You are on page 1of 7

By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 1

1. Balbuena v. Sabay (Not purchaser in good faith IF land bought from


non-registered owner)

Balbuena filed a complaint for recovery of possession of three parcels of
land against Sabay
o He alleges that these lands are covered by tax declarations and that
he acquired it from an execution sale (in a case where Leoncia
lost)
Sabay, on the other hand, alleges that Leoncia sold one of the lots to him (prior
to the execution sale)
o One of the three lands was covered by a Torrens title
RTC: Found Balbuena to have a better right because he acquired it in good
faith (there was nothing in the title to indicate any cloud or vice in the
ownership of the property, so the purchaser is not required to look beyond the
Torrens title)
CA: Reversed the RTC because the Torrens title was not in the name of
Leoncia, the judgment debtor, but instead in the names of other people
o The court further said that the purchase should have been put on
guard when she purchased the lands from a non-registered
owner (in this case, the judgment debtor)

Issue: Is Balbuena in good faith?

No. A judgment creditor only acquires at an execution sale the identical interest
possessed by the judgment debtor
o If it turns out that the judgment debtor has NO interest in the
property, the purchaser at an auction sale acquires no interest
therein
In this case, Leoncias sale to Sabay was not disputed, therefore Sabay
had a better right than Balbuena
o In other words, a prior unregistered sale is more preferred than a
purchaser at auction sale
More weight is given to Leoncias undisputed sale to Sabay
As compared to Balbuena buying it at an auction sale when in
fact, the land was already sold beforehand
DOCTRINE: Further, Balbuena indeed failed to inquire when he should have
BECAUSE he bought land from someone who was NOT a registered
owner. He loses.

2. Lim v. Republic

In 1998, Lim filed an application for registration over a certain parcel of land
o She declared that she purchased both lots on 1997 as evidenced by a
deed of sale
o Other evidences: tracing cloth, technical description, CENRO
certification: stating that the land is alienable and disposable
land as of 1982
o Her predecessors as per a witness: occupied the land since 1941
RTC: granted the petition (opposed by the Government)
CA: reversed, saying that Lims predecessors were only in possession since
1967 therefore it could not be used as basis for the 30 year period BECAUSE
the land only became alienable and disposable as of 1982 (therefore she
was 15 years short because the reckoning period was 67-82: land was not
alienable/disposable!)

Issue: Is Lim entitled to registration?

No. First, Lim cant register under Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 because she failed to
prove that her predecessors-in-interest were in O, C, E, N and O of the land
since June 12, 1945 or earlier
o The witness merely recounted Lims version of the chain of
ownership of the lots and merely had general statements and no
specifics
Basically, witness failed to even mention a single act of dominion over
the lots on June 12, 1945 or earlier
o Additionally, while a property classified as alienable/disposable public
land may be converted into private property by reason of OCENO of at
least 30 years, public dominion lands become patrimonial property
with both a DECLARATION and an EXPRESS GOVERNMENT
MANIFESTATION that the property is already patrimonial
Only when the property has become patrimonial can
the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of
the public dominion begin to run
o In this case, even if it was declared to be a/d, it was not stated that
they are no longer intended for public use, therefore, Lim cannot
acquire by prescription
DOCTRINES:
o Sec 14(1): denied because no proof of OCENO of predecessors
in interest since 6/12/45
Remember, though, that registration under this ground, at
the time of application, its enough that the land has already
been declared a/d
o Ca 141 Sec 48: denied because prescription is counted from the
date the public property becomes patrimonial through a
DECLARATION and EXPRESS MANIFESTATION by the Govt

3. Rural Bank of Pangasinan v. Manila Mission

Spouses Soliven were the registered owners of a parcel of land (covered by
TCT)
o They sold it to Manila Mission on 1992 but the spouses TCT was only
cancelled (and a new one issued to the bank) on April 1994
On 1993, the Rural Bank filed a collection case and prayed for a writ of
attachment against the spouses and this was granted
o This writ was annotated on the TCT on 1993
During this time, Manila Mission, upon advice by the sheriff,
filed a motion to release the property from attachment:
this was allowed by the court
Rural bank filed a case, alleging that it has a better right

