Land Titles Reviewer - Compiled Bar Exams Q&A

Land Titles and Deeds TOPIC: PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES (1990, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003) I Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a fivestar hotel in New York, USA, entrusted to his first-degree cousin Dewey an application for registration, under the Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located in Bacolod City. A year later, Louie returned to the Philippines and discovered that Dewey registered the land and obtained an Original Certificate of Title over the property in his (Dewey’s) name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an innocent purchaser for value. Louie promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel of land against Huey. A. Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy? B. Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will the action prosper if the case was filed beyond one year, but within ten years, from the entry of the decree of registration? ANSWERS: A. An action for reconveyance against Huey is not the proper remedy, because Huey is an innocent purchaser for value. The proper recourse is for Louie to go after Dewey for damages by reason of the fraudulent registration and subsequent sale of the land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim against the Assurance Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez vs. De Castro 324 SCRA 591 [2000] citing Sps. Eduarte vs. CA, 323 Phil 462 [1996]). B. Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action prescribes in ten (10) years, not within one (1) year when a petition for the reopening of the registration decree may be filed. The action for reconveyance is distinct from the petition to reopen the decree of registration (Grey Alba vs. Dela Cruz, 17 Phil 49 [1910]). There is no need to reopen the registration proceedings, but the property should just be reconveyed to the real owner. The action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the original certificate of title. This rule assumes that the defendant is in possession of the land. Where it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title which action is imprescriptible (David vs. Malay, 318 SCRA 711 [1999]). II In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a loan. O acted through his attorney in fact, son, S, who was duly authorized by way of a special power of attorney, wherein O declared that he was the absolute owner of the land, that the tax declarations/receipts were all issued in his name, and that he has been in open, continuous and adverse possession in the concept of owner. As O was unable to pay back the loan plus

interest for the past five (5) years, M had to foreclose the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale and registration in January, 1966, the mortgage property was turned over to M’s possession and control. M has since then developed the said property. In 1967, O died, survived by sons S and P. In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father O, son P filed a suit to annul the mortgage deed and subsequent sale of the property, etc., on the ground of fraud. He asserted that the property in question was conjugal in nature actually belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S and P) and to O. A. Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your answer. B. After the issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale in 1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for registration under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to the said property in question, would that added fact have any significant effect on your conclusion? State your reason. (1990) ANSWERS:

San Beda College of A. Under Art. 173, CC, the action is barred by prescription because the wife had only ten (10) years from the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the annulment of the mortgage deed. B. If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all the more S and P could not recover because if at all their remedies would be: 1. A Petition to Review the Decree of registration. This can be availed of within one (1) year from the entry thereof, but only upon the basis of “actual fraud.” There is no showing that M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the land; or 2. An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of the title in their favor. Again, this remedy is available within four (4) years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the title in the name of M. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is only a voidable contract since it involves a conjugal partnership property. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or eleven years after the execution of the sheriff’s final sale, has obviously prescribed because: 1. An action to annul a contract on the ground of fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the date of discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence an action to recover ownership, it must be reckoned from the date of execution of the contract or from the registration of the alleged fraudulent

document with the assessor’s office for the purpose of transferring the tax declaration, this being unregistered land (Bael vs. IAC, GR No. L- 74423 January 30, 1989, 169 SCRA 617). 2. If the action is to be treated as an action to recover ownership of land, it would have prescribed just the same because more than ten (10) years have already elapsed since the date of the execution of the sale. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering that M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a just title. TOPIC: TORRENS SYSTEM (1990, 1991, 1994, 1998, 2001) I Section 70 of PD 1529, concerning adverse claims on registered land, provides a 30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim, counted from the date of its registration. Suppose a notice of adverse claim based upon a contract to sell was registered on March 1, 1997 at the instance of the BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of the 30-day period, a notice of levy on execution in favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to enforce a final judgment for money against the registered owner. Then, on June 15, 1997 there having been no formal cancellation of his notice of adverse claim, the BUYER pays to the seller-owner the agreed purchase price in full and registers the corresponding deed of sale. Because the annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to the new title in his name, the BUYER brings an action against the JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but the latter claims that his lien is superior because it was annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit prosper? (1998) ANSWER: The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim duly annotated at the back of a title under Sec. 70 of PD 1529 is good only for 30 days, cancellation thereof is still necessary to render it neffective, otherwise, the inscription thereof will remain annotated as a lien on the property. While the life of adverse claim is 30 days under PD 1529, it continuous to be effective until it is cancelled by formal petition filed with the Register of Deeds. The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified under Sec. 108 of PD 1529 considering that the levy on execution cannot be enforced against the buyer whose adverse claim against the registered owner was recorded ahead of the notice of levy on execution.

Red Notes in Civil Law II In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a loan. O acted through his attorney in fact, son, S, who was duly authorized by way of a special power of attorney, wherein O declared that he was the absolute owner of the land, that the tax declarations/receipts were all issued in his name, and that he

has been in open, continuous and adverse possession in the concept of owner. As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for the past five (5) years, M had to foreclose the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale and registration in January, 1966, the mortgage property was turned over to M’s possession and control. M has since then developed the said property. In 1967, O died, survived by sons S and P. In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father O, son P filed a suit to annul the mortgage deed and subsequent sale of the property, etc., on the ground of fraud. He asserted that the property in question was conjugal in nature actually belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S and P) and to O. C. Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your answer. D. After the issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sale in 1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for registration under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to the said property in question, would that added fact have any significant effect on your conclusion? State your reason. (1990) ANSWERS: A. Under Art. 173, CC, the action is barred by prescription because the wife had only ten (10) years from the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the annulment of the mortgage deed. B. If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all the more S and P could not recover because if at all their remedies would be: 3. A Petition to Review the Decree of registration. This can be availed of within one (1) year from the entry thereof, but only upon the basis of “actual fraud.” There is no showing that M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the land; or 4. An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of the title in their favor. Again, this remedy is available within four (4) years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the title in the name of M. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is only a voidable contract since it involves a conjugal partnership property. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or eleven years after the execution of the sheriff’s final sale, has obviously prescribed because: 3. An action to annul a contract on the ground of fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the date of discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence an action to recover

