The correct title of this course is Registration of Land Titles and Deeds.

what is being brought to be

registered in not the land but the title or deeds to such land.
Q: Differentiate accretion from alluvium.
A: Alluvium is the soil imperceptibly and gradually deposited on lands adjoining the banks of rivers
caused by the current of the water.
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is so deposited. (Pineda, Property, p. 124, 1999 ed)
Q: To whom does accretion belong?
1. Accretions on the bank of a lake belong to the owners of the estate to which they have been added.
2. Accretion on the sea bank still of public domain, and is not available for private ownership until
formally declared by the government to be no longer needed for public use (epublic v. Amanda !da. "e
#astillo, $.. %o. & '9((2 )une *(, 19++).
Q: If the area of a non registrable land is increased due to accretion, may the alluvial deposits be
subjected to private ownership?
A: No. Non registrable lands (property of public dominion are outside the commerce of man, they are
not subject to private appropriation. (A,caoili evie-er, p. +*, 2((+ ed)
Q: If the land, the area of which is increased b accretion, has alread been registered, is there still a
need to register the alluvion?
A: !es. "ccretion does not automatically become registered. #t needs a new registration.
The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the banks of the arikina !iver" #t
certain times of the year, the river would swell and as the water recedes, soils, rocks and other materials
are deposited on Jessica$s and Jenny$s properties" This pattern of the river swelling, receding and
depositing soil and other materials being deposited on the neighbors$ properties have gone on for many
years" %nowing this pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about & meters from her property
line and e'tending towards the river, so that when the water recedes, soil and other materials are
trapped within this barrier" #fter several years, the area between Jessica$s property line to the concrete
barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively increasing Jessica$s property by & meters" Jenny$s
property, where no barrier was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of the river"
!an "essica and "enn legall claim ownershi# over the additional $ meters and one meter, res#ectivel,
of land de#osited along their #ro#erties?
A: $enny can legally claim ownership of the lands by right of accession (accretion under "rticle %&' of
the (ivil (ode. )he lands came into being over the years through the gradual deposition of soil and silt by the
natural action of the waters of the river.
$essica cannot claim the two meter wide strip of land added to her land. $essica constructed the cement
barrier two meters in front of her property towards the river not to protect her land from the destructive forces of
the water but to trap the alluvium. #n order that the riparian owner may be entitled to the alluvium the deposition
must occur naturally without the intervention of the riparian owner (epublic v. #A 1*2 +(," &1% -1./%0.
If "essica%s and "enn%s #ro#erties are registered, will the benefit of such registration e&tend to
the increased area of their #ro#erties?
A: No, the registration of $essica1s and $enny1s adjoining property does not automatically e2tend to the
accretions. )hey have to bring their lands under the operation of the )orrens system of land registration following
the procedure prescribed in 3.4. No. 1&2..
Assume the two #ro#erties are on a cliff ad'oining the shore of Laguna La(e. "essica and "enn
had a hotel built on the #ro#erties. The had the earth and roc(s e&cavated from the #ro#erties dum#ed
on the ad'oining shore, giving rise to a new #atch of dr land. !an the validl la claim to the #atch of
land?
A: $essica and $enny cannot validly lay claim to the price of dry land that resulted from the dumping of
rocks and earth materials e2cavated from their properties because it is a reclamation without authority. )he land
is part of the lakeshore, if not the lakebed, which is inalienable land of the public domain. )$**+ ,ar Question-
Q: (hat is reclamation?
A: ,eclamation is the act of filling up of parts of the sea for conversion to land.
.ote: #t must be initially owned by the government. #t may be subse5uently transferred to private owners.
Q: /ho ma underta(e reclamation #ro'ects?
A: 6nly the National 7overnment may engage in reclamation projects.
Q: To whom does a reclaimed area belong?
A: 8nder the ,egalian doctrine, the +tate owns all waters and lands of the public domain, including
those physically reclaimed. (A,caoili evie-er, p. 11(, 2((+ ed)
Q: Differentiate title over land, land title, certificate of title, and deed.
A: .itle is a juridical act or a deed which is not sufficient by itself to transfer ownership but provides only
for a juridical justification for the effectuation of a mode to ac5uire or transfer ownership.
&and title is the evidence of the owner1s right or e2tent of interest, by which he can maintain control, and
as a rule, assert right to e2clusive possession and enjoyment of property.
#ertificate of title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the ,egister of 4eeds in the
registry. #t accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the e2act status of the fee simple
title which an owner possesses. (A,caoili evie-er, p. 24/, 2((+ ed)
A deed is the instrument in writing, by which any real estate or interest therein is created, alienated,
mortgaged or assigned, or by which title to any real estate may be affected in law or e5uity.
Q: /hat law governs the ownershi# and dis#osition of ancestral lands and ancestral domains?
A: ," /*'1 of the #ndigenous 3eoples ,ights "ct of 1..' (#3," which was enacted 6ctober 2., 1..'.
)he #3," is a law dealing with a specific group of peoples, ie., the #ndigenous cultural communities or the
indigenous peoples. )he law allows indigenous peoples to obtain recognition of their right of ownership over
ancestral lands and ancestral domains by virtue of native title.
Q: /hat is a native title?
A: it refers to a pre con5uest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have
been held under a claim of private ownership by #ndigenous (ultural (ommunities of #ndigenous 3eoples, have
never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way before +panish
con5uest. (A,caoili, p. 124, 2((+ ed
Q: /hat is time immemorial #ossession?
A: #t refers to a period of time as far back as memory can go, certain #ndigenous (ultural (ommunities
of #ndigenous 3eoples are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utili9ed a defined
territory devolved to them, by operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with
their customs and tradition. (A,caoili, p. 124, 2((+ ed
Q: /hat is the nature of the #roceeding for land registration under the Torrens 0stem?
A: )he )orrens system is judicial in character and not merely administrative. 8nder the )orrens system,
the proceeding is in rem, which means that it is binding upon the whole world.
Q: /hat are the modes of ac1uiring title over land?
A: I A0 D2
1.:y possession of land since time Immemorial;
2.:y possession of Alienable and disposable public land;
.ote: 8nder the 3ublic <and "ct (#A %o. 141), citi9ens of the 3hilippines, who by themselves or
through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, e2clusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain under
a bona fide claim of ownership since $une 12, 1.%&, or earlier, (e0cept when prevented by war or
force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title.
*. :y 0ale, Donation, and 2ther modes of ac5uiring ownership;
Q: /hat is Torrens title?
A: #t is a certificate of ownership issued under the )orrens system of registration by the government,
through the ,egister of 4eeds (,4 naming and declaring the owner in fee simple of the real property described
therein, free from all liens = encumbrances, e0cept as may be e2pressly noted there or otherwise reserved by
law.
.ote: #t is conclusive against the whole world (including the government and to a holder in good faith,
guaranteed to be indefeasible, unassailable = imprescriptible.
Q: /hat is the mirror doctrine?
A: All #ersons dealing with a #ro#ert covered b Torrens certificate of title are not re1uired to
go beond what a##ears on the face of the title. /here there is nothing on the certificate of title to
indicate an cloud or vice in the ownershi# of the #ro#ert, or an encumbrance thereon, the #urchaser
is not re1uired to e&#lore further than what the Torrens title u#on its face indicates in 1uest for an
hidden defect or inchoate right that ma defeat his right thereto.
.ote: +tated differently, an innocent purchaser for value relying on the )orrens title issued is protected.
Q: /hen does the mirror doctrine a##l?
A> ?hen a title over a land is registered under the )orrens system (A,caoili evie-er, p. 24', 1999 ed)
Q: (hat are the e'ceptions to the application of the mirror doctrine?
A: ,2, LI3A
1. ?here the purchaser or mortgagee is a :ank@financing institution;
2. ?here the 6wner still holds a valid and e2isting certificate of title covering the same property because
the law protects the lawful holder of a registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any
transmissible right;
*. 3urchaser in :ad faith;
%. 3urchases land with a certificate of title containing a notice of <is pendens;
&. +ufficiently strong indications to impel closer #n5uiry into the location, boundaries and condition of the
lot;
A. 3urchaser had full Bnowledge of flaws and defects in the title; or
'. ?here a person buys land not from the registered owner but from whose rights to the land has been
merely "nnotated on the certificate of title.
