CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY (IMMOVABLE OR HEIRS OF ROXAS VS CA
MOVABLE)
BURGOS VS AFP
Laches is failure or negligence for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time to do that, which by exercising
due diligence, could or should have done earlier.
Machinery is movable in nature and only becomes
immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement,
property or plant but not so when placed by a tenant,
usufructuary or any other person having only a temporary
right unless such person acted as the agent of the owner.
Machinery placed by a tenant is a personal property and is
a valid subject of a warrant for search and seizure.
BERKENKOTTER VS CU UNJIENG
Machinery and equipment do not lose its permanent
character by incorporation even if they have been used as
security in a chattel mortgage.
DAVAO SAW MILL VS CASTILLO
Machinery is movable in nature and only becomes
immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement,
property or plant but not so when placed by a tenant,
usufructuary or any other person having only a temporary
right unless such person acted as the agent of the owner.
It does not form part of the improvements and buildings
which ownership will pass to the lessor upon the expiration
of the lease.
PUNSALAN VS VDA DE LACSAMANA
Building is a real or immovable property even if mortgaged
or treated separately from the land it is built on.
Actions involving a building are a real action and should be
filed within the jurisdiction of the court where the same is
located.
LEUNG YEE VS STRONG MACHINERY
In real property, ownership belongs to the:
1. person who first registered it the registry of deeds
2.person who first took possession of it in good faith
3.person who present the oldest title, provided there is
good faith
PEOPLE’S BANK VS DAHICAN
MINDANAO BUS CO. VS CITY ASSESSOR
Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements to
be considered as an immovable property must be intended
by the owner of any building or land for use in connection
with any industry or trade being carried on therein and
which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of
such trade or industry.
Equipments destined only to repair or service the
transportation business which is not carried on in a
building or permanently on a piece of land may not be
deemed as real property and cannot be a subject of real
estate tax.
SERG PRODUCTS INC VS PCI LEASING
Despite the immovable nature of a property, parties may
stipulate and treat it as a personal property. In doing so,
they are estopped from contending the immovability of the
property.
BOA VS MERALCO
A steel tower which is not among those classified under
Article 415 as immovable property, moreover the same
being removable and merely attached to a square metal
frame by means of bolts, which when unscrewed could
easily be dismantled and moved from place to place
cannot be a subject of real property tax as they are not
attached to an immovable in a fixed manner.
REGISTRATION OF UNREGISTERED LANDS
Requisites for reopening of proceedings for registration of
land acquired through actual fraud:
1.Filed within one (1) year from the date of entry of the
decree of registration
2.Petitioner has a real and dominical right over the land
3.Property has not yet been transferred to an innocent
purchaser for value
Only actual fraud or extrinsic fraud has been accepted as
grounds for a judgment to be annulled.
*Actual fraud
1.proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by
means of the misrepresentation or concealment of
material facts
2.an intentional omission of fact required by law
*Extrinsic fraud
1.also actual fraud but collateral to the transaction sued
upon
2.act prevents a party from having a trial or presenting his
entire case to court
3.operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment
itself but to the manner in which it is procured so that
there is not a fair submission of the controversy
*Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its
detrimental effect upon public interests and public or
private confidence; even though the act is not done or
committed with an actual design to commit positive fraud
or injury upon other persons.
Intrinsic fraud is where fraudulent acts pertain to an issue
involved in the original action or where the acts
constitution the fraud were or could have been litigated
therein.
Publication of notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation is an indispensable procedural
requirement. It is material and relevant in assessing the
applicant’s right or title over the land.
LLANES VS REPUBLIC
Requisites for registration of land
1.Property in question is alienable and disposable land of
public domain
2.Applicant themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest should have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession of the land and occupation
3.Such possession has been under bonafide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945
REPUBLIC VS CA, TRB
HEIRS OF ROXAS VS GARCIA
If the property has already passed into the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is to file and
action for damages against the person who allegedly
registered the property through fraud or if he had become
insolvent or if the action is barred by prescription to file an
action for recovery against the Assurance Fund under
Section 95 of PD 1529 within a period of six years from the
time the right to bring such action accrues.
PILAPIL VS CA
The affect of sale of land, the deed of sale and its entry in
the day book must be done with the surrender of the
owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title.
It is required under Section 55 of Act 496 (now Section 53
of PD 1529), registration shall only retroact to the date of
entry in the day book upon compliance however, failure to
comply will not invalidate the claim of ownership
considering the factual circumstances.
TAN BUTO VS LUY
Sales patent issued in accordance with the Public Land Act
and registered in conformity with the provisions of the
Land Registration Act (Act 496) becomes irrevocable and
enjoys the same privileges as Torrens title issued
thereunder. It cannot be the subject of collateral attack.
The lower court cannot decree again the registration of
land already decreed in an earlier land registration case
thus making the second decree null and void.
SERNA VS CA
Adjudication of land in a registration case does not become
final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one (1)
year after the entry of final decree. Thereafter, it becomes
incontrovertible and no longer subject to reopening or
review except when the right of a person deprived of land
through fraud.
An action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes
in ten (10) years from discovery of fraud which is deemed
to have taken place from the issuance of the certificate of
title.
HEIRS OF LOPEZ VS ENRIQUEZ
Purpose of lis pendens (pending litigation)
1.To protect the rights of the party causing the lis pendens
2.To advise third person who purchase or contract on the
subject property that they do so at their peril and subject
to the result of the pending litigation
Effects of lis pendens
1.Keeps the subject matter of litigation within the power of
the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent
the defeat of the final judgment by successive
alienations
2. It binds a purchaser, bonafide or not, of the subject
of the litigation or decree that the court will promulgate
subsequently
Notice of lis pendens may involve action dealing with title
or possession and use or occupation of property such as:
1.Recovery of possession
2.Quieting of title
3.Removal of clouds
4.Partition
5.Other actions involving use or possession
Not applicable to
1.Preliminary attachment
2.Probate of wills
3.Levy on execution
4.Administration of estate
5.Sum of money
Reconveyance
1.an action in personam
2.available to a person whose property has been
wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in
another’s name
3. always available as long as ownership is not yet
passed to an innocent third person for value.
Proceedings in land registration are in rem, the sole object
being the registration applied for. Movants as intervenors-
oppositors to the land registration proceedings must first
file a motion to lift the order of general default before they
can be allowed to intervene or oppose in the said
proceeding.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS CA
Alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or
thru his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously, and
exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30 years
under the Public Land Act, as amended) is converted to
private property by the mere lapse or completion of said
period, ipso jure.
As an applicant possessor who has complied with all the
necessary requirements for the grant by the government
under the Public Land Act through actual possession,
openly, continuously, and publicly, private respondent
through his predecessor-in-interest is deemed to have
already acquired by operation of law not only a right to a
grant but the grant itself of the government for it is not
necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order that
said grant may be sanctioned by courts — an application
therefore being sufficient under the law.
Admission that the land in question is a public land does
not divest the applicant of the right which is already vested
in him.
REGISTERED LANDS
SAJONAS VS CA
The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty
days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said
period, the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled
upon filing of a verified petition therefore by the party in
interest. Provided, however, that after cancellation, no
second adverse claim shall be registered by the same
claimant.
The levy on execution shall create a lien in favor of the
judgment creditor over the right, title and interest of the
judgment debtor in such property at the time of the levy,
subject to liens or encumbrances then existing.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is
1.one who buys property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in such
property
2.pays a full and fair price for the same
3.at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of
the claims or interest of some other person in the
property.
*Good faith consists in an honest intention to abstain from
taking an unconscientious advantage of another.
The purchaser in good faith who already caused the
annotation of an adverse claim based on a contract of sale,
was subsequently able acquire the property upon payment
of the full price and to whose favor a deed of sale was
executed has the right over the property which is being
levied thereafter based on an execution against the seller.
SANDOVAL VS CA
The Court has held that a fraudulent or forged document of
sale may give rise to a valid title if the certificate of title of
has already been transferred from the name of the true
owner to the same indicated by the forger and while it
remained as such, the land was subsequently sold to an
innocent purchaser. 13 Unquestionably, the vendee had the
right to rely upon the certificate of title.
It is settled doctrine that one who deals with property
registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond
the same, but only has to rely on the title. He is charged
with notice only of such burdens and claims as are
annotated on the title except when:
1.the party has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious
man to make such inquiry
2.the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of
title in his vendor
3.sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to
inquire into the status of the title of the property in
litigation.
The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond
the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
appearing on the face of said certificate.
One who falls within the exception can neither be
denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith; and hence does not merit the
protection of the law.
LAVIDES VS PRE
An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease,
charge, or otherwise deal with the same as fully as if it had
not been registered. x x x But no deed, mortgage, lease, or
other voluntary instrument, except a will, purporting to
convey or affect registered land, shall take effect as a
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a
contract between the parties and as evidence of authority
to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration. The
act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and
affect the land, and in all cases under this Act the
registration shall be made in the office of the register of
deeds of the province or city where the land lies.
