#2 Barlin vs Ramirez Facts: There are priests of the Roman Catholic Church in Lagonoy Province of Ambos Camarines since

1839. When the church was burned the people in pueblo by virtue of the enforced law built the church from 1870 to 1873. Defendant Ramirez having been appointed by the parish priest took possession and administer the said church until November 14, 1902. His successor demanded for the delivery of the church and other of its property but defendant refused to do so. Defendant alleged that he was appointed by the municipality and people to administer the church as they were the right owner of the church. Issue: Whether the Defendant has the right to the church and other properties thereto considering that it was the people of the barrio who constructed the said church and considering further that he had the possession of the property as he was given only administration right to it.

Ruling: No the defendant has no right to the church and property thereto. Section 333 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil procedure provides that a tenant cannot deny his landlords title. In the present case, it appears that Ramirez had the possession of the property as the servant or agent of the plaintiff. He took possession under the agreement to return the possession whenever it should be demanded of him.

#1Bishop vs Mangaron Facts: The subject of the case was a tract of land in the district of Ermita of this city allegedly occupied by the defendant. The defendant parents and brothers had been in the said land until year 1887. Defendants vacated the land by virtue of municipality order as it was included in the fire zone. That after the land was vacated the plaintiff fenced the land without any objection from any person. In 1898, the defendant entered the land without the permission of anyone and claim to be the owner by inheritance. Issue: Whether or not the defendant has the right to ownership to the land considering that allegedly they were ejected from the land because of the invalid ordinance and they have the right to ownership and considering further that the Catholic Church had the peaceful possession of the land for more than 10 years.

Ruling. No, the defendant has no right to ownership of the land.

Accion publiciana, which involved the right to possess, having been in possession for twenty years, could not lose the same until he had been given an opportunity to be heard and had been defeated in an action in court by another with a better right. This quiet and peaceful possession could not be recovered in a summary action for possession after the expiration of one year, but possession could still be recovered through the accion publiciana, which involved the right to possess and still existed . The plaintiff in this case, who had been in the quiet and peaceful possession of the land for twenty years, more or less, at the time he was wrongfully dispossessed by the defendant, has the right to the property. The mere fact that the defendant is in possession does not entitle the defendant to retain the possession, he must show better right thereto. #3&4 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church v. The Mun. of Tarlac and Victoria

Facts: This is an original action brought by virtue of the provisions of Act No. 1376. The complaint as amended alleged that the Roman Catholic Church was the owner, and till within a few years before the filing of the complaint had been in possession of the lands in the mun. of tarlac (plaza of the church of Tarlac: a. barrio of La Paz in the same mun., b. grounds of the old church, c. old cemetery & d. new cemetery of La Paz) and mun. of Victoria (plaza of the church of said mun. and chapels & their corresponding ground). The prayer of the amended complaint was to declare the Roman Catholic Church as owner of the property described therein and that no one of the defendants has any right or interest of the said property. Preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of such property was also filed. Only Gregorio Aglipay filed an answer. In the brief filed by the plaintiffs, they reduced the matter in dispute to the lot on which the church of the former pueblo now barrio of the mun.of Tarlac, was situated, & the old and new cemetery of the same barrio. The only defendants interested therein are Gregorio Aglipay and the mun. of Tarlac.

#5 TEODORO VS MIRASOL

FACTS: The opposing parties to this case entered into a two-year lease agreement that was set to expire on Oct. 1, 1952,it was further stipulated that the agreement could be renewed for another 2 years with the consent of both parties. On Oct. 15, 1952 the defendant-lessor notified the plaintiff-lessee that the lease had already expired and that since the plaintiff was not anymore interested in renewing the

