LAND TITLES REVIEWER SEC 1 12 National Grains Authority vs.

. IAC Purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to the land and to stop forever any question to its legality. Proceedings for the registration of title to the land under the Torrens System is an action in rem. Solid State vs. CA Registration does not vest title; it is merely evidence of such title. The holder of the certificate of title does not acquire any better right than what he actually has. The torrens certificate is the best evidence of ownership over registered land. *According to Property Cases: Title is that upon which ownership is based. *Registration of public land does not make it private. Traders Royal Bank vs. CA The main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative to real estate by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens Certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. In short, you can rely on the face of the title and are not bound to go beyond it. [Effect: Good Faith.] Aznar Brothers vs. Aying Registration to be effective must be in the proper registry. A parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is registered under Act No. 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, the land is not considered registered and the registration of the deed does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world. As such prescription would not begin to run from that date. Moscoso vs. CA Proceedings for the registration of title to land under the Torrens System is in rem, not in personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res, and neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration proceeding. Arceo vs. CA Under Sec 2 PD 1529, the distinction between the general and limited jurisdiction vested in the RTC as cadastral court [or land registration court] has been eliminated. The amendment was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits by conferring upon the trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for registration but also over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications. Evangelista vs. Santiago and San Pedro vs. CA PD 892 abolished the Spanish System of Registration Under PD 892, Spanish Titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership or be used to claim ownership. The deadline for the registration under the Torrens System of a Spanish Title was Aug 16, 1976. Noblejas vs. Teehankee Commissioner of the LRA is an executive official and thus may be investigated by the office of the President.

Laburada vs. LRA Issuance of Decree of Registration by the LRA is part of the judicial function of courts, involving the exercise of discretion. It is not a ministerial act and thus not compellable by mandamus. The LRA is mandated to refer to the trial court any doubt it may have in regard to the preparation and the issuance of a decree of registration. In this respect, LRA officials act not as administrative officials, but as officers of the court and their act is the act of the court. LRA is specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in land registration proceedings. There remains things to be done such as the preparation of amended plans and descriptions of the lot. Republic vs. CA The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public depository of records or documents affecting titles to lands. The existence of a Certificate of Title in the RD further supports the authenticity of the title. Baranda vs. Gustilo Sec 10 of PD1529 provides that it shall be the duty. Hence, the function of the Register of Deeds is ministerial. In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed, the RD should ask the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration. Balbin vs. RD Exception to the Duty of RD as ministerial: when only one copy of the co-owners duplicate of certificate of title is presented when there are several issued, then the a voluntary instrument cannotb e registered without surrendering all the copies of the same title to the RD so that every copy thereof would contain identical entries of the transactions affecting the land covered by the title. Toleda-Banaga vs. CA It is a ministerial function of the RD to comply with the decision of the court to issue a title and register a property in the name of a certain person, especially when the decision had attained finality. You need not wait for the losing party or the former owner to surrender her duplicate of certificate of title for cancellation.

SEC 14 34 Ong vs. Republic Sec 14(1) provides that applicants for registration of title must prove both: 1. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands under the public domain upon filing. AND. 2. That they have been in OCEN possession and occupation And that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. Cureg vs. IAC A decree of registration bars all claims and rights which arose or may have existed prior to the decree of registration. By the issuance of the decree, the land is bound and title thereto quieted, subject only to sec 44 PD1529. Accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the lot which received the accretion is covered by a Torrens title. As such, the accretion must also be palced under the operation of the Torrens System. *If not, Accretion is susceptible to prescription. De Buyser vs. Director of Lands Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and, therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse possession by private persons. It is outside the commerce of men, unless otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of the government. Republic vs. Naguit Sec 14(1) merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed Need not be alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier International Hardwood and Veneer Co. vs. UP When RA No. 3990 was enacted, it ceded and transferred full ownership to UP. Hence, it removed such lands from public domain, and divested, relinquished and conveyed its rights and title to UP. It made UP the absolute owner, subject only to the existing concession. Note: Example of 14(4) those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. Lopez vs. De Castro Even though one court is already proceeding with the registration of a parcel of land. Another court may also proceed with registration nd And if the 2 application were processed first, then it would not be nullified by reason of the prior institution st of the 1 application. Where more than one certificate of tilte is issued, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent title. Hence, even though an applicant precedes another, he may not be deemed to have a priority right to register title. As such, while his application is being processed, an applicant is duty-bound to observe vigilance and to take care that his right or interest is duly protected. Publication operates as constructive notice, hence the st nd 1 applicant must file an opposition in the 2 application.

