Mindanao

 vs  Director  of  Lands,  GR  No.  L-­‐19535,  July  10,  1967  
 
Facts:  
 
Appelllants,  heirs  of  Pelagio  Zara  filed  an  application  for  registration  of  a  parcel  of  
land  on  August  4,  1960.  Their  grounds  were  on  the  basis  on  provisions  of  Act  496  
that  their  grandfather  has  been  granted  a  Spanish  Title  and  CA  141  Chap  8  Sec.  48,  
that  their  predecessor-­‐in-­‐interest  had  been  in  continuous  and  adverse  possession  of  
the  land  in  the  concept  of  an  owner  for  more  than  30  years.  Their  application  was  
opposed  by  the  Director  of  Lands  and  Vicente  V.  de  Villa  on  the  ground  that  parcel  of  
land  had  been  included  in  the  parcel  of  land  applied  for  in  registration  by  Vicente  de  
Villa  in  Civil  Case  No.  26,  L.R.  Case  No.  601  was  adjudicated  on  September  30,  1949.  
 
Issue:  
 
W/N  the  1949  judgment  in  the  previous  case,  denying  the  application  of  Vicente  S.  
de  Villa,  Sr.,  and  declaring  the  107  hectares  in  question  to  be  public  land  precludes  a  
subsequent  application  by  an  alleged  possessor  for  judicial  confirmation  of  title  on  
the  basis  of  continuous  possession  for  at  least  thirty  years?  
 
Held:  
 
A  judgment  in  a  land  registration  proceeding,  that  a  tract  of  land  is  public  land,  does  
not  bar  other  persons  from  filing  a  subsequent  land  registration  proceeding  for  the  
judicial   confirmation   of   their   title   to   the   same   land   under   section   48   of   the   Public  
Land   Law,   on   the   basis   of   a   “composicion”   title   and   continuous   and   adverse  
possession  thereof  for  more  than  thirty  years.  Their  imperfect  possessory  title  was  
not  disturbed  or  foreclosed  by  prior  judicial  declaration  that  the  land  is  public  land  
since  the  proceeding  under  Sec.  48  presupposes  that  the  land  is  public.  
 
   
 Tottoc  vs  Intermediated  Appellate  Court,  G.R.  No.  69969,  December  20,  1969  
 
Facts:  
 
On  April  9,  1949,  Antonio  Tottoc  applied  for  the  lease  of  a  pasture  land  consisting  of  
78.6  hectares,  situated  at  Lacangan,  Barrio  Madiangat,  Solano,  Nueva  Vizcaya,  before  
the   Bureau   of   Forestry.   By   virtue   of   said   application,   petitioner   was   granted  
Ordinary  Pasture  Permit  Ps-­‐993,  thereafter  the  petitioner  occupied  the  pasture  land  
and   fence   the   same.   Private   respondent,   Saturnino   Doctor   was   aware   of   such  
occupation  of  the  land  by  the  petitioner  since  1949.    
 
Meanwhile   the   private   respondent,   upon   verification   from   the   Bureau   of   Forestry  
supposedly  before  1963  the  pasture  land  in  question  was  reportedly  untouched  and  
outside   the   pasture   land   of   the   petitioner,   filed   his   application   for   a   homestead   with  
the   Bureau   of   Lands   and   entered   the   northern   portion   of   the   land,   clearing   the  
cultivating  an  area  of  less  than  4  hectares  in  1963.  On  June  17,  1969  OCT  No.  P-­‐3428  
under   Homestead   Patent   No.   124175   was   issued   to   the   private   respondent   over   a  
parcel   of   land.   The   private   respondent   and   the   Bureau   of   Forestry   requested   to  
relocate   the   pasture   land   of   the   petitioner   to   determine   any   encroachment   on   his  
land.    
 
Issue:  
 
W/N  the  land  in  dispute  is  alienable  by  relying  on  the  certification  issued  by  District  
Forester?  
 