Issue: Who has a better right? Previous unregistered sale (Soliven to Manila
Mission) or a duly annotated attachment (Rural Bank against Soliven)

The general rule is that a duly annotated attachment is superior to an
unregistered prior sale
o HOWEVER where the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest
which is unregistered at that time he acquired a right to the same
land, his knowledge of that sale is equivalent to registration as to him
In the case at bar, though, there was no special relationship between the bank
and the spouses to charge the bank with an implied knowledge of the state of
By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 2

Missions claim/ownership: an attaching creditor is not expected to inspect the
property being attached, as it is the sheriff who does the actual act of attaching
DOCTRINE: Duly registered levy on attachment takes preference over a prior
unregistered sale IF the attaching creditor has no constructive/actual
knowledge of the prior unregistered sale.

4. Tanenglian v Lorenzo (Collateral Attack)

The case revolves around 2 TCTs issued in the name of Tanenglian
o Lorenzo and others want to redeem the said properties and the
TCTs to be declared null and void because they are ancestral
land
Adjudicator ruled in favor of Lorenzo
Ruled that:
Lands are ancestral lands
TCTs are null and void because the titles of
Tanenglians predecessors in interest were secured
by fraud
Decision was affirmed by DARAB and then the CA thus Tanenglians appeal to
the SC
o He argues that the DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the
controversy and furthermore, that the declaration of the land as
ancestral land was done with GADLEJ

Issue: Was Tanenglian wrongfully deprived of his land?

Yes. Ra 8371, or the IPRA specifically provides a more thorough definition of
ancestral lands and it designates the NCIP (Natl Commission on Indigenous
Peoples) as the primary govt agency responsible
o The DARAB was w/o jurisdiction when it declared that the properties
are ancestral land
More importantly, the regional adjudicator was w/o jurisdiction in entertaining a
collateral attack on Tanenglians TCTs
o In an earlier case for quieting of title, Tanenglians title to the
properties was already affirmed with finality
o A suit for quieting of title is an action quasi in rem: conclusive
to the parties to the suit
Nevertheless, Lorenzo cannot pray for the RA to declare the TCTs null and void
for it would constitute a collateral attack on his titles which is NOT allowed
o Doctrine: A collateral attack is made when in another action to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an
INCIDENT to said action
This is compared to a direct attack, whose main object is to
annul a judgment
In this case, Tanenglians titles have acquired the character of indefeasibility so
it CANNOT be collaterally questioned

5. Republic v. de la Raga (Reconstitution)

De la Raga is the granddaughter of Ignacio and Languit
o Her grandparents died and she possessed a large parcel of land
covered by an OCT
o She wanted to obtain a copy of the OCT and when she went to the RD
She found out there was a registration decree, declaring
the property in the name of Ignacio, Languit and the spouses
Serafica
She filed for reconstitution and her main basis was the registration decree
(that was the basis of the OCT)
RTC: granted the petition
CA: affirmed
o Republic (oppositor): alleges that the RD failed to certify that the
original OCT was valid and subsisting at the time it was lost

Issue: Is the certification of the RD indispensable to reconstitution?

NO. The sufficiency of the RD report is NOT an indispensable
requirement in reconstitution cases.
o The rules, in fact, require the clerk of court/RD to write a report of
his/her findings after verifying the status of the title and both these
reports are to be submitted to the reconstitution court
o These reports, however, are NOT required
The court, in this case, found sufficient factual evidence to support the petition
and there was compliance with jurisdictional requirements
When a court, after hearing of a petition for reconstitution, finds that the
evidence presented is sufficient and proper to grant the same, it becomes the
duty of the court to issue the order of reconstitution. This duty is mandatory.
o DOCTRINE: The law does not give the court discretion to deny
the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been
complied with.

