You are on page 1of 5

Brief Facts Issue Ruling/Doctrine Person Assigned

NAVAL V. CA Coronel
Muoz filed an Application for Registration of Title of a
parcel of residential land. He submitted the following
The best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is
supporting documents: (1) a blueprint copy of the survey
the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands. However,
plan, approved by the Bureau of Lands; and (2) the
blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient
technical descriptions, duly verified and approved by the
identification. If the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and
Director of Lands. Republic averred that the applicant
its correctness has not been overcome by clear, strong and convincing
failed to present the original tracing cloth plan of the WON the only evidence to identify a piece of land for
evidence, the presentation of the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed
property sought to be registered during the trial. registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan Dadivas
with.
However, both RTC and CA ruled that there was from the Bureau of Lands? NO
OTHER ISSUE: Requirements for a land to be considered alienable:
conclusive proof that the jurisdictional requirement of
Positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation,
due notice had been complied with as mandated under
executive order, administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of
Section 24 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The failure
Lands investigators and a legislative act or a statute, certification from the
to present in evidence the tracing cloth plan of the subject
Government. Muoz failed to submit certification. Application denied.
property did not deprive the lower court of its jurisdiction
REPUBLIC V. MUOZ to act on the application in question.
NO. AZNAR insists that since there was no Torrens title on file in 1964,
The entire property was brought under the operation of insofar as the vendors, AZNAR, and the Register of Deeds are concerned,
the Torrens System. However, the title thereto was lost the subject property was unregistered at the time. The contention is
during the Second World War Amodias allegedly untenable. The fact that the certificate of title over the registered land is
executed an ExtraJudicial Partition of Real Estate with lost does not convert it into unregistered land. After all, a certificate of
Deed of Absolute Sale whereby they extrajudicially title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular
settled the estate of Esteban Bonghanoy and conveyed the property described therein. This Court agrees with the petitioners that
subject property to respondent Aznar Brothers Realty WON certificate of title is merely an evidence of AZNAR should have availed itself of the legal remedy of reconstitution
VDA. DE MELENCHON V. CA Company (AZNAR) Thereafter, AZNAR made some ownership or title over the particular property described of the lost certificate of title, instead of registration under Act 3344. We Daos
improvements and constructed a beach house thereon. therein have already ruled that the registration contemplated in this provision
(petitioners Amodias) executed a Deed of Extra Judicial refers to registration under the Torrens System, which considers the act of
Settlement with Absolute Sale, conveying the subject registration as the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or
property in favor of Go Kim Chuan. On February creates a lien upon the land. This rule precisely applies to cases involving
14, 1990, AZNAR wrote a letter to petitioners Amodias conflicting rights over registered property and those of innocent
asking the latter to withdraw and/or nullify the sale transferees who relied on the clean title of the properties. Thus, we held
entered into between them and Go Kim Chuan that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the
same.
ONG V. REPUBLIC De La Rosa
DE GUZMAN V. AGBAGALA Del Rosario
The Adolfo spouses were the original registered owners
of a piece of land measuring 126,622 sqm, covered by an
OCT. The land was later mortgaged to DBP and was later
foreclosed due to the failure of the spouses to pay off the
loan obligation. A TCT in the name of DBP was issued.
In the same year, the land was repurchased by Serafin
Firstly, the Court held that the contract between Adolfo and Bangis was
Adolfo, and a TCT was issued in his name. Subsequently,
that of a mortgage.
Adolfo allegedly mortgaged the property to Bangis.
When Adolfo died, his heirs sought to redeem the
Secondly, the TCT in the name of Bangis cannot be given merit because
mortgaged property. However, such redemption was
1) The said TCT was never admitted as evidence 2) For arguments sake,
refused by the heirs of Bangis. In their defense, they
even if the TCT was valid, as between 2 TCTs pertaining to the same
alleged that Adolfo did not mortgage the property but had
land, the better approach to determine the rightful owner would be trace
instead sold the property to Bangis. In support of this
the original certificates from which the certificates of titles were derived.
claim, they alleged that they had a TCT which was issued Whether or not the heirs of Bangis had title to the land.
