Carino v Insular Govt

*This was an application of land registration for a certain piece of land. The application was granted by the court but it
was appealed on behalf of the Phil govt and US, since they took possession of such land for military and public purposes.

* applicant, Igorot of the province of Benguet. For more than fifty years, plaintiff and his ancestors had
held the land as owners. His grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences sufficient for
the holding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, some of the fences, it seems, having
been of much earlier date. His father had cultivated parts and had used parts for pasturing cattle, and
he had used it for pasture in his turn.
*They were recognized as owners by the Igorots and had inherited the land in accordance with igorot
custom.

* No document of title was issued from the Spanish crown. he made application for one under the
royal decrees then in force, nothing seems to have come of it. In 1901 the plaintiff filed a petition,
alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the lands were registered to him, that process,
however, establishing only a possessory title

Argument of the state:

Spain assumed, asserted, and had title to all the land in the Philippines except so far as it saw fit to
permit private titles to be acquired. However, in the case, plaintiff had no grant from the Spanish
crown. plaintiff's land was not registered, and therefore became a public land. Hence, plaintiff has no
rights that the Philippine government is bound to respect.

Issue: WON the plaintiff should be issued the title of the land

Held: Yes

Ratio:

*The acquisition of the Philippines by the US was for to do justice to the natives, not to exploit their
country for private gain. In accordance with Phil Bill of 1902, that 'no law shall be enacted in said
islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny
to any person therein the equal protection of the laws.'

*Hence, it is 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.

* If the applicant's case is to be tried by the law of Spain, Spain did not assume to convert all the
native inhabitants of the Philippines into trespassers or even into tenants at will.

* royal cedula of October 15, 1754, cited in 3 Philippine, 546: 'Where such possessors shall not be
able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession, as a valid
title by prescription. we see no sufficient reason for hesitating to admit that it was recognized in the
Philippines in regard to lands over which Spain had only a paper sovereignty.

* that law and justice require that the applicant should be granted what he seeks, and should not be
deprived of what, by the practice and belief of those among whom he lived, was his property, through
Grey Alba v Dela Cruz

Facts:

* petitioners, are the only heirs of Doña Segunda Alba Clemente and Honorato Grey, deceased. The four
petitioners, as coowners, sought to have registered the property in question.

* This parcel of agricultural land is used for the raising of rice and sugar cane and is assessed at $1,000 United
States currency. The court decreed that the land be registered in the names of the four petitioners, as coowners,
subject to the usufructuary right of Vicente Reyes, widower of Remedios Grey.

* Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz filed a motion, asking for a revision of the case, on the ground that he is the absolute
owner thereof. having inherited them from his father, Baldomero R. de la Cruz, who had a state grant for the same.

* at the time the appellants presented their petition in this case the appellee was occupying the two parcels of land
now in question. HOWEVER, It is also admitted that the name of the appellee does not appear in the said petition
as an occupant of the said two parcels

Argument of anacleto:

*he alleged that the decree was was obtained maliciously and fraudulently by the petitioners,

Argument of petitioners:

* The petitioners inherited this land from their parents, who acquired the same, including the two small parcels in
question, by purchase.

* insist that the appellee was occupying these parcels as their tenant and for this reason they did not include his
name in their petition, as an occupant,

Issue: WON the decree was obtained maliciously and fraudulently thereby allowing the reopening of the case

Held: NO

Ratio:

* two small parcels of land in question were purchased by the parents of the petitioners. The same two parcels of
land are included in the state grant issued in favor of Baldomero Ratilla de la Cruz in 1895. This grant was obtained
after the death of the petitioners' parents and while they were minors

*So it is clear that the petitioners honestly believed that the appellee was occupying the said parcels as their lessee
at the time they presented their application for registration. They did not act in bad faith, nor with any fraudulent
intent, when they omitted to include in their application the name of the appellee as one of the occupants of the
land. They believed that it was not necessary nor required that they include in their application the names of their
tenants

The said decree of February 12, 1908 could have been opened only on the ground that the said decree had
been obtained by fraud. That decree was not obtained by fraud on the part of the applicants, inasmuch as
they honestly believed that the appellee was occupying these two small parcels of land as their tenant. One
of the petitioner went upon the premises with the surveyor when the original plan was made.

