Sr. and elicidad Mar%ueE begot tel&e c!ildren, na"el#: )-* $ati&idadK )* AureaK );* (er"inigildoK )>* ilo"enaK )4* 2+e%uelK )/* Sal&adorK )?* uadencioK )<* Rafael, Jr., )* elenK )-0* AlfredoK )--* RicardoK and )-* Antonio. So"eti"e in ->4, t!e spouses ac%uired a parcel of land it! a lot area of -/- s%uare "eters in San Juan Del Monte, RiEal, "ore particularl# described in TCT $o. >?4?, /!erein t!e constructed t!eir conjugal !o"e.
n -4, elicidad Mar%ueE died intestate. T!irt# #ears later or in -<, Rafael Mar%ueE, Sr. e+ecuted an 1Affida&it of Adjudication1 &esting unto !i"self sole oners!ip to t!e propert# described in TCT $o. >?4?. Conse%uentl#, TCT $o. >?4? as cancelled and TCT $o. ;;;40 as issued in !is na"e on June -/, -<.
T!ereafter, on Dece"ber , -<; Rafael Mar%ueE, Sr. e+ecuted a 1Deed of Donation nter 3i&os1 co&ering t!e land described in TCT $o. ;;;40, as ell as t!e !ouse constructed t!ereon to t!ree of t!is c!ildren, na"el#: )-* petitioner Rafael, Jr.K )* AlfredoK and );* elen, bot! pri&ate respondents !erein, to t!e e+clusion of !is ot!er c!ildren, petitioners !erein. As a result of t!e donation, TCT $o. ;;;40 as cancelled and TCT $o. >?4? as issued in pri&ate respondents6 na"e.
ro" -<; to --, pri&ate respondents ere in actual possession of t!e land. (oe&er, !en petitioners learned about t!e e+istence of TCT $o. >?4?, t!e# i""ediatel# de"anded
HELD4 t "ust be noted t!at elicidad Mar%ueE died in -4K t!us, succession to !er estate is go&erned b# t!e present Ci&il Code. =nder Article <
As suc!, !en Rafael Mar%ueE Sr., for one reason or anot!er, "isrepresented in !is unilateral affida&it t!at !e as t!e onl# !eir of !is ife !en in fact t!eir c!ildren ere still ali&e, and "anaged to secure a transfer of certificate of title under !is na"e, a constructi&e trust under Article ->4/ as establis!ed. Constructi&e trusts are created in e%uit# in order to pre&ent unjust enric!"ent. T!e# arise contrar# to intention against one !o, b# fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or !olds t!e legal, rig!t to propert# !ic! !e oug!t not, in e%uit# and good conscience, to !old. Prescinding fro" t!e foregoing discussion, did t!e action for recon&e#ance filed b# t!e petitioners prescribe, as !eld b# t!e Court of Appeals8
n t!is regard, it is settled t!at an action for recon&e#ance based on an i"plied or constructi&e trust prescribes in ten #ears fro" t!e isuance of t!e Torrens title o&er t!e propert#. or t!e purpose of t!is case, t!e prescripti&e period s!all start to run !en TCT $o. ;;;40 as issued, !ic! as on June -/, -<. T!us, considering t!at t!e action for recon&e#ance as filed on Ma#
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition ;-, --, or appro+i"atel# nine #ears later, it is e&ident t!at prescription !ad not #et barred t!e action.
LIN8AG -S CA FACTS4 Jose LinEag and t!e !eirs of Cristobal A. LinEag are "e"bers of t!e nonHC!ristian tribe @non as t!e ala0an tribe of Mati, Da&ao riental. Jose and Cristobal clai" to !a&e in!erited fro" t!eir deceased parents, a parcel of land, ot!erise @non as 7aniban sland, part of t!e Mati Cadastre At t!e cadastral aEproceeding Cristobal filed !is clai" o&er said Lot. Anot!er clai"ant, one Patricio Cunanan, li@eise filed a clai". Sal&ador filed a "otion to aard t!e Lot as an uncontested lot, in !is fa&or and alleged t!at !e !ad ac%uirepd t!e rig!ts of Cunanan and t!at Cristobal !ad it!dran !is anserclai" in fa&or of Cunanan )said to be ac%uired t!roug! fraud* T!e cadastral court, declared t!at Sal&ador and !is predecessorsHinHinterests !ad been in peaceful, C2A possession of t!e Lot in concept of an oner for a period of at least ;0 #earsK t!at Sal&ador as t!e successorHinHinterest of original clai"ant CunananK and t!at t!e lot as a nonHcontested lot. > ebruar# -??H filed an action for annul"ent of title and recon&e#ance it! da"ages )dis"issed* )Ci&il Case $o. 4?-* T!e LinEags filed an a"ended co"plaint !erein t!e# alleged t!at t!e# and t!eir predecessorsHinHinterests !ad been in actual, laful, peaceful, public, ad&erse and uninterrupted possession and occupation of t!e land since t!e Spanis! regi"e up to t!e presentK t!e lot as ancestral land of t!e LinEagsK t!e lot !ad been included in a prior land registration case filed b# Cunanan !ic! as decided against !i", it! t!e land registration court !olding t!at t!e land as Fpart of t!e public do"ain,G T!e LinEags filed it! t!e CA, a petition for t!e annul"ent of judg"ent )bar CAH.R. SP $o. ;4
ISS3ES4 -. 7$ t!e CA erred !en it dis"issed t!e petition for t!e annul"ent of judg"ent. NO. . 7$ t!e an action for annul"ent of judg"ent as t!e proper re"ed# against t!e c!allenged decision of t!e CA. NO.
HELD4 -. Re%son =#y t#e %nn*&ment o" >*dgment s#o*&d ;e dismissed
T!e clai" of petitioners t!at t!e judg"ent in Ci&il Case $o. 4?does not bar CAH.R. SP $o. ;4
An action is barred b# a for"er judg"ent if )-* t!e for"er judg"ent is finalK )* t!e court !ic! rendered it !as jurisdiction o&er t!e subject "atter and t!e partiesK );* it "ust be a judg"ent on t!e "eritsK )>* t!ere "ust be, beteen t!e first and t!e second actions, identit# of parties, subject "atter and causes of action. -.* T!e judg"ent in Ci&il Case ) t!e annul"ent case* !a&ing alread# beco"e final as pronounced in t!e Supre"e Court Resolution, t!e first re%uire"ent for t!e application of res !icata is, t!erefore, present. .* T!e C of Da&ao riental undoubtedl# !as jurisdiction o&er t!e subject "atter of t!e case. ;.* T!e judg"ent as on t!e "erits as it as rendered after a deter"ination of !ic! part# is rig!t and as not "erel# based on a preli"inar# or tec!nical issue. A reading of t!e decision of t!e TC s!os t!at it as based on "atters of substance and not "erel# on tec!nical points. >.* T!ere is also an identit# beteen t!e parties in t!is petition and t!at in Ci&il Case 4?-. T!e petitioners in t!is case, Jose LinEag and t!e (eirs of Cristobal LinEag are li@eise t!e plaintiffs in Ci&il Case 4?-. T!e defendants in Ci&il Case 4?- are also t!e pri&ate respondents in t!is case. T!e subject "atter beteen t!e to cases are also identical. t is t!e parcel of land @non as 7aniban sland in Mati, Da&ao riental and t!e certificate of title co&ering suc! propert#.
B2 t#e remedy o" %nn*&ment o" >*dgment %&&o=ed in Setion 02 o" B.P. B&g. /0 =%s no &onger %)%i&%;&e to !etitioners. Suc! is a&ailable onl# !ere t!e ordinar# re"edies of ne trial, appeal, petition for relief or ot!er appropriate re"edies are no longer a&ailable t!roug! no fault of petitioners. (ere, petitioners !ad, in fact, a&ailed of an action for recon&e#ance !ere t!e# litigated t!e grounds for annul"ent of judg"ent. T!ere ould be no end to litigations if parties !o !a&e unsuccessfull# a&ailed of an# of t!e appropriate re"edies or lost t!e" t!roug! t!eir fault ould still be !eard in an action to annul t!e judg"ent.
.2 T#e Pro!er Remedy T!e proper re"ed# of a part# aggrie&ed b# a decision of t!e CA in an action to annul a judg"ent of a RTC is a petition for re&ie on certiorari under Rule >4, !ere onl# %uestions of la "a# be raised. Petitioners, !oe&er, !a&e a&ailed of t!e special ci&il action for certiorari and manam!s under Rule /4 of t!e Rules of Court. $o special reasons e+ist in t!is case to justif# resort to Rule /4.
A. Res *di%t%
58
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition =nder Rule >4 is a continuation of t!e judg"ent co"plained of, !ile t!at under Rule /4 is an original or independent action. t is li@eise settled t!at, generall#, t!e special ci&il action of certiorari under Rule /4 ill not be alloed as a substitute for failure to ti"el# file a petition for re&ie under Rule >4 or for t!e lost re"ed# of appeal.
59
Ua"boanga del Sur declared Lots $os. <>? and <> it! i"pro&e"ents t!ereon to be t!e pri&ate properties of 7ilfredo . Cainglet. Suc! judicial pronounce"ent !ic! !as beco"e final, as can be inferred fro" t!e infor"ation, allegedl# runs counter to t!e c!arge t!at accused falsel# clai"ed said real estate to be !is on pri&ate properties.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e final judg"ent in Cadastral Case $o. -, LRC T!e rong c!oice of re"ed# t!us pro&ides anot!er reason to dis"iss t!is petition.
Cadastral Record $o. $H-<> declaring 7ilfredo . Cainglet oner of Lots $os. <>? and <> bars !is subse%uent prosecution for falsel# stating in !is ansers in said Cadastral Case t!at !e possessed and oned Lots $os. <>? and <>8
NO HELD4 t is funda"ental and ellHsettled t!at a final judg"ent in PEOPLE -S CAINGLET FACTS4 n Dece"ber -;, -/ 7ilfredo . Cainglet as prosecuted before t!e Court of irst nstance of Ua"boanga del Sur for falsification of public andor official docu"ents in Cri"inal Cases $os. ;0 and ;- under to infor"ations !ic! e %uote !ereunder: T!at on or about April , -4, in t!e "unicipalit# of pil, pro&ince of Ua"boanga del Sur, P!ilippines, and in ot!er places it! in t!e jurisdiction of t!is (onorable Court, t!e !erein accused, 7ilfredo . Cainglet, a pri&ate indi&idual, in order to decei&e t!e Court of irst nstance of Ua"boanga del Sur in rendering a decision in Cadastral Case $o. $H-, LRC Cad. Rec. $o. $H-<>, declaring Lot $o. <>, PlsH>< and its i"pro&e"ents as t!e pri&ate propert# of t!e !erein accused, t!roug! false and fraudulent representations, did t!en and t!ere ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl#, it! full @noledge of t!e falsit# of its contents, prepare andor caused to be prepared t!e !ereinbelo described docu"ent, to it: Judicial or" $o. -0/, ot!erise @non as an Anser under Section of Act $o. 4, dul# subscribed and sorn to before $otar# Public Andres ersales, a person dul# aut!oriEed b# la to ad"inister oat!, !erein t!e accused deliberatel# "ade t!e folloing untrut!ful state"ent of facts: )-* T!at !e is t!e oner of Lot $o. <>, PlsH>* T!at t!e said land as ac%uired b# occupation and purc!ase fro" a predecessorHinHinterestK )4* T!at !is predecessorHinHinterest !ad been in possession t!ereof for al"ost t!irt# );0* #earsK )/* T!at t!ere is no person !a&ing interest to t!e said landK !ic! allegation of facts as contained in t!e abo&eH"entioned docu"ent are necessar# and essential, as re%uired under Section of Act $o. 4, ot!erise @non as t!e Cadastral Act, in order t!at an# person clai"ing to !a&e an interest on t!e land subject of t!e cadastral proceedings, "a# present !is clai" and t!us pre&enting t!e Court fro" declaring t!e land as public landKG
a cadastral proceeding Q a proceeding in rem is binding and conclusi&e upon t!e !ole orld, reason is t!at public polic# and public order de"and not onl# t!at litigations "ust ter"inate at so"e definite point but also t!at titles o&er lands under t!e Torrens s#ste" s!ould be gi&en stabilit# for on it greatl# depends t!e stabilit# of t!e countr#'s econo"#. Interest reip!blicae !t sit finis liti!m. (oe&er, t!is conclusi&eness of judg"ent in t!e registration of lands is not absolute. t ad"its of e+ceptions. Public polic# also dictates t!at t!ose unjustl# depri&ed of t!eir rig!ts o&er real propert# b# reason of t!e operation of our registration las be afforded re"edies. T!us, t!e aggrie&ed part# "a# file a suit for recon&e#ance of propert# or a personal action for reco&er# of da"ages against t!e part# !o registered !is propert# t!roug! fraud,; or in case of insol&enc# of t!e part# !o procured t!e registration t!roug! fraud, an action against t!e Treasurer of t!e P!ilippines for reco&er# of da"ages fro" t!e Assurance und.> T!roug! t!ese re"edial proceedings, t!e la, !ile !olding registered titles indefeasible, allos redress calculated to pre&ent one fro" enric!ing !i"self at t!e e+ pense of ot!ers. $ecessaril#, it!out setting aside t!e decree of title, t!e issues raised in t!e pre&ious registration case are relitigated, for purposes of recon&e#ance of said title or reco&er# of da"ages. n t!e sa"e a#, t!erefore, t!e State "a# cri"inall# prosecute for perjur# t!e part# !o obtains registration t!roug! fraud, suc! as b# stating false assertions in t!e sorn anser re%uired of applicants in cadastral proceedings. or Section --/ of t!e Land Registration Act states:
S2C. --/. 7!oe&er @noingl# s ears falsel# to an # state"ent re%uired to be "ade under oat! b # t!is Act s!all be guilt# of perjur# and liable to t!e penalties pro&ided b# las for perjur#.
TRANSFEREE FOR -AL3E AND IN GOOD FAITH ARG3ELLES -S TI+BANCA5A
CONTENTION OF CAINGLET Cainglet "o&ed to %uas! t!e aforeH%uoted infor"ations on t!e ground t!at t!e# contain a&er"ents, !ic! if true, ould constitute an e+cuse or justification, in&o@ing Section )g* of Rule -;; of t!e Rules of Court. - T!e a&er"ents referred to consist in t!e state"ents in t!e infor"ations t!at in Cadastral Case $o. -, LRC Cadastral Record $o. $H-<> t!e Court of irst nstance of
FACTS4 Defendant uiller"o Ti"banca#a appeals directl# and on purel# %uestions of la t!e decision of Palaan C. T!e trial court ruled t!at t!e propert#, subject of plaintiff's action for recon&e#ance and b# &irtue of a co"pro"ise agree"ent and judg"ent in Special Proceedings $o. --, as oned jointl#
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition oneH!alf t!ereof b# Caridad Arguelles and t!e ot!er !alf b# uiller"o and Alberto Ti"banca#a.
During t!e special proceedings for ntestate 2state of Jose Arguelles, t!e court rendered a decision, in confor"it# it! a co"pro"ise agree"ent, adjudicating one !alf of t!e land to Arguelles and t!e ot!er !alf to t!e Ti"banca#a's. t also ordered bot! parties to pa# for t!e coconut trees planted in t!eir respecti&e portions of t!e land, !ic! t!e# relin%uis! in fa&or of t!e ot!er.
60
oner "a# pursue all !is legal and e%uitable re"edies against t!e parties to suc! fraud, it!out prejudice, !oe&er, to t!e rig!ts of an# innocent !older for &alue of a certificate of title.G T!is re"ed# is distinct fro" t!at aut!oriEed b# Section ;<, !ic! !as for its purpose t!e reopening of t!e decree of title, on t!e ground of fraud, it!in - #ear fro" its issuance. *dgment %!!e%&ed
"rom %""irmed.
S3BSE73ENT REGISTRATION
Contrar# to t!e agree"ent and judg"ent in t!e special proceedings !oe&er, Ti"banca#a as able to !a&e t!e original certificate of title cancelled and !a&e a ne CT issued in !is fa&or co&ering t!e !ole land )June 4, -/-*, despite Arguelles' actual open and continuous possession of one !alf of t!e propert# e&en before t!e filing of t!e special proceedings.
=pon @noing t!e issuance of t!e TCT, Arguelles filed t!e instant case for recon&e#ance )April ;0, -/4*. Ti"banca#a, for !is part, alleges t!at Arguelles !as no rig!t to t!e propert# in %uestion because s!e is not an !eir of t!e estate of t!e late Jose Arguelles despite t!e decision in t!e special proceedings.
A. -o&*nt%ry de%&ings B. In)o&*nt%ry De%&ings
+A+35AC -S ABENA FACTS4 regoria PM2$T2L as t!e oner of t!e parcels of land in LA 3NION s!e sold and con&e#ed on June -, -/, to
four #ears !a&e lapsed before action as filed
Pedro A2$A. n Januar# ?, -?, Pi"entel again sold and con&e#ed t!e sa"e parcels to Tiburcio MAM=9AC.
R3LING4 No. T!e rule t!at a decree of registration once issued
T!e docu"ent of sale, in fa&or of Abena as dul# inscribed in t!e registr# of propert# of t!e pro&ince on Januar# ;-, -?, and fro" April, -?, said parcels of land ere declared for ta+ation in t!e na"e said Abena.
ISS3E4 7$ TCT !ad alread# beco"e indefeasible, since al"ost
beco"es final and incontro&ertible - #ear after its issuance is not rele&ant to t!e case at bar.
Arguelles does not %uestion t!e &alidit# of t!e CT but instead see@s t!e annul"ent of t!e TCT, !ic! as issued to Ti"banca#a after t!e judg"ent b# co"pro"ise and based on !is "isrepresentation in t!e Register of Deeds. Ti"banca#a !ad clai"ed t!at !e and !is brot!er are t!e e+clusi&e oners of t!e propert# as t!e Fonl# legiti"ate c!ildren and sur&i&ing !eirs of )t!eir* parents Jose Arguelles and Rufina de los Re#esGQa representation contrar# to !is pre&ious ad"issions t!at Ft!e# are not t!e legiti"ate c!ildren of t!e deceased Spouses Jose Arguelles and Rufina de los Re#es, but t!e sons of Rufina de los Re#es it! !er first !usband, Joa%uin Ti"banca#a.G
n t!is case, t!e action to annul t!e title or action for recon&e#ance !as its basis in Section 44 of Act >/, !ic! pro&ides t!at Fin all cases of registration procured b# fraud t!e
T!e docu"ent e+ecuted in fa&or of t!e Ma"u#ac on Januar# ?, -?, as neit!er inscribed in t!e registr# of propert# nor ere t!e parcels of t!e land declared for ta+ation in t!e na"e of t!e latter. Ma"u#ac instituted an action against Abena for t!e reco&er# of t!e parcels of land but bot! trial court and CA fa&ored Abena. ISS3E4 7!o !as better rig!ts o&er t!e propert#.
