1

Midterm Notes for Land titles CRUZ VS SEC. OF DENRWHOSE THE PETITIONER? Isagani cruz- former justice of SC WHAT WAS THE MAIN GROUND WHY THEY QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW? It violates principle fo regalian doctrine FOR THOSE JUSTICES WHO UPHELD THE IPRA LAW, WHAT WERE THE REASON FOR SUCH? Regalian doctrine does They cited Carino vs Insular government What was the ruling enunciated in the case? Carino belonged to the tribe of mountain province, the IGOROT.. They owned the land since time immemorial and even before the Spanish conquest. In other words, ther were no regalia doctrine or law EXCPTION TO THEROIR OF REGALIAN DOCTRINE: NATIVE TITLE TO LAND Citing case of carino vs insuar governmentthey have been in the possesionof this land since time immemorialthis is the only recognized exception fo the rule of regalia doctrine THEORY OF REGALIAN DCOTRINE- enshrined in constitution that all land shall be long to the sate except for agricutltural landsor lands of public domain PD 1529 RECOGNIZED TOERRNS SYTSM AS OUR OFFICIAL SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY CFI- has very wide and broad jurisdiction in so far as land cases are concerned, including not limited to original registration proceedings bu also all petitionsanda ctin arising from original regiatration- emphasized in sec. 2 of 1529 bec. in act. 496, the registration is stirclty limited in land regisatiorn proceeding.. WHENEVER ISSUES OF OWNERHSIP AND POSSESION ARE INVOVLED IN ALND REGISTARATION CASE, you are supposed to thresh this out in a SEAPARTE civil action or separate proceeding.. regional trial court sitting as land regissartain court may entertain issues pertaining to ownership.. this is made bec. f old law on part of RPC Sec. 3mentins of discontinuance of Spanish mortgage law as system of rgeistaionPD 892, expressly decalare the discountinuanc e fo Spanish mortaga law as system of regiastiora.. take note: we recognize 1529.. and the system of registration of unregisrared land, 8344.. prior to this, there used to be a system of regisratin, the Spanish mortgage law.. using Spanish title as evidence they would claim big track of lands.. THIS HAS BEEN ONE BIG SOURCE FO FRAUDULENT CLAIM SIGINFANCE PD892 discontinuance fo Spanish mrotages law, holder of sponahsi title are given 6 monts to apply under ordinary proceding under 892, SPANISH TITLE can no longer be used as evidence fo ownership in court as evidence. It should be of judicial notice that spansih titles are no longer allowed under present system.. lands are treated as lands registered under act. 3344. FRIAR LAND different from Spanish title- THEY ARE VALID TITLE PURPOSE AND MEANING OF TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION: LEGARDS VS SALEEBY LEARDA- filed a petition to question the decree issued in the title. One of the arguments by saleeby is that legarda should have revoked, there was a stone wall here u should not have included it in your title. How did the SC ruled this argument? SC SAID No. the same argument can be filed also against legarda, why did u not oppose when I registered the case.. PRINCIPLES IN THIS CASE: majority opinion that to do so would place an unreasonable burden on the holders of such certificate, which was not contemplated by the authors of the Land Registration Act. = Successive ownership- to determine now because saleeby is just an original successor to determine the successor it should be tapped to the origninl applicant , Legarda has first right TRADERS ROYAL BANK VS CA Property was foreclosed because of failure to pay. TRB sold the property on auction , the property was being foreclosed, this was then sold STEPS ON FORCELOSURE PROCEEINDG; 1. ONE YEAR AFTER ANNOTATION AFTER ACT OF FORECLOSRE- bank will now consolidate the auction , it will be transferred in the name of bank = before consolidation, the title was transferred in the name of bank, they filed a case agisnt bank and cause to be annotated a notice of lis pendens at the back of the title = once a notice of lis pendens is annotated at the back fo the title, it is a notice to the whole world tah the property subject matter is a preprty uner litigatin and in the event seller fo rpoerty loses the case, you ar bound by the outcome of civil case. Thats the reason the spouses filed a notice fo lis pendens In the meantime, during proceeding what happened? What did they do to protect their rights? They filed a notice of lis pendens, WHEN IT WAS CONSOLIDATED, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? They sold it to another person, the alcantaras . Traders bank has not includedit was not carried over TITLE IS NOW IN THE NAME OF BANK- notice of lis pendens was not carried over WHAT DID BANK DO AFTER THAT? BANK sold it to the Alcantaras. From alcantara, the lot was subdivided into 6 different lots and sold to 6 person called a non-bank respondent. WHAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT RAISE NOTES ABOUT TRADERS BANK: MIRROR PRICNIPEL- what u see is what u get, the exceptin is that unless there are facts and circumstances

1.

FIRST IN TIME, FIRST IN RIGHT one principle of torrensa proceeding that is valid and binding against the whole world is a notice to the whole world. The rights of all the world are foreclosed by the decree of registration.

Once the title of registered the owner Such a holding would have the effect (to quote the language of the majority opinion) of requiring the holder of a certificate of title to wait indefinitely "in the portals of the court" and to sit in the "mirador de su casa" in order to avoid the possibility of losing his lands; and I agree with the writer of the

2
that woudl impel a reasonalby prudent person to make inquiry or verify further ANTOEHR PRINCIPLE THAT WAS ENUNCIATED IN THIS CASE- as between two innocent persons the one who made the wrong to be done is the capay spouses-- register of deeds who were not able to annotate the notice of lis pendens-WHYA RE THEY NOT CONSIDRED AS THE ONE WHO SHOUDL BEAR THE ? - guilty of slem laches- they slept on their rights--- NON BANK RESPONDENTS DECLARED AS REAL OWNERS, remedy of capay spouses? file case agaisnt traders royal bank and judge claimed for damages and the judge was considred as seller in bad faith.. they know that there was a notice of lis pendens but theyd di not call alcantara. TWO THINGS BTWEEN 2 PERSOSN: 1. FAILURE TO ASSERT A RIGHT BETWEEN 2 REASNABLE RIGHTS CONCLUDING PROTION- this case is without rpejudice to whatever criminal civil action againt baguio city registger of deeds WHAT HAPPEND? - once there is a real eastate mortgage annotated at the back of real estate tietle, the moment the proeprty is foreclosed and consolidate in the trader's bank is free from all liens and encumberances WHY? - because from the date of foreclosure it will retroact to the date of mortgage. lis pendens retroarct. disput started only after capay spouses failed to redeeem- it was filed after registration fo real estate mortgaeg-- they are supposd to be junior liens or encumberances-- the superior one being the real estate mortgage so there is no need to carry this over to succeding title CIVIL CASE THAT IS INVOLVED- questions validity of real estate mortgage.. it should be carried over. it invovles file of real estate mortgage - we call these gray areas or complicated issues of law--the case being a prohbition case and not about anullment of title.. it is a matter of explaianint = it was done in good faith-- we thought all along that case does not invovle validty fo title-- it might not really be on TORRENS TITLE- will protect u if you can prove that you are transferee in good faith.. run insurance funds BUYER IN GOOD FAITH-- VERY IMPT. SO LONG AS U CAN PROVE THAT , TORRENS SYSTEM WILL PROTECT U. CHAPTER 2: READ THE CASES REGISTER OF DEEDS: PD 1529- are teh offices fo the and of land registation commission now known as ladn registratin authoirty and offices of register of deeds - there are 168 registrees nationwide - in region 7, we have 13,all provinces and cities hsould have own registry REQUIRES BUDGET LAND REGISTRATION COMISSION- under AC 1987 -named as land regitratin authiorty DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLILITES - sec. 6 - comission ministerial- an extension of the court -does so what is the order of court FROM TEH TIME COURT ISSUES ORDER- dirceting a regisration - plot a plan to see if it does not overlpa - PORTION OF EXISTING TITLE- has the right to refuse HE ACTS AS OFFICER FO COURT denr- CAN APPROVED ORIGINAL SURVEY- practicular land was surveyed for first time COMISSIONER- resolves cases- whenver person disagrees ruling in dening THE REASON WHY THEY DENIED TRANSACTION - there were anootated already-- 3 deeds fo sale or PORTION SALE- only portion of property was called, in the absence fo survey plan, REGISTRATION ONLY WAS made by annotation.. BUYERS ARE co-owners of land IN OTHER WORDS, IT MAY BE CANCELLED--sec. 77 of the decree, 76 is notice of lis pendens CASE HAS SOMEHINIG TO DO WITH IMINISTERIAL DUTY OF REGISTER OF DEEDS- WHENVER tehre is an order of court, he is no other alternative but to comply - he may avail of consulta initiated by the party REGISTER OF DEEDS- WHO Is in doubt as to how to proceed-- has right to elevate thsi matter in consulta to administrator to ask his guidance-- this happened in iloilo BALBIN VS RODCHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT MATTER IN QUESTION: is conjugal-- is not divided yet - it exceeds the 1/2 portion of the other spouse SEC 10 OF PD 1529- one of the issues in the case, two issues raised there NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS- WAS LIFTED BY JUDGE HOW DID SC RESOLVE THIS? - OFFICE OF REGISTRAR IS ONLY MINISTERIAL - accept all orders submitted before office SECND ISSUE: it was orderd cancelled,can this be allowed

