It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.

1
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

Melencio vs. CA (G.R. No. The subject property is a 30,351 square meter parcel 1. Did the CA err in ruling 1. No. 

148846, September 25, 2007) of land denominated as Lot No. 3368, located at that the RTC committed  Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved

Suba-basbas, Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, an error in appreciating by clear, positive and convincing evidence and

RTC RULING and part of a total area of 30,777 square the testimony of an the burden of proof rests on the party alleging

 RTC declared Go Kim meters covered by TCT No. 20626 (entire property) in expert witness as to the forgery. Handwriting experts are helpful in the

Chuan as the real the name of the late petitioner Go Kim Chuan.  forgery of the Extra- examination of forged documents because of

owner of the subject The entire property was originally owned by Esteban Judicial Partition of Real the technical procedure involved in analyzing

property. Bonghanoy who had only one child, Juana Estate with Deed of them. But resort to these experts is

 That signatures of the Bonghanoy-Amodia, mother of the late Absolute Sale. not mandatory or indispensable. 

Amodias in the Extra- Leoncia Amodia and petitioners Cecilia Amodia Vda.  A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on

Judicial Partition of Real de Melencion, Veneranda Amodia, Felipe Amodia, 2. Who between Go Kim the testimonies of handwriting experts, because

Estate with Deed and Eutiquio Amodia. The entire property was Chuan and AZNAR has the judge must conduct anindependent

of Absolute Sale brought under the operation of Torrens System the better right over examination of the questioned signature in

executed in favor of but the title was lost during the WWII. On July 10, the property order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to

AZNAR were found by 1964, the Amodias allegedly executed an Extra- its authenticity.

the document Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of    It is true that the original document was

examiner of Absolute Sale of Esteban whereby they conveyed produced before the RTC, but the finding of

the Philippine the subject property to respondent Aznar Brothers forgery relies wholly on the testimony of the

Constabulary (PC) Realty Company (AZNAR) for P10,200.00.  document examiner. It falls short of the

Crime Laboratory to The said Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with required independent examination to be

be forged, thus, the Deed of Absolute Sale was registered under Act conducted by the trial court judge.

said deed did 3344 as there was no title on file in the Register  

not convey anything of Deeds. AZNAR also made some improvements and 2. Go Kim Chuan

in favor of AZNAR. constructed a beach house thereon.  The registration contemplated in the Article

 That the subject On February 18, 1989, petitioners Amodias executed 1544 of the New Civil

property had been a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Code refers to registration under the Torrens

brought under the Land Sale, conveying the subject property in favor of Go System, which considers the act of registration

Registration Act, hence, Kim Chuan for P70,000.00. as the operative act that gives validity to the

all transactions involving The lost title covering the subject property was transfer or creates a lien upon the land. This

the same should reconstituted pursuant to RA No. 26 and rule precisely applies to cases involving

have complied with the a reconstituted title particularly designated as OCT conflicting rights over registered property

said law; and No. RO-2899 was issued in the name of Esteban and those of innocent transferees who relied on

that AZNAR failed to Bonghanoy and, subsequently, a derivative title (TCT the clean title of the properties. Thus, we held

show that Go No.20626) was issued in the name of Go Kim Chuan. that registration must be done in the proper

Kim Chuan acquired the 7Chuan then exercised control and dominion over the registry in order to bind the same.

subject property in bad property in an adverse, continuous and in the concept  In this case, it is uncontroverted that the subject

faith. of an owner. property was under the operation of the

  8On February 14, 1990, AZNAR wrote a letter to Torrens System even before the respective

CA RULING petitioners asking them to withdraw and/or nullify the conveyances to AZNAR and Go Kim Chuan

 Reversed and set aside sale they entered into with Chuan. On the same date, were made. AZNAR knew of this. Yet, despite

the RTC’s decision, Notice of Adverse Claim was annotated by AZNAR on this, AZNAR registered the sale in its favor

declaring AZNAR as the the derivative title. Petitioners did not heed AZNAR’s under Act 3344 on the contention that at the

real owner of the land. demand. time of sale, there was no title on file. We are

 Held that the Extra- AZNAR filed a case against petitioners Amodias and not persuaded.