HOLDING4 A2$A. A&&eged Contr%t o" +ortg%ge in "%)or o" +%m*y% Ma"u#ac contends t!at !e !as a better rig!t o&er t!e parcels of land in&ol&ed because of possession clai"ed b# !i" b# &irtue of an alleged pri&ate contract of "ortgagee+ecuted in !is fa&or on Januar# >, -;4. t is sufficient anser to t!is contention t!at 1in order t!at a "ortgage "a# be dee"ed to be legall# constituted, it is indispensable t!at t!e instru"ent in !ic! it appears be a public docu"ent and be recorded in t!e propert# register. T!erefore, a "ortgage in legal for" as not constituted b# said pri&ate docu"ent.1 2&en ere e to accord &alidit# to t!e "ortgage, article ->?; of t!e Ci&il Code, in&o@ed b# !i", applies onl# to t!e deter"ination of presence beteen sale and s ale.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition +%m*y%:s %&&eged !ossession )s. A;en%:s registered Deed o" S%&e 2&en assu"ing, for t!e sa@e of argu"ent, t!atMa"u#ac!ad been in possession of said properties b# reason of t!e alleged contract of "ortgage e+ecuted in !is fa&or, on Januar# >, -4, and ere to accord legal effect to t!e docu"ent of sale of Januar# ?, -?, !ic! as not recorded in t!e registr# of propert#, still !is rig!t cannot pre&ail o&er t!at of Abena !o !ad dul# registered !is deed of sale.
No %t*%& de&i)ery to A;en% Ma"u#ac's contention t!at Abena6s oners!ip and preference o&er t!e propert# in %uestion is not co"plete because of lac@ of "aterial deli&er# of t!e possession to !i" b# t!e &endor is not ell ta@en, for t!e reason t!at t!e e+ecution of t!e public docu"ent of sale in fa&or of Abenais e%ui&alent to t!e deli&er# of t!e realt# sold.
CONRADO C. F3LE %nd LO3RDES F. ARAGON )s. E+ILIA E. DE LEGARE %nd CO3RT OF APPEALS FACTS4 T!is is an action for annul"ent of certain deeds of sale and con&e#ance co&ering a parcel of land, toget!er it! t!e i"pro&e"ents e+isting t!ereon, situated in t!e "unicipalit# of San Juan, pro&ince of RiEal, and for da"ages. 2"ilia 2. de Legare, as t!e oner of a parcel of land, toget!er it! a residential !ouse erected t!ereon, situated at $o. ->/ Sta. Mesa oule&ard 2+tension, San Juan, RiEal, !er oners!ip being e&idenced b# Transfer Certificate of Title $o. -4;, issued b# t!e ffice of t!e Register of Deeds of t!e pro&ince of RiEal. T!is propert# as "ortgage to a secure a loan in fa&or of To"as Soriano !ic! is properl# annotated in t!e title. At about :00 o6cloc@ in t!e e&ening of Marc! , -4;, !ile in !er !ouse an un@non "an intruded into t!e roo", approac!ed t!e plaintiff, co&ered !er "out!, and, pressing a @nife on !er side, de"anded t!at s!e gi&e !i" P-0,000.00 if s!e did not li@e to be @illed. Jo!n Legare !er adopted son concluded t!at, t!at "an as a !u@ afraid of t!eir li&es Jo!n !ad 2"ilia and t!eir "aid signed a piece of docu"ent. Jo!n said t!at t!e docu"ent is a letter concerning so"e co"pensation s!e as to recei&e fro" t!e 3eterans Ad"inistration. Since s!e could not read t!oug! s!e can ife signed t!e said paper and so as t!eir "ade. After !ic! Jo!n instructed t!e" to pac@ up t!eir t!ings and t!at t!e# ill li&e in a !otel for t!e "eanti"e for safet# reason. After a "ont! of sta#ing in a !otel s!e 2"ilia decide to go bac@ to !er !ouse and onl# to find out t!at t!ere ere alread# people li&ing t!ere. t turned out t!at Jo!n !ad sold t!e propert# to !erein petitioners. T!e piece of paper t!at s!e signed as a deed of sale in fa&our of Jo!n. Jo!n !ad t!e title transferred to !is na"e and subse%uentl# transferred to !erein petitioner it! full @noledge of t!e encu"brances and onl# after jo!n !ad t!e title transferred to !is na"e t!en t!e petitioner paid for t!e purc!ase price.
ISS3E4 7ere t!e !erein petitioners purc!asers in good fait! and for &alue of t!e properties !ere contested8 9es
61
R3LING4 A purc!aser in good fait! is one !o bu#s propert# of anot!er, it!out notice t!at so"e ot!er persons !as a rig!t to, or interest in, suc! propert# and pa#s a full and fair price for t!e sa"e, at t!e ti"e of suc! purc!ase, or before !e !as notice of t!e clai" or interest of so"e ot!er persons in t!e propert#. ood fait! consists in an !onest intention to abstain fro" ta@ing an# unconscientious ad&antage of anot!er. t s!ould be noted t!at t!e deed of sale as regular upon its face, and no one ould !a&e %uestioned its aut!enticit# since it as dul# ac@noledged before a notar# public. Moreo&er, e&en if t!e petitioners !ad t!e opportunit# to co"pare t!e signature of t!e respondent on t!e deed of con&e#ance it! a speci"en of !er genuine signature, t!e effort, nonet!eless, ould !a&e been in &ain since t!e respondent6s signature on t!e docu"ent as ad"ittedl# !ers. Lastl#, it s!ould not be o&erloo@ed t!at t!e respondent, during t!e !ole period of t!e negotiation, as no!ere a&ailable to confir" or den# t!e e+ecution of t!e deed. S!e as t!en in !iding, or, !idden, at t!e 7indsor (otel in Manila. T!e diligence and precaution obser&ed b# t!e petitioners t!e"sel&es could !ardl# !a&e been anting. T!e records s!o t!at t!e# did not rel# solel# and full# upon t!e deed of sale in fa&or of Jo!n 7. Legare and t!e fact t!at Jo!n !ad t!en in !is possession t!e corresponding certificate of title of t!e registered oner. T!e# de"anded "ore. T!e# insisted t!at t!e s ale in fa&or of Jo!n 7. Legare be first registered and t!at t!e transfer in t!eir fa&or be t!ereafter li@eise registered. t as onl# after all t!ese ere co"plied it! t!at t!e# paid t!e purc!ase price. n ot!er ords, t!e petitioner spouses relied not reall# on t!e docu"ents e+!ibited to t!e" b# Jo!n 7. Legare, but, on t!e registerabilit# of t!ose docu"ents. T!is in ur &ie, satisfies t!e "easure of good fait! conte"plated b# la. Alt!oug! t!e deed of sale in fa&or of Jo!n 7. Legare as fraudulent, t!e fact re"ains t!at !e as able to secure a registered title to t!e !ouse and lot. t as t!is title !ic! !e subse%uentl# con&e#ed to t!e !erein petitioners. 7e !a&e indeed ruled t!at a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullit# and con&e#s no title )Director of Lands &. Addison, > P!il. -*. (oe&er, e !a&e also laid don t!e doctrine t!at t!ere are instances !en suc! a fraudulent docu"ent "a# beco"e t!e root of &alid title. ne suc! instance is !ere t!e certificate of title as alread# transferred fro" t!e na"e of t!e true oner to t!e forger, and !ile it re"ained t!at a#, t!e land as subse%uentl# sold to an innocent purc!aser. or t!en, t!e &endee !ad t!e rig!t to rel# upon !at appeared in t!e certificate )n%ui"bo# &s. CruE, .R. $o. LH-;4;, Jul# <, -/0*. esides, t!e records of t!is case re&eal t!at t!e !erein respondent is !erself not entirel# free fro" bla"e. 7e note t!at !en Jo!n presented to !er t!e docu"ent !ic! turned out to be a bed of con&e#ance in !is fa&or, s!e readil# affi+ed !er signature t!ereto upon t!e si"ple representation of Jo!n t!at it as a docu"ent pertaining to !er clai" it! t!e =.S. 3eterans Ad"inistration. S!e could !a&e as@ed !er "aid to read t!e contents of t!e sa"e for !er and #et s!e did not. T!ese, e belie&e, a"ount to a lac@ of prudence and precaution on t!e part of Mrs. 2"ilia de Legare.
GLORIA R. CR38 )s. CO3RT OF APPEALS@ RO+5 -. S38ARA %nd +AN3EL R. -I8CONDE
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition FACTS4 loria R. CruE as t!e oner of Lot -0, LN. 4/4, PSDH ;<--, it! an area of ?>?.? s%uare "eters, toget!er it! t!e i"pro&e"ents t!ereon, situated at ituan St., g#. Doa "elda, IueEon Cit#, co&ered b# TCT $o. >44; in !er na"eK in -?? s!e and respondent Ro"eo 3. SuEara li&ed toget!er as !usband and ife it!out benefit of "arriageK in Septe"ber -<, solel# out of lo&e and affection for SuEara, s!e e+ecuted a deed of absolute sale o&er Lot -0 in fa&or of SuEara it!out an# "onetar# considerationK t!ereafter, SuEara registered t!e docu"ent in !is fa&or and used t!e propert# as collateral for a ban@ loan P;40,000.00K !e !oe&er failed to pa# t!e loan so t!at after four )>* #ears t!e "ortgage as foreclosed. S!e paid t!e ban@ P>0,/;<.<< to restructure t!e loan resulting in t!e e+tension of t!e rede"ption period to to )* #ears. (oe&er, it!out !er @noledge and before t!e e+piration of t!e e+tended period, SuEara redee"ed t!e propert#. S!e tried to tal@ to !i" but !e a&oided !er. inall#, to protect !er interest, s!e e+ecuted an Affida&it of Ad&erse Clai" !ic! s!e filed it! t!e Register t!e Deeds of IueEon Cit# asserting t!at !er sale in fa&or of SuEara as null and &oid for lac@ of consideration and being contrar# to la and public polic#. Moreo&er, t!e said propert# as alread# been sold b# SuEara to Manuel 3iEconde. Petitioner contends t!at s!e and respondent SuEara ere co""onHla !usband and ife, t!e sale beteen t!e" as &oid and ine+istent, citing Art. ->0 of t!e Ci&il Code. S!e argues t!at t!e consideration of 1lo&e, affection and acco""odation1 for t!e sale as not a &alid cause for t!e con&e#ance of t!e propert# as t!ere as no price paid in "one# or its e%ui&alent, and since !er sale to SuEara as null and &oid t!e issue of its illegalit# cannot be ai&ed or ratifiedK resultantl#, t!e sale b# SuEara to !is coH respondent 3iEconde "ust also be declared null and &oid t!e latter being a purc!aser in bad fait!.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not 3iEconde is a bu#er in bad fait!. R3LING4 7e cannot sustain petitioner. Alt!oug! under Art. ->0 t!e !usband and ife cannot sell propert# to one anot!er as a rule !ic!, for polic# consideration and t!e dictates of "oralit# re%uire t!at t!e pro!ibition appl# to co""onHla relations!ips, > petitioner can no longer see@ recon&e#ance of t!e propert# to !er as it !as alread# been ac%uired b# respondent 3iEconde in good fait! and for &alue fro" !er on transferee. 7!ere innocent t!ird persons, rel#ing on t!e correctness of t!e certificate of title t!us issued, ac%uire rig!ts o&er t!e propert# t!e court cannot disregard suc! rig!ts and order t!e total cancellation of t!e certificate. T!e effect of suc! an outrig!t cancellation ould be to i"pair public confidence in t!e certificate of title, for e&er#one dealing it! propert# registered under t!e Torrens s#ste" ould !a&e to in%uire in e&er# instance !et!er t!e title !as been regularl# or irregularl# issued. T!is is contrar# to t!e e&ident purpose of t!e la. 2&er# person dealing it! registered land "a# safel# rel# on t!e correctness of t!e certificate of title issued t!erefor and t!e la ill in no a# oblige !i" to go be!ind t!e certificate to deter"ine t!e condition of t!e propert#. 2&en if a decree in a registration proceeding is infected it! nullit#, still an innocent purc!aser for &alue rel#ing on a Torrens title issued in pursuance t!ereof is protected. A purc!aser in good fait! is one !o bu#s t!e propert# of anot!er it!out notice
62
t!at so"e ot!er person !as a rig!t to or interest in suc! propert# and pa#s a full and fair price for t!e sa"e at t!e ti"e of suc! purc!ase or before !e !as notice of t!e clai" of anot!er person. 7e cannot grant petitioner6s pra#er to !a&e respondent 3iEconde6s certificate of title declared null and &oid. $eit!er can e order t!e recon&e#ance of t!e propert# to petitioner. 3iEconde being a purc!aser of registered land for &alue in good fait! !olds an indefeasible title to t!e land. T!is is it!out prejudice !oe&er to an# appropriate re"ed # petitioner "a# ta@e against !er erst!ile co""onHla !usband, respondent SuEara.
SPS. SON5A IS+AEL +ATHA5@ R. )s. HON. CO3RT OF APPEALS@ SPS. TEOD3LFO S5L-IA ATANGAN@ SPS. AG3STINA A+OR POBLETE@ SPS. ED3ARDO FELICISI+A TIRONA FACTS4 A.* Ci&il Case $o. TMH-?4 )Spouses Atangan &s. Spouses Mat!a# and RegisterDeeds of Ca&ite*H n&ol&es to parcels of land )Lot $o -
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition n&ol&es a parcel of land registered in t!e na"e of Juana atallones and audencio Iui"io !ic! as allegedl# sold to Spouses Poblete as per FDeed of Conditional SaleG.
declaration. T!e# allege t!at t!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* !a&e enclosed a"ong ot!ers t!e propert# in %uestion it! a fence and too@ p!#sical possession t!ereof it!out t!eir @noledge and consent.
Spouses Poblete alleges t!at t!e# are registered oners of a parcel of land !a&ing purc!ased t!e sa"e fro" Juan attallones and audencio for t!e"sel&es and on be!alf of t!eir coH!eirs as e&idenced b# Deed of Sale. T!e spouses too@ possession of t!e land and alleges t!at t!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* !a&e enclosed a portion of t!e said propert# it! a fence it!out t!e consent and against t!e ill of t!e plaintiffs.
T!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* declare t!at t!e# ere also issued it! a title co&ering t!e said land. Spouses Tirona asserts t!at t!e said title issued to Mat!a#s as a product of forger# and falsification because it as based on an alleged transferred certificate in fa&or of Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# !o !a&e no rig!t !atsoe&er on t!e real estate in %uestion. =pon in&estigation, it as certified b# t!e ureau of Lands t!at t!e said titles ere falsified and forged.
T!e &endees !ose titles ere transferred in fa&or of t!e plaintiffs !a&e obtained t!e title b# &irtue of t!e decision b# t!e court on t!e ci&il case )To"as Lucido &s. Juana nate atallones and Petronilla I.Iui"io, Director of Lands, t!e Register of Deeds of Ca&ite*. T!e !eirs of nofre atallones and Modesta Iui"io are t!e &endees of t!e land for" t!e ureau of Lands as e&idenced b# a Certification issued b# t!e Record fficer of t!e District Land ffice.
Spouses Tirona t!erefore pra#s t!at since t!e title of t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no basis in la and t!at t!e sa"e as illegall# procured on t!e basis of forger#, t!e sa"e s!ould be cancelled and t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no rig!t to ta@e possession of t!e propert# in %uestion. T!e# also de"and "oral, irreparable da"ages and attorne#'s fee for t!e sa"e.
T!e sale of t!e subject parcel of land fro" t!e ureau of Lands in fa&or of t!e !eirs of atallones and Iui"io as also e&idenced b# a Deed of Con&e#ance dul# issued b# t!e ureau of Lands. T!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* declare t!at t!e# ere also issued it! a title co&ering t!e said land. Spouses Poblete asserts t!at t!e said title issued to Mat!a#s as a product of forger# because it as based on an alleged transferred certificate in fa&or of Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# !o !a&e no rig!t !atsoe&er on t!e real estate in %uestion. =pon in&estigation, it as certified b# t!e ureau of Lands t!at t!e said titles ere falsified and forged. Spouses Poblete t!erefore pra#s t!at since t!e title of t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no basis in la and t!at t!e sa"e as illegall# procured on t!e basis of forger#, t!e sa"e s!ould be cancelled and t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no rig!t to ta@e possession of t!e propert# in %uestion. T!e# alsode"and "oral, irreparable da"ages and attorne#'s fee for t!e sa"e. C.* Ci&il Case $o. TMH0/ )Spouses Tirona &s. Spouses Mat!a#, et. al*. Spouses Motas boug!t a parcel of land )Lot -
63
T!e loer court decided for t!e defendant spouses Mat!a# and against t!e plaintiffs in t!e t!ree consolidated cases. n appeal, t!e Court of Appeals decided in fa&or of t!e plaintiffHappellants. T!us, t!e appeal.
ISS3ES4 • •
7$ Spouses Mat!a# can be considered bu#ers in good fait!. 7$ SpousesHpri&ate respondents on t!e indi&idual properties in %uestion.
HELD4 Spouses Mat!a# cannot be considered as purc!asers in good fait! because prior to t!e fencing of t!e subject land, neit!er t!e# nor t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest )ana#o and Puga#* e&er possessed t!e sa"e. At t!e sa"e ti"e t!e propert# as sold to petitioners )Mat!a#s*, t!e pri&ate respondents ere not onl# in actual possession of t!e sa"e but also built t!eir !ouses t!ereon, culti&ated it and ere in full enjo#"ent of t!e produce and fruits gat!ered t!erefro". Alt!oug! it is a ellHsettled principle t!at t!e person dealing on a registered land need not go be#ond t!e certificate of title, t!ere are still circu"stances !ic! ould put part# on guard and pro"pt !i" to in&estigate or inspect t!e propert# being sold to !i". t is e+pected fro" t!e purc!aser of a &alued price of a land to in%uire first into t!e status or nature of possession of t!e occupants, in concept of oner. ailure of a prospecti&e bu#er to ta@e suc! precautionar# steps ould "ean negligence on !is part and ould t!ereb# preclude !i" fro" clai"ing or in&o@ing t!e rig!ts of a Fpurc!aser in good fait!.G n addition, before t!e fence around subject propert# as erected, pri&ate respondent co""unicated t!eir objection to t!e fencing of t!e area b# petitioners but t!e# ere ignored b# t!e Mat!a#s, !o continued enclosing t!e pre"ises under contro&ers# in t!e present of ar"ed "en e"plo#ed b# t!e". . T!e SpousesHPri&ate respondents are t!e &alid oners of t!e indi&idual properties in %uestion because all t!e subse%uent certificates of title including t!e petitioner's titles are &oid for t!e sa"e ere forged and falsified. t as furt!er pro&ed t!at t!e titles issued to Mat!a#s are &oid fort! allegedl# Sales Certificate e+ecuted b# To"as Lucido in fa&our of Pedro Puga# as not signed b# t!e said To"as Lucido. $eit!er does it bear t!e signature of t!e latter. t furt!er pro&ed t!at t!e deeds s!oed b# ana#o and Puga# ere not for t!e indi&idual propert# in
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition %uestion. T!e circu"stances surrounding t!e e+ecution of t!e Deed of Absolute Sale b# Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# in fa&or of t!e spouses Son#a Mat!a# and s"ael Mat!a# furt!er s!oed t!at it did not co"pl# it! t!e legal for"alities and as not dul# notariEed. urt!er"ore, t!e residence certificates of &endors ana#o and Puga# appeared to be of dubious source. T!e Spouses Mat!a# utterl# failed to disc!arge t!e burden of pro&ing t!e sustainabilit# of t!eir posture of t!e" being bu#ers in good fait!. urt!er"ore, t!e title of Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# relied upon b# t!e" !as been s!on b# preponderance of e&idence to be t!e product of forger#. Petition is DSMSS2D for t!e lac@ of "erit, and t!e Decision of t!e Court of Appeals is ARM2D in toto.