Q: )pouses * and + mortgaged a piece of registered land to #, delivering as well the ,-T to the latter,
but they continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving ./& of each harvest to # in partial payment
of their loan to the latter" # however, without the knowledge of * and +, forged a deed of sale of the
aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a T-T in his name, and then sold the land to 0"
, bought the land reling on A4s title, and thereafter got a T!T in his name. It was onl then that the
s#ouses 5 and 6 learned that their land had been titled in ,4s name. 7a said s#ouses file an action for
reconveance of the land in 1uestion against ,? Reason.
A: )he action of C and ! against : for reconveyance of the land will not prosper because : has ac5uired
a clean title to the property being an innocent purchaser for value.
" forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. )he fact that the forged deed was registered
and a certificate of title was issued in his name, did not operate to vest upon " ownership over the property of C
and !. )he registration of the forged deed will not cure the infirmity. Dowever, once the title to the land is
registered in the name of the forger and title to the land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value, the latter ac5uires a clean title thereto. " buyer of a registered land is not re5uired to e2plore beyond
what the record in the registry indicates on its face in 5uest for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may
subse5uently defeat his right thereto. )his is the Emirror principleE of the )orrens system which makes it possible
for a forged deed to be the root of a good title.
:esides, it appears that spouses C and ! are guilty of contributory negligence when they delivered the
6() to the mortgagee without annotating the mortgage thereon. :etween them and the innocent purchaser for
value, they should bear the loss. (1... :ar Fuestion
)b.- )he curtain principle states that the register is the sole source, all controversies that may arise after
the issuance of the title may not be raised anymore as the )orrens title is binding against the whole world
and carries with it the character of indefeasibility.
)c.- )he insurance principle states that the applicant is entitled for compensation by the government in
case there arises a material error in the registration of the title. +uch compensation shall be taken from the
"ssurance Gund.
)d.- #omposicion con el estado is a method of ac5uisition of title to land during the +panish period
premised upon the assumption that all lands are property of the +panish (rown, and whoever e2ceeds the
limits provided for in their original grant may ac5uire additional lands subject to certain adjustment by the
(rown.
)e.- #oncession especial is another method of ac5uiring title to lands under the +panish period but such
authority is e2clusively vested under the authority granted to the 7overnorHgeneral, acting on behalf of the
Bing.
Q: /ho is a #urchaser in good faith and for value?
A: " purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another, without notice that some
other person has a right to, or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of
such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. (1an o2ue
ealty and "evelopment #orp. v. epublic, $.. %o. 1'*1*(, 1ept. 3, 2((3)
.ote: "n innocent purchaser for value includes a lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrances for value.
3urchaser in good faith and for value is the same as an innocent purchaser for value. 7ood faith
consists in an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscious advantage of another.
Q: In 898:, ;ov. ;en. <orbes reserved a #arcel of land for #rovincial #ar( #ur#oses. 0ometime
thereafter, the court ordered said land to be registered in Ignacio =alomo%s name. /hat is the effect of
the act of ;ov. ;en <orbes in reserving the land for #rovincial #ar( #ur#oses?
A: "s part of the reservation for provincial park purposes, they form part of the forest 4one. #t is
elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest land cannot be o-ned by private persons. 5t is not
re,istrable and possession thereof, no matter ho- len,thy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such
lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. (1ps. Palomo, et. al. v. #A, et. al., $.. %o.
9/'(+, )an. 21, 1993)
Q: Is adverse possession similar with the possession re1uired in ac1uisitive prescription?
A: !es. 3ossession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be possession under a
claim of title or it must be adverse. (#uaycon, v. 6enedicto, $.. %o. 99+9, 7ar. 1*, 191+)
Q: /hat are the re1uisites in order to ac1uire land title thru adverse #ossession?
A:
8. 3ossession must be> 2!>.!?
a. 2pen;
b. !ontinuous;
c. >2clusive;
d. .otorious;
e. #n the !oncept of an owner; and
f. ?ninterrupted possession for>
1( 8ears #f possession is in good faith and with just title
*( 8ears #f possession is in bad faith and without just title
2. <and possessed must be an alienable or disposable public land
Q: R= o##osed the a##lication for registration filed b 7anna =ro#erties under 0ec. @+)b-, !A .o. 8@8
arguing that, as a #rivate cor#oration, it is dis1ualified from holding alienable lands of the #ublic
domain, e&ce#t b lease, citing 0ec. :, Art. 5II, 89+A !onstitution. 2n the other hand, 7anna =ro#erties
claims that the land in 1uestion has been in the o#en and e&clusive #ossession of its #redecessors
in interest since the 89@*s, thus, the land was alread #rivate land when 7anna =ro#erties ac1uired it
from its #redecessors in interest. Decide.
A: <ands that fall under +ec. %/, (" No. 1%1 are effectively segregated from the public domain by virtue
of ac2uisitive prescription. 6pen, e2clusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period
prescribed by (" No. 1%1 ipso 9ure converts such land into private land. $udicial confirmation in such cases is
only a formality that merely confirms the earlier conversion of the land into private land, the conversion having
occurred in law from the moment the re5uired period of possession became complete.
8nder (" No. 1%1, the reckoning point is $une 12, 1.%&. #f the predecessors in interest of Ianna
3roperties have been in possession of the land in 5uestion since this date, or earlier, Ianna 3roperties may
rightfully apply for confirmation of title to the land. Ianna 3roperties, a private corporation, may apply for judicial
confirmation of the land without need of a separate confirmation proceeding for its predecessors in interest
first. (epublic v. 7anna Properties 5nc., $.. %o. 14'/23, )an. *1, 2((/)
Q: /hat if a certificate of title was issued covering non registrable lands without the government
o##osing such, is the government esto##ed from 1uestioning the same?
A: The government cannot be esto##ed from 1uestioning the validit of the certificates of title,
which were granted without o##osition from the government. The #rinci#le of esto##el does not o#erate
against the government for the acts of its agents.
Q: /hat are the ste#s or re1uisites in ordinar registration #roceedings and 'udicial confirmation of
im#erfect title?
A: 0A 0T =0A B=I>0T
8. 0urvey of land by :ureau of <ands or any duly licensed private surveyor
$. Giling of Application for registration by applicant
:. 0etting of date for initial hearing by the court
@. Transmittal of application and date of initial hearing together w@ all documents or other pieces of evidence
attached thereto by clerk of court to National <and )itles and 4eeds ,egistration "dministration (N"<)4,"
C. =ublication of notice of filing of application and date and place of hearing
D. 0ervice of notice by sheriff upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have interest in the
property
A. Giling of Answer or opposition to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not;
+. Bearing of case by court
9. =romulgation of judgment by court
8*. Issuance of a decree by court declaring the decision final, and instructing the N"<4)," to issue a
decree of confirmation and registration
88. >ntry of decree of registration in N"<4),"
8$. 0ending of copy of the decree of registration to corresponding ,4
8:. Transcription of decree of registration in the registration book and issuance of owner1s duplicate original
certificate of title (6() of applicant by ,4, upon payment of prescribed fees
.ote> "fter judgment has become final and e2ecutory, the issuance of decree and 6() is ministerial on the part
of <," and ,4. (A2uino, p. 14 1/: "gcaoili, e,istration "ecree and elated &a-s, p. 1+2 1+*)
Q: /here shall the a##lication be filed?
A: #f the application covers a single parcel of land situated within>
1. ;nly one city or province< ,)( or I)(, as the case may be, of the province or city where the land is
situated.
2. .-o or more provinces or cities<
a. =hen boundaries are not defined in the ,)( or I)( of the place where it is declared for ta2ation
purposes.
b. =hen boundaries are defined separate plan for each portion must be made by a surveyor and a
separate application for each lot must be filed with the appropriate ,)( or I)(.
.ote: Ie)(, I()(, and I)( has jurisdiction to decide cadastral and land registration cases, provided<
1. )here is no controversy or opposition (uncontested lots; or
2. Jalue of contested lots does not e2ceed 31KK,KKK (+ec. %, ,.". 'A.1
#n other cases, the ,)( has jurisdiction. $urisdiction of the I)(s was delegated through the )udiciary
eor,ani4ation Act of 19+( (,.". 'A.1.
Q: /hat is original registration?
A: It is a #roceeding brought before the 7T! where there is no controvers or o##osition, or
contested lots where the value of which does not e&ceed =8**,***.** 2)ec" 3, !"#" 456.7 or in the RT!
)as a land registration court- when the value e&ceeds =8**,*** to determine title or ownershi# of land on
the basis of an a##lication for registration or answerEo##osition b a claimant in a cadastral registration.