Director of Lands vs. Reyes Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal. A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act, which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the RD issues the corresponding certificate of title. Republic vs Munoz Best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands but blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification. the blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the lots technical description duly certified as to their correctness by the Bureau of Lands are adequate to identify the land applied for registration. Also, if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear, strong, convincing evidence, the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan need not be presented. Benin vs Tuason Amendment to Application Need Not Be Published if it Excludes Portions of Lands A publication of a new amendment to an application for registration is to give notice to all persons about the said amendment. If the amendment INCLUDES an area of land not previously included in the original application, as published, a new publication of the amended application must be made. Without new publication, the CLR cannot acquire jurisdiction over the parcel of land added to the original application. But if the amendment EXCLUDES an area of land, a new publication is not necessary, and non-publication will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. But if no publication of amendment, then the registration proceedings or decree of registration is void insofar as the land not included in the publication is concerned. Exception: And even if the amendment in Parcel No. 1 increased the portion of land (by 27.10 sqm), the added area is too minimal to be of the decisive factor in the validity of OCT 735. Mendoza vs CA Under Section 29 of the Land Registration Act, the law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the "buyer" or the person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the applicant. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been complied with.

Lopez vs. Enriquez A motion to lift the order of general default should be filed before entry of final judgment. A party declared in default loses his standing in court. as a result, a party in default cannot appear in court, adduce evidence, be heard, or be entitled to notice. A party in default cannot even appeal from the judgment rendered, unless he files a motion to set aside the order of default on grounds under sec 3 Rule 9. An oppositor to the land registration proceedings is required to file a motion to lift default. A movant under sec 129 PD 1529 is not required to file motion to lift Republic vs. CA The owner of agricultural land does not own minerals formed underneath the land. His ownership does not give him the right to extract or utilize said mineral without permission of the State to which such minerals belong. An application to extract the minerals must be filed. The owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable length. Director of Lands vs. CA Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory. Without which the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register title of applicants. Publication in the OG is not enough. Republic vs. Marasigan Despite the wording of the law, publication in the OG is sufficient for complying with publication requirements, although the law mandates publication to be in the OG and newspaper of general circulation. Publication in the newspaper alone would not suffice. Posting and Mailing and mandatory and jurisdictional. To rule otherwise would negate the principal purpose of PD 1529 which is to strengthen the Torrens System though safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property. De Casto vs. Marcos Publication is required when additional territory is sought to be included in the original plan. Without which judgment is void as to the additional territory. However, a decrease in the area need not be published. It wont affect the jurisdiction of the court. Fernandez vs. Aboratigue Prescription does not run against registered land under the Torrens System. A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title. Further a claim is only noted on the survey plan and such notation cannot prevail over the actual decree of registration as reproduced in the certificate. Director, LMB vs. CA Applicant must present muniments of title to substantiate the claim of ownership. Notwithstanding the absence of opposition, an applicant in a land registration proceeding it not relieved from the burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed. Bare allegations will not suffice. Preponderance of evidence. Republic vs. Abrille Procedure for the Original Registration of imperfect or incomplete title or claim to land. 1. Survey of Land by the LMB or a duly licensed surveyor. 2. Filing of application for registration of by the applicant

3. 4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

Setting the date of initial hearing of the application by the court Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing to together with all the documents or other evidences attached thereto by the clerk of court to the LRA. Publication of the notice of the filing of the application, date and place of hearing in the OG and newspaper of general circulation. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have interests in the property by the sheriff. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not. Hearing of the case by the court Promulgation of judgment by the court Issuance of the decree by the court declaring the decision final and instructing the LRA to issue the decree of confirmation and registration. Entry of the decree of registration in the LRA Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding RD. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owners duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the RD upon payment of the prescribed fees.

Gomez vs. CA Duty of the land registration officials to issue the decree of registration is ministerial in the sense that they act under orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. The adjudication of land in cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Thus as long as the decree has not been entered by the LRA an 1 year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control of the court. Borromeo vs. Descala The subsequent sale of land to a Filipino cures the defect of the sale to a non-Filipino. Evangelista vs. Santiago In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. The real party in interest is the State, the Commissioner of the LRA. In an action for the declaration of nullity would require allegations of the plaintiffs ownership of the lot prior to the issuance of defendants title as well as the fraud or mistake in obtaining the documents of title. In this case the nullity arises not form the fraud or mistake but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title is void. And the real party-in-interest is the plaintiff alleging a preexisting right of ownership over the parcel of land. Holders of Spanish Title may no longer use this to register land. However, the Spanish Title may be used to prove ownership through prescription.

