Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

TEODICIA LOZADA
90 SCRA 503

FACTS:
Lozada filed an application for registration and confirmation of two (2)
parcels of lands. She asserts title thereto by rights of inheritance from her
deceased parents coupled with continuous and exclusive possession.

The petition was opposed by the Provincial Government of Rizal and


the Municipality the Government of Las Pias City, Rizal but the Director of
Lands did not deem it necessary to file an opposition at that time, though it
reserved its right to file its opposition should it be found upon investigation
that Lozada is not entitled to the lots, subject matter of this case.

An Order of default was issued and Lozada presented evidence ex-


parte. The Court then found that Lozada have a registrable title to the
parcels of land, hence the court issued the corresponding decree of
registration and subsequently her original certificate of title.

Within one (1) however, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
petition for review on the ground of fraud considering that she deliberately
concealed the fact that the lots were covered by Recovable Permit
Application and Miscellaneous Sales Application both in the name of her
husband Cristobal and that these applications were rejected by the Bureau
of lands since these lots were reserved for school site and also portions of
said land are part of the public domain.

The CFI found actual fraud was employed in procuring the title, hence
the CFI issued a a decision setting aside the MeTC decision. Lozada
appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed the CFI decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the title was properly voided by the RTC?
HELD:
Yes, it was properly voided by the RTC for the following reasons:
1. Lozada was clearly guilty of fraud for not disclosing in her
application for registration that the lots were the same lots applied
for by his husband but was denied because it was reserved by the
republic for a school site. Also by falsely declaring that said lands
were inherited by her from her parents.

2. The lower court has no jurisdiction over said lands because it is


part of the public domains, portions of which are part of the river
and not open to registration proceedings.

Вам также может понравиться