Judicial Partition of Real Go Kim Chuan for Annulment of Sale and  In this case, since the Extra-Judicial Partition
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 2
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

Estate with Deed of Cancellation of TCT No. 20626 alleging that the sale of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale in

Absolute Sale executed to Chuan was an invalid second sale of the subject favor of AZNAR was registered under Act

by the Amodias in favor property which had earlier been sold to it.Petitioners No. 3344 and not under Act No. 496, the said

of AZNAR was Amodias denied that they executed the Extra-Judicial document is deemed not registered. Rather,

registered ahead of the Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale in it was the sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan which

Deed of Extra-Judicial favor of AZNAR, claiming that their purported was registered under Act No. 496.

Settlement with signatures thereon were forged.  The fact that the certificate of title over the

Absolute Sale in favor of registered land is lost does not convert it into

Go Kim Chuan, thus, unregistered land. After all, acertificate of title is

pursuant to Article 1544 merely an evidence of ownership or title over

of the New Civil Code, the particular property described therein. This

the former deed should Court agrees with the petitioners that AZNAR

be given preference should have availed itself of the legal remedy of

over the latter. reconstitution of the lost certificate of

 That AZNAR's adverse title,instead of registration under Act 3344.

claim was annotated  Although it is obvious that Go Kim Chuan

earlier than the registered the sale in his favor under Act 496

execution of the Deed of while AZNAR did not, we still cannot make an

Extra-Judicial outright award of the subject property to the

Settlement petitioners solely on that basis. For the law is

with Absolute Sale in clear: mere registration of title is not enough.

favor of Go Kim Good faith must accompany the registration.

Chuan, hence, the latter  Thus, to be able to enjoy priority status,

should have respected the second purchaser must be in good faith,

said adverse claim and i.e., he must have no knowledge of the

should have made previous alienation of the property by the

inquiries as to possible vendor to another. Notably, what is important

defects that may exist for this purpose is not whether the second

in the title over the buyer is a buyer in good faith, but whether he

subject property. registers the second sale in good faith,

 That in the absence of meaning, he does so without knowledge of any

a final determination defect in the title over the property sold.

by a court of proper  To fully resolve the second question, it is

jurisdiction on the imperative that we determine whether Go Kim

alleged forged Chuan was a registrant in good faith.

signatures of the  Inscription of an adverse claim serves as a

Amodias in the Extra- warning to third parties dealing with a piece of

Judicial Partition of Real real property that someone claims an interest

Estate with Deed of therein or that there is a right superior to that of

Absolute the titled owner. However, as pointed out by

Sale, the finding of petitioners and as admitted by AZNAR,

the document the Notice of Adverse Claim was annotated

examiner was on TCT No. 20626 only on February 4, 1990,

insufficient. after the lost certificate of title was

 xxx reconstituted and after the issuance of said

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 3
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

The petitioners filed a Motion for TCT in the name of Go Kim Chuan. It is,

Leave to Admit Amended therefore,absurd to say that Go Kim Chuan

Petition for Review on Certiorari should be bound by an adverse claim which

(Amended Petition) seeking to was not previously annotated on the lost title or

correct a defect in the on the new one, or be shackled by a claim

designation of parties claiming which he did not have any knowledge of.

that the Amodias were excluded  There can be no constructive notice to the

from the Amended Petition second buyer through registration under Act

because they can no longer be 3344 if the property is registered under the

located despite diligent efforts Torrens system.

exerted by counsel, hence, the  Before buying the property, Chuan made

heirs of Go Kim Chuan, left with verifications with the Office of the City Assessor

no choice but to file the instant and the Register of Deeds. He visited the

case before this court on their premises of the subject property and found that

own. The Court gave due nobody interposed any adverse claim against

course to the Petition. (See Side the Amodias. After he decided to buy the

Note for ruling) property, he paid all taxes in arrears, caused

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION the publication of the Deed of Extra-Judicial

 Argued that Act 3344 Settlement with Absolute Sale in a newspaper

only refers to of general circulation, caused the reconstitution

transactions affecting of the lost certificate of title and caused the

lands or interests not issuance of the assailed TCT in his name.

previously registered Given these antecedents, good faith on the part

under the Spanish of Go Kim Chuan cannot be doubted.

Mortgage Law or under  We also note that AZNAR's complaint for

the Torrens system. cancellation of title contains no allegation that

 That if AZNAR could not the (second) purchaser was aware of defects in

have registered the sale his title. In the absence of such an allegation

in 1964 under Act 496 and proof of bad faith, it would be grossly

because the title over inappropriate for this Court to render judgment

the property was lost, against the purchaser who had already

AZNAR should have acquired title not only because of lack

availed itself of the of evidence, but also because of the

remedy indefeasibility and conclusiveness of such title.

of reconstitution.