Held:  
 
Mere   classification   or   certification   made   by   the   Bureau   of   Forestry   that   a   part   of   the  
public  domain  is  timberland  is  not  controlling  all  cases  –  We  agree  with  petitioner,  
but   not   only   for   the   reason   that   evidence-­‐in-­‐chief   of   private   respondent   may,   in  
point   of   strict   law,   be   constitutive   of   hearsay.   The   question   as   to   whether   a  
particular  portion  of  land  is  forestall  or  any  other  class  of  land  is  a  question  of  fact  to  
be   settled   by   the   proof   in   each   particular   case.   Thus,   the   mere   classification   or  
certification   made   by   Bureau   of   Forestry   that   a   part   of   the   public   domain   is  
timberland  is  not  controlling  in  all  cases.  
   
 Republic  vs  Court  of  Appeals,  Gr.  No.  L-­‐43105,  August  31,  1984  
 
Facts:  
 
The  lot  subject  matter  of  this  land  registration  case,  with  an  area  of  17,311  square  
meters,  is  situated  near  the  shore  of  Laguna  de  Bay,  about  20  meters  therefrom  in  
Barrio  Pinagbayanan,  Pila  Laguna.  It  was  purchased  by  Benedicto  del  Rio  from  Angel  
Pili   on   April   19,   1909.   When   Benedicto   died   in   1957,   his   heirs   extrajudicial  
partitioned  his  estate  and  the  subject  parcel  passed  on  his  son,  Santos  del  Rio,  as  the  
latter’s  share  in  the  inheritance.  
 
Sometime   before   1966,   private   oppositors   obtained   permission   from   Santo   to  
construct   duck   houses   on   the   land   in   question.   Although   there   was   no   definite  
commitment   as   to   rentals   some   of   them   had   made   voluntary   payments   to   Santos.   In  
violation   of   the   original   agreement,   private   oppositors   constructed   residential  
houses  on  the  land,  which  prompted  Santos  to  file  an  ejectment  against  the  private  
oppositors.   Meanwhile,   during   the   latter   part   of   1965,   private   oppositors   had  
simultaneously   filed   their   respective   sales   application   with   the   Bureau   of   Lands   and  
was  opposed  by  Santos.  
 
Issue:    
 
W/N  the  applicant-­‐private  respondent  has  a  registrable  title  to  the  land.  
 
Held:  
 
Private  persons  cannot  reclaim  land  from  public  waters  without  prior  permission  by  
the   government   and,   even   if   reclamation   is   authorized,   acquisition   thereof   for  
ownership   is   not   automatic.   The   claim   of   private   oppositors,   that   they   have  
reclaimed  the  land  from  the  waters  of  Laguna  de  Bay  and  that  they  have  possessed  
the  same  for  more  than  20  years  does  not  improve  their  position.  In  the  first  place,  
private  persons  cannot,  by  themselves  reclaim  land  from  water  bodies  belonging  to  
the  public  domain  without  proper  permission  from  the  government  authorities.  And  
even   if   such   reclamation   had   been   authorized,   the   reclaimed   land   does   not  
automatically  belong  to  the  party  reclaiming  the  same  as  they  may  still  be  subject  to  
the  terms  of  the  authority  earlier  granted.  Private  oppositors  failed  to  show  proper  
authority   for   the   alleged   reclamation   therefore;   their   claimed   title   to   the   litigated  
parcel  must  fall.  
   
 Gomez  vs.  Court  of  Appeals,  GR  No.  L-­‐77770,  December  15,  1988  
 
Facts:  
 
Consolacion   M.   Gomez   was   the   owner   of   certain   lots   in   Sitio   Poponto,   Bayambang,  
Pangasinan   as   declared   by   the   Court   in   the   case   of   Government   of   the   Philippine  
Island  vs  Abran  The  heirs  of  Gomez  alleged  that  they  became  the  absolute  owners  of  
the   subject   lot   by   virtue   of   a   quitclaim   signed   by   son   the   son   of   Consolacion,   Luis  
Lopez.   On   August   5,   1981,   the   court   rendered   its   decision   adjudicating   the   subject  
lots  petitioner’s  favor.    
 