MEANING OF LIS PENDENS: Lis pendens has been conceived to protect the real rights of the party causing the registration thereof With the lis pendens duly recorded, he could rest secure that he would not lose the property or any part of it. For, notice of lis pendens serves as a warning to a prospective purchaser or incumbrancer that the particular property is in litigation; and that he should keep his hands off the same, unless of course he intends to gamble on the results of the litigation. - whoever deals with it is subject to teh outcome of the case, he gambles, or risk

3
UNDER 496- other tahn the co-oweners copy, there is also a lessee's copy ALL SUBSISTING CO-OWNERS COPY SHOULD LIKEWEISE BE SURRENDERED- he wanted to donate a portion whihc has alrady exceeded his 1/2 share - one fo the grounds where ROD can validy deny registaton 1. it has exceede the part in a share-- it has already exceeded 1/2, he has eexceed 2/3 2. balbin was not able to present the 3 other subsitiing coowner's copy fo title WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES OR REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A TRANSACTION MAY BE CONSIRED MINISTERIAL/ REQUIRMEENT FOR REGISTRAION- after compliance of this it becomes a ministerial duty of ROD 1. should comply with requisites fo valid contract- subject matter, consent, causr or consideration 2. jurisdictinal requirements- there should be an entry in the primary entry book in the offcie of registry of deeds, WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THIS? 1. TRANSACTIon normally are valide between teh parties but it s the act of registratin that bidns it aginst 3rd persons... 2. SEC. 52- registering is considred a constructive notice to teh whole world. 3. comply with the formalities fo an instrument WHAT DO U MEAN BY THIS? - deed of donatin- there should be acceptance made by doneed - when abroad- must be executed by consul -signed by parties in all page and instrumental witnesses in every page. ONLY PUBLIC INSRUMENTS MAY BE REGISTERED IN ROD 4. must comply with all suporting documents as required by law SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS- an imposition whihc is a rquriement - accompanied by transfer tax PAYMENTS FO REAL ESTATE TAX AGRICULTURAL LAND- appearance from department of agrarian reform -necessary beofre u can call register of deeds as ministerial IN CASE FO BALBIN, ROD saw that he was alsready donating a way in excess to his rightful share, he knows its a violatinof law so he may deny that JOB IS MINISTERIAL if everything is complied with . ACT 3344- there is a system of registration for unregistered land YOU ARE PROTECTED BY TORRENS SYSTEM INFIRMITIES TAHT WILL LEAD THE ROD TO DENY THE REGISTRATION 1. th sale is a forgery 2. person appearing in certificate of title is already dead- no personality anymore REGISTER IT NOW- litigate later GO TO COURT -secure an injunction = THESE are contemplated by ministerial function of ROD when there is an infirmity REMEDIES AVAILABE TO YOU: 1 .don't go to ROD, go to court, file a petition for injunction ORIGINAL REGISTRATION -STARTS WITH ISSUANCE- application of certificate of title origninal Further, as correctly pointed by the Court of Appeals, possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. As held in Republic v. Alconaba:[19] The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. = it's not enough that there is constructive possession, ther must also be actual occupation POSSESIONOCCUPATIONONG VS REPUBLIC - june 12, 1945- they can't claim ownership in 1945- it falls short = respondent, phils. OSG - petitioner- have never been in exclusive, open and notorious possession of land WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD GIVE, SEC. 48 OF PUBLIC LAND LAW- we use judicial confirmation of title where the basis is sec. 14- we call it ordnary registration proceedings SEC 48- called judicial confirmatin of title = APPLICANT MUST PROVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN OPEN,NOTORIOUS POSSESSION OF PROPERTY 1. Must be alienable and disposable 2. manner and character of possession should be open 3. june 1975- possesed from this time. DEFINITION OF POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION: REPUBLIC VS ALCONABA - possession and occupation.

SUPREME COURT- very strict about requirements in original registration EVERY WORD UNDER SEC. 14- interpreted ang every word 2 LAWS GOVERNING ORIGINAL REGISTRATION 1. SEC. 14- the decree define who may apply for original registration 2.SEC. 48 , p. b of the commonwealth act-according to sc, there is no substantial difference between teh 2, before the public land act did not mention about alienable and disposable--what's the area and what's limited in 1973 - you need to prove 30 years possession -PD 1073- CHANGED JUNE 1975- as the period where one may apply for original registration

4
RULE IS NOT ABSOLUTE THAT A PERSON COULD NOT PROVE JUNE 12, 1975 = PROVIDED THAT IT CAN BE EXPLAINED WHY IT COULD NOT BE DECLARED FOR TAXATION PURPOSES = accessor's office especially in the rural areas - not really encouraged to declare the land they are possessing for taxation purposes 1980- they created municipalities tax mapping of boundaries of PRES. MACAPAGAL- has this falling out with government PRIOR TO PD 1429- we also have 1594 JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION IF FILE IN 1528 SUSI VS RAZON -issue: whetehr or not it was vaild to award this land in favor of razon and whther or not the claim of susi is valid? what was the ruling of Supreme court: all necessary requirements is actual WHAT IS THE CHARACTER OF LAND- THAT HE OWNS THIS NA? under what principle did the SC invoke this? WHAT ARE THE THINGS U NEED TO PROVE IN JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF TITLE? 1. person is in possessin and occupation of such property 2. nature of land? land should be alienable and disposable-this requirement is found in both under the land act and pd 1529 WHAT WAS THE DOCTRIN ENUNCIATED BY SC IN THE CASE OF SUSI VS RAZON WHIHC ACCORDING TO AGCAOILI has paved the way about the definitin of what a public land is? - PRESUMPTION OF JURIS AND DE JURE - ONCE PERSON HAS COMPLIED WITH JURIS AND DE JURE THE PERSON CAN IMMEDIATELY GAIN POSESSION FO IT SUSI VS RAZON - If, as above stated, the land, the possession of which is in dispute, had already become, by operation of law, private property of the plaintiff, there lacking only the judicial sanction of his title, Valentin Susi has the right to bring an action to recover possession thereof and hold it. interest cannoto be invovked here bec .land is considred as public land ,a patrimonial prperty of state - to make a distinctin between a SUCCESSOR AND PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST PREDECESSOR- can only be invoked when land can already establish possession - can only be acquired for the lenght of time here ), is applicable here. In favor of Valentin Susi, there is, moreover, the presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an agricultural land of the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefore is sufficient, under the provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands. DIRECTOR OF LANDSVS IAC - WHAT ABOUT AREA? is it not that exceeded area? no. 1 rule: UNDER 1935 COSNITUTION,corporation were not disallowed to acquire lands of public domain 1987: they are no longer allowed to acquire public lands of public domain except by lease = 1935 CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE APPLIED- it does not include vested right S.C. : GRANTED APPEAL BY ALLOWING ACME PLYWOOD- they cited as precedent the case oF SUSI VS RAZON- insofar as dumagat tribe is concerned that is already considred as land in private corporation = even if it is already a titled property- the possesor may question the ownership of claimant THE TITLE S IMPRESCRIPTIBLE, BUT YOU MAY LOSE IT BY LATCHES - no matter how long it will not prescribe but if another person is in posession fo it, then it can be invalidated. BY OPERATION OF LAW- person is already considered a private owner

= not uncommon for tax declarations to be declared much later than june 12, 1945 - rule is n ot absolute that it is declared in 1971-- bec. SC said that provided it can be absolutely explained why it was late CANETE VS GNUINO ICE COMPANY - whole lands of quezon city are already considered decreed or title property - initiate an annulment proceeding of Piedad estate - invovles cancellation of original certificate of title INTEREST: BONA FIDE OCCUPANTS so that they will be given over these titles PETITIONERS-cannot cancel certificate of titles PARTIES IN INTEREST- according to SUPREME COURT, they are not real party in interest- ( a party who stands to be benefited in this suit) - it should be government or director of lands - assuming that somethng was wrong with title ONLY GOVERNMENT MAY INITIATE CANCELLATION PROCEEDING HOW IS IT RESOLVED? they cannot be considred as bona fide occupants of said lands in the so-called piedad estate bec. if they will be declared as such they will possess only mere inchoate interest-- be given preferential treatment as qualfified buyeR - so many plaintiffs REASON WHY IT IS ASSIGNED: - to make a distinction bec. we always use the name predecessors in interest.. for purposes of predecessors in