 That registration under

Act 3344 is without legal

effect and could

not operate as

constructive notice to

petitioners and third

persons, hence, may

not be used as basis for

the application of Art.

1544 of the New Civil

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 4
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

Code.

 That the Notice

of Adverse Claim of

AZNAR was annotated

on TCT No. 20626 only

on February 14,

1990 after the execution

of the Deed of Extra-

Judicial Settlement with

Absolute Sale in favor of

Go Kim Chuan on

February 18, 1989,

hence, the CA erred

when it held that Go

Kim Chuan was not a

buyer in good faith for

supposedly having

knowledge of such

adverse claim.

RESPONDENT’S

CONTENTION

 AZNAR claims

that the Amended

Petition was filed to cure

a fatal defect which

should not

be accepted by

Court. (See Side Note)

 AZNAR also contends

that Go Kim Chuan was

a buyer in bad faith as

he had prior

constructive notice that

the subject property was

sold to AZNAR because

the sale was registered

with the Register of

Deeds under Act 3344.

 That the 1964 sale was

registered under Act

3344 because the

subject property was not

actually covered by a

Torrens title at the time.

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 5
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

That there was no other

mode of registration

except under Act 3344

 That Go Kim Chuan had

to wait for

the reconstitution of the

lost title, hence, it could

not be said that he

examined anycertificate

of title and could feign

ignorance of the sale in

favor of AZNAR.

 That the second sale

did not transfer the

property to Go Kim

Chuan since it was

no longer within the

vendors' power to

convey.

 That with respect to the

issue of forgery,

the finding of the

document examiner is

not conclusive.

 That such issue was

belied

by petitioner Veneranda

Amodia herself when

she declared that

negotiated sale in 1964

between AZNAR and

the Amodias was not

consummated because

the latter didn’t receive

the full consideration for

the subject property.

Republic vs. Dignos-Sorono  Petitioner as represented by the Mactan Cebu Whether or not the sale SC ruled that the sale was only valid up to the 1⁄4

(G.R. No. 171571, International Airport (MCIAA) to MCIAA was valid. share of Dignos.

March 24, 2008)  Respondents Heirs of Dignos who own

portions of the parcel of land SC ruled that it is not considered as a constructive

notice against the whole world. There is no valid

RTC   registration. Registration under RA 3344 only refers to

 RTC held in favor of the unregistered lands however in this case, since the land

respondents and was How the case started

was already registered and title was lost during WW2,

1. Lot Nos. 2296 and 2316 of the Cadastral Survey

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 6
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

affirmed by the CA of Opon, Lapu-lapu City were adjudicated in favor of it cannot be registered again under 3344, just because

 The trial court held that the heirs of Digno in four equal shares  the certificate of title is lost does not convert it to

the questioned sale was 2. The two lots were not partitioned by the adjudicates unregistered land.

valid only with respect 3. The heirs of Tito Dignos, who was one of the

to Tito Dignos share of recipient of the lots, sold the entire two lots to Civil The court also cites Bailon-Casilao v. CA: even if a co-

the lots, and that the Aeronautics Administration (CAA) without the owner sells the whole property as his, the sale

sale thereof was subject knowledge of respondents whose predecessors-in- will affect only his own share  but not those of the

to the right of legal interest were the adjudicates of the rest of the portion other co-owners who did not consent to the sale 

redemption by of the two lots

respondents following 4. CAA’s successor MCIAA, erected a security fence

Article 1088 of the Civil traversing Lot No. 2316 and relocated a number of FALLO:

Code families, who had built their dwellings within the airport WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing

  perimeter, to a portion of said lot to enhance airport disquisition, DENIED

security.

5. Respondents soon asked the agents of MCIAA to

cease giving third persons permission to occupy the

lots but the same was ignored

6. Respondents filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title,

Legal Redemption against MCIAA alleging that

corresponding original certificates of title in favor of

the decreed owners were issued but the same could

no longer be found and located, and in all probability,

were lost during the Second World War

7. Respondents furthermore alleged that neither

petitioner nor its predecessor-in-interest had given

them any written notice of its acquisition of the share

of Tito Dignos.

Legarda vs. Saleeby (G.R. No.

8936, Oct. 2, 1915, 31 Phil.

