SECRETARY OF DENR VS.

YAP (BORACAY)

Facts: Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay

island as tourist zone and marine reserve

Yap et. al. filed a petition for declaratory relief. Yap claimed that
the proclamation precluded them from perfecting their imperfect
title.

OSG countered that Boracay was an unclassified land of public

domain. Considered as “public forest” under Revised Forestry
Code (PD 705). Boracay was not classified as A and D hence
possession cannot ripen into ownership.

During pendency of case, GMA issued Proclamation No. 1064

classifying Boracay partly as reserved forest land (for protection
purposes) and partly agricultural (A and D)n

Claimants filed in CA petition for prohibition, mandamus to nullify

P1064. They said it infringed their prior vested rights.

Issue: WON unclassified land of public domain are automatically

deemed agricultural land, making them alienable.

NO. Applicant must establish positive act of the government

(PP,EO,AA,IR of BOL,LA).

P1801 is not the positive act. If such was Marco’s intent, he could
have done so as what P1064 did.

WON claimants have the right to secure titles over their occupied
portions

Except for lands covered by existing tiles, Boracay was an

unclassified land of the public domain prior to the P1064. A public
forest under PD 705. PD 705 however respects existing titles.

Classification is descriptive of legal nature and not on what it

actually looks like.

Although claimants cannot file confirmation of imperfect title,

this does not denote ouster from their possession. Lack of title
does not mean lack of right to possess.

==================================================

REPUBLIC VS. CA AND HEIRS OF ANTONIO CARAG

Facts: CFI Cagayan on 1930 issued a decree of registration in favor

of spouses carag, OCT was issued. Lot 2472

OCT 11585 – TCT T-1277 (100k sqm under Province of Cagayan)

and TCT T-1278 (6.9m sqm under Heirs of Antonio Carag)

De Dayag et al (occupants/possessor of portion) filed with DENR a

letter petitioner requesting DENR to file for annulment of Decree
on the ground that trial court did not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate a portion of the land which was a timberland.

DENR investigation and found out that the portion (2.6m sqm) was
only released as A and D on 1982.

On 1998, 68 years after issuance, petitioner filed with CA action

for annulment of judgment, cancellation of the title.
CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Complaint did not allege
fraud/lack of jurisdiction.

Issue: WON the CFI had jurisdiction on that portion

YES. Under the Spanish regime, all crown lands were per se
alienable except mineral or timber zone or reserved by State for
public purpose.

Petitioner has not alleged that GG had declared the disputed

portion is a timberland. Land classification map/certification of
NMRIA submitted did not show that the portion is a timberland.

Act 2874 law prevailing on 1930. Governor-general upon DENR

recommendation shall classify the land.

It is true that Section 8 of Act No. 2874 pens to disposition only

those lands which have been declared alienable or disposable.

However, Section 8 provides that lands which are already private

lands, as well as lands on which a private claim may be made
under any law, are not covered by the classification requirement
in Section 8 for purposes of disposition.

This exclusion in Section 8 recognizes that during the Spanish

regime, Crown lands were per se alienable unless falling under
timber or mineral zones, or otherwise reserved for some public
purpose in accordance with the law.

The trial court determined that the land was agricultural and
that spouses Carag proved that they were entitled to the decree
and a certificate of title. The government, which was a party in
the original proceedings in the trial court as required by law, did
not appeal the decision of the trial court declaring the subject
land as agricultural.

Thus, even as the 1935 Constitution declared that all agricultural,

timber and mineral lands of the public domain belong to the State,
it recognized that these lands were "subject to any existing right,
grant, lease or concession at the time of the inauguration of
the Government established under this Constitution."

When the Commonwealth Government was established under the

1935 Constitution, spouses Carag had already an existing right to
the subject land, including the disputed portion, pursuant to
Decree No. 381928 issued in 1930 by the trial court.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We DISMISS petitioner

Republic of the Philippines’ complaint for reversion, annulment
of decree, cancellation and declaration of nullity of titles for lack
of merit.

LEGARDA VS. SALEEBY (STONE WALL)

Facts: Parties are owners of adjacent lots in Ermita with a stone

wall in between.

Plaintiff successfully obtained a registration and title of his lot

including the stone wall in 1906.

Defendant also secured for registration w/c was granted. Title

issued including the stone wall in 1912.

Plaintiff discovered that the defendant's title included the stone

wall.
They petitioned the CLR for ADJUSTMENT AND CORRECTION.

Court denied without notice to defendant. Said that plaintiff

failed to make any objection at the time for the defendant's
application for registration.

Issue: Who is the real owner?