5
TROUBLE IS, SC, PUBLIC LAND LAW SEC. 48 PAR. B, did not mention that the land should be alienable and disposable - IT'S VERY EASY, YOU JUST HAVE TO PROVE POSSESSION - SUCCEEDING CASES AMENDATORY LAW, already reiterated teh requiremetn that hte land should be alienable and disposable - this is where the problem - this is where ti started when SC stareted to define it FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING POSESSION SINCE JUNE 12, IT IS NECESSARY THAT IT IS CONSIDRED AS ALINEABLE OR DISPOSABLE OR NOT - REPUBLIC VS DULDOL - possession as required by law.. LAND IS CONSIDRED AS PRIVATE LADN(PREVIOUS RULING SI NIN NAGUIT LAW) JUNE 12, 1945- if after na nimo na-acquire, not allowed NAGUIT CASE- modified or reversed doctrine in 2005 ni sir THEN AFTER NAGUIT- naa pa jud HERBIETO HERBIETO- same division reversed itself - PONENTE IS J. PUNO NAGUIT- REVERSED BY herbieto MALABANAN- in decision en banc, it clarified NAGUIT AND HERBIETO = cases and ruling are unfamiliar about it. RESERVING PA XA IF NOT CLASSIFIED AS A AND D - if it classifies it as A and D, what's effect? = IT MEANS THAT STATE HAS ABDICATED ITS EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE LAND REGISTRATION CASES- has been delegated to lower court - they filed their registration to MTC AGCAOILI- he discussed it there REPUBLIC OF PHILS THROUGH OSG-proposed th AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, WHAT IS REGISTERED IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE HERBIETO- counting would start as when land would declared alienable - COMPLETE REVERSAL OF NAGUIT CASE ISSUE ABOUT PRESCIRTIPN - IN NAGUIT, if u cannot establish june 12, of 1945, then u can also invoke par. 2- acquiring it by presciprtion == can also file an application for registration PD 1529 SEC, 2 - speaks about prescription fo par. 2 SC- Heirs of malabanan vs republic explained MAY PRESCRIPTION LIE AGAINST THE STATE in sofar as lands dclared as alienable and disposable ? = it's not enought that hte land is declared as alienable and dispoable but there should also be an expressed declaration that it is patrimonal or private FIRST IT SHOULD BE ALINEALBE AND DISPOSABLE BEFOR IT BECOMES PATRIMONIAL see a classification first that the land is patrimonial by it's definition, it becomes patrimonial land of the state, does not require another explanation. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND BY MEANS OF PRESCRIPTION, U CAN ONLY ACQURIE THEM PURUSANT TO JUNE12, 1945 BUT WITH REGARD TO PRESCRIPTION, THIS LAND SHOUDL BE DECLARED AS PATRIMONIAL LAND OF THE STATE, in the absence of expressed provision that it is patrimonial

=========================== once an applicant has already complied with all the requriements fo ordianry registration then by operatio of law he is already entiteld to the title unless the tile sis arelady being issued

- FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION WHEN SHOULD A LAND BE CLASSIFIED AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE?

WHAT'S THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERNCET BET/W SEC. 14 AND SEC. 48? - distinction between the two lies in the factt that under sec. 14-- teh land applied for is alrady private land while on the other hand, under sec. 48, the presumption is land applied for is a public land but bec. of length of possession, he is laready entiteld to a grant 14- it's a private land already 48- it' a public land, land applied for is still a public land HOW DID SC RECONCILED THE 2? IN HERBIETO- absurdly limits the application fo provision since it will only cover land declared A and D prior to june 12 WHAT IS CONTROLLING? - it should be naguit case ISSUE IN NAGUIT CASE IS PRECISELY SEC. 14 PAR. 1, it is already controlling in a sense that it tackled the issue, in a way it is considred an opinion - there was also deficiency in the matter of publication

NAGUIT CASE- SC also mentioned that in the event that the applicant fails to prove possession fo june 12, 1945 whihc is about prescription, that was decision in Naguit case, it could have been easy, if u can't prove it then MALABANAN- harmonized NAGUIT AND HERBIETO CASE CONCLUEDED THAT PETITIONER CAN'T INVOKE SEC. 14 PAR. 2 LAW WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DISTINCTION B/W JUNE 12, 1945 AND PRESCRIPTION? = WHY USE JUNE 12, 1945 Kung pwede ra d.i ang prescription, THIS IS THE REASON WHY THEY INCLUDE DECLARING IT AS PATRIMONIAL. Case of malabanan: once an applicant has already complied with all the requriements fo ordianry registration then by operatio of law he is already entiteld to the title unless the tile sis arelady being issued

- FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION WHEN SHOULD A LAND BE CLASSIFIED AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE?

6
WHAT'S THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERNCET BET/W SEC. 14 AND SEC. 48? - distinction between the two lies in the factt that under sec. 14-- teh land applied for is alrady private land while on the other hand, under sec. 48, the presumption is land applied for is a public land but bec. of length of possession, he is laready entiteld to a grant 14- it's a private land already 48- it' a public land, land applied for is still a public land HOW DID SC RECONCILED THE 2? IN HERBIETO- absurdly limits the application fo provision since it will only cover land declared A and D prior to june 12 WHAT IS CONTROLLING? - it should be naguit case ISSUE IN NAGUIT CASE IS PRECISELY SEC. 14 PAR. 1, it is already controlling in a sense that it tackled the issue, in a way it is considred an opinion - there was also deficiency in the matter of publication in the absence of expressed provision that it is patrimonial REVIEW OF THE CASES IN LAND TITLES: HERBIETO CASE - is a very important case in asense that it is very instructive about original registration proper 1. as elaborated in tehc case of malabanan, there was a conflicting ruling betweeen naguit and herbieto MATTER OF LAND CLASSIFICATION- althoug it started in republic vs doldol, there was no issue about it utnil naguit came aobut NAGUIT CASE- it is enought taht at the time of filing of applicatin, land should be A and D HERBIETO CASE- same division of SC - justice puno-reverted back to old ruling that land should be clasified as A and D since june 12, 1945-- any period of possession without being declared as Aand d is inconsequential VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE: character, SC disallowed misjoinder of parties, but it is not ENOUGHT TO DENY APPLICATIN ON THAT GROUND ALONE 2ND GROUND USED BY SC in denying herbieto case: - PUBLICATION- notices are send by means of publication- official gazeete and newpapwer-- NOTICE OF INITIAL HERARING 1 .PUBLICATION 2. MAILING 3. POSTING OF NOTICES - they should be made priro to initial haring.. what is published is notice of initial hearing..PUBLSIH in BANAT NEWS only IN TEH month of december-- PUBLICATION IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE is sufficent to confer registration for purpsoes of land registration PUBLICATION N A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCUALTION- si also mandatory - reigstaration being in rem should be gvien as wide publicaiton ISSUE OF PRESCRITIOPN - case of herbiet aplicatin filed under sec. 14 and sec. 4 8 (b) ther is difernce in herbieto but naguit case ther is no material differnce between 2 PD 1529: LADN APLIED FOR IS PRIVATE LAND Y OUAR ESIMOPLY ASKIng law to confrim ownership NAGUIT CASE- obtier land daw ang herbieto. IF YOU CAN'T PROVE POSESION IN JUNE 12, YOU CAN INVOKE PRESCRIPTION UNDER PAR. 2 OF EXISTING LAW INTERSTING DISCUSSION IN HERBIETO OR INSIGHT was that in caes o herbeito the land was clasfieid as a and d as of 1963-- period of posesion before it not required.. public land law is special law it requried posesion and ocuptioan isnc e1945 CVIIL CODE- 30 yers prescitp SPEICAL LAW SHAL PREVIAL- civil cod enot avialibe as rmedy under public land law under 30 yra

ISSUE ABOUT PRESCIRTIPN - IN NAGUIT, if u cannot establish june 12, of 1945, then u can also invoke par. 2- acquiring it by presciprtion == can also file an application for registration PD 1529 SEC, 2 - speaks about prescription fo par. 2 MAY PRESCRIPTION LIE AGAINST THE STATE in sofar as lands dclared as alienable and disposable ? = it's not enought that hte land is declared as alienable and dispoable but there should also be an expressed declaration that it is patrimonal or private FIRST IT SHOULD BE ALINEALBE AND DISPOSABLE BEFOR IT BECOMES PATRIMONIAL see a classification first that the land is patrimonial by it's definition, it becomes patrimonial land of the state, does not require another explanation. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND BY MEANS OF PRESCRIPTION, U CAN ONLY ACQURIE THEM PURUSANT TO JUNE12, 1945 BUT WITH REGARD TO PRESCRIPTION, THIS LAND SHOUDL BE DECLARED AS PATRIMONIAL LAND OF THE STATE,

MALABANAN CASE - it is not ouent tha tland is A AN DD, IT SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY PROCALIMED AS PATRIMONIAL IN EITEHR THE HERBIETO BY EXECUTIVE PROCALMATION OR ACT OF CONGERES.. BEORE , u can use or invoke prscritpn as a mode of owernshop WHEN BASIS OF APLCIATION IS PEOSSION SINCE JUEN 12 1945, PAR. 14 ENOUGHT NA pero if prescription, it treats the state as privat citizen. you become the owner thereof by virute of prescritpn PRESCIRTIPN- not enought that it is A AND D, it should be declared as patrimonial

REPUBLIC VS CAescolta- EVEN titles issued beofre- even not classified as A and d were considered as valid -they had authority to determine whether the land applied for LAW IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME IS 2874 PAR .1, SEC .14- requisites par. 2- about prescription as a mode of acquireing ownership through judcial proceeding