=R2!>>DI.; I. A!T .2. @9D )=.D. 8C$9- F0. !ADA0TRAL =R2!>>DI.;0 ?.D>R A!T .2. $$C9
1. #n the former, ,egistration is voluntary. 6wner of the land and his representative is the applicant. #n the
<atter, ,egistration is compulsory. 4irector of <ands (on gov1t.1s behalf and represented by the +ol. 7en. is the
3etitioner.
2. #n the former, "pplication usually refers to private land. #t can be public alienable land (3"< if the
applicant asks for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title (" 1%1. "ll classified lands are included in the
proceedings, private lands, 3"<, lands of public ownership. 3ublic lands to be declared as such in the hearing.
3"< maybe adjudicated under +ec. %/ of (.". 1%1.
*. #n the former, 3erson who files his application for registration is called and the applicant and the person
who objects to the registration. 6wners of land.
%. #n the former, 3etitioner asks the court to confirm his title and order the registration of the land in his
name. 7ov1t. asks court to settle and adjudicate the title to the land described in the petition.
&. #n the former, <and is surveyed at the re5uest of the owner. <ands surveyed by the gov1t. which initiates
the registration of lands in municipality for public interest.
A!T .2. @9D )=D 8C$9-
#G there is no adverse claim here, and the applicant fails to prove his title to the land, the application may
be dismissed without prejudice. )he dismissal is not res judicata. )he applicant can refile his application
when he believes that he ahs sufficient evidence to support his claim.
)A!T $$C9-
#G none of the claimants can prove his entitlement to the land, the land is declared public and this
judgment becomes res judicata. D6?LJL,, applicant may still apply for individual confirmation of
imperfect title provided he complies with the provisions of +ec. %/ of (" 1%1. 3ublic remains alienable and
disposable.
0Q: Iay the land ,egistration (ourt resolve issues other than those pertaining to land registrationM
#nswer: ,)(+ now have e2clusive jurisdiction not only over applications for original registration of title to
lands, including improvements and interests therein but also over petitions filed after original
registration of title with power to hear and determine all 5uestions arising upon such application or
petition
0Q: #n a verified petition filed before the (G# sitting as a land registration court and under the summary
proceeding for amendment or alteration outlined in section 112 of the <and ,egistration "ct, husband
NDO being the registered owner of three parcels of land sought to strike out the words Nmarried to ?O
appearing in the said titles and to place in lieu thereof the word NsingleO on the ground that the phrase
Nmarried to ?O was entered by reason of clerical error or oversight. 6pposition was filed by N?O who
alleged that she is the legal wife of NDO and that the insertion was not a result of clerical error but a
voluntary act of NDO. Iay the (G# continue to take cogni9ance of the case and resolve the issue
posedM L2plain
#nswer: 8nder +ection 2 of 34 1&2., the jurisdiction of the ,)( acting as land registration court has been
broadened.
Q: 7a #rivate cor#orations hold alienable lands of #ublic domain?
A: No. )he word NpersonsO refers to natural persons who are citi9ens of the 3hilippines. $uridical or
artificial persons are e2cluded. +ec. *, "rt. C## of the 1./' (onstitution prohibits private corporations or
associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain e2cept by lease.
Q: 7a a cor#oration own lands?
A> #t depends.
!or#oration sole can ac5uire by purchase a parcel of private agricultural land without violating the
constitutional prohibition since it has no nationality.
!or#oration:
3rivate <ands
1. "t least AKP Gilipino (1ec. 3, Art. >55, 19+3 #onstitution)
2. ,estricted as to e2tent reasonably necessary to enable it to carry out purpose for which it was created
*. #f engaged in agriculture, it is restricted to 1,K2% hectares.
3atrimonial property of the +tate (1ec. *, Art. >55, 19+3 #onstitution)
1. <ease (cannot own land of the public domain for 2& years renewable for another 2& years
2. <imited to 1,KKK hectares
*. "pplies to both Gilipinos and foreign corporations.
Q: !an an alien ac1uire a #rivate land in the =hili##ines?
A:
7,> "n alien cannot ac5uire private lands.
C3N> "c5uisition by aliens is allowed when>
8. It is thru hereditar successionG
.ote: +uccession is limited only to intestate succession
$. The alien is a former natural born citiHen of the =hili##ines , provided he only ac5uires>
&,KKK s5uare meters urban land; or
* hectare rural land
.ote: +aid land should be for his residence.
:. <oreign 0overeign 0tatesG and
@. Ac1uisition of !ondominium ?nitsG
Q: 0#ouses =ino and =ina, both natural born <ili#ino citiHens, #urchased #ro#ert in the =hili##ines.
Bowever, the sought its registration when the were alread naturaliHed as !anadian citiHens. 0hould
the registration be denied on the ground that the cannot do so, the being foreign nationals?
A: No. Goreign nationals can apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which they ac5uired by
purchase while still citi9ens of the 3hilippines, from a vendor who has complied with the re5uirements for
registration under the 3ublic <and "ct. (epublic v. #A and &apina, $.. %o. 1(+99+, Au,. 24, 1994)
Q: "oe, an alien, invalidl ac1uired a #arcel of land in the =hili##ines. Be subse1uentl transferred it to
"ose, a <ili#ino citiHen. /hat is the status of the transfer?
A: #f a land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subse5uently becomes a Gilipino citi9en or transfers it
to a Gilipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered
valid. +ince the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation1s land for future generations of Gilipinos, that
aim is achieved by making lawful the ac5uisition of real estate by aliens who became Gilipino citi9ens by
naturali9ation or those transfers made by aliens to Gilipino citi9ens. "s the property in dispute is already in the
hands of a 5ualified person, a Gilipino citi9en, there would be no more public policy to be protected. )he
objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Gilipino hands has been achieved. (6orromeo v.
"escallar, $.. %o. 1/9*1(, ?eb. 24, 2((9)
Q: If "oe had not transferred it to "ose but he, himself, was later naturaliHed as a <ili#ino citiHen, will his
ac1uisition thereof remain invalid?
A: No. #f a land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subse5uently becomes a Gilipino citi9en or
transfers it to a Gilipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is
rendered valid. (6orromeo v. "escallar, $.. %o. 1/9*1(, ?eb. 24, 2((9).
,Q: Iay an alien ac5uire private land in the 3hilsM ?hy is the rule absoluteM
A.0: "s a general rule, an alien may not ac5uire private lands in the 3hilippines. 3ublic policy demands that
lands in the 3hilippines should be e2clusively owned by Gilipinos.
>&ce#tions:
1. "c5uisition through hereditary succession;
2. Gormer Gilipino citi9en who wishes to come and reside in the 3hils. 8rban land> &KKK s5m ,ural> *
hectares;
*. Goreign +overeign +tates;
%. "c5uisition of (ondominium 8nits;
Q: ay publication of the notice of filing of application and date and place of hearing be dispensed
with?
A: No. 3ublication of the notice of filing of application and date and place of hearing is mandatory.
=ublication of the notice of filing of the a##lication and date and #lace of hearing is a $urisdictional
re5uirement.
38,36+L of 3ublication is to confer jurisdiction upon the court to hear case and invite all persons who
have interests to come to court to show why application should not be granted.
Q: /here must the said notice be #ublished?
A:
1. 6nce in the 6fficial 7a9ette (67 this confers jurisdiction upon the court; and
2. 6nce in a newspaper of general circulation.
.ote> 3ublication in the 6fficial 7a9ette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. (+ec. 2*, 3.4. 1&2.
,Q: #s newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case mandatory or
directoryM ?hyM
A.0/>R: #t is mandatory as shown by the use of the word NshallO ( +ec 2*, 34 1&2.. #n ,epublic vs Iarasigan
(1./ +(," 21., it was held that the law re5uires notice of the initial hearing by means of 1 publication 2
mailing and * posting, all of which must be complied with. #f the intention of the law were otherwise, said
section would not have stressed in detail the re5uirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in
the petition who include owners of adjoining properties and occupants of the land. indeed, if mailing of
notice is essential, then by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general publication is
likewise imperative since the law included such re5uirement in its detailed provision. (4ir of lands vs ("
$ul 2/ 1..'
,Q: "n application for land registration was filed by " covering &K hectares. "fter the publication of the notice of
hearing, " amended the application to include another 2K hectares of land. #s there a need for
republicationM ?hyM +uppose the amendment included only 2KK s5uare meters, is there a need for
republicationM ?hyM
Answer: #f the amendment included 2K hectares, there is a need for republication of the notice of hearing
because the additional land is substantial. Dowever, if it is only 2KK s5uare meters, the amendment is not
substantial; hence, there is no need for republication. )he area can be considered as encompassed in the
phrase Nmore or less.O
Q: (hen may a person be declared in default in land registration proceedings?