64
no longer !ad title o&er t!ese to lots and !ad alread# con&e#ed t!e sa"e to to ot!er persons. (ence, t!e RD clai"ed t!at t!e rit of e+ecution "ust first be "odified to include t!e cancellation of deri&ati&e titles of t!e SS title.
ISS3ES4 . 7!et!er t!e SS can still raise t!e issue of e+e"ption . 7!et!er a final and e+ecutor# judg"ent against SS and Manlongat can be enforced against t!eir successorsHinHinterest or !olders of deri&ati&e titles . 7!et!er an order to cancel title to a particular propert# includes an order to pro&ide tec!nical descr iptions and segregate it fro" its "ot!er title
HELD4 COL. FRANCISCO DELA +ERCED@ s*;stit*ting ;y #is #eirs@ n%me&y@ BLAN73ITA E. DELA +ERCED@ L3IS CESAR DELA +ERCED@ BLAN73ITA E. DELA +ERCED+ACATANGA52 %nd +ARIA OLI-IA +. PAREDES )s. GO-ERN+ENT SER-ICE INS3RANCE S5STE+ GSIS2 %nd SPO3SES -ICTOR %nd +ILAGROS +ANLONGAT FACTS4 T!is case in&ol&es fi&e registered parcels of land located it!in t!e Antonio Subdi&ision, Pasig Cit# Lots /, ?, <, and -0 of loc@ and Lot < of loc@ < )subject properties*. T!ese lots ere originall# oned b#, and titled in t!e na"e of, Jose C. Uulueta )Uulueta*, as e&idenced b# Transfer Certificate of Title )TCT* $o. /-04 !ic! contains se&eral lots ot!er t!an t!e subject properties it!in t!e Antonio Subdi&ision. Later, t!e Uulueta spouses "ortgaged se&eral lots contained in TCT $o. /-04 to t!e SS, !ic! e&entuall# foreclosed on t!e "ortgaged properties, including t!e subject properties. =pon consolidation of SSs oners!ip, TCT $o. /-04 in Uuluetas na"e as cancelled, and TCT $o. ;44> as issued in SSs na"e. =pon learning of t!e foreclosure, petitioners predecessor, rancisco Dela Merced )Dela Merced*, later on substituted b# !is !eirs, filed a co"plaint pra#ing for t!e nullit# of t!e SS foreclosure on t!e subject properties )Lots /, ?, <, and -0 of loc@ and Lot < of loc@ <* on t!e ground t!at !e, not t!e Uuluetas, as t!e oner of t!ese lots at t!e ti"e of t!e foreclosure. Dela Merced also i"pleaded 3ictor and Milagros Manlongat, !o ere clai"ing Lot /, loc@ b# &irtue of a sale e+ecuted b# t!e SS in t!eir daug!ters )2liEabet! Manlongat* fa&or. Dela Merced argued t!at, due to t!e nullit# of SSs foreclosure o&er t!e subject properties, it !ad no oners!ip rig!t t!at could be transferred to 2liEabet! Manlongat. After a protracted litigation, t!e SC rendered a Decision in t!e petitioners fa&or and nullified SSs foreclosure of t!e subject properties because t!ese lots ere ne&er part of its "ortgage agree"ent it! t!e Uulueta spouses. Pursuant to t!e finalit# of t!e Decision, petitioners filed a Motion for 2+ecution !ic! SS opposed on t!e basis of Section ; of t!e SS Act of -? )RA <- !ic! allegedl# e+e"pts SS funds and properties fro" attac!"ent, garnis!"ent, e+ecution, le&# and ot!er court processes. A rit of e+ecution as finall# issued, !oe&er, first b# t!e RTC and t!en b# t!e CA. T!e SS filed a petition for re&ie before t!e SC !ic! as denied b# t!e latter. After t!e resolution of t!e issue of SSs e+e"ption, petitioners encountered "ore proble"s it! t!e e+ecution of t!e Decision. According to t!e RD of Pasig Cit#, Policarpio 2spenesin, !e could not cancel t!e titles of SS o&er Lots ? and < because it
)-* T!e issue of SSs alleged e+e"ption under RA <- !ad been finall# decided against !en t!is Court denied SSs petition for re&ie. SSs atte"pt to resurrect t!e sa"e issue b# interjecting t!e sa"e in t!is proceeding is barred b# t!e principle of 1la of t!e case,1 !ic! states t!at 1deter"inations of %uestions of la ill generall# be !eld to go&ern a case t!roug!out all its subse%uent stages !ere suc! deter"ination !as alread# been "ade on a prior appeal to a court of last resort.1 )* A notice of lis pendens is an announce"ent to t!e !ole orld t!at a particular real propert# is in litigation, ser&ing as a arning 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 t!e said propert#. t is not disputed t!at petitioners caused t!e annotation of lis pendens on TCT $o. ;44> of t!e lots in %uestion. T!e current !olders of t!e deri&ati&e titles to t!ese lots ere aare of suc! annotation !en t!e indi&idual titles ere issued to t!e". neluctabl#, bot! ere bound b# t!e outco"e of t!e litigation. );* T!e order contained in t!e Decision in .R. $o. ->0;< is for t!e RD to cancel SSs titles o&er Lot -0, loc@ and Lot <, loc@ <, inter alia. 7!et!er t!ese titles are indi&idual or contained in a "ot!er title is of no conse%uence. T!e RD !as to cause t!eir cancellation. f t!e cancellation can onl# be carried out b# re%uiring SS or t!e ureau of Lands to pro&ide t!e necessar# infor"ation, t!en t!e# can be co"pelled to do so. t!erise, t!e Courts decision ould be rendered inefficacious, and SS ould retain ostensible oners!ip o&er t!e lots b# t!e si"ple e+pedience t!at t!e# are included in a "ot!er title, instead of indi&idual titles. T!at result is "anifestl# contrar# to t!e Courts ruling and ould sub&ert t!e &er# purpose of bringing t!is case for a co"plete resolution.
HO+E BAN(ERS SA-INGS AND TR3ST CO+PAN5 HBSTC2 -. CA A3STRIA?+ARTINE8@ .2 FACTS4 2ac! of pri&ate respondents entered into separate contracts to sell it! TransA"erican Sales and 2+position )TransA"erican* t!roug! t!e latter's nereneral Manager, 2ngr. Jesus arcia, in&ol&ing certain portions of land co&ered b# Transfer Certificate of Title )TCT* $o. --44, located at $o. >4 en. Li" Street, (eroes (ill, IueEon Cit #, toget!er it! one unit t!reeHstore# ton!ouse to be built on eac! portion, as follos:
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition Respondent Pablo $. Are&alo purc!ased t!e portion of land deno"inated as =nit $o. 4 for t!e a"ount of P?40,000.00 on August -, -<< and !ad alread# full# paid t!e purc!ase price on Septe"ber ;, -<-. (e ordered to stop t!e pa#"ent of all OpostdatedW c!ec@s fro" Septe"ber -0 to $o&e"ber -4 on t!e ground of nonH co"pletion of !is unit and !ad later learned of t!e foreclosure of t!e propert#K Respondent spouses Leandro A. Soriano, Jr. and Lilian Soriano purc!ased t!e portion of land deno"inated as =nit $o. ; on ebruar# -4, -0 in t!e a"ount of P-,/00,000.00 and !ad allegedl# "ade a pa#"ent of P//,/0.00. T!e# !ad stopped pa#ing because of nonHco"pletion of t!e project and !ad later learned of t!e foreclosure of t!e propert#K Respondents Alfredo Li" and Santos Li" purc!ased t!e portion of land deno"inated as =nit $o. ? for P?00,000.00 on ctober -<< and !ad been full# paid as of Marc! -<, -<K Santos Li" subse%uentl# sold and assigned !is s!are of t!e propert# to pri&ate respondent elisa C!i Li" on Ma# -, -<.
65
n $o&e"ber <, -0, pri&ate respondents filed a co"plaint it! t!e ffice of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs )AALA*, (L=R, against arciaTransA"erican as sellerde&eloper of t!e propert# and petitioner, as indispensable part#, for nonHdeli&er# of titles and nonHco"pletion of t!e subdi&ision project. T!e# pra#ed for t!e co"pletion of t!e units, annul"ent of t!e "ortgage in fa&or of petitioner, release of t!e "ortgage on t!e lots it! full# paid oners and deli&er# of t!eir titles, and for petitioner to co"pute indi&idual loan &alues of a"ortiEing respondents and to accept pa#"ents fro" t!e" and da"ages. Petitioner filed its Anser contending t!at pri&ate respondents !a&e no cause of action against itK t#%t %t t#e time o" t#e &o%n
%!!&i%tion %nd eJe*tion o" t#e !romissory note %nd re%& est%te mortg%ge ;y G%ri%@ t#ere =ere no no=n indi)id*%& ;*yers o" t#e s*;>et &%nd nor %nnot%tion o" %ny ontr%ts@ &iens or en*m;r%nes o" t#ird !ersons on t#e tit&es o" t#e s*;>et &otsK t!at t!e loan as granted and released it!out notif#ing (L=R as it as not necessar#. T!e AALA rendered its decision in fa&or of pri&ate respondents, ruling t!at t!e "ortgage is unenforceable and ordering t!e cancellation of t!e annotations of t!e Certificate of Sale in fa&or of petitioner. T!e AALA li@eise ordered t!e deli&er# of t!e TCTs t!at co&er t!e pri&ate respondents' ton!ouses. Petitioner appealed t!e said decision but t!e sa"e as affir"ed. n t!is present Petition, (STC contends t!at, granting arguendo t!at t!e "ortgage is unenforceable, it is not obliged to go be#ond t!e certificates of title registered and !ad e&er# reason to rel# on t!e correctness and &alidit# of t!ose titles.
ISS3E4 7n a "ortgagee is obliged to loo@ be#ond t!e certificate t is stipulated in t!eir respecti&e contracts t!at t!eir indi&idual ton!ouses ill be full# co"pleted and constructed as per plans and specifications and t!e respecti&e titles t!ereto s!all be deli&ered and transferred to pri&ate respondents free fro" all liens and encu"brances upon t!eir full pa#"ent of t!e purc!ase price. (oe&er, despite repeated de"ands, arciaTransA"erican failed to co"pl# it! t!eir underta@ings. n Ma# ;0, -<, 2ngr. arcia and !is ife Lorelie arcia obtained fro" petitioner (o"e an@ers Sa&ings and Trust Co"pan# )for"erl# (o"e Sa&ings an@ and Trust Co"pan#* a loan in t!e a"ount of P>,000,000.00 and it!out t!e prior appro&al of t!e (ousing and Land =se Regulator# oard )(L=R*, t!e spouses "ortgaged eig!t lots co&ered b# TCT $os. ;;> to ;;4/ as collateral. Petitioner registered its "ortgage on t!ese titles it!out an# ot!er encu"brance or lien annotated t!erein. T!e proceeds of t!e loan ere intended for t!e de&elop"ent of t!e lots into an eig!tHunit ton!ouse project.
Ho=e)er@ "i)e o*t o" t#ese eig#t tit&es t*rned o*t to ;e !ri)%te res!ondents: to=n#o*ses s*;>et o" t#e ontr%ts to se&& =it# G%ri%9Tr%nsAmeri%n. 7!en t!e loan beca"e due, arcia failed to pa# !is obligation to petitioner. Conse%uentl#, petitioner instituted an e+trajudicial foreclosure< on t!e subject lots and being t!e !ig!est bidder in t!e public auction, a certificate of sale in its fa&or as issued b# t!e s!eriff on ebruar# /, -0. Subse%uentl#, t!e s!eriff's certificate of sale as registered and annotated on t!e titles of t!e subject lots in t!e Register of Deeds of IueEon Cit#.
of title prior to entering into t!e transaction in %uestion.
HELD4 5es. 7!ile t!e cases cited b# petitioner !eld t!at t!e "ortgagee is not under obligation to loo@ be#ond t!e certificate of title !en on its face, it as free fro" lien or encu"brances, t!e "ortgagees t!erein ere considered in good fait! as t!e# ere totall# innocent and free fro" negligence or rongdoing in t!e transaction. n t!is case, petitioner @ne t!at t!e loan it as e+tending to arciaTransA"erican as for t!e purpose of t!e de&elop"ent of t!e eig!tHunit ton!ouses. Petitioner's insistence t!at prior to t!e appro&al of t!e loan, it undertoo@ a t!oroug! c!ec@ on t!e propert# and found t!e titles free fro" liens and encu"brances ould not suffice. t as incu"bent upon petitioner to in%uire into t!e status of t!e lots !ic! includes &erification on !et!er arcia !ad secured t!e aut!orit# fro" t!e (L=R to "ortgage t!e subject lots. Petitioner failed to do so. 7e li@eise find petitioner negligent in failing to e&en ascertain fro" arcia if t!ere are bu#ers of t!e lots !o turned out to be pri&ate respondents. Petitioner's ant of @noledge due to its negligence ta@es t!e place of registration, t!us it is presu"ed to @no t!e rig!ts of respondents o&er t!e lot. T!e con&ersion of t!e status of petitioner fro" "ortgagee to bu#erHoner ill not lessen t!e i"portance of suc! @noledge. $eit!er ill t!e con&ersion set aside t!e conse%uence of its negligence as a "ortgagee. Judicial notice can be ta@en of t!e unifor" practice of ban@s to in&estigate, e+a"ine and assess t!e real estate offered as securit# for t!e application of a loan. 7e cannot o&ere"p!asiEe t!e fact t!at t!e an@ cannot barefacedl# argue t!at si"pl#
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition because t!e title or titles offered as securit# ere clean of an# encu"brances or lien, t!at it as t!ereb# relie&ed of ta@ing an# ot!er step to &erif# t!e o&erHreac!ing i"plications s!ould t!e subdi&ision be auctioned on foreclosure.
DO+INGO REALT5@ INC. AND A5ALA STEEL +AN3FACT3RING CO.@ INC. -. CA AND ANTONIO +. ACERO -ELASCO@ R.@ .2 FACTS4 Petitioner Do"ingo Realt# filed a co"plaint against pri&ate respondent Acero for reco&er# of possession of t!ree parcels of land located in Cupang, Muntinlupa. Acero allegedl# constructed a factor# building for !ollo bloc@s on a portion of t!ese lands. n Acero's anser, !e clai"ed t!at !e "erel# leased t!e land fro" Da&id 3ictorio !o in turn assailed t!e &alidit# of petitioner's TCTs b# clai"ing t!at !e and !is predecessorsHinH interest !ad been in possession of t!e propert# for "ore t!an ?0 #ears and t!at t!e TCTs e"anated fro" spurious deeds of sale. A Co"pro"ise Agree"ent as e&entuall# e+ecuted b# t!e partiesHinHinterest !ic! pro"pted t!e RTC to adopt t!e sa"e in its Decision. Petitioner, in order to i"ple"ent t!e Decision, filed a "otion as@ing per"ission to conduct a reHsur&e# of t!e subject properties, !ic! as granted in an rder dated Jan. , -<<. Acero subse%uentl# filed a "otion to nullif# t!e said Agree"ent, clai"ing t!at t!e reHsur&e# ould &iolate t!e Agree"ent since t!e !ole area !e occupied ill be adjudged as oned b# petitioner. T!e sa"e as denied. T!e results of t!e reHsur&e# s!oed t!at t!e land occupied b# t!e factor# of Acero is co&ered b# t!e TCTs of petitioner. Petitioners )it! A#ala Steel being t!e transferee* filed a "otion for e+ecution on Dec. -0, -- !ic! as appro&ed on Jan. -4, -. Aggrie&ed, respondent "o&ed for t!e annul"ent of t!e rder granting t!e issuance of t!e 7rit of 2+ecution on t!e ground t!at t!e sur&e# plan )results of t!e reHsur&e# b# petitioners* &iolated t!e Co"pro"ise Agree"ent in suc! a a# t!at !e ill be forced to &acate t!e !ole of t!e propert# !e as occup#ing instead of &acating onl# a portion of t!e sa"e )since t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent as onl# as to a portion of t!e land occupied b# !i" !ic! 000 s%" "ore or less*. T!e sa"e as denied. n t!e CA, respondent pra#ed for t!e issuance of a TR and t!e annul"ent of t!e RTC rder granting t!e e+ecution of t!e judg"ent. T!e CA ruled in fa&or of !i", !olding t!at !is belief t!at !e ould onl# be &acating a portion of t!e propert# !e as occup#ing as a "ista@e t!at is a basis for t!e nullification of t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent.
ISS3E4 7n t!e co"pro"ise agree"ent s!ould be set aside on
one !ic! could !a&e been a&oided b# ordinar# prudence, cannot be in&o@ed b# t!e one !o "ade it in order to annul !is contract. A "ista@e t!at is caused b# "anifest negligence cannot in&alidate a juridical act. )2"p!asis supplied.* Prior to t!e e+ecution of t!e Co"pro"ise Agree"ent, respondent Acero as alread# aare of t!e tec!nical description of t!e titled lots of petitioner Do"ingo Realt# and "ore so, of t!e boundaries and area of t!e lot !e leased fro" Da&id 3ictorio. efore consenting to t!e agree"ent, !e could !a&e si"pl# !ired a geodetic engineer to conduct a &erification sur&e# and deter"ine t!e actual encroac!"ent of t!e area !e as leasing on t!e titled lot of petitioner Do"ingo Realt#. (ad !e underta@en suc! a precautionar# "easure, !e ould !a&e @non t!at t!e entire area !e as occup#ing intruded into t!e titled lot of petitioners and possibl#, !e ould not !a&e signed t!e agree"ent. n t!is factual "ilieu, respondent Acero could !a&e easil# a&erted t!e alleged "ista@e in t!e contractK but t!roug! palpable neglect, !e failed to underta@e t!e "easures e+pected of a person of ordinar# prudence. 7it!out doubt, t!is @ind of "ista@e cannot be resorted to b# respondent Acero as a ground to nullif# an ot!erise clear, legal, and &alid agree"ent, e&en t!oug! t!e docu"ent "a# beco"e ad&erse and e&en ruinous to !is business. Moreo&er, respondent failed to state in t!e Co"pro"ise Agree"ent t!at !e intended to &acate onl# a portion of t!e propert# !e as leasing. Suc! pro&ision being beneficial to respondent, !e, in t!e e+ercise of t!e proper diligence re%uired, s!ould !a&e "ade sure t!at suc! "atter as specified in t!e Co"pro"ise Agree"ent. Respondent Acero's failure to !a&e t!e said stipulation incorporated in t!e Co"pro"ise Agree"ent is negligence on !is part and insufficient to abrogate said agree"ent.
DBP -. THE ACTING REGISTER OF DEEDS OF N3E-A ECIA NAR-ASA@ .2 FACTS4 n June -;, -<0, t!e De&elop"ent an@ of t!e P!ilippines )!ereafter, DP* presented for registration to t!e Register of Deeds of $ue&a 2cija, Cabanatuan Cit#, a s!eriff6s certificate of sale in its fa&or of to parcels of land co&ered b# Transfer Certificates of Title $os. $TH->0;; and $TH->0;>, bot! in t!e na"es of t!e spouses Andres autista and Marcelina Calison, !ic! said institution !ad ac%uired as t!e !ig!est bidder at an e+trajudicial foreclosure sale. T!e transaction as entered as 2ntr# $o. <-- in t!e Registr#6s Pri"ar# 2ntr# oo@ and DP paid t!e re%uisite registration fees on t!e sa"e da#.
t!e ground of "ista@e.