Republic vs. Jacob The law speaks of the requirement of Possession and Occupation. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. For an applicant to qualify, possession must not be by mere fiction. Actual possession of the land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion. Malabanan Reiteration of Naguit Under 14(1), it is enough that the land be alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of the application. An applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a PP or an EO, an administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators and a legislative act or statute. Forest lands are not alienable unless reclassified. Under 14(2), there must be 1. Reclassification of the land as alienable and disposable. 2. There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service, use, or development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted to patrimonial. 3. The counting starts when both 1 and 2 are present. Without number 2, the property even if classified as alienable and disposable, remains property of the public dominion and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. Once the requisite 30 year prescription has been completed two legal events ensue: 1. The patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private land; and 2. the person in possession acquires ownership by operation of the CC. Note: 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession while 14(2) of prescription. Vencilao vs. Vano Res Judicata applies to land registration and cadastral proceedings. Republic vs. Bacus Only the President, upon the recommendation of the Sec of DENR may reclassify lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, and mineral. Republic vs. CA In case of discrepancy or conflict between the boundaries and areas stated in the title. The boundaries prevail. What defines a piece of property is not the numerical data indicated as the area of the land but the metes and bounds or boundaries of the property specified in its technical description as enclosing it and showing its limits. Torrens is not a means of acquiring titles to lands. land erroneously included is not acquired by the holder of such certificate.

SEC 35 38 Municipality of Santiago Isabela vs. CA Cadastral Proceeding is in rem and any decision is binding against the whole world. Under this doctrine parties are precluded from relitigating the same issues already determined by final judgment. Res Judicata applies in a non-registration case. Elements of Res Judicata: 1. Former Judgment Final. 2. Court w/c rendered former judgment had jurisdiction over parties and subject matter. 3. Judgment on the merits. 4. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. Director of Lands vs. Benitez Besides the filign of the petition for reopening of a cadastral case, it is necessary that notice thereof be given to those who claim an adverse interest in the land, as well as the general public, by publishing such notice in 2 successive issues in the OG, which shall likewise be posted in a conspicuous place on the land to be surveyed, as well as the municipal building, as required by Sec 1 ACT 2259 a.k.a. Cadastral Act. 1. The reason for this is because a cadastral proceeding is in rem. If amendment is to include additional portion of property then there must be publication. De La Merced vs. CA In a cadastral proceeding, title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision of the cadastral court adjudicating ownership in favor of one claimant. In other words, after 15 days from receipt of the decision and no appeal was made. After the lapse of the period to appeal, property can no longer be acquired by prescription. **May be over-ruled by Manotok, which says that ownership is vested once the certificate of title has been registered in the RD. Duran vs. Olivia A piece of land, registered through a homestead patent under the land registration act cannot be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and any title issued thereon is null and void. Cadastral court has no jurisdiction over registered land. File a motion to dismiss. Director of Lands vs. CA A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land, provided he complies with the requirements of law. A decision in the cadastral case is not a bar to the application for registration because a decision is not the final decree contemplated in the Land Registration Act. Manotok Realty vs. CLT Realty Jurisdiction of Cadastral Court is limited to 1. Technical errors in the description of the lands provided they do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner and cannot operate to deprive the registered owner of his title. 2. Determine between 2 parties who has a better right over the property or which of the conflicting titles should prevail 3. Upon request of the registered owner, the cadastral court can issue new title.

What is prohibited in a cadastral proceeding is the registration of land, already issued in the name of a person, in the name of another, divesting the registered owner of the title already issued in his favor, or the making of such changes in the title as to impair his substantial rights. Republic vs. Vera A Cadastral proceeding is in rem. Parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues already determined by final judgment. One of the main purposes of a cadastral proceeding is to settle titles to lands. Anyone claiming ownership of any land so affected should lay claim. Failure to do so authorizes the court to declare the land public. Heirs of Luzuriaga vs. Republic Publication is a condition sine qua non for the RTC acting as a cadastral court to acquire jurisdiction. Due publication is required to give notice to all interested parties of the claim and identity of the property to be surveyed. And any additional territory or change in the area cannot be included by amendment without new publication. But where the identity of the land and area of the claimed property is not the subject of the amendment but other collateral matters, new publication is not needed. Veranga vs. Republic No publication, then the decision is void for having been rendered without jurisdiction.