A conveyance to be operative must be registered in the
office of the register of deeds of the province or city where
the property is located.
GUERRERO VS CA
An action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud in the
registration of land is not barred by prescription, as the
Torrens system of registration is not intended to shield
fraud and further that registration is not a mode of
acquiring ownership.
A decree of registration based on a false cadastre that
eventually led to the issuance of a certificate of title is null
and void.
CACHO VS CA
A land registration proceeding is "in rem," and, therefore,
the decree of registration is binding upon and conclusive
against all persons including the Government and its
branches, irrespective of whether or not they were
personally notified of the filing of the application for
registration or have appeared and filed an answer to said
application, because all persons are considered as notified
by the publication required by law.
Requiring the submission of a new plan as a condition for
the re-issuance of the decree would render the finality
already attained in a previous case, thus, violating the
fundamental rule regarding res judicata.
The judgment and the resulting decree are res judicata,
and these are binding upon the whole world, the
proceedings being in the nature of proceedings in rem. It is
an impermissible assault upon the integrity and stability of
the Torrens System of registration because it also
effectively renders the decree inconclusive.
The issuance of a decree is a ministerial duty both of the
judge and of the Land Registration Commission.
A final decision in land registration cases can neither be
rendered inefficacious by the statute of limitations nor by
laches.
REPUBLIC VS CA, DOLOR
Granted appeal on the decision of the CA affirming the
decision of the lower court granting the application of
registration of a parcel of land based on the defect in the
publication in the OG which confers the jurisdiction of the
court therefore ordering the application to be vacated and
set aside
The actual publication on the OG was 42 days later than
the date of hearing, defeating its real purpose to confer the
jurisdiction of the court. Though, it was included in an issue
prior to the date of hearing still the date of actual
publication should be the point of reference.
The point of reference in establishing lack of jurisdiction of
the trial court was only on that date when the notice was
made known to the people in general. Verily, the late
publication of the notice defeated the purpose for its
existence thereby reducing it to a mere pro forma notice.
AMANSEC VS MELENDEZ
Denied appeal on the decision of the lower court denying
the complaint for reconveyance on the ground of
prescription.
Petitioner failed to bring the action within 10 years;
actually it took him 24 years to file an action.
The cause of action of the petitioners-appellants for the
reconveyance to them of the title to the land in question
arose when Original Certificate of Title was issued by the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. The issuance
of said original certificate of title constituted constructive
notice to the public including the petitioners-appellants.
MARCELINO VS CA, LACTAOEN
A petition for certiorari seeking to annul the decision of CA,
affirming the lower court’s decision dismissing the
complaint for recovery of possession on the ground of
laches which was denied by the SC
Respondents were in possession of the land for 50 years
but petitioners never asserted their right over it despite
the possession of title over the same.
The petitioner's long inaction in asserting their right to the
contested lots bars them from recovering the same. The
law serves those who are vigilant and diligent and not
those who sleep when the law requires them to act
CATHOLIC BISHOP VS CA, TORRICO
A denied petition for review of a CA decision reversing the
order of the lower court for the respondent to vacate and
surrender possession of the property owned by the
petitioner
Said land was donated to the aunt of the respondent who
gave it to him as a gift which he accepted and thereafter
took its possession for 49 years but without the petitioner
asserting his right over the same.
The following are the essential elements of laches:
(1) Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under
whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of;
(2) Delay in asserting complainant's right after he had
knowledge of the defendant's conduct and after he has an
opportunity to sue;
(3) Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
defendant that the complainant would assert the right on
which he bases his suit; and
(4) Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
accorded to the complainant. 32
Jurisprudence is settled as to the imprescriptibility and
indefeasibility of a Torrens Title, but there is equally an
abundance of cases in the annals of our jurisprudence
where we categorically ruled that a registered landowner
may lose his right to recover the possession of his
registered property by reason of laches
LOLA VS CA, ZABALA
A granted petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the
resolution of CA reversing its original decision and ruling
that the land in dispute belongs to the respondent
Though prescription may not be available to the petitioner
because the land is still in the name of the respondent, the
principle of laches is available to him since the latter failed
to assert her right in 32 years.
This defense is an equitable one and does not concern
itself with the character of the defendant's title, but only
with whether or not by reason of the plaintiff's long
inaction or inexcusable neglect he should be barred from
asserting this claim at all because to allow him to do so
would be inequitable and unjust to the defendant...
PNB VS BANATAO
The land in dispute being
x x x subject to the provisions of Sections 118, 121, 122
and 124 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended,
which provide that except in favor of the Government or
any of its branches, units or institutions, THE LAND HEREBY
ACQUIRED SHALL BE INALIENABLE AND SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO [E]ENCUMBRANCE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5)
YEARS NEXT FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS PATENT, and
shall not be liable for the satisfaction of any debt
contracted prior to the expiration of that period; x x x
therefore makes the mortgage entered into with it is void
ab initio.
MELQUIADES VS IAC, OUANO
The certificate of title is an evidence of indefeasible title to
the property in favor of the person whose name appears on
it.
After the lapse of the one (1) year period from entry of the
decree of registration upon which the certificate of title is
based, it becomes incontrovertible.
A direct attack on the title must be made within a year
from its entry.
Prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently
registered real property is ten (10) years from the date of
issuance of the certificate of title.
Unless reversed, the title remains valid and binding.
The duty of the Director of Lands is only ministerial.
An action for reversion of the registration of land acquired
through fraud and misrepresentation may be brought by
the state even after the lapse of the one (1) year
prescriptive period.
ANTONIO VS SANTOS
A decree of registration which gives title to the applicant
will be ineffective and inefficacious if there has been
already a title registered prior to it.
In seeking for reconveyance, the party must prove by clear
and convincing evidence his title to the property and the
fact of fraud within four (4) years after its discovery.
DELA CRUZ VS CA, MARQUEZ
Long inaction or passivity in asserting rights over disputed
property will preclude recovery of the same.
A purchaser who was fully aware that the property is in
possession of another cannot successfully pretend later
that he is an innocent purchaser for value.
ALMEIDA VS CA, SY
In dealing with property registered under the Torrens
system need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely
on the title.
Fraudulent or forged document of sale may give rise to a
valid title, if the certificate of title has already been
transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger’s
name and while it remained as such, the land was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser for value.
JUAN VS ZUNIGA
Prescription may be applied to ordinary actions of recovery
of real property which is covered by a Torrens Title upon
the theory that its registration under our registration
system has the effect of a constructive notice to the whole
world, however the same cannot be availed of when the
purpose of the action is to compel a trustee to convey the
property registered in his name for the benefit of the
cestui que trust. In other words, the defense of prescription
cannot be set up in an action those purpose is to recover
property held by a person for the benefit of another.
An action for reconveyance on the ground of trust is
imprescriptible.
*example of constructive trust
When defendant through fraudulent representation or by
pretending to be the sole heir of the deceased, succeeded
in having the certificate of title cancelled and a new one be
issued in his name enabling her to possess the land and
appropriate its produce.
APUYAN VS HALDEMAN
Title under the Torrens system is not absolute or
completely indefeasible hence it can be ordered cancelled
if proved to be void even after the lapse of the one (1) year
period.
The title is void if:
1.Procured through fraud
2.In disposable public lands, failure on the part of the
grantee to comply with the conditions imposed by law
To serve public interest, a person who succeeds in
fraudulently acquiring title to a public land should not be
allowed to benefit therefrom.
Indefeasibility of the title does not bar the authority to
investigate on how it was acquired.
Only the state can file an action for reversion.
COCOY VS CA
The ten-year prescriptive period for bringing the action to
enforce the trust or for reconveyance of plaintiffs-
appellants’ shares should be toned from the registration of
the release of the mortgage obligation, since only by that
time could plaintiffs-appellants be charged with
constructive knowledge of the liquidation of the mortgage
obligations, when it became incumbent upon them to
expect and demand the return of their shares, there being
no proof that plaintiffs-appellants otherwise learned of the
payment of the obligation earlier.
LACSAMANA VS CA
Actual knowledge of facts that would impel a cautious man
to make an inquiry in dealing with registered lands is an
exception to the protection provided to a holder in good
faith and therefore cannot rely on the Torrens title alone.
An action to nullify a void contract is imprescriptible.
An action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud
prescribes in four (4) years.
Laches is not a valid defense if an action to assert the
owner’s right is exercised upon knowledge of such threat
on the property.
UP VS SUSI
Certificates of titles under the Torrens system cannot be
collaterally attacked.
Collateral attack is an attempt to overturn judgment in a
judicial proceeding by filing a separate case other than the
original action or an appeal from it.
A case or action for damages is distinct from an action for
cancellation of title because the remedy sought in the
former cannot be raised in the latter and vice-versa.