HELD4 No. it is presu"ed t!at t!e parties to a contract @no and understand t!e i"port of t!eir agree"ent. T!us, ci&il la e+pert Arturo M. Tolentino opined t!at: To in&alidate consent, t!e error "ust be e+cusable. t "ust be real error, and not one t!at could !a&e been a&oided b# t!e part# alleging it. T!e error "ust arise fro" facts un@non to !i". (e cannot allege an error !ic! refers to a fact @non to !i", or !ic! !e s!ould !a&e @non b# ordinar# diligent e+a"ination of t!e facts. An error so patent and ob&ious t!at nobod# could !a&e "ade it, or
66
Annotation of t!e sale on t!e co&ering certificates of title could not, !oe&er be effected because t!e originals of t!ose certificates ere found to be "issing fro" t!e files of t!e Registr#, !ere t!e# ere supposed to be @ept, and could not be located. n t!e ad&ice of t!e Register of Deeds, DP instituted proceedings in t!e Court of irst nstance of $ue&a 2cija to reconstitute said certificates, and reconstitution as ordered b# t!at court in a decision rendered on June -4, -<. or reasons not apparent on t!e record, t!e certificates of title ere reconstituted onl# on June -, -<>.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition n June 4, -<>, DP soug!t annotation on t!e reconstituted titles of t!e certificate of sale subject of 2ntr# $o. <-- on t!e basis of t!at sa"e fourH#earHold entr#. T!e Acting Register of Deeds, being in doubt of t!e proper action to ta@e on t!e solicitation, too@ t!e "atter to t!e Co""issioner of Land Registration b# consulta raising to %uestions: )a* !et!er t!e certificate of sale could be registered using t!e old 2ntr# $o. <-- "ade in -<0 notit!standing t!e fact t!at t!e original copies of t!e reconstituted certificates of title ere issued onl# on June -, -<>K and )b* if t!e first %uer# as ansered affir"ati&el#, !et!er !e could sign t!e proposed annotation, !a&ing assu"ed !is duties onl# in Jul# -<. T!e resolution on t!e consulta !eld t!at 2ntr# $o. <-- !ad been rendered 1... ineffecti&e due to t!e i"possibilit# of acco"plis!ing registration at t!e ti"e t!e docu"ent as entered because of t!e nonHa&ailabilit# of t!e certificate )sic* of title in&ol&ed. or said certificate of sale to be ad"itted for registration, t!ere is a need for it to be reHentered no t!at t!e titles !a&e been reconstituted upon pa#"ent of ne entr# fees,1 and b#Hpassed t!e second %uer# as !a&ing been rendered "oot and acade"ic b# t!e anser to t!e first. Aggrie&ed, DP appealed t!e resolution to t!e CA.
67
into t!e custod# of t!e "ortgage until t!e "ortgage is disc!arged. Moreo&er, t!e certificates of title ere reconstituted fro" t!e oner6s duplicates, and again it is to be presu"ed t!at said duplicates ere presented b# DP, t!e petitioner in t!e reconstitution proceedings. t is, furt!er"ore, ad"itted t!at t!e re%uisite registration fees ere full# paid and t!at t!e certificate of sale as registrable on its face. -- DP, t!erefore, co"plied it! all t!at as re%uired of it for purposes of bot! pri"ar# entr# and annotation of t!e certificate of sale. t cannot be bla"ed t!at annotation could not be "ade conte"poraneousl# it! t!e entr# because t!e originals of t!e subject certificates of title ere "issing and could not be found, since it !ad not!ing to do it! t!eir safe@eeping. f an#one as responsible for failure of annotation, it as t!e Register of Deeds !o as c!argeable it! t!e @eeping and custod# of t!ose docu"ents. t does not, t!erefore, "a@e sense to re%uire DP to repeat t!e process of pri"ar# entr#, pa#ing ane t!e entr# fees as t!e appealed resolution disposes, in order to procure annotation !ic! t!roug! no fault on its part, !ad to be deferred until t!e originals of t!e certificates of title ere found or reconstituted.
ISS3E4 7n t!e refusal of t!e RD to annotate t!e reconstituted titles is proper.
HELD4 No. T!e appealed resolution appears to be based upon a reading of t!e cited Section 4/ of PD $o. -4, and particularl# of t!e pro&ision t!erein referring to t!e Register6s act of "a@ing a pri"ar# entr# as 1...a preli"inar# process in registration...,1 as depri&ing of an# effect a pri"ar# entr# it!out a corresponding annotation t!ereof on t!e certificate of title to !ic! t!e instru"ent subject of said entr# refers. T!at &ie fails to find support fro" a consideration of entire conte+t of said Section 4/ !ic! in anot!er part also pro&ides t!at t!e instru"ent subject of a pri"ar# entr# 1... s!all be regarded as registered fro" t!e ti"e so noted ...,1 and, at t!e &er# least, gi&es suc! entr# fro" t!e "o"ent of its "a@ing t!e effect of putting t!e !ole orld on notice of t!e e+istence t!e instru"ent on entered. Suc! effect )of registration* clearl# attac!es to t!e "ere "a@ing of t!e entr# it!out regard to t!e subse%uent step of annotating a "e"orandu" of t!e instru"ent subject of t!e entr# on t!e certificate of title to !ic! it refers. ndeed, said Section, in also pro&iding t!at t!e annotation, 1... !en "ade ... s!all bear t!e sa"e date ...1 as t!e entr#, "a# be said to conte"plate unspecified inter&als of ti"e occurring beteen t!e "a@ing of a pri"ar# entr# and t!at of t!e corresponding annotation on t!e certificate of title it!out robbing t!e entr# of t!e effect of being e%ui&alent to registration. $eit!er, t!erefore, is t!e i"plication in t!e appealed resolution t!at annotation "ust annotation entr# i""ediatel# or in s!ort order justified b# t!e language of Section 4/. urt!er"ore, it is a"pl# clear t!at t!e fourH#ear !iatus beteen pri"ar# entr# and proposed annotation in t!is case !as not been of DP6s "a@ing. T!oug! it as under no necessit# to present t!e oner6s duplicates of t!e certificates of title affected for purposes of pri"ar# entr#, since t!e transaction soug!t to be recorded as an in&oluntar# transaction, and t!e record is silent as to !et!er it presented t!e" or not, t!ere is nonet!eless e&er# probabilit# t!at it did so. t as t!e "ortgagee of t!e lands co&ered b# t!ose titles and it is usual in "ortgage transactions t!at t!e oner6s duplicates of t!e encu"bered titles are #ielded
FLOR +ARTINE8 -. ERNESTO G. GARCIA AND EDILBERTO +. BR3A PERALTA@ .2 FACTS4 Respondent rua as t!e registered oner of a parcel of land located in Mandalu#ong, RiEal co&ered b# TCT $o. ;>/0/. T!e sa"e propert# as "ortgaged se&eral ti"es, as e&idenced b# annotations found at t!e bac@ of its TCT. n ct. , --, rua sold t!e propert# in t!e a"ount of P ?04N to arcia, as partial pa#"ent of t!e for"er's "ortgage indebtedness to t!e latter. arcia t!en registered t!e said deed it! t!e RD of RiEal and TCT $o. 40> as issued in arcia and !is ife's na"e. (oe&er, t!e se&eral annotations at t!e bac@ of t!e pre&ious title ere carried o&er, suc! as 2ntr# no. <<- s!oing a notice of le&# on e+ecution in fa&or of petitioner lor MartineE. t appeared t!at t!e annotations found at t!e bac@ of t!e title of t!e subject propert# in fa&or of petitioner, i.e., $otice of Le&# on Attac!"ent andor Le&#, $otice of Le&# on 2+ecution, and Certificate of Sale, ere all "ade in connection it! petitioner6s action for Collection of Su" of Mone#, in !ic! a decision as rendered in fa&or of petitioner, !ere t!e RTC ordered respondent rua to pa# t!e for"er t!e a"ount of P>>,4>.-0, representing t!e &alue of t!e dis!onored c!ec@s plus -5 interest per annu" as da"ages and t!e pre"iu" paid b# petitioner for t!e attac!"ent bond. T!e decision beca"e final and e+ecutor# as respondent rua failed to appeal t!e sa"e, and a notice of le&# on e+ecution as issued. A public auction as subse%uentl# conducted, !ere t!e subject propert# as aarded to petitioner as t!e sole bidder in t!e a"ount of P-0,000.00, and a Certificate of Sale as issued in !er fa&or. n ebruar# , ->, respondents arcia and rua filed it! t!e RTC of Pasig, ranc! /?, an Action to Iuiet Title, initiall# against petitioner due to t!e encu"brancesliens annotated on respondent arcia6s ne title. T!e# contended t!at t!ese encu"brancesliens ere registered subse%uent to t!e annotation of respondent arcia6s ad&erse clai" "ade in -<0, and pra#ed t!at t!ese be canceled. Subse%uentl#, t!e co"plaint
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition as a"ended to include Pilipinas an@ as an additional defendant. Petitioner and Pilipinas an@ filed t!eir respecti&e Ansers t!ereto. T!e RTC dis"issed arcia's action. n so ruling, t!e RTC found t!at t!e ad&erse clai" !ic! respondent arcia caused to be annotated on t!e pre&ious title of t!e subject propert#, i.e, TCT $o. ;>/0/, on June ;, -<0 as predicated on !is interest as a "ortgagee of a loan of P-40,000.00, !ic! !e e+tended to respondent ruaK t!at respondent arcia6s ad&erse interest as "erel# t!at of a second "ortgagee, as !e as not #et t!e purc!aser of t!e subject propert# as of said dateK t!at !en t!e judicial liens, i.e., $otice of Le&# on Attac!"ent andor Le&# and $otice of Le&# on 2+ecution, ere caused to be registered b# petitioner on respondent rua6s title on Januar# <, -<- and Jul# <, -<, respecti&el#, b# &irtue of petitioner being adjudged judg"ent creditor b# ranc! /0 of RTC Ma@ati, respondent arcia6s clai" beca"e inferior to t!at of petitioner. T!e CA re&ersed t!e RTC ruling. T!e CA said t!at a subse%uent sale of propert# co&ered b# a certificate of title cannot pre&ail o&er an ad&erse clai", dul# sorn to and annotated on t!e certificate of title pre&ious to t!e saleK t!at !ile one !o bu#s a propert# fro" t!e registered oner need not !a&e to loo@ be!ind t!e title, !e is ne&ert!eless bound b# t!e liens and encu"brances annotated t!ereonK and, t!us, one !o bu#s it!out c!ec@ing t!e &endor6s title ta@es all t!e ris@s and losses conse%uent to suc! failure.
68
it! t!e @noledge t!at t!e subject propert# soug!t to be le&ied upon on e+ecution as encu"bered b# an interest t!e sa"e as or better t!an t!at of t!e registered oner t!ereof. T!us, no gra&e abuse of discretion as co""itted b# t!e CA !en it !eld t!at t!e notice of le&# and subse%uent sale of t!e subject propert# could not pre&ail o&er respondent arcia6s e+isting ad&erse clai" inscribed on respondent rua6s certificate of title. T!e annotation of an ad&erse clai" is a "easure designed to protect t!e interest of a person o&er a piece of real propert#, !ere t!e registration of suc! interest or rig!t is not ot!erise pro&ided for b# t!e Land Registration Act or Act $o. >/ )no P.D. $o.-4 or t!e Propert# Registration Decree*, and ser&es a arning to t!ird parties dealing it! said propert# t!at so"eone is clai"ing an interest on t!e sa"e or a better rig!t t!an t!at of t!e registered oner t!ereof. Petitioner cannot be considered as a bu#er in good fait!. A purc!aser in good fait! and for &alue is one !o bu#s t!e propert# of anot!er it!out notice t!at so"e ot!er person !as a rig!t to or interest in suc! propert# and pa#s a full and fair 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!e propert#. (ere, petitioner ad"itted on crossHe+a"ination t!at !en s!e registered !er notice of attac!"ent in -<- and t!e le&# on e+ecution on Jul# --, -<<, s!e alread# sa respondent arcia6s ad&erse clai" inscribed on respondent rua6s title on June ;, -<0.
ISS3E4 7n petitioner !as a better rig!t it! respect to t!e propert# in %uestion.
HELD4 No. Petitioner contends t!at t!e ad&erse clai" of respondent arcia inscribed on t!e title of t!e subject propert# is but a notice t!at t!e latter !as an interest ad&erse to respondent rua6s title, to t!e e+tent of P-40,000.00 secured b# a real estate "ortgage, and suc! ad&erse clai" cannot be considered superior to t!at of a final sale conducted b# t!e s!eriff b# &irtue of a court judg"ent t!at !as attained finalit#. Sec. -, Rule ; of t!e Rules of Court pro&ides: S2C. -. 2ffect of le&# on e+ecution as to t!ird persons. T!e le&# on e+ecution s!all create a lien in fa&or of t!e judg"ent obligee o&er t!e rig!t, title and interest of t!e judg"ent obligor in suc! propert# at t!e ti"e of t!e le&#, subject to liens and encu"brances t!en e+isting. Clearl#, t!e le&# does not "a@e t!e judg"ent creditor t!e oner of t!e propert# le&ied upon. (e "erel# obtains a lien. Suc! le&# on e+ecution is subject and subordinate to all &alid clai"s and liens e+isting against t!e propert# at t!e ti"e t!e e+ecution lien attac!ed, suc! as real estate "ortgages. Respondent arcia6s ad&erse clai", !ic! refers to t!e deed of "ortgage e+ecuted b# respondent rua in !is fa&or, as annotated on respondent rua6s title registered it! t!e Registr# of Deeds of RiEal on June ;, -<0 as 2ntr# $o. ><4;. T!e ad&erse clai" as alread# e+isting !en t!e $otice of Le&# on 2+ecution, as ell as t!e Certificate of Sale in fa&or of petitioner, as inscribed on Jul# --, -<< and Septe"ber , -<<, respecti&el#K and, !ence, t!e ad&erse clai" is sufficient to constitute constructi&e notice to petitioner regarding t!e subject propert#. 7!en petitioner registered !er $otice of Le&# on 2+ecution on t!e title of t!e subject propert#, s!e as c!arged
HEIRS OF +ARIA +ARASIGAN ). IAC G.R. No. L?01*&y @ /0< G*ttiereM@ r.@ .4 FACTS4 n April >, -?4, a ci&il case entitled FMaria Marron &. elicisi"o aEar and e S. aEarG as filed before t!e t!en C of Manila, r. V. T!is action soug!t to co"pel defendants aEar to e+ecute a registrable Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot $o. HA co&ered b# T.C.T $o. -00/- in f a&or of Maria Marron. n Januar# ?, -?/, !ile t!e abo&e case as still pending, pri&ate respondent Marron caused t!e annotation of a notice of lis penens at t!e bac@ of T.C.T. $o. -00/-. n ebruar# >, -?/, judg"ent as rendered in fa&or of Maria Marron and t!e judg"ent !a&ing beco"e final and e+ecutor#, s!e filed a "otion for e+ecution !ic! as granted. To t!is, a rit of e+ecution as granted but t!e aEars refused to surrender t!eir title and to e+ecute t!e re%uired deed of sale. n $o&e"ber , -?<, t!e loer court ordered t!e Cler@ of Court to e+ecute t!e deed of sale. ut upon presentation of t!e said deed to t!e Register of Deeds of Manila for registration, t!e Deput# Cler@ of Court as ad&ised to secure a court order in order to cancel t!e ne title issued in fa&or of one Maria Marasigan. T!is is due to a prior deed of absolute sale in fa&or of suc! person e+ecuted on Dece"ber -<, -?>. (oe&er, it as onl# on Jul# 4, -?? t!at suc! deed as registeredK !ence, Marasigan's title bears it! it t!e abo&e notice of lis penens. T!e aEars filed a petition for relief of t!e ebruar# > judg"ent and !ile t!is as pending, t!e "o&ed to set aside t!e sa"e on t!e ground of lac@ of jurisdiction o&er t!eir persons. Mean!ile, Marron's Land Registration Court case as dis"issed b# C Manila, r. V for said court acting as an L.R.C. cannot act under su""ar# proceedings for !a&ing onl# li"ited and special
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition jurisdiction. T!en, Marron filed anot!er ci&il case to cancel Marasigan's TCT. T!is as denied for being pre"ature. ut, on appeal, t!e AC ruled in fa&or of Marron b# &irtue of t!e notice of lis penens. (ence, t!is petition b# t!e !eirs of Marasigan, t!e latter !a&ing died in t!e course of t!e proceedings.
ISS3E4 7$ T(2 PART9 7( =(T T 7T( A $TC2 $IS P/'D/'S A$$TAT2D AT T(2 ACN (2R TTL2 (AS T(2 2TT2R R(T T T(2 PRP2RT9 $ I=2ST$ AS AA$ST T(2 PART9 $ 7(S2 A3R T(2 $TC2 7AS MAD2.
HELD4 $2AT32. T!e Supre"e Court affir"ed t!e appellate court, stating t!at t!is %uestion is resol&ed in fa&or of t!e part# !o !ad t!e notice annotated and !o on t!e litigation o&er t!e propert#, Maria Marron in t!is case. A notice of lis penens "eans t!at a certain propert# is in&ol&ed in a litigation and ser&es as a notice to t!e !ole orld t!at one !o bu#s t!e sa"e does it at !is on ris@. t as also a clear notice to Maria Marasigan t!at t!ere as a court case affecting !er rig!ts to t!e propert# s!e !ad purc!ased. n t!e case at bar, alt!oug! Marasigan ac%uired t!e propert# in %uestion on Dece"ber -<, -?> or a little o&er four )>* "ont!s before t!e filing of Marron's ci&il action against t!e aEars, t!e transaction beca"e effecti&e as against t!ird persons onl# on Jul# 4, -??, !en it as registered it! t!e Register of Deeds of Manila. t is t!e act of registration !ic! creates constructi&e notice to t!e !ole orld. Section 4- of Act >/, as a"ended b# Section 4 of t!e Propert# Registration Decree )P.D. -4* pro&ides: FSec. 4. Constr!cti&e notice !pon re0istration. B 2&er# con&e#ance + + + affecting registered land s!all, if registered, filed or entered in t!e office of t!e Register of Deeds for t!e pro&ince or cit# !ere t!e land to !ic! it relates lies, be constructi&e notice to all persons fro" t!e ti"e of suc! registering, filing or entering.G
PATENTS REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES -S. CA9+ORATO GRN /1110 NO-E+BER /@/00 PANGANIBAN@ .< FACTS4 n Dece"ber -?, respondent Morato filed a free patent application on a parcel of land !ic! as granted but it! t!e condition t!at t!e land s!all not be alienated or encu"bered it!in fi&e #ears fro" t!e date of issuance of t!e patent. Respondent "ortgaged a portion of propert# in -?> and anot!er portion as based to anot!er part# !ereb# a !ouse and are!ouse ere respecti&el# constructed. RTC and CA found t!at t!ere as alienation because t!e land as "erel# based adding t!at t!e i"pro&e"ent and not t!e land itself.
appro&al of t!e application for a ter" of fi&e #ears fro" and after t!e date of issuance of t!e patent or grant nor s!all t!e# beco"e liable to t!e satisfaction of an# debt contracted prior to t!e e+piration of said period.G 2ncu"brance !as been defined as Fan#t!ing t!at i"pairs t!e use or transfer of propert#K an#t!ing !ic! constitutes a burden on t!e titleK a burden or c!arge upon propert#K a clai" or lien upon propert#.G Respondent Morato, alt!oug! t!e land "ortgagedleased does not significantl# affect !is possession and oners!ip, cannot full# use or enjo# t!e land during t!e duration of lease contract. T!e pro!ibition against an# alienation or encu"brance of t!e land grant is a pro&iso attac!ed to t!e appro&al of e&er# application. Prior to t!e fulfill"ent of t!e re%uire"ents of la, Morato !ad onl# an inc!oate rig!t to t!e propert#K suc! propert# re"ained a public do"ain and t!erefore not susceptible to alienation or encu"brance.