6. Phil Cotton Corporation v. Gagoomal (RD cant just re-annotate
attachments if it wasnt annotated in the reconstituted title)

Pacific Mills owned 5 parcels of land covered by TCTs.
o These lands were sold on installment basis to respondents Gagoomal
and Ang
Petitioner PCC then filed a collection case against Pacific mills for failure to pay
a loan
o The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment on said
parcels of land (annotated on the TCTs)
During the pendency of the collection case in the SC, the QC
hall was razed by fire destroying the RD and the TCTs of
Pacific Mills
PCC won this case and court ordered PM to pay
Pacific then filed for an administrative reconstitution of title over said lands
pursuant to RA 6732
o The attachment in favor of PCC were not incorporated in the new
TCT (in favor of Gagoomal and Ang)
However, the sale between respondents and pacific mills was
annotated.
o TCTs were then subsequently cancelled and clean TCTs were issued
to respondents.
PCC then requested the RD to annotate the notice of levy and the
favorable decision of the SC on 2 of the new TCTs issued to
respondents.
o RD informed respondents that the request had been entered in the
primary entry book of the RD and asked them to surrender the 2
duplicate TCTs
By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 3

Respondents then filed a case for cancellation of such annotations
o RTC: ruled in favor of respondents and deleted said annotations and
for the RD to stop the request to respondents of surrendering their
TCTs for purposes of annotation.
It held that because the TCTs were not anymore in the name
of Pacific Mills and no evidence was submitted to indicate
that PCC had interest in the property, PCC cannot levy on
it anymore.
PCC alleges
o it is the ministerial duty of the RD to annotate (Based on sec 10 and
71 of PD 152)
o that the issuance to respondents is fraudulent (Based on Sec 69 and
71 of PD 1529)

Issue: Can the RD validly re-annotate the levy and decision of SC pursuant to its
ministerial functions? NO its the courts duty to determine with regard to
reconstituted titles.

Sec 10 and 71 (Surrender of Certificate of Involuntary Dealings: When an
attachment on registered land is registered, and the duplicate certificate is NOT
presented at the time of registration, the RD can compel the registered owner
to produce his duplicate and if he does not, the RD will tell the court and the
court will order the registered owner) of PD 1529 is not applicable
o Sec 10 relates to the general functions of an RD: RD cannot record a
right that was NOT duly noted in the reconstituted title
o Sec 71 applies only to an attachment or lien in which the duplicate
was not presented at the time of the registration of the said
lien or attachment.
What applies is special law Act no. 26
o Sec 4 sources of which lien can be reconstituted as may be
available:
C) any other document which, in judgment of the courts, is
sufficient and proper basis
o Doctrine: Sec 8 and 11 provides that the procedure for the
annotation of an interest that did not appear in the
reconstituted certificate of title, mandates a petition to be filed
before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The courts intervention in the amendment of the registration book after
the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon is
categorically stated the property registration decree (sec 108: )
o Hence it is the duty of the courts and not the RD to validly re-annotate
the liens of the reconstituted TCTs

7. Erasusta v. CA

4 lots in sampaloc manila formed part of the Prieto Estate (Lots A, B, C and D
for brevity)
o On 4 separate occasions, De Los Reyes bought said Lots.
De Los Reyes then sold Lot C to Fortunato Amorin
Subsequently, De Los Reyes was then swindled by Valenzuela into
entrusting him with the documents of the remaining lots (of A, B and
D)
o Valenzuela was then able to secure TCTs (from the Prieto Estate) in
his own name
He then mortgaged these lots to Pacific Bank as
collateral for a loan.
Upon failure to pay, the Bank foreclosed on the 3
lots and the won all 3 at the public auction
The Bank now sends a letter to Amorin, who thought he was occupying Lot
C but in reality, it was Lot A, to vacate the premises since they were the
owners.
o Amorin upon checking with the LRC, confirms that he was indeed
occupying Lot A (This was due to the mix-up in the street
addresses)
Amorin files an action for recovery of ownership + damages against De Los
Reyes.
Meanwhile De Los Reyed files a cross-claim with the bank to declare void the
REM and Sale over the lots.
o RTC: cancel all titles of bank for having obtained from a fraudulent
source and correct the technical description of Amorins title (From Lot
A to Lot C)
o CA: The banks titles are valid and subsisting because it was a
mortgagee in GF