7
3 m only for urban lot par. 3- ACCRETION AND ACCESSION ACCRETION- covered by art. 457 of civil code -sudden; added to the land you already own ACCESSION- covered by - gradual , slow and impresciptible - land joined to the river - 461 of the civil code should only be due to nature's work but when it is artifical it still belongs to public domain ARTIFiCiAL - belonging to public domaiN UNLESS thre is a declartion par. 4 - THOSE who have acquired ownerhip of land in any other manner provided for by law in case of benin- with respec tot survey of land, why is survey impt. in land registratin proceeding? - TO determine the exact identity of subject matter- that it should be property alienated (as to the bounds) SURVEY OF LAND- establhsi the idetnity fo land SC decisio: THE ORGINAL TRACING CLTH PLAN IS A REUIRMENT OF A MANDATORY CHARACTER.. THIS has been adhere to strcitly by lnd resisration authority.. if it is submetited wihtotu the tracing cloth ITS' CALLED THE TRACING CLOTH BEC. IT IS A MATERIAL --gusot mayaman WHEN YOU PUT LIQUER INTO IT IT WILLS FOTEN IT IS NOT EASY TO TRANSFER WITH TRACING CLOTH in case of garcia vs dir of lands submision of original trcing clth plan is a reqiremtne of mandagroy charger.. whenver an aplcation is filed in lad registration authority-and OSG opposes it's abplcaiton, THE Idea si teh original tracin clthi is submitte NO ORINGIAL TRACING CLTH0 ground for denal of applciation RECTO VS RPUBLIC-- recto and vimla filed a case of racing cloth thycddi not submit orignal but oly crified true copy SC sAId CERTIFIED TRUe OPY OF A SURVYE PLAN DULY CERIFIED TO BY THE OGVERMENT agency or offical authorize to approve such survey plan may be sumitted in evidence for purpse fo orignal registration . SURVYE OF LAND in case of republic vs sarmiento IT WAS lso held that a mere notation by sruveyor about a fact aht a land is within the alinable and ispoable potion are of publcdomain is not sufuicent it has to be in a cland clasfiiacton map to prove ha tindeed the land has been clasfiei das A and D or certification fo deprament of forest devolpment HERVITEO CAS - publciation was wel discussedregarding noticest o pth epublic can be done 3 ways: publicatin psoting and mailing publcation coan be ofical gazeel or newpaper fo genral cirucaltion

BAR QUESTION LAND WHICH AJOINS RIVER- started to grow bec .of movement of river do they own the accreted land? does this form part of registered land? no, u have to file a seaparte registration, bec. it is covered by technical description, you need to ammend the title to include the accreted area or ALLUVIAL DEPOSIT = BOTH ARE COVERED BY CIVIL LAW PROCEEDINGS what ABOUT LANDS joined that ajoins a foreshore area? but bec. of movement or curent of water, certain portions are added to ur registred land.. definitely it belongs to public domain.. A FORESHORE OF LAND, IS alienable. you can't own it you can only lease it in foreshore lease application CASE OF SANTULAN VS EXEC. SEC. -=along the foreshore WHAT RIGHT DOES RESIDENT HAVE? - he has preferential right to be being owner of upland - they gave owenr of upland the same category as that of the owenr of an upland that adjoins river SAND belongs to public domain - you have th right to own abandoned portion = you are entitled to compensation by the laws WATER CODE OF PHILS. salvage zone- CANNOT BE disposed or leased where area is forest land FORESHORE- area during the highest tide and the lowest, ebb and flow of tide. if it is rural area- 20 m salvage zone if urban area- 40 m salvage zone

CASE WAS FILD IN FAVOR OF UP- he questioned validty of procalamation on the ground that he has existing forest release- permit covered by proclmation . SC ruled that once stated has ceded it in favor of entity it means the same-- it has also abdicated its prerogative over ladn-- BY SAYING THAT up is the owner. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE's ACT -they can't file registraton of title over ancestral domain but only ancestral land = declared constitutional IS THERE AN OFFICE THAT GOVERNS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE? WHAT ARE THE STEPS FOR ONE TO FILE: 1. BENIN VS TUAZON - 3 consolidated cases IF NOT PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE, what's legal eefect? read- naa sa notes page 135 / 141- STEPS IN APPLYING FOR TITLE IN TORRENS SYTEM copy the step 1. 2. tax 3. survey of land- application wiht survey SURVEY OF LAND

8
necesary sa newspaper- to give it a wide covereag and give maing toalnd rgeistioran as prcoeding in rem PROOF REQURED IN RGISTRAIN PROCEEDING: - THERE HAS TO BE DECLRATOIN FROM THE STATE THAT THE LAND IS A AN D.. THERE IS BURDEN ON THEM TO SHOW POSSESSION - what was the reason why it was granted? read again 926 by Act No. 2874 cannot adversely affect their vested right of ownership under the former Public Land Law because of the constitutional inhibition against the enactment of ex post facto law or bill of attainder.

lAW ENFOERCED AT THE TIME OF APPLCIATION? QEUSTION NI TE CHING if tehland at the time is a private proeprty this is not subject o clasfication requiremtn BORACAY- arryo / eecutive already reclsified the land as uncladfied lan wth reservation PD 705- aluncalfied ladn ar clasfeid as forest lands THEY SHOUDL HAVE AVAILED OF 2874, para naa sila vesed rigth-- pero wala man, too late na kai naa na proclamtion ni arroyo so di na sila maka-own sa land nuon..>.< Fifth notes: publication has somehting to do with amendnemtn teh cout should not have nulifeid the case, teh tauzn the claim of plaintaiff is only part of th area tuazonn owned quozon city thduring those years ameenment- covers only a reduced in area, ooo ned to ammend teh petition by pubilcaiton IF THER IS INCREAS BUT INCREASE IS NOT VERY SUBSTAITIL- thine it wil nto afec juridiction of court URLE: COURT HOSUL HAVE JURIDICTION OVER PROPERTY, IN ORER TO ACQUREID JURIDCICTION, THER HSOULB E PUBICATION - if there is an increas in teh area the land that is not included in the origninal registrationNAY DRCRE ISSUED OVER THAT PARCEL OF LAND I SVOID our can acauried juridiction only by means fo publication.

MERE SURVEYOR'S NOTE IS NOT SUFFICENT TO CLASFFIY LAND AS A AND D CAMRINES SUR CASE- can be rledat edwith boracay case NEILIAS AND LERIO- for emphasis

3. next case: AVISTADO CASE - disucussed in herbieto case - not just publish in official gazette but also in a newspaper of general circulation. CAMARINES SUR VS DIR. OF LANDS - ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH SC SDDI NOT REALLY ELABORAT SO MUCH ON THE REASON WHY VESTED RIGHTS WERE NOT ACCORDED TO OCCUPATNS TO BORACAY BUT IN THIS CASE, THIS WAS WELL EXPLAINED- why they can't invoke vested right THIS CASE ANSWERS WHY THEY CAN'T CLAIM VESTED RIGHT SA BORACAY BORACAY CASE- there was a title in 1930 sa quirol family, judical notice of that , sc simply mentioned it in passing why they can no longer acquire such land with their vested right = WHAT SC SADI IN CAMSUR: CLAIM OF VESTED RIGHT CANOT ACCRUE TO THEM AND THE LAND HAS BEEN GIVEN BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT BEC. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO REGISTER AT THE TIME WHEN LAW WAS IN EFFECT The appellants, however, also invoke the benefits of paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, as amended by paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874 and contend that they and their predecessors in interest had possessed the land not only "for a period of ten years next preceding the 26th day of July 1904" as said Act No. 926 provides, but from the year 1874. They claim that the repeal of Act No.

FROM THE CASE OF CAM SUR: In the first place, it should be observed that the constitutional provision that no ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted cannot be invoked to protect allegedly vested civil rights, because it is only applicable to criminal proceedings, and into to civil proceedings which affect private rights retrospectively (See Mekin vs. Wolfe, 2 Phil., 74; Paynaga vs. Wolfe, 2 Phil., 146; U. S. vs. Ang Kan Ko, 6 Phil., 376; Concepcion vs. Garcia, 54 Phil., 81; and U. S. vs. Heinszen, 206 U. S., 370; 51 Law. ed., 1098; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep., 742; 11 Ann. Cas., 688). In the second place, section 54 of Act No. 926 provides that ". . . persons or their legal successors in right, occupying public lands in the Philippine Islands, or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles to such lands have not been perfected, may apply to the Court of Land Registration of the Philippine Islands for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor . . . ." No application was filed under Act No. 926 by the appellants or their predecessors in interest, and it is clear that without such application no confirmation of their claims could be had and much less the issuance of a certificate of title in their favor. Under these circumstances, no vested right could have accrued to them. - EX POST FACTO LAW- only applies to unclassified IN BORACAY: PD 705: CLASSIFED bora as unclassieifed land and part of forest lands...--- so had they applied sauna pwede unta sila maka-avail sa privilege

WEHHER OR NOT THE CITIZENTSHIP BARRED LAPINA SPOUSES FROM ACQUIRING LANDS SC : rejected petition of case bec. there are differnt sets of facts sa buyco and lapina buyco- was not able to prove that they have open, continuous and exclusive possesion fo land lapina- were able to prove what was left was wehter or not canadian citizen would acquire land?

REPUBLIC VS SARMIENTO how should clasifiction of land as a and d be proved?