ownership, it must be reckoned from the date of execution of the contract or from the registration of the alleged fraudulent document with the assessor’s office for the purpose of transferring the tax declaration, this being unregistered land (Bael vs. IAC, GR No. L- 74423 January 30, 1989, 169 SCRA 617). 4. If the action is to be treated as an action to recover ownership of land, it would have prescribed just the same because more than ten (10) years have already elapsed since the date of the execution of the sale. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A. The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering that M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a just title. QUESTION No.1: Angel filed a petition for registration of a parcel of land on June 22, 1994 claiming that he has been in actual, open, continuous and notorious possession, in the concept of an owner over the same. It appears that he likewise filed a foreshore lease application over the same land in 1977. During the trial, the court ordered the LRA and the CENRO to file with it a report on the status of the subject land. The court thereafter rendered a decision on May 3 1995 granting the petition. The said decision became final and executory. The Office of the Solicitor general subsequently filed a petition for annulment of the above judgment on the ground that based on the report of the LRA which was received by it on June 22, 1995, the land applied for is foreshore land. a) What is the nature and classification of foreshore land? b) Will the action of the Republic through the OSG prosper? ANSWERS: a) NO. Foreshore land is that strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and is alternatively wet and dry to the flow of the tide. It is that part of the land adjacent to the sea, which is alternatively covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of tides. It is part of the alienable land of the public domain and may be disposed of only by lease and not otherwise. Foreshore land remains part of the public domain and is outside the commerce of man. It is not capable of private appropriation. b) YES. Even if the decision of the RTC has become final and executory, the action for annulment of judgment should be sustained since it is impressed with public interest. The State has to protect its interests and cannot be bound by, or estopped from, the mistakes or negligent acts of its officials or agents, mush more, non-suited as a result thereof. Furthermore, Angel had in fact filed a foreshore lease application in 1977 and paid the corresponding fees thereon. There is therefore doubt to Angel’s claim that he had been in actual, open, notorious, and continuous possession in the concept of an owner.

(Republic vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 126316, June 25, 2004) QUESTION No.2: On December 27, 1976, Francisco filed a petition for registration of the three parcels of land. He alleged therein that there were hardly any big trees in the subject property and that he and his predecessors-ininterest even planted bananas, cassava, coconut trees and camotes on the same. He further alleged that he had been in actual, open, notorious and continuous possession of the property in the concept of owner. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands on the ground that the subject property was forest land and was only reclassified as alienable and disposable only on April 16, 1973. a) Should the petition for registration be granted? b) Is the absence of big trees conclusive as regards to the classification of a parcel of land as not belonging to forest land? ANSWERS: a) NO. Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No.141, the classification and reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest land is the prerogative of the Executive Department. The rule on the confirmation of imperfect title does not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain. Francisco failed to adduce in evidence any certification from the Bureau of Lands or the Bureau of Forestry to the effect that the property is alienable or disposable. Furthermore, since the property was reclassified as alienable and disposable only on April 16, 1973 and Francisco filed his application only on December 27, 1976, he irrefragably failed to prove his possession of the property for the requisite thirty (30)-year period. b) NO. A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted to crops by Kaingin cultivators or other farmers. “Forest Lands” do not have to be in the mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. (Zarate vs Director of Lands, GR No. 131501, July 14, 2004) QUESTION No.3: The spouses Zulueta obtained from GSIS various loans secured by real estate mortgages over parcels of land. The spouses Zulueta failed to pay their loans which prompted GSIS to foreclose the real estate mortgages. During the auction sale, some of the mortgaged properties were awarded to GSIS. However, some lots which were covered by the mortgaged titles were expressly excluded from the auction since those that were sold were sufficient to pay for all the mortgage debts. This notwithstanding,

GSIS included the excluded lots when it executed on November 25, 1975 an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership on the basis of which, certificates of title over the same were issued in the name of GSIS. Zulueta thereafter transferred his rights over the excluded lots to Eduardo in 1989 who consequently demanded from GSIS the return of the said excluded lots. Eduardo then filed on May 7, 1990 a complaint for reconveyance of real estate against the GSIS. a) Can GSIS legally claim ownership over the excluded properties on the basis of the certificates of title over the same which were issued in its name? b) Has the action for reconveyance prescribed? ANSWERS: a) NO. Even if titles over the lots had been issued in the name of the GSIS, still it could not legally claim ownership and absolute dominion over them because indefeasibility of title under the Torrens system does not attach to titles secured by fraud or misrepresentation. The fraud committed by GSIS in the form of concealment of the existence of said lots and failure to return the same to the real owners after their exclusion from the foreclosure sale made GSIS holders in bad faith. It is well settled that a holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the law for the law cannot be used as a shield for fraud. b) NO. Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides: If the property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. An action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the alleged fraudulent registration or date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property. The general rule that the discovery of fraud is deemed to have taken place upon the registration of real property because it is “considered a constructive notice to all persons” does not apply in this case. The case in point is Samonte vs Court of Appeals where the Supreme Court reckoned the prescriptive period for the filing of the action based on implied trust from the actual discovery of the fraud. Santiago came know of GSIS’ fraudulent acts only in 1989 and the complaint was filed in 1990. Following the Court’s pronouncement in Samonte, the institution of the action for reconveyance was thus well within the prescriptive period. (GSIS vs Santiago, GR No. 155206, October 28, 2003) QUESTION No. 4: In August 1950, the Republic of the Philippines filed an application with the cadastral court claiming ownership over certain properties which covered Lot 4329. Guillermo filed an answer claiming therein a right over Lot 4329. Guillermo died during the pendency of the case. Gregorio, who claimed to be the only son of Guillermo, substituted the latter, and to him, Lot 4329 was adjudicated by the court. The decision became final and executory. On July 8, 1985, OCT No. 0-6,151 was issued in the name of Gregorio. Sometime thereafter, the brothers and sisters of