Issue: Who has the valid title? De Los Reyes (bank is not in good faith so cannot
avail of fraud becoming the root of valid title doctrine)

Although, generally one can acquire a valid title from a forged or fraudulent
document if the property has already been transferred from the owner
to the forger and subsequently, the buyer acted in good faith (innocent
purchaser for value + chain of title theory)
However, the bank was in gross negligence which amounted to bad faith
because banks are obliged to carefully examine the title of the applicant and
conduct an ocular inspection
Further, the fact that the mortgagor was NOT in possession of the land should
have put the bank on inquiry
Can the title be collaterally attacked? Only the certificate (the document)
cannot be collaterally attacked, while title (which vests ownership) can
collaterally be attacked.
What cannot be collaterally attacked as provided in sec 48 of PD 1529 is the
Certificate of title evidencing ownership on the land (The PIECE OF
PAPER)
A certificate is NOT conclusive evidence of title: Registration DOES NOT vest
title, it is merely an evidence of such title

8. Eagle Realty v. Republic

Spouses de Leon filed an application for registration of certain lots with CFI,
which was granted.
o However, another decision similar to the de Leon decision but
adjudicating the property to a certain Medina was inserted in
the records of the LRC.
Thus, pursuant to this, the Register of Deeds issued an
OCT in the name of Medina, who subsequently
transferred the said property to Reyes who sold it to
petitioner Eagle Realty, to whom a new TCT was issued.
Knowing of the issuance of the OCT to Medina, spouses de Leon demanded for
an investigation from the LRC, which recommended the nullification of the
By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 4

OCT and the TCT issued in the names of Medina and Eagle Realty (Fake
decision!)
o Republic of the Philippines acted in behalf of the LRC which filed a
complaint for the annulment of Judgment and Cancellation of the
Decree and Titles against Medina and Eagle Realty alleging that LRC
received a copy of the De Leon decision but was wrongfully
substituted with the Medina decision in the LRC records.
On the other hand, Eagle Realty alleged that the case should be dismissed on
grounds that:
o That the Republic is not an interested party as the property
involved is a private property;
o That the one-year prescriptive period within which to seek a review of
a decree of registration has already lapsed
o and that it is a purchaser in good faith and for value.

Issue: Whether the case at bar should be dismissed on grounds alleged by Eagle
Realty? NO

Although the case was entitled an Action for Annulment of Judgment and
Cancellation of a Decree, it is evident from the facts alleged in the
complaint that the action is mainly for the declaration of nullity of the
certificates of title issued as a result of a fake court decision and not
for the nullity of judgment.
o Thus, the RTC and not the CA has jurisdiction over the case.
The government must preserve the integrity of the Torrens System and protect
the Assurance Fund.
o The complaint filed by the Republic seeks the cancellation of
erroneously issued titles to protect the Assurance Fund from being
made liable by the spouses de Leon, the rightful owners, for damages
in case they fail to recover the property.
Doctrine: The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply where
fraud attended the issuance of the title. As such, a title issued based on void
documents may be annulled. Likewise, prescription does not run against the
State and its subdivisions
Lastly, he who alleges that he is a purchaser in good faith and for value has the
burden of proving his claim.
o The general rule is that a purchaser may rely on what appears on the
face of a certificate of title.
An exception to this is when there exists facts which create
suspicion in a reasonable prudent man to go beyond the
present title.
In the case at bar, Eagle Realty is engaged in the
real estate business and is thus expected to
exercise higher standard of care and diligence
in ascertaining the status and condition of the
said property

Motion for Reconsideration filed by Eagle Realty

In the assailed decision, the Court held that "a corporation engaged in the buying
and selling of real estate is expected to exercise a higher standard of care and
diligence in ascertaining the status and condition of the property subject of its
business transaction." The Court cited the case of Sunshine Finance vs. IAC where
the Court ruled that, investment and financing corporations cannot simply
rely on an examination of a Torrens certificate on its face.