A: " person may be declared in default if he fails to file an opposition.
" general default happens when upon the issuance of the court of notice of hearing addressed to all
persons, no one appeared and filed oppositions to the application of registration. 6n the other hand, a special
default takes place when upon notice of the court to some persons of the application for registration, these
particular set of persons did not appear during the hearing nor filed any opposition thereto.
A general default a##lies to all #ersons while a s#ecial default onl o#erates u#on a #articular
set of #ersons who ma be affected b the a##lication for registration.
Q: /hat is the effect of failure to o##ose?
A: ;rder of default )he court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing,
order a default to be recorded and re5uire applicant to present evidence.
Q: # judge declared in default an oppositor who had already filed with the court an opposition based on
substantial grounds for his failure to appear at the initial hearing of the application for registration" Is
the default order proper? If not, what is his remedy?
A: No, it is not. Gailure of the oppositor to appear at the initial hearing is not a ground for default. #n
which case, his proper remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to contest the illegal declaration or order of
default, not an appeal. (A,caoili, p. 13/, 2((')
Q: (hat is the effect of the absence of an opposition as regards allegations in the application?
#: =hen there is no opposition, all alle,ations in the application are deemed confessed on the part of
the opponent.
Q: If an order of general default is issued, ma the court automaticall grant the a##lication?
A: No. Lven in the absence of an adverse claim, the applicant still has to prove that he possesses all the
5ualifications and none of the dis5ualifications to obtain the title. #f he fails to do so, his application will not be
granted. (A,caoili evie-er, p. 134, 2((+)
)he parties affected by the default order are barred from later on contesting the application or any
decree entered therein. #t bars any claim which has not been presented within the time prescribed for the filing of
the application unless the order of default is first set aside.
"irector of &ands vs. 1antia,o 1'( 1#A 1+'< 4efault order is improper when an oppositor has filed an
opposition but fails to appear at the initial hearing.
0#! Q89)TI,:: 6n $une *K, 1./A, " filed in the ,)( of "bra an application for registration of title to a parcel
of land under 3N 1&2., claiming that since $une 12, 1.%&, he has been in 6(LN possession and occupation of
said parcel of land of the public domain which was alienable and disposable, under a boa fide claim of
ownership. "fter issuance of the notice of initial hearing and publication, as re5uired by law, the petition was
heard on $uly 2., 1./'. 6n the day of the hearing nobody but the applicant appeared. Neither was there anyone
who opposed the application. )hereupon, on motion of the applicant, the ,)( issued an order of general default
and allowed the applicant to present his evidence. )hat he did. 6n +ept. *K, 1./., the ,)( dismissed "1s
application for lack of sufficient evidence. " appealed to the (". the appellant urged that the ,)( erred in
dismissing his application for registration and in not ordering registration of his title to the parcel of land in
5uestion despite the fact that there was no opposition filed by anybody to his application. 4id the ,)( errM
Answer: .o. #n an application for judicial confirmation. of imperfect title to public agricultural lands under
+ec. %/ of the 3ublic <and "ct, the lack of opposition and the conse5uent order of default against those who did
not answer or show up on the date of the initial hearing, does not guarantee the success of the a##lication. It
is still incumbent u#on the a##licant to #rove with well nigh incontrovertible evidence that he has
ac1uired a title to the land that is fit for registration. "bsent such registrable title, it is the clear duty of the
<and ,egistration (ourt to dismiss the application and declare the land as public land.
Q: #re the !ules of -ourt applicable in land registration proceedings?
A: )he ,ules of (ourt could be applied in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character or
whenever practicable or convenient.
.ote: Iotion to intervene in a land registration case is not allowed.
Q: /hat are the re1uisites for a valid o##osition?
A:
1. +et forth objections to the application;
2. +tate interest claimed by oppositor;
*. "pply for the remedy desired; and
%. +igned and sworn to by him or by some other duly authori9ed person.
Q: /ho ma be an o##ositor to the a##lication for registration or 'udicial confirmation?
A: "ny person whether named in the notice or not, provided, his claim of interest in the property applied
for is based on a right of dominion or some other real right independent of, and not subordinate to, the rights of
the government.
Q: ?hat if the 6ppositor filed an anwer but did not appearM +hould he be declared in defaultM
"> No. 4efault is not proer. (Iartine9 vs ,ep 6ct *K, 2KKA
Q: !an an o##ositor be granted title?
"> !es, because as an oppositor, he can pray that he be declared the owner of the land even if he is not
the applicant. De must however adduce evidence to prove his interest. ((ity of Ianila vs #"( reiterated in (ity of
4avao vs $uliana Ionteverde Iay 21, 2KK1
Q: !an a defaulted defendant file a notice of a##eal?
"> !es. (<ina vs (" reiterated in Iartine9 vs ,epublic 6ct *K, 2KKA
Remedies:
a 4efendant in 4efault may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion,
under oath ("ffidavit of Ierit, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer
was due to G"IL and that he has meritorious defenses (+ec * ,ule 1/;
b #f the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before the
same has become final and e2ecutory, he may file a motion for new trial under +ection 1(a of ,ule *';
c #f the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and e2ecutory, he may file
a petition for relief under +ection 2 of ,ule */; and
d De may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to evidence or to the
law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him. (+ection 2, ,ule %1.
Q: /hat is the doctrine of non collateral attac( of a decree or title?
A: " decree of registration and registered title cannot be impugned, enlarged, altered, modified, or
diminished either in collateral or direct proceeding, after the lapse of one year from the date of its entry.
Q: Is a counterclaim in the answer considered a collateral attac( against a title?
Traditional Rule: +imafranca vs #"( (1%' +(," A11 #t is a collateral attack.
.ew Rule: ;roline )ports -enter vs -# 2&<. )-!# .5&7: (ounterclaim is a direct attac( on the certificate
of title since all the essential facts of the case for the determination of the title1s validity are now before the court,
to re5uire the other party to institute cancellation proceedings would be pointlessly circuitous and against the
best interest of justice. )Direct Attac( if the certificate of title is the sub'ect of the counterclaim-.
Leson vs ,ontuan (Geb 1/, 2KK&> "n action to attack a certificate of title may be an original action or a
counterclaim in which a certificate of title is assailed as void. " counterclaim is considered a new suit in
which the defendant is the plaintiff and the plaintiff in the complaint becomes the defendant.
Q: !an a com#laint for recover of #ossession be considered as a direct attac(?
A: .o, In D,= vs !A cited in Luna vs !abales )Dec 8@, $**9- the original complaint is for recovery of
possession filed by petitioner against private respondent, not an original action filed by the latter to 5uestion the
validity of )() No. 1K1K1 on which petitioner bases its right. )o rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery
of possession is tantamount to a collateral attack.
"bobon vs. "bobon (2K12 case, a counterclaim is a collateral attack.
Q: During the hearing of the case, what must the a##licant for land registration #rove?
A:
8. "urisdictional Re1uirements I =rove that the notice of the initial hearing of the a##lication had
been #ublished, mailed, and #osted as re1uired b lawG
)he official ga9ette (containing the notice of initial hearing of the application for land registration and the
corresponding "ffidavit of 3ublication e2ecuted by the editor certifying to the fact of such publication (34 1&2.,
+ec 2*(1;
" newspaper of general circulation (containing the notice of initial hearing and the corresponding
"ffidavit of publication by the editor, certifying the fact of such publication (34 1&2., +ec 2*(1;
)he certificate of the Administrator of the LRA certifying that the notice of initial hearing of the
application has been published and mailed to the persons concerned as re5uired by law (34 1&2. +ec 2%;
!ertificate of the sheriff that the notice of initial hearing was posted.
$. A##licant must #rove ownershi#G
)he applicant must show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for
registration ()ur5uesa vs Jalera *22 +(," &'*.
)a2 declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or right of possession over a
piece of land (GL,,L, vs (" 1&K +(," *K*, but )a2 declaration becomes strong evidence of ownership of
land ac5uired by prescription when accompanied by a proof of actual possession (:autista vs (" 1*1 +(," &2.
?hile it is true that together with a person1s actual and adverse possession of land, ta2 declarations constitute
strong evidence of ownership of the land occupied by him, this legal precept does not apply in cases where
property is declared to be a mere easement of right of way ( :ogo Iedellin (6 vs (" %K' +cra &1/.
