LTD case digest for midterms
petitioner thus sought relief via the instant
NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, petitioner vs. EULALIA
BRACEWELL ET AL., respondents
FACTS:
Petitioner Nicomedes Lozada filed an
application for registration and confirmation of
title over a parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-
129514, which was granted by the RTC-Makati
City, acting as a land registration court. The
Land
Registration Authority (LRA) consequently issue
d a Decree in the name of petitioner, who later
obtained Original Certificate of Titlecovering
said parcel of land. Subsequently, respondent
James Bracewell filed a petition for review of
the decree ofregistration under Section 32 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known
as the
“Property Registration Decree”
before the RTC-Las Pinas City, claiming that a
portion of the aforementioned Plan of which he
is the absolute owner and possessor, is
fraudulently included in the earlier mentioned
Decree. The RTC-Las Pinas City rendered a
Decision finding that petitioner obtained the
Decree in bad faith. Accordingly, it directed the
LRA to set aside said Decree and ordered
petitioner to cause the amendment of the said
Plan. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated his case on
appeal before the CA arguing mainly that the
RTC-Las Pinas City had no jurisdiction over a
petition for review of a decree of registration
under Section 32 of PD 1529, which should be
filed in the same branch of the court that
rendered the decision and ordered the issuance
of the decree. The CA affirmed the decision of
the RTC-LasPinas, finding that respondents
were able to substantiate their claim of actual
fraud in the procurement of said Decree,which
is the only ground that may be invoked in a
petition for review of a decree of registration
under Section 32 of PDNo. 1529. It likewise held
that, since the petition for review was filed
within one (1) year from the issuance of
thequestioned decree and considering that the
subject lot is located in Las Pinas City, the RTC
of said city had jurisdictionover the case. With
the motion for reconsideration denied,
petition for review challenging primarily the
jurisdiction of the RTC-Las Pinas City.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC of Las Pinas City has
jurisdiction over the petition for review of the
Decree.
RULING:
Yes, the RTC of Las Pinas City has jurisdiction
over the petition for review of the
Decree.Under Act No. 496 or the Land
Registration Act, as amended, which was the
governing law at the time of
thecommencement by both parties of their
respective registration proceedings, jurisdiction
over all applications forregistration of title was
conferred upon the RTCs of their respective
provinces in which the land sought to be
registered issituated. The land registration laws
were updated and codified under PD NO. 1529
and under Section 17
thereof, jurisdiction over an application for land
registration is still vested on the RTC of the pro
vince or city where the land issituated. Basically,
Section 32 of PD No. 1529 provides that any
person deprived of land or of any estate or
interest therein by such adjudication or
confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud
may file in the proper Court of First Instance a
petition for reopening and review of the decree
of registration not later than one year from and
after the date of the entry of such decree of
registration. As the land subject of this case is
clearly situated in Las Pinas City, the application
for its original registration should have been
filed before the RTC-Las Pinas City.
REPUBLIC vs. ZURBARAN REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G.R. No.
164408,March 24, 2014JULY 8,
2014 / ARDYESGUERRA Facts:
Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation
filed with RTC an application for original
registration ofland. Director of Lands opposed it
arguing that applicant and its predecessor in
interest had not been inopen, continuous,
exclusive, notorious possession and occupation
of land since June 12, 1945.RTC and CA ruled in
favor of Zurbaran.On appeal to SC, the Republic
appealed arguing that Zurbaran failed to
establish the time when the landbecame
alienable and disposable, which is crucial in
determining whether Zuburan acquired the land
byprescription.
ISSUE:
What are the substantive elements in filing an
application for original registration of land?