There is no provision in Act 496 giving the parties relief under

conditions like the present. There is nothing in the Act which
indicates who should be the owner of land which has been
registered in the name of two different persons BUT the decree
ordering the registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to
future litigation over the same between the same parties.

NCC Art. 1473 when one piece of real property had been sold to
two different persons it shall belong to the person acquiring it,
who first inscribes it in the registry (persuasive influence)

PLAINTIFF. In case of double registration under the land

registration act, the owner of the earliest certificate is the owner
of the land. (Australian Torrens System, Hogg/Niblack)

This applies to vendees. The vendee with earlier certificate is the

owner as against the vendee of a later certificate.

Vendee of the land has no greater right, title, or interest than this
vendor.

Real purpose of Torrens is to quite title of the land, to put a stop

forever for any question of the legality except claims noted during
registration or after

it would seem to be a just and equitable rule, when two persons

have acquired equal rights in the same thing, to hold that the one
who acquired it first and who has complied with all the
requirements of the law should be protected

Lower court judgment is revoked. Directed to correct the 2nd OCT.

Dissent: J Trent

Holder of earlier cert should not be heard under “just and

equitable rule” as against the innocent purchase of later cert who
was w/o fault.
========================================================

BISHOP ET AL V. CA (PRESCRIPTION VS REGISTRATION UNDER

TORRENTS)

Facts: Petitioner Bishop et al - possessed land

Respondent Spouses Salang- registered owners

Spouses filed action for recovery of possession

Petitioner alleged that the land is part of public domain, acquired

the title by laches. Tax dec in their names. Submitted Bureau of
Forestry Cert A & D-lack legal basis. Admin body cannot prevail
against court.

RTC ruled in favor of spouses. CA affirmed.

Issue: WON land is part of public domain and cannot be registered

under Torrens

NO. Respondent's title traced from an OCT in 1910, same is

incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world.
Presumption of regularity including that land is private in nature
and registrable under Torrens.

Petitioners did not even show proof of fraud (although prescribes

1 year from entry of registration.)

WON petitioners acquired title by laches.

No. Owners of land under Torrens system cannot lost by

prescription. no title to registered land in derogation of the title of
the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession.

Petitioner are not builders in good faith. They know they don’t
have right to occupy in the first place.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against the

petitioners. It is so ordered.
========================================================

NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE

COURT (INNOCENT PURCHASE OF VALUE)

Facts: A land owned by spouses vivas was sold to spouses

magcamit (respondents). Sale with right to repurchase. Sale was
made absolute. DP was paid. Balance to be paid upon issuance of
title.

Title was issued in favor of spouses vivas (w/o knowledge of

respondents)

Land was mortaged to NGA as security for indebtedness. It was

foreclosed. Auctioned, highest bidder is NGA. TCT issue under
NGA.

When respondents knew, they offered to NGA to just pay the

balance 40k (under DOAS with sps vivas) but to no avail.

NGA demanded respondents to vacate. Latter refused. Ejectment

case was filed. Dismissed

Respondents filed also against NGA and spouses vivas praying they
be declared the owners. Court ruled in favor of NGA. Ordered sps
magcamit to turn over land, ordered sps vivas to pay sps magcamit
sum paid under their DOAS as well as damages.

Sps magcamit appealed. CA reversed. Ordered NGA to reconvey

the land to the respondents. Ordered Spouses vivas to pay NGA
sum of money.

Issue: WON breach of contract bet spouses vivas and respondents

suffice to defeat the title and rights acquired by petitioner NGA,
innocent purchaser of value.

NO.

2 contracts:
a conditional sale (registered)
a deed of absolute sale (not registered)

No fraud by spouses vivas. Respondents' right was barred by res

judicata when the decree of registration was issued to spouses
Vivas. It does not matter that they may have had some right even
the right of ownership, BEFORE the grant of the Torrens Title.

NGA was not a privy. NGA was an innocent purchaser of value

(innocent mortgagee). The real purpose of the Torrens System is
to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its
legality.

Only exception to this rule is where a person obtains a certificate

of title to a land belonging to another with knowledge of true
owner’s rights. Hence, he may be compelled to transfer the land
to the defrauded owner so long as the property has not passed to
the hands of an INNOCENT PURCHASER OF VALUE.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, now Regional Trial Court,
is REINSTATED.

========================================================

DBT CONSTRUCTION V. RICAREDO PANES (DACION EN PAGO)

Facts: Land owned by BC Regalado. TCT 200519

Conveyed to petitioner thru dacion en pago (payment for services)

It is a special mode of payment where the debtor offers another

thing to the creditor, who accepts it as an equivalent of the
payment of an outstanding debt.