On   July   11,   1984   respondent   Silverio   G.   Perez,   Chief   of   the   Division   of   Origination  
Registration,   Land   Registration   Commission   submitted   a   report   to   the   court   a   quo  
that  the  lot  in  question  were  already  covered  by  homestead  patents  issued  in  1928  
and  1929  and  recommended  the  decision  of  August  5,  1981  be  set  aside.    
 
Issue:  
W/N   the   respondents   Acting   Land   Registration   Commissioner   and   Engr.   Silverio  
Perez  duties  were  purely  ministerial?  
 
Held:  
 
The   act   of   the   respondent   land   registration   officials   is   the   act   of   the   court.  
Petitioners  insist  that  the  duty  of  the  respondent  land  registration  officials  to  issue  
the   decree   is   purely   ministerial.   It   is   ministerial   in   the   sense   that   they   act   under   the  
orders   of   the   court   and   the   decree   must   be   in   conformity   with   the   decision   of   the  
court  and  the  decree  must  be  in  conformity  with  the  decision  of  the  court  and  with  
the  data  found  in  the  record,  and  they  have  no  discretion  in  the  matter.  However  if  
they  are  in  doubt  upon  any  point  in  relation  to  the  preparation  and  issuance  of  the  
decrees,  it  is  their  duty  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  court.  They  act,  in  this  respect,  as  
officials   of   the   court   and   not   as   administrative   officials,   and   their   acts   is   the   act   of  
the  court.  They  are  specifically  called  upon  to  “extend  assistance  to  court.  They  are  
specifically   called   upon   to   “extend   assistance   to   courts   in   ordinary   and   cadastral  
land  registration  proceedings.”  
   
 Laburada  vs  Land  Registration  Authority,  G.R.  No.  101387,  March  11,  1998  
 
Facts:    
 
Petitioners   were   the   applicants   in   LRC   Case   No.   N-­‐11022   for   the   registration   of  
Lot3-­‐A,   Psd-­‐1372,   located   in   Mandaluyong   City.   After   the   finality   of   the   decision,   the  
trial   court,   upon   motion   of   the   petitioners,   issued   an   order   dated   March   15,   1991  
requiring  LRA  to  issue  the  corresponding  decree  of  registration.  However,  the  LRA  
refused   on   the   ground   that   a   portion   of   land   in   the   present   case   was   already  
included   in   the   parcels   of   land   decreed   CLR   Case   No.   699,   875   and   917   and   were  
issued   Decrees   No.   240,   696   and   1425   on   August   25,   1904,   September   14,   1905   and  
April  26,  1905.  
 
Issue:  
 
W/N   respondent   Land   Registration   Authority   can   be   compelled   to   issue   the  
corresponding   decree   in   LRC   Case.   No.   N-­‐11022   of   the   Regional   Trial   Court   of   Pasig,  
Branch  LXVIII?  
 
 
Held:  
 
The  LRA  is  mandated  to  refer  to  the  trial  court  any  doubt  it  may  have  in  regard  to  
the  preparation  and  to  the  issuance  of  a  decree  of  registration.  In  this  respect,  LRA  
officials  act  not  as  administrative  officials  but  as  officers  of  said  court,  and  their  act  
is   the   act   of   the   court.   They   are   specifically   called   upon   to   “extend   assistance   to  
courts  in  ordinary  and  cadastral  land  registration  proceedings.”  
   
 Albienda  vs.  Court  of  Appeals,  GR  No.  L-­‐61416,  March  18,  1985  
 
Facts:  
 
Spouses  Ruben  and  Angeles  Sumampao,  private  respondents  herein  were  applicants  
for  a  free  patent  over  a  piece  of  the  land  situated  in  San  Francisco  Agusan  del  Sur.  
Claiming  that  an  8-­‐hectare  portion  thereof  was  erroneously  included  in  the  technical  
description   of   the   certificate   of   title   covering   Lot   1550,   the   adjoining   land   belonging  
to  petitioner  Felda  Albienda,  respondents  instituted  in  then  Court  of  First  Instance  
of  Agusan  del  Sur  an  action  against  Albienda  for  correction  of  the  latter’s  certificate  
of   title,   TCT   No.   T-­‐1718,   and   for   a   recovery   of   possession   of   said   portion   of   land,  
with  damages.  
 