TAPUROC VS DE MENDE
The question on the validity of Torrens title, whether
fraudulently issued or not, can be raised only in action
expressly instituted for that purpose.
It cannot be changed altered, modified, enlarged,
diminished or cancelled in a collateral proceeding such as
in an action for the declaration of nullity of deed of sale.
Failure to an action against possessor who has title to a
property in 29 years constitutes laches.
REXLON VS CA
An action for reconstitution of title does not give the court
jurisdiction to pass the question of actual ownership.
A certificate of title does not vest ownership it is merely an
evidence of the same.
Extrinsic fraud is a situation a litigant commits outside the
trial, fraud committed during the trial is an alleged fraud.
FELCIANO VS ZALDIVAR
Indefeasibility does not apply when fraud attended the
issuance of the title.
An affidavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
Titled lands cannot be subject to prescription or adverse
possession but failure to assert such right is barred by
laches.
Possession which was merely tolerated by the lawful does
not bar recovery and laches is not applicable.
The right to choose between appropriation of the
improvement or selling the lands belongs to the owner.
BERGADO VS CA
An action to recover title must be brought within ten (10)
years from the date the cause of action accrues.
Application of the principle that ownership belongs to the
one who first register it is applicable only when there is
good faith.
A deed will produce to effect if made in bad faith.
ALONSO VS CEBU COUNTRY CLUB
An action for re-conveyance is a legal remedy granted to a
landowner whose property has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another’s name, but then the
action must be filed within ten years from the issuance of
the title since such issuance operates as a constructive
notice.
An action based on implied or constructed trust prescribes
in ten (10) years from the time of its creation or upon the
alleged fraudulent registration of the property.
Approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce of
the sale of friar lands is indispensable for its validity,
hence, the absence of such approval made the sale null
and void ab-initio, therefore no valid title can be issued
based on the same.
PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK VS CA
A reconstituted title issued is void if the previous title is not
cancelled.
LIM VS CHUATOCO
Whatever sympathies may be judicially appreciated for the
deceived party must be balanced in deference to the
protection afforded by law to the innocent purchaser for
value. If such innocence or good faith is established by the
evidence, or insufficiently rebutted by the disputant, then
the corresponding duty of the Court is simply to affirm the
rights of the purchaser in good faith. It is mischief at worse,
and error at least, for a court to misread or inflate the facts
to justify a ruling for the defrauded party, no matter how
wronged he or she may be. Relief for such injury should be
obtainable instead in a proper proceeding against the
malfeasant transferor, and not the innocent transferee.
Sale based on a reconstituted title issued through fraud is
valid when transferred to an innocent purchaser for value
however deceived parties can still seek for the
reconveyance of their just share.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS ABANILLA
The protection of indefeasibility of land registered under
the Torrens title is not available who acquired the same
through fraud. A person is in bad faith if he was able to
register a land under his name through a sales patent
issued pending the investigation of the fact finding
committee conducted upon the opposition of persons
allegedly in current possession of the land.
MENESES VS CA
The free patent over an accretion which was fraudulently
issued cannot give rise to a valid ownership. Accretion in
lakes belongs to its riparian owner.
OCAMPO VS OCAMPO
The party making an allegation in a civil case has the
burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence. In an
action involving property, petitioners should rely on the
strength of their own title and not on the alleged weakness
of respondents’ claim.
A claim of ownership cannot be based simply on the
testimonies of witnesses; much less on those of interested
parties, self-serving as they are.
UGALE VS GOROSPE
A party contesting the indefeasibility of the Torrens title
must prove that he has better right over the same through
a preponderance of evidence.
The general rule is that no issue may be raised on appeal
unless it has been brought before the lower tribunal for its
consideration. Such rule, however, is subject to exceptions,
such as when there are grounds not assigned as errors or
matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
(a) affects jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of
law;
(c) consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just
decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve
the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal
justice;
(d) raised in the trial court and are matters of record
having some bearing on the issue submitted which the
parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(e) closely related to an error assigned; and
(f) upon which the determination of a question properly
assigned, is dependent.
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that:
Certificate not Subject to Collateral attack.- A certificate of
title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.
REPUBLIC VS ORFINADA
Under Torrens system, title of the defendants is made
binding against the whole world, including the government,
as soon as the deed of transfer shall have been presented
and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds.
Importantly, the principle is that it is the act of registration
that operates to transfer the title to the land. And to
facilitate registration under this system, the government
provides to the owner a Torrens Certificate of Title which is
submitted for cancellation when the property is transferred
to another person who will then be entitled to the issuance
of the new Torrens Title.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of
another without notice, that some other person has a right
to, or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price
for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he
has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in
the property.
If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that
the seller's title thereto is valid, she should not run the risk
of being told later that her acquisition was ineffectual after
all. If we were to void a sale of property covered by a clean
and unencumbered torrens title, public confidence in the
Torrens System would be eroded and land transactions
would have to be attended by complicated and
inconclusive investigations and uncertain proof of
ownership. The consequence would be that land conflicts
could proliferate and become more abrasive, if not even
violent.
SECRETARY OF DENR VS JOSE YAP
While they may not be eligible to apply for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of CA
No. 141, as amended, this does not denote their automatic
ouster from the residential, commercial, and other areas
they possess now classified as agricultural. Neither will this
mean the loss of their substantial investments on their
occupied alienable lands. Lack of title does not necessarily
mean lack of right to possess.
Article 1144. The following actions must be brought
within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment. (n)
Article 1145. The following actions must be commenced
within six years:
(1) Upon an oral contract;
(2) Upon a quasi-contract. (n)
Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted
within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
However, when the action arises from or out of any act,
activity, or conduct of any public officer involving the
exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law
including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff,
the same must be brought within one (1) year. (As
amended by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)
Article 1147. The following actions must be filed within
one year:
(1) For forcible entry and detainer;
(2) For defamation. (n)
SALES
Article 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting
parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to
deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a
price certain in money or its equivalent.
A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (1445a)
FBDC VS YLLAS CORPORATION
A contract cannot be interpreted as a pledge in the
absence of any of its requisites such as the absence of
pactum commissorium or the placement of the thing in
actual possession of the creditor.
An adverse possessor, who is not a mortgagor, cannot just
be deprived of his possession, let alone be bound by the
terms of the chattel mortgage contract, simply because the
mortgage brings up an action for replevin.
Article 1460. A thing is determinate when it is particularly
designated or physical segregated from all others of the
same class.
The requisite that a thing be determinate is satisfied if at
the time the contract is entered into, the thing is capable
of being made determinate without the necessity of a new
or further agreement between the parties. (n)
ADELFA VS CA
An option, as used in the law on sales, is a continuing offer
or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that
the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed
price within a certain time or under or in compliance with,
certain terms and conditions, or which gives to the owner
of the property the right to sell or demand a sale.
It is also sometimes called an “unaccepted offer”.
An option is not itself a purchase, but merely secures the
privilege to buy. It is not a sale of property but a sale of the
right to purchase.
It is simply a contract by which the owner of the property
agrees with another person that he shall have the right to
buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time.
Its distinguishing characteristic is that it imposes no
binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside
from the consideration for the offer.
Until acceptance, it is not properly speaking a contract and
does not vest, transfer or agree to transfer any title to or
any interest on the right in the subject matter but is merely
a contract by which the owner of the property gives the
optionee the right or privilege of accepting the offer and
buying the property on certain terms.
An option is an unaccepted offer.
Suspension of payment
1. Vendee is disturbed in the possession or ownership
of the thing acquired or
2. Reasonable grounds to fear such disturbance
3. By a vindicatory action or a foreclosure of
mortgage
Exception
1. Vendor gives security for the return of the price in
a proper case
2. It is stipulated
AYALA LIFE VS RBDC
Payment of the price in a contract to sell is a positive
suspensive condition, failure of which is not really a
breach, serious or otherwise, but an event that prevents
the obligation of the seller to convey title from arising, in
accordance with Article 1184 of the Civil Code.
Non-fulfillment by the buyer of his obligation to pay which
is a suspensive condition to the obligation of the
petitioners to sell and deliver the title to the property,
rendered in the contract to sell ineffective and without
force and effect.
HSLB VS DAILO
The conjugal partnership shall be liable for the debts and
obligations contracted by either spouse without the
consent of the other to the extent that the family may have
been benefited and the burden of proof lies with the
creditor-party litigant claiming such.
GUIANG VS CA
Article 1390 Civil Code - The following contracts are
voidable or annullable, even though there may have been
no damage to the contracting parties:
(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving
consent to a contract;
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake,
violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a
proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.
Article 173 FC - The wife may, during the marriage and
within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the
courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband
entered into without her consent, when such consent is
required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends
to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal
partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this
right, she or her heirs after the dissolution of the marriage
may demand the value of the property fraudulently
alienated by the husband.