agreement ,the defendant was set to terminate the lease. The plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief against the defendant, denying that he had lost interest in the property that in fact he had already made payments over the lease; he now prays that the court would extend the lease agreement between him and the defendant. ISSUE: Whether or not the action for declaratory relief was proper. RULING: NO. As provided in Rule 66 of the Rules of Court: An action for Declaratory relief is meant only for those cases where a contract is desired to be construed prior to its breach because of an impending controversy and that the parties may be informed of their rights. In the present case the contract has already expired and there has already been a breach,it could be taken therefore that the action for declaratory relief was incorrect. #6 RP VS CA, CORREA FACTS: The petitioner entity sought to register several lots totaling to about 207,996 square meters located at Norzagaray Bulacan, this was opposed by Private respondent Moises Correa alleging that he is the owner of certain portions of the lots that the petitioner wanted to register. He further states that the original owners from which he brought the property had been in actual, open, public, adverse, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and occupation of the lots. When the case was adjudged, the lower court rendered a decision favorable to the respondent. The petitioner now appeals that the respondent did not present enough evidence to prove that indeed he was the owner of the land. ISSUE: Whether or not, the respondent has shown enough evidence that he and his predecessor in interest are the real owners of the property. RULING: Yes. The respondent had shown enough evidence that he is the real owner of the property. In the case of Director of Lands, et al. vs. Funtillar, et al, the court ruled that: A Survey Plan of the property, showing its boundaries and total area, clearly identifies and delineates the extent of the land. No survey would at all be possible where the identity of the land is not first properly established. More importantly, without such identification, no opposition, even its own, to the application for registration could be interposed. Encroachment on or adverse possession of property could not be justly claimed.

In the present case, Contrary to the claim of petitioner, private respondent, through his predecessors in interest, was able to establish the identity of and title to the land sought to be registered in his name. The Supreme Court also found that the predecessors in interest of the respondent had really been in actual and open possession of the property, planting trees and fruits in the land. And as such republic cement cannot register the property that does not belong to them; it is an elementary rule that a grantor cannot convey no greater estate than what he has an alienable title or interest.

#7 G.R. No. L-41377 July 26, 1935 ANGELA BLONDEAU and FERNANDO DE LA CANTERA Y UZQUIANO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AGUSTIN NANO and JOSE VALLEJO, defendants-appellees. Facts: A parcel of Land was mortgaged by Vallejo and Nano to complainant Blondeau for 12,000. Later Vallejo alleged that his signature to the mortgaged was a forgery. In an investigation, it appears that the mortgaged was to be regular. However, experts opinion was somehow divided as to his handwriting. Issue: whether or not alleged forgery of Vallejos signature affects the mortgaged made to Blondeau. Held: Under the Torrens Acts, it permits a forged transfer when duly entered in the registry to become the root of a valid title. However, with a requirement that no transfer shall be registered unless the owners certificate was produced by the instrument to transfer by the rightful owner.

#8 G.R. Nos. L-48971 & 49011 January 22, 1980 PACIFICO GARCIA, petitioner-appellant, vs. BENJAMIN M. GOZON, TECLA GUTIERREZ, ROSARIO FELIX, PAULINO D. BUENAVENTURA, RAYMUNDO DIONISIO, VIRGILIO AUSTRIA and MARCEON VICENCIO, respondents-appellees; PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Third Division), CAROLINA LAPUZ- GOZON, assisted by her husband BENJAMIN M. GOZON, TECLA GUTIERREZ, ROSARIO FELIX, PAULINO D. BUENAVENTURA, RAYMUNDO DIONISIO, VIRGILIO AUSTRIA and MARCEON VICENCIO, respondents-appellees.