Respondents filed quieting of title and cancellation of above title

against petitioner. Claimed they are the owners, declared same
for tax purposes. Claimed they are in actual possession even
preceded 2nd world war. In fact, respondents filed for application
to perfect his title.

But it was discovered that there is overlapping of portions with

the subd plan of BC Regalado of which transferred to DBT.

Respondents said that BC regalado and petitioner thru collusion,

included the property in their subdivision plan and sold to public.

RTC ruled in favor of respondent. Respondents occupied since

1936, more than 30years (equitable ownership). It was declared
for tax purposes. It should not be included in the above TCT, same
is null and void insofar as it covers the land of respondents.

Judge Bacalla died.

Don Pedro de Ocampo's estate intervened. Land form part of the

estate under OCT 779. This motion was denied.

Petitioner's MR granted. RTC (Judge Juanson) reversed its earlier

decision. Prescription does not lie against registered land. Panes
are barred when they failed to question during registration of
property by BC Regalado.

CA reversed and reinstated RTC earlier decision. The above titled

lands located outside the subject land.

Issue: WON the RTC err in upholding DBT's defenses of prescription

and laches as raised in the latter's Motion for Reconsideration?

Yes. Action is not reconveyance (which prescribes) but action for

quieting which is imprescriptible

Reconveyance (4 years from fraud discovery or 10 years for trust

from issuance of title; discovery is registration in the RD)

Prescriptive period applied only if there is actual need to reconvey

the land. In this case, respondents possessed.
Respondent Panes has equitable right to bring action.

WON registered land can be acquired by acquisitive prescription.

No. no title to registered land in derogation of the rights of the

registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession

Who has better rights?

Petitioner DBT. No proof DBT participated in the alleged fraud.

Sanctity of the Torrens system must be preserved.

Dacion en pago – object novation

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED and the assailed

Court of Appeals Decision dated October 25, 2004 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered
DISMISSING the Complaint filed by the respondents for lack of
merit.

=======================================================

BARANDA V. JUDGE GUSTILO (CANCELLATION OF LIS PENDENS)

Facts: Previous 2 cases (GR 64432 and GR 62042). Lot 4517 is both
claimed by Baranda and Perez et al.

During trial, Perez et all TCT was fraudulently acquired. Court

declared Perez et al’s TCT null and void, ordered RD to cancel it
and issued new TCTs for Baranda.

RD moved for recon invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529. Since a case is

pending in the CA only it can order for the cancellation of the lis
pendens. Court granted the MR.

Issue:

WON the pendency of the appeal with the CA prevents the court
from cancelling the lis pendens.

NO. Judge committed error in sustaining RD MR. The notice may

be cancelled upon court’s order when it is used to molest adverse
party or not necessary to protect the rights. Also by the registrant
by a verified petition.

What is the nature of the RD to annotate/annul a notice of lis

pendens.

RD’s function is ministerial. RD has no legal standing to file MR.

If registrable, immediately register it. If not, inform the presentor

in writing stating grounds and advising his right to appeal by
consulta to commissioner.

If RD’s in doubt, he may certify the question to the commissioner

(now the administrator of national land and deeds registration
administration) who would then make an order/memo of the steps
to be taken.

========================================================
AURELIO BALBIN V. RD (3 PREVIOUS SALES)

Petitioners presented to RD the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT

and instrument “Deed of Donation inter-vivos” and request the
latter to be annotated.

In the deed, Cornelio Balbin as registered owner appears to have

donated inter-vivos an undivided 2/3 portion of the property.

Previous annotations in the title shows 3 separate sales of

undivided portions of land by Balbin to different buyers.

RD denied for being legally defective.

Petitioner appealed to the CLR who upheld RD saying Donor (C

Balbin) is now a co-owner having previously sold undivided
portions.

Petitioner cited sec 55 Act 496. They said that presentation is

(1) not required ‘coz it speaks of registered owner and not

those who claim or interest is annotated on the title like
vendees-co-owners
(2) issuance of 3 duplicate copies were illegal.

Issue: WON petitioner should present the 3 duplicate copies of the

TCT from previous sales

YES. While Sec 55 of Act 496 requires the production of owner’s

duplicate certificates whenever voluntary instrument is presented
for registration and shall be a conclusive authority for RD to
annotate, it is presumed that only one duplicate copy exist. But
in this case there were three previously issued. Their legality is
also presumed.

Other 3 copies of title exist. Said copies must contain identical

entries particularly voluntary ones. Otherwise, the whole torrens
system ceased to be unreliable.