.ote: 2!>A. has to be #roven b clear and convincing evidence and must be conclusivel established
)07! v. !A, 7un. of 0antiago, Isabela v. !A, <eb. $8, 89+:-
Q: !an a foreign national a##l for registration of title over a #arcel of land which he ac1uired b
#urchase while still a citiHen of the =hils from a vendor who has com#lied with the re1uirements for
registration under the =ublic Land Act?
A.0: @PA6&5# !1 #A A%" 1P1 &AP5BA A%" ?&; "@ !@$A (2*/ 1#A /'3), #t is undisputed
that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were naturalHborn citi9ens of the 3hilippines. Gor the
purpose of transfer and@or ac5uisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private
respondents are no longer Gilipino citi9ens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in
5uestion. ?hat is important is that private respondents were formerly naturalHborn citi9ens of the 3hilippines,
and as transferees of a private land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of +ection
/, "rticle C## of the (onstitution. (onsidering that private respondents were able to prove the re5uisite period and
character of possession of their predecessorsHinHinterest over the subject lots, their application for registration of
title must perforce be approved.
Q: Tio( !hua, a chinese national and #ermanent resident of the =hils., #urchased a #arcel of land from
,ernardo !ruH. Two ears after the sale, he became a <ili#ino. !an the #arcel of land be recovered b
,ernardo !ruH on the ground that at the time of the sale, !hua was an alien? /h?
A: No more. ?hile it is true that by reason of public policy, aliens cannot ac5uire land in the 3hilippines as the
law reserves ownership of lands to Gilipinos only, the subse5uent naturali9ation of )iok (hua erased the
public policy sought to be enforced. (!ap vs 7rageda Iar 2/, 1./* )he rule is so because the land is
now in the hands of a 5ualified person (7odine9 vs Gong 3ak <uen $an 2', 1./*; Jas5ue9 vs +i 7uao .A
3hil %%'; +arsosa vda de :arsobia vs (uenca 11* +(," &%'; ,ep vs (" "ug 2%, 1..% where it was held
that a Gilipino (iti9en who became a naturali9ed (anadian can register a parcel of land bought by him
while he was still a Gilipino
,Q: ", a Gilipina, is married to :, an "merican. 4uring their marriage, " purchased with conjugal funds a piece of
real property and placed in under the name N" married to :.O ?ithout :1s consent, " sold the land, hence :
now wants to annul the sale because it was done without his consent, contending that he is also an owner.
?ill the action prosperM ?hyM
Ans: No because : never ac5uired ownership over the land even if conjugal funds were used in ac5uiring the
same. )his is so because as an alien, he is dis5ualified from ac5uiring residential land in the 3hilippines.
(+ec ' "rt C## 1./' (onstituion, (heesman vs #"(, $an 21, 1..1
:. A##licant must #rove identit of the land )actual 0urve or original tracing cloth-G and
#n !epublic vs T"#":" ;roperties, June &5, &==<, under ," .1'A, the application for judicial
confirmation is limited only to 12 hectares consistent with +ection *, "rt C## of the 1./' (onstitution. Dence,
respondent as successorHinHinterest of an individual owner of the land, cannot apply for registration of land in
e2cess of 12 hectares. +ince respondent applied for &A, %KK hectares, the application for the e2cess area of
%%,%KK' hectares is contrary to law, and thus void ab initio. #n applying for land registration, a private corporation
cannot have any right higher than its predecessorHinHinterest from whom it derived its right. ,espondent failed to
prove that any portion of the land was already private land when respondent ac5uired it from 3orting in 1..'.
Q: /hat if there is a conflict in the identit of the land between the boundaries described therein as
against the area?
A: :oundary prevails over area. #n Dutchison vs :uscas (%&. +cra 21%, what defines a piece of land is not the
si9e mentioned in the instrument but the boundaries thereof which enclose the land and indicates its e2act
limits.
@0ception< ?hen there is overlapping of boundaries or when the boundaries are not sufficiently certain (Deirs of
6clarit vs (" 2** +(," 2*.. "lthough it is true that what defines a piece of land is not the area
mentioned in its description but the boundaries therein laid down, in controversial cases, where there
appears to be overlapping boundaries, the actual si9e of the property gains importance.
@. =R2F> TBAT TB> LA.D I0 ALI>.A,L> A.D DI0=20A,L>.
#f the land subject of the registration proceeding is public land, the applicant must prove that the land is
alienable public land (3agkatipunan vs (", *'. +(," A21.
In #roving that the land is alienable #ublic land, it must establish that the classification of land as
alienable and disposable by (,epublic vs. 7loria $aralve, 2K12>
1. )he (ertification of the (lassification as alienable and disposable land approved by the 4LN,
+ecretary; and
2. (LN,6 or 3LN,6 (ertification that the land has been released as alienable and disposable land.
Q: /hat must a 'udgment in land registration #roceedings contain?
A> ?hen judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the court shall order the entry of a new certificate
of title and the cancellation of the original certificate and owner1s duplicate of the former registered owner.
Q: /hat is decree of registration?
A> #t is a document prepared in the prescribed form by the <," "dministrator, signed by him in the name
of the court, embodying the final disposition of the land by the court and such other data found in the record,
including the name and other personal circumstances of the adjudicate, the technical description of the property,
liens and encumbrances affecting it, and such other matters as determined by the court in its judgment (A,caoili
evie-er, p. 1'9. 2((+: "gcaoili, e,istration "ecree and elated &a-s, p. &K/
Q: /hat does a decree of registration cover?
A: 6nly claimed property or a portion thereof can be adjudicated. " land registration court has no
jurisdiction to adjudge a land to a person who has never asserted any right of ownership thereof.
Q: 7a the court render a #artial 'udgment in land registration #roceedings?
A: 3artial judgment is allowed in a land registration proceeding, where only a portion of the land, subject
of registration is contested, the court may render partial judgment provided that a subdivision plan showing the
contested land and uncontested portions approved by the 4irector of <ands is previously submitted to said court.
Q: In a registration case, the court rendered a decision granting Rees% a##lication, hence the Director of
Lands a##ealed. Rees moved for the issuance of a decree of registration #ending a##eal. 7a his
motion be granted?
A: No. #nnocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment
which may be reversed on appeal. A .orrens title issued on the basis of a 9ud,ment that is not final is a nullity as
it violates the e2plicit provisions of the <,", which re5uires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision
adjudicating the title becomes final and e2ecutory. ("ir. of &ands v. eyes, $.. %o. & 23/94, %ov. 2+, 193/)
" )orrens title which is issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity. L2ecution pending
appeal is not applicable in land registration proceedings.
,Q: 0u##ose A a##lied for the registration of a #arcel of land which was granted and after the decree of
registration was issue, , and ! entered into the #remises. !an the court issue a /rit of =ossession
against , and !? /h? If .ot, what is A%s remed? /h?
A: " writ of possession cannot be issued against persons who occupied the land "G)L, the issuance of the
decree of registration. )his is because they were not parties to the case. 3ersons who are not parties to
registration proceedings who took possession of the land after final adjudication of the same cannot be
summarily ousted by a mere motion. )he remedy is to resort to the courts of justice and institute a
separate action for ejectment for unlawful entry or detainer or for reinvidicatory action, as the case may be.
6nly after the judgment can the prevailing party secure a writ of possession. ( :emos vs Don. Nuevo $une
*1, 1./%
,Q: #f an application for land registration is denied, can the applicant refile itM ?hyM
A.0: !es, because the dismissal is not res judicata e2cept if the dismissal is with prejudice. )he denial of the
application for registration mean that he has not furnished that kind of proof showing an absolute title in
fee simple which is re5uired under the law. (Dermanos vs (", +ep 2/, 1./.. #f his evidence can now
show absolute ownership, he can refile the application.
72TI2. <2R >5>!?TI2., .2T R>Q?IR>D. 8pon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the winning
party does not file a motion for e2ecution as in ordinary civil actions. #nstead, he files a 3etition with the <,(ourt
for the issuance of an order directing the <," to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to
the ,egister of 4eeds for transcription in the registration book, and the issuance of the original certificate of title.
Q: Is the issuance of a decree ministerial?
A: As a general rule, !es. (acho vs (" (2A. +(," 1&., significantl, the issuance of sub'ect
decrees #resu##oses a #rior final 'udgment because the issuance of such decrees is a mere ministerial
act on the #art of the LRA u#on #resentation of final 'udgment.
>&ce#tion:
,Q: /hat is the nature of the issuance of a decree of registration? >&#lain.