Article 1422 Civil Code – A contract which is the direct
result of a previous illegal contract, is also void and
inexistent
A contract absenting consent is void and therefore cannot
be ratified.
Sale of conjugal properties requires the consent of both the
husband and the wife absence of which renders it null and
void including the portion pertaining to the husband who
contracted the sale.
REPUBLIC VS HEIRS OF DIGNOS
An action for quieting of title does not prescribe if the
plaintiffs are in possession of the property in question, they
may wait until their possession is disturbed before they file
any action.
Each co owner shall have the full ownership of his part and
of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when
personal rights are involved. But the effect of the
alienation of the mortgage with respect to the co-owners
shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him
in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may
be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by
reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do
so within the period of one month from the time they were
notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
Sale of a co-owner of the whole property without the
consent of the others is void, the purchaser has the right to
seek redress against the said co-owner and his successors-
in-interest.
Article 1459. The thing must be licit and the vendor must
have a right to transfer the ownership thereof at the time it
is delivered. (n)
Article 1470. Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a
contract of sale, except as it may indicate a defect in the
consent, or that the parties really intended a donation or
some other act or contract. (n)
Article 1476. In the case of a sale by auction:
(1) Where goods are put up for sale by auction in lots, each
lot is the subject of a separate contract of sale.
(2) A sale by auction is perfected when the auctioneer
announces its perfection by the fall of the hammer, or in
other customary manner. Until such announcement is
made, any bidder may retract his bid; and the auctioneer
may withdraw the goods from the sale unless the auction
has been announced to be without reserve.
(3) A right to bid may be reserved expressly by or on
behalf of the seller, unless otherwise provided by law or by
stipulation.
(4) Where notice has not been given that a sale by auction
is subject to a right to bid on behalf of the seller, it shall
not be lawful for the seller to bid himself or to employ or
induce any person to bid at such sale on his behalf or for
the auctioneer, to employ or induce any person to bid at
such sale on behalf of the seller or knowingly to take any
bid from the seller or any person employed by him. Any
sale contravening this rule may be treated as fraudulent by
the buyer. (n)
Article 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be
transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive
delivery thereof. (n)
Article 1478. The parties may stipulate that ownership in
the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully
paid the price. (n)
Article 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing
for a price certain is reciprocally demandable.
Article 1490. The husband and the wife cannot sell
property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the
marriage settlements; or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property
under article 191. (1458a)
Article 1493. If at the time the contract of sale is perfected,
the thing which is the object of the contract has been
entirely lost, the contract shall be without any effect.
But if the thing should have been lost in part only, the
vendee may choose between withdrawing from the
contract and demanding the remaining part, paying its
price in proportion to the total sum agreed upon. (1460a)
Article 1496. The ownership of the thing sold is acquired by
the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in any
of the ways specified in articles 1497 to 1501, or in any
other manner signifying an agreement that the possession
is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. (n)
Article 1497. The thing sold shall be understood as
delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession
of the vendee. (1462a)
DOUBLE SALES
Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to
different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the
person who may have first taken possession thereof in
good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall
belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain
to the person who in good faith was first in the possession;
and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents
the oldest title, provided there is good faith. (1473)
ABRIGO VS DE VERA
Registration must be done in the proper registry in order to
bind the land.
A person who registered the land under the Property
Registration Decree has better right over a deed of
conveyance registered under Act 3344.
The priority in time principle does not apply because the
land was already registered under the Torrens system.
Registration of instruments under Act 3344 affecting
unregistered lands is without prejudice to a third party with
a better right.
Good faith must concur with the registration.
A buyer is presumed to be in good faith except when the
seller is not the actual possessor of the land. Under the
principle of caveat emptor, the buyer must beware of the
title of the actual occupants of the land.
CRB VS CA
The provision on double sales cannot be invoked where the
two different contracts of sale are made by two different
persons, one of them not being the owner of the property
sold. And even if the sale was made by the same person, if
the second sale was made when such person was no
longer the owner of the property, because it had been
acquired by the first purchaser in full dominion, the second
purchaser cannot acquire any right.
The intention to transfer is not sufficient, it only constitutes
a will. It is furthermore, necessary that the conveyor could
juridically perform that act; that he had the right to do so,
since a right which he did not possess could not be vested
by him in the transferee.
The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be
aware of the supposed title of the vendor and one who
buys without checking the vendor’s title takes all the risks
and losses consequent such failure.
Although it is a recognized principle that a person dealing
on a registered land need not to go beyond its certificate of
title, it is also a firmly settled rule that where there are
circumstances which would put a party on guard and
prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being
sold to him, such as the presence of occupants/tenants
thereon, it is, of course, expected from the purchaser of a
valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or
nature of possession of the occupants, i.e., whether or not
the occupants possess the land en concepto dueño or in
concept of an owner.
A purchaser or mortgagee cannot close his eyes to facts
which should put a reasonable man upon his guard and
then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that
there was no defect in the title of the vendor or mortgagor.
His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists or his
willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence
of a defect in the vendor’s or mortgagor’s title will not
make him an innocent purchaser or mortgagee for value.
LUMBRES VS SPS TABLADA
When acting as an ejectment court, the MTC’s jurisdiction
is limited to the determination of the issue on possession
de fact and not possession de jure except if the issue
depends on the resolution of the issue of ownership which
is sufficiently alleged in the complaint.
Knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale
defeats his rights even if he is the first to register the
second sale because such knowledge taints his prior
registration with bad faith. For the second buyer to
displace the first, he must show that he acted in good faith
throughout from the time of acquisition until the title is
transferred to him by registration.
SPS. TANGLAO VS SPS. PARUNGAO
The provision on double sale should comply with the
following rules
1. Knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale
cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights except when the
second buyer first registers in good faith the second
sale
2. Knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first
sale defeats his rights even if he is the first to register
since such knowledge taints his registration with bad
faith.
The act of registration by the second buyer must be
coupled with good faith, meaning the registrant must have
no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor or
must not have been aware of facts which should put him
upon such inquiry and investigation as might necessary to
acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor.
A purchaser in good faith or innocent purchaser for value is
one who buys property and pays a full and fair price for it
at the time of the purchase or before any notice of some
other person’s claim on or interest in it.
Purchasers in bad faith cannot rely on the indefeasibility of
a torrens title for it does not extend to transferees who
take the certificate of title in bad faith.
SPS. SALERA VS SPS. RODAJE
The law on double sale contemplates that of a single
vendor.
Bad faith under the law cannot be presumed, it must be
established by clear and convincing evidence.
Any lot buyer is expected to be vigilant, exercising utmost
care in determining whether the seller is the true owner of
the property and whether there are other claimants.
NAVAL VS CA
The law on double sale is not applicable to unregistered
land, the registration referred thereto is the registration
under the Torrens system which considers the act of
registration as the operative act that binds the land.
Priority in time, priority in rights is applicable in
unregistered lands.
Under the law, registration by the first buyer is a
constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his
right as such buyer in good faith.
The registration of an instrument involving unregistered
land in the RD creates constructive notice and binds third
person who may subsequently deal with the same
property.
The issue of good faith or bad faith of the buyer is relevant
only where the subject of the sale is registered land and
the purchaser is buying the same from the registered
owner whose title to the land is clean in such case the
purchaser who relies on the clean title of the registered
owner is protected if he is a purchaser in good faith for
value.
In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is
respected as incontrovertible what is sought is the transfer
of the property or its title which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its
rightful or legal owner or to the one with better right.
When the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be
reconveyed, an action for reconveyance does not prescribe
because one who is in possession may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking
steps to vindicate his rights. His undisturbed possession
gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of
equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own
title, which right can be claimed only by one who is
possession.
When the plaintiff is not in possession of the land to be
reconveyed, an action for reconveyance based on implied
or constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of
reference being the date of registration of the deed or the
date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the
property.
CARUMBA VS CA
The purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff’s execution
sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor and
merely acquires the latter’s interest in the property sold as
of the time the property was levied upon.
If the judgment debtor no longer had dominical interest or
real right over the land at the time of the execution sale
there is nothing that could be passed to the purchaser at
the execution sale.
RADIOWEALTH VS PALILEO
Registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is
without prejudice to a third person with a better right.
SPS RAYOS VS REYES
In order that consignation may be effective the debtor
must show that
 1. there was a debt due
2. the consignation of the obligation has been made
because the creditor to whom a valid tender of
payment was made refused to accept it
3. previous notice of the consignation had been given
to the person interested in the performance of the
obligation
4. the amount due was placed at the disposal of the
court
5. after the consignation had been made the person
interested was notified.
OBLIGATIONS OF VENDEE
Article 1592. In the sale of immovable property, even
though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to
pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the
contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay,
even after the expiration of the period, as long as no
demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon
him either judicially or by a notarial act. After the demand,
the court may not grant him a new term. (1504a)
Article 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in
reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not
comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and
the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of
damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even
after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become
impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there
be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.