S3+AIL -S 3DGE OF CFI OF COTABATO FACTS4 n June ;, -4, epuliano filed Ci&il Case $o. >-; in t!e Court of irst nstance of Cotabato against petitioner Daaling Su"ail, alleging a"ong ot!er t!ings t!at !e as t!e oner of t!e lot in %uestion b# &irtue of a ree Patent and an riginal Certificate of TitleK t!at !e !ad been in possession of t!e land since -; continuousl#, publicl#, and ad&ersel# up to June, ->, !en Su"ail b# "eans of force, t!reats and inti"idation entered t!e parcel and di&ested !i" of possessionK t!at se&eral de"ands !ad been "ade for t!e surrender of t!e possession of t!e land !ic! de"ands defendant !ad rejected. n Jul# ?, 4, and said to be intended as counterHco"plaint to Ci&il Case $o. >-;, Su"ail, defendant in said case, filed Ci&il Case $o. >0 in t!e sa"e court against epuliano and t!e Director of Lands for t!e purpose of cancelling Certificate of Title 3H; co&ering lot ;/;;, alleging t!at epuliano t!ru fraud and "isrepresentation !ad filed it! t!e ureau of Lands a falsified application for free patent for t!e lot, stating in !is application t!at t!e parcel as not occupied or clai"ed b# an# ot!er person and t!at !e !ad entered upon it and introduced i"pro&e"ents t!ereon T!e Director of Lands contended t!at t!e co"plaint of Su"ail called for t!e cancellation of a free patent issued b# t!e Director of Lands o&er a parcel of public land and t!at t!e court !ad no jurisdiction o&er t!e subject "atter because under t!e Public Land Act, t!e Director of Lands !ad e+ecuti&e control o&er t!e concession or disposition of t!e lands of t!e public do"ain, and t!at !is findings as to %uestions of fact s!all be conclusi&e !en appro&ed b# t!e Secretar# of t!e Depart"ent TC dis"issed t!e case
ISS3E4 7$ TC still !as jurisdiction ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e base andor "ortgage of a portion of realt# ac%uired t!roug! free patent constitute sufficient ground for t!e nullification of suc! land grant.
HELD4 $o RATIO4 7e agree it! t!e Director of Lands and t!e trial court
R3LING4 Public Land Act, Sec --< states: F2+cept in fa&or of o&ern"ent or an# of its branc!es lands, ac%uired under free patent or !o"estead pro&isions s!all not be subject to encu"brance or alienation fro" t!e date of t!e
69
t!at t!e latter !ad no jurisdiction to entertain Ci&il Case $o. >0 !ic! as filed for t!e purpose of cancelling t!e Patent issued b# t!e Director of Lands on lot $o. ;/;; and also for t!e cancellation of t!e riginal Certificate of Title 3H; issued to
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition epuliano on t!e basis of !is free patent. =nder section - of Act $o. >/ @non as t!e Land Registration Act, !en an# public lands in t!e P!ilippines are alienated, granted, or con&e#ed to persons or public or pri&ate corporations, t!e sa"e s!all be broug!t fort!it! under t!e operation of t!e said Act and s!all beco"e registered lands and t!at t!e instru"ent of con&e#ance in t!e for" of a Patent, before its deli&er# to t!e grantee s!all be filed it! t!e Register of Deeds for registration, and t!at once registered t!erein a certificate of title s!all be issued as in ot!er cases of registered land. n ordinar# registration proceedings in&ol&ing pri&ate lands, courts "a# reopen proceedings alread# closed b# final decision or decree, onl# !en application for re&ie is filed b# t!e part# aggrie&ed it!in one #ear fro" t!e issuance of t!e decree of registration. (ere, t!ere as no decree of registration because instead of an application for registration under t!e Land Registration Act epuliano applied for free patent under t!e Public Land Act. Assu"ing t!at e&en in bringing public land grants under t!e Land Registration La, t!ere is a period of one #ear for re&ie in cases of fraud, !o s!all t!at period of one #ear be co"puted8 or all practical purposes e "ig!t regard t!e date of t!e issuance of t!e patent as corresponding to t!e date of t!e issuance of t!e decree in ordinar# registration cases, because t!e decree finall# aards t!e land applied for registration to t!e part# entitled to it, and t!e patent issued b# t!e Director of Lands e%uall# and finall# grants, aards, and con&e#s t!e land applied for to t!e applicant. T!e purpose and affect of bot! decree and patent is t!e sa"e. $o, furt!er assu"ing t!at Ci&il Case $o. >0 of t!e Court of irst nstance of Cotabato filed b# Su"ail as intended as a petition for re&ie of t!e public land grant and con&e#ance to epuliano, on t!e ground of fraud, as it filed it!in t!e period of one #ear8 T!e anser is in t!e negati&e. As alread# stated, free patent $o. 3>4 as issued in t!e na"e of epuliano on Septe"ber /, ->, !ile Ci&il Case $o. >0 as filed in court onl# on Jul# -, -4, or al"ost t!ree #ears after t!e issuance of t!e free patent. t is, t!erefore, clear t!at t!e trial court no longer !ad jurisdiction to entertain t!e co"plaint in Ci&il Case $o. >0
RP - HEIRS OF FELIPE ALEAGA 0 SCRA / FACTS4 n Dec. of -?<, Alejaga Sr. filed a ree Patent Application it! t!e District Land ffice is Ro+as Cit#. n Marc! of -?, t!e free patent as ordered to be issued to !i". T!e Defendant )Register of Deeds* also issued t!e CT for t!e parcel of land. n April of t!at sa"e #ear, gnacio Arrobang re%uested t!e Director of Lands in "anila, t!roug! a letter, to in&estigate for irregularities in t!e issuance of t!e title of a fores!ore land in fa&or of Alejaga Sr. T!e in&estigator, sagani Cartagena reco""ended to t!e Director to file a ci&il proceeding to cancel t!e ree Patent issued to Alejaga Sr. n April -<, -0, t!e go&ern"ent t!roug! t!e Solicitor eneral instituted an action for Annul"entCancellation of Patent and Title and Re&ersion against Alejaga Sr. (e died pending t!e proceeding. (e as substituted b# !is !eirs. T!e RTC declared t!e Patent null and &oid, and t!e CA re&ersed t!e RTC.
70
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!e Torrens Title can be declared null and &oid despite it's indefeasibilit#8
HELD4 $o. A ree Patent "a# be issued !ere t!e applicant is a naturalHborn citiEen of t!e P!ilippinesK is not t!e oner of "ore t!an tel&e )-* !ectares of landK !as continuousl# occupied and culti&ated, eit!er b# !i"self or t!roug! !is predecessorsHinH interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public land subject to disposition, for at least ;0 #ears prior to t!e effecti&it# of Republic Act $o. />0K and !as paid t!e real ta+es t!ereon !ile t!e sa"e !as not been occupied b# an# person. nce a patent is registered and t!e corresponding certificate of title is issued, t!e land co&ered t!ereb# ceases to be part of public do"ain and beco"es pri&ate propert#, and t!e Torrens Title issued pursuant to t!e patent beco"es indefeasible upon t!e e+piration of one #ear fro" t!e date of suc! issuance. (oe&er, a title e"anating fro" a free patent !ic! as secured t!roug! fraud does not beco"e indefeasible, precisel# because t!e patent fro" !ence t!e title sprung is itself &oid and of no effect !atsoe&er. True, once a patent is registered and t!e corresponding certificate of title OisW issued, t!e land co&ered b# t!e" ceases to be part of t!e public do"ain and beco"es pri&ate propert#. urt!er, t!e Torrens Title issued pursuant to t!e patent beco"es indefeasible a #ear after t!e issuance of t!e latter. (oe&er, t!is indefeasibilit# of a title does not attac! to titles secured b# fraud and "isrepresentation. 7ellHsettled is t!e doctrine t!at t!e registration of a patent under t!e Torrens S#ste" does not b# itself &est titleK it "erel# confir"s t!e registrant's alread# e+isting one. 3eril#, registration under t!e Torrens S#ste" is not a "ode of ac%uiring oners!ip.
RE+EDIES
AGNE -S DIRECTOR OF LANDS
FACTS4 n April -;, -?-, pri&ate respondent spouses filed Ci&il Case $o. =H
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
During t!e pendenc# of t!e said case, t!e petitioners filed a co"plaint )Case $o. =H/> * against t!e Director of Lands and Spouses Agpoon it! t!e C of Pangasinan for annul"ent of title, recon&e#ance of andor action to clear title to a parcel of land. T!e# allege t!at t!e land in %uestion belong to t!e". T!e# furt!er contend t!at it as onl# on April -;, -?-, !en respondent spouses filed a co"plaint against t!e", t!at t!e# found out t!at t!e said land as granted b# t!e o&ern"ent to (er"inigildo Agpoon under ree Patent $o. ;/;, pursuant to !ic! riginal Certificate of Title $o. ;?0 as issued in t!e latter6s na"e and t!at t!e said patent and subse%uent titles issued pursuant t!ereto are null and &oid since t!e said land, an abandoned ri&er bed, is of pri&ate oners!ip and, t!erefore, cannot be t!e subject of a public land grant.
71
Alt!oug! a period of one #ear !as alread# e+pired fro" t!e ti"e a certificate of title as issued pursuant to a public grant, said title does not beco"e incontro&ertible but is null and &oid if t!e propert# co&ered t!ereb# is originall# of pri&ate oners!ip, and an action to annul t!e sa"e does not prescribe. Moreo&er, since !erein petitioners are in possession of t!e land in dispute, an action to %uiet title is i"prescriptible. 1 T!eir action for recon&e#ance, !ic!, in effect, see@s to %uiet title to propert# in one's possession, is i"prescriptible. T!eir undisturbed possession for a nu"ber of #ears ga&e t!e" a continuing rig!t to see@ t!e aid of a court of e%uit# to deter"ine t!e nature of t!e ad&erse clai"s of a t!ird part# and t!e effect on !er title.
n June -, -?>, t!e trial court rendered a decision in Ci&il Case =H, -?>, Court of irst nstance of Pangasinan, acting on t!e "otion to dis"iss filed b# respondents Director of Lands and spouses Agpoon, issued an order dis"issing Ci&il Case $o. =H/> for annul"ent of title b# "erel# citin0 t!e state"ent in t!e case of +ntonio, et al. &s. Earro0a, et al. / t!at an action to annul a free patent "an# #ears after it !ad beco"e final and indefeasible states no cause of action.
ISS3E4 7!et!er t!e action to annul a free patent "an# #ears after it !ad beco"e final and indefeasible states no cause of action.
R3LING4 $o. T!e facts alleged in t!e co"plaint, !ic! are dee"ed !#pot!eticall# ad"itted upon t!e filing of t!e "otion to dis"iss, constitute a sufficient cause of action against pri&ate respondents. n t!e case at bar, it as ad"itted in t!e stipulation of facts t!at t!e land as for"erl# an abandoned ri&er bed for"ed due to natural causes in -0. t as li@eise ad"itted t!at t!e riparian oners of t!e lands abutting said abandoned ri&er bed ere t!e plaintiffs andor t!eir predecessors in interest and t!at since t!en and up to t!e present, t!e# !a&e been occup#ing and culti&ating ali%uot portions of t!e said land proportionate to t!e respecti&e lengt!s of t!eir riparian lands and t!at t!e# are t!e real and laful oners of t!e said land as decreed b# Article ;?0 of t!e old Ci&il Code, t!e la t!en in force t!at ti"e. 7it! t!at being said, t!en, t!e land in %uestion as and is of pri&ate oners!ip and, t!erefore, be#ond t!e jurisdiction of t!e Director of Lands. T!e free patent and subse%uent title issued pursuant t!ereto are null and &oid. T!e indefeasibilit# and i"prescriptibilit# of a Torrens title issued pursuant to a patent "a# be in&o@ed onl# !en t!e land in&ol&ed originall# for"ed part of t!e public do"ain. f it as a pri&ate land, t!e patent and certificate of title issued upon t!e patent are a nullit#. T!e rule on t!e incontro&ertibilit# of a certificate of title upon t!e e+piration of one #ear, after t!e entr# of t!e decree, pursuant to t!e pro&isions of t!e Land Registration Act, does not appl# !ere an action for t!e cancellation of a patent and a certificate of title issued pursuant t!ereto is instituted on t!e ground t!at t!e# are null and &oid because t!e ureau of Lands !ad no jurisdiction to issue t!e" at all, t!e land in %uestion !a&ing been it!dran fro" t!e public do"ain prior to t!e subse%uent aard of t!e patent and t!e grant of a certificate of title to anot!er person. Suc! an action is different fro" a re&ie of t!e decree of title on t!e ground of fraud.
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES &s. CO3RT OF APPEALS %nd -ICENTE L. 53PANGCO@ R. G.R. No. // Oto;er @ /000 F3LL TE6T2 +ENDO8A@ J.: T!e %uestion for decision in t!is case is !et!er in a proceeding for t!e issuance of an oner6s duplicate certificate of title, t!e Solicitor eneral is re%uired to be notified, suc! t!at failure to gi&e suc! notice ould render t!e proceedings &oid. ot! t!e Regional Trial Court and t!e Court of Appeals ruled in t!e negati&e. (ence, t!is petition for re&ie on certiorari . T!e facts are as follos: Pri&ate respondent 3icente 9upangco is t!e oner of a unit in a condo"iniu" building in Legaspi Street, Ma@ati Cit#, as e&idenced b# Certificate of Title $o. ?/><. ecause !is aforesaid certificate could not be located, !e filed, on Januar# <, ->, in t!e Regional Trial Court, ranc! -;/, Ma@ati, a petition for t!e issuance of a ne duplicate certificate of title in lieu of !is lost cop#, pursuant to ]-0 of P.D. $o. -4 )Propert# Registration Decree*. T!e trial court ordered t!e Registrar of Deeds of Ma@ati to co""ent on t!e petition and t!ereafter set t!e case for initial !earing. n ebruar# --, ->, t!e Registrar of Deeds of Ma@ati filed a "anifestation t!at s!e !ad no objection to t!e petition. After !earing pri&ate respondent6s e&idence, t!e trial court rendered, on Dece"ber -4, -4, its decision granting t!e petition, declaring as in&alid t!e "issing cop# of t!e certificate of title, and ordering t!e Registrar of Deeds of Ma@ati to issue a ne oner6s duplicate certificate of title in t!e na"e of pri&ate respondent. A cop# of t!is decision as furnis!ed t!e Solicitor eneral. n ebruar# 4, -/, t!e Solicitor eneral "o&ed for reconsideration of t!e trial court6s decision on t!e ground t!at no cop# of pri&ate respondent6s petition or notice t!ereof !ad been gi&en to !i". (is "otion as, !oe&er, denied. T!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral t!en ele&ated t!e case to t!e Court of Appeals, !ic!, in a decision / dated Marc! 4, -?, affir"ed t!e order of t!e trial court. (ence, t!is petition. Pri&ate respondent6s petition before t!e trial court as anc!ored on ]-0 of P.D. $o. -4 )Propert# Registration Decree* !ic! pro&ides:
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
Sec. -0. 'otice an replacement of lost !plicatecertificate . Q n case of loss or t!eft of an oner6s duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oat! s!all be sent b# t!e oner or b# so"eone in !is be!alf to t!e Register of Deeds of t!e pro&ince or cit# !ere t!e land lies as soon as t!e loss or t!eft is disco&ered. f a duplicate certificate is lost or destro#ed, or cannot be produced b# a person appl#ing appl#ing for t!e entr# of a ne certificate certificate to !i" or for t!e registration of an# instru"ent, a sorn state"ent of t!e facts of suc! loss or destruction "a# be filed b# t!e registered oner or ot!er person in interest and registered. =pon =pon t!e petition petition of t!e register registered ed oner oner or ot!er ot!er person person in interest, interest, t!e court "a#, after notice an !e hearin0 , direct t!e issuance of a ne duplicate certificate, !ic! s!all contain a "e"orandu" of t!e fact t!at it is issued in place of t!e lost duplicate certificate, but s!all in all respects be entitled to li@e fait! and credit as t!e original duplicate, and s!all t!ereafter be regarded regarded as suc! for all purposes purposes of t!is decree. )2"p!asis added* $ot!in $ot!ing g in t!e la, la, !oe&e !oe&er, r, re%uires re%uires t!at t!at t!e ffic ffice e of t!e Solicitor eneral be notified and !eard in proceedings for t!e issuance of an oner6s duplicate certificate of title. n contrast, ]; of t!e sa"e la, in&ol&ing original registration proceedings, specificall# "entions t!e Solicitor eneral as a"ong t!ose !o "ust be notified of t!e petition. Si"ilarl#, ];/ pro&ides t!at t!e petition for registration in cadastral proceedings "ust be filed b# t!e Solicitor eneral, in be!alf of t!e Director of Lands. T!e Solici Solicitor tor enera eneral, l, on t!e ot!er ot!er !and, !and, in&o@e in&o@es s ];4)4* ];4)4*,, C!apter -, Title , oo@ 3 of t!e -?< )Defining t!e Poers and unctions of t!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral* !ic! si"ilarl# pro&ided: Sec. -. Powers an #!nctions. #!nctions. Q )-* T!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral s!all represent t!e o&ern"ent of t!e P!ilippines, its agencies and instru"entalities and its officials and agents in an# litiga litigatio tion, n, procee proceedin ding, g, in&est in&estiga igatio tion n or "atter "atter re%uir re%uiring ing t!e ser&ices of a la#er. 7!en aut!oriEed b# t!e President or !ead of t!e offic office e concer concerned ned,, it s!all s!all also also repres represent ent go&ern go&ern"en "entt oned or controlled controlled corporations. corporations. T!e ffice ffice of t!e Solicitor Solicitor eneral s!all constitute t!e la office of t!e o&ern"ent and, as
72
suc!, s!all disc!arge duties re%uiring t!e ser&ices of a la#er. t s!all !a&e t!e folloing specific poers and functions: +++ +++ +++ e. Represent t!e o&ern"ent in all land registration and related proceedings . . . . t is onl# no t!at t!e Solicitor eneral is clai"ing t!e rig!t to be notified of proceedings for t!e issuance of t!e oner6s duplicate certificate of title. ndeed, t!e onl# basis for suc! clai" is t!at t!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral represents t!e go&ern"ent in land registrati registration on and related related proceedings. proceedings. 2&en so, !oe&er, t!e re%uest for representation s!ould !a&e co"e fro" t!e Registrar of Deeds of Ma@ati !o as t!e proper part# to t!e case. (ere, t!ere is no dispute t!at t!e Registrar of Deeds of Ma@ati as notified of pri&ate respondent6s petition, but s!e "anifested t!at !er office !ad no objection t!ereto. T!e Solicitor eneral does not %uestion t!e propriet# of t!e action and "anifestation of t!e Registrar of Deeds, nor does !e gi&e an# reason !# pri&ate respondent6s petition for t!e issuance of a ne oner6s duplicate certificate of title s!ould be denied. nstead, !e clai"s t!at t!e fact t!at !e as gi&en a cop# of t!e decision is an ad"ission t!at !e is enti entitl tled ed to be noti notifi fied ed of all all inci incide dent nts s rela relati ting ng to t!e t!e proceedings. T!is is not correct. Considering t!at t!e la does not i"pose suc! notice re%uire"ent in proceedings for t!e issuance of a ne oner6s oner6s duplicate certificate certificate of title, title, t!e lac@ of notice notice to t!e Solicitor eneral, as counsel for t!e Registrar of Deeds, as at "ost onl# a for"al and not a jurisdictional defect. T!is case s!ould be distinguis!ed fro" our rulings in cadastral registrati registration on cases and original land registration registration proceedings proceedings !ic! !ic! cases cases re%uir re%uire e t!at t!at t!e Solici Solicitor tor enera enerall be notifi notified ed of decisions and !old as decisi&e, for t!e purpose of deter"ining t!e ti"eliness of t!e appeal filed b# t!e go&ern"ent, t!e date of !is receipt of t!e decisions t!erein and not t!at of t!e Director of Lands Lands or of !is ot!er ot!er repres represent entati ati&es &es.. T!e T!e issu issue e and and t!e t!e applicable las in t!ose cases are different. T!e i"portant role of t!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral as t!e go&ern"ent6s la office cannot be o&ere"p!asiEed. ts poers and functions, !oe&er, s!ould not be rigidl# applied in suc! a "anner t!at innocuous o"issions, as in t!e case at bar, s!ould be &isited it! so gra&e a conse%uence as t!e nullification of proceedings. After all, no prejudice to t!e go&ern"ent !as been s!on. 7(2R 7(2R2 2R R2, 2, t!e t!e deci decisi sion on of t!e t!e Cour Courtt of Appea ppeals ls is ARM2D. S RD2R2D.