SEC 39 - 50 MWSS vs CA, Heirs of Gonzaga vs CA Manotok Cases Where two certifcates purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails. A certificate of title is not conclusive evidence if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate is in existence. However, the Certificate of Title shall take effect only when it is entered in the Book of Registery by the RD. or in the words of Cadiz, the property is registered from the date of entry in the RD. Burden of proof on plaintiff incontrovertible evidence Pasino vs Monterroyo A Counterclaim is Not a Collateral Attack on the Title A counterclaim is considered an original complaint and the attack on the title in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be considered as a collateral attack on the title Sarmiento vs CA A third party complaint is in the nature of an original complaint because it is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiffs complaint. The third party complaint for cancellation of TCT being in the nature of an original complaint for cancellation of TCT, it constitutes a direct attack of such TCT Erasusta vs CA Collateral Attack on a certificate of title is prohibited But what cannot be collaterally attacked is the Certificate of Title and not the Title itself. By Title, the law refers to the ownership which a certificate of title merely represents. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. Placing a parcel of land under the Torrens does not mean that the ownership can no longer be disputed. Gregorio Araneta vs RTC An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, it is indirect or collateral when, in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. Manotok vs Barque The LRA is powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its legal effect. Even assuming that the previously issued title is obviously fraudulent or attended by flaws and as such cannot be countenanced by the legal system, the corrective recourse lies with the courts, and not with the LRA. If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed with the LRA, and it appears from the official records that the subject property is already covered by an existing Torrens title in the name of another person, there is nothing further the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition. Cabrera vs. CA Laches is 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 declined to assert it. Laches deals wit the effect of unreasonable delay. Inequity. Even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession by virtue of laches.

Although property registered under the Torrens may not be acquired through prescription, the same is not true with laches. Degollacion vs Register of Deeds of Cavite Where there are 2 TCTs purport to include the same land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the OCTs from which the certificates of title were derived and then the TCT derived from the earlier OCT prevails. If there be only one common OCT, the TCT issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail. Register vs PNB The indefeasibility of titles under the Torrens System could be claimed only if a previous valid title to the same parcel of land does not exist. Where issuance of the title was attended by fraud, the same cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it; and the person in whose name the title was issued cannot transmit the same, for he has no true title thereto. This is a mere affirmation of the recognized principle that a certificate 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 land is in existence. Republic vs CA Exception to indefeasibility of Title: when the property is incapable of registration. Such as Forest Land, even if the land is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value because the grant of the title was not within the jurisdiction of the grantor such as land registration court or the LRA. All TCTs emanating from the void OCT are void. Bornales vs IAC Purchaser in bad faith cannot invoke indefeasibility of certificate of title. The defense of indefeasibility of title does not extend to a transferee who takes it with notice of the flaws in his transferors title. Arguelles vs. Timbancaya The one-year rule within which to contest the decree of registration, or before the OCT becomes indefeasible does not apply to a case which involves the annulment of a TCT. The action to annul the title or the action for reconveyance has its basis in Section 55 of Act 496, as amended which provides that "in all cases of registration procured by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title." This is a remedy which is available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. It is independent and distinct from that authorized by Sec 38 thereof, which has for its purpose the reopening of the decree of title, on the ground of fraud, within one (1) year from its issuance.

Some Final Notes Impt Functions of the Commission of the LRA o Issue the decree of registration pursuant to final judgments o Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from the decision of RDs o Verify and approve sudivision and consolidation and consolidation-subdivision survey plancs of properties titles except those under PD 957 [subdivision for sale, go to HLURB] Register of Deeds may refuse registration when: o When there are several copies of the title but only one is presented with the instrument to be registered. o Where the voluntary instrument bears on its face an infirmity. Such as when the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse. This constitutes an infirmity on the face of the document. o Where there is a pending case in court where the character of the land and validity of the conveyance are in issue o Document presented is merely a private instrument not notarized. Only the LMB has the authority to approve Original Survey plans for registration proceedings. Accretion by the Sea Public land and outside the commerce of man. Accretion by the river private land if adjoined to a private land. o Petition for accretion is in effect a request for confirmation of title already vested in the riparaian owner by the law. Non-resident applicant may be represented by an agent or representative resding in the Phil.

Purposes and Effects of Publication o Confer jurisdiction over the land applied for upon the court o Constructive Notice: To Charge the whole world with knowledge of the application and invite them to take part in the case and assert and prove their rights over the property. Application must be accompanied by survey plan and muniments of title. o Muniment instrument or written evidence to prove title or proofs of ownership. Oppositor must state all objections to the application and set forth the interest claimed and apply for the remedy desired. Signed and sworn to. The Order of Default may be set aside by a motion to lift the order of default upon a showing of: o Failure due to fraud, accident, mistake, excusable neglect o And that he has a meritorious defense When an oppositor has already filed an opposition but only failed to appear at the initial hearing of the application, then the order of default is improper o Oppositor must file a petition for certiorari to have the judgment by default set aside as a nullity. The applicant must prove that he is the real and absolute owner, in fee simple [absolute ownership]. Must present evidence of private ownership or of acquisition from the government. o Must prove that the land has been declassified from the forest land and now part of agricultural and is alienable and disposable by positive act of Gov Presidential Proc EO Administrative Order by DENR Bureau of Forest Development Land Classification Map Certification by the Director of Forestry Investigation Reports of LMB Legislative Act or Statute o Must prove the identity of the land See Rep vs. Munoz o Must prove possession and occupation for the length of time and in the manner required by law. o And If he claims Private Ownership, then he must prove the basis of such claim by submitting the muniments of title. Spanish Title no longer allowed as evidence of ownership. But may be used as evidence of posssession, thus ownership through acquisitive prescription. Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are at best indicia of possession. Strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession.