This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of
third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance
with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law. (1124)
CEBU VS HEIRS OF MORALES
A sale by public auction is perfected when the auctioneer
announces its perfection by the fall of the hammer or in
other customary manner nevertheless the same is
perfected when another merely stepped into the shoes of
the highest bidder.
A contract of sale is consensual contract and is perfected
at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the
object of the contract and upon the price. From that
moment performance is reciprocally demandable subject
to the provisions governing the form of contracts.
Failure to pay the balance of the purchase price did not
render the sale inexistent or invalid but merely gave rise to
a right in favor of the vendor to eighter demand specific
performance or rescission of the contract of sale.
Payment can be made by the vendee as long as no
demand for rescission has been made.
CONVENTIONAL REDEMPTION
Article 1601. Conventional redemption shall take place
when the vendor reserves the right to repurchase the thing
sold, with the obligation to comply with the provisions of
article 1616 and other stipulations which may have been
agreed upon. (1507)
EQUITABLE MORTGAGE
CRUZ VS CA
ARTICLE 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an
equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:
(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is
unusually inadequate;
(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or
otherwise;
(3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to
repurchase another instrument extending the period of
redemption or granting a new period is executed;
(4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the
purchase price;
(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the
thing sold;
(6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that
the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall
secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any
other obligation.
In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other
benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise
shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to
the usury laws. (n)
Therefore a contract appearing on its face to be a definite
sale, may be interpreted as an equitable mortgage if there
is gross inadequacy of the price.
JMA VS STA. MONICA
Elements of option contract
1. The offer to sell which does not become a contract
until accepted
2. The completed contract to lease the offer for a
specified time
BAUTISTA VS UNANGST
Therefore a contract appearing on its face to be a definite
sale, may be interpreted as an equitable mortgage if the
vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise and In
any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real
intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure
the payment of a debt or the performance of any other
obligation
BACUNGAN VS CA
Gross inadequacy of price by itself will not result in a void
contract. It does not even affect the validity of a contract of
sale, unless it signifies a defect in the consent or that the
parties actually intended a donation or some other
contract.
CO-OWNERSHIP
Article 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership
of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-
ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title.
(392)
Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of
his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto,
and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and
even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except
when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the
alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners,
shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him
in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
(399)
Article 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary
rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the
co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser
by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they
do so within the period of one month from the time they
were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. (1067a)
Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the
co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the
partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his
share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided
for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall
be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period
which shall not exceed twenty years.
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by
law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir
against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or
impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. (400a)
Article 495. Notwithstanding the provisions of the
preceding article, the co-owners cannot demand a physical
division of the thing owned in common, when to do so
would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is
intended. But the co-ownership may be terminated in
accordance with article 498. (401a)
Article 498. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible
and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one
of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and
its proceeds distributed. (404)
Article 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable
for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to
each of the other co-owners. (n)
Article 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the
other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of
preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to
the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from
this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided
interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses
and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial
to the co-ownership. (395a)
Article 496. Partition may be made by agreement between
the parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be
governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are
consistent with this Code. (402)
Article 1097. A partition may be rescinded or annulled for
the same causes as contracts. (1073a)
RULE 68
Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Section 1. Complaint in action for foreclosure. — In an
action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other
encumbrance upon real estate, the complaint shall set
forth the date and due execution of the mortgage; its
assignments, if any; the names and residences of the
mortgagor and the mortgagee; a description of the
mortgaged property; a statement of the date of the note or
other documentary evidence of the obligation secured by
the mortgage, the amount claimed to be unpaid thereon;
and the names and residences of all persons having or
claiming an interest in the property subordinate in right to
that of the holder of the mortgage, all of whom shall be
made defendants in the action. (1a)
Section 2. Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale.
— If upon the trial in such action the court shall find the
facts set forth in the complaint to be true, it shall ascertain
the amount due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage debt or
obligation, including interest and other charges as
approved by the court, and costs, and shall render
judgment for the sum so found due and order that the
same be paid to the court or to the judgment obligee
within a period of not less than ninety (90) days nor more
than one hundred twenty (120) days from the entry of
judgment, and that in default of such payment the
property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the
judgment. (2a)

Rights of co-owner Section 3. Sale of mortgaged property; effect. — When

the defendant, after being directed to do so as provided in
1. Full ownership of his part the next preceding section, fails to pay the amount of the
2. Fruits and benefits judgment within the period specified therein, the court,
upon motion, shall order the property to be sold in the
3. Assign of mortgage his part manner and under the provisions of Rule 39 and other
4. Substitute another person in its enjoyment except regulations governing sales of real estate under execution.
in personal right Such sale shall not affect the rights of persons holding prior
encumbrances upon the property or a part thereof, and
To avail the 30-day period, the period must be in good faith when confirmed by an order of the court, also upon motion,
What to reimburse in case of redemption it shall operate to divest the rights in the property of all the
parties to the action and to vest their rights in the
1. Purchase price purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be
allowed by law.
2. Legal expenses
Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the
3. Useful expenses
expiration of the period of redemption when allowed by
4. Necessary expenses law, the purchaser at the auction sale or last redemptioner,
if any, shall be entitled to the possession of the property
5. Other stipulations in the contract
unless a third party is actually holding the same adversely
A co-owner who alienated his share can no longer exercise to the judgment obligor. The said purchaser or last
the right of redemption. redemptioner may secure a writ of possession, upon
motion, from the court which ordered the foreclosure. (3a)
A co-owner can no longer exercise the right of redemption
if the property was already subjected to partition. Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale. — The amount
realized from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged
Right of pre-emption can be exercised against a stranger property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be
who bought the property by the adjoining owners (owner paid to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when
with the lesser land area / the one who signifies his intent there shall be any balance or residue, after paying off the
to redeem) mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior
A co-owner has better right in the exercise of the right of encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be
legal redemption. ascertained by the court, or if there be no such
encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue after
Partition is not allowed if payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly
1. it will damage the property authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it. (4a)

2. stipulated Section 5. How sale to proceed in case the debt is not all
due. — If the debt for which the mortgage or encumbrance
3. it will prejudice third persons was held is not all due as provided in the judgment as soon
4. by nature it is indivisible as a sufficient portion of the property has been sold to pay
the total amount and the costs due, the sale shall
extinguishment of co-ownership terminate; and afterwards as often as more becomes due
for principal or interest and other valid charges, the court
1. judicial
may, on motion, order more to be sold. But if the property
2. extra-judicial cannot be sold in portions without prejudice to the parties,
the whole shall be ordered to be sold in the first instance,
3. prescription
and the entire debt and costs shall be paid, if the proceeds
4. acquisition by stranger of the sale be sufficient therefor, there being a rebate of
interest where such rebate is proper. (5a)
5. merger
Section 6. Deficiency judgment. — If upon the sale of any
6. loss or destruction real property as provided in the next preceding section
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE there be a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the
proceeds of the sale, the court, upon motion, shall render
judgment against the defendant for any such balance for
which, by the record of the case, he may be personally
liable to the plaintiff, upon which execution may issue
immediately if the balance is all due at the time of the
rendition of the judgment; otherwise; the plaintiff shall be
entitled to execution at such time as the balance
remaining becomes due under the terms of the original
contract, which time shall be stated in the judgment. (6a)
Section 7. Registration. — A certified copy of the final
order of the court confirming the sale shall be registered in
the registry of deeds. If no right of redemption exists, the
certificate of title in the name of the mortgagor shall be
cancelled, and a new one issued in the name of the
purchaser.
Where a right of redemption exists, the certificate of title in
the name of the mortgagor shall not be cancelled, but the
certificate of sale and the order confirming the sale shall
be registered and a brief memorandum thereof made by
the registrar of deeds upon the certificate of title. In the
event the property is redeemed, the deed of redemption
shall be registered with the registry of deeds, and a brief
memorandum thereof shall be made by the registrar of
deeds on said certificate of title.
If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of sale
executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser at the
foreclosure sale shall be registered with the registry of
deeds; whereupon the certificate of title in the name of the
mortgagor shall be cancelled and a new one issued in the
name of the purchaser. (n)
Section 8. Applicability of other provisions. — The
provisions of sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall be
applicable to the judicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgages under this Rule insofar as the former are not
inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the
provisions of the latter. (8a)
Equity of redemption is observed in judicial foreclosure
proceedings before the confirmation of sale
Collection of sum of money is a waiver in filing any further
action for foreclosure
Junior encumbrancers are only necessary parties in a
judicial foreclosure proceeding however their rights are not
affected by the said proceeding therefore they may still file
independent actions against the mortgagor. As such they
may be included as defendants however notice to them is
not mandatory.