590)

Guaranteed Homes Inc. vs.  Respondents, descendants of Pablo Whether petitioner is an

Valdez (G.R. No. 171531, Jan. Pascua, filed a complaint innocent purchaser for Yes (there is no need for petitioner to go beyond the

30, 2009, 577 SCRA 441) seeking reconveyance of a parcel of land value, i.e. there is no clean title presented to them).

in Cabitaugan, Subic Zambales and covered need to go beyond the

Petition granted. CA decision reversed and set aside.

by OCT No. 404 in the name of Pablo. They registered title of

are praying for damages. spouses Rodolfo.

 The Court held that it is basic that a person

 From the annexes attached in the complaint, it

dealing with registered property need not go

was ascertained that the OCT contained

beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his

several annotations which showed that the

predecessor-in-interest. Since “the act of

property had been sold by Pablo

registration is the operative act to convey or

to Alejandria Marquinez and Resituto Moral
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 7
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

es. affect the land insofar as third persons are

 Also attached in the complaint, and averred by concerned,” it follows that where there is

the respondents: nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any

o Extrajudicial Settlement of a cloud or vice in the ownership of the property,

Sole Heir and Confirmation of or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is

Sales executed by Cipriano not required to explore farther than what the

Pascua, Sr., declaring himself Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for

as the only heir of Pablo and any hidden defect or inchoate right that may

confirming the sales made by subsequently defeat his right thereto.

Pablo to spouses Rodolfo;

o TCT Nos. T-8241 – issued in  

the name of Cipriano without  In the present case, it is enough that petitioner

cancellation of OCT No. 404 & examined the latest certificate of title issued in

not signed by Register of Deeds; the name of spouses Rodolfo. The petitioner as

o TCT No. T-8242 – issued in the purchaser is not bound by the original

name of spouses Rodolfo, which certificate but only by the certificate of title of

canceled T-8241; the person from whom he had purchased the

o TCT No. T-10863 – issued in property. 

the name of petitioner when

 
spouses Rodolfo sold the

 Furthermore, registration in the public registry

property to petitioner, which

is considered a notice to the whole world. Every

canceled T-8242;

conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment,

o Deed of Sale with Mortgage

order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting

between spouses Albino

registered land shall be, if registered, filed or

Rodolfo and Fabia Rodolfo and

entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds

Guaranteed Homes;

of the province or city where the land to which it

  relates lies, be constructive notice to all

 Jorge Pascua, Sr., son of Cipriano filed a persons from the time of such registering, filing

petition with RTC-Olongapo for the issuance or entering.

of a new owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 404,

which was denied. The trial court held that

petitioner was already the owner of the

subject property, noting that the failure to

annotate the subsequent property to it at the

back of said OCT did not affect its title to the

property.

 Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint on the following grounds:

o Action is barred by the

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

(since more than 28 years have

passed since the issuance from

T-10863 to the filing of the

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 8
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

complaint);

o No cause of action, since

petitioner is an INNOCENT

PURCHASER for value relying on

the clean title of spouses

Rodolfo. 

 RTC granted the motion.

 CA reversed and held that the respondents’

complaint for quieting of title had not yet

prescribed.

 Hence, this petition.

Rabaja Ranch Development Whether or not

Corp. vs. AFP Retirement and Rabaja Ranch Development respondent’s title which Petition is DENIED and the assailed Court of Appeals

Separation Benefits System, Corporation (petitioner), a domestic corporation, is a originated from a fake Decision is AFFIRMED. AFP has a better right.

G.R. No. 177181, July 7, 2009, holder of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- and spurious homestead

88513 covering the subject property particularly  

592 SCRA 201) patent, is superior to

identified as Lot 395, Pls 47, with an area of 211,372 petitioner’s title which

Petitioner did not convincingly show that the
square meters more or less, and located at Barangay originated from a valid
Homestead Patent issued to Charles is indeed
(Brgy.) Conrazon, Bansud, Bongabon, Oriental and existing free patent.
spurious. More importantly, petitioner failed to prove
Mindoro. (Who, between the
that respondent took part in the alleged fraud which
petitioner and
dated back as early as 1966 when Charles supposedly
respondent, has a better
secured the fake and spurious Homestead Patent.
right over the subject
Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and
property)
Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) is a  

government corporation, which manages the pension

In Republic v. Umali, court held that, in a reversion

fund of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), is

case, even if the original grantee of a patent and title

a holder of TCT No. T-51382 covering the same

has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no

subject property.

longer prosper as the land had become private land

  and the fraudulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of

innocent purchasers for value.