Other Modes of acquiring ownership o Proclamation effecting a land grant. o By law, ceding full ownership. Persons who cannot apply for an application for registration. o Public land sales applicant o Mortgagee o Antechretic creditor o Claim of ownership denied in a reinvidicatory action Court having territorial jurisdiction of the land should take cognizance of the case. If there are 2 lands in 2 different places, then 2 applications. Amendment needs publication when: o Substantial change in the boundaries o Increase in the area of land applied for o Inclusion of an additional land

Counsel for Applicant must prove o Jurisdictional Requirements o Ownership o Identity of the land. Partial judgment allowed when only a portion of the land is contested. But the applicant must substantiate the claim of ownership with regards to the unconstested portion. Forest Land is still forest land even if theres no forest. Judgment becomes final after lapse of 15 days after receipt of the notice of judgment. After the judgment becomes final, the court shall issue an order for the issuance of the decree of registration and corresponding certificate of title. o However, the court continues to retain control of the case until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry of decree of registration by the LRA. The adjudication does not become incontrovertible until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry. Judgment confirming title carries with it the delivery of possession. Writ of possession is inherent. But writ will not issue against persons taking possession after issuance of final decree. Government Expropriation proceedings cleanses the defect of the title from the very beginning Exceptions to indefeasibility of title: 1. Property is already Titled, there is a previous valid title. 2. Fraud or misrepresentation in the acquisition. 3. Property Not capable of registration 4. Action for cancellation of TCT General Rule: insofar as the registered owner and innocent purchaser is concerned, the property is burdened only by those noted on the title 1. Except those under Sec 44 and 46 [Mem!] Sec 44: Exception to those noted in the certificate and any of the following which may be subsisting 1. Liens, claims, or rights arising or existing under the laws and Constitution, which are not required to appear of record in the RD in order to be valid. 2. Unpaid real estate taxes those levied and assessed w/in 2 yrs immediately preceding the acquisition of any right over the land by an innocent purchaser for value, without prejudice to the governments right to collect taxes payable before that period from the delinquent taxpayer alone. 3. Public highway or private way, or any government irrigation canal or lateral thereof those established or recognized by law, if the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such highway or irrigation have been determined.

Any disposition/limitation on the property those by virtue of PD27 or any other law or regulations on agrarian reform Sec. 46 General Incidents of registered lands. Registered lands are subject to burdens and incidents arising by operation of law. Registered lands or the owners thereof shall not be relieved from: 1. Rights incident to the relation of Husband and wife; Landlord and tenant; 2. Liability to attachment or levy on execution; 3. Liability to any lien established by law on the land or the buildings thereon, or on the interest of the owner on such land or buildings; 4. Right or Liability that may arise due to Change of the laws on descent; 5. Rights of Partition between co-owners; 6. Right of Gov to take the land by eminent domain; 7. Liability to be recovered by an assignee in insolvency cases; trustee in bankruptcy cases; 8. Other rights or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land 4. Only OCT is incontrovertible. Property registered under Torrens may not be acquired through prescription buy registered owner may be barred by laches; there must be inequity. There may be prescription when the plaintiff claims title from his predecessor in whose name the OCT was issued.

Splitting and Consolidation of Title, only requirement is a written request to the RD because the technical descriptions are already covered in the OCT or TCT Consolidation without technical Descriptions 1. Survey 2. Approved by the LRA 3. Register with the RD. Steps: Subdivision of lot but NOT for SALE 1. Survey 2. Approved by the LRA or DENR [or is it LMB] 3. Register with the RD Steps: Subdivision for Sale 1. Survey 2. Approved by HLURB pursuant to PD 957 3. Register with the RD When Government files for expropriation, the effect of which is the cleansing of the defects or flaws in the title because such is in rem. No need for discussing collateral attack or direct attack when the OCT or TCT is void from the beginning. Cadastral Proceeding: Subject Matter is Unregistered land, if registered then property can no longer be subject of cadastral but only those exception in Manotok.

