Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Group 4 Written Report
Group 4 Written Report
Group 4 Written Report
Mendoza vs CA 84 SCRA 67
84 SCRA 76 Judgment Confirms Title In whose name may title be dealt with Sec
29, PD 1529
ISSUE: Whether or not the title can be dealt with in the name of a third party.
HELD: Yes. The Court of Appeals ruling must be sustained. First of all, it was proven
that Mendoza caused the registration in the name of Cruz pursuant to their contract of
sale. Second, Mendoza overlooks Section 29 of the Land Registration Act which
expressly authorizes the registration of the land subject matter of a registration
proceeding in the name of the buyer (Cruz) or of the person to whom the land has been
conveyed by an instrument executed during the interval of time between the filing of the
application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title.
SEC. 29. After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of title
by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the land therein described may be
dealt with and instruments relating thereto shall be recorded in the office of the register
of deeds at any time before issuance of the decree of title, in the same manner as if no
application had been made. The interested party may, however, present such
instruments to the Court of First Instance instead of presenting them to the office of the
register of deeds, together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with
the application, and the court after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered
subject to the encumbrance created by a said instruments, or order the decree of
registration issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has
been conveyed by said instruments. . . .
A stranger or a third party may be dealt with in the land registration proceedings. The
only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the
interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar
facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been
complied with in this case.
III. CIRTIFICATE OF TITLE
1. Preparation of Certificate of Title
Sec. 39, PD 1529
After the judgment directing the registration of title to land has become final, the court
shall, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, issue an order directing the
Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title.
The clerk of court shall send, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies
of the judgment and of the order of the court directing the Commissioner to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a certificate stating that
the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has become final.
Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause to be prepared the decree of registration as
well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding original certificate of title. The
original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration. The decree of
registration shall be signed by the Commissioner, entered and filed in the Land
Registration Commission. The original of the original certificate of title shall also be
signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's duplicate
certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated
for entry in his registration book.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO,
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
G.R. No. L-35273 July 25, 1983
We apply the ruling in Pajomayo, et al v. Manipon et al. (39 SCRA 676) that where the
same parcel of land is covered by two titles, necessarily when one of the two titles is
held to be superior over the other, the latter should be declared null and void and should
be cancelled. Petitioner claims that it is an innocent purchaser for value and as such is
entitled to the protections provided by law particularly the guarantee of indefeasibility
and incontrovertibility of a Torrens Title after the expiration of one year within which to
file a petition for review. The respondent Bank is the innocent purchaser for value in this
case and is more entitled to the protection claimed by the petitioner. The rule on
successive registration controls. The Land Registration Court had no jurisdiction to
decree anew the registration of a land already decreed and titled. It had no power to
bestow validity upon the second decree.
Exemptions;
(i) When there are Anomalies, Irregularities in the Issuance of Title.
Appellants except to the application of this provision in this case for the reason that in
the deed of sale sought to be annulled the vendor disposed of a divided and
determinate half of the land under co-ownership. The argument, as far as it goes,
seems to be tenable. What a co-owner may dispose of under Article 493 is only his
undivided aliquot share, which shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to
him upon the termination of the co-ownership. He has no right to divide the property into
parts and then convey one part by metes and bounds.
c) All co-owners duplicates must be surrendered
Balbin vs RD 28 scra 12; supra
d) Previous Adjudication
REPUBLIC vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al.
G.R. No. L-31303-04 / 83 SCRA 453 May 31, 197
Specifically both Republic and respondents claim ownership over the same Lots Nos.
811 and 2509, hence, this controversy. There is a serious charge, which is also crucial
to the issue between the parties, that respondent de Ocampo used fraudulent
misrepresentations and machinations in securing his title. There is the element of wilfull
intent to deprive Republic of just rights which constitutes the essential characteristics of
actual as distinguished from legal fraud. In the interest of justice, to correct
Identity of the lots that were donated to the then Bureau of Education (admitted by
respondent de Ocampo), as well as those parcels of land applied for by said respondent
in the land registration case.
f) Overlapping Titles
A Land Owner loses his right to claim that his property has been encroached when his
predecessor did not register any objections at the time the alleged encroachment was
made. A Torrens Certificate of Title, complete and valid on its face may not be defeated
by another Torrens Certificate of Title which on its face, is irregular and which contains
defective technical description.