The court in this MR expands the ruling in Sunshine Finance to cover realty
corporations because the nature of their business expects them to exercise a
higher standard of diligence in ascertaining the status of the property, not
merely rely on what appears on the face of a certificate of title.

9. Spouses Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf

In a previous case, Fil-Estate Golf (FEGDI) was the developer of a golf course in
Laguna along with La Paz (who provided the properties registered in its name)
o Thereafter, Layos filed for injunction against FEGDI and alleged that he
is the legal owner of the lands in question, and further alleged an
intrusion on the part of FEGDI and La Paz
o Note: Layos filed two different cases in two separate courts, praying
for the same thing
Complaint was dismissed for forum-shopping
o Thereafter, only months after instituting the injunction cases, Layos
filed a complaint for quieting of title against La Paz
Layos alleges that La Paz grabbed his land and entered it
without his consent
His main proof was OCT 239, issued in his name
La Paz argues that Layos never owned/possessed the land in question an in
fact, it got the lands from the government and it was issued the assailed TCTs
o Court ruled in favor of La Paz, declared their titles to be INDEAFISIBLE
and found the OCT of Layos to be spurious
Not wanting to give up, Layos filed an action to reconstitute his title and many
others opposed
o Court again denied this, reiterating that OCT 239 of Layos is forged

Issue: Was Layos entitled to any of the remedies he filed? (injunction, quieting of
title and reconstitution)

As regards the injunction, Layos is not entitled to it because Layos did not
have a valid title to the said property (because the RTC ruled it was FORGED)
As regards reconstitution, here are the following elements:
o The CT has been lost/destroyed
o The petitioner is a registered owner/has an interst therein
o CT is in force at the time it was lost
Doctrine: Courts have no jurisdiction over petitions for reconstitution of
allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by
duly issued subsisting titles in the name of their duly registered owners
o When the court relied on the previous judgment in the injunction cases
that the OCT of Layos was forged, it did NOT entertain a collateral
attack when it dismissed the reconstitution case

10. Amodia Vda de Melencion v. CA

The entire subject property was originally co-owned by the Amodia family
who registered the land under the old Torrens system pre-PD 1529 (but the
title was destroyed during the war)
o In 1964, The Amodias allegedly partitioned the land and sold the
same to Aznar brothers
This sale was registered under Act 3344 (system
for recording of unregistered real estate)
o In 1989, 4 Amodias, in deed of sale, sold the land to Go Kim Chuan
By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 5

The lost title was reconstituted (their OCT) and a
corresponding TCT was issued in Go Kim Chuans name
Aznar filed a case to annul the sale to Go Kim Chuan and filed an advers claim
(alleging double sale)
o RTC: dismissed Aznar, the deed of sale in favor of Aznar was found to
be forged
o CA: ruled in favor of Aznar, ruling under Art 1544 that the sale in
favor of Aznar was registered first

Issue: Who wins? Aznar or Go Kim Chuan?

Go Kim Chuan wins, the second purchaser wins, for being the first to register in
good faith
o The registration contemplated in Art 1544 is registration under the
Torrens system
o In this case, even though Aznar knew it was already registered under
the Torrens system before, Aznar still registered the sale in its favor
under Act 3344
Doctrine: If the land is registered under the Torrens system
and it is sold and the sale is registered under Act 3344, such
is not considered registered and does not come within the
ambit of Art 1544
In fact, what was registered in the Torrens system was the sale to Go Kim
Chuan
o Aznar should have availed of reconstitution instead of registering the
sale under Act 3344
The adverse claim was ONLY annotated AFTER a TCT was issued in the name of
Go Kim Chuan
o It would be absurd to say that Go Kim Chuan should be bound by an
adverse claim which was not previously annotated on the lost title or
the new one