Issue:  
 
W/N  the  description  of  a  parcel  of  land  in  the  petitioner’s  certificate  of  title  may  be  
corrected  to  conform  with  the  technical  description  appearing  in  the  “survey  return”  
on  file  in  the  Bureau  of  Lands,  notwithstanding  the  lapse  of  more  than  1  year  since  
the  issuance  of  said  certificate  of  title.  
 
Held:  
 
A  Torrens  Title  can  no  longer  be  corrected  as  to  area  description  after  the  lapse  of  
one  year  from  issuance  of  decree  of  registration  and  the  land  has  already  been  sold  
to   a   purchaser   in   good   faith   even   if   the   area   in   the   title   does   not   correspond   to  
survey   return   of   file   with   the   Bureau   of   Lands.   Section   38   of   the   LRA,   which   is  
pertinent   to   the   issue   at   hand,   is   clear   and   unambiguous:   “Every   decree   of  
registration   shall   bind   the   land   and   quiet   title   thereto,   it   shall   be   conclusive   upon  
and  against  all  persons.    
   
 Agura  vs  Serfino,  Sr.,  G.R.  No.  50685,  December  4,  1991  
 
 
Facts:  
 
Private   respondent   Serfino   applied   for   a   Miscellaneous   Sales   Application   over   a  
parcel   of   land   (4,172   sq.m.)   located   in   San   Patricio,   Bacolod   City.   At   the   auction   sale  
the   respondent   were   the   only   qualified   bidder   and   paid   the   required   10%   of   his  
respective  bids.  Meanwhile,  District  Land  Officer  Pedro  C  Reyes  alleged  there  was  a  
conflict   on   the   awarding   of   the   parcel   of   land   to   the   respondent;   he   alleged   that  
portion   of   parcel   of   land   applied   in   MSA   was   already   included   in   the   petitioners  
Revocable   Permit   Application.   Upon   further   investigation,   the   preliminary  
investigation   report   states   that   the   land   in   question   used   to   be   foreshore   land   but   is  
now  dry  land  and  is  now  being  used  for  residential  purposes  by  the  party  litigants  
and  their  respective  tenants  and  relatives.    
 
Issue:  
 
W/N  the  sales  of  the  lots  in  question  in  favor  of  the  private  respondents  should  be  
revoked  in  view  of  the  alleged  conflicts  and  adverse  claims  of  the  petitioners?  
 
Held:  
 
RA  No.  730  authorizes  a  sale  by  private  sale,  as  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  
it   should   be   by   bidding,   if   the   area   applied   for   does   not   exceed   1000   square   meters,  
and   that   the   applicant   has   in   his   favor   the   conditions   specified   for   in   Section   1  
thereof.  Hence,  if  the  area  applied  for  is  in  excess  of  1000  square  meters,  as  in  the  
instant  case,  the  sale  must  be  done  only  through  bidding.    
   
 Vallangca  vs.  Court  of  Appeals,  G.R.  No.  55336,  May  4,  1989  
 
Facts:  
 
The  lot  disputed  in  this  case  is  land  owned  by  petitioners  Vallangca.  Anna  Vallangca,  
widower  of  Fortunato  Vallangca,  mortgaged  the  disputed  land  to  her  cousin  Nazario  
Rabenas  (private  respondent).  At  the  time  of  said  mortgage  of  the  land  to  Nazario,  
the  land  was  already  mortgaged  to  PNB.  After  the  Pacific  war,  Nazario  went  to  the  
resident   of   Anna   and   made   her   to   sign   an   absolute   deed   of   sale.   Anna   being   an  
illiterate  and  trusted  her  cousin  affixed  her  signature  on  the  document.  Later  Anna,  
was  informed  by  a  cousin  that  the  document  she  signed  was  actually  a  deed  of  sale.  
Anna   and   her   son   Benjamin   went   to   Rabenas   to   tender   the   800   loan   amount   and  
redeemed   the   land   but   Rabenas   told   them   that   the   land   could   no   longer   be  
redeemed  and  he  drove  them  away.  
 