FACTS: Two parcels of land subject of a deed of sale were transferred to Lapus. The deed of sale was with an entry which was annotated on the back of OCT # 983. In 1962, for some reason the Deed of sale wasnt annotated at the back of OCT #983. Later, when Lapus died, her daughter Carolina Lapus-Gozon inherited the parcels of land. Same year, Certain Riveras allegedly claiming that they were deprived of their participation in the Hacienda Monsilyo (Subject land) covered by OCT# 983. The Court granted the motion. June 7, 1963 OCT 983 was cancelled and in lieu of, TCT no. 112236 was issued to Riveras. Later,

the 2 parcels of Land was assigned to their successor-in-interest and furtherly subdivided. 1965 Mrs Lapus-Gozon at CFI filed for damages against the Riveras & their assignees. Issue: Which of the two Titles should prevail? The 1920 title issued to Lapus or the 1963 title issued to the Riveras. Held: The title of Lapus & the title derived therefrom should be given effect. In Legarda & Prieto vs Saleeby the general rule is that n case of two certificates of Title purporting to include the same land, the earlier in date prevail, whether the land compromised in the latter certificate be wholly or only in part comprised in the earlier certificate. In the instant case, the complainant Mrs. Lapus-Gozon, was the rightful owner of the parcels of land as an heir of Mr. Lapus even though transfer was not annotated on the OCT # 983 as stated in Levin vs Bass when a conveyance has been properly recorder such record is constructive notice od its content and all interests, legal and equitable, included therein.

#11 SAPTO vs FABIANA G.R. No. L-11285 Facts: Sapto, now deceased was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Alambre, Toril, Davao City. When he died, he left his children Samuel, Constancio, and Ramon as heirs of the property in question. Ramon pre-deceased his two brothers, leaving no, other heirs. Samuel and Constancio Sapto executed a deed of sale of a portion of four hectares of the land aforementioned in favor of defendant Apolonio Fabiana. The sale was approved by the Provincial Governor of Davao, but never registered. The land was transferred to Fabiana and the latter has been in the possession thereof 1931 up to the present. Constancio Sapto died without any issue. Samuel Sapto married one Dora (Bagoba) and upon his death was survived by his widow and two children. the widow and children of Samuel filed action in the CFI of Davao for the recovery of the parcel of land sold by their predecessors to defendant in 1931.

Issue: Whether the deed of sale executed by appellants' predecessors in favor of the appellee over the land in question, although never registered, is valid and binding on appellants and operated to convey title and ownership to the appellee. Ruling: Yes, the deed of sale executed by appellants is valid and binding on appellants and operated to convey title and ownership to the appellee. In Galanza vs. Nuesa,it was held that "registration is intended to protect the buyer against claims of third persons arising from subsequent alienations by the vendor, and is certainly not necessary to give effect as between the parties to their deed of sale".

In the present case, no right of innocent third persons or subsequent transferees of the property in question is involved herein. It is, therefore, clear that the conveyance between appellee and his vendors and valid and binding upon the latter, and is equally binding and effective against the heirs of the vendors, herein appellants.
#12 AVILA vs Tapucar G.R. No. L-45947 August 27, 1991 Facts: The property in question was inherited by private as successors-in-interest. Petitioner Magdalena Avila bought a parcel of land situated at Tabangao, Victory, Tubay, Agusan del Norte. Private respondents Bahans filed an action for quieting of title and damages alleging that they were the successors-in-interest of "a parcel of coconut land and that sometime in 1968, he discovered that the northwestern portion of said land containing an area of about 1/3 of a hectare was already in the possession of the Avilas; and the latter were harvesting the fruits of about 40 coconut trees found therein. The Bahans prayed that the petitioners Avilas be ordered to pay the Bahans from the time they took possession of the aforesaid property un til the possession is restored to them. On January 14, 1974, Judge Vicente B. Echaves, Jr. granted Avilas' motion for writ of preliminary injunction enjoining and ordering the Bahans to refrain and desist from gathering or continue harvesting the fruits on the contested land until the termination of the case. Lauro L. Tapucar issued an Order Dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued on January 24, 1974 pursuant to the order of this Court dated January 14, 1974; Issue: whether or not the Order dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent judge is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction that necessitates the strong hand of certiorari. Ruling: Yes, the trial judge abuses his discretion. Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. It does not give the holder any better right than what he actually has, especially if the registration was done in bad faith. The effect is that it is as if no registration was made at all (Miranda v. Court of Appeals, supra citing De Guzman v. CA, 156 SCRA 701). The trial judge obviously abused his discretion in dissolving the writ of injunction by relying on the mere presentation by the Bahans of an Original Certificate of Title in their names which was secured while the case is on-going and erroneously included lands claimed by the Avilas, et. al. which were not even applied for by the Bahans. Such dissolution of the injunctive writ would put the Bahans in an advantageous position over the Avilas.