In this case, the records of the Registrar of Deeds showed that the title of Estepa
in their fathers name and that they had already acquired NO.
the land was actually transferred from DBP to Adolfo.
the property by prescription considering that Bangis had
possessed the land for 28 years. Because of this, the heirs
Lastly, the Court held that no title in derogation of that of the registered
of Serafin filed a case in the RTC for the annulment of
owner can be acquired by prescription. Moreover, even if acquisitive
the alleged deed of sale and the cancellation of the TCT
prescription can be appreciated in this case, the heirs of bangis
issued in the name of Bangis.
possession being in bad faith is 2 years shy of the 30 years required by
Law.
The RTC ruled in favor the heirs of Serafin on the basis
of the evidence presented. Apparently, the spouses of
Bangis had failed to admit the TCT that they were talking
as evidence.

The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.


BANGIS V. SERAFIN
1. Yes. Between petitioners unsubstantiated self-serving claim that
their father inherited the contested portion and respondents Torrens title,
the latter must prevail. Respondents title over such area is evidence of
their ownership thereof. That a certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the
person whose name appears therein and that a person who has a Torrens
Respondents are registered owners of Lot No. 3517 of the title over a land is entitled to the possession thereof are fundamental
Cadastral Survey of Sorsogon. The lot was previously principles observed in this jurisdiction. Respondents title give rise to the
covered by an OCT in the name of Maria Maligaso reasonable presumption that petitioners have no right over the subject
Ramos, petitioners aunt. Maria sold the lot to Virginia area and that their stay therein was merely tolerated. The petitioners failed
Escurel. Subsequently, Virginia sold the lot to to overcome this presumption due to the absence of any evidence that
respondents, resulting in the cancellation of the OCT and such property was indeed adjudicated to their father as his share in his
issuance of a TCT in their names. parents estate.

30 years from the time they purchased the lot, 2. No. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary
respondents issued 2 demand letters to petitioners, asking proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting
them to vacate the area. Petitioners refused to leave, the right to possession of the property involved. However, their being
claiming that the subject area was the share of their father1. Whether or not respondents have the right to evict summary poses a limitation on the nature of issues that can be determined
in their grandparents estate. Thus, respondents filed a petitioners from the subject property Yes. and fully ventilated. It is for this reason that the proceedings are
complaint for unlawful detainer with the MTC. 2. Whether or not respondents title may be concentrated on the issue on possession. Thus, whether petitioners have a
Petitioners attacked the validity of the OCT and TCT, collaterally attacked in an action for unlawful detainer better right to the contested area and whether fraud attended the issuance
alleging that it was thru fraud that Maria was able to No. of Marias title over the lot are issues beyond the power of the trial court
register the lot under her name. They further alleged that 3. Whether or not respondents are barred by laches to determine in an action for unlawful detainer. This is in addition to the Ganto
laches had already set in view of respondents failure to given their inaction for more than 30 years despite being long-standing rule that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked.
assail their possession for more than 30 years. fully aware of petitioners adverse possession and claim
over the subject property No. The validity of a certificate of title cannot be attacked in a case for
The MTC dismissed the complaint, giving more weight to ejectment. Under Section 48 of P.D. 1529, a certificate of title shall not be
petitioners possession than respondents title and ruling subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled,
that respondents are barred by laches The RTC affirmed except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law.