September 1, 1998 - RABAJA filed a

Complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Removal of  

Cloud from Title before the RTC.

This conclusion rests very firmly on Section 32 of P.D.

o September 6, 1955, Free

No. 1529, which states:

Patent No. V-19535 (Free

Patent) was issued in the name

SECTION 32. Review of decree of
of Jose Castromero (Jose),
registration; Innocent purchaser for value. —
registered, and Original
The decree of registration shall not be
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-
reopened or revised by reason of absence,
2612 covering the subject
minority, or other disability of any person
property was issued in the name
adversely affected thereby, nor by any
of Jose.
proceeding in any court for reversing
o Jose sold the subject property
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 9
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

to Spouses Sigfriedo and

Josephine Veloso (spouses Vel judgment, subject, however, to the right of

oso), and TCT No. T-17104 was any person, including the government and

issued in favor of the latter. the branches thereof, deprived of land or of

o Spouses Veloso, in turn, sold any estate or interest therein by such

the subject property to RABAJA adjudication or confirmation of title obtained

RANCH DEVELOPMENT by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of

CORPORATION for the sum First Instance a petition for reopening and

of P 634,116.00 on January 17, review of the decree of registration not later

1997, and TCT No. T-88513 was than one year from and after the date of the

issued in petitioner’s name. 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

AFP-RSBS averred, interest therein whose rights may be

o title over the subject property prejudiced. Whenever the phrase

was protected by "innocent purchaser for value" or an

the Torrens system, as it was a equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it

buyer in good faith and for value; shall be deemed to include an innocent

and that it had been in lessee, mortgagee, or

continuous possession of the other encumbrancer for value.

subject property since

November 1989, way ahead  

of RABAJA's alleged

possession in February 1997. Upon the expiration of said period of one

o April 30, 1966, Homestead year, the decree of registration and the

Patent No. 113074 (Homestead certificate of title issued shall become

Patent) was issued in the name incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by

of Charles Soguilon (Charles).  such decree of registration in any case may

pursue his remedy by action for damages

o On May 27, 1966, the
against the applicant or any other person
Homestead Patent was
responsible for the fraud. (Underscoring
registered and OCT No. RP-110
ours)
(P-6339) was issued in Charles's

name, covering the same

 
property. 

No valid TCT can issue from a void TCT, unless an

o On October 18, 1982, Charles
innocent purchaser for value had
sold the subject property to JMC
intervened. An innocent purchaser for value is one
Farm Incorporated (JMC), which
who buys the property of another, without notice that
was then issued TCT No. 18529. 
some other person has a right to or interest in the
o On August 30, 1985, JMC
property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the
obtained a loan from AFP-
buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt of
RSBS in the amount
any notice of the claims or interest of some other
of P7,000,000.00, with real estate
person in the property. The protection given to innocent
mortgage over several parcels of
purchasers for value is necessary to uphold a
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 10
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

land including the subject

property.  JMC failed to pay; certificate of title's efficacy and conclusiveness, which

hence, after extra-judicial the Torrens system ensures

foreclosure and public sale,

 
respondent, being the highest

bidder, acquired the subject

AFP-RSBS is an innocent purchaser in good faith and
property and was issued TCT No.
for value. Thus, as far as respondent is concerned,
T-51382 in its name. AFP-
TCT No. 18529, shown to it by JMC, was free from any
RSBS contended that from the
flaw or defect that could give rise to any iota of doubt
time it was issued a title, it took
that it was fake and spurious, or that it was derived
possession of the subject
from a fake or spurious Homestead Patent. Likewise,
property
respondent was not under any obligation to make an
until RABAJA disturbed AFP-
inquiry beyond the TCT itself when, significantly, a
RSBS's possession thereof
foreclosure sale was conducted and respondent
sometime in 1997.  
emerged as the highest bidder.