#13 Sison and Sison vs Tico GR. No. L-11583 Facts: Plaintiffs borrowed from Eugenio Kilayko the sum they executed and delivered to the said Kilayko a chattel mortgage covering machinery, crops and a number of carabaos. Plaintiffs herein did deliver sugar for said years from time to time to defendant Yap Tico at the request of the said Kilayko. Liquidation was made and was found that the sum of P650 is still due and demandable. Upon the delivery of said sum (P650) the mortgagee (Kilayko) executed and delivered a cancellation of said mortgage. The mortgagee (Kilayko) assigned and transferred said mortgage to the defendant, F. M. Yap Tico. That neither Kilayko nor Yap Tico gave any notice whatever to the plaintiffs herein that said mortgage had been transferred. That the plaintiffs had

no notice that the mortgage had been transferred or that said transfer had been registered.The assignee of said mortgagee (Yap Tico), proceeded to foreclose said mortgage, and the sheriff attached and took possession of all the property. This action was brought for the purpose of recovering the property.

Issue: Whether or not the mortgagor of a chattel mortgage is relieved from liability by paying the mortgagee after the mortgage has been assigned to a third person, when he has no actual notice of said transfer? Ruling: Yes, mortgagor is relieved from liability. Until notice of the assignment is given to the debtor, it will not bind him so as to deprive him of equities arising between the date of the assignment and the date when he received notice thereof. As to such equities, the assignment takes effect from the time the debtor receives notice and not from the time of the assignment. In the present case, a debtor is protected if he pays his creditor without actual notice that the debt has been assigned. Such notice must be actual, and the recording of the assignment, there being no law requiring the same, will not operate as constructive notice to the debtor.

#14 Siari Valley Estates vs Filemon Lucasa GR L-13281 Facts: The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte rendered decision ordering Filemon Lucasan to deliver to the petitioner the cattle inside the formers pasture or pay its value amounting to P40,000.00 and damages in another sum of P40,000.00. These lands were sold by the sheriff at public auction to the corporation as the highest bidder. The judgment debtor having failed to redeem the land. the corporation failed to take possession of the lands, hence it filed a motion reiterating its petition that it be placed in their possession. Filemon Lucasan filed an opposition alleging that he was in possession of one of the parcels of land sold at public auction on which he has erected a house and which he has extra judicially cons tituted as a family home, the rest being in possession of third parties. Issue: WON the petitioner may take possession of the land on which the house of respondent was erected. Ruling: No, the petitioner cannot take possession of the land on which the house of respondent was erected. In Gonzales Diez vs. Delgado and Imperial, 37 Phil. 389, An attachment levied on real estate not duly recorded in the registry of property is not an encumbrance on the attached property, nor can such

attachment, unrecorded in the registry, serve as a ground for decreeing the annulment of the sale of the property, at the request of another creditor. In the present case, since the notice of levy made by the sheriff as regards parcel number 1 which is a registered land contains no reference to the number of its certificate of title and the volume and page in the registry book where the title is registered, it follows that said notice is legally ineffective and as such did not have the effect of binding the property for purposes of execution. Consequently, the sale carried out by virtue of said levy is also invalid and of no legal effect.