NEW D3RAWOOD -. CA FEBR3AR5 /00 R.A. $o. /, ]-; applies onl# in cases of reconstitution of lost or destro#ed original certificates on file it! t!e Register of Deeds, !ile P.D. $o. -4, ]-0 go&erns petitions for issuance of ne oner6s duplicate certificates of title !ic! are lost or stolen or destro#ed. destro#ed. )T!e for"er for"er is e+pressl# pro&ided pro&ided for in P.D. P.D. $o. -4, ]--0.* n De"etriou &. CA );< SCRA -4<, -/ O->W*, e ruled t!at if a cert certif ific icat ate e of title title !as !as not not been been lost lost but but is in fact fact in t!e t!e possession of anot!er person, t!e reconstituted title is &oid and
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
73
t!e court rendering t!e decision !as not ac%uired jurisdiction. Conse%uentl#, t!e decision "a# be attac@ed at an# ti"e. n case at benc!, t!e oner6s duplicate certificates of title ere not 1lost or destro#ed,1 !ence, t!ere as no necessit# for t!e petition filed in t!e trial court for t!e 1ssuance of $e ner6s Duplicate Certificates of Title Title + + +.1 n fact, t!e said court ne&er ac%uired jurisdiction to order t!e issuance of ne certificates. (ence, t!e nel# issued duplicates are t!e"sel&es &oid.
of Deeds of LapuHLapu Cit# to reconstitute t!e original certificate of title title of Lot ;<;<- of t!e pon Cadastre, Cadastre, in t!e na"es na"es of SAT=R$$ P$T2, "arried to Maria got, J=A$A, R$2, PETR PE TRA A not Pedro2 P2TR$L, all surna"ed surna"ed Pinote. Pedro2 and P2TR$L, Pursuant to t!e court6s order, riginal Certificate of Title as issu issued ed in t!e t!e na"e na"es s of t!e t!e alle allege ged d brot brot!e !ers rs and and sist sister ers, s, Saturnino Pinote "arried to Maria got, Juana, rineo, Petra )not Petra )not Pedro* and Petronilo, all surna"ed Pinote.
t is ob&ious t!at t!is lapse !appened because of failure to follo t!e procedure in P.D. $o. -4: -* $o noti notice ce of loss loss or t!ef t!eftt sent sent to t!e t!e Reg Regis iste terr of of Dee Deeds ds.. * ]-0? ]-0? pro& pro&id ides es t!at t!at in case case of t!e t!e ref refus usal al or fail failur ure e of of t!e t!e !older !older to surrender t!e oner6s oner6s duplicate duplicate certificate certificate of title, t!e re"ed# is a petition in court to co"pel surrender t!ereof to t!e Register of Deeds, and not a petition for reconstitution.
n ctober -, -?, Att#. Porfirio 2llescas, as alleged counsel for t!e !eirs of Pedro, Juana and Saturnino Pinote, supposedl# all deceased, filed a "otion for reconsideration of t!e court6s order, and soug!t t!e reHopening of t!e proceedings and t!e "odification of t!e June ?, -? order, for, !ile tto6s "ain petiti petition on for recons reconstit tituti ution on based based on t!e Munici Municipal pal nde+ nde+ of Decrees, alleged t!at Lot ;<- as decreed in t!e na"es of rineo rineo,, Juana, Juana, Saturn Saturnino ino,, Pero, Pero, and Petron Petronilo ilo,, all surna" surna"ed ed Pino Pinote te,, t!e t!e cour court6 t6s s orde orderr of June June ?, -? -? orde ordere red d t!e t!e reconstitution of t!e title in t!e na"es of Saturnino, Juana, rineo, Petra )instead Petra )instead of Pedro* and Petronilo, all surna"ed Pinote.
RECONSTIT3TION HEIRS OF THE LATE PEDRO PINOTE &s. HON. 3DGE CEFERINO E. D3LA5
T!e !eirs of Pedro Pinote clai"ed t!at t!e# 1learned of t!e error1 onl# on Septe"ber ?, -? t!roug! t!eir counsel, !o "ade t!e in%uir# and obtained a cop# of t!e court order.
GRIKO?A73INO@ J.: FACTS4 n Septe"ber ;0, -?<, rancisco P. tto, representing !is "ot!er Petra Pinote, filed in t!e Court of irst nstance )no Region Regional al Trial Trial Court* Court* of Cebu, Cebu, at LapuHL LapuHLapu apu Cit#, Cit#, a &erifi &erified ed petition petition for reconstitu reconstitution tion of t!e original certificate certificate of title title to Lot ;<- of t!e pon Cadastre, !ic! as supposedl# adjudicated to Saturnino, Juana, rineo, rineo, Pero, Petronilo, all surna"ed Pero, and Petronilo, Pinote. T!e petition alleged t!at t!e original, as ell as oner6s duplicate duplicate certificate certificate of title, title, ere burned in t!e pon "unicipal "unicipal building during 7orld 7ar , and t!e sa"e could not be located despite diligent searc!K t!at t!ere ere no annotations or liens and encu"brances on t!e title affecting t!e sa"eK t!at no deed or instru instru"en "entt affect affecting ing t!e proper propert# t# !ad been been presen presented ted for regi regist stra rati tion onKK and and t!at t!at,, base based d on t!e t!e plan plans s and and tec! tec!ni nica call description, t!e area, location, and boundaries of Lot ;<- ere described t!erein. A cop# of t!e notice of !earing as ordered to be publis!ed in t!e fficial aEette, furnis!ed to all t!e adjoining oners, and posted b# t!e S!eriff at t!e "ain entrances of t!e Pro&incial Capitol uilding, t!e Cit# (all, and t!e Public Mar@et of LapuH Lapu Cit#, at least ;0 da#s prior to t!e date of !earing. T!e court also ordered copies of t!e notice and order to be sent to t!e Registers of Deeds of LapuHLapu Cit# and Cebu, t!e Director of Lands, Lands, and t!e Co""ission Co""issioner er of Land Registrati Registration, on, directing t!e" to s!o cause, if an#, !# t!e petition "a# not be granted. t does not appear, !oe&er, t!at notices ere sent to eac! of t!e registered coHoners Q Saturnino, Juana, rineo, Pedro and Petronilo, all surna"ed Pinote, or t!eir !eirs, so t!at t!e# could !a&e been !eard on t!e petition. As t!ere as no opposition to t!e petition !en it as called for !earin !earing, g, t!e loer court court co""is co""issio sioned ned its Cler@ of Court Court to recei&e t!e e&idence. ased on t!e Co""issioner6s Report, as ell as t!e oral and docu"entar# e&idence sub"itted b# rancisco tto in support of !is petition, including a supposed abstract of t!e decision of t!e cadastral court, t!e Court issued an order directing t!e Register
=nder Republic Act $o. /, a petition for t!e reconstitution of a lost or destro#ed original certificate of title for registered land "a# be filed it! t!e Court of irst nstance 1b# t!e registered oner, oner, !is assign assigns s or an# person !a&ing !a&ing an intere interest st in t!e propert#1 fro" an# of t!e sources enu"erated t!erein, and in accordance it! t!e procedure outlined in t!e sa"e la . riginal certificates of title s!all be reconstituted fro" suc! of t!e source sources s !ereun !ereunder der enu"er enu"erate ated d as "a# be a&aila a&ailable ble,, in t!e folloing order: )-* oner6s duplicate certificateK )* "ortgagee6s or lessee6s duplicate certificate or coHoner6s cop#K );* a certified cop# of t!e certificate of title pre&iousl# issued b# t!e Register of Deeds or b# a legal custodian t!ereof, )>* an aut!enticated cop# of t!e decree of registration or patent, as t!e case "a# be, pursuant to !ic! t!e original certificate of title as issuedK )4* a docu"ent, on file in t!e registr# of deeds, b# !ic! t!e propert#, t!e description of !ic! is gi&en in said docu"ent, is "ortgaged, leas leased ed or encu encu"b "ber ered ed,, or an aut! aut!en enti tica cate ted d cop# cop# of said said docu"ent s!oing t!at its original !ad been registeredK and )/* an# ot!er docu"ent docu"ent !ic!, !ic!, in t!e judg"ent judg"ent of t!e court, court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting t!e lost or destro#ed certificate of title. T!e inde+ of decree !ic! "entioned 1Pedro Pinote Pinote11 is neit!e neit!err contro controlli lling ng nor conclu conclusi& si&e e as it is not not an 1a!thentic a!thenticate ate cop" of the ecree of re0istrat re0istration ion p!rs!ant p!rs!ant to which the ori0inal certificate of title was iss!e .1 iss!e .1 Accordingl#, t!e Court is justified justified in granting granting t!is petition petition on the bases of the ecision of the caastral co!rt which is accompanie b" the b" the !l" appro&e plan an technical escription of the propert" . n Januar# , -<0, t!e !eirs of t!e late Pedro PinoteK na"el#, RufinaHPinoteHA#ing, RufinaHPinoteHA#ing, Antonina PinoteHSilaan, Ra"ona Pinote 3da. de uod and Julian Pinote, filed t!eir notice of appeal. n Ma# -0, -<0, t!e court denied due course to t!e appeal. (ence, t!is petition for manam!s manam!s andor andor certiorari filed filed b# t!e !eirs of Pedro Pinote pra#ing t!at respondent court be ordered to gi&e due course to t!eir appeal or to a"end t!e order of June ?, -?, b# stri@ing out Petra and putting in Pedro instead as one of t!e coHoners of Lot ;<-.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition 7!et!err t!e recons reconstit tituti ution on procee proceedin dings gs s!ould s!ould be ISS3E4 7!et!e reopened and t!e order of reconstitution dated June ?, -? s!ould be rectified or a"ended. es. t in&ite in&ited d t!e court6 court6s s attent attention ion to a substa substanti ntial al HELD: 9es. &ariance beteen t!e petition for reconstitution and t!e court6s order of reconstitution, for !ile t!e unopposed petition alleged t!at t!e registered coHoners of Lot ;<- ere Saturnino, Juana, rineo, rineo, Pero Pero and Petronilo, all surna"ed Pinote, as e&idenced b# t!e entr# in t!e Municipal nde+ of6 Decrees, t!e rder of Reconstitution dated June ?, -?, on t!e ot!er !and, identified t!e coHon coHoners ers as 1Satur 1Saturnin nino o Pinote Pinote,, "arrie "arried d to Maria Maria got, got, Juana, rineo, Petra and Petra and Petronilo all surna"ed Pinote . . F T!e T!e erro errorr ad&e ad&ert rted ed to in t!e t!e "oti "otion on for for reco recons nsid ider erat atio ion n is substantial for it affects t!e participation and interest of Pedro Pinote )or !is !eirs* in Lot $o. ;<-, an interest t!at appeared in t!e petition for reconstitution and in t!e notice of !earing issued b# t!e court, but !ic! disappeared fro" t!e court6s order of recons reconstit tituti ution on dated dated June June ?, -?, -?, !a&ing !a&ing been been replac replaced ed b# 1Petra Pinote1 instead. T!e T!e "ore "ore i"po i"port rtan antt issu issue e is t!e t!e &ali &alidi dit# t# of t!e t!e orde orderr of reconstitution: As t!e petition for reconstitution of title as a proceeding in rem, rem, co"pliance it! t!e re%uire"ents of R.A. / is a condition sine !a non non for t!e confer"ent of jurisdiction on t!e court ta@ing cogniEance of t!e petition. Considering t!at bot! t!e petition and t!e court6s notice of !earing, referred to t!e reconstitution of t!e title title of Lot ;<- in t!e na"es of t!e register registered ed coHon coHoners ers,, Saturnino Pinote "arried to Maria got, Juana, rineo, Pedro and Petr Petron onil ilo, o, all all surn surna" a"ed ed Pino Pinote te,, t!e t!e cada cadast stra rall cour courtt !ad !ad jurisdiction onl# to grant or den# t!e pra#er of t!e petition as publis!ed in t!e notice of !earing. T!e court could not recei&e e&idence pro&ing t!at Petra Pinote, instea instead d of Pedro, Pedro, is a regist registere ered d coHon coHoner er of Lot ;<-. T!e reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of title literall# and it!in t!e "eaning of Republic Act $o. / denotes restoration of t!e instru"ent !ic! is supposed to !a&e been lost or destro#ed in its its orig origin inal al for" for" and and cond condit itio ion. n. T!e purp purpos ose e of t!e t!e reconstitution of an# docu"ent, boo@ or record is to !a&e t!e sa"e reproduced, after obser&ing t!e procedure prescribed b# laK in t!e sa"e for" t!e# ere !en t!e loss or destruction occurred. (ence, in E!na0an, et al . &s. &s. C#I of Ceb!, et al ., ., ? SCRA ?, !er !ere e t!e t!e cert certif ific icat ate e of titl title e as as decre decreed ed in t!e t!e na"e na"es s of 1Antonio "pad and Dionisia cong,1 t!e reconstitution of t!e title title in t!e na"es of 1spous 1spouses es Anton Antonio io "pad "pad and Dionisia Dionisia con cong1 g1 was was hel hel to be 3a mate materi rial al chan chan0e 0e that that cann cannot ot be a!thori?e.3 T!e jurisdiction of t!e cadastral court is !edged in b# t!e four alls of t!e petition and t!e publis!ed notice of !earing !ic! define t!e subject "atter of t!e petition. f t!e court o&ersteps t!ose borders, it acts it!out or in e+cess of its jurisdiction in t!e case. n t!e basis of t!e allegations of t!e petition and t!e publis!ed notice of !earing, t!e !eirs of Pedro Pinote !ad no reason to oppose t!e petition for reconstitution for t!e rig!ts and interest in Lot ;<- of t!eir ancestor, ancestor, Pedro Pinote, Pinote, ere not ad&ersel# ad&ersel# affected b# t!e petition. t as onl# !en Pedro6s na"e )and in effect, effect, !is interest in Lot ;<-* disappeared disappeared fro" t!e court6s order of reconstitution t!at !is !eirs !ad cause to rise in ar"s as
74
it ere, and as@ for t!e reopening of t!e case. T!ere T!ere is no gainsa# gainsa#ing ing t!e need need for courts courts to procee proceed d it! it! e+tre"e caution in proceedings for reconstitution of titles to land under R.A. /. 2+perience !as s!on t!at t!is proceeding !as "an# ti"es been "isused as a "eans of di&esting a propert# one onerr of t!e t!e titl title e to !is !is prop proper ert# t#.. T!ro T!roug ug! ! frau fraudu dule lent nt reconstitution proceedings, !e a@es up one da# to disco&er t!at !is certific certificate ate of title title !as been cancel cancelled led and replac replaced ed b# a reconstitu reconstituted ted title title in so"eone so"eone else6s else6s na"e. na"e. Courts, Courts, t!erefore, t!erefore, s!ould not onl# re%uire strict co"pliance it! t!e re%uire"ents of R.A. / but, in addition, s!ould ascertain t!e identit# of e&er# person !o files a petition for reconstitution of title to land. f t!e petition is filed b# so"eone ot!er t!an t!e registered oner, t!e court s!ould spare no effort to assure itself of t!e aut!enticit# and due e+ecution of t!e petitioner6s aut!orit# to institute t!e proceeding. t s!ould a&oid being unittingl# used as a tool of sindlers and i"postors in robbing so"eone of !is title. t does not appear t!at t!e abo&e precautions !ad been ta@en in t!is case. 7e note t!at: )-* T!e regist registere ered d oners oners )or t!eir t!eir !eirs* !eirs* !ad not been indi indi&i &idu dual all# l# noti notifi fied ed of t!e t!e fili filing ng of tto tto6s 6s peti petiti tion on for for reconstitution. )* (is aut!orit#, if an#, and t!at of Att#. Ra"on Codilla, to repres represent ent all t!e registe registered red coHoner coHoners s of Lot ;<;<- in t!e reconstitut reconstitution ion proceeding, proceeding, does not appear appear to !a&e been in&estigated b# t!e court. );* t does not appear t!at t!e court &erified Att#. Porfirio 2llescas6 2llescas6 aut!orit# aut!orit# to appear as counsel for t!e "o&antsH "o&antsH inter&enors inter&enors,, Pedro, Pedro, Juana and Saturnino Saturnino Pinote )!o are also supposed to be represented b# Att#. Codilla*, and t!eir !eirs. )>* $eit!er did it ascertain t!e identities of t!e !eirs of Pedro, Saturn Saturnino ino and Juana Juana !o filed t!e "otion "otion to reopen reopen t!e reconstitution proceedings. )4* 7e are intrigued !# t!e !eirs of Juana and Saturnino Pinote, t!roug! Att#. 2llescas, as@ed for reconsideration of t!e court6s order dated June ?, -? since t!eir interests in Lot ;<- ere not ad&ersel# affected b# t!e court6s order dated June ?, -?. )/* t does not appear t!at t!e court carefull# ascertained t!e genuineness of t!e abstract of t!e decision of t!e cadastral court )!ic! t!e petitioners alleged to be uncertified*. )?* Ascertaining !ic! is correct or rong: t!e abstract of t!e decree, or, t!e Municipal nde+ of Decrees Q calls for t!e reopening of t!e reconstitution proceeding and t!e careful e+a"inatio e+a"ination n of all a&ailable a&ailable e&idence e&idence as to !o are t!e true registered coHoners of Lot ;<-, for t!e Court "a# !a&e un@noingl# c!anged t!e oners!ip of Lot ;<- b# &esting title in a stranger or i"postor. T!e respondent court is ordered to reopen t!e proceeding for reconstitution of t!e title of Lot ;<-, it! due notice to eac! of t!e registered registered coHoners, coHoners, t!e adjoining adjoining propert# oners, and ot!ers !o are re%uired b# la to be notified. T!e# s!ould be separatel# furnis!ed b# respondent rancisco P. tto, at t!eir respecti&e residential addresses, it! copies of t!e petition and its its anne anne+e +es. s. T!e T!e peti petiti tion oner ers s !ere !erein in s!ou s!ould ld be allo alloed ed to inte inter& r&en ene e in t!e t!e proc procee eedi ding ng in orde orderr t!at t!at t!ei t!eirr or t!ei t!eir r predecessors6 interest, if an#, "a# be !eard.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition STRAIT TI+ES -S CA G.R. No. /@ A*g*st @ /00 FACTS4 FACTS4 Pri&ate Respondent Regino Pealosa allegedl# lost !is oner' oner's s duplic duplicate ate of to land titles titles )TCT )TCT $o. TH;?/? TH;?/? and TH <;0-*. (e filed a &erified petition before t!e RTCHTacloban for t!e issuance of ne oner's duplicates duplicates.. T!ereafte T!ereafter, r, t!e RTC granted t!e petition and declared t!e lost titles )TH;?/? and TH <;0-* as null and &oid and ordering t!e RDHTacloban Cit# to issue to Strait ti"es, ne oner's duplicates of said titles. Said judg"ent beca"e final and e+ecutor# on June ?, ->. Subse% Subse%uen uentl# tl#,, on ctobe ctoberr -0, ->, ->, Strait Strait Ti"es Ti"es caused caused a $otice of Ad&erse Clai" to be annotated on TH<;0-. Strait Ti"es clai"s t!at it boug!t t!e Lot co&ered b# TH<;0fro" Conrado Callera !o, purc!ased it fro" Regino Penalosa in !ose !ose na"e na"e TH<;0H<;0- as regist registere ered. d. ts ts dul# dul# aut!or aut!oriEe iEed d representati&e, Att#. Att#. Rafael riarte, !ad been in possession of t!e said lot it! t!e oner's duplicate of TH<;0- since August ->, -<>. Strait Ti"es Ti"es t!us see@s to annul and set aside t!e rder of t!e RTC it! respect to t!e issuance of a ne oner's duplicate of TH<;0- on t!e ground of e+trinsic fraud. Strait Ti"es argues t!at t!e allegedl# lost duplicate certificate of title !as been in t!e possession of Att#. riarte all t!e !ile. T!e# clai" clai" t!at t!e RTC RTC !ad no jurisd jurisdict iction ion to issue issue a ne title title because t!e original title as not lost. Regino Penalosa on t!e ot!er !and counters t!at jurisdiction o&er judicial reconstitution of lost or destro#ed title is &ested in t!e RTC under Sec. --0, P lg. -4, in relation to RA /.