Land is conjugal, liquidation first before surviving spouse convey.

Another case is pending to determine status of Balbin and

character of land. Wait for that judgment. In the meantime,
parties can file notice of lis pendens.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decisions of the Register of

Deeds of Ilocos Sur and that of the Commissioner of Land
Registration are affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.
========================================================
ALMIROL V. RD (EXHAUSTION OF ADMIN REMEDY)

Facts: Almirol bought land from Abalo

RD refused to issue title since property is conjugal.

Needs partition/permission of heirs (wife is dead).

Almirol filed mandamus with CFI to compel RD

Court dismiss the petition; RA 1151 provides for another remedy.

Issue: WON RD can be compelled by mandamus.

NO. But the grounds of the RD are not valid. Instead of mandamus,
issue shall be submitted to commissioner by appeal in consulta
(admin remedy)

Validity of the document is not for the RD to determine but the

courts.

=======================================================

CHARLES ONG V. REPUBLIC

Facts:

Ong in behalf of his brothers applied for registration of title over

lot 15911 (574 sqm)

Acquired from Sps Villamil. They and predecessors in interest have

been in OCENPO for more than 30 years.

Republic opposed which the one only appeared.

RTC ruled in favor of Ong.

CA reversed. Land is part of A & D of public domain. Ong failed to

prove their OCENPO since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Earliest TD is
1971.

Issue: WON Ong have registrable ownership over the land.

SC sustained CA. Ong failed to prove his and PII have OCENPO since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Possession is not sufficient. Possession + occupation.

Ong and bros did not actually occupy the lot. No improvements.
Previous owners did not occupy also. This do not constitute the
"well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence necessary.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The

April 25, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
76085 which reversed and set aside the January 16, 2002 Decision
of the Municipal Trial Court of Mangaldan, Pangasinan in Land
Registration Case No. 99-023, and the November 20, 2006
Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, are
AFFIRMED.
========================================================
CANETE ET. AL. VS. GENUINO ICE COMPANY INC (GICI)

Canete (72 occupants) filed complaint for cancellation of title.

Alleged same are spurious, fictitious, issued under mysterious
circumstances. No records of proceeding as to how OCT 614 was
issued.

Canete prayed the OCT and TCT be declared null and void and
they be declared as bonafide occupants pursuant to friar lands act
because they and PII are adverse, peaceful, and continuous
possession/

GICI (registered owner of land) argued no cause of action, failure

to exhaust admin remedies.

Canete filed second amended complaint.

RTC ruled in favor of Canete.

CA granted GICI’s appeal and dismissed Canete’s second amended

complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Issue:

WON petitioners are the bonafide occupants of the property

pursuant to the provisions of the friar lands act.

Canete are not the owners nor qualified applicants. Complaint did
not show steps taken to avail benefits under friar lands act since
they only pray, should the titles be annulled, to be declared the
bonafide occupants. Did not state particular date of possession.

WON petitioner’s complaint state a cause of action.

NO. Subject lots part of PIEDAD estate, a friar land acquired on

1903 by the phil government from phil sugar estates dev’t
company et al.

OCT was issued (Act 496), subdivided (874 lots), re surveyed, 1305
lots. Piedad estate were segregated and disposed, has become
private lands and no longer land of public domain (prior to WWII).

Canete alleged fraud but did not state in particular.

WON petitioners are the real parties in interest.

NO. Rule requires substantial, material and personal interest, not

incidental. Only the state can.

1st complaint – possessors

2nd amended - occupants

Canete did not pray for ownership but bonafide occupants only
(despite adverse possession). So they concede to state’s
ownership.

If canete are to be believed they possess inchoate interest, a mere

expectancy conditioned upon the fact that the titles are cancelled
and reverted back to state, canete would propably/possibly be
give preferential treatment as qualified buyers or lessees but this
is not the interest required by law granting them personality to
sue. Only the state.

WON exhaustion of admin remedies is proper

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 9, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 64337 dismissing
petitioners’ "Second Amended Complaint" in Civil Case No. Q-99-
36483 and the Resolution dated June 26, 2002 denying the motion
for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.

========================================================
MALABANAN VS. REPUBLIC

RTC granted Malabanan.

CA reversed. Argued herbieto doctrine- any period of possession

prior to classification of land as A and D should be included from
computation.

Malabanan died.

Heirs appealed to SC. Argued that Naguit doctrine prevails.

possession of agricultural land prior to its declaration as alienable
and disposable could be counted in the reckoning of the period of
possession to perfect title. Herbieto was only obiter dictum.