RULING:
The requirements depend on what basis the
application was filed..The following are the
bases for application:1. On the basis of
possession, wherein you need to show the
following:a. The land is alienable and disposable
property of the public domain b. the applicant
and its predecessors in interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and
notoriouspossession and occupation of the land
under a bona fide claim of ownership; and c.
the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest
have possessed and occupied the land since
June 12,1945, or earlierNote: Land need not be
declared alienable and disposable as of June 12,
1945 or earlier. It is sufficientthat property is
alienable and disposable at the time of
application
(Malaban vs. Republic)
2. On the basis of prescription, wherein you
need to prove the following:a. Land is alienable
and disposable, and patrimonial propertyb.
continuous possession of land for at least 10
years in good faith and with just title OR 30
yearsregardless of good faith or bad faith.c.
Land is converted or declared as patrimonial
property of the State at the beginning of 10-
year or 30-year period of possession.Only
patrimonial property of the State may be
acquired by prescription (Article 1113 of Civil
Code).Property of public dominion, if not longer
intended for public use or service, shall form
part of patrimonialproperty of State. (Article
422 of Civil Code)Here, there must be an
express declaration by the State that the public
dominion property is no longerintended for
public use, service or the development of the
national wealth or that the property has
beenconverted into patrimonial. Without such
express declaration, the property, even if
classified as alienableor disposable, remains
property of the public dominion, Such
declaration shall be in the form of a law
dulyenacted by Congress or a Presidential
Proclamation in cases where the President is
duly authorized bylaw.In the case at bar, the
application did not state when their possession
and occupation commenced (noallegation that
they have been in possession since June 12,
1945) and the duration. So the application
isbased on prescription. Here, there is no
evidence showing that the land in question was
within an areaexpressly declared by law either
to be the patrimonial property of the State, or
to be no longer intendedfor public service or
the development of the national wealth.
MINDA S. GAERLAN, petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondentFACTS:
Petitioner Minda S. Gaerlan filed an application
for original registration of title over a parcel of
land situated in Cagayan DeOro City, alleging
that she acquired said property from a certain
Mamerta Tan by virtue of a Deed of Absolute
Sale ofUnregistered Land and accordingly had
the property declared for taxation under her
name. The trial court, finding saidapplication
sufficient in form, set the case for initial
hearing. Subsequently, the Republic, through
the Office of the SolicitorGeneral (OSG) filed an
Opposition to said application for registration
on the ground, among others, that neither
petitionernor her predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation ofthe
subject Land since June 12, 1945or earlier and
that the tax declarations do not constitute
competent and sufficientevidence of a bona
fide acquisition of the subject land.
The trial court granted petitioner’s application
for registration of title
. The OSG appealed from said decision asserting
thatthe trial court erred in ruling that the
subject parcel of land is available for private
appropriation. The CA reversed the trial
court’s Decision and dismissed the application the government that the lands applied for are
for registration of title, finding that petitioner fa alienable and disposable but saidcertification
iled to present any proof toestablish that the must likewise show that the DENR Secretary
subject land is alienable and disposable. The CA had approved the land classification and
enunciated, among others that the petitioner released the same asalienable and disposable,
mustprove that the DENR Secretary has and that the same must fall within the approved
approved the land classification and released area per verification of the PENRO or CENRO.
the land of the public domain asalienable and
disposable and that the land subject of the
application falls within the approved area per
verification throughthe survey of the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources (PENRO) or
Community Environment and NaturalResources
(CENRO).Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s
application for registration of title.
RULING:
No, the CA did not err i
n dismissing petitioner’s application based on
the
insufficiency of the evidence presented and
theincomplete requirements.PD No. 1529 or
the Property Registration Decree in relation to
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.141, as
amendedby Section 4 of PD No. 1073 specifies
those who are qualified to apply for registration
of land i.e., those who bythemselves or through
their predecessors-in-interest have been in an
open, continuous, exclusive and
notoriouspossession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of
ownershipsince June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Moreover, under the Regalian Doctrine, all
lands of the public domain belong to the
State.The burden of proof in overcoming the
presumption of State ownership is on the
person applying for registration who mustprove
that the land subject of the application is
alienable and disposable. To prove that the land
is alienable, an applicantmust establish the
existence of positive act of the government
such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order,an administrative action,
investigation reports of the Bureau of Land
Investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
Theapplicant may secure a certification from