ISS3E ISS3E44 7$ t!e RTC !as no jurisdiction to issue a ne title sinc since e t!e t!e orig origin inal al titl title e as as not not lost lost.. 92S. 92S. RTC RTC (AS (AS $ J=RSD J=RSDCT CT$ $.. )7$ )7$ t!e RTC RTC !ad jurisd jurisdict iction ion to issue issue t!e afore"entioned rder. $.* HELD4 t !as been establis!ed in t!e case of Serra Serra &s CA t!at if a certificate of title !as not been lost, but is in fact in t!e possession of anot!er person, t!en t!e reconstituted title is &oid and t!e court t!at rendered t!e decision !ad no jurisdiction. n t!e present case, it is undisputed t!at t!e allegedl# lost oners duplicate certificate of title as all t!e !ile in t!e possession of Att#. riarte, !o e&en sub"itted it as e&idence. ndeed, Regino Penalosa !as not contro&erted t!e genuineness and aut!enticit# of t!e said certificate of title. T!ese un"ista@abl# s!o t!at t!e trial court did not !a&e jurisdiction to order t!e issuance of a ne duplicate, and t!e certificate issued is itself &oid. ndeed, Respondent Court, pri&ate respondent and t!e solicitor general in&o@e t!e suspicious nature of petitioner6s clai" of title o&er t!e land in dispute in order to bar t!e application of t!e said cases. T!e "atter of title, title, !oe&er, ill !a&e to be deter"ined in a "ore appropriate action, not in an action for t!e issuance of t!e lost oner6s oner6s duplicate duplicate certificate certificate of title, or in a proceeding to annul t!e certificate issued in conse%uence of suc! proceeding. T!e reconstitution of a title is si"pl# t!e reissuance of a ne duplic duplicate ate certificate of title allegedl# allegedl# lost or destro destro#ed #ed in its original for" and condition. t does not pass upon t!e ownership of t!e land co&ered b# t!e lost or destro#ed title. Possession of a lost certificate certificate is not necessaril# necessaril# e%ui&alent e%ui&alent to oners!ip oners!ip of t!e land co&ered b# it. T!e certificate of title, b# itself, does not &est
75
oners oners!ip !ipKK it is "erel# "erel# an e&iden e&idence ce of title title o&er o&er a partic particula ular r propert#.
+ETROPOLITAN WATERWOR(S SEWERAGE S5STE+ )s. HON. NICANOR S. SISON FACTS4 n ebruar# >, -?0, t!e (eirs of Don Mariano de San Pedro, Pedro, Do"ing Do"ingo o Cecili Cecilia a and t!e =rban =rban Agro Agro Produc Products ts nc., nc., pri&ate respondents !erein, filed in t!e Court of irst nstance of RiEa RiEall a, &eri &erifi fied ed peti petiti tion on for for reco recons nsti titu tuti tion on of t!e t!e tran transf sfer er certificates of title co&ering Lot $os. >/, >? and >< of t!e Tala Tala 2state, Caloocan Cit#, !ic! ere allegedl# lost during t!e last 7orld 7ar. Petitioners pra#ed t!at t!e transfer certificates of titles co&ering t!e said lands be reconstituted in t!eir na"es on t!e basis of t!e plans and tec!nical descriptions attac!ed to t!e petition. n April /, -?0, t!e trial court issued t!e order granting granting t!e petition petition for reconstitution. To #ears t!ereafter, or on Jul# -?, -?;, t!e sabela Cultural Corporation filed a "otion to set aside t!e order of April /, -?0. t "ainl# alleged t!at t!e order as null and &oid on ground of lac@ of jurisdiction of t!e court to entertain t!e petition because t!e order of ebruar# 4, -?0 setting t!e petition for !earing as publis publis!ed !ed in t!e Manila Manila Dail# Dail# ullet ulletin in and not in t!e fficia fficiall aEette, as prescribed under Section -; of Rep. Act $o. /K t!at said order as li@eise a patent nullit# for !a&ing been issued it!ou it!outt actual actual and person personal al notice notice upon upon sabel sabela, a, t!e actual actual possessor and registered oner of Lots $os. >/, >? and ><. n Septe"ber >, -?;, petitioner Metropolitan 7ateror@s and Seerage S#ste", M7SS for s!ort, a go&ern"ent corporation, filed an "nibus Motion, pra#ing for lea&e to inter&ene and for ad"ission of its "otion to set aside t!e order of April /, -?0. M7SS clai"ed t!at for failure to publis! t!e notice of !earing in t!e fficial aEette, as re%uired b# Section -; of Rep. Act $o. /, t!e trial court did not ac%uire jurisdiction to !ear t!e petition for reconstitution, "uc! less to issue t!e order of reconstitutionK and t!at granting arguendo t!at t!e court did ac%uire jurisdiction o&er t!e petition, t!e reconstituted titles cannot pre&ail o&er t!e e+isting titles of M7SS. Pri&ate respondents opposed t!e abo&e "otions of sabela and M7SS, ad&ancing in support t!ereof, t!at, !ile Rep. Act $o. / pro&ides t!at publication of t!e notice of !earing be "ade in t!e ffic fficial ial aEett aEette, e, t!e public publicati ation on t!ereo t!ereoff in t!e Manila Manila Dail# Dail# ull ullet etin in is aut! aut!or oriE iEed ed b# Sect Sectio ion n - of Rep. Rep. Act >4/ >4/ and, and, t!erefore, constitutes substantial co"pliance it! t!e la. Acting on t!ese "otions, t!e trial court, t!is ti"e presided b# respondent Judge $icanor Sison, issued t!e order of Marc! ?, -?>, -?>, settin setting g aside aside t!e order of April April /, -?0 -?0 and declared declared cancelled and of no furt!er force and effect. n Ma# -4, -?>, -?>, t!e ot!er ot!er pri&at pri&ate e respond respondent ents, s, na"el# na"el#:: 2ast 2astco coas astt De&e De&elo lop" p"en entt 2nte 2nterp rpri rise ses, s, nc. nc.,, Const Constan anci cio o . Maglana and rancisco Artigo filed a "otion to inter&ene and to set aside t!e order of Marc! ?, -?>. T!e# clai"ed to !a&e legal interest in t!e subject "atter of t!e proceedings for being innocent purc!asers for &alue and !olders of transfer certificates of title deri&ed fro" t!e reconstituted titles.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition After sub"ission of t!e opposition, repl# and rejoinder, respondent Judge Sison issued t!e %uestioned order of Septe"ber >, -?4, ruling t!at since t!e petition for reconstitution is a proceeding in re", t!e publication of t!e notice of !earing, !et!er "ade in t!e fficial aEette or in a nespaper of general circulation, as sufficient co"pliance it! t!e pro&isions of Section -; of Rep. Act $o. /, in relation to Rep. Act >4/.
76
t!ereof A fortiori, suc! proceedings for 6reconstitution6 it!out actual notice to t!e dul# registered oners and !olders of Torrens Titles to t!e land are null and &oid. Applicants, land officials and judges !o disregard t!ese basis and funda"ental principles ill be !eld dul# accountable t!erefore.
NON?REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES DEALINGS WITH 3NREGISTERED LANDS
ISS3E4 7$ t!e %uestioned orders aut!oriEing t!e issuance of reconstituted titles o&er t!e sa"e lands "ust be struc@ don
HELD4 T!ere is no dispute t!at t!e notice of !earing of t!e
B3REA3 OF FORESTR5 &s. CO3RT OF APPEALS %nd FILO+ENO GALLO
petition filed before t!e respondent court as ne&er publis!ed in t!e fficial aEette.
.R. $o. LH;?4
T!e publication of t!e petition in to successi&e issues of t!e fficial aEette are "andator# and juristificational re%uisites.
August ;-, -
A proceeding for judicial reconstitution of lost certificate of title parta@es of t!e nature of a land registration and cadastral proceeding, !ere publication of t!e notice of initial !earing in t!e fficial aEette is re%uired. Considering t!at petitioners are !olders of subsisting certificates of title !ic! !a&e not been cancelled eit!er b# judicial or ad"inistrati&e process, t!e %uestioned orders aut!oriEing t!e issuance of reconstituted titles o&er t!e sa"e lands "ust be struc@ don. $eedless to state, t!e ano"alous situation !ere to persons !old separate titles o&er t!e sa"e lands cannot be countenanced. Courts "ust e+ercise t!e greatest caution in entertaining suc! petitions for reconstitution of allegedl# lost certificates of title, particularl# !ere t!e petitions are flied, as in t!is case, after an ine+plicable dela# of 4 #ears after t!e alleged loss. urt!er"ore, t!e courts "ust li@eise "a@e sure t!at indispensable parties, i.e., t!e actual oners and possessors of t!e lands in&ol&ed, are dul# ser&ed it! actual and personal notice of t!e petition )not b# "ere general publication*, particularl# !ere t!e lands in&ol&ed constitute pri"e de&eloped co""ercial land . . . T!e stabilit# and indefeasibilit# of t!e Torrens S#ste" ould !a&e been greatl# i"periled !ad t!e appellate court6s judg"ent granting reconstitution pre&ailed, resulting in to !olders of Torrens certificates o&er t!e sa"e lands. 7e can ta@e judicial notice of innu"erable litigations and contro&ersies t!at !a&e been spaned b# t!e rec@less and !ast# grant of suc! reconstitution of alleged lost or destro#ed titles as ell as t!e nu"erous purc!asers !o !a&e been &icti"iEed onl# to find t!at t!e 6lands6 purc!ased b# t!e" ere co&ered b# forged or fa@e titles or t!eir areas si"pl# 6e+panded6 t!roug! 6table sur&e#s6 it! t!e cooperation of, unscrupulous officials. T!e Court stresses once "ore t!at lands alread# co&ered b# dul# issued e+isting Torrens titles cannot be t!e subject of petitions., for reconstitution of allegedl# lost or destro#ed titles filed b# t!ird parties it!out first securing b# final judg"ent t!e cancellation of suc! e+isting titles. T!e courts si"pl# !a&e no jurisdiction o&er petitions b# suc! t!ird parties for reconstitution of allegedl# lost or destro#ed titles o&er lands t!at are alread# co&ered b# dul# issued subsisting titles in t!e na"es of t!eir dul# registered oners. T!e &er# concept of stabilit# and indefeasibilit# of titles co&ered under t!e Torrens S#ste" registration rules out as anat!e"a t!e issuance of to certificates of title o&er t!e sa"e land to to different !olders
FACTS4 In -/-, Mercedes Diago applied for t!e r egistration of > parcels of land situated in uena&ista, loilo containing an appro+i"ate area of ;0.4 !ectares. S!e alleged s!e occupied said parcels of land !a&ing boug!t t!e" fro" t!e estate of t!e late Jose Ma. $a&a !o, in !is lifeti"e, !ad boug!t t!e lands in turn fro" Canuto ustilo in -;>.
T!e Director of Lands opposed t!e application on t!e ground t!at neit!er t!e applicant nor !er predecessorsHinHinterest !a&e sufficient title o&er t!e lands applied for, !ic! could be registered under t!e Torrens s#ste"s, and t!at t!e# !a&e ne&er been in open, continuous and e+clusi&e possession of t!e said lands for at least ;0 #ears.
T!e Director of orestr# also opposed on t!e ground t!at certain portions of t!e lands, it! an area of appro+i"atel# -.> !ectares are "angro&e sa"ps and are it!in a Ti"berland loc@.
n -/4, ilo"eno allo purc!ased t!e subject parcels of land fro" Mercedes Diago, and "o&ed to be substituted in place of t!e latter, attac!ing to !is "otion an A"ended Application for Registration of Title.
P!ilippine is!eries Co""ission also "o&ed to substitute petitioner ureau of orestr# as oppositor, since super&ision and control of said portion !a&e been transferred fro" t!e ureau of orestr# to t!e PC.
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition n April -//, t!e trial court rendered its decision ordering t!e registration of t!e > parcels of land in t!e na"e of ilo"eno allo. t ruled t!at alt!oug! t!e contro&erted portion of -.> !ectares are "angro&e and nipa sa"ps it!in a Ti"berland loc@, petitioners failed to sub"it con&incing proof t!at t!ese lands are "ore &aluable for forestr# t!an for agricultural purposes, and t!e presu"ption is t!at t!ese are agricultural lands.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e classification of lands of public do"ain b# t!e 2+ecuti&e ranc! of t!e o&ern"ent into agricultural, forest or "ineral can be c!anged or &aried b # t!e court. NO
HELD4 Ad"ittedl#, t!e contro&ersial area is it!in a ti"berland bloc@ &%ssi"ied %nd erti"ied %s s*# ;y t#e Diretor o" Forestry in /0 . T!e lands are needed for forest purposes and !ence t!e# are portions of t!e public do"ain !ic! cannot be t!e subject of registration proceedings.
Clearl# t!erefore t!e land is public land and t!ere is no need for t!e Director of orestr# to sub"it con&incing proofs t!at t!e land is "ore &aluable for forest purposes t!an for agriculture. As pro&ided for under Sec. / of Co""onealt! Act $o. ->-, t!e classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, "ineral or forest lands is no a !rerog%ti)e o" t#e EJe*ti)e De!%rtment and not of t!e courts. 7it! t!ese rules, t!ere s!ould be no "ore roo" for doubt t!at it is not t!e court !ic! deter"ines t!e classification of lands of t!e public do"ain but t!e 2+ecuti&e ranc!, t!roug! t!e ffice of t!e President. urt!er"ore, respondents cannot clai" to !a&e obtained t!eir title b# prescription since t!e application filed b# t!e" necessaril# i"plied an %dmission t!at t!e portions applied for are part of t!e public do"ain and cannot be ac%uired b# prescription, unless t!e la e+pressl# per"its it. t is a rule of la t!at possession of forest lands, !oe&er long, cannot ripen into pri&ate oners!ip.
REP3BLIC )s -ERA /0 FACTS4 F.R. 'o. $;=GG*> n -?, respondent Luisito MartineE filed it! t!e loer court an application for registration of title under Act >/ of one )-* parcel of land, situated in t!e Municipalit# of Mari&eles, ataan, containing an area of ;;,0; s%uare "eters, "ore or less. T!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines filed an opposition to t!e application stating t!at t!e parcel of land applied for is a portion of t!e public do"ain belonging to t!e Republic, not subject to pri&ate appropriation. T!e Co""issioner of Land Registration sub"itted a report t!at t!e lot is entirel# inside Lot $o. // of t!e Cadastral Sur&e# of Mari&eles, Pro&ince of ataan.
77
Luisito MartineE, / #ears old, alleged t!at !e is t!e oner of t!e land applied for, !a&ing in!erited t!e sa"e fro" !is parents, consisting of ; !ectares, "ore or lessK t!at !e started possessing t!e land in -; n Marc! -, -?, respondent T!el"a Tanalega filed an application for registration under Act $o. >/ in t!e C of ataan to )* parcels of land located in t!e barrio of Ca"a#a, "unicipalit# of Mari&eles, pro&ince of ataan, containing an area of >>;,? s%uare "eters, "ore or less, and ;?<,40/ s%uare "eters, "ore or less, respecti&el#, and "ore particularl# described and dentified as portions of Lot //, Mari&eles Cadastre. T!e C!ief Sur&e#or filed a report in t!e loer court, stating t!at t!e parcels of land applied for registration 1do not appear to !a&e been passed upon and appro&ed b# t!e Director of Lands as re%uired b# Section -<4< of t!e Re&ised Ad"inistrati&e Code.1 $eit!er does it appear to o&erlap it! an# pre&iousl# titled propert# under Act >/. T!e pro&incial fiscal filed !is opposition in be!alf of t!e Directors of Lands and of orestr#, alleging t!at t!e parcels of land applied for are portions of t!e public do"ain belonging to t!e Republic of t!e P!ilippines, not subject to pri&ate appropriation.