Issue:  
W/N  Anna  Vallangca  can  still  redeem  the  land  in  dispute?  
 
Held:  
 
Since  the  Public  Land  Law  is  silent  as  to  the  form  and  manner  in  which  the  right  to  
repurchase  may  be  exercised,  any  act  which  amounts  to  a  demand  for  reconveyance  
should   be   sufficient.   It   is   worth   noting   that   private   respondents   did   not   refute  
petitioner’s  averment  that  Anna,  together  with  her  son  Benjamin,  went  to  Rabenas’  
residence   in   1946   to   redeem   the   property   and   tendered   to   him   the   amount   of  
P800.00   in   the   Philippine   currency,   but   the   latter   made   a   statement   that   the   land  
could   no   longer   be   redeemed.   By   Anna’s   act   of   tendering   to   Rabenas   the   P800.00,  
she  had  in  effect  exercised  her  right  to  repurchase.    
   
 People  vs.  Avengoza,  G.R.  No.  L-­‐27976,  December  7,  1982  
 
Facts:  
   
Luistro   Sancho,   a   Chinese,   his   wife   Anselma   Avengoza   and   the   latter’s   mother  
Gavina   Avengoza,   were   charged   in   Criminal   Case   No.   6201   of   the   CFI   Camarines   Sur  
with  the  violation  of  Commonwealth  Act  No.  108  prohibiting  aliens  from  acquiring  
private  agricultural  lands  in  the  Philippines  and  utilizing  a  dummy  citizen  to  acquire  
such  lands.  On  trial,  the  counsel  for  the  accused  filed  a  motion  to  quash  alleging  that  
the  accused  Anselma  has  reacquired  her  Philippine  Citizenship  by  repatriation,    by  
reason   whereof   the   criminal   liability   of   the   said   accused   if   any,   was   thereby  
extinguished  and  the  issue  in  the  criminal  cases  had  thus  been  moot  and  academic.  
The  trial  court  dismisses  the  complaint  and  the  People  moved  for  appeal  and  alleged  
that  the  Anselma  has  not  validly  acquired  her  Philippine  citizenship.  
 
Issue:  
 
W/N  the  Anselma  Avengoza  alleged  repatriation  is  meritorious?  
 
Held:  
 
No.   Mere   taking   of   oath   of   allegiance   is   not   sufficient   for   reacquisition   of   Filipino  
citizenship.  A  would  be  repatriate  must  show  by  conclusive  evidence  that  he  has  the  
qualifications   for   repatriation   or   else   file   a   petition   with   the   CFI.   Finally,   the   sales   in  
favor   of   alien   Anselma   Avengoza,   through   a   dummy,   of   various   parcels   of   land   are  
void   for   being   contrary   to   public   policy.   And   like   an   alien   who   became   a   naturalized  
Filipino   citizen,   her   repatriation   did   not   exempt   her   from   criminal   liability   for  
violation  of  the  Anti-­‐Dummy  Law.  
   
 Villaluz  vs.  Neme,  G.R.  No.  L-­‐14676,  January  31,  1963  
 
Facts:  
 
The   lot   is   dispute   is   a   parcel   of   land   owned   Maria   Rocabo,   who   died   intestate   and  
was  survived  by  her  heirs,  her  3  children  and  her  legitimate  children  on  her  children  
who   died   earlier.   Her   children   partitioned   the   subject   lot   extra-­‐judicially   among  
theirselves   excluding   the   grandchildren   (the   petitioners   herein   in   the   present   case).  
The   children   sold   the   lot   to   Adriano   &   Ramona   Pajarillo   who   later   on   sold   to   Juan  
Neme   but   the   sales   was   not   recorded   in   Public   Land   Act   141   nor   in   Land  
Registration  Law  496.  The  petitioners  instituted  an  action  for  reconvenyance  for  not  
including  them  as  compulsory  heirs  of  Maria  Rocabo  in  the  extra-­‐judicial  partition.  
 