Remedies of a mortgagee
1. Collection of sum of money (prayer for preliminary
attachment is an option)
2. Foreclosure of mortgage, in case of deficiency
collection of the unpaid balance may be availed of
Redemption period
1. One year from the registration of the certificate of
sale (if mortgagee is a bank, quasi-bank or trust
company)
2. Three months from the registration of the
certificate of sale or confirmation of sale whichever is
earlier (if the mortgagee is an individual or juridical
person)
Both the value of the loan and the assessed value of the
property as well as the location of the land must be within
the jurisdiction the court
Article 1603. In case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a
sale with right to repurchase shall be construed as an
equitable mortgage. (n)
Article 1604. The provisions of article 1602 shall also apply
to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale. (n)
Article 1605. In the cases referred to in articles 1602 and
1604, the apparent vendor may ask for the reformation of
the instrument. (n)
Article 1606. The right referred to in article 1601, in the
absence of an express agreement, shall last four years
from the date of the contract.
Should there be an agreement, the period cannot exceed
ten years.
However, the vendor may still exercise the right to
repurchase within thirty days from the time final judgment
was rendered in a civil action on the basis that the contract
was a true sale with right to repurchase. (1508a)
Article 1607. In case of real property, the consolidation of
ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the
vendor to comply with the provisions of article 1616 shall
not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a
judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard. (n)
Article 1612. If several persons, jointly and in the same
contract, should sell an undivided immovable with a right
of repurchase, none of them may exercise this right for
more than his respective share.
The same rule shall apply if the person who sold an
immovable alone has left several heirs, in which case each
of the latter may only redeem the part which he may have
acquired. (1514)
Article 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right
of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners
or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of
the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall
pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right
of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the
share they may respectively have in the thing owned in
common. (1522a)
Article 1621. The owners of adjoining lands shall also have
the right of redemption when a piece of rural land, the area
of which does not exceed one hectare, is alienated, unless
the grantee does not own any rural land.
This right is not applicable to adjacent lands which are
separated by brooks, drains, ravines, roads and other
apparent servitudes for the benefit of other estates.
If two or more adjoining owners desire to exercise the right
of redemption at the same time, the owner of the adjoining
land of smaller area shall be preferred; and should both
lands have the same area, the one who first requested the
redemption. (1523a) ARTICLE 1622. Whenever a piece of
urban land which is so small and so situated that a major
portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose
within a reasonable time, having been bought merely for
speculation, is about to be re-sold, the owner of any
adjoining land has a right of pre-emption at a reasonable
price.
If the re-sale has been perfected, the owner of the
adjoining land shall have a right of redemption, also at a
reasonable price.
When two or more owners of adjoining lands wish to
exercise the right of pre-emption or redemption, the owner
whose intended use of the land in question appears best
justified shall be preferred. (n)
Article 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee should
continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the
acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the
contrary by either party has previously been given, it is
understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the
period of the original contract, but for the time established
in articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original
contract shall be revived. (1566a)
Article 1682. The lease of a piece of rural land, when its
duration has not been fixed, is understood to have been for
all the time necessary for the gathering of the fruits which
the whole estate leased may yield in one year, or which it
may yield once, although two or more years have to elapse
for the purpose. (1577a)
Article 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed,
it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed
upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from
week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if
the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a
monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been
set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the
lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. If the
rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer
period after the lessee has been in possession for over six
months. In case of daily rent, the courts may also fix a
longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for
over one month. (1581a)
Article 1676. The purchaser of a piece of land which is
under a lease that is not recorded in the Registry of
Property may terminate the lease, save when there is a
stipulation to the contrary in the contract of sale, or when
the purchaser knows of the existence of the lease.
If the buyer makes use of this right, the lessee may
demand that he be allowed to gather the fruits of the
harvest which corresponds to the current agricultural year
and that the vendor indemnify him for damages suffered.
If the sale is fictitious, for the purpose of extinguishing the
lease, the supposed vendee cannot make use of the right
granted in the first paragraph of this article. The sale is
presumed to be fictitious if at the time the supposed
vendee demands the termination of the lease, the sale is
not recorded in the Registry of Property. (1571a)
Article 1678. If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful
improvements which are suitable to the use for which the
lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of
the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the
lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the
improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to
reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the
improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer
damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more
impairment upon the property leased than is necessary.
With regard to ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not
be entitled to any reimbursement, but he may remove the
ornamental objects, provided no damage is caused to the
principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain
them by paying their value at the time the lease is
extinguished. (n)
Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has
been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the
right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in
articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or
planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who
sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter
cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerably more than that of the building or trees. In
such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the
land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees
after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)
Article 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the
plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages
if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure,
the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those
plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the
ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the
damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on
account of defects in the construction or the use of
materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any
violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or
architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily
liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not
imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any
defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following the
collapse of the building. (n)

ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE
> Legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful
owner of the land which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in the name of another for the
purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the
land to him
> After one year from the issuance of the decree, may
bring action for reconveyance of the property
> Only to show that the person who secured the
registration of the questioned property is not the real
owner thereof
> Seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the
registered owner to the rightful owner
> Property is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner
by the person in whose name it is registered
> Section 96 is the basis of this remedy
DECREE BECOMES INCONTROVERTIBLE AFTER 1
YEAR FROM THE ISSUANCE OF DECREE
>Action for reconveyance still available as remedy
>Action in personam that it is always available as long as
the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for
value
RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS
1. That the plaintiff is the owner of the land
2. That the defendant has illegally disposed him of the
same
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE IS AN ACTION IN
PERSONAM
> Binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and
duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard
> Directed against specific persons and seek personal
judgments
> Court must have jurisdiction over the defendant
THE RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER AN
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE THE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY OVER WHICH RECONVEYANCE IS BEING
SOUGHT ARE INDISPENSIBLE PARTIES WITHOUT
WHOM NO RELIEF IS AVAILABLE ACTION FOR
RECONVEYANCE MAY BE BARRED BY THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS LACHES MAY BAR RECOVERY
1. Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under
whom him or one under who he claims, giving rise to the
situation of which complaint is made and for which the
complainant seeks relief
2. Delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the
complainant having had knowledge or notice, or the
defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an
opportunity to institute a suit
3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant
that the complainant would assert the right on which he
bases his suit
4. Inquiry or prejudice to the defendant in the event the
relief is afforded the complainant or the suit is not held to
be barred
ACTION MAY BE BARRED BY RES JUDICATA
1. Final judgment
2. Court has competent jurisdiction
3. Between the first and second causes of action—there is
identity of
parties, subject matter and causes of action
STATE IS NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION PROOF OF
OWNERSHIP AND IDENTITY INDISPENSIBLE
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
> Is available when the remedy of an action for
reconveyance mayno longer be availed of
> When the land has passed already to the hands of an
innocent
purchaser for value
REMEDIES
Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent
purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be
reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or
other disability of any person adversely affected thereby,
nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing
judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person,
including the government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by
such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to 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, but in no case
shall such petition be entertained by the court where an
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an
interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced.
Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an
equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed
to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said period
of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of
title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may
pursue his remedy by action for damages against the
applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.
Section 33. Appeal from judgment, etc. The judgment and
orders of the court hearing the land registration case are
appealable to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court
in the same manner as in ordinary actions:
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.
AVAILABLE REMEDIES TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY
OF JUDGMENT IN A REGISTRATION CASE
1. New trial or reconsideration under Rule 37
2. Relief of judgment under Rule 38
3. Appeal to the CA or SC in the manner as ordinary actions
pursuant to Section 33 of PD 1529
4. Review of Decree, Section 32
5. Claim under Assurance Fund, Section 95
6. Reversion under Section 101 of CA 141
7. Cancellation of title
8. Annulment of judgment under Rule 37
9. Quieting of Title
10. Action for reconveyance
11. Criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code
PRESCRIPTION DISTINGUISHED FROM LACHES
PRESCRIPTION LACHES
Effect of delay Fact of delay
Matter of time Question of inequity of
permitting a
claim to be enforced, this
inequity
being founded on some
change in
the condition of the property
or the
 relation of the parties
Statutory Not statutory
Applies at law Applies at equity
Based on a fixed Not fixed time
time
Action For Reconveyance Based On Implied Trust
An action for reconveyance of registered land based on
implied trust prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference
being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the
issuance of the certificate of title over the property. This is
especially if the plaintiff is in possession of the property at
the time of the filing of the complaint that the 10 – year
prescriptive period applies only when the person enforcing
the trust is not in possession of the property. If a person
claiming to be its owner is in actual possession of the
property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect
seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe. The
reason is that the one who is in actual possession of the
land claiming to be its owner may wait until his possession
is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to
vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him a
continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to
ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of
a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can
be claimed only by one who is in possession. (Mendizabel,
et al. vs. Apao, et al., G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006).
Torrens Systems Not Designed To Shield Against
Fraud
Reconveyance is just and proper in order to terminate the
intolerable anomaly that the patentees should have a
Torrens title for the land which they and their predecessors
never possessed and which has been possessed by
another person in the concept of owner. After all, the
Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one
who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus
holds title in bad faith. (Mendizabel, et al. vs. Apao, et al.,
G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006).
