NIKKA DORIA ATTY.

MARCELINO S. MARATA
JD-2B

MATEO CARIÑO
Petitioner-Appellant

-vs-

THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT

Respondent-Appellee

Facts of the case:

Mateo Cariño, the herein appellant filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration
praying that he be granted a title of a parcel of land situated at Baguio, Benguet. His contention
to be registered as the owner of the land is established on the ground that he had inherited or
received the land in accordance with Igorot custom. Moreover, his ancestors occupied the
aforementioned land and had utilized it for pasturing cattle as well as cultivating parts of the
area.However, the herein petitioner only bears a possessory information to support his alleged
ownership of the subject land. There was no document of title issued by the Spanish Crown to
Cariño.

Issue:
Whether or not Mateo Cariño, the herein petitioner, owns the land.

Held:
Mateo Cariño is the rightful owner of the land. The court rested its decision on the
concept provided by the Organic Act of July, 1902, which declares that property rights are to be
administered “for the benefit of the inhabitants” and this is also supported by the safeguards of
the constitution which extends to all.
Further, the court stated that;
"Every presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case like the
present. It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far back as testimony or
memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will
be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to
have been public land. Certainly in a case like this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish
law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt."
Hence, the court held that the law and justice require that the applicant should be granted
what he seeks and should not be deprived of what was his property, through a refined
interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain.
G.R No. 135385

ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA

Petitioners

-vs-

SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND

NATURAL RESOURCES, SEC. OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and
COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Respondents

Facts of the case:

Filed for resolution is a petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by Isagani Cruz and
Cesar Europa in their capacity as citizens and taxpayers. The herein petitioners challenged the
constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 known as the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations.
The claim of the herein petitioners against the subject Act is founded on the ground that
the assailed provisions namely; Sections 3(a), 3(b), 5,6,7,8,57, and 58 amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and
other natural resources therein, in violation of the Regalian Doctrine. Another contention is the
violation of the rights of private landowners and violation of the due process clause of the
Constitution which are conveyed on the definition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands and
further, contention on the provisions of the IPRA (sections 51-53, 59, 52i, 63, 65, 66)
determining the powers and jurisdiction of the agency created by this Act which is the National
Commission of Indigenous Peoples (NCP) respectively.
Several group of intervenors filed motions for intervention to justify and uphold the
constitutionality of IPRA.

Issue:
Whether or not the Republic Act No. 8371 known as IPRA is unconstitutional in
violation of the regalia doctrine?

Held:
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 is constitutional. After the deliberation of the
petition, seven justices voted to dismiss the petition on the other hand, seven other justices voted
to grant the petition. The case was deliberated again, however, the voting remained the same.
The petition is DISMISSED. Hence, the IPRA law was sustained.
IPRA law only grants to the ICCs/IPs the right to manage and conserve only, it doesn’t
grant ownership over the natural resources in their ancestral domains. The ownership remains
with the State.
G.R No. 183448

SPOUSES DOMINADOR PERALTA AND OFELIA PERALTA

Petitioners

-vs-

HEIRS OF BERNARDINA ABALON, rep. by MANSUETO ABALON

Respondents

Facts of the case:

For resolution is a petition for review challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The instant case involved a parcel of land covered by the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
(O) 16 consisting 8,571 square meters in the name of Bernardina Abalon. This subject land was
transferred fraudulently to certain Restituto Rellama through the execution of a Deed of Absolute
Sale. Resituto Rellama subdivided the subject land and was individually sold to Spouses Peralta,
Lotivio who in turn transferred his ownership to the Andals who acquired two portions. By virtue
of the respective acquisition of the portions of the land, the same were registered under their
names. However, the heirs of Bernardina Abalon, claiming their acquisition of the subject
property by succession, claimed back the land covered by OCT No. (O) 16. Their contention was
founded on the alleged fraudulent execution of Deed of Absolute Sale. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court was in favor of the the heirs of Bernardina Abalon which was thereafter set
aside by the Court of Appeals which rendered that, as to Andals, the Transfer Certificate of Title
are held legal and valid whereas to the Spouses Peralta, CA ordered the cancellation of the
Transfer Certificate of Title registered under their names.

Issue:
Whether a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title in the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value, even if the true owner thereof has been in possession of the
genuine title, which is valid and has not been cancelled.

Held:
Yes, a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title in the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value. The court emphasizes the established rule which provides that a forge deed
generally null and cannot convey title. However, there is an exception provided by the Land
Registration Act, specifically Section 55, on the protection to an innocent purchaser for value. So
as to consider the title valid which is acquired by the innocent purchaser, there must be the
existence of complete chain of registered title which then implies that all instituted transfer from
the original owner to the innocent holder which includes the transfer of the forger, must be duly
registered and must be properly issued to the transferee. This doctrine is the foundation of the
court pertaining to the decision which considers the Andals as buyers in good faith. With regard
to the Andals there was a complete chain of registered titles as the said land was registered to the
original owner, Bernardina Abalon, evident with the Original Certificate of Title and was
thereafter conveyed to the forger bearing TCT No. 42108 and was sold to a certain Lotivio who
transferred ownership to the Andals. The belief of the Andals on the authenticity of the title was
driven on the fact that there was no annotation inscribed in the title in possession of Andal which
make them believe that Rellama is the rightful owner of the property. Hence, the title of the
parcel of land bought by the Andals from Rellama is valid.
G.R No. L-8936

CONSUELO LEGARDA, with her husband MAURO PRIETO

Plaintiffs-appellants

-vs-

N.M SALEEBY
Defendant-appellee

Facts of the case:

Up for resolution is an appeal on the decision of the lower court which denied the petition
filed by the herein plaintiff in the Court of Land Registration for an adjustment and correction of
the error committed by including the said wall in the registered title of each parties.
The subject adjoining lot is situated at Ermita, Manila which the plaintiffs and the
defendant occupy as owners. Between the said lots, there’s a stone wall that has existed a number
of years which the same is located on plaintiff’s lot. On March 2, 1906, the herein plaintiffs
presented a petition for the registration of their lot in the Court of Land Registration. On October
25, 1906, lot was registered and an original certificate was issued to them which included the
wall. On the other view, the predecessor of N.M Saleeby presented a petition for the registration
of the lot presently occupied by him. The court registered the title and an original certificate was
also issued to him wherein the subject wall was also inscribed in the title.
The inclusion of the wall in the certificate granted to the defendant was made known by
the plaintiff six years after the registration of their lot. In response to the circumstance
discovered, they presented a petition for the adjustment and correction of the error committed by
the Court of Land Registration for the inclusion of the subject wall in both registrations.
Nevertheless, the lower court denied the petition with the contention that the plaintiff failed to
manifest any objection during the pendency of the petition for registration of defendant’s lot.

Issue: Who is the owner of the wall and the land occupied by it?

Held:
The Court revoked the decision of the lower court. This decision is founded of the theory
that the title once registered is a notice to the world and which implies that ignorance of such fact
is inadmissible. This theory is embodied by the Torrens system which provides that once a title is
registered, any question of legality of the title is barred in consonance with the purpose of the
system which is to quite the title of the land.
Jurisprudence bearing the same issue has settled that “the general rule in case of 2
certificates of title, purporting to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails.”
In line with the Civil Code provisions, the court held that in case there is a double
registration of land under Land Registration Act, the owner of the earliest certificate is the owner
of the land which in the instant case, it is the herein plaintiff, Consuelo Legarda and Mauro
Prieto, her husband, are the rightful owners of the wall and the land occupied by it.