9
LAWS WHICH GRANT OWNERSHIP TO FOREIGNERS: BP 185- private citizen who later became citizen of a country can acquire lands not exceeding 1,000 sq. m. Pursuant thereto, Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 was passed into law, the relevant provision of which provides: Sec. 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted; Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed. In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized. Even if private respondents were already Canadian citizens at the time they applied for registration of the properties in question, said properties as discussed above were already private lands; consequently, there could be no legal impediment for the registration thereof by respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains. The parcels of land sought to be registered no longer form part of the public domain. They are already private in character since private respondents' predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous and exclusive possession and occupation thereof under claim of ownership prior to June 12, 1945 or since 1937. The law provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of 1,000 sq.m., if urban, or one (1) hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence (BP 185). - it was proven that the lapina spouses were filipoino cizitens but when they registered it they were alrady canadian but SC SAID that they - ruled in favor fo lapina spouses, petition is dismissed PREDECESSORS- can show that they have been in possesssion of land RULES OF COURT WILL NOT APPLY INSOFAR AS THE EXECUTION OF COURT IS CONCERNED- decree is a final decision and it is not ...(migz) 1. ART.- THROUGH HEREDITarY SUCCESION under the consitution (art. 12, sec. 7) 2. AMERICAN PARITY RIGHTS- PD 713 - american citizen were allowed to acaurie lands for private purposes 3. batas pamanbansang 185- A FORMER FILIPINO CAN ACQUIRE LAND not less than 1k hectares -was enacted purusant to the consituttion 4. RA 8179- AN ACT TO FURTHER LIBERALIZED FUTHER INVESTMENT AMENING 1472 - ALL NAURAL BORN citizens who lost cizitenship who have capcity to acquire land 5. RA 9225CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND REACQUISITION ACT OF 2003- DUAL CITIZENSHIP LAW DUAL CITIZEN- acquires all civil and political rights 6. PD 471- fixed the maximum period or duration for foreigners ot own condo units - REQIURMENT: 60% MUst be owend by filipinos REPUBLIC VS NILLAS reiteration of previous ruling oF SCthere are toher cases which prompted SC to really explian and make qualifeications as to when should this be made available SINCE IT IS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING, THE PURPOSE IS TO ESTABLISH THE DECISION CONSIDRENG THAT IT IS LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEIDNG- no need anymore to file an exeuction, it is complete already by itself SIR EMPHASIZED: IN TING CASE, THERE IS A SLIGHT VARIATION - a decisino has already been renedere by court but for one reason or antoher the decre has not been issued by LRC commissioner, TGHE LAND REGISTRATIN AUTHORITY ATTENDTS THE OSUANCE TOF TH EDECREE- for all decisions rendered by the court all throughout the country-- ti really takes years before ur decree shall be issued 1941: in a cadastral proceedings-- THERE WAS A DECISION where not decre has been issued yet SC SUGGEST- it will be good for them to make a judicial proceeding to determine or to clarfiy the status because considerable time has already passed. SOL. GEN SITED A SIMILAR CASE IN STA. ANA-- there were really 2 decrees issued . accdg. to SC it's nto as simple as saying tha tt he rpevious decision may already be executee bec. therewas alresdy antoher judgemtn in favor of antoher person-- cannot be appleid to NILLAS-ANG APPLICABLE ANI KAI ANG LOPEZ CASE MAIN ISSUE: WHETHER THE DECISION OF COUR TO FIRST INSTANCE COULD BE BARRED BY LACHES, no decree was issued by land authority patent-- 20 years after, NILLAS sought the revival of decision, republic opposed the motion for revival SC RULED IN FAVOR OF NILLAS- denied the petition and upheld the decision of the courts- land registration case is a special proceeding and not subjec to to rules of civil procedure-- there were special facts- it was fault of land registration authoirty and transmitting the requirement that he decree should issue PHIL. RETIRMENT AGENCY- they don't apply 40-60 law they encourage foreigners to invest here TING CASE- there were 2 titles also taht were invovled same with nilmas.. SC considred RES JDUCIATA - the issuance the earlier decisin granting the decre of the tile or decision. the principles are the same. in a land rgistatin proceedings, ther is no need, separate action for 10 years udner rules of court do not apply because it is A SPECIAL PROCEEDING LRA- has already issued itsdecision on that. the prper thing to dis is file a motionfor concellatin fo the old decree and the issuance fo a new decree based on the old. pero dili in favor si sir ani.. under PD 1529: the present adminsitratory suppsoed to issue a decrre of registration. thisis th e basis of LRA OPITION. fil a cancelation of old

10
decre AND RE-ISSUANCE OF NEW DECREE BASED ON TEH OLD. WHOEVER IS TH APPICANT BEFORE, THE RE-ISSED DECREE SHOULD BE issued STILL IN his name. - this way it gives court oportutnity to determine cases. of course ther are hearings NILLAS AND TING DECISIONS- guide judges adjudicating all decisions pertaining to land registration. in = IN CASES, where a title is in questin, ROD is a paryt also, but even if you implead teh registeerd of dees, the initiative of taking the notice of lis pendens should be field by party. on taht score alone, it not correct fro SC to observe. remember: your job is with titele is WITH REYES, HWO COULD THE ROD AND REPSONETN REGISTER OF DEEDS EXECUTE TITLE IN FAVOR OF MONTEMAYOR AND ENGRACIA WHEN THE DUPLICATE TITL OF COPY IF WITH REYES.so title is spurious in addition to false document. REYES- has beter right of proeprty GASATAYA VS MABASA - EDITHA MABASA- went to gasataya to assume obligation of DBP in the agreement between mabasa and gasataya- it took 20 years to develop lot into fishpond he stopped the payment in favor of DBP what did DBP do when he failed to pay obligatino? DBP foreclosed lot and held a bidding where gasataya is the highetst bidder. RTC ruled in favor of mabasa gasataya went to court of appeals but the ruling of RTC was upheld to CA = whether or not CA ered in afirming the ruling of rtc in favor of reconveryance of mabasa who in the first place did not own lot SC: RECONVEYANCE IS N ALHTOUGH MABASA IS NOT OWNER OF LOT, IT IS DUE TO MISCHEIVOUS ACTS OF GASATAYA WHICH PROMPTED DBP TO FORCLOSE LOT. IF GASATAYA DID NOT DELIBERETLY failed in paying, MABASA would haver ight to repurchase PRINCIPLE: RECONVEYANCE- is not avaialbie only toeh erson who isthe rgisered owenr but it is ALSO AVAILABE TO THE PERSON WHO HAS BETTER RIGHT OF PROPERTY. UNDER SEC. 32 OF 1529- it simply precludes the reopenin the decree of registration after 1 year but after lapse of period, it does not bar or forcelose other remedies avaialbel tothe operson

NOTES ON REMEDIES: laurel vs garcia dissenting opinion by justice feliciano - accdg. to majority opinion, it cant be inferred that these properties have already been classified as patriminial property FELICIANO SAID: there were acts suffficent enough for them to declare teh prepty as abandoned, patrimonial.there was an intetnion on the part of the state tod eclare this as a patrimonial property MAJORTY OPINION: IT RQIURES CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF THIESE PROERTY-president sited a law to dispose patriminail rporpety fo the sttte. WHAT DO U THINK OF MAJORTITY OPINION? IS IT SOUND?

WAS RES JUDICATA APPLIED IN THIS CASE? Yes, there was already res judicata. Whatever issue raised on the same parcel of land they can no longer claim. While there is a res judicata, they can file a reconveyance in this case but the certificate of title issued to LEYVA has already attained its effectivity. PD 1529- covered by sec. 32- if you notice in this case,sc mentioned of the fact the the ca dismissed it based on lack of juridcition. Sec. 2. Under pd 1529- courts of rtc, or cfi before already has genral jurisdiction over all issues involving ownershiop. The decision in this case under act. 496, court still has limited jurisdiction ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE- reyes vs montemayor CASE OF REYES VS MONTEMAYOR PETITIONER filed before RTC- petitioners allege that they were the owner = they were sick with diabetes that is why they were not able to register. they were not able to register the proeprty but they paid taxes for it. but one day when they went to capitol they found out that the property is already registered in the name of montemayor. RTC and Ca ruled infavor of meontemayo. QUIT CLAIM TESTIMONY OF ALLEGED SELLER- there was no good faith. DEFENSES- of montemayor , he was buyer in godo faith but it was brought to engracia by way of quit claim. montemayor admitted that the sale was tended with irregularity IMPORTANT FACTS: - thsi invovles province of cavite 2 RDs were murdered SC MENTINOED THAT HE ATION OF REGISTERD DEEDS was smowehat irregularity because accodg. to he was a prty ot hte case, refereing now the 2nd case, case of engracai. depiste teh fact that he wa party, rpoceeded wiht quitclaim in favor of engracia. OF SC the tey

chavez vs nha and regis romero - when case was pending it was chavez vs pea, court id not metntion chavez vs nha, had the court read its decision NHA- like the city of cebu is an enduser, with charter, so it has the power to dispose of its property HOW CAN CEBU THE MAIN THRUST ISNOFAR AS RemEdIeS ARE CONCERED, are ermeedies avaialbe ludner property registeration decree. rmedies 32, 56, claim for assurance fund.. PETITINER FOR REVIEW IN LASTIMADO. in hearis fo tama tan buto vs Luy. HEIRS OF TAMA TAN BUTO - CFI