By "fraud" is meant actual fraud-dishonesty of some sort. This must be determined from the fact an circumstances in
each particular case. whether or not, under the facts and circumstances in this case, the petitioners did obtain the
decree of February 12, 1908, by means of fraud.

Rqmt for for the application of registration of land:

application for the registration is to be in writing, signed and sworn to by the applicant, or by some person duly
authorized in his behalf. It is to contain an accurate description of the land. It shall contain the name in full and the
address of the applicant, and also the names and addresses of all occupants of land and of all adjoining owners, if
known; and, if not known, it shall state what search has been made to find them.

Upon receipt of the application the clerk shall cause notice of the filling to be published twice in the Official Gazette.
This published notice shall be directed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land sought to be
registered and to the adjoining owners, and also "to all whom it may concern

It will be seen that the applicant is required to mention not only the outstanding interest which he admits
but also all claims of interest, though denied by him

Although the appellee, was not served with notice, he was made a party defendant by publication; and the entering
of a decree must be held to be conclusive against all persons. The Land Registration Act requires that all occupants
be named in the petition and given notice by registered mail. This did not do the appellee any good, as he was not
notified; but he was made a party defendant, as we have said, by means of the publication "to all whom it may
concern."

The following summary of benefits of the system of registration of titles, made by Sir Robert Torrens, has
been fully justified in its use:

First. It has substituted security for insecurity.

Second. It has reduced the costs of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from months to
days.

Third. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage.

Fourth. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the "three R's" can transact his own
conveyancing.

Fifth. It affords protection against fraud.

Sixth. It has restored to their just value many estates held under good holding titles, but depreciated in consequence
of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults

The object of the Torrens system, them, is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of the old
conveyancing system.

By "Torrens" system generally are meant those systems of registration of transactions with interest in land whose
declared object . . . is, under governmental authority, to establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and
indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer
Legarda v Saleeby

Facts:

* plaintiffs and the defendant occupy adjoining lots in the district of Ermita in the city of Manila.

* there exists and has existed a number of years a stone wall between the said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of
the plaintiffs.

*pinaregister ng mga plaintiffs ung lupa pati ung stone wall and the court decredd it on oct 25, 1906

*yung predessor ng defendant, pinaregister din and then kasama ung stone wall and thecourt decreed it on march
25 1912.

*nadiscover ng plaintiff ung error so nagfile sila ng petition sa court for adjustment and correction of the error kaso
nadeny. Kase they failed to make any objection to the registration of said lot, including the wall, in the name of the
defendant.

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

Held: plaintiff

Ratio ;

If yung reasoning ng court sa pagdeny ng petition ng plaintiff is tama then the same reasoning should apply sa
defendant. Bakit hindi kumontra si defendant nung pinaregister ni plaintiff.

Currently, wala sa land registration act remedy para sa current scenario ng double registration. The first general rule
is that that the decree ordering the registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation over the same
between the same parties. Since, proceeding for the registration of land under the torrens system is judicial. clothed
with all the forms of an action and the result is final and binding upon all the world. It is an action in rem

The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified,
enlarged, or diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by law

Moreover, under Australian torrens system, The general rule is that in the case of two certificates of title, purporting
to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails, whether the land comprised in the latter certificate be wholly, or
only in part, comprised in the earlier certificate.

Given the aforementioned rules above, in the Philippines, the remedy is found not in the land registration act but in
the civil code. Article 1473 of the Civil Code provides, among other things, that 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

Rule: in case land has been registered under the Land Registration Act in the name of two different persons, the
earlier in date shall prevail.

May this rule be applied to successive vendees of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or the
other of the parties, before the error is discovered, transfers his original certificate to an "innocent purchaser." The
general rule is that the vendee of land has no greater right, title, or interest than his vendor; that he acquires the
right which his vendor had, only. Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against
the vendee of the owner of the later certificate.