Guillermo filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Gregorio, alleging that Guillermo died single and without issue and that Gregorio obtained title to the property through fraud deceit and gross misrepresentation. They prayed that Gregorio’s title be cancelled and the property be reconveyed to them. After the trial, the court declared that Gregorio has not sufficiently proved that he is the son of Guillermo but ruled that he has the right of possession of the disputed property. Is Gregorio entitled to the possession of the disputed property? ANSWER: YES. Gregorio was able to obtain a title in his name over the questioned property after the cadastral proceedings instituted by the Republic. This Torrens title is now a conclusive evidence of his ownership of the subject land. After the expiration of the one-year period from the issuance of the decree of registration, the said certificate of title became incontrovertible. In fine, whether or not his title was obtained fraudulently is beyond the competence of the Supreme Court to determine. The issue should have been raised during the proceeding before the cadastral court. A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked, the issue on the validity of title, i.e. whether or not it was fraudulently issued can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. The prayer for the cancellation of Gregorio’s title and the reconveyance of the same to brothers and sisters of Guillermo is legally impossible. To sustain the said action would be inconsistent with the rule that the act of registration is the operative act that conveys a parcel of land to its registered owner under the Torrens system. What we are emphasizing is that, although Gregorio has not sufficiently proved his filiation to the late Guillermo, the fact that he has a legal title over the subject land entitles him to possession thereof, pending the final determination of the validity of the title issued to him in an appropriate proceeding.

Land Titles and Deeds [COMPILED BY: ATTY. CIRIACO CRUZ] FRAUD A title issued pursuant to a patent under administrative proceeding is as indefeasible as a title secured in a judicial proceeding. But even after the lapse of one year from the issuance of the patent, the government may still initiate an action for reversion of the land to the public domain if the land is titled through fraud or misrepresentation as when the applicant stated that the subject land is exclusively possessed by him when in truth it overlaps the land of an adjacent owner. (Republic of the Philippines vs. CA and Heirs of Bullongan, 255 SCRA 335). Generally, a forged deed is void but it can be the root of a valid title if registered in the name of the forger then transferred to an innocent purchaser for value absent any showing that the buyer had any part in the anomaly. Hence, the rights of the innocent purchaser for value must be respected. The proper recourse of the true owner is to bring

an action for damages against the party who caused the fraud. (Eduarte vs. CA, 253 SCRA 391). A party deprived of his land by confirmation of title through actual fraud may seek for reopening of a decree of registration within one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. Before the expiration of the one-year period from the entry of the decree, the court retains control of the decision which, after hearing and actual fraud was proved to exist, may adjudicate the land to any party entitled thereto. (Heirs of Manuel Roxas and Trinidad De Leon vs. CA, 270 SCRA 309).

Red Notes in Civil Law Actual fraud or extrinsic fraud proceeds from the intentional deception produced by means of misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Extrinsic fraud prevents the party from presenting his entire case to the court. (Heirs of Manuel Roxas and Trinidad De Leon vs. CA, 270 SCRA 309). Fraud is extrinsic or collateral where a litigant commits acts outside of the trial of the case the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial, a real contest or from presenting his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is no fair submission of the controversy. Accordingly, use of forged document or perjured witness are not extrinsic fraud as it does not preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings. (Strait Times, Inc. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 714). Constructive trust is created in equity in order to prevent unjust enrichment. Thus, onewho, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, so hold has no valid title to said property and therefore cannot dispose of the same. Hence, a widower who adjudicates the entire conjugal property to himself holds the children's share in the property in trust. (Marquez vs. CA, 300 SCRA 653). A certificate of title cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate fraud. Any false statement in the application for a land patent shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the same even after the lapse of one year from issuance of said patent pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act wherein an action may be undertaken for the reversion of the land to the public domain. (Francisco Baguio vs. Republic, et al., 301 SCRA 450). GOOD FAITH; INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE One who deals with property covered by the Torrens system of registration need not go beyond the title to determine the condition of the property. (Legarda vs. CA, 280 SCRA 642). A person dealing with registered land has the right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title without the need of inquiring further. Hence, a purchaser who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full fair price for the property is a buyer in good faith. (Sandoval vs. CA, 260 SCRA 283).

A person in good faith and for value is defined as one who buys property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price of the time of the purchase or before he has notice that other person has a right to, or interest in, the property. As a rule, he who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value has the burden of proving said assertion. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises is a safeguard a cautious and prudent purchaser usually takes and should he find out that the land is occupied by anybody else other than the seller who is not in actual possession, it is incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupants' possessory rights. (Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr. vs. CA, 295 SCRA 356). An RTC court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an adverse claim. Purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same on the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. (GSIS vs. CA, 240 SCRA 737). OWNERSHIP / POSSESSION An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on constructive or implied trust prescribes in 10 years reckoned from the issuance of title or date of registration. This rule applies only when plaintiff or party enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property, but if he is in possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect is an action to quiet title, does not prescribe. (Cabrera vs. CA and Felicio, et al., 267 SCRA 339). A party's failure to raise a restraining arm or a shout of dissent to another party's possession of a parcel of land in a span of 30 years is contrary to his claim of ownership. (Heirs of Teodoro Dela Cruz vs. CA, et al., 298 SCRA 172). Torrens system does not vest title because it is not recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership. While registered land under the system makes the title thereto imprescriptible, the same may be lost by laches caused by a party's inaction or passivity in asserting his rights over the disputed property. (Santiago vs. CA, 278 SCRA 803). Tax declaration and tax receipts become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession. (Oclarit vs. CA, 233 SCRA 39). PUBLIC LANDS A title may be confirmed under Section 48 of the Public Land Act (PLA) only if it pertains to alienable lands of the public domain but unless such assets are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable, occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership

and be registered as a title. Section 48(b) of the PLA was clarified by PD 1073 that said section applied only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. (De Ocampo vs. Arlos, 343 SCRA 716) Sales patents fraudulently obtained are invalid and the State should initiate the suit to recover the property thru the Solicitor General and not by a supposedly aggrieved party who has no personality to initiate such litigation. (De Ocampo vs. Arlos, 343 SCRA 716) The Regalian Doctrine which forms part of our land laws is a revered and long standing principle. It must however be applied together with the constitutional provision on social justice and land reform, and must be interpreted in a way as to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice. But when the land of public domain is in danger of ruthless exploitation, fraudulent titling or other questionable practice, a strict application of the law is warranted. (Director of Lands vs. Funtilar, 142 SCRA 57) Rules on confirmation of title do not apply unless the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation by the Executive branch of the government. Hence, possession of forest lands no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership. (Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, 126 SCRA 69) RA 8371 known as Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) that grants to indigenous cultural communities the ownership of ancestral lands and domains held by them under native title are undisputably presumed private lands because they have been held that way since before theSpanish conquest or as far as memory reaches. The State by recognizing the right of tribal Filipinos to their ancestral lands and domains has effectively upheld their right to live in a culture distinctly their own as enunciated in Article III of the Constitution, hence, the IPRA Law is in consonance with and not violative of the Constitution. (Cruz vs. Sec. of DENR, et al., 347 SCRA 128) If public land was titled but turned out to be forest land instead of agricultural land, the one year period to file a review of the decree does not apply. On the contrary, the land may revert to the public domain upon petition of the Solicitor General. (Republic vs. CA and Heirs of Ribaya,258 SCRA 223). Absent any publication in any newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register the title of the applicant. Publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette is not enough to confer jurisdiction to the court because the law requires publication also in a newspaper. The word "shall" denotes an imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of the statute that publication shall be in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation. (Director of Lands vs. CA, 276 SCRA 276).

Periods required in possession and occupation of public land to qualify as claimant: Section 48(b) of the PLA - December 1, 1936 - those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership except as against the government since July 26, 1894. RA 1942 - June 22, 1957 - amended Section 48(b) of the PLA by prescribing open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title. PD 1073 - January 23, 1977 - amended further Section 48(b) of the PLA by stating that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12, 1945. (See also Section 14 of PD 1529) Accordingly, the period of 30 years of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation would not suffice to confer title to a settler, particularly so when the President reserves said public land for a public purpose. (Republic Opol National Secondary Technical School vs. Nicanor Doldol, 295 SCRA 359). Foreshore lands or submerged areas which may be reclaimed under RA 1899 by local governments are part of the public domain which could only be subject of reclamation by the national government under PD 3-A. The authority granted to local governments to undertake reclamation projects was a mere grant by the sovereign which, in the exercise of police power, may be withdrawn as shown in PD 3-A. (Republic vs. CA and Pasay City, et al. (Cultural Center), 299 SCRA 199). Under Section 101 of the PLA, an action for reversion to the public domain of land fraudulently titled may be initiated even after the lapse of one year as said action is not barred by prescription. (Francisco Baguio vs. Republic, et al., 301 SCRA 450). The government's prolonged inaction for 20 years whereby it failed to correct and recover the increased area in the land of a private party militates against its cause as it is tantamount to laches which is the failure or neglect for unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could have been done earlier. While the general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes and errors of its officials and its agents, this is subject to exception if it would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. The government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably with its citizens and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing. (Republic vs. CA and St. Jude Enterprises, 301 SCRA 3).

DECREE OF REGISTRATION As long as a final decree has not been entered by the LRA and the period of one year has not yet elapsed from the date of entry of such decree the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision of the court in the registration proceedings continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it. (Ramos vs Rodriguez, 244 SCRA 418). When the court decision has become final and the court directs the LRA to issue a decree of registration, the LRA is not legally obligated to follow the court's order when the land sought to be registered is discovered to have been already decreed and titled in the name of another. (Ramos vs Rodriguez, 244 SCRA 418). CERTIFICATE OF TITLE A title over registered land cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession nor prescription; neither could ownership be proven thru tax payment receipts or tax declarations as they are not conclusive evidence of ownership. (Cervantes vs. CA and Francisco, 352 SCRA 47) Indefeasibility of title does not attach to a Torrens title secured by fraud and misrepresentation. (Baguio vs. Republic, 301 SCRA 450) The issue of validity of title, i.e. whether or not it was fraudulently issued can only be raised in an action expressly initiated for that purpose. Otherwise stated, a collateral attack impugning the validity of the title in a suit for recovery of ownership is an indirect challenge to the final judgment and decree of registration. (Villanueva vs. CA and Santiago, 351 SCRA 12) Title once registered under the Torrens system should not thereafter be altered, changed, modified or diminished except in a direct proceeding permitted by law as provided in Section 48 of PD 1529 disallowing collateral attack of a Torrens title. (Seville vs. Nat’l Dev’t Co., 351 SCRA 112) Torrens title acquires the character of indefeasibility one year from the entry of the decree of registration. Hence, even if the decision of the land registration court has reached finality, the court still retains control and may alter or modify the same if the decree of registration has not been issued by the LRA. (Divina vs. CA, et al., 352 SCRA 527) Real purpose of Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to land and put a stop to any question of legality of title except claims which have been recorded in the certificate of title at the time of registration. Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser for value in good faith holds title to land free from all encumbrances, except those provided by law. Hence, a registered owner who executed a deed of sale in favor of another without any consideration (except their common-law relationship) and caused the registration of said conveyance validly transmits the property which can be conveyed to an innocent purchaser for value. (Gloria Cruz vs. CA and Romy Suzara, 281 SCRA 492).