Implied Trust If Property Is Acquired By Fraudulent
Act
The act of petitioners in misrepresenting that they were in
actual possession and occupation of the property,
obtaining patents and original certificates of title in their
names, created an implied trust in favor of the actual
possessors of the property. Under the law, if the property is
acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it
is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust
for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes. (Art. 1456, NCC).
In other words, if the registration of the land is fraudulent,
the person in whose name the land is registered holds it as
a mere trustee, and the real owner is entitled to file an
action for reconveyance of the property. (Mendizabel, et al.
vs. Apao, et al., G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006).
IMPLIED TRUST- Action to Recover Based on Implied
Trust
Action to recover based on implied trust; prescribes
after 10 years; except if plaintiff is in possession.
Once again, the Supreme Court ruled in Consuelo Vda. de
Gualberto, et al. vs. Francisco Go, et al., G.R. No. 139843,
July 21, 2005 that an action for reconveyance of real
property based on implied or constructive trust is not
barred by the 10-year period of prescription only if the
plaintiff is in actual, continuous and peaceful possession of
the property involved. In DBP vs. CA, 331 SCRA 267 (2000)
it was said that generally an action for reconveyance based
on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10-years
from the date of issuance of the decree of registration.
However, this rule does not apply when the plaintiff is in
actual possession of the land.
If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person
obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an
implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes. (Art. 1456, NCC). Thus, the law thereby
creates the obligation of the trustee to reconvey the
property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner.
The prescriptive period for the reconveyance for
fraudulently registered real property is ten (10) years
reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of
title. (Consuelo Vda. de Alberto, et al. vs. Francis Go, et al.,
G.R. No. 139843, July 21, 2005).
TRUSTS- Implied Trusts, Constructive Trusts
When one’s property is registered in another’s name
without the former’s consent, an implied trust is created by
law in favor of the true owner. Implied trusts are those
which, without being expressed, are deducible from the
nature of the transaction by operation of law as matters of
equity, independently of the particular intention of the
parties. Meanwhile, constructive trusts are created in order
to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust
enrichment. They arise against one who, by fraud, duress
or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to
property which he ought not, in equity and good
conscience, to hold. An action for reconveyance based
upon an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10)
years from the registration of the deed or from the
issuance of the title.
Acquisition of property by laches.
In Sps. Aguirre v. Heirs of Lucas Villanueva, et al., G.R. No.
169898, October 27, 2006, the petitioners have been in
possession of a parcel of land for more than 26 years. They
declared it for taxation purposes, occupied it, built fences,
planted trees and used the same as ingress and egress
towards their cottages. The respondent knew all these but
they did not lift a finger to bar them from doing so. They
waited for 16 years to oust them. Will the action prosper?
Why?
Held: No. Laches had already set it. Since they have been
in continuous possession and enjoyment of the disputed
land in good faith and with a just title since 1971 until
1997, petitioners doubtlessly obtained title by ordinary
acquisitive prescription.
The action is barred by laches which is defined as the
failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and
unexplained length or time, warranting a presumption that
the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or
declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon
grounds of public policy, which requires the
discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society.
(Vda. de Rigonan v. Derecho, G.R. No. 159571, July 15,
2005, 463 SCRA 627).
Acquisition of property by prescription.
Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing)
ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time
in the manner and under conditions laid down by law,
namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an
owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse.
Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in
good faith and with just title for 10 years. Without good
faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be
extraordinary in character which requires uninterrupted
adverse possession for 30 years. (Heirs of Maningding v.
CA, 342 Phil. 567 (1979)).
Thus, for ordinary acquisitive prescription to set in,
possession must be for at least 10 years, in good faith and
with just title. Possession is “in good faith” when there is a
reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing is
received has been the owner thereof and could thereby
transmit his ownership. (Art. 1127, NCC). There is “just
title” when the adverse claimant comes into possession of
the property through any of the modes recognized by law
for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the
grantor is neither the owner nor in a position to transmit
the right. (Art. 1129, NCC).
ISSUANCE OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION AND
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
> The court shall issue within 15 days from the entry public land
thereof, an order directing the LRA administrator to issue 3. Buyer in bad faith
the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of 4. When the title over the land which you acquire is already
title privately owned
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FREE FROM LIENS EXCEPT
THOSE NOTED THEREIN AND THE ENCUMBERANCES
1. The OCT shall be the true copy of the decree of
ENUMERATED IN THE LAW
registration
2. Transcript of the decree 1. Liens, claims, or rights existing or arising under the laws
3. Accumulates in one decree a precise and correct or the constitution which aren’t by law required
statement of the exact status of the fee simle title which 2. Unpaid real estate taxes levied or assessed within 2
an owner possesses years immediately preceding the acquisition of any right
4. Evidence of the title which the owner has over the land
5. What appears on the face of the title is controlling on 3. Any public highway or private way established or
questions of ownership sicne the certificate of title is an recognized by the law, or any government irrigation canal
absolute and indeafisible evidence of ownership of the or lateral thereof
property in favor of the person whose name appears theein 4. Any disposition of the property or limitation to the use
thereof by virtue of PD 27 or any other law or regulation or
DECREE BINDS THE LAND AND IS CONCLUSIVE
agrarian reform— Tenancy Emancipation Decree and
AGAINST THE WHOLE WORLD
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
> As soon as the decree of title has been registered in the 5. Rights incident to the relation of husband and wife and
office of the RD, the property included therein becomes landlord and tenant
registered land 6. Liability to attachment and execution
7. Liability to any lien of any description established by law
> Certificate of title shall take effect upon the transcription and the buildings thereon or an interest of the owner of
of the decree such lands or buidings
REGISTRATION DOESN'T GIVE ANY PERSON A BETTER 8. Rights incident to the laws of descent or partition
TITLE THAN WHAT HE REALLY HAS PROBATIVE between coowners
VALUE OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE 9. Taking of the property through eminent domain

> Serves as an indeafisible title to the property in favor of
the person whose name appears therein and is conclusive
as to the identity of the land and its location
> The title becomes indeafisible and incontrovertible one
year from its final decree
> The notations or memoranda at the back of the
certificate aren’t admissible as proof of the contracts or
documents to which they
pertain
> Validity and correctness of the title is presumed
WHERE TWO OR MORE CERTIFICATES COVER THE
SAME LAND, THE EARLIER IN DATE PREVAILS ENTRY
OF Original Certificate Of Title
> The OCT is issued for the first time after initial
registration proceedings
> OCT shall be the true coy of the decree of registration
> Upon receipt of the RD of the original and duplicate copy
of the certificate of title, he shall enter the same in the
record book and shall be numbered, dated and signed and
sealed with the seal of his office
ISSUANCE OF THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE
> Shall be delivered to the registered owner or his duly
authorized representative
> If 2 or more persons are registered owners, one owner’s
duplicate may be issued for the whole land
> If the 2 co-owners desire, a separate duplicate may be
issued to each of them in like form but all outstanding
certificates so issued shall be surrendered whenever the
RD shall register any subsequent voluntary transaction
affecting the whole land or part thereof or any interest
therein
THE ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGEE’S DUPLICATE
CERTIFICATE IS DISCONTINUED CO OWNER MAY
ONLY DISPOSE OF HIS ALIQUOT SHARE IN THE
PROPERTY HELD IN COMMON REGISTERED OWNER
ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE OWNER’S
DUPLICATE
> Registered owner has preferential right to the possession
of the owner’s duplicate as against one whose name
doesn't appear in the certificate but who may have right or
claim to the possession of the land
DECREE AND TITLE BECOME INCONTROVERTIBLE
AFTER ONE YEAR UPON ITS ISSUANCE. THERE ARE
EXCEPTIONS THOUGH—
1. Laches
2. If there is fraud and misrepresentation on the title over
10. Right to relieve the land from liability to be recovered
by an assignee in insolvency or trustee in bankruptcy
under the laws relative to preferences
11. Rights or liabilities created by law and applicable to
unregistered land
ENCUMBERANCES IN THE TITLE
> Burden upon land, depreciative of its value, such as lien,
easement, or servitude, which though adverse to the
interest of the landowner, doesn't conflict with his
conveyance of the land in fee
LIEN ON THE TITLE
> Charge on the property
> Qualified right or a proprietary interest which may be
exercised over the property of another
REMEMBER THE GENERAL RULE THAT THE
PURCHASER NEED NOT GO BEYOND THE REGISTRY
TO DETERMINE CONDITIONS OF PROPERTY
SUPERIOR LIEN IN FAVOR OF GOVERNMENT
COMPLEMENTARY TO THE DISTRAINT OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY AND INTEREST AND RIGHTS THEREIN AND
JUDICIAL ACTION UNPAID REAL ESTATE TAXES
> Refers to unpaid taxes levied and assessed within 2
years immediately preceding the acquisition of any right
over the land by an innocent purchaser for value
> Automatically registered
TENANT EMANCIPATION DECREE
> Tenant farmer—if not registered, 5 hectares and if
irrigated, 3 hectares
> Landowner may retain an area of not more than 7
hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will
not cultivate it
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
> Landowner may not retain more than 5 hectares
> Three hectares may be allowed to each child of the
landowner— provided that he is at least 15 years old and
that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the
farm
PUBLIC PATENT
> Land not subject to any encumberance or alienation
from the date of approval and for the term of 5 years from
and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant
OTHER STATUTORY LIENS
> Alienable lands of the public domain granted or donated
or transferred to a province, municipality, or branch of the
government shall not be alienated or encumbered or
otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title except
when authorized by Congress
CONTENTS OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
1. Full names of all persons whose interest make up the full
ownership of the land
2. Civil status
3. Names of the respective spouses
4. Citizenship
5. Residence and postal address
NOTHING IN THE DECREE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS
RELIEVING THE REGISTERED LAND OR THE OWNERS
THEREOF FROM ANY RIGHTS INCIDENT TO THE
RELATION OF THE HUSBAND AND WIFE, LANDLORD
AND TENANT, OR FROM LIABILITY FROM
ATTACHMENT, LEVY OR EXECUTION, OR ANY LIEN
ESTABLISHED BY LAW ON THE LAND AND THE
BUILDINGS THEREON
REGISTERED LAND MAY NOT BE ACQUIRED THROUGH
ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION
REGISTERED OWNER MAY BE BARRED FROM
RECOVERING POSSESSION THROUGH LACHES:
ELEMENTS OF LACHES
1. Conduct on the part of defendant
2. Delay in asserting the complainant’s rights after having
knowledge or notice and having been afforded opportunity
to initiate a suit
3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of defendant
4. Inquiry or prejudice to the defendant
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY
COLLATERAL ATTACK
A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE TITLE MAY BE MADE IN A
COUNTERCLAIM OR THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
SPLITTING OR CONSOLIDATING OF TITLE
> One need not go to court. All that must be done is to
write a written request to the RD.