May the purchaser of land which has been included in a "second original certificate" ever be regarded as an
"innocent purchaser," as against the rights or interest of the owner of the first original certificate, his heirs,
assigns, or vendee? NO
The rule should not be applied to the purchaser of a parcel of land the vendor of which is not the owner of the
original certificate, or his successors. He, in nonsense, can be an "innocent purchaser" of the portion of the land
included in another earlier original certificate

"innocent purchaser," used in said sections, should be limited only to cases where unregistered land has been
wrongfully included in a certificate under the torrens system

We believe that the purchaser from the owner of the later certificate, and his successors, should be required to
resort to his vendor for damages, in case of a mistake like the present, rather than to molest the holder of the first
certificate who has been guilty of no negligence
Nicolas v Mariano

Facts

*the land in question is a parcel of land in caloocan. It is part of the National Housing Authority’s (NHA) Bagong
Barrio Project and built thereon is plaintiff-appellee Leonora Mariano’s  five-unit apartment which she leases out to
5

tenants..

*mariano filed with the NHA for a land grant under the Bagong Barrio Project. In 1978, the NHA approved the
Application. However, the grant is subj to a mortgage.

*Accordingly, the NHA withheld conveyance of the original TCT No. C-44249 to Leonora Mariano, furnishing her
instead a photocopy thereof as the issuance of the original TCT in her name is conditioned upon her full payment of
the mortgage loan

* Leonora Mariano obtained a ₱100,000.00 loan from defendant-appellant Luz Nicolas. To secure the loan, she
executed a Mortgage Contract over the subject property, comprising the one-half portion of the parcel of land.

*kaso nagdefault si mariano sa utang nya kay Nicolas, so she executed in favor of Luz Nicolas a second mortgage
deed, this time mortgaging the subject property and the improvements

* Leonora Mariano, similarly defaulting on the second obligation, executed a deed of Absolute Sale of Real
Property, conveying to Luz Nicolas the ownership of the subject property and the improvements thereon

* It appears that from June 1999, the tenants, have been remitting monthly rentals to Luz Nicolas in the amount of
₱2,000.00, or ₱10,000.00 in the aggregate.

Argument ni Nicolas

-kahit photocopy lang binigay kay mariano, sya pa rin ung owner hence the former had every right to convey

Argument ni mariano

-admits na since d sya bayad hindi sya yung owner. She concedes title

Issue: WON mariano owns the land and therefore had the right to convey title to Nicolas

Held: No

Ratio: Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a piece of
land. Besides, the certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. Indeed, the
Torrens system of land registration "merely confirms ownership and does not create it. It cannot be used to divest
lawful owners of their title for the purpose of transferring it to another one who has not acquired it by any of the
modes allowed or recognized by law

TCT No. C-44249 was not a clean title, and if Nicolas exercised diligence, she would have discovered that Mariano
was delinquent in her installment payments to the NHA, which in turn would have generated the necessary
conclusion that the property belonged to the said government agency.

Realizing that she is not the owner of the subject property and knowing that she has not fully paid the price therefor,
she is as guilty as Nicolas for knowingly mortgaging and thereafter selling what is not hers.

they are deemed in pari delicto or in equal fault, and for this, "[n]either one may expect positive relief from courts of
justice in the interpretation of their contract. The courts will leave them as they were at the time the case was filed.
Mactan Cebu International Airport v. Tirol

Facts:

According to MCIAA (Mactan Cebu International Airport), spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa Cosef (the original owners
of the property) sold the property to the government. Since then, the government, through defendant-appellant MCIAA,
has been in open, continuous, exclusive and adverse possession of the property in the concept of owner. Said lot
allegedly became part of the Clear Zone of Runway 22 for purposes of required clearance for take-off and landing. It was
alleged that spouses Cosef again sold the same property to spouses Moises Cuizon and Beatriz Patalinghug, who in turn
sold the lot to Mrs. Elma Jenkins, who eventually sold the same to herein plaintiffs-appellees.

MCIAA registered its Deed of Absolute Sale under Act No. 3344, although the property subject of the sale being
indisputably registered land.