Where 2 certificates of title purport to cover the same land, the certificate bearing the earlier date prevails. Hence, in cases where two certificates cover the same land, a certificate of title is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the land had already been registered and an earlier certificate is in existence. (MWSS vs. CA, 215 SCRA 783). Certificate of title merely confirms or records the title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another. Hence, one who loses his property and review of decree is no longer available, the equitable remedy of reconveyance may be resorted to. (Esquivas vs. CA, 272 SCRA 803). A land registration proceeding is in rem and therefore a decree of registration issued thereafter is binding upon and conclusive against all persons including the government. A decree of registration that has become final shall be conclusive not only on questions actually contested and determined but also upon all matters that ought to be litigated or decided in land registration proceedings. (Teofilo Cacho vs. CA, 269 SCRA 359). A certificate of title is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence. Where two titles have been issued on different dates to two different persons for the same parcel of land, even if both are presumed to be titleholders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. Assuming that there was regularity in registration leading to the issuance of title, the better approach is to trace the original certificate from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there be one common original title, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration. (Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr. vs. CA, 295 SCRA 356). Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title to determine the condition of the property. Thus, all the property of the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or wife. (Heirs of the Spouses Benito Ganico vs. CA, 281 SCRA 495). When the certificate of title is issued in the name of the original buyer on installment who died before completion of payment, the heirs who continued the installment payments may invoke Section 108 of PD 1529 to correct the error and have the land registered in their names. (Ernesto Dawson, et al., vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City and RTC, QC, 295 SCRA 733, citing the case of Cruz vs. Tan, 93 Phil 348).

LACHES Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier or negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or has declined to assert it. (Margolles vs. CA, 230 SCRA 97). ADVERSE CLAIM The purpose of the annotation of adverse claim is to protect the interest of a person over real property where the registration of such right or interest is not otherwise provided under the Torrens system. Mere registration of adverse interest does not make such claim valid nor is it permanent in character because judicial determination of the issue of ownership is still necessary. (Garbin vs. CA, 253 SCRA 187). While the law states that the adverse claim is effective within 30 days, the annotation thereof remains and cancellation is necessary, otherwise the inscription will continue as a lien on the title. To limit to 30 days the effectivity of an adverse claim will defeat the very purpose for which the law provides for the remedy of inscription of the adverse claim. Hence, a sheriff's levy on property already covered by an adverse claim is considered subservient to said claim. (Sajonas vs. CA, 250 SCRA 737). A court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an adverse claim and, if found to be invalid, order the cancellation of said adverse claim. (GSIS vs. CA, 240 SCRA 737). A notice of adverse claim annotated on the title of a registered owner remains valid even after the lapse of thirty (30) days. As long as no petition for its cancellation has been filed, the notice of adverse claim remains. A hearing must first be conducted wherein the parties are given the opportunity to prove the propriety or impropriety of the adverse claim. Hence, the cancellation automatically being done by the Register of Deeds after the lapse of 30 days from registration is improper. (Rogelio Duarte vs. CA, et al., 298 SCRA 388). LIS PENDENS Once annotated upon the original copy of the title, the notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk. (Yu vs. CA, 251 SCRA 509). The notice of lis pendens is but an incident in an action. It does not affect the merits thereof. It is intended merely to constructively advice or warn all people who deal with the property that they deal with it at their own risk and whatever rights they may acquire in the property are subject to the

result of the action. (Heirs of Maria Marasigan vs. IAC, 152 SCRA 253). RECONSTITUTION Reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates in the office of the RD can be done only thru judicial proceedings. Notice of hearings shall be sent to the RD and the LR Commissioner. When it is conceded that some deficiencies exist in the formal requisites for the issuance of a transfer certificate of title covering a parcel of land with an increased or expanded area, and where the Register of Deeds noting such facts has recommended the cancellation of the certificate of title pursuant to LRC Circular No. 167, there is a serious or substantial controversy as to the ownership of the expanded area. This kind of controversy can only be heard in the exercise of the courts’ general jurisdiction, the proper remedy would be a petition for declaratory relief under Section 64 of the Rules of Court. (Santos vs. Aquino, GR No. 32949, Nov. 28, 1980).

San Beda College of In reconstitution of allegedly lost certificate of title, greatest caution must be exercised in acting on such petitions, especially when it is filed after an inexplicable delay of 25 years. It is mandatory that: Aside from publication, actual and personal notice be duly served to indispensable parties, i.e. the actual owners and possessors of the land involved; The land has in fact been previously registered under Act 496 but the corresponding certificate of title has been lost or destroyed. In other words, the title is no longer subsisting. The reconstitution of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of RA 26 denotes the restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Courts must proceed with extreme caution in proceedings for reconstitution of titles under RA 26, and should not only require strict compliance therewith but also establish the identity of every person who files the petition. If filed by some other person than the registered owner, no effort should be spared to assure itself of the authenticity and due execution of petitioner's authority to institute the proceedings. It should avoid itself being unwittingly used as a tool of swindlers and impostors robbing someone of his title. (Heirs of Pedro Pinoto vs. Hon. Jude Dulay, GR No. 58694, July 2, 1990). The essential requirements in the reconstitution of title are the following: 1. Notice of petition should be published in the Official Gazette and posted on the main entrance of the provincial and municipal building where the land is situated; 2. The notice should state the number of the lost or destroyed title, the name of the registered owner, occupants or persons in possession; the names of adjoining owners and interested parties; the area and boundaries of the property and stating the date on which all interested parties must appear;