Steps in a Cadastral Proceeding 1. Survey By the DENR upon the directive of the President Notice of survey including the technical description published in the OG. Posting and mailing are also necessary. 2. File the petition by the OSG representing the DENR 3. Publication of the notice of initial hearing cadastral is in rem because of the publication requirement. Published in OG twice Notice and Mailing --- Sec7&8 of Act 2259 [cadastral act] 4. Filing of an Answer Answer is to be filed by the person claiming the property --- takes the form of an original application for registration (claimant will present evidence before government) Declaration of default (general or special) 5. Hearing It would be the claimant who will present evidence (note: in cadastral it is called claimant while in original registration it is called opposition) 6. Judgment 7. After the court declares the decision final, Court will order the issuance of the decree 8. LRA to issue the decree of registration. 9. RD will make the corresponding entries Advantages of a Registered owner under the Torrens System: 1. Not subject to Prescription 2. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. The Administrator of the LRA is not legally obligated to issue the decree where upon his verification, he finds that the subject land has already been decreed and titled in anothers name. And he could not be compelled by mandamus because the issuance of the decree is part of the judicial function of courts and not a mere ministerial act. Duty of the LRA is ministerial in the sense that they act under orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity of the judgment and with the data found in the record. However, in doubt, they must refer the matter to the court. Land Registration Case: Incontrovertible Evidence.

Party who initiates

Original Registration Party claiming ownership Person Claiming Private Land

Filing Subject Matter

Prayer of application Person to Present Evidence Conducts Survey

Title be issued in his name Applicant first presents evidence Applicant

Cadastral Proceeding DENR upon Presidents judgment OSG Unregistered land, any piece of property Order adjudicating title to person who really are entitled Claimant ahead of Gov those who filed an answer Government

REMEDIES Francisco vs. Puno The Remedies of Petition for Relief from judgment and motion for new trial and/or reconsideration are exclusive of each other. Filing of a timely motion for new trial precludes filing of a petition for relief after denial of motion. Relief From Judgment is only appropriate in cases where a party aggrieved by a judgment has not been able to file a motion for new trial. Neypes vs. CA Fresh Period Rule. A fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. The fresh 15 day period may only be availed of only if either a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed, otherwise, the decision becomes final after the lapse of the original period to appeal Cruz vs. Navarro A review of the decree of registration is warranted when: 1. Petitioner has a real and dominical right 2. He has been deprived thereof through fraud 3. Property has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value 4. Petition is filed from 1 year from the issuance of the decree. Fraud must be actual and extrinsic. Actual fraud is the intentional concealment or omission of a fact required by law to be stated in the application or statement of a claim against the truth, either of which is calculated to deprive another of his legal rights. There is Extrinsic fraud when it is employed to deprive a party of his day in court, thereby preventing him from asserting his right to the property. Here, there is fraud when the applicant for land registration failed to inform the court of persons in actual possession of the land registered in the applicants name. Because of such omission, the possessors were not notified. Rexlon Realty vs. CA Extrinsic fraud contemplates a situation 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 all of his case to the court. The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court. There is no extrinsic fraud where the failure of a party to present its case was caused by its own inaction, such as when it was not impleaded as a party because it failed to effect the timely registration of its Deed of Sale. Fraud committed during trial, such as forged instruments or perjured testimonies, is not extrinsic fraud Rivera vs. Moran A petition for review may be filed at any time after the rendition of the courts decision and before the expiration of one year from entry of the final decree of registration. Rufloe, Adriano and Sandoval Cases Cases merely discuss what it takes to be an innocent purchaser/mortgagee for value as a requisite of a

petition for review of the decree. Just see the discussions in the next page. Duran vs. IAC Good Faith consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title. Good Faith is the opposite of fraud and it refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. Chain of Title: a fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. Pineda vs. CA To bind third parties to an unregistered encumbrance, there must be actual notice. Auction sale retroacts to the date of the registration of the mortgage putting the auction sale beyond the reach of any intervening lis pendens, sale or attachment. Heirs of Jose Olviga vs. CA An action for reconveyance based on a constructive trust prescribes in 10 years after the issuance of the certificate of title. But this rule applies only if the person claiming to be the owner is not in possession, otherwise if his the right to seek reconveyance which in effect is an action to quiet does not prescribe One who is in actual possession of land claiming to be the owner may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason being that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and rd determine the nature of the adverse claim of a 3 party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. Cabrera vs. CA An action for reconveyance may be filed even before the issuance of the decree of registration. The plaintiff need not wait the termination of the registration proceedings before filing an action for reconveyance. Thus an action for recovery of property may be treated as an action for reconveyance filed within the 1 year reglementary period. Pino vs. CA When the action for reconveyance based on constructive trust has prescribed [more than 10 years from the issuance of the certificate], then the remedy of the defrauded party is to bring an action for damages against those who caused the fraud or were instrumental in the deprivation. De Guzman vs. National Treasurer The assurance fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land. The government is not an insurer of the unwary citizens property against the chicanery of scoundrels.