11
IN CASE OF HEIRS OF LABANAON: between 2 borthers, constancio andmaximum, former is illetarue, latter is educationm macximo- filed registratin for th proepty, the patent was issued by DENR INF AVOR OF MAXIMO AFTER PATENT WA ISUESD- they agreed that 1/2 of prprty be reconvyend in favor of constancio, WHEN BOTH OF THEM DIED, HEIRSOF CONSTATCIO NOW WANTED TO GET 1/2 SAHRE BUT HEIRS OF MSXIMO THAT TITLEOFTHEIR FATHER IS ALREADY INDEFAASIBLE bec. mroe thatn one year laps. IN EXPRESS TRUST IT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE. EXC. when trust is repudiated by trusteee. prescirption will run from the time of repudiation. IN TRUST AGREMENT THAT WAS AGREEMENTUPON, IT ALSO binds sucesors and his heis and asisengs. conract- IS NOT ONly valid among borhtrs but alos heirs and asignes. since it is valid, it also binds chldren SC: DIRECTED chilren of maximo to give 1/2 share of moeny to heris of constancion DEFINSES WHAT A TRUST IS? legal title is transfered to trustee in favor of trustor. tomorrow: new regeant, sanjorjo vs quijano, yujuico vs republic key concept of torrens system next week: subsequent registration mortage- mortgageor SANJORJO VS QUIJANO - free patent- issued HEIRS OF SANJORJO said parcels of land orginaly belong to them, there was an exchange of land ARE PETITINERS NOT BARRED BY DENR WHILE IT IS TRUE, THAT ANY PERSON WHO ACQUIRE PROEPRTY FRAUDULENTLY BECOMES BY OPERATION OF LAW, A TRUSTEE OF THE LAND ALTHOUGH AMEROL WAS DELETED, AMEROL- 1987 case discussed by sir: - has somthing to doe about period fo rpescription. fraud- 4 years from the day of the discovery of fraud implied trust- 10 years from issuance of the title 4 year period- applies to causes of action accruing under old civil code. ANY ACTION BASED ON FRAUD SHALL BE INSTITUTDE WITHIN PERIOD FO 4 YEARS BUT ACCDG. TO SC IN THIS CASE, 1456 of cc as well as article on prescription 1154 of cc, are new provisions found only iin 1950 civil code,accdg. to SC an action based on fraud the holder of title is already by operation a trustee. because the operation is imposed by law under the rules on prescription, the period is 10 years from the time of the filing of title RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY- because it was not decision on the merit IMPLIED TRUST WHEN DOES IMPLIED TRUST APPLY? civil code provision is used as basis of an implied trust in art. 1456 of NCC- prescriptive period of implied trust 1456- must be filed within 10 years from discovery of fraud whowever acauires fraudulently or erroneously, the prescriptive period shall be 10 years. if you maintain 4 year from discovery of fraud, registration in the primary entry book is notice to the whole world. sir goes along reasoning na 10 years NEW REGEANT SOURCES VS TANJUATCO - new regeant claimed that they have a better right over the property by virtue of accretion how did sc ruled this contention? were they qualified? the sc discused the application of accretion as well as conveyance. once an owner of a parcel of land near the river autmotatically has preferential right over the river that he is a RIPARIAN OWNER. but he still has to prove the rights of accretion WHY WAS TANJUATCO BUYER IN GOOD FAITH? -proeprty was transferred to him coming from the republic and the OCT was in name of republic - no reason to doubt the good faith of republic because the title came from them. IT WAS MERELY AN ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS IT WAS NOT A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY SECTION 32: ACTION FOR DAMAGES OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABE 1. ACTION FOR CANCELATION OR REVERSION 2. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER RESOLUTION - emphasis on meaning of reversion - where should action for cancellation be filed 1456 and 1154 daw new provision in 1950 code, so ang 4 year period based daw prior to the effectivity in 1950 THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD, EITHER IF THE BASIS IS FRAUD OR CONSTRUCTIVE OR IMPLIED TRUST, 10 YEARS JD ANG PRESCRIPRTIVE PERIOD - we can very well justify that the prescriptive period of land IS 10 YRS.

Article 1456 of the New Civil Code provides that a person acquiring property through fraud becomes by operation of law a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property. The presence of fraud in this case created an implied trust in favor of the petitioners, giving them the right to seek reconveyance of the property from the private respondents. However, because of the trial courts dismissal order adverted to above, the petitioners have been unable to prove their charges of fraud and misrepresentation.

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT WAS DISMISED, IS THAT the title has become indefeasible SC- discussed on innocent purchase for value

An action for reversion seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals

12
or corporations to the mass of public domain.[17] This remedy is provided under Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141 (Public Land Act) which became effective on December 1, 1936. Pursuant to Section 124 of the Public Land Act, - the administrative patent issued by DENR REVERSION- invovles also judicial review, was it proper fro them to file it to RTC? When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure became effective on July 1, 1997, it incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the RTCs. The two grounds for annulment under Sec. 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery, and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel as provided by Section 3, Rule 47. Thus, effective July 1, 1997, any action for reversion of public land instituted by the Government was already covered by Rule 47. It is clear therefore that the reversion suit was erroneously instituted in the Paraaque RTC and should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The proper court is the CA which is the body mandated by BP Blg. 129 and prescribed by Rule 47 to handle annulment of judgments of RTCs. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO CHAP. 5, SIR ENUMERATED KEY CONCEPTS OF TORRENS SYSTEM OR LAND TITLES UNDER TORRENS SYSTEM: 1. A cerfitifcate of title is the best evdience of ownershio pof th eland described therein and presumption is the name appearing in the certificate of title is the onwer therof 2. it is a constructive notice to the whole world- binds the whole world - issuance of a construtive notice 3. no one can plead ignorance of a registration 4. CURTAIN PRINCIPLE- all claims are barred, bars all prior claims 5. registered owner and the subsequent pruchase of value in good faith shall the certificate free from encumberance 6. indefeasiblity of title- idnefeasible title of property in favor of person whose name appears therein- it becomes idnefeasible one year after issuance of decree 7. sec. 48- imprescriptible-- no title in deorgation of the rights of onwers shall be acquried by prescription or advers occupation 8. cannot be defeated by open adverse poessison of other lands. 9. eveyr person dealing iwht registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the title. == EXC: UNLESS THERE ARE FACTS AND CRICUMSTANCE WHOCH WOULD IMPEL AR ESONALBY PRUDENT MAN CAN LOOOK INTO 10. IS NOT SUBject TO COLATERAL ATTACK 11. torrens system deos not shield one who comts fraud and did mistrprepatnion and cant use as sheilld for fraud 12. impolied trust- the person win whis the the land is falsely registerd is a trustee 13. a forged title may become the fruit of a vlaid title exception: the dcotrine that a forged title may become the fruti of a valdi ttitle canto be apelid wehr th eownr sitl hold a valid certiifcate fo title covering the subject land . 12. as between 2 innocent persons, the one who casued the notice of lis pendesn to be annotated inthe certificat eof title, in case this princiepl is applied, the one who didnt bother hwo check the notcie of lis pendens is anotate in cerrificate of title is consideed as one who will bear the loss the one who failed to verify thetitle that they bought at the same time

13. all torrens title is considered to be issued regularly to overcome this you need a well nigh incontrovertible evidence stronger than mere prepnderance 14. where 2 certificate of titels climing the same land, the one earlier in date previals first in time first in right TORRENS SYSTME OF REGISTERATION MINIMUM REQUIREMENT: you should at least see the owerns copy of certificate of title standartd requirejent: CHECK WITH ROD, sujbect to some exceptions that we know. 1.VENDEE ceases owernship of title and rely upon the same. 15. a title dreived from a void ttile is aslo null and void IN SUBSEQUENT REGISATION- it i already a dealing or seubsequrnt dealing with registered land, how to apply difficult requriements DEALINGS OF REGISED LANDS- including deeds and instruemnts ADMINISTRATOR ISUESD A CIRUCLAR- juan de la cruz married to maria sta ana is simply a description of status of juan dela cruz does not mean that proeprty is conjugal-- just description of title. from the face of the title- you can tell that hte title is exclusive, it turned out it is not so. STANDING ALONE JOSE IS MNARRIED OT MARIA WIL NOT OVERCOME RPESUMPTION THAT HTE PROPERTY IS CONJUGAL. THERE SHOULD BE OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO PROVE THAT HTE PROPERTY IS EXCLUSIVE PROERTY OF THE SPOUSE.

HOW IS EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED HERE? Equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when as in this case, the lot was already alienated to innocent buyers for value and the government did not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable length of time. 1. IT TOOK THEM 27 YRS. BEFORE FILING AN ACTION -THERE WAS THIS FINDING BY BUREAU OF LAND REFORM- they conducted an ocular inspection, they saaw that it is not submerged in water, it is dry land. there was no basis reallly in filing a case of reversion SC INVOKED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL- especially on how to apply this doctrine in actual cases.