Spouses Tirol and Ngo filed a complaint for quieting of title of the property. Trial court ruled in favor of petitioner MCIAA
but eventually reversed its decision in the Motion for Reconsideration. Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

Issue/s: Whether or not the registration of the sale operated as constructive notice to the whole world. [NO]

Held:

In this regard, well-settled is the rule that registration of instruments must be done in the proper registry in order to effect
and bind the land. Prior to the Property Registration Decree of 1978, Act No. 496 (or the Land Registration Act) governed
the recording of transactions involving registered land, i.e., land with a Torrens title. On the other hand, Act No. 3344, as
amended, provided for the system of recording of transactions over unregistered real estate without prejudice to a third
party with a better right.20 Accordingly, if a parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is sold, but the sale is registered under
Act No. 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, the sale is not considered registered 21 and the registration of the
deed does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world. 22

Section 50 of Act No. 496 in fact categorically states that it is the act of registration that shall operate to convey and affect
the land; absent any such registration, the instrument executed by the parties remains only as a contract between them
and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration, viz.:

SECTION 50. 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. He may use forms of deeds, mortgages, leases, or other voluntary instruments like those
now in use and sufficient in law for the purpose intended. 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 register of deeds for the province or provinces or city where the land lies.
(italics supplied)

Hence, respondents may not be characterized as buyers in bad faith for having bought the property notwithstanding the
registration of the first Deed of Absolute Sale under Act No. 3344. An improper registration is no registration at all.
Likewise, a sale that is not correctly registered is binding only between the seller and the buyer, but it does not affect
innocent third persons.23

Petitioner, however, is of the impression that registration under Act No. 3344 is permissible because the duplicate copy of
the certificate of title covering Lot No. 4763-D had been lost or destroyed. This argument does not persuade. Our
pronouncement in Amodia Vda. de Melencion, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. 24 is apropos: (SABI NI PETITIONER,
PWEDE NAMAN DAW SYA UNDER ACT NO 3344, REG OF UNREGISTERED LAND KASE NAWALA DAW UNG
DUPLICATE COPY OF CERT OF TITLE)

In the instant case, petitioner MCIAA did not bother to have the lost title covering Lot No. 4763-D reconstituted at any
time, notwithstanding the fact that the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1958, or more than fifty years ago.
Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. Laws must come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleepy. 26 As a
matter of fact, this entire controversy may very well have been avoided had it not been for petitioner’s negligence.

Furthermore, under the established principles of land registration, a person dealing with registered land may generally rely
on the correctness of a certificate of title and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond it to determine the legal status
of the property,27 except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.28 Applying this standard to the facts of this case, we rule that respondents
exercised the required diligence in ascertaining the legal condition of the title to the subject property as to be considered
innocent purchasers for value and in good faith. We quote with favor the factual findings of the Court of Appeals in this
respect:

Defendant-appellant MCIAA also asseverates that the close proximity of the property to the runway of the airport (320
meters from the center line of the runway) and the fact that it has been vacant for a considerable period should have
caused [plaintiffs-appellees] to be dubious of the title of the previous owners thereof. This was, in Our opinion,
satisfactorily explained by plaintiffs-appellees when witness Mr. Edito Tirol testified in open court that he never thought it
strange that the land had always been vacant, and that besides, there were private houses beside the vacant lot,
suggesting that the property must be of private ownership and not that of the airport. Furthermore, he testified that he
undertook great care in verifying the clean title of the said land, [e.g.,] deputizing an employee to do the necessary
research, personally copying pertinent documents registered in the Registry of Property and even consulting legal advice
on the matter. These, for Us, are badges of good faith. Besides, being allegedly part of the Clear Zone, ATO aviation rules
proscribe merely the installation of buildings and other physical structures, except landing facilities. Aviation rules (which,
although repeatedly invoked, interestingly were not presented before the court by defendant-appellant MCIAA) do not
prohibit realty ownership.29

DP: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The May 27, 2005 Decision and the February 17, 2006
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez

Facts:

The descendants of Pablo Pascua (Pablo), filed a complaint seeking reconveyance of the contested land in this case.

Respondents alleged that Pablo died intestate sometime in June 1945 and was survived by his four children, one of whom
was the deceased Cipriano.14 On 13 February 1967, Cipriano executed a document denominated as "Extrajudicial
Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales,"15 wherein he declared himself as the only heir of Pablo and
confirmed the sales made by the decedent during his lifetime, including the alleged sale of the disputed property to
spouses Rodolfo.

Respondents likewise averred that on the following day 14 February 1967, TCT No. T-824116 was issued in the name of
Cipriano "without OCT No. 404 having been cancelled."17 However, TCT No. T-8241 was not signed by the Register of
Deeds. On the same day, TCT No. T-8242 was issued in the name of the spouses Rodolfo and TCT No. T-8241 was
thereby cancelled.18 Subsequently, on 31 October 1969, the spouses Rodolfo sold the disputed property to Guaranteed
Homes by virtue of a Deed of Sale with Mortgage.