SEC 51 68 Garcia vs. CA A distinction is made with regard to voluntary and involuntary registration. In involuntary registration, an entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons even if the owners duplicate certificate of title is not presented to the RD. On the other hand, in voluntary registration, the innocent purchaser for value becomes the registered owner the moment he presents and files a duly notarized and valid deed of sale and the same is entered in the day book and at the same time he surrenders the owners duplicate certificate of title covering the land sold and pays the registration fees. Mingoa vs. LRC The date of mailing is the date of filing Pilapil vs. CA To affect the land sold, the presentation of the deed of sale and its entry in the day book must be done with the surrender of the owners duplicate of the certificate of title. Production of the owners duplicate is required by Sec 53 PD1529 and only after compliance with this and other requirements shall actual registration retroact to the date of entry in the day book. Doctrine Registration retroacts to the date of entry in the day book. Egao vs. CA One who buys from the registered owner need not look beyond the certificate of title, one who buys from another who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate but also the all the factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws. Failing in this exercise is tantamount to bad faith. Doctrine if youre not buying from the registered owner, you must make an inquiry. Francisco vs. CA An inquiry is in truth dictated by common sense, expected of a man of ordinary prudence. The Earth, it has been said, is that universal manuscript open to the eyes of all. When a man proposes to buy or deal with realty his first duty is to read this public manuscript, that is, to look and see who is there upon it, and what are his rights. The buyer who could not have failed to know or discover that the land sold to him was in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad faith, such knowledge being equivalent to registration. Doctrine if buying real property, you must look at the land and if someone is in adverse possession, then make an inquiry into the nature of the possession, if not bad faith. [impliedly SC said that you cant rely on the certificate of title alone, you must look at the land.] Quiniano vs. CA Where a person buys land not from the registered owners but from one whose right to the land has been merely annotated on the certificate, and such purchaser merely had his deed of sale annotated on the certificate of title, he is not considered a subsequent purchaser of the land who takes certificate of title for value and in good faith and who is protected against any encumbrance except those noted on said certificate. PNB vs. CA One who buys land where there is a pending notice of lis pendens is a purchaser in bad faith.

Bornales vs. IAC The fact alone that the purchasers purchased the property with full knowledge of the flaws and defect in the title of their vendors is enough proof of their bad faith. Solivel vs. Francisco The innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged deed. Doctrine deal with the registered owner always! Even if hes the forger. Chain of Title Theory requires at least 3 Titles [Orig Owner, Forger, Buyer]. Here there were only two titles. Llanto vs. Alzona The General Rule is that the mortgagor should be the owner of the property mortgaged, otherwise mortgage is void. Except: Mortgagee in Good Faith. Under this doctrine, even if the mortgagor is not the owner, the mortgage contract and eventual foreclosure sale are given effect by reason of public policy. This is based on the rule that all persons dealing with property under the Torrens are not required to look beyond the face of the title. Note: this also includes an innocent lessee. Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Monillas Prior registration of lien creates a preference. The subsequent annotation of an adverse claim cannot defeat the rights of the mortgagee, or the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered Land Bank vs. Republic Mortgagees of non-disposable lands, titles to which were erroneously issued, acquire no protection under the Torrens. An OCT covering property of the public domain classified as forest or timber or mineral land is void. And any title issued shall be cancelled, even if in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. Notes: Involuntary Registration mere entry in the day book is sufficient Voluntary 1. Present deed 2. Entry in the day book 3. Surrender TCT 4. Pay Fees 5. actual entry? General Rule: Buyer is not required to make an inquiry. Except: 1. Facts and circumstances that compel a reasonable man to investigate 2. Land is in possession of another. 3. Buying property not from the registered owner 4. Annotation of notice of lis pendens. 5. Vendee has actual knowledge of the flaw.

