Silvestre vs.

CA

Trial court issued a decree in favor of dimson, bec in the mind of the court that there is a valid ground to
issue decree because there was a deed of sale executed between the spouses and dimson, howver no
decree was issued in that sale..
Assuming even that the lot in question was adjudicated in a cadastral proceeding in favor of the spouses
Mariano Batungbakal and Hilaria Vergara before World War II, this is not and could not have had the
effect of a valid conveyance for it appears that no title or decree was ever issued for the property. The
decision of the trial court in a land registration case, ordering the issuance of a decree, is not in itself a
decree of registration within the meaning of section 38 of the Land Registration Law. 8 It is expressly
required by law that all patents or certificates for lands of the public domain that may be granted be
registered in accordance with Section 122 of the Land Registration Act. Actual conveyance of such land
is to be effective only upon registration which shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land. 9
Section 122 of the Land Registration Act provides that the deed, grant or instrument of conveyance from
the government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate
only as contract between the government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the clerk of
register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration is the operative act which conveys and
affects the land. The existence of a decision rendered by a court in a cadastral case does not settle once
and for all the ownership of the property for the issuance of a decree is still necessary and such decree is
still subject to review within one year from the date of its issuance. Thus, Rufino Dimson never acquired
title to the property by virtue of the "Compromiso de Venta" as his alleged vendors, the Batungbakal
spouses, themselves did not acquire title to the lot.

Dir. Of lans vs. CA

Land in Bataan, consider form part of forest

The decision in Cadastral Case No. 41 does not constitute a bar to the application of respondent
Manuela Pastor; because a decision in a cadastral proceeding declaring a lot public land is not
the final decree contemplated in Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act.
A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude even the same applicant
from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land, provided he
thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended, and as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable (now sections 3 and 4,
PD No. 1073.

Parties caliming ownership over the land must provide a clear and concing eveidence, that the
land is form part of public land and is alienable and disposable
Cayanan vs. delos santso

Lot was registerd and Issued in the name of delos santso though fraud.
Trial court denied the petition to cancel the title, because even the petition was filed within 1 yr,
and xferred to camaya, can be considered inoocent purchaser.
Sc said said that such sale was fictitious and camaya considered nnot innocent purchaser.

Within this period of one year the decree may be reopened on the ground of fraud and the decree may
be set aside and the land adjudicated to another party. As long as the final decree is not issued and the
period of one year within which it may be reviewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under the
control and sound discretion of the court rendering it."itc-alf

Abellera vs. Guzman

FOR DAMAGES:

1st an action for ejectment; 2nd an action for claim of damages

cadastral court possesses no authority to award damages, for its power is

confined to the determination as to whether the claimants are really entitled to
the lost, as alleged in their answers; and, after finding that they are, to the
confirmation of their title to, and registration of, the lots in their name. in the
present action for ejectment, not only dose the plaintiff seek to have a judicial
pronouncement that he is the owner of the tract of land which he claims is
unlawfully occupied by the defendants but also to recover damages. After
hearing, the cadastral court may declare the plaintiff the owner of the lots and
entitled to their possession and may issue a writ directing the sheriff to put him
in possession thereof, but it cannot award damages to the plaintiff. Where
there is a case for ejectment between parties who, one against the other,
claim the same parcel of land or lot in a cadastral case, it has been
customary or the practice of courts to hold a joint hearing of both the
ejectment and the cadastral cases in which the same parcel of land is
litigated and to render a decision in both cases in its double role, as
court of first instance of general jurisdiction and as cadastral court of
limited jurisdiction. The other question which might have been raised is
whether the judgment rendered in the first case between the same parties, as
reported in Volume 37, p. 865, of the Philippine Reports, bars the institution of
the present action. In view of the fact that the defendants did not rely on the
ground in their motion to dismiss, we do not deem it proper to take it up and
pass upon it.

RE-OPENING of DECREE not allowed:

This law took effect on June 20, 1953, hence, the period of reopening cadastral
proceeding expired on June 20, 1958. However, RA. No 2061 section 2 extended the
period until
December 31, 1968, after which no further extension made.

A close look at SPOUSES' petition to re-open the cadastral proceedings of 1940 would show that their cause of action is premised on Rep.
Act No. 931

thirty-two years later, more specifically on January 12,1972,

Felipe Adolfo and Francisca Padilla, hereinafter referred to as the
SPOUSES, filed a petition docketed as Cadastral Case No. 34,
GLRO Rec. No. 1789 seeking to "re-open the October 31, 1940
decision of the Cadastral Court under Rep. Act No. 931, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 2061 and further amended by Rep. Act
No. 6236" [Petition, Annex "B," Rollo, p. 9]. The SPOUSES,
claiming to be the owners of Lot No. 8423 by virtue of having
purchased the same in 1948 as evidenced by a Deed of Quitclaim
and Confirmation dated August 28, 1969, likewise allege that due
to the excusable negligence, accident or mistake of the previous
claimant and her counsel, the land was declared public land; that
they and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, peaceful and adverse possession of the land and
have declared the same for purposes of taxation in their name(s);
that Lot No. 8423 has not been alienated, reserved, leased,
granted or otherwise disposed of either provisionally or
permanently by the government or its entity; and that up to the
filing of the petition, they and their predecessor-in-interest have
not applied for any homestead, free patent, lease or sale, over the
parcel of land under Public Land Act No. 141. Despite the
opposition of the Director of Lands respondent Judge granted the
SPOUSES' petition on May 9, 1972. Hence, Lot No. 8423 was
adjudicated in their favor.