A: the issuance of a decree of registration forms part of the judiciary function of the courts and is not a
ministerial act which maybe compelled by mandamus. #n >almonte vs :able <? ;hil &?5, it was said that
after the rendition of a decision by a land registration court, there remains many things to be done before
the final decree can be issued. "lthough the final decree is actually prepared by the (hief of the <, 6ffice,
an administrative officer, the issuance of the final decree can hardly be considered a ministerial act for the
reason that he is an officer of the court and so the issuance of the final decree is a judicial function and not
an administrative one. ( "e los eyes vs "e !illa 4+ Phil 223)
!epublic vs @ourdes :illas 2Jan &A, &==47
Q: BThe central 1uestion raised in this case is whether #rescri#tion or laches ma bar a #etition to revive
a 'udgment in a land registration case?J
A: ,ule *., applies only to ordinary civil actions, not to other or e2traordinary proceedings not e2pressly
governed by the ,ules of (ivil 3rocedure but by some other specific law or legal modality such as land
registration cases. 8nlike in ordinary civil actions governed by the ,ules of (ivil 3rocedure, the intent of
land registration proceedings is to establish ownership by a person of a parcel of land, consistent with the
purpose of such e2traordinary proceedings to declare by judicial fiat a status, condition or fact. Dence,
upon the finality of a decision adjudicating such ownership, no further step is re5uired to effectuate the
decision and a ministerial duty e2ists alike on the part of the land registration court to order the issuance
of, and the <," to issue, the decree of registration.
Q: /hat are the effects of the entr of the decree of registration in the .ational Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Authorit ).ALDTRA-?
A:
1. )his serves as the reckoning date to determine the 1 year period from which one can impugn the
validity of the registration.
2. 1 year after the date of entry, it becomes incontrovertible, and amendments will not be allowed e2cept
clerical errors. #t is deemed conclusive as to the whole world.
*. 3uts an end to litigation.
R>7>DI>0 I. LA.D R>;I0TRATI2. =R2!>>DI.;0
09C,!9 D9-I)I,: is rendered:
#f a person wants to participate, file a otion to @ift ,rder of Eeneral Default and if lifted, file an
2##osition, e2cept> (Pael vs #A *31 1#A /+3).
#CT9! D9-I)I,::
1. Gile a 72TI2. <2R R>!2.0ID>RATI2. ?ithin 1& days from the final judgment. )he 1& days re5uired for a
decree to attain finality is counted from the date of receipt of the notice of judgment.
;rounds: Lvidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order.
)he findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by evidence or
are contrary to law must be specified, making e2press reference to the testimonial or documentary
evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to said findings or conclusion.
" second motion for reconsideration is not allowed.
2. Gile a 72TI2. <2R .>/ TRIAL ?ithin 1& days from the final judgment (accompanied with "ffidavit of
Ierits.
;R2?.D0:
8. <A7>
Graud> 3ossessor deliberately not included in the 3etition
"ccident> failure of counsel to attend because of lack of notice
$. .ewl Discovered >vidence
A. %e- evidence -as discovered after the trial
6. @vidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even -ith the e0ercise of
reasonable dili,ence
#. @vidence is material and not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeachin,: and is of such
-ei,ht that if admitted, -ill probably alter 9ud,ment.
:. Insufficienc of >vidence
.2T>: " second motion for new trial may be filed if it is based on a ground N6) e2isting nor available at
the tile when the last motion was made.
:. Gile an A##eal within 1& days from receipt of the judgment or final order appealed from. 8nder 34
1&2., judgments and orders in land registration cases are appealable to the (" or to the +( in the same
manner as ordinary actions.
/hen cannot be filed?
?hen the party did not> (hallenge the application for registration, 3articipate in the 3roceedings,
Gile an "dverse (laim, or ?hen the property involved belongs to the public domain.
:eypes vs -# 2)ep .3, &==?7: )o standardi9e the appeal periods provided in the ,ules and to afford
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 1&
days within which to file the notice of appeal in the ,)( counted from the receipt of the order dismissing
a motion for new trial or reconsideration.
@. Gile a 3etition for R>LI>< <R27 "?D;7>.T ?ithin AK 4"!+ from knowledge of judgment but not
more than 1/K days or A months after entry of judgment or decree on the grounds of <A7>. )he petition
must be accompanied with "ffidavit of Ierits showing the <A7> relied upon and the facts constituting
3etitioner1s good and substantial cause of action or defense as the case maybe. (Giled with the I)( to
I)( or ,)( to ,)(
.ote: .o Relief from 'udgment of decisions of the !ourt of A##eals.
/hen !annot be filed?
1. ?hen the judgment has not become final and e2ecutory
Q#f petition for relief is denied RS subject to appeal and in the course thereof, a party may also
assail the judgment on the merits upon the ground that it is not supported by evidence or is contrary to
law.
2. #f filed beyond the A month period after entry of judgment;
*. #f the decree of registration has been issued;
%. ?hen the party had already filed a timely motion for new trial which has been denied (the 2
remedies are e2clusive of each other.
C. <ile a =etition for Review of "udgment "fter the e2piration of A months from the entry of judgment and
:LG6,L the decree of registration has been issued on the grounds of A!T?AL <RA?D. (?ith )he
<and ,egistration (ourt which rendered the decision
/hen cannot be filed?
#f the property has been transferred to an #nnocent 3urchaser for Jalue (#3J. )he
,emedy of the #3J will be an action for 4amages or Lstafa.
Q: /ho is a buer in good faith and for value?
A: he is one who buys a property of another without notice that some other person has a right to
or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of the purchase of before
he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property (+antos vs (" +ept 1*, 1..K
,Q: A stole the title of , and then forged the latter%s signature. Be was able to transfer the title
under his name. In case , discovers such act, can he file an action for the recover of #ro#ert?
A: !es, for as long as it is still under "1s name because said title is void.
Q: !an A inter#ose the defense that a title has alread been issued in his name?
A: No. " title does not provide a shield for the commission of a fraudulent or illegal act.
Q: 0u##ose A has alread sold the land to !, a buer in good faith and for value, can , still
recover the land?
A: No because of the protection afforded to (, a buyer in good faith and for value. +ince the title
of " appeared to be clean, then ( had to rely on the face of the title. Lven on the assumption that "1s title
is void, it can be the root of a valid title the moment it passes to the hands of a buyer in good faith and for
value. )o re5uire him to look beyond the title is to defeat the objective of the )orrens +ystem .(7+#+ vs ("
1@*K@.&
9'ception: ?hen the buyer has actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances that would
him impel him as a cautious man to make an in5uiry. (Lmbrado vs (" $un 2', 1..%
Q: <erdie donated a #iece of #ro#ert belonging to 7eld. !or, the donee, was able to register
the deed of donation and secure a title. Is the title valid? /h?
A: No. :ecause a donor cannot lawfully convey what does not belong to him. #f at all, (ory
merely holds the property in trust for the true owner. ?hile the land registration proceeding is a proceeding
in rem and binds the whole world, the simple possession of a certificate of title under the )orrens system
does not necessarily make the holder the true owner of the property described therein. ,egistration does
not vest title. #t is a mode of ac5uiring ownership. ( 4e 7u9man vs (" 1&A +(," 'K1
Q: The 0olivels were the registered owners of #arcels of land. "uan, claiming to be their
attorne in fact #assed the title to the real #ro#ert to an innocent #urchaser using a forged deed of
sale. /as the buer an innocent #urchaser for value #rotected b law?
A: No. )he innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of
a deed e2ecuted by the registered owner himself, not on a forged deed. #n order that the holder of a certificate
for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good faith
for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. (1olivel v. ?rancisco, $.. %o. /14/(, ?eb. 1(, 19+9)
Q: 0#ouses 5 and 6 mortgaged a #iece of registered land to A, delivering as well the 2!T to the
latter, but the continued to #ossess and cultivate the land, giving 8E$ of each harvest to A in #artial
#ament of their loan to the latter. A however, without the (nowledge of 5 and 6, forged a deed of sale of
the aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a T!T in his name, and then sold the land to ,.
, bought the land reling on A4s title, and thereafter got a T!T in his name. It was onl then that
the s#ouses 5 and 6 learned that their land had been titled in ,4s name. 7a said s#ouses file an action
for reconveance of the land in 1uestion against ,? Reason.
A: )he action of C and ! against : for reconveyance of the land will not prosper because : has ac5uired
a clean title to the property being an innocent purchaser for value.
" forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. )he fact that the forged deed was registered
and a certificate of title was issued in his name, did not operate to vest upon " ownership over the property of C
and !. )he registration of the forged deed will not cure the infirmity. Dowever, once the title to the land is
registered in the name of the forger and title to the land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value, the latter ac5uires a clean title thereto. " buyer of a registered land is not re5uired to e2plore beyond
what the record in the registry indicates on its face in 5uest for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may
subse5uently defeat his right thereto. )his is the Emirror principleE of the )orrens system which makes it possible
for a forged deed to be the root of a good title.
:esides, it appears that spouses C and ! are guilty of contributory negligence when they delivered the
6() to the mortgagee without annotating the mortgage thereon. :etween them and the innocent purchaser for
value, they should bear the loss. (1... :ar Fuestion
# C,!E9D D99D #+ 09 TF9 !,,T ,C # >#@ID TIT@9
In )pouses @im vs -huatoco 2arch .., &==?7, )he fraudulent registration of the property in ,afael1s
name using a forged deed of sale is not sufficient to vest title to the entire property in him. +ettled is the rule that
a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title; registration does not vest tile. #t is merely evidence of such title
over a property. (ertificates of title merely confirm or record title already e2isting and vested. )hey cannot be
used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud,nor
to permit one to enrich himself at the e2pense of another. )he )orrens system has never been recogni9ed as a
mode of ac5uiring ownership. #t is a familiar doctrine that a forged or fraudulent document may become the root
of a valid title, if the property has already been transferred from the name of the owner to that of the forger. )his
doctrine serves to emphasi9e that a person who deals with registered property in good faith will ac5uire good
title from a forger, and be absolutely protected by a )orrens title.
D. <ile a =etition for R>FI>/ 2< D>!R>> 2< R>;I0TRATI2. ?ithin one (1 year from the actual date
of entry of the decree by the "dministrator of the <and ,egistration "uthority on the grounds of Actual
<raud, <atal infirmit of the decision for lac( of due #rocess or Lac( of 'urisdiction e.g. land is a
forest land. (Giled at the ,)( in the (ity or province where the land lies
=rinci#le of !ontinuing "urisdiction H amos vs odri,ue4 294 1#A 41+, "s long as a final decree
has not been entered by the <," and 1 year has elapsed, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision on
the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
/hen !annot be filed?
3etitioner does not claim the land to be his;
3roperty has been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value;
6ppositor abandoned his opposition; or
6ppositor who had notice of the claim but did not oppose
/hat is the effect of the e&#iration of the =eriod for review? )he decree of registration and
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible.
/hat is the available remed of a #erson whose #ro#ert has been wrongfull registered in
another%s name? "n ordinary action in court for reconveyance provided a period of 1K years has not
prescribed.
A. Gile an A!TI2. <2R R>!2.F>6A.!> ):y the person deprived of his property by fraud, whether
actual or constructive, and who is not at fault )at an RT!- "fter the lapse of one (1 year from the
issuance of decree of registration up to>
@ ears from the discovery of the fraud; or
8* ears when it is based on constructive trust.
2n the ;round of Actual or constructive fraud. )he action cannot be filed if the property has been
transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.
.ote: )he sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another1s name is,
after one year from the date of the decree, but respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to
review, to bring an action in the ordinary course of justice for reconveyance #rovided the #ro#ert has not
#assed into the hands of an innocent #urchaser for value.
?hat is sought here is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully registered in another
person1s name. )he property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose
name it is registered. "lthough the decree is recogni9ed as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the
registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens.
/hat is the legal basis for reconveance?
0ec CC Act @9D as amended by "ct **22 states that N in all cases of registration procured by fraud, the
owner may pursue all his legal and e5uitable remedies against the parties to such fraud, without prejudice,
however, to the rights of any #3J of a certificate of titleO (<ope9 vs Lnri5ue9 $an 21, 2KK&; )abia vs (" Geb
22, 2KK'
/hat is the nature of an action for reconveance?
It is an action in #ersonam. "n action in personam is directed against specific persons and seek
personal judgments, while an action in rem is directed against the thing or property or status of a person
and seek judgments with respect thereto against the whole world.
,Q: Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a #arcel of land in QueHon !it. 2ne ear later,
Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained b Rommel.
0he filed a com#laint against Rommel for reconveance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis
#endens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel invo(es the indefeasibilit of his title
considering that one ear has alread ela#sed from its issuance. Be also see(s the cancellation of the
lis #endens.
/ill Rachelle%s suit #ros#er? 7a the court cancel the notice of lis #endens even before final
'udgment is rendered? >&#lain.
1. !es, ,achelle1s suit will prosper because all elements for an action for reconveyance are present namely>
,achelle is claiming dominical rights over the same land;
,ommel procured his title by fraud;
)he action was brought within% years from discovery of fraud and not later than 1K yeas from the date of
registration of ,ommel1s title; and
)itle to the land has not passed into the hands of an #3J.
,ommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if ,achelle had filed a petition to reopen or review the decree of
registration. :ut ,achelle filed an ordinary action for reconveyance. #n the latter, indefeasibility is not a valid
defense because in filing such action, ,achelle is not seeking to nullify not to impugn the indefeasibility of
,6mmel1s title. +he is only asking the court to compel ,ommel to reconvey the title to her as she is the
legitimate owner.
#lternative #nswer: !es. )he property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the
person in whose name it is registered. )he )orrens system was not designed to shield one who had
committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad faith. (?alstrom vs Iapa, $an 2., 1..K
2. A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled even before final judgment upon proper showing that the notice is
for the purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse party or that the notice of lis pendens is not
necessary to protect the right of the party who caused it to be registered. (+ec '' 34 1&2.
5n this case, it is given that ,achelle is the legitimate owner of the land in 5uestion. #t can be said
therefore that when she filed her notice of lis pendens, her purpose was to protect her interest in the
land and not just to molest ,ommel. #t is necessary to record the lis pendens to protect her interest
because if she did not do it, there is a possiblity that the land will fall into the hands of an #3J and in that
event, the court loses control over the land, making any favorable judgment thereon moot and
academic.
=eriod of <iling of the A!TI2. <2R R>!2.F>6A.!>:
1. #f based on fraud, four years from the discovery of the fraud.
,egistration of an instrument in the office of the ,egister of 4eeds constitutes constructive
notice to the whole world and therefore the discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of
registration. (!illa,on4alo vs 5A# 1'3 scra /*/) or from the issuance of the ori,inal certificate of title (9ndoGo vs
0uck ,ct .6, &==47
2. #f based on implied constructive trust, 1K years
An action for reconveyance is a le,al remedy ,ranted to a lando-ner -hose property has been
-ron,fully re,istered in anotherCs name but the action must be filed -ithin 1( years from the issuance of the title
since such issuance constitutes constructive notice. (4eclaro vs (" 2// scra 2/', ,etuerto vs :ars *'2 scra
'12
*. #mprescriptible (based on a void contract
)he right to file an action for reconveyance on the ground that the certificate of title was obtained by
means of a fictitious deed of sale is, virtually an action for the declaration of its nullity, which action does not
prescribe. Dence, the fact that the alleged deed of sale took place in 1.'1 and the action to have it declared void
or ine2istent was filed in 1./* is of no moment. )o reiterate, an action for reconveyance based on a void contract
is imprescriptible. (<acsamana vs (" 2// scra 2/' in relation with Jillarino vs "vila sep 2A, 2KKA
+. Recover of Damages.
The sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another1s name
after one year from the date of the decree, is not to set aside the decree, but respecting the decree as
incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
damages if the #ro#ert has #assed into the hands of an I=F.
4amages are not recoverable from the "ssurance Gund when they can be recovered from the person
who caused the loss.
Q: /hat must be established before an action against an #erson for damages for the wrongful
de#rivation of land can #ros#er?
)hat the person is in reality wrongfully deprived of his land by the registration in the name of another of
the land by actual or constructive fraud; )hat there was no negligence on his part; )hat he is barred or in
anyway precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of land or interest therein; )hat the action for
compensation has not prescribed.
Q: is the right of an heir or another #erson de#rived of his lawful #artici#ation to file an action to recover
#ro#ert or damages limited to the $ ear #eriod #rescribed in 0ec @ Rule A@ of the Rules of
court?
A: no. such period refers only to the institution of a special proceeding for the administration and
settlement of estates of deceased persons but not to an ordinary action for the recovery of property or
damages which falls under the general law of prescription.
)he said rule does not deprive an heir of his participation in the estate.