This lack of a trust relationship does not inure to the benefit of the
respondents. Despite a host of jurisprudence that states a certificate of
title is indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, it
merely confirms or records title already existing and vested, and it
cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it
be used for the perpetration of fraud; neither does it permit one to
enrich himself at the expense of others.
SECTION 52 PD 1529
Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance,
mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or
entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in
the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons
from the time of such registering, filing or entering.
Next, the Madrids argue that neither prescription nor laches can
operate against them because their title to the property is registered under
the Torrens system and therefore imprescriptible. The principles raised,
while admittedly correct, are not without exception. The fact that the
Madrids were able to secure TCT No. 167250, and Marquez, TCT Nos.
167220 and 167256, did not operate to vest upon them ownership of the
property. The Torrens system does not create or vest title. It has never
been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership, especially considering
the fact that both the Madrids and Marquezes obtained their respective
TCTs only in October 1986, twenty-seven long (27) years after petitioners
first took possession of the land. If the Madrids and Marquezes wished to
assert their ownership, they should have filed a judicial action for recovery
of possession and not merely to have the land registered under their
respective names. For as earlier mentioned, Certificates of Title do not
establish ownership.
Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, (Act No. 496) the
certificate of title covering registered land "shall be received as evidence in
all courts of the Philippines, and shall be conclusive as to all matters
contained therein (principally, the Identity of the owner of the land
covered thereby) except so far as provided" in the Act itself.
c. ITS LOCATION
F. GENERAL INCIDENTS
4. ATTRIBUTES:
a. IMPRESCRIPTIBLE
Section 47 PD 1529
Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to registered
land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
LUCAS VS GAMPONIA
(G.R. No. L-9335 October 31, 1956)
Land registration proceedings under Act 496 are in rem and that such proceedings, as
well as the title issued as a result thereof, are binding and conclusive upon the whole
world. Upon the expiration of one year within which a petition to review the decree of
registration may be filed, said decree and the title issued pursuant thereto become
incontrovertible, and the same may no longer be changed, altered or modified, much
less set aside. (Section 38, Act 496)
The object of the Torrens system, namely, to guarantee the indefeasibility of the title to
the property, would be defeated if it were the other way around.
Requisite:
1. where fraud attended the issuance of the title because Torrens title does not
furnish a shield for fraud.
Effect: A title issued based on void documents may be annulled.
De guzman vs Agbagala
2. when the patent and the title based thereon are null and void as when a patent
was issued by the Director of Lands without authority.
Effect: An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is
susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack.
Reason:
a. Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested.
b. The indefeasibility of the Torrens title should not be used as a means to
perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real property.
c. Good faith must concur with registration because, otherwise, registration
would be an exercise in futility
Except:
Requisite:
a. he buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a
right or an interest in such property
b. pays a full price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has
notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.
Thus, a title procured by fraud or misrepresentation can still be the source of a
completely legal and valid title if the same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value.
PATENTS
Free Patent No. 23263 issued to Herminigildo Agpoon is null and void and the
subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto cannot become final and
indefeasible. Hence, we ruled in Director of Lands vs. Sisican, et al. that if at
the time the free patents were issued in 1953 the land covered therein were
already private property of another and, therefore, not part of the disposable
land of the public domain, then applicants patentees acquired no right or title
to the land.
a certificate of title fraudulently secured is null and void ab initio if the fraud consisted in
misrepresenting that the land is part of the public domain, although it is not.
Martinez vs CA
Caragay-Layno vs CA
- A property which has been wrongfully registered in the name of another, but
which had not yet passed into the hands of third parties, can properly seek its
reconveyance.
Reason:
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be
subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.
Void title
Ferrer vs Bautista
- An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is
susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack.
The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any
question as to its legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without
the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casato,"
avoid the possibility of losing his land." "An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title
is not allowed
The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such
exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon and against
all persons, including the National Government and all branches thereof, whether
mentioned by name in the application or notice, the same being included in the general
description "To all whom it may concern".