the MTC. The CA reversed the RTC, ruling that: A
person who has a Torrens title over the property is 3. No. Neither will the sheer lapse of time legitimize the petitioners
entitled to the possession thereof. Prior physical refusal to vacate the subject area or bar the respondents from gaining
possession by the plaintiff is not necessary in unlawful possession thereof. Laches does not operate to deprive the registered
detainer cases as the same is only required in forcible owner of a parcel of land of his right to recover possession thereof. If the
entry cases. Moreover, allegations as to the nullity of claimants possession of the land is merely tolerated by its lawful owner,
plaintiffs title is unavailing and has no place in an the latters right to recover possession is never barred by laches.
unlawful detainer suit since the issue of the validity of a
Torrens title can only be assailed in an action expressly As registered owners of the lots in question, respondents have a right to
instituted for that purpose. eject any person illegally occupying their property. This right is
imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed that they were aware of the
petitioners occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of
that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of
their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or
merely tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches.
MALIGASO V. ENCINAS
REPUBLIC V. SANTOS Lucman
Respondents filed an action to recover the ownership and
possession of the subject property from petitioners.
Respondents alleged that: (a) the subject property was YES. Repondents have shown a better right to the ownership and
owned by their predecessor-in-interest, pursuant to possession of the subject property. In the case of Ferrer-Lopez v. CA,
Decree No. 98992; (b) its existence could still be shown the Court ruled that as against an array of proofs consisting of tax
by a certification issued by LRA, and a certified copy declarations and/or tax receipts which are not conclusive evidence of
from the daybook of cadastral lots issued by the RD of WON respondents have the better right to the ownership ownership nor proof of the area covered therein, an original certificate of
Naga
Cebu City; (c) that respondents took over its possession and possession of the subject property title, which indicates true and legal ownership by the registered owners
until 1988; and (d) in 1989, they discovered that the said over the disputed premises, must prevail. Accordingly, respondents '
property was already in possession of petitioner. On the Decree No. 98992 for which an original certificate of title was issued
other hand, Petitioners countered the allegations. should be accorded greater weight as against the tax declarations and
Petitioner also stated that the subject property had been tax receipts presented by petitioners in this case.
declared by them for taxation purposes and they paid the
DELFIN V. RABADON corresponding realty taxes due thereon.
REPUBLIC V. DE ASIS Olivete
DREAMVILLAGE V. BCDA Oreiro
Lilia V. Domingo owns a 658 sqm. unfenced lot in White
1) No. The nature of a reconstituted TCT of registered land is similar
Plains, QC covered by TCT No. N-165606. On July 18,
to that of a second Owners Duplicate TCT. Both are issued, after the
1997, without her knowledge, Radelia Sy, representing
proper proceedings, on the representation of the registered owner that the
herself as the owner of the property, petitioned the RTC
original TCT or the original of the Owners Duplicate TCT, respectively,
for the issuance of a new owners copy of Domingos
was lost and could not be located or found despite diligent efforts exerted
TCT, as supporting documents, she attached a deed of
for that purpose. Both are subsequent copies of the originals thereof. A
absolute sale dated July 14, 1997 purportedly executed in
cursory examination of these subsequent copies would show that they are
her favor by Domingo and an affidavit of loss dated July
not the originals. Anyone dealing with such copies are put on notice of
17, 1997, whereby she claimed that her bag containing
such fact and thus warned to be extra-careful.
the owners copy had been snatched from her while she
1) Whether the CA erred in finding that TCT No. 186142
was at the SM North EDSA, QC. RTC granted Sys
under Sys name is a reconstituted title. 2)Good faith is the honest intention to abstain from taking
petition and she was issued a new owners duplicate copy
2) Whether Sps. De Vera and Sps. Cusi are buyers in unconscientious advantage of another. It means the freedom from Osit
of TCT No. N-165606. It was later cancelled by virtue of
good faith and for value. knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry.
the deed of absolute sale dated July 14, 1997, and a new
Given this notion of good faith, therefore, a purchaser in good faith is
TCT No. 186142 was issued in Sys name.
one who buys the property of another without notice that some other
person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and
Sy subsequently subdivided the property into two, and
fair price for the same. As an examination of the records shows, the
sold each half to Sps. De Vera and Sps. Cusi. Such sale
petitioners were not innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
was annotated in Sys TCT stating the consideration of
Their failure to investigate Sys title despite the nearly simultaneous
P1M for each, but the entire property had an actual worth
transactions on the property that ought to have put them on inquiry
of not less than P14M. On July 1999, due to the
manifested their awareness of the flaw in Sys title. That they did not
construction activities that were undertaken on her
also appear to have paid the full price for their share of the property
property, Domingo came to learn of the situation. She
evinced their not having paid true value.