11. Manotok v. Barque

In 1988 a fire destroyed portions of Quezon City Hall and as a result, numerous
certificate of titles on file were destroyed as well.
Barque filed a petition for administrative reconstitution of the TCT, submitting a
owners duplicate, tax receipts and taxdecs and a subdivision plan.
o Manotok upon learning of Barques petition opposed claiming that the
lot was already covered by their reconstituted title.
Barques title involves 2 parcels of land with an aggregate
324k sq meters.
Manotok concerns only 1 parcel with a similar area.
LRA denied the petition of Barque at first but later
reversed and found that there were anomalies in the
title of the Manotok
LRA stated that only RTC could cancel the title of
Manotok.
o LRAs order: granted reconstitution of
Barques title and ordered a new one issued
in Barques name AFTER a court cancels the
Manotoks title
Manotok appealed to the CA.
o CA affirmed LRA: ordered the RD to cancel Manotoks title and
thereafter reconstitute the title of Barque

Issues: W/N CA has the authority to reconstitute the title of Barque? W/N CA has
the authority to cancel the title of Manotok? Who really owns the land?

PD 1529 provides that a title cannot be cancelled except in a direct attack. The
proceeding in this case was a collateral attack.
o The administrative proceeding for reconstitution, even if it
produced evidenced that the title was fake, cannot be the basis
for canceling such.
Further the CA does not have original jurisdiction to
annul torrens title. BP 129 grants exclusive original
jurisdiction to the RTC

Case was brought to the CA via appeal from the LRA.
o The LRA has no jurisdiction to cancel the torrens title.
In PD 1529 the functions of the LRA are, issue decrees of
registration pursuant to final judgments, supervision and
control over all RDs, resolve cases en consulta, supervise all
clerks of court in connection with land registration, implement
all orders relative to the registration of lands, verify
subdivision plans.
Nowhere in PD 1529 is the LRA given the
power to cancel titles.

The reconstitution of the title should not have been permitted, as the certificate
of title was the subject of litigation, investigation administrative or judicial
regarding its genuineness.
Further in an administrative recon, if it appears that the property is already
covered by a torrens title it should be dismissed, subject to judicial review:
ADMIN RECONSTITUTION is ESSENTIALLY NON-ADVERSARIAL
o In any case, since neither the LRA nor the CA could cancel the
title, any claim of the Barques would be useless because of the
existing title.
Petitioners reliance on the Ortigas case, is misplaced. The facts are different.
The case arose from a judicial reconstitution of title where the trial court denied
the notices of appeal by the petitioner, had the notices of appeal been allowed
the CA would have then reviewed the RTC decision on appeal and been able to
annul the respondents title.
It further appears that the barques own claims are exceedingly weak because
of several inconsistencies in their subdivision plan and other documents
submitted.
o The land concerned is Friar land, and can only be disposed of by the
Government. Thus Case remanded to the CA.

12. Mistica v. Republic

Mistica claims to be the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land in bulacan,
stating that her predecessors have been in possession since time immemorial
and that she was not aware of any lien or mortgage or enciumbrance affecting
the land.
Evidence attached were technical description, certification of lost surveyors
certificate, tax dec and tax payments, blue print of subdivision plan.
o The photocopy of the deed of sale (from vendor to her predecessor)
presented was in Spanish, however no translation was offered.
By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 6

RP through the OSG filed an opposition, stating that Mistica had not been open,
continuous exclusive and notorious possession and that the documents of title
did not appear to be genuine and did not constitute the competent sufficient
evidence required.
o Further that the claim of ownership in fee simple on the lot on
the basis of a Spanish title could no longer be availed of as
Mistica failed to file within 6 months of Jan 16 1976.
o MTC found the land alienable and disposable and thus granted the
registration. CA reversed.


Issue: Does Mistica have claim over the land because of open continuous exclusive
and notorious possession?