13
THE STATE IS NOT ESTOPPED BY ACTS OF AGENTS BUT WHERE THE OFFICIAL SUCH AS IN CASE OF MENDOZA AND YUJUICO acted the performance of the duty was regular. they condcuted themselves in a regular manner, there was no mistake, or everyhting was doen in order, so when teh state questions certificate of title, notwithstanding the fact that everything was in order.. a patent title was issued to them. SC can invoke equitable estoppel. everything was done regularly. = WHEN DENR, questioned title of mendoza what they invoke in yuijico is estoppel not prescirption PRESCIRPTION- question of time estoppel- question of equity 1. ENTRY WITH THE PRIMARY ENTRY BOOK 2. COMPLY WITH PAPERS NCESARY REGISTRATION LAW 3. INTERPRETATION FO SALE / ENTRY - when xa consummated INVOLUNTARY :need not be rpesented CASES: AUTO CORP. GROUP. et al. vs CA - UNDER COA rules all money recieved during the day should be remitted to teh depository bank. NON-PAYMENT OF THE BANK- reason sited by autocorp. that there was no valid registration fo the land. WHY DID THE SC MADE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY TRANSCATION? - THE SURRENDER OF TH OWNER'S DUPLICATE COPY IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE ACCDG. TO SIR: STEP IN REAL EASTATE MORTGAGE 1. Registration fo the Real Estat Mortgage - If mortgageor fails to pay, bank will put up the prooprty in auction sale - if extra-judicial conducted by the sheriff 2. CERTIFICATE OF SALE- the output of teh auctin sale - during this time motgagor has one year to redeem teh property SC SAID: in voluntary transacti, there has to be a memorandum annotated at the bank of cetificate of tiel or made in on the certificate befeor it si entered in teh primiary entry book BOTH VOLUNTARY ADN INVOLUTNRAY, it is entouhg that he instruetn is entre din to primary entry book. but in invilutnary, ther is not owners' crticiate.. TEAKE NOTE: under sec. 52: IT IS NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD 56: IT IS ENOUGHTAHT IT IS INT EH ENTRY BOOK LEVIN VS BAS; very old case where the distinctin was made YES, entry in teh primary entry book daw kai compelte registration but in 1960, another case was promulgage, na n say that it should likeiwse be anntoated in teh cedrtiicate of tiel.. because ho woudl teh person know that the transactionis entere din anotehr case or annotated. LIVING CASE: DBP VS REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF NUEVA ECIJA: - during the period of redemption , POSSESION BECOMES A MATTER OF RIGHT. TEHNCIALLY, mortgagee is already teh ownr of teh preprty. but he may demand for right of reposession. mortagor still has right of redemption 3. BANK -wll then consoldiate the prperty and teh title in its name - either in teh form of sheriff's final deed of sale or an affidavit of consiodliated from the bank in a faconsidiation, the ouptus ith eisusance of the act in favor of the mortagee bank . bank become owner. in case of AUTCORP VOLUNTARY: certificate of sale should be treated as a volutnary transactioin. VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION FO REAL ESTATE MORTAGE BUT BEC. OF FAILURE THAT STE TIEM ,NAA AUCTION, but al the time the ocpy of hte title is with teh bank wherhter it is voluntary or involuntry for as long as all the requisites are there then it si valid. sec. 56: IT SHALL be effective on teh date and time ti was entered into prmrary entry book. ANNOTATIOIN ON THE TITLE-duty incumbent upon registry of deeds ONCE OWNER ANNOTATES TITLE- even if one year after na, it will still retroact to the dat it was entred in to primary entery back pd 1529: UPON REGISTRATION, registration fees should be paid, there is no longer 15 day period, taht's only in act. 496 unles the party to the transactin is a government instrumentality wehre payment may be suspended

UDNER

CASE OF BALLESTEROS VS ABION: - SON OF DR. vargasRESPONDENT ABION SOLD PRPERTY TO

THERE WERE 2 CONTRACTS OF LEASE: 1st- VALID- it was ratified by the father 2nd - VOID- there was already a transfer of ownership of proprty to the purchaser SON OF DR .VARGAS- ronald, HAS no authority to execute the lease and besides his father is no longer the onwr of the apartment or the building WHAT IS TEH DOCTRINE IN THIS CASE? - propriety of ejectment - WHETEHR OR NOT there were some lacking requiremtns but because of its failure to present teh real estate tax clearance, and the tax declaratin was not in teh name of dr. vargas or present owner. apart from this , teh registration fo lease contract is null and void GOOD PRINCIPLE: it does not really mean that just because you register something, it gives it validty A VOID CONTRACT DOES NOT PRODUCE THE EFFECT OF REGISTRATION WHAT ABOUT GOOD FAITH? WHAT DID SC SAY ABOUT GOOD FAITH?

14
- accdg. to ballesteros, he entered into a contract in good faith WHAT DID SC SAY ABOUT GOOD FAITH AS AN ELEMENT OF A CONTRACT? - it does not mater whether it is in good faith or not for as long as the contract is void, it does not matter. WEHTHER OR NOT THERE WERE LACKNG REQUIRMENTS, just an additional requisite of SC assuming that the contract was not void becasue vargas has uathrioty to lease prperty but it is NOT CONSIDERED AS REGISTERED BEC. OF LACKING REQUIREMENT. TO HAVE A VALID REGISTRATIN, THERE MUST ALSO BE COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS primary entry book- or entry book or diary book here. (3) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. This provision, however, does not apply if the property is not registered under the Torrens system. DE VERA- got a TCT - bidning to the whole world unlike the sale in favor of abrigo ABRIGO- was registerd in a wrong registry or differenty book of registration PRINCLE OF THIS CASE; - PROVISIONS in the civil code on double sale doe snot apply ehre - what was dsoen is it was regsiterd first as an uregistered ladn infavor of abrigo but in favor of de vera was already done under PD 1529 - for purpose of applying provisions of double sale, therse provisions doe not apply. registeration under 1529 si always valid and superior. VIIVL CODE DOE NOT COTEMPLATE a situation wehret it isregisterd in 2 diferetn books fo registration DE VERA - was also an inocent pruchaser in good faith becasue hwen they went to the pale the posesro was th motehr of villafinaio, abrigo did not take over. ABRIGO- was not able to register under torrens ttiel becaus in teh first place they don't have the patent. CASES TONIGHT ARE PPLICATION ON RULES ON ENTRY OR WHIHC BOOK SHOULD IT BE REGISTERD. ENTRY- does not apply tto a contract that is void. LAST NIGHT: ENTRY IN THE PRIMARY ENTRY BOOK IT SHOULD REGISTRY BE REGISTERED IN THE PROPER WITH THE PROMULGATION FO THE DECISION BY THE SC in DBP vs register of deeds of nueva ecija and oocasioned by the ire in QUC, this cruculare alowing ehr pivisional regisration, adopting teh rulin in DBP. to tethe ffect ethat fi a voluntary transctiin, just present teh owners duplciate copy adn enter in itn eh rimary entry boook. when reconstituted, that is the ttimethe register of deeds will issue a certificate of title to retroact to the day entered in the book. ANTONIO VS SANTOS - has something to do with 2 certificate of titles this time to 2 different persons. SAN LORENZO DEV'T CORP. VS CA

WHAT DID SC SAY ABOUT FAILURE OF BABASANTA ABOUT TENDER OF PAYMENT? it is not enough taht you offer the balance, under the law there has to be consignation WHY DID SC CONCLUDE THE SAN LORENZO WAS A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH? - SAN LORENZO TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPRTY, that made them a buyer in good faith, whcih consummated the sale becasue they took possesion of property as oposed to babasanta

ABRIGO VS DE VERA - Gloria Villafania- SOLD IT TO ANTOHER PERSON WHEN SHE FIRST SOLD IT TO SOLD TO GO AND ASALAZAR, she already had a pending free patent applciation and when she sold it to cruz and and go--- she did not inform the vendee but rather sold it to another person ni de vera ABRIGO frst registered land under Act. 3344 but de vera registered it under the TORRENS TITLE GLORIA VILLAFANIA- has pending free patent application petition is without merit law in this case is about double sale: PETITINERS CONTEND THAT VILLAFANIA - could not have transfered proeprty to de vera SC DISCUSSED WHO IS PREFFERED IN A DOUBLE SALE: 1. immovable transfer Between two buyers of the same immovable property registered under the Torrens system, the law gives ownership priority to (1) the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and

CONTRACT TO SELL- si also registrable so had babasanta and lu registered the contract to sell, SAN LORENZO WOULD HAVE BEEN BOUND BY THE PRIOR REGISTRATION IF TITLE IS LOST, REMEDY IS RECONSITUTION UNDER RA. 26 not RA 3344 TAKE NOTE: LAND LRA CIRCULAR NO. 3 dated 1989WHICH PROVIDS FOR provsisional registration fo transaction of lost or destroyd originals in teh files of registry fo deeds pending registration THERE IS A REMEDY FOR TEH PARTIES IN A SIMILAR SITUATION- you have onwers certificate of title but original is lost or destroyed. it is unfair to regisred onwers.