CUSI V. DE VERA DOMINGO AND subsequently filed for the cancellation of titles,
SY injunction, and damages before the RTC.
Petitioner sought for the original registration of two
parcels of land. As a matter of course, the case was called NO. It is a long standing rule than an applicant who seeks to have a
for initial hearing. No oppositor appeared except the OSG land registered in his name has the burden of proving that he is its
but it did not present any evidence. RTC directed the owner in fee simple, even though there is no opposition thereto. Since
registration of the said lands to the LRA. Later on, the petitioner had been duly notified of an existing decision which binds
WON CA erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC
petitioner filed a Manifestation with Motion manifesting over the subject lots, it is incumbent upon him to prove that the said
decision and Amended order as well as the final decree of
the existence of an LRA report which states that the decision would not affect its claimed status as owner of the subject lots in
registration issued in favor of petitioner over the subject Payad
subject lands were previously applied for registration and fee simple. The fact that RTC did not order petitioner to address such
lots?
in this regard, moved that the said decision be set aside to does not justify petitioners entitlement to have the subject lots registered
avoid duplication of titles. RTC granted the motion. in its name. Since registration proceedings are in rem, all claimants of the
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari claiming that the subject property are deemed to be notified of the existence of a cadastral
RTC decision was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. case involving the subject lots. Hence, the petitioner cannot take refuge
CA granted the petition and set aside RTC decision. on the lack of any personal knowledge on its part.
GAS POWER CORP V. REPUBLIC
Antonia Vda. De Victorino filed with the CFI of Rizal an
Application for Registration of Title over a lot that she
and her late husband acquired thru purchase. The
Republic, thru the Director of Lands, opposed said
application alleging that the lot belongs to the Republic of
the Philippines and not subject to private appropriation.
The lot is in fact a portion of a large parcel of land
covered by a TCT under the name of Antonia Guido, et
al. A case for annulment of the mother title of Guidos
TCT was filed by the Republic against Guido, et al.,
where the CFI of Pasig ruled in favor of Guido, et al. The
NO. The CA was correct in holding that a land registration case is a
Republic appealed said decision. Meanwhile, the
proceeding in rem. SC has already ruled that in land registration
Administration was informed that the lot subject of
proceedings, there is no necessity to giver personal notice to the owners
Victorinos application does not actually overlap with any
Whether Guido-Enriquez was denied of her right to due or claimants of the land sought to be registered in order to vest the courts
other parcel of land. The RTC of Pasig granted Victorino
process due to Antonias failure to identify Guido- with power and authority over the res. Moreover, since no issue was
s application. The LRA held in abeyance the issuance of Perez
Enriquez as indispensable party in her application for raised as to Antonias compliance with the prerequisites of notice and
the decree in favor of Victorino pending the resolution of
registration. publication, she is deemed to have followed such requirements. As a
the Guido case. SC issued a decision in the Guido case in
consequence, Guido-Enriquez is deemed sufficiently notified of the
favor of Guido, et al. Alicia Victorino filed a
hearing of Antonias application. Hence, she cannot claim that she is
Manifestation and Motion for an Alias Order for Issuance
denied due process.
of a Decree in the Name of the New Owner-Transferee
alleging that Antonia Victorino sold the subject lot in her
favor. She likewise notified the RTC of Antonias death.