TCT regarding the subj property was issues to Cipriano, but the OCT was not cancelled. The said TCT issued to Cipriano
was not signed by the RD. thereafter nacancel din ung TCT nay un and a new one was issues in favor of the Rodolfo
spouses and thereafter, the spouses sold the lot to guaranteed homes via DOAS with mortgage.

The trial court held that Guaranteed Homes was already the owner of the land, noting that the failure to annotate the
subsequent transfer of the property to it at the back of OCT No. 404 did not affect its title to the property.

CA reversed RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition.

Issue/s: Whether or not Guaranteed Homes should be declared as the owner of the land despite the claims of the
descendants of Pablo (i.e., lack of signature by the Register of Deeds in one of the titles, non-registration of the extra-
judicial settlement, and forgery). [YES]

Held:

Firstly, the complaint does not allege any defect with TCT No. T-8242 in the name of the spouses Rodolfo, who were
petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest, or any circumstance from which it could reasonably be inferred that petitioner had
any actual knowledge of facts that would impel it to make further inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo. 36 It is basic
that a person dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his predecessor-in-
interest. Since "the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned," it follows that where there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of
the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title
upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. If
the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to insure
would entirely be futile and nugatory. The public shall then be denied of its foremost motivation for respecting and
observing the Torrens system of registration. In the end, the business community stands to be inconvenienced and
prejudiced immeasurably.37

Contrary to the assertion of respondents, OCT No. 404 was expressly cancelled by TCT No. T-8241. The alleged non-
signature by the Register of Deeds Soliman Achacoso, , does not affect the validity of TCT No. T-8241 since he signed
TCT No. T- 8242 and issued both titles on the same day. There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty. The presumption is further bolstered by the fact that TCT No. T-8241 was certified to be on file with the Registry of
Deeds and registered in the name of Cipriano. It is enough that petitioner had examined the latest certificate of title which
in this case was issued in the name of the immediate transferor, the spouses Rodolfo. The purchaser is not bound by the
original certificate but only by the certificate of title of the person from whom he had purchased the property. 38
Secondly, while the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales executed by Cipriano alone despite
the existence of the other heirs of Pablo, is not binding on such other heirs, nevertheless, it has operative effect under
Section 44 of the Property Registration Decree, which provides that:

SEC. 44. Statutory Liens Affecting Title. — Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree
of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith,
shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate and any of the following
encumbrances which may be subsisting, namely:

xxxx

Even assuming arguendo that the extrajudicial settlement was a forgery, the Court still has to uphold the title of petitioner.
The case law is that although generally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title, there are instances
when such a fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title. 39 And one such instance is where the certificate of
title was already transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and while it remained that way, the land was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the
certificate.40

The Court cannot give credence to respondents’ claims that the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation
of Sales was not registered and that OCT No. 404 was not cancelled by the Register of Deeds. The Register of Deeds of
Zambales certified that the extrajudicial settlement was recorded on 14 February 1967, per Entry No. 18590. This is in
compliance with Section 56 of Act No. 496,41 the applicable law at the time of registration, which provides that:

Sec. 56. Each register of deeds shall keep an entry book in which he shall enter in the order of their reception all deeds
and other voluntary instruments, and all copies of writs and other process filed with him relating to registered land. He
shall note in such book the year, month, day, hour, and minute of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they
are received. They shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument
when made on the certificate of title to which it refers shall bear the same date. [Emphasis supplied]

Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment,
order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall be, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from
the time of such registering, filing or entering.42

Thirdly, respondents cannot make out a case for quieting of title since OCT No. 404 had already been cancelled.
Respondents have no title to anchor their complaint on. 43 Title to real property refers to that upon which ownership is
based. It is the evidence of the right of the owner or the extent of his interest, by which means he can maintain control
and, as a rule, assert right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. 44

From the above discussion, there is no question that petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value; hence, no cause of
action for cancellation of title will lie against it. 49 The RTC was correct in granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

DP: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67462
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 12 November 1999 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 73 in
Civil Case No. 432-097 is REINSTATED.