15. Merchant v. Lafuente GR No. 2333 Feb. 19,1906 Facts: The court declared Martiniano Veloso as owner of a tract of land in the Island of Tanduay, in the city of Manila. Veloso conveyed this property to herein plaintiff Eduardo Merchant on July 29, 1904. The plaintiff applied for the registration of the above property to the Court of the Land Registration but the latter denied his application since several deeds and the latest conveyance on Jan. 5, 1903 to Abelardo Lafuente were recorded in the Office of the Registrar of Property. Issue: WON the property in question is owned by the plaintiff considering that Veloso's title was allegedly recorded in the old registry that protects him against anyone claiming under the new registry; and considering further that the failure of Veloso to transfer the record of ownership to the new registry denied him (Veloso) the right to the property. Held: No, the property is not owned by the plaintiff. In Art. 397 of the Mortgage Law, the entries in the old books produce the same effect as was recognized in former legislation, IF THEY ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW BOOKS. In the present case, the legislative branch has the power to provide a system for the recording of land titles. It has no power to dispose a man's property without due process of law, but it does not have the right to say that if the owner of the property does not record his title papers, and by reason of such failure a 3rd person, relying upon a record, acquires interests in the land adverse to those of the owner, the former's right shall prevail.

#16 G.R. No. L-8530 Dec. 24, 1914

Facts: In 1906, Roxas filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration (CLR) to register 4 parcels of land (A, B, C, D) under the Torrens system. The clerk of CLR sent a copy of notice to the owners of the land coterminous with this estate, posted said notice on the said land, and such notice was published in 2 daily newspapers. The Atty. for the city of Manila noticed an "error of closure" in the plan of parcel A, which was recognized by the court, however no correction was made in the plan. No one appeared to represent the "heirs of Antonio Enriquez". The court ordered all defendants in default and parcel A be registered to petitioner. In 1911, the atty. of the city of Manila filed a petition to correct the "errors of closure". The petitioner also filed a petition to correct the error in the title of parcel A because of the omission of a certain building which she noticed when she sold parcel A including the building to Masonic Temple Association. On April 19, 1912, a corrected plan was prepared by the surveyor of the Bureau of Lands.During the hearings, the heirs of Antonio Enriquez made some objections to the granting of the motions to the corrected plan claiming easements & servitudes in the land in question. The motions were granted by the court. The objectors filed motion for new trial which was denied and thus this case was appealed.

Issues: #16 - WON the registration is valid considering that the notice was allegedly made and published in accordance with the Act 496; & CFT a personal notice was not received by the objectors which was supposedly an absolute prerequisite to registration.

Held: #16 - Yes, the registration is valid. Sec. 38 of Act No. 496 provides that every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet the title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government, and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice or citations, or included in the general description 'To all whom it may concern'.

In the present case, there is further and very strong intimation in the law that personal notice is not absolutely a prerequisite to the validity of title under the Torrens system. By the description in the notice, "To all whom it may concern", and by publication, all the world are made parties-defendants.

The state, as sovereign over the land situated within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a proceeding in rem, which shall be binding upon all persons known or unknown.

#17 Republic of the Philippines vs LEE Facts: The respondent Maria Lee filed an application for registration of a parcel of land; this was opposed by the Dir. of Lands on the grounds that neither the respondent nor its predecessor-in-interest has acquired the land thru any mode of acquisition. The lower courts rendered decisions in favor of the respondent and gave weight on the assertion of the respondent that her predecessor in-interest has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the property and characterizing this assertion as a well nigh, incontovertible and conclusive evidence required in registration proceedings. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was able to present sufficient and substantial evidence required by law for confirmation of the ownership of the land? RULING: NO, the assertion to confirm ownership was insufficient. In the case of Santiago vs De los Santos: For the confirmation of ownership to be granted it must be grounded in well-nigh and incontrovertible evidence,failure to perform this burden the land in dispute retains its character as being part of Public Dominion. In the present case, the bare allegation of the respondent does not constitute substantial proof, she failed to comply the requirements sset by law to confirm ownership. The decisions of the lower courts were set aside.