3. Copy of the notice must also be sent by registered mail or otherwise to every person named therein or to the occupant or adjoining owners whose addresses are known, at least 30 days prior to the hearing; and 4. At the date of the hearing of the petition, the petitioner must submit proof of publication, posting and service of notice as required by the court. (Calalang vs. Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, 231 SCRA 88; Ortigas vs. Velasco, 234 SCRA 455). JURISDICTION The distinction between general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction when acting as a land registration court has been eliminated by Section 2 of PD 1529. Hence, the RTCs now have authority to act on questions after original registration with power to hear and decide substantial and contentious issues to avoid multiplicity of suits. (Ignacio vs. CA, 246 SCRA 243). The land registration court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue regarding the existence or non-existence of tenancy relationship under RA 3844 (Agricultural Reform Code, as amended by RA 6389) since exclusive jurisdiction over such relationship was vested by law in the Court of Agrarian Relations, now the Regional Trial Court pursuant to BP 129. (Ouano vs. CA, 237 SCRA 122). PD 1529 abolished the difference between the general jurisdiction of regular courts and the limited jurisdiction of the land registration court such that pursuant to Section 2 of PD 1529, the court may issue a writ of possession to effectuate the result of a tax sale, citing the leading case of Averia vs. Caguioa, 146 SCRA, where it was declared that a land registration court has jurisdiction to decide contentious and substantial issues after original registration. (Cloma vs. CA, 234 SCRA 665). No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented together with the instrument except in some cases or upon order of the court for Any lien annotated on the previous certificate of title which subsist should be incorporated in or carried over to the new TCT. (Leticia Ligon vs. CA and Iglesia ni Kristo, 244 SCRA 693). EXPROPRIATION Under RA 7279, lands for socialized housing are to be acquired by the government in the following order: 1. government lands 2. alienable lands 3. unregistered lands or idle lands 4. privately owned lands When privately owned lands are to be expropriated, two conditions must be complied with, namely: 1. resorted to only when other modes are exhausted

2. lands owned by small property owners are exempt from expropriation for social housing. (City of Mandaluyong vs. Aguilar, et al., 350 SCRA 487)

INTER ALIA “Among other things” Land Titles and Deeds RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY 1. Sale of lands to aliens is void as it violates the Constitution, which disallows aliens to acquire lands. Both vendor and vendee are in pari delicto and the Courts will not allow protection to either party. The government may annul the sale at anytime because prescription does not run against the government (Lee vs. Republic of the Philippines, 366 SCRA). 2. Natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost their Filipino citizenship may now acquire not more than 3 hectares of land if it is rural and not more than 5000 square meters if residential. (RA 8179) EFFECT OF P.D. 1529 ON SPANISH TITLES 1. Cannot be used as evidence to prove title (Estate of Don Mariano de San Pedro, 265 SCRA) 2. The same may be registered under the system of registration for unregistered land. (Act 3344) 3. Those not registered under the LRA are not considered registered at all. EFFECT OF P.D. 1529 ON THE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION OF UNREGISTERED LAND 1. Involuntary transaction like attachment and the like on unregistered land may now be registered in the Register of Deeds. 2. Any question regarding registration in the Register of Deeds may now be elevated by way of consulta to the Land Registration Administration. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE LRA 1. Purpose – the legislative intent in providing a system of registration is to afford a mode of publicity so that persons dealing with real property may search records and thereby acquire security against instruments, the execution of which has not been revealed. Hence, a permanent record of landholdings and transactions thereon is maintained in order to prevent fraudulent claims to land by concealment of unregistered transactions. 2. Effect – Recording of conveyance constitute notice to all whereas, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every document of record (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380). 3. Real Purpose of Torrens System – to quiet title already existing and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once title is registered, the owner may rest secure without

waiting in the portals of the Court to avoid possibility of losing his land. (Ching vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA; National Grains Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA) OBJECT OF REGISTRATION Object of registration – Only real property is the object of registration. While land literally means the bare soil of the earth, it includes whatever may be found on its surface and under it. But forest land, even if it is stripped of trees and forest cover are not susceptible of private ownership much less of registration by private persons unless reclassified or released from forest to alienable and disposable land of the public domain by official proclamation (Director of Forest Management vs. Valeriano, 129 SCRA). THE DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING LAND TITLES 1. Public grant such as homestead patent, free patent or sales patent under CA 141. 2. Private grant like donation, sale, etc. 3. Adverse possession or prescription 4. Accretion – to the owners of the land adjoining banks of rivers belong the accretion, which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the rivers and not from the sea (Ignacio vs. Director of Lands, 108 Phil; Binoloy vs. Manalo, 195 SCRA). Should accretion take place while application for registration is pending, there is a need for filing a new application for registration of the additional land and not merely awarding the application (Cureg vs. IAC, 177 SCRA). 5. Involuntary alienation – such as expropriation proceedings, escheat, execution sale, tax sale. 6. Descent or device – testate and intestate succession. 7. Reclamation – under the Philippine Law of Waters, only the government may initiate reclamation projects (Government vs. Cabangis, 53 Phil 112). Under RA 1899, the national government granted to municipalities and chartered cities the authority to undertake and carry out reclamation projects but was revoked by P.D. 3-A and only the national government may undertake such projects (RP vs. Pasay city, et al., 299 SCRA 199 – Cultural Center). TITLE BY EMANCIPATION PATENT OR GRANT UNDER P.D. 27 AND RA 6657 RA 6657 did not repeal or supersede P.D. 27. While RA 6657 covers all public and private agricultural lands, P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands (Sigre vs. Court of Appeals). LANDS SUBJECT OF ORIGINAL REGISTRATION 1. Private lands – lands segregated from general mass of the public domain by any form of grant by the State and which are in possession of the original grantee or their successors in interest. 2. Public agricultural land to which claimants have acquired incomplete title within the contemplation of section 48 of the Public Land Act. VARIOUS METHODS OF BRINGING LANDS UNDER THE OPERATION OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM

1. Judicial – voluntary and compulsory a. Voluntary – Sec 14-39 P.D. 1529 b. Compulsory – instituted in Court by the State under the Cadastral Act (Act 2259) 2. Administrative – where government grants, alienates, or conveys lands by way of patent, said grant, deed, or instrument must be registered in the Register of Deeds so as to be covered by the Land Registration Act. (Sec 103, P.D. 1529) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO REGISTER LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION Recording is not indispensable to prove ownership, under Art. 709, NCC, property not recorded in the Register of Deeds will not prejudice third persons provided it is not registered in the name of third persons and that he has been in quiet andpeaceful possession thereof. Possession here is in accordance with Art. 524, NCC, which contemplates not only material but also symbolic possession (Quimson vs. Rosete, 87 Phil. 189). NATURE OF LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS In rem, based on the generally accepted principle underlying the Torrens system wherein all the world are made parties defendants. Relatedly, a decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on questions actually contended and determined but also upon all matters that might be litigated in the land registration proceedings (Cacho vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA) NATURE OF JURISDICTION OF RTC OVER REGISTRATION OF TITLE 1. RTC exercises plenary jurisdiction over all applications for any registration including improvement and interest thereon and over all petitions filed after original registration (Ignacio vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA; Averia vs. Caguioa, 146 SCRA; PNB vs. International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA) 2. Delegated jurisdiction – RA 7691 allows inferior courts to hear and determine land registration cases where there is no controversy or where the value of the property does not exceed P100, 000. FUNCTIONS OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS 1. General function – Duty to register instrument presented for registration with all requisites for registration being present. 2. Ministerial functions – He performs ministerial functions with reference to registration of deeds, encumbrances, instruments and the like (Baranda vs. Gustilo, 165 SCRA). He cannot exercise personal judgment and discretion when confronted with the problems of whether to register an instrument on the ground that it is invalid as this is a function of the court (Almirol vs. Register of Deeds of Agusan, 22 SCRA).

WHEN MAY REGISTER OF DEEDS DENY REGISTRATION OF VOLUNTARY INSTRUMENTS 1. Where there are more than one copy and owner’s duplicate and not all are presented. 2. When the document on its face bears infirmity. 3. When the validity of the instrument sought to be registered is in issue pending in Court (Balbon vs. Register of Deeds of Ilocos sur, 28 SCRA). May an applicant whose predecessor in interest was denied registration now apply for the registration of the same land? Yes, provided that he has acquired an imperfect title thereto by open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership (Director of Lands vs. Pastor, 106 SCRA; DL Management Bureau vs. Court os Appeals, 205 SCRA) Nature of proceedings in land registration under P.D. 1529 and the Public Land Act (CA 141) Nature of proceedings in land registration under P.D. 1529 and the Public Land Act (CA 141) particularly Section 48 thereof are the same in that both are against the whole world, both take the nature of judicial proceedings and the decree of registration issued under both laws are conclusive and final, and the proceedings therein are governed by the same court procedure and laws of evidence. What is the required period of possession and occupation necessary to be proved? Since June 12, 1945, under Section 14, P.D. 1529 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in RP vs. Doldol, 295 SCRA. WHAT IS THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO SECURE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF TITLE OR ADMINISTRATIVE LEGALIZATION OF TITLE? Under RA 9176, the period within which to file petitions for judicial confirmation or administrative legalization of title had been extended to December 31, 2020. Extent of proof required of an applicant for registration 1. Land is alienable and disposable (Director of Lands vs. Buyco, 216 SCRA). 2. Open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land since June 12, 1945 (Sec 14, P.D. 1529 and RP vs. Doldol) under a bona fide claim of ownership. MAY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS APPLY FOR REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS? Private corporations or associations are not allowed by the 1973 and 1987 Constitution but the prohibition does not apply if at the time of registration proceedings, the land was already private lands (Director of Lands vs. IAC and ACME Plywood, 146 SCRA; Natividad vs. Court of Appeals, 202 SCRA). HOW IS POSSESSION PROVED? 1. Under Sec 48, PLA possession must be accompanied by occupation since the two words are separated by the

conjunction AND, hence possession must not be by mere fiction or constructive possession. 2. Nature of possession – it is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. Continuous when not interrupted or occasional. Exclusive when possessor had exclusive dominion over the land and appropriate it to his own benefit (Director of Lands vs. CA and Manlapaz, 209 SCRA). PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF PUBLICATION 1. Confers jurisdiction over the land applied for upon the court. 2. To charge the whole world with knowledge of the application and invite them to take part in the case and assert and prove their right to the property. a. However, publication is never meant to dispense with the requirement of mailing and posting which are mandatory and jurisdictional (RP vs. Marasigan, 198 SCRA 219). b. Also, publication once in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory and jurisdictional (Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA). c. A defective publication deprives the Court of jurisdiction and therefore lacks authority over the whole case and all its aspects (Po vs. RP, 40 SCRA; Register of Deeds of Malabon vs. RTC Malabon, 181 SCRA). d. Where actual publication of notice of initial hearing was after the hearing itself or where the Official Gazette containing the notice was released for publication only after said hearing, the publication is defective (RP vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA). EFFECT OF ORDER OF DEFAULT All persons and the whole world except only those who had appeared and filed pleadings in the case are bound by said default order (Cachero vs. Marzan, 190 SCRA). WHEN IS DEFAULT ORDER IMPROPER?