RTC ruled in favor of the RABAJA on the ground

that RABAJA's title emanated from a title older than  

that of AFP-RSBS. Moreover, the RTC held that there

were substantial and numerous infirmities in the The general rule that the direct result of a previous void

Homestead Patent of Charles. The RTC found that contract cannot be valid will not apply in this case as it

there was NO record in the Bureau of Lands that will directly contravene the Torrens system of

Charles was a homestead applicant or a grantee of registration. Where innocent third persons, relying on

Homestead Patent No. 113074. Upon inquiry, the RTC the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued,

also found that a similar Homestead Patent acquire rights over the property, this Court cannot

bearing No. V-113074 was actually issued in favor of disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the

one Mariano Costales over a parcel of land with an certificate. The effect of such outright cancellation will

area of 8.7171 hectares and located be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title.

in Bunawan, Agusan in Mindanao, per The sanctity of the Torrens system must be preserved;

Certification issued by the Lands Management Bureau otherwise, everyone dealing with the property

dated February 18, 1998. Thus, the RTC held that registered under the system will have to inquire in

Charles's Homestead Patent was fraudulent and every instance as to whether the title had been

spurious, and respondent could not invoke the regularly or irregularly issued, contrary to the evident

protection of the Torrens system, because the system purpose of the law. Every person dealing with the

does not protect one who committed fraud or registered land may safely rely on  the correctioness of

misrepresentation and holds title in bad faith. the certificate of title issued therefor, and the law will, in

no way, oblige him to go behind the certificate to

Aggrieved, AFP-RSBS appealed to the CA.
determine the condition of the property.

o the CA reversed and set aside

the RTC's Decision upon the  

finding that Charles's

Homestead Patent was earlier Respondent's transfer certificate of title, having been

registered than Jose's Free derived from the Homestead Patent which was

Patent. The CA held that Jose registered under the Torrens system on May 27, 1966,

slept on his rights, and thus, was thus vested with the habiliments of indefeasibility.

respondent had a better right over

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 11
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

the subject property.  Further, the

CA opined that while “it is

interesting to note that petitioner's

OTHER NOTES:
claim that Homestead PatentNo.

A. Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. 

V-113074 was issued to

Mariano Costales,
Certification issued by the Lands
Management Bureau, there
nothing on record which would
per
Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional
deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation
is
or concealment of a material fact. 

show that said Homestead Patent

Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud
No. V-113074 and Homestead
because of its detrimental effect upon public
Patent No. 113074 granted to
interests and public or private confidence,
Charles were one and the same.
even though the act is not done with an

actual design to commit positive fraud or

 
injury upon other persons. 

RABAJA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which

 
the CA, however, denied.

Fraud may also be either extrinsic or

Filed a petition in SC.
intrinsic. 

Fraud is regarded as intrinsic where the

fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved

in the original action, or where the acts

constituting the fraud were or could have

been litigated therein. 

The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to

deprive parties of their day in court and thus

prevent them from asserting their right to the

property registered in the name of the

applicant.

B. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court

distinguished a Homestead Patent from a Free

Patent, to wit:

             Homestead Patent and Free Patent are some

of the land patents granted by the government under

the Public Land Act. While similar, they are not exactly

the same. A Homestead Patent is one issued to: any

citizen of this country; over the age of 18 years or the

head of a family; who is not the owner of more than

twenty-four (24) hectares of land in the Philippines or

has not had the benefit of any gratuitous allotment of

more than twenty-four (24) hectares of land since the

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 12
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

occupation of the Philippines by the United States. The

applicant must show that he has complied with the

residence and cultivation requirements of the law; must

have resided continuously for at least one year in the

municipality where the land is situated; and must have

cultivated at least one-fifth of the land applied for.

On the other hand, a Free Patent may be

issued where the applicant is a natural-born

citizen of the Philippines; not the owner of

more than twelve (12) hectares of land; that

he has continuously occupied and

cultivated, either  by  himself or through his

predecessors-in-interests, a tract or tracts of

agricultural public lands subject to

disposition for at least 30 years prior to

the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6940; and

that he has paid the real taxes thereon while

the same has not been occupied by any

person.    

Homestead Patent, once registered under the Land

Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens

Title.  Verily, Section 103 of P.D. No. 1529 mandates

the registration of patents, and such registration is the

operative act to convey the land to the patentee, thus:

           

            Sec. 103.         . . . . . The deed, grant, patent or

instrument of conveyance from the Government to the

grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind

the land but shall operate only as a contract between

the Government and the grantee and as evidence of

authority to the Register of Deeds to make

registration. It is the act of registration that shall be

the operative act to affect and convey the land, and

in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be

made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the

province or city where the land lies. The fees for

registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due

registration and issuance of the certificate of title,

such land shall be deemed to be registered land to

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 13
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

all intents and purposes under this Decree.

C. The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles

to lands; it is merely a system of registration of titles to

lands. However, justice and equity demand that the

titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable

effect