S "fter 1 year from the date of decree and if reconveyance us not possible since the property
has passed to #3J, the aggrieved party may bring an ordinary action for damages only against the
applicant or persons responsible for the fraud or were instrumental in depriving him of the property. )his
prescribes in 1K years from the issuance of the )orrens title over the property. (4ino vs (" 1./ scra %*%,
!bane9 vs #"( 1.% scra '%*
9. Action against the Assurance <und.
8*. !ancellation 0uit
Q: !an an action for KAnnulment of "udgment and !ancellation of Decree and TitlesJ be considered as a
!ancellation suit over which the RT! has 'urisdiction?
A: ,)( has jurisdiction. )he body of the pleadings determines the nature of the action and not the title
or the heading. )he case is for cancellation of void titles and not for annulment of judgment. ( >agle Realt vs
R= "ul @, $**+-
7artineH vs !A )"an $+, $**+-
"n action for declaration of nullity of title is different from action of reversion of title to the +tate. 4irector
of <ands need to be impleaded in this case. )he difference between them is the character of ownership of the
realty whose title is sought to be nullified. #n an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint
would admit ownership of the disputed land; hence, the only person entitled to relief would be the 4irector of
<ands. #n an action for the declaration of nullity of the title, the 3laintiff is already the owner of the contested lot
prior to the issuance of the patent, hence, he is the real party in interest to institute the action.
>state of 6u'uico vs Re#ublic ) 2ct $D, $**A-
"n action for reversion for titles issued by the ,)( effective $uly 1, 1..' ( 1..' ,ules of (ivil 3rocedure
which incorporated ,ule 1' in relation with 34 1&2. is lodged with the (ourt of "ppeals. Dence, the filing of the
reversion suit with the 3arana5ue ,)( should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. #t is only actions for
reversion to cancel titles derived from homestead patents or free patents based on transfers and conveyances in
violation of (" 1%1 which is filed by the 6+7 with the ,)(.
88. Action to Quiet Title
Q: /hat is action for 1uieting of title?
A: #t is an action that is brought to remove clouds on the title to real property or any interest
therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or
effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
title.
Q: /ho ma file an action to 1uiet title?
A: ,egistered owner; " person who has an e5uitable right or interest in the property; or )he
+tate.
8$. Annulment of "ugment )<iled with )he <and ,egistration (ourt which rendered the decision
"vailable 6N<! when the ordinary remedies of new trial, 3etition for ,elief, or the appropriate remedies
are no longer available through no fault of the 3etitioner. (<intog vs (" 2.1 +(," *K..
8:. !riminal Action
Q: /hat is the remed in case a #erson lost his certificate of title?
A: #t depends.
1. #f what is lost is the 6() or )() ,econstitution of certificate of title;
2. #f, however, it is the duplicate of the 6() or )() ,eplacement of lost duplicate certificate of title.
Q: /hat are the elements of reconstitution of certificates of title?
A:
1. (ertificate has been lost or destroyed;
2. 3etitioner is the registered owner or has an interest therein; and
*. (ertificate was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.
Q: /hat are the 'urisdictional re1uirements in #etitions for reconstitution of title?
A: Notice thereof shall be>
1. 3ublished twice in successive issues of the 6fficial 7a9ette;
2. 3osted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality
or city, where the land is situated; and
*. +ent by registered mail to every person named in said notice
.ote: The above re1uirements are mandator and 'urisdictional.
In Feirs of :avarro vs (illy Eo 2 June .4, &==<7, 3ublication is a jurisdictional re5uirement and nonH
compliance therewith is fatal to the petition for reconstitution of title. Ioreover, notwithstanding compliance with
the notice of publication, the re5uirement of actual notice to the occupants and the owners of the adjoining
property under +ec 12 and 1* of ," 2A is itself mandatory to vest jurisdiction upon the court in a 3etition for
,econstitution of )itle and essential in order to allow said court to take the case on its merits. )he nonH
observance of the re5uirement invalidates the whole reconstitution proceeding in the trial court.
Q: /hat is meant b reversion?
A: #t is an action instituted by the government, through the +olicitor 7eneral, for cancellation of
certificate of title and the conse5uential reversion of the land covered thereby to the +tate. (A2uino, p. 1/4, 2((3
ed)
.ote: )he difference between reversion suit and action for declaration of nullity of title is that in the former, the
allegations in the complaint would admit +tate ownership of the disputed land. 6n the other hand, action for
declaration of nullity of title re5uires allegation of the plaintiff1s ownership of the contested lot prior to the
issuance of free patent and certificate of title. (A2uino, p. 1//, 2((3 ed)
Q: /hen does reversion a##l?
A: 7enerally, reversion applies in all cases where lands of public domain and the improvements thereon
and all lands are held in violation of the (onstitution. (A,caoili evie-er, p. 221, 1999 ed)
Q: @uis filed a complaint for annulment of title involving a foreshore land which was granted in Clores$
favor, alleging that his application therefor was granted by the government" Is @uis the real party in
interest with authority to file a complaint for annulment of title of foreshore land?
A: No. #n all actions for the reversion to the 7overnment of lands of the public domain or improvements
thereon, the ,epublic of the 3hilippines is the real party in interest. )he action shall be instituted by the +olicitor
7eneral or the officer acting in his stead, in behalf of the ,epublic of the 3hilippines. 3etitioners must first lodge
their complaint with the :ureau of <ands in order that an administrative investigation may be conducted under
+ec. .1, 3ublic <and "ct. (7anese v. 1ps. !elasco, $.. %o. 1'4(24, )an. 29, 2((9)
.ote: #ndefeasibility of title, prescription, laches and estoppel do not bar reversion suits.
Q: 7ust voluntar dealings be registered?
A: No. ,egistration is not a re5uirement for validity of the contract as between the parties. Dowever, the
act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third parties are concerned.
(A,caoili evie-er, p. 23', 1999 ed)
Q: /hat are the re1uirements for registrabilit of deeds and other voluntar acts of conveance?
A: 3#3L
1. 3resentation of owner1s duplicate certificate whenever any duly e2ecuted voluntary instrument is filed for
registration;
2. #nclusion of one e2tra copy of any document of transfer or alienation of real property, to be furnished to
the city or provincial assessor;
*. 3ayment of prescribed registration fees and re5uisite doc stamps; and
%. Lvidence of full payment of real estate ta2 as may be due.
Q: /hat is the effect of registration of such voluntar dealings?
A: It:
1. creates a lien that attaches to the property in favor of the mortgagee; and
2. constitutes constructive notice of his interest in the property to the whole world.
Q: /hat is notice of lis #endens?
A: &is pendens literally means a pending suit. )he doctrine of lis pendens refers to the jurisdiction,
power or control which a court ac5uires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action,
and until final judgment. (A,caoili evie-er, p. *4*, 2((+ ed)
#t merely creates a contingency and not a lien. #t does not produce any right or interest which may be
e2ercised over the property of another. #t only protects the applicant1s rights which will be determined during trial.
(A2uino, p. 221, 2((3 ed: A,caoili evie-er, p. 2//, 1999 ed)
Q: /hat are the #ur#oses of a notice of lis #endens?
A: )o>
1. protect the rights of the party causing the registration of the lis pendens; and
2. advise third persons who purchase or contract on the subject property that they do so at their peril
and subject to the result of the pending litigation. (A,caoili evie-er, p. *44, 2((+)
:ote< A notice of lis pendens is intended 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 ac5uire in the property in any
voluntary transaction, are subject to the results of the action, and may well be inferior and subordinate to those
which may be finally determined and laid down therein.
Q: /hat are non registrable lands?
A: )hese are properties of public dominion which, under e2isting legislation, are not the subject of
private ownership and are reserved for public purposes. (A2uino, p. *+, 2((3 ed)
Q: /hat is the reason behind their non registrabilit?
A: )hey are intended for public use, public service or development of the national wealth. )hey are
outside the commerce of men and, therefore, not subject to private appropriation.
Q: /hich lands are non registrable?
A:
1. 3roperty of public domain or those intended for public use, public service or development of the national
wealth.
2. Gorest or timber lands
*. ?ater sheds
%. Iangrove swamps
&. Iineral lands
A. 3arks and pla9as
'. Iilitary or naval reservations
/. Goreshore lands
.. ,eclaimed lands
1K. +ubmerged areas
11. ,iver banks
12. <akes
1*. ,eservations for public and semi public purposes
1%. 6thers of similar character (A,caoili evie-er, p. +2, 2((+)