Fis%& Arsenio G*Mm%n =#o is %!!e%ring "or t#e go)ernment@ s*;mitted % erti"i%tion dated Jul# ;, -? of Leonides . RodrigueE, Distrit Forester o" B%&%ng% , ataan !ic! states 1t!at t!e tract of land situated at arrio Ca"a#a, Mari&eles, ataan containing an appro+i"ate area of 2(T9 T7 (2CTAR2S "ore or less, as s!on and described in t!e attac!ed p!otocop# of Plans in to s!eets, as sur&e#ed for T!el"a Tanalega, et al., =%s "o*nd to ;e =it#in t#e A&ien%;&e %nd Dis!os%;&e B&o , certified b# t!e Director of orestr# as suc! on #ebr!ar" 17, 1G2 .1
In ;ot# %ses@ t#e Co*rt o" First Inst%ne o" B%t%%n in t=o se!%r%te deisions@ d%ted Oto;er 0@ /0 %nd Oto;er /@ /0@ on"irmed t#e tit&es to s*;>et !%re&s o" &%nd %nd %d>*di%ted t#em in "%)or o" %!!&i%nts L*isito +%rtineM %nd T#e&m% T%n%&eg%@ no= res!ondents #erein . T!e Solicitor eneral, argued t!at Lot //, Mari&eles Cadastre as declared public land b# t!e decision of t!e Cadastral Court dated ctober --, -;? and suc! being t!e case, t!e loer court is it!out jurisdiction o&er t!e subject "atter of t!e application for &oluntar# registration under Act >/. Petitioner li@eise stressed t!at t!e lands in %uestion can no longer be subject to registration b# &oluntar# proceedings, for t!e# !a&e alread# been subjected to co"pulsor# registration proceedings under t!e Cadastral Act.
ISS3E4 7!et!er t!e lots "a# be registered. NO R3LING4 t is noteort!# t!at as per t!e report of t!e Co""issioner of Land Registration, t!e land subject "atter of t!e instant proceedings 1is entirel# inside Lot $o. // of t!e
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition Cadastral Sur&e# of Mari&eles, Pro&ince of ataan, Cad. Case $o. -, LRC Cad. Record $o. -0?1K t!at so"e portions of Lot $o. // ere decreed and titles ere issued t!ereforK and t!at 1portion declared Public Land as per decision dated ctober --, -;?.1 n a cadastral proceedings an# person clai"ing an# interest in an# part of t!e lands object of t!e petition is re%uired b# Section of Act $o. 4 to file an anser on or before t!e return da# or it!in suc! furt!er ti"e as "a# be alloed b# t!e court, gi&ing t!e details re%uired b# la. n t!e instant cases, pri&ate respondents apparentl# eit!er did not file t!eir ansers in t!e aforesaid cadastral proceedings or failed to substantiate t!eir clai"s o&er t!e portions t!e# ere t!en occup#ing, ot!erise, titles o&er t!e portions subject of t!eir respecti&e clai"s ould !a&e been issued to t!e". T!e Cadastral Court "ust !a&e declared t!e lands in %uestion public lands, and its decision !ad alread# beco"e final and conclusi&e. Respondents are no barred b# prior judg"ent to assert t!eir rig!ts o&er t!e subject land, under t!e doctrine of res !icata. A cadastral proceeding is one in re" and binds t!e !ole orld. =nder t!is doctrine, parties are precluded fro" reHlitigating t!e sa"e issues alread# deter"ined b# final judg"ent. 2&en if it is not barred b# res judicata, it is to be noted t!at in t!e instant cases e&idence for t!e respondents t!e"sel&es tend to s!o t!at onl# portions of t!e entire area applied for are culti&ated. A "ere casual culti&ation of portions of t!e land b# t!e clai"ant does not constitute possession under clai" of oners!ip. n t!at sense, possession is not e+clusi&e and notorious so as to gi&e rise to a presu"pti&e grant fro" t!e State. T!e possession of public land !oe&er long t!e period t!ereof "a# !a&e e+tended, ne&er confers title t!ereto upon t!e possessor because t!e statute of li"itations it! regard to public land does not operate against t!e State, unless t!e occupant can pro&e possession and occupation of t!e sa"e under clai" of oners!ip for t!e re%uired nu"ber of #ears to constitute a grant fro" t!e State. Applicants, t!erefore, !a&e failed to sub"it con&incing proof actual, peaceful and ad&erse possession in t!e concept of oners of t!e entire area in %uestion during t!e period re%uired b# la.
-?, t!e patent as also ordered to be issued and t!e patent as forarded to defendant Register of Deeds, Cit# of Ro+as, for registration and issuance of t!e corresponding Certificate of Title. T!ereafter, an riginal Certificate of as issued to OrespondentW b# defendant Register of Deeds.
n April >, -?, t!e !eirs of gnacio Arrobang, t!roug! counsel in a letterHco"plaint re%uested t!e Director of Lands, Manila, for an in&estigation of t!e District Land fficer for irregularities in t!e issuance of t!e title of a fores!ore land in fa&or of OrespondentW. T!e C!ief, Legal Di&ision, Land Manage"ent ureau, Manila, reco""ended to t!e Director of Lands t!e appropriate ci&il proceeding for t!e cancellation of ree Patent Title and t!e corresponding riginal Certificate of Title in t!e na"e of OrespondentW.
n t!e "eanti"e, OrespondentW obtained a $ACDA loan fro" t!e defendant P!ilippine $ational an@ )!ereinafter referred to as P$* e+ecuted in Cebu Cit# in t!e a"ount of P-00,000.00 on August -<, -<-. T!e loan as secured b# a real estate "ortgage in fa&or of defendant P$.
n April -<, -0, t!e go&ern"ent t!roug! t!e Solicitor eneral instituted an action for Annul"entCancellation of Patent and Title and Re&ersion against OrespondentW, t!e P$ of Ro+as Cit# and defendant Register of Deeds of Ro+as Cit# co&ering ree Patent Application.
ISS3E4 7!et!er or not t!ere as fraud in procuring t!e patent.
HELD4 9es. A preponderance of e&idence s!o ed "anifest fraud in procuring t!e patent.
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES &s. HEIRS OF FELIPE ALEAGA SR G.R. No. /11 Deem;er @ 11
irst, t!e issuance of t!e free patent as not "ade in accordance it! t!e procedure laid don b# Co""onealt! Act $o. ->-, ot!erise @non as t!e Public Land Act. =nder Section - t!ereof, an in&estigation s!ould be conducted for t!e purpose of ascertaining !et!er t!e "aterial facts set out in t!e application are true.
FACTS4 n Dece"ber <, -?<, ORespondentW elipe Alejaga, Sr. filed it! t!e District Land ffice, Ro+as Cit#, a ree Patent Application co&ering a parcel of land. t appears t!at on Dece"ber ?, -?<, !en t!e application as e+ecuted under oat!, 2fren L. Recio, Land nspector, sub"itted a report of !is in&estigation and &erification of t!e land to t!e District Land ffice, ureau of Lands, Cit# of Ro+as. n Marc! ->, -?, t!e District Land fficer of Ro+as Cit# appro&ed t!e application and t!e issuance of OaW ree Patent to t!e applicant. n Marc! -/,
78
urt!er, after t!e filing of t!e application, t!e la re%uires sufficient notice to t!e "unicipalit# and t!e barrio !ere t!e land is located, in order to gi&e ad&erse clai"ants t!e opportunit# to present t!eir clai"s. $ote t!at t!is notice and t!e &erification and in&estigation of t!e parcel of land are to be conducted after an
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition application for free patent !as been filed it! t!e ureau of Lands.
n t!is case, !oe&er, elipe Alejaga Sr.'s Application for ree Patent as dated and filed on Dece"ber <, -?<. n t!e ot!er !and, t!e n&estigation 3erification Report prepared b# Land nspector 2lfren L. Recio of t!e District Land ffice of t!e ureau of Lands of Ro+as Cit# as dated Dece"ber ?, -?<. n t!at Report, !e stated t!at !e !ad conducted t!e 1necessar# in&estigation and &erification in t!e presence of t!e applicant.1 2&en if e accept t!is state"ent as gospel trut!, t!e &iolation of t!e rule cannot be condoned because, ob&iousl#, t!e re%uired notice to ad&erse clai"ants as not ser&ed.
2&identl#, t!e filing of t!e application and t!e &erification and in&estigation allegedl# conducted b# Recio ere precipitate and be#ond t!e pale of t!e Public Land Act. As correctl# pointed out b# t!e trial court, in&estigation and &erification s!ould !a&e been done onl# after t!e filing of t!e application. (ence, it ould !a&e been !ig!l# ano"alous for Recio to conduct !is on in&estigation and &erification on Dece"ber ?, -<, a da# before elipe Alejaga Sr. filed t!e Application for ree Patent. t "ust also be noted t!at !ile t!e Alejagas insist t!at an in&estigation as conducted, t!e# do not dispute t!e fact t!at it preceded t!e filing of t!e application.
Second, t!e clai" of t!e Alejagas t!at an actual in&estigation as conducted is not sustained b# t!e 3erification n&estigation Report itself, !ic! bears no signature. T!eir reliance on t!e presu"ption of regularit# in t!e perfor"ance of official dut# is t!us "isplaced. Since Recio's signature does not appear on t!e Dece"ber ?, -?< Report, t!ere can be no presu"ption t!at an in&estigation and &erification of t!e parcel of land as actuall# conducted.
ased on t!e foregoing badges of fraud, e sustain petitioner's contention t!at t!e free patent granted to elipe Alejaga Sr. is &oid. Suc! fraud is a ground for i"pugning t!e &alidit# of t!e Certificate of Title. T!e in&alidit# of t!e patent is sufficient basis for nullif#ing t!e Certificate of Title issued in conse%uence t!ereof, since t!e latter is "erel# e&idence of t!e for"er. 3eril#, e "ust up!old petitioner's clai" t!at t!e issuance of t!e Alejagas' patent and title as tainted it! fraud.
79
Title issued pursuant to t!e patent beco"es indefeasible a #ear after t!e issuance of t!e latter. (oe&er, t!is indefeasibilit# of a title does not attac! to titles secured b# fraud and "isrepresentation. 7ellHsettled is t!e doctrine t!at t!e registration of a patent under t!e Torrens S#ste" does not b# itself &est titleK it "erel# confir"s t!e registrant's alread# e+isting one. 3eril#, registration under t!e Torrens S#ste" is not a "ode of ac%uiring oners!ip.
T!erefore, under Section -0- of Co""onealt! Act $o. ->-, t!e State HH e&en after t!e lapse of one #ear HH "a# still bring an action for t!e re&ersion to t!e public do"ain of land t!at !as been fraudulentl# granted to pri&ate indi&iduals. urt!er, t!is indefeasibilit# cannot be a bar to an in&estigation b# t!e State as to !o t!e title !as been ac%uired, if t!e purpose of t!e in&estigation is to deter"ine !et!er fraud !as in fact been co""itted in securing t!e title.
n t!e case before us, t!e indefeasibilit# of a certificate of title cannot be in&o@ed b# t!e Alejagas, !ose forebear obtained t!e title b# "eans of fraud. Public polic# de"ands t!at t!ose !o !a&e done so s!ould not be alloed to benefit fro" t!eir "isdeed. T!us, prescription and lac!es ill not bar actions filed b# t!e State to reco&er its on propert# ac%uired t!roug! fraud b# pri&ate indi&iduals. T!is is settled la.
ISS3E4 Pro!ibition Against Alienation or 2ncu"brance
Assu"ing arguendo t!at t!e Alejagas' title as &alidl# issued, t!ere is anot!er basis for t!e cancellation of t!e grant and t!e re&ersion of t!e land to t!e public do"ain. Section --< of Co""onealt! Act $o. ->- proscribes t!e encu"brance of a parcel of land ac%uired under a free patent or !o"estead it!in fi&e #ears fro" its grant. T!e pro!ibition against an# alienation or encu"brance of t!e land grant is a pro&iso attac!ed to t!e appro&al of e&er# application.
ISS3E4 ndefeasibilit# of Title
urt!er, corporations are e+pressl# forbidden b# la to !a&e an# rig!t or title to, or interest in, lands t!at are granted under free or !o"estead patentsK or an# i"pro&e"ents t!ereon. T!e# are forbidden fro" enjo#ing suc! rig!t, title or interest, if t!e# !a&e not secured t!e consent of t!e grantee and t!e appro&al of t!e secretar# of t!e Depart"ent of Agriculture and $atural ResourcesK and if suc! lands are to be de&oted to purposes ot!er t!an education, c!arit#, or ease"ent of a#.
nce a patent is registered and t!e corresponding certificate of title issued, t!e land co&ered b# t!e" ceases to be part of t!e public do"ain and beco"es pri&ate propert#. urt!er, t!e Torrens
n t!e case at bar, t!e ree Patent as appro&ed and issued on Marc! ->, -?. Corresponding riginal Certificate of Title as issued on t!e sa"e date. n August -<, -<-, or to )* #ears
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest
Wigmore – II SR Edition
80
after t!e grant of t!e free patent, elipe Alejaga Sr. obtained fro" Respondent P$ a loan. Despite t!e state"ent on t!e title certificate itself t!at t!e land granted under t!e free patent s!all be inalienable for fi&e )4* #ears fro" t!e grant, a real estate "ortgage as nonet!eless constituted on t!e land.
A "ont! later, t!e S, in be!alf of t!e petitioner Republic, filed it! t!e RTC of Pasig Cit# t!e corresponding nullification and cancellation of title suit against t!e pri&ate respondent S(A, purported signature t!ereon of Palad is a forger#K b* t!ere are no records it! t!e LM of )i* t!e application to purc!ase and )ii* t!e alleged pa#"ent of t!e purc!ase priceK and c* t!e propert# in %uestion is inalienable, being part of a "ilitar# reser&ation establis!ed under Procla"ation $o. >;.
T!us, t!e "ortgage e+ecuted b# Respondent elipe Alejaga Sr. falls s%uarel# it!in t!e ter" encu"brance proscribed b# Section --< of t!e Public Land Act. A "ortgage constitutes a legal li"itation on t!e estate, and t!e foreclosure of t!e "ortgage ould necessaril# result in t!e auction of t!e propert#.
n preHtrial t!e Republic, as plaintiff t!erein, "ar@ed )and later offered in e&idence* t!e Deed of Sale dated ctober ;0, -- as its /hibit 3+,3 a nd TCT $o. -40<> as /hibit 3E.1Respondent, t!en defendant S(A adopted 2+!ibits 1A1 and FG as its 2+!ibits 1-1 and F,G respecti&el#.
To co"pl# it! t!e condition for t!e grant of t!e free patent, it!in fi&e #ears fro" its issuance, elipe Alejaga Sr. s!ould not !a&e encu"bered t!e parcel land granted to !i". T!e "ortgage !e "ade o&er t!e land &iolated t!at condition. (ence, t!e propert# "ust necessaril# re&ert to t!e public do"ain, pursuant to Section -> of t!e Public Land Act.
During t!e trial, t!e Republic presented as e+pert itness $ Docu"ent 2+a"iner 2liodoro Constantino !o testified on $ IDR $o. <-4H-0; and asserted t!at t!e signature of Palad in 2+!ibit FAG is a forger#. or !is part, Palad dis"issed as forged !is signature appearing in t!e sa"e docu"ent and denied e&er signing t!e sa"e, let alone in front of a notar# public !olding office outside of t!e LM pre"ises. Pressing t!e point, Palad stated t!at !e could not !a&e !ad signed t!e con&e#ing deed in&ol&ing as it did a reser&ation area !ic!, apart fro" its being outside of t!e LM's jurisdiction, is inalienable in t!e first place.
REP3BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES -S. SO3THSIDE HO+EOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. FACTS4 T!e subject "atter of t!ese proceedings for declaration of nullit# of title are parcels of land it! a total area of ;. !ectares, "ore or less, @non as t!e J=SMA !ousing area in ort onifacio !ere, "ilitar# officers, bot! in t!e acti&e and retired ser&ices, and t!eir respecti&e fa"ilies, !a&e been occup#ing !ousing units and facilities originall# constructed b# t!e AP. Pri&ate respondent S(A is a nonHstoc@ corporation organiEed "ostl# b# i&es of AP "ilitar# officers. Records s!o t!at S(A as able to secure fro" t!e Registr# of Deeds of t!e Pro&ince of RiEal a title B Transfer Certificate of Title in its na"e to t!e bul@ of, if not t!e entire, J =SMA area. T!e RiEal Registr# issued TCT $o. -40<> on ctober ;0, --on t!e basis of a notariEed Dee of Sale purportedl# e+ecuted on t!e sa"e date b# t!en Director Abelardo . Palad, Jr. of t!e Lands Manage"ent ureau )LM* in fa&or of S(A.T!e total purc!ase price as ritten in t!e con&e#ing deed as P--,?,//0.00 or P;0.00 per s%uare "eter.
or its part, t!en defendant S(A presented an opposing e+pert itness in t!e person of Police nspector Redencion Cai"bon !o testified t!at Palad's signature in 2+!ibit FAG is genuine. Mrs. 3irginia Santos, t!en S(A president, li@eise testified, sa#ing t!at applications to purc!ase ere signed and t!en filed it! t!e LM b# one 2ngr. 2ugenia alis, folloed b# t!e pa#"ent in full of t!e contract price. 2&entuall#, in a decision dated ctober ?, -?, t!e trial court rendered judg"ent dis"issing t!e Republic's co"plaint as it considered t!e parcels co&ered b# t!e deed in %uestion as no longer part of t!e MR. T!erefro", t!e Republic ent on appeal to t!e CA !ic! affir"ed in toto t!at of t!e trial court. (ence, t!is petition of t!e Republic.
ISS3E4 7$ t!e J=SMA area, during t!e period "aterial, alienable or inalienable, as t!e case "a# be, and, t!erefore, can or cannot be subject of a laful pri&ate con&e#ance8
R3LING: Petitioner Republic, correctl# asserts t!e inalienable c!aracter of t!e J=SMA area, t!e sa"e !a&ing not effecti&el# been separated fro" t!e "ilitar# reser&ation and declared as alienable and disposable.
t appears t!at in t!e process of t!e in&estigation conducted b# t!e Depart"ent of Justice on reported land sca"s at t!e MR, a cop# of t!e aforesaid ctober ;0, --deed of sale surfaced and e&entuall# referred to t!e $ational ureau of n&estigation )$* for e+a"ination. T!e results of t!e e+a"ination underta@en b# $ Docu"ent 2+a"iner 2liodoro Constantino re&eals t!at t!e puported signatures in t!e docu"ent are forgeries.
T!e President, upon t!e reco""endation of t!e Secretar# of 2n&iron"ent and $atural Resources, "a# designate b# procla"ation an# tract or tracts of land of t!e public do"ain as reser&ations for t!e use of t!e Republic or an# of its branc!es, or for %uasiHpublic uses or purposes. Suc! tract or tracts of land t!us reser&ed s!all be nonHalienable and s!all not be subject to sale or ot!er disposition until again declared alienable.
n ctober -/, -;, t!en President idel 3.Ra"os issued Me"orandu" rder $o. -?; directing t!e ffice of t!e Solicitor eneral )S* to institute action toards t!e cancellation of TCT $o. -40<> and t!e title ac%uired b# t!e $a&# fficer's 3illage Association )$3A* o&er a bigger parcel it!in t!e reser&ation.
Consistent it! t!e foregoing postulates, jurisprudence teac!es t!at a "ilitar# reser&ation, li@e t!e MR, or a part t!ereof is not open to pri&ate appropriation or disposition and, t!erefore, not registrable, unless it is in t!e "eanti"e reclassified and declared as disposable and alienable public land.