- ballesteros vs abion VOID CONTRACT DE VERA- it should be registered in thE proper registry

15
LEGARDA VS CA - after cathay and cabrera ,the land was sold again to 3 different persons. who was the last buyer? luminlum. there was a series of conveyance. it was transferred four times. - WHO WERE THE 2 PARTIES AGAIN? - between 2 innocnnt persons, teh oen who made it possible the worng to be done will be made to suffer the resulting loss LEGARDA - was innocent but she was made to sufer the result because she hired a negligent lawyer, atty. coronel VERY IMPORTATN CASE: in teh sense that hte principel on the reliance on ceritiacate of title was applied by SC here strictly,the ownr was legarda but since she lost in teh case where his lawyer defautled. thep roeprty was sold to satisfy the obligations. it was bought by cabrera, transfere to 3 differnt pruchasers who wer decalred by SC TO BE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. LEGARDA- was married to American in manhattan. so whe was tayng ther ost fo the time, she sentrueste to dean coronl. When injunction wa issued in favor of Nancy So, not to entreatint eh traction b bey made y Nancy So, but when teh inucntion readhed us, the proepty was lready transferred to chua. They went again for injunction. By the time they went to sir, Chua already transfered to luminlog. AN INJUNCTION was iseud yet it was transfered. Injunction was directed agaisnt a title taht was already canceled A CLIENT IS BOUND DAW BY THE NEGILENCE OF COUNSEL. what was teh blunder commtied by new lawyer? he failed to annotate the notice of lis pendens. Had he annotated teh notice of lis pendens , the ycoudl have ben bound by the outcome fo the case. this was a prime proprty owend by rich family- Legarda. CABRERA- highest bidder, enjoyed the presumption of regularity ALL THESE BUYERS0 were declared by supreme court as innocent pruchasers for value. the supreme court applied the case to teh letter. APPLIED TEH MIRROR PRINCIPLE. AMIROL VS BAGUMBAYAN- cases of fraud aplies to cases accruing after the new civil code. IF YOU'RE NOT SURE IN BAR, you try to qualify IDP - one of the first few cases fo SC that minimum requriement of good faith is that he ubyer shoudl have at least seen the owner's duplicate certificate of title INC- wa sin a hurry to buy property fo the IDP PROFPERTY - seoncd set of board of directors- real set kai abroad INJUSTICE - because they could have field it to the supreme court who can issue general injunction ANTONIO VS SANTOS in case of 2 certificate of titles issued to same person, But we agree with respondents that petitioner cannot rely on the decision in LRC No. 142-A. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, even if a title had been issued to petitioner based on said decision, his title would be of a later date than the title of respondents, hence inefficacious and ineffective. This Court has ruled that, when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail; and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate. SANTOS- was issued 1977 ANTONIO- the final decree of court is only feb 19, 1986 4 year period na pud dre- SIR STILL AGREES WITH AMIROL vs bagumbayan case, thethe 4 year processof action accruing prior to teh new civil code. Teh person who acuired teh tiel ont eh ground of fraud still ahs the obligation to return the property to rightful woenr and it is obigation imposed by laww which prescribes in ten year. SIR, STILL ADHERE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD TO 10 YEAR PERIOD second board- wala onwer's copy, the INC hurriedly paid the price mientras wala pa ang original board INC- ubyer in bad faith, even withotu chekicng onwer's certficate of title, they hurreidly went to buy the case withtout checking owenr's certificatefo title SORIANO VS CHUA: 1. SC ruled that he sanctity of the torrens certificate of title must be upheld it was difficult to verify theoriginal titel, they relied on tax declaration. THIS IS IN KEEPING IWTH THE DOCTRINE FO THE MIRROR PRINCIPLE THAT ONE CAN CLEARLY RELY SAFELY ON THE TORREN'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE 2. HOMEBANKERS

it should be approved by HLUR = first otheriwse null and void PEITTINER:said they don't have the power to declare daw contract unenforceable BUT ACCDG. TO SC: HLURB- has very broad power to authorize in this case PART ANG PD 957 OR SUBDIVISIONS OF CONDOMINIUMS in thsi case, SC refered to provsision under pd 957 ONE FOT HE REASOSN WHY HOMEBANKERS QUESTINED HLURCE, becasue of their belief taht in pd 957 the subdivsision is not valid. THEY QUOTED WHAT 957 SAID DEFINING A SUBDIVSION. any land for recreation, residential is covered by pd 957 BEFORE THEY SEEEK TO MORGAGTE THE PREPRTY, IT SI IMPORTATN THAT THEY SEEK THE APROVAL FO HLURB. ti is prohibitory law and any kind of trasnaction udner this law is considred nulla nd void 3rd interpretationfo 957: sec. 17- IT is the seller's responisblityt to register the cotnract to sell. it si very imporatnt to ANONTATE THE CONTRACT TO SEL LINT EH CERTIFICATE FO TITEL. YOU CAN THE REFUSE

16
THE PAYMENT OF AMORTIZATION FI THE SELLER FAILS TO annotate teh contract to sell in the certificate of title DE LA MERCED VS GSIS CASE: 1957- sodl to de la merced 1966- they obtaiend loan LOAN CAME LATER THAN THE SALE -SOME LTOS WERE NOT INCLUDED- de la merced fully paid ful price right of onwrshio is superior to that of mortgage WHAT IS DGREE OF DUE DILIGENCE REQUIRED OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ? THEY have to exercsise higher degree of diligence MANLONGAT- cannot claim that sh was purchaser in godo faith because neitehr posesed after the lot was mortgaged PRINCIPLE USED BY SC: TEH SPRING CANNOT RISE HIGHER THAN THE SOURCE - THE PURCHASE THAT seh made was likewise null and void THERE AS A VERY INTERSTING QUOTE BY SC MADE IN THSI CASE WHY PD 957 IS PASED AS A LAW? it serves as a protective mantle over helpless citizens who may fall play by the raj mataj by developers RAJ MATAJ- the hustle and dustle-- DOUBLE TALK CONTRACT TO SELL- to be registerd in teh register of deeds - demanded as a mater of right IF MORTGAGE AND PROEPRTY CONTRACT TO SELL- register sa HLURB PD 957 - 1975 any person who withotu neglkgence on his part suffers njury -taxi driver transfered to the passenger, is it negligence WATCH OUT FOR EXCEPTIONS-- purchaser in good faith SUJECT TO DIFFERNCE BETWEEN MORTGAGEEE IN GOOD FAITH AND ONE WHO IS NOT MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH? THE SECOND ONWER IS NULL AND VOID-- WHATEVER TRANSACTIONS ANYBODY WHO DEALS WITH 2ND ONWER' COPY, you must go beyond certificate of title. DOMINGO REALTY VS CA - ACero- from compromise agreement; he will vacate said property if there is encroachment. 1. non-inclusion of lessor 2. vagueness of compromise agreement 3. mistake one of the reasons of nullifying the compromise agreement-- BECAUSE acero thought that he will only vacate a portion fothe property encroached upon CERTIFICAT OF TITLE- covers techincal description so lot can be ascertained. COMPRMOISE AGREEMENT- is clear that acero will not just vacate a portion of the porperty but ANY ENCROACHMENT ON THE PROPRTY. so what's controlling is encroachment... ACERO - coudl have hired geodetic engineer COURT HAS NO POWER TO EXPLICATE THE PROEPRITES OF NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTS- court will not protect them if they enter into what is adversarial to them because it is presumed to be entered intelligently

ONE FO THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SC SAID THAT THE THERE IS A COMIC INCONGRUITY that both the principal and the real estate attorney in fact signed in bad faiht notwithstanding principal already gave SPA: 1. THE IMPOSTor signed title- STILL INT HE NAME OF KAUFFMAN DIFEFERENCE OF KAUFFMAN AND CHUA: title is still in th hand of owner. then

ESGUERRA- excess 1, 268 sq. m. DEED OF SALE: says more or less - not covered by a titel so there is no technical description, the payment is covered by lump sum for the amont of say 1 m but it turns out more or less 5k

CAVEAT EMPTOR- very careful about when dealing with real proeprties, it is normal to give photocopy of the original title. UNSCRUPULOUS BUYERS- will declare na lost then obtain teh second owner's copy SCOTT'S DEFNSE- jamilar knows a lot about the case -but scott was also solidarliy liable no need for handwiriting expert- there is mjor vairance in the signature NOT JUST ANYONE CAN FILE AFFDIVAIT OF LOSS YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE PRIVITY OF THE TITLE TAKE NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT - somebody file a peittion, the responsiblty is with teh courts.. the moment the register of deeds receives an order, ministerial, we issue the seoncd onwer's duplicate title IF THE OWNER'S REGISTERED COPY IS NOT LOST, IT IS WITH HIM OR ITI S EXSTING, WHATEVER COPY OF

this case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to a contract involving titled lands for them to exercise the diligence of a reasonably prudent person by undertaking measures to ensure the legality of the title and the accurate metes and bounds of the lot embraced in the title. It is advisable that such parties (1) verify the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority; (2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the technical

17
description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land Management Bureau; (3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot; (4) inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal ownership of the lot in question; (5) put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and (6) undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties. Respondent Acero, for all his woes, may have a legal recourse against lessor David Victorio who inveigled him to lease the lot which turned out to be owned by another. = TAKE NOTE OF THESE GUIDELINES DURING THE BARILI FIASCO - one of the guidelines is to conduct an ocular inspection.c an you conduct ocular inspectionn when it is below sea water OTHER THAN THE TITLE YOU SHOULD ALSO VERIFY THE TAX DECLARATION , plus of course payment of real estate facts. - there are some offices whose records are more important than registry of deeds.