Issue:  
 
W/N    the  petitioners  as  compulsory  heirs  of  Maria  Rocabo  are  already  barred  from  
claiming  their  participation  thereon?  
 
Held:  
 
Extra-­‐judicial  partition,  which  excludes  some  of  the  heirs;  Participation  of  heirs  not  
prejudiced   by   sale   of   land.   A   deed   of   extra-­‐judicial   partition   executed   without  
including  some  of  the  heirs,  who  had  no  knowledge  of  and  consent  to  the  same,  is  
fraudulent   and   vicious,   and   the   sale   of   the   land   subject   of   the   partition   did   not  
prejudice   and   affect   the   interest   and   participation   of   the   heirs   so   excluded.    
Registration  of  voluntary  sales  of  land  is  the  operative  act  that  transmits  or  transfers  
title.  
 
   
 Rodriguez  vs.  Torreno,  G.R.  No.  L-­‐29596,  October  14,  1977  
 
 
Facts:  
 
The   lot   in   question   is   a   parcel   of   land   owned   by   Valentina   Quinones   and   has   been  
transferred  to  her  heirs  when  she  died  intestate  (private  respondents  in  the  case  at  
bar).   The   Petitioners   are   the   heirs   of   the   Atty.   Suazo,   who   was   then   counsel   to  
Valentina   Quinones   in   the   Land   Registration   Case   of   the   land   in   dispute.   The  
petitioner   alleged   that   sometime   in   1940,   Valentina   Quinones   executed   a   deed   of  
sale  of  the  disputed  land  in  favor  of  Atty.  Suazo.  On  trial,    RTC  ruled  in  favor  of  the  
private   respondents   because   of   the   petitoner’s   failure,   despite   his   having   been   the  
respondents’   counsel,   to   have   his   adverse   claim   brought   to   the   attention   of   the  
cadastral   court   and   to   have   the   supposed   deeds   of   sale   annotated   later   are   proof  
enough  that  the  alleged  deeds  of  sale  were  really  contracts  of  loan.  
 
Issue:  
 
W/N  the  existence  of  a  decree  of  registration  is  a  bar  to  an  action  filed  after  one  year  
from  the  issuance  of  the  decree  to  compel  reconveyance  of  the  property  in  question?  
 
Held:  
 
Contrary  to  the  opinion  entertained  by  the  courts  below,  the  prevailing  rule  in  this  
jurisdiction   does   not   bar   a   landowner   whose   property   was   wrongfully   or  
erroneously   registered   under   the   Torrens   system   from   bringing   an   action,   after   one  
year   from   the   issuance   of   the   decree   for   the   reconveyance   of   the   property   in  
question.   Such   an   action   does   not   aim   or   purport   to   re-­‐open   the   registration  
proceeding  and  set  aside  the  decree  of  registration,  but  only  to  show  that  the  person  
who  secured  the  registration  of  the  questioned  property  is  not  real  owner  thereof.  
   
 SAJONAS  VS.  CA,  G.R.  No.  102377,  July  5,  1996  
 
FACTS:    
 
The  Sajonas  couple  bought  a  parcel  of  land  from  Ernesto  Uychocde,  the  couple  had  
the  deed  of  sale  annotated  as  an  adverse  claim  in  the  TCT.  Meanwhile,  the  Ernesto  
Uychocde  owed  some  money  and  had  the  some  lot  subjected  to  a  mortgaged  to  the  
private   respondent   Domingo   Pilares,   when   Ernesto   was   not   able   to   pay   the   loan.  
Domingo   moved   to   the   execution   of   the   mortgaged   but   the   title   was   already  
transferred  to  the  Sajonas  couple,  Domingo  caused  an  annotation  of  the  mortgaged  
in  the  new  title.  The  Sajonas  couple  demanded  the  cancellation  of  the  annotation  but  
Domingo  Pilares  refused.  
 
 
ISSUE:  
 
W/N  THE   LOWER   COURT   ERRED   IN   HOLDING   THAT   THE   RULE   ON   THE   30-­‐DAY  
PERIOD  FOR  ADVERSE  CLAIM  UNDER  SECTION  70  OF  P.D.  NO.  1529  IS  ABSOLUTE  
INASMUCH   AS   IT   FAILED   TO   READ   OR   CONSTRUE   THE   PROVISION   IN   ITS  
ENTIRETY   AND   TO   RECONCILE   THE   APPARENT   INCONSISTENCY   WITHIN   THE  
PROVISION  IN  ORDER  TO  GIVE  EFFECT  TO  IT  AS  A  WHOLE.  
 
HELD:    
 
Annotation  of  an  adverse  claim  is  a  measure  designed  to  protect  the  interest  over  a  
piece   of   real   property   where   the   registration   of   such   interest   or   right   is   not  
otherwise   provided   for   by   the   Land   Registration   Act   of   Act   496   and   serves   a  
warning   to   third   parties   dealing   with   said   property   that   someone   is   claiming   an  
interest   on   the   same   or   a   better   right   than   that   of   the   registered   owner   thereof.  
Concededly,   annotation   of   an   adverse   claim   is   a   measure   designed   to   protect   the  
interest   of   a   person   over   a   piece   of   real   property   where   the   registration   of   such  
interest   or   right   is   not   otherwise   provided   for   by   the   Land   Registration   Act   or   Act  
496   (now   PD   1529   or   the   Property   Registration   Decree)   and   serves   a   warning   to  
third  parties  dealing  with  said  property  that  someone  is  claiming  an  interest  on  the  
same   or   a   better   right   than   that   of   the   registered   owner   thereof.   Such   notice   is  
registered   by   filing   a   sworn   statement   with   the   Register   of   Deeds   of   the   province  
where   the   property   is   located,   setting   forth   the   basis   of   the   claimed   right   together  
with   other   datas   pertinent   thereto.   The   registration   of   an   adverse   claim   is   expressly  
recognized  under  Section  70  of  P.D.  No.  1529.  
 
   
 Bolanos  vs  J.M.  Tuason  &  Co.,  Inc,  G.R.  No.  L-­‐25894,  January  30,  1971  
 
FA C T S :    
 
T h i s   w a s   a n   a c t i o n   t o   r e c o v e r   p o s s e s s i o n   o f   a   p a r c e l   o f   l a n d  
w h e r e   t h e  plaintiff  was  represented  by  a  corporation.  
 
I s s u e :    
 
W / N   t h e   c a s e   s h o u l d   b e   d i s m i s s e d   o n   t h e   g r o u n d   t h a t   t h e  
c a s e   w a s   n o t   b r o u g h t   b y   r e a l   p r o p e r t y   i n   i n t e r e s t ?  
 
 
Held:  
 
After  one  year,  decree  of  registration  cannot  be  impugned  or  collaterally  attacked;  
Registered  title  cannot  be  acquired  by  prescription.  As  the  land  in  dispute  is  covered  
by   plaintiff’s   Torrens   certificate   of   title   and   was   registered   in   1914,   the   decree   of  
registration   can   no   longer   be   impugned   on   the   ground   of   fraud,   error   or   lack   of  
notice   to   defendant,   as   more   than   one   year   has   already   elapsed   from   the   issuance  
and   entry   of   the   decree.   Neither   could   the   decree   be   collaterally   attacked   by   any  
person  claiming  title  to,  or  interest  in,  the  land  prior  to  the  registration  proceeding  
nor  could  title  to  that  land  in  derogation  of  that  of  plaintiff,  the  registered  owner,  be  
acquired  by  prescription  or  adverse  possession.  Adverse,  notorious  and  continuous  
possession   under   claim   of   ownership   for   the   period   fixed   by   law   is   ineffective  
against  a  Torrens  title.  And  it  is  likewise  settled  that  the  right  to  secure  possession  
under  a  decree  of  registration.