The LRA manifested that the subject lot was deemed
excluded from the TCT of Guido. RTC granted Alicias
motion and directed the LRA to issue the corresponding
decree. Crisanta Guido-Enriquez filed a Motion for
Clarification arguing that the Order varies the terms of
the previous RTC decision. RTC denied Crisantas
motion. Crisanta filed a special civil action for certiorari
ENRIQUEZ V. VICTORINO with the CA. CA affirmed the RTCs decision.
VILBAR V. OPINION Puno
Francisco Lim (Petitioner) authorized his brother, Franco
Lim, through an SPA to mortgage his share in their co-
owner property covered by TCT No. 57176. In 1989, BDO
released a P8.5M loan which was registered in the RD of NO. Forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
San Juan. This loan was fully paid by Franco in 1992. In Franciscos allegation that he was out of the country at the time is not
1996, Franco, Francisco and their mother Victoria sufficient to prove his signature was forged. Likewise, his contention that
entered into a loan with Equitable Bank (respondent) for Equitable was negligent in exercising due diligence is without merit. It is
the amount of P30M. The same property was used as a well-known that a person dealing with a registered land has a right
security for the loan. The P30M loan was not paid, thus to rely upon the face of the torrens certificate of title and to dispense
Equitable foreclosed the mortgaged property and on 1999 with the need of inquiring further, except when the part concerned
a TCT and Tax Declaration was issued in favor of Whether or not Francisco was able to prove his signature has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry. Lastly, in the Quintana
Equitable. In the RTC, Francisco filed for TRO and was forged
cancellation of the TCT and Tax Declaration. Francisco mortgage contract Francisco was described as a single and a Filipino
claims that his signature in the loan was forged. RTC citizen even when he was in fact married and an American citizen. This
granted the petition. CA reversed the ruling and said that error cannot be attributed to Equitable was the title of the mortgaged
mere allegation is not sufficient to overcome presumption property was registered under Francisco Lim and Franco Lim, both
of regularity of the notarized document. On certiorari, Filipino citizens, of legal age, single. The issue on the absence of the
Francisco maintains that his signature was forged and wifes signature has no bearing in this case nature of the property was
contends that Equitable should have conducted an in- never raised as an issue by Francisco in the lower courts
depth inquiry before approving the mortgage he claims
that mortgage was executed without the consent of his
LIM v. EQUITABLE PCI Bank wife.
Heirs of SARILI v. LAGROSA Sims
REPUBLIC-Bureau of Forestry v.
Seneres
ROXAS
YES-- since more than 11 years have elapsed since the title's date of
entry. Section 32 of PD 1529, said title had become incontrovertible
On Dec. 19, 1990, Paraguya filed before the RTC a and indefeasible after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of its
complaint against Sps. Crucillo and the Registry of Deeds entry, thus barring Paraguyas action for annulment of title.
for the annulment of OCT (which was issued 11 years Even if the barring effect of Section 32 and the above-stated prescriptive
ago) and other related deeds. Paraguya alleged that period for reconveyance are discounted, Paraguyas complaint for
Crucillo obtained the title through fraud and deceit. She annulment of title should be dismissed altogether since she merely relied
WON Paraguya's action is barred by prescription? Sta Ana
claimed that she is the lawful heir to the subject on the titulo posesorio issued in favor of Estabillo sometime in 1893
properties left by her paternal grandfather, while Crucillo or 1895. Based on Section 1 of PD 892, entitled Discontinuance of the
was merely the administrator. Sps. Crucillo moved to Spanish Mortgage System of Registration and of the Use of Spanish
dismiss, averring that the complain had already been Titles as Evidence in Land Registration Proceedings, Spanish titles can
barred by laches and/or prescription. no longer be used as evidence of ownership after six (6) months from the
effectivity of the law, or starting August 16, 1976.
PARAGUYA v. SPS. CRUCILLO
ROMAN CATHOLIC v. STA.
Tan
TERESA