SEC 69 92 Caviles vs. Bautista In involuntary registration, entry in the day book [primary entry book] is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. Entry alone produces the effect of registration so long as the registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the RD. Sajonas vs. CA Annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right that that of the registered owner. Thus, a subsequent sale cannot prevail over the adverse claim which was previously annotated in the certificate of title over the property. After the lapse of 30 days effectivity of the adverse claim, the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective. [The annotation may be cancelled by the filing of the verified petition by the party in interest] Rodriguez vs. CA In a voluntary sale, where the registered owner refuses to surrender the duplicate certificate for the annotation of the voluntary instrument, the grantee [buyer] may file with the RD a statement setting forth his adverse claim. And entry in the day book is sufficient to affect the property. The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure to protect an interest where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the law on registration of real property Ligon vs. CA Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title which subsists should be incorporated or carried over to the new TCT. A REM is inseparable from the property mortgaged, as it is a right in rem, a lien on the property whoever its owner may be. Magdalena Homeowners vs. CA A notice of lis pendens is proper in the ff: o Action to recover possession o Action to quiet title o Action to remove cloud o Action for partition o Any other proceeding in court directly affecting the title to the land or use or occupation thereof. Notice is meant merely to constructively advise, or warn, all people who deal with the property that they so deal with it at their own risk, and whatever rights they may acquire in the property are subject to the results of the action. The registration or cancellation of the notice does not affect the merits on the action. A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court after o Proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party. o Or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who registered it. Aquino notice may also be cancelled upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration.

Doronilla vs. CA Notice of lis pendens and adverse claim are not contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the existence of one automatically nullify the other Should any be considered unnecessary and superfluous it would be the notice of lis pendens because an adverse claim, which is more permanent, requires hearing and proper disposition of the claim before it may be cancelled. Statement that the property is subject to consulta cannot serve as warning and notice to third persons. Lopez vs. Enriquez Two-fold effect of the filing of lis pendens o Keeps the SM of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations o It binds the purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land to the judgment that the court will promulgate subsequently. However, the filing of a notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien that does not previously exist. rd Without the notice of lis pendens, a 3 party who acquires the property after relying only on the TCT is rd a purchaser in good faith. Thus against such 3 party the rights of a litigant cannot prevail Only original parties to an action may apply for a notice of lis pendens. SLDC vs. CA A purchase and delivery made in good faith cannot be affected by a subsequent annotation of lis pendens. Constructive notice operates from the time of the registration of the notice of lis pendens which can no longer affect consummated sales done prior to registration.

SEC 91 106 Torres vs. CA A person seeking to recover from the Assurance fund must be in good faith. If there are circumstances which should have put the buyers on guard and prompted them to investigate, failure to do so would preclude recovery from the assurance fund. Omission to do investigation constitutes negligence. Blanco vs. Esquierdo The right of an innocent mortgagee must be protected, even if the mortgagor obtained title through fraud. The remedy of those prejudiced is an action for damages against those who caused the fraud, and if insolvent against the Assurance Fund. Treasurer vs. CA Recovery from the Assurance Fund may be had in two instances: o Any person who without negligence sustains damage through the omission, mistake or malfeasance of the clerk of court or the RD or his personnel in the performance of their duties. o Any person who without negligence has been deprived It is a condition sine qua non that the person who brings an action for damages against the assurance fund be the registered owner and as holders of the TCT, or they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. Thus, if neither, the only remedy is to go after the impostor for damages or prosecution under RPC. Ybanez vs. IAC Public land certificate of title attains the status of indefeasibility 1 year after the issuance of patent. A certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding, provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land. Del Castillo vs. Orciga A CLT proves inchoate ownership of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn. The CLT prescribes the terms and conditions of ownership over said land and likewise describes the landholding its area and location. A Certificate of Land Transfer is a provisional title of ownership while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of the lands value or for as long as the beneficiary is an amortizing owner. Land Transfer under PD 27 is effected in two stages: o Issuance of a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary o Issuance of an EP as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon payment of the annual amortizations or lease rentals by the farmer or beneficiary. De Los Angeles vs. Santos A land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title cannot be divested of its jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of land. Applicants in the land registration court should be given to prove registrable title and if meritorious, the court would order a decree of title issued in applicants favor and declare the homestead patent a

nullity for the Director of Lands had no jurisidiction to issue such patent. Pasino vs. Monterroyo It is the act of registration of the Patent which is the operative act to affect and convey the land. If not registered, the patent shall operate only as a contract between the Gov and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the RD to make registration. Tengco vs. Aliwalas An OCT issued on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a OCT issued in a judicial proceeding, as long as the land is disposable land of the public domain and becomes indefeasible after 1 year from the order of Director of Lands to issue the patent. A Homestead Patent once registered under the Land Registration Act becomes indefeasible as a Torrens Title. Once the patent is registered, the land is no longer part of the public domain and the Director of Lands loses control and jurisdiction over it. Title acquired through a homestead Patent is imprescriptible.