#18 LACAMEN VS LARUAN FACTS: Sometime on January 28,1928, Laruan executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Lacamen over several parcel of lands. Immediately after completion of the sale the certificate of title was delivered to Lacamen, and after which Lacamen entered in possession and occupancy of the land without securing the

corresponding transfer of certificate of title in his name. Lacamen introduced several improvements on his newly acquired property and paid proper taxes. He was in open, continouos , peaceful, and adverse possession of this property until his death in 1942. The heirs of Lacamen took over the possession of the said property after his death,they too paid taxes. After the last global war, Lacamens heirs started fixing papers of the properties left by him and discovered that Laruans heirs--- the respondents in this case were able to procure a new owners copy of certificate of title. When confronted about this the respondents response was that the property was not transferred to Lacamen as the deed of sale was not thumbmarked by Laruan and that under the Public Land Act amending Act No. 2874 Conveyances and encumbrances made by persons belonging to the so-called 'non-Christian tribes', when proper, shall not be valid unless duly approved by the Director of the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes.", and that since both contracting parties are igorots the sale between the should be null and void. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale between Lacamen and Laruan should be anulled for its failure to comply the requisites set forth in the Public Land Act? RULING: NO. The sale should not be anulled. In a like case decided by the Supreme Court it held that: Courts can not look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and inaction, knowingly induce another to spend time, effort and expense in cultivating the land, paying taxes and making improvements thereon for 30 long years, only to spring from ambush and claim title when the possessor's efforts and the rise of land values offer an opportunity to make easy profit at his expense. In the present case, even though the transaction between the two original parties was stained with irregularity and the respondents has a cause of action in annuling the contract of sale made by their predecessor, still it cant be overlooked that it took them more than 30 years to file an action, and for this long period of inaction and neglect they cant expect to be protected by the law. #19 G.R. No. L-12958 May 30, 1960 FAUSTINO IGNACIO, applicant-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and LAUREANO VALERIANO, oppositors-appellees. Facts: Ignacio filed an application for the registration of a parcel of Land. Later, he amended his application, claiming that he owned the land by the right accretion. This was opposed by the Director of Lands, Valeriano & Gutierrez. Valeriano held that he owned tha land by virtue of a permit granted by Bureau of Fisheries. On the other Hand, Director of Lands contend that the parcel form part of Public Domain caused by the action of the Manila Bay. Iganacio also contends that Article 4 of the Law of Waters declares certain land as owned by the owners od such estate if the land is unnecessary for the purpose of public utility.

Issue: whether or not that certain parcel of land which created by the action Manila Bay form part of public dominion? Held: Yes. The parcel Land form part of the public Domninion. In Natividad vs Dir. Of Lands it is held that Art.4 of the Law of Waters of 1866, Legislative department have the authority to declare that any land gained by the sea, not necessary for public dominion for public utilityif no such declaration is made, then the lot in question will remain part of the public dominion. In this case, there was no declaration whether the parcel of land is not necessary for public utility. Therefore, it still part of public dominion.

#20 G.R. No. L-22763 March 18, 1983 BRUNA ARANAS DE BUYSER, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, IGNACIO TANDAYAG and CANDIDA DE TANDAYAG, defendants-appellees Facts: Plaintiff, the Owner of a certain lot wich borders Surigao Strait and include parcel of land formed by accretion from the sea. The defendants here, spouses Tandayag were issued Recvocable permit for the Dir. Of Lands. Plaintiff alleged that they purchased it from her former lessee. Thus, she filed for Recovery of Possession at CFI. In CFI, the case was DISSMISSED. Plaintiff appealed directly to highest court on a pure question of law. Issue: Whether or not the subject land belongs to the plaintiff considering that it was included in th parcel of land registered in the plaintiffs name. Considering further that the land for part of the public domain. Held: No. the subject land belongs to public Domain In Aldecoa vs Insular Government, the occupation of Aldecoa & Co. in the subject land Is a mere detainer that can merit from the law, no protection on such as is afforded only to the person legally in possession, not as an owner. In this case, the spouses Tandayag were not the owners of the said lot. They were just granted the temporary use and occupation of the said lot through a revocable permit from the Dir. Of land and also complying the application for lease to Bureau of Lands. They remain occupants until said lot will be used for government purposes.