Red Notes in Civil Law Where oppositor filed opposition but did not appear on date of initial hearing, it was improper for the court to declare him in default and the remedy is not appeal but certiorari (Director of Lands vs. Santiago, 160 SCRA; Omico Mining vs Vallejos, 63 SCRA). BURDEN OF APPLICANT IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS He must show that he is the real and absolute owner of the property in fee simple and overcome the presumption that the land is a part of the public domain (RP vs. Lee, 197 SCRA; Director of Lands vs. Sayo, 191 SCRA). In petitions for confirmation of imperfect title it is required to show that the applicant is in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under bona

fide claim of ownership within the period required by law (since June 12, 1945 or earlier). Even if there is no opposition, applicant must prove his claim and submit his evidence and not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the opposition (Director of ands vs. Buyco, 216 SCRA). PROOF OF IDENTITY OF LAND MAY CONSIST OF – 1. Survey plan approved by Director of Lands (Republic Cement Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA). 2. Tracing cloth plan and the blue print copies thereof (Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA; Heirs of Isabel Tesalora, 236 SCRA). 3. Technical description duly signed by Geodectic Engineer (RP vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA). 4. Tax Declaration – if there are discrepancies of area and boundary in Tax Declaration and technical description such differences are common as measurements in Tax Declarations are based on more estimation rather than computation (Director of Lands vs. Fontillas, 402 SCRA). WHAT EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO PROVE OWNERSHIP? 1. Documentary evidence – must not only prove the identity of the land but also genuineness of title (Republic Cement Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA). a. Tax declaration and real tax payments – not conducive proof of ownership but indicia of possession (Ordoñez vs. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA; Director of Lands vs. IAC, 195 SCRA). b. Presidential issuance and legislative acts (RP represented by Mindanao Medical Center vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA; International Hardwood & Veneer Corp. vs. University of the Philippines, 200 SCRA). c. Spanish title – already inapplicable and may not be used as evidence (Intestate Estate of Don Mariano de San Pedro, 265 SCRA where P.D. 892 was applied). 2. Testimonial evidence showing among others possession and occupation of the land in the manner and period prescribed by law. PROOFS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PRIVATE RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP 1. Compromise agreement among the parties where they agreed that they have rights and interest over the land and allocated portions to each of them. 2. Survey plan approved by Director of Lands (RP vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA). ORDER OF TRIAL SAME AS ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION Order of trial inland registration cases is the same as ordinary civil action (Rule 30, 1997 Rules of Court). Sec 34 P.D. 1529 expressly states that the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases.

Basis of court judgment Section 29 P.D. 1529 provides that all conflicting claims of ownership in the land shall be determined by the court. Judgment5 of the court shall be based on the evidence presented by the parties AND reports of LRA and Bureau of Lands. The court is empowered to wield its judicial power to compel LRA to speed up the investigation and submission of is report and recommendation (Ramos vs. Rodriguez, 244 SCRA). PROPERTY SUBJECT OF ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT Only property claimed by applicant can be adjudicated by the Court, hence if he asserts ownership and submits evidence only for a portion of a lot, the inclusion of a portion of a lot not claimed is void ( Almarza vs. Arguelles, 156 SCRA). REPORT OF LRA AND LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE PRESENTED If submitted later but not beyond one year after the issuance of decree, the Court may still cause a change in the decision (Gomez vs. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA; Ramos vs. Rodriguez, 244 SCRA). WHEN MAY WRIT OF POSSESSION WILL ISSUE A writ of possession in land registration cases is a mere part judgment incident. The judgment carries with it delivery of possession which is inherent in ownership and it may issue even if there is an appeal (Vencilao vs. Vano). Writ of possession does not prescribe and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding enforcement of judgment by motions in civil cases has no application in land registration proceedings (Heirs of Cristobal Marcos vs. De Banuuar, 25 SCRA). Effect of Decree of Registration It binds the land, quiets title thereto and it is conclusive upon all persons, including the government and bars re-litigation after 1 year (Ylarde vs. Lichauco, 42 SCRA). MINISTERIAL DUTY OF LRA Duty of LRA to issue decree of registration is ministerial, hence LRA cannot exercise discretion but is duty bound to refer matter to the court per Sec 6(2) P.D. 1529. However, LR Administrator is not bound to issue decree if land had earlier been registered (Ramos vs. Rodriguez, 244 SCRA). Exceptions to indefeasibility of title after one year from date of entry of decree 1. When a valid title already covers the land (Reg. Of Deeds vs. PNB, 13 SCRA). 2. Land not capable of registration (Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA). 3. Fraudelent registration where LRA could not be used to perpetuate fraud (Bonales vs. IAC, 166 SCRA).

DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY REGISTRATION 1. Voluntary – Innocent purchaser for value becomes registered owner the moment he presents and files a duly notarized document (deed of sale) and the same is entered in the primary entry book and at the same time presents duplicate owner’s copy and pays registration fees because what remains to be done lies not in his power to perform (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA). 2. Involuntary – mere entry in the primary entry book sufficient notice to all even if owner’s duplicate copy is not presented to Register of Deeds. EFFECT OF REGISTRATION IN RD Registration of the document in the Register of Deeds is the operative act that transmits title. Absent such registration conveyance does not bind the land (Villaluz vs Neme, 7 SCRA). This rule also applies to sale on execution or foreclosure (Cempillo vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA; PNB vs. Court of Appeals, 98 SCRA). INDEFEASIBILITY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Buyers and mortgages not required to go beyond certificate of title. They are only charged with notice of burden on property which are noted on the face of the register or certificate of title (Ibarra vs. Ibarra, 156 SCRA; Bel Air Village Association vs. Dionisio, 174 SCRA). When there is nothing on certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in ownership or encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the certificate of title indicates in quest for any hidden defect (Centeno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA; Pino vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA). EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT BUYERS NEED NOT GO BEYOND THE FACE OF THE TITLE 1. When purchaser neglects to make necessary inquiries and closes his eyes to facts which should have put a reasonable man on his guard (Egao vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA). 2. Transactions with banks and other financial institutions (Navarro vs. Second Laguna Development Bank, G.R. No. 129 428, February 2003; Dela Merced vs. GSIS, 365 SCRA; Tomas vs. Tomas, 98 SCRA). 3. When buyer relied upon rights of vendee based on annotated transaction (Guererro vs. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA; Santiago vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA).