Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Opposition Section 25. Opposition To Application in Ordinary Proceedings. Any
Opposition Section 25. Opposition To Application in Ordinary Proceedings. Any
Special Default
against
all
persons
in Operates
only
against
those
particular persons who did not
appear and oppose.
Both may be issued upon the motion of the applicant when the case is called
for hearing but the Court may motu proprio so order it also.
Effects of Default
1. That the application shall be taken as confessed;
2. That the parties affected by the default order are barred from
later contesting the application or any decree entered therein;
3. An order of general default bars any claim which has not been
presented within the time prescribed for the filing the
application, unless, the order of default is first set aside.
(Noblejas and Noblejas, Registration of Land Title and Deeds,
1992 Edition)
Motion to Lift Order of Default
An Order of Default is interlocutory in character, subject to the
control of the court, and may be modified or amended as the court
may deem proper at any time prior to the rendition of judgment. The
interest of substantial justice and the speedy determination of the
controversy should be a guiding principle of the trial court in lifting an
order of general default to allow a party to to file an opposition to the
application. (Lee vs. Punzalan, 99 SCRA 567)
Motion to Dismiss grounded on res judicata is allowed in land
registration case
In Valisno v. Plan, (143 SCRA 502), the Supreme Court, applying the
principle of res judicata, sustained the applicants motion to dismiss
the opposition when it appeared that the property sought to be
registered had been previously litigated between the applicant and the
oppositor in civil case for recovery of possession, resulting in a
judgment favourable to the applicant. While the complaint in first
action is captioned in recovery of possession, the allegations and the
prayer for relief therein raised the issue of ownership. In effect, it is in
nature of an accion reinvidicatoria. The second case is for registration
of title. Consequently, between the two (2) cases, there is identity of
causes of action in accion reinvindicatoria, possession is sought on the
basis of ownership and the same is true in registration cases.
Registration of title in ones name is based on ownership. It does not
matter that the first case was decided by a court of general
jurisdiction, while the second was being heard by one of limited
jurisdiction, such as registration court. It is enough that the court
which decided the first case on the merits had validly acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. That both courts
should have equal jurisdiction is not a requisite of res judicata.
Doctrine of Res Judicata (Sec 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court)
Concepts:
1. Bar by former judgment bars any subsequent action when the
following requisites concur:
a. The former judgment was final;
b. It was adjudged the pertinent issue or issues on their
merits;
c. It was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; and
d. Between the first and second causes of action there is:
i. Identity of parties;
ii. Identity of subject matter; and
iii. Identity of causes of action.
2. Conclusiveness of Judgement only identity of issues exist. Bars
the re-litigation of particular facts or issues involving the same
parties even if raised under different claims or cause of action.
(Bigaa v. Chavez, GR no.174160, April 20, 2010)
HEARING
Section 27. Speedy hearing; reference to a referee. The trial court
shall see to it that all registration-proceedings are disposed or within
ninety days from the date the case is submitted for decision,
The Court, if it deems necessary, may refer the case or any part
thereof to a referee who shall hear the parties and their evidence, and
the referee shall submit his report thereon to the Court within fifteen
days after the termination of such hearing. Hearing before a referee
may be held at any convenient place within the province or city as may
be fixed by him and after reasonable notice thereof shall have been
served the parties concerned. The court may render judgment in
accordance with the report as though the facts have been found by the
judge himself: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion
accept the report, or set it aside in whole or in part, or order the case
to be recommitted for further proceedings:
Section 34. Rules of procedure. The Rules of Court shall, insofar as
not inconsistent with the provision of this Decree, be applicable to land
registration and cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Acceptable Proofs:
Copy of the original land classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified true copy by the
legal custodian (Rep v. TAN)
Presidential Proclamations
Administrative orders
Bureau
of
Forest
Development
and
Land
Classification Map
Legislative Act
Investigation Reports of the Bureau of Lands
Reports and testimonies of a district forester
(Republic v. CA, 154 SCRA 476) BUT, mere report
and testimony by a district forester identifying the
condition of the land is not sufficient, (Republic vs CA
, 168 SCRA 77); BUT in the case of erroneous
classification , the Government cannot be estopped
by acts of its agents.
Insufficient Proofs:
Survey Plan even if approved by the Bureau of Lands
Tax Declarations
Tax declarations and payment of taxes are not
conclusive proof of ownership but have strong
probative value when accompanied by proof of actual
possession or supported by other effective proof.
Tax declaration by itself, is not a conclusive proof of
ownership. It is merely an indicium of a claim of
ownership. Because it does not by give itself a title,
it is a little value in proving ones ownership. (Daclag
v. Macahilig, G.R. No. 159578, 28 July, 2008)
4. Other Proof of Private Ownership
iv.