An applicant for the confirmation of an imperfect title, Mistica should prove that
the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain
and that she had been in open continuous and exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership
from june 12 1945 or earlier.
o The evidence provided by mistica, taken together did not suffice to
prove that she had met the second requirement (open and continuous
possession and occupation)
The technical description, subdivision plan only prove the
identity of the lot. The tax decs and receipts were only from
1998. No evidence was presented that her parents had tax
decs over the property and that taxes had been paid prior to
1998.
Further the alleged deed of sale was not translated to a language that the court
could understand.
Doctrine: The law requires possession and occupation. Possession is
broader than occupation. By adding occupation the law highlights the
fact that the possession must not be mere fiction.
o Instead there must be actual possession in the manifestation
of acts of dominion as a party would naturally exercise over his
own property.

13. Unisource v. Chung

Unisource is the registered owner of a parcel of land and it contains a
memorandum of a voluntary easement in favor of Hidalgo (Servient:
Unisource, Dominant: Hidalgo)
o On the other hand, Hidalgos property was eventually transferred to
the Chungs
Unisource then filed a petition to cancel the easement on
the ground that the dominant estate already has
adequate access to a public road
Court granted the petition because the dominant estate has
no more use since it has another adequate outlet to a public
road
o Chungs counter that the extinguishment of the easement would
prejudice the public
CA: ruled in favor of Chung, reversed RTC because the presence of an
adequate outlet does not extinguish a voluntary easement
o Unisource argues that the easement does not appear in the Chungs
title

Issue: Was the CA correct in upholding the voluntary easement?

The CA was correct because first, a voluntary easement can only be
extinguished by mutual agreement or by the renunciation of the owner of the
dominant estate
o Doctrine: Second, Registration of the dominant estate under the
Torrens system without the annotation of the voluntary easement in
its favor does NOT extinguish the easement
In fact, it is the registration of the servient estate as free
(w/o the annotation of the easement) which extinguishes
the easement
In this case, the title of Unisource (servient) always
had the annotation of the voluntary easement in
favor of Chungs estate (dominant)

14. Rabaja Ranch v. AFP-RSBS

Rabaja and AFP-RSBS both hold a TCT over the same parcel of land
o Rabaja then filed a complaint for quieting of title
o Rabaja traces its title from a free patent issued on 1955 and the land
was eventually sold to it
o Its possession began in 1997
AFP-RSBS traces its title from a homestead patent issued to Charles (and the
land was eventually sold to it): Date of homestead: 1966
o RTC: ruled in favor of Rabaja because its title was older than that of
AFP-RSBS and that the homestead patent was attended with
fraud and misrepresentation because
o CA: reversed RTC, stating that Charles homestead patent was
registered earlier
Rabaja argues that Charles homestead patent was void ab
initio because it was attended with fraud: Not issued at all by
the government
Recap:
o 1955: Free Patent to Jose: Rabaja: Registered 1982 (issued earlier,
registered later)
o 1966: Homestead to Charles: AFP-RSBS: Registered 1966 (issued
later, registered earlier)

Issue: Who has a better right?

AFP-RSBS has a better right
As regards the contention of fraud:
o Court discussion on extrinsic fraud:
For example, it consists in a deliberate misrepresentation that
the lots are NOT contested when it fact they are and this goes
into the jurisdiction of the court because a party is prevented
from having his day in court
In this case, no actual/extrinsic fraud existed
o Fraud is not presumed and mere allegations of fraud are NOT enough
because these must be proved
No proof was shown that the Homestead patent issued to Charles was indeed
fake
By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 7

Furthermore, AFP-RSBS is a buyer in good faith because as far as it was
concerned, when it bought the property, there was no defect on the CT of
the vendor or no sign that it was derived from a fake title
o Doctrine: This case shows the rule that when an innocent purchaser
for value buys land covered by a TCT which is derived from a void TCT,
he is protected
In any case, the TCTs root was not proven to be fraudulent
anyway, and even if it was, it already acquired indefeasibility