SUBDIVISION OR CONSOLIDATION OF TITLE
> “Which is not a subdivision project”—in relation to PD
957 on subdivisions
> A SUBDIVISION PROJECT is when there is subdivision of
property with intention to sell the lots
> A COMPLEX SUBDIVISION PLAN is a plan wherein the
streets, passageways, etc. are stated in the title
> If subdivision project, submit first to the HLURB, followed
by the LMB and then the RD
SUBDIVISION OF REGISTERED LAND
> Submit to LRA an approved subdivision plan by the LMB
CONVEYANCE OF ONLY A PORTION OF THE LAND
> RD shall not enter a new title in favor of the grantee until
after a plan indicating the portions into which the land has
been subdivided shall have been first presented together
with technical decription
CO-OWNERSHIP
ADILLE VS CA
The right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner
with aspect to his share alone. 5 While the records show
that the petitioner redeemed the property in its entirety,
shouldering the expenses therefor, that did not make him
the owner of all of it. In other words, it did not put to end
the existing state of co-ownership.
Necessary expenses may be incurred by one co-owner,
subject to his right to collect reimbursement from the
remaining co-owners. 6 There is no doubt that redemption
of property entails a necessary expense. Under the Civil
Code:
ART. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the
other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of
preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to
the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from
this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided
interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses
and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial
to the co-ownership.
The result is that the property remains to be in a condition
of co-ownership. While a vendee a retro, under Article 1613
of the Code, "may not be compelled to consent to a partial
redemption," the redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of
the property in its totality does not vest in him ownership
over it. Failure on the part of all the co-owners to redeem it
entitles the vendee a retro to retain the property and
consolidate title thereto in his name. 7But the provision
does not give to the redeeming co-owner the right to the
entire property. It does not provide for a mode of
terminating a co-ownership.
Neither does the fact that the petitioner had succeeded in
securing title over the parcel in his name terminate the
existing co-ownership. While his half-brothers and sisters
are, as we said, liable to him for reimbursement as and for
their shares in redemption expenses, he cannot claim
exclusive right to the property owned in common.
Registration of property is not a means of acquiring
ownership. It operates as a mere notice of existing title,
that is, if there is one.
The petitioner must then be said to be a trustee of the
property on behalf of the private respondents. The Civil
Code states:
ART. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or
fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered
a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person
from whom the property comes.
We agree with the respondent Court of Appeals that fraud
attended the registration of the property. The petitioner's
pretension that he was the sole heir to the land in the
affidavit of extrajudicial settlement he executed
preliminary to the registration thereof betrays a clear effort
on his part to defraud his brothers and sisters and to
exercise sole dominion over the property. The aforequoted
provision therefore applies.
It is the view of the respondent Court that the petitioner, in
taking over the property, did so either on behalf of his co-
heirs, in which event, he had constituted himself
a negotiorum gestor under Article 2144 of the Civil Code,
or for his exclusive benefit, in which case, he is guilty of
fraud, and must act as trustee, the private respondents
being the beneficiaries, under the Article 1456. The
evidence, of course, points to the second alternative the
petitioner having asserted claims of exclusive ownership
over the property and having acted in fraud of his co-heirs.
He cannot therefore be said to have assume the mere
management of the property abandoned by his co-heirs,
the situation Article 2144 of the Code contemplates. In any
case, as the respondent Court itself affirms, the result
would be the same whether it is one or the other. The
petitioner would remain liable to the Private respondents,
his co-heirs.
This Court is not unaware of the well-established principle
that prescription bars any demand on property (owned in
common) held by another (co-owner) following the
required number of years. In that event, the party in
possession acquires title to the property and the state of
co-ownership is ended . 8 In the case at bar, the property
was registered in 1955 by the petitioner, solely in his
name, while the claim of the private respondents was
presented in 1974. Has prescription then, set in?
We hold in the negative. Prescription, as a mode of
terminating a relation of co-ownership, must have been
preceded by repudiation (of the co-ownership). The act of
repudiation, in turn is subject to certain conditions: (1) a
co-owner repudiates the co-ownership; (2) such an act of
repudiation is clearly made known to the other co-owners;
(3) the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive, and (4) he
has been in possession through open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession of the property for the
period required by law. 9
The instant case shows that the petitioner had not
complied with these requisites. We are not convinced that
he had repudiated the co-ownership; on the contrary, he
had deliberately kept the private respondents in the dark
by feigning sole heirship over the estate under dispute. He
cannot therefore be said to have "made known" his efforts
to deny the co-ownership. Moreover, one of the private
respondents, Emeteria Asejo, is occupying a portion of the
land up to the present, yet, the petitioner has not taken
pains to eject her therefrom. As a matter of fact, he sought
to recover possession of that portion Emeteria is occupying
only as a counterclaim, and only after the private
respondents had first sought judicial relief.
It is true that registration under the Torrens system is
constructive notice of title, 10 but it has likewise been our
holding that the Torrens title does not furnish a shield for
fraud. 11 It is therefore no argument to say that the act of
registration is equivalent to notice of repudiation,
assuming there was one, notwithstanding the long-
standing rule that registration operates as a universal
notice of title.
For the same reason, we cannot dismiss the private
respondents' claims commenced in 1974 over the estate
registered in 1955. While actions to enforce a constructive
trust prescribes in ten years, 12 reckoned from the date of
the registration of the property, 13 we, as we said, are not
prepared to count the period from such a date in this case.
We note the petitioner's sub rosa efforts to get hold of the
property exclusively for himself beginning with his
fraudulent misrepresentation in his unilateral affidavit of
extrajudicial settlement that he is "the only heir and child
of his mother Feliza with the consequence that he was able
to secure title in his name also." 14 Accordingly, we hold
that the right of the private respondents commenced from
the time they actually discovered the petitioner's act of
defraudation. 15 According to the respondent Court of
Appeals, they "came to know [of it] apparently only during
the progress of the litigation." 16 Hence, prescription is not
a bar.
Moreover, and as a rule, prescription is an affirmative
defense that must be pleaded either in a motion to dismiss
or in the answer otherwise it is deemed waived, 17 and
here, the petitioner never raised that defense. 18 There are
recognized exceptions to this rule, but the petitioner has
not shown why they apply.
OCAMPO VS OCAMPO

Basic is the rule that the party making an allegation in a

civil case has the burden of proving it by a preponderance
of evidence. In an action involving property, petitioners
should rely on the strength of their own title and not on the
alleged weakness of respondents’ claim.

An Acknowledgment of Co-ownership is not sufficient to

prove the existence of a co-ownership especially when it
was executed long after the property was donated to
another therefore has no longer ownership over the same.
It cannot prevail over the array of testimonial and
documentary evidence that had been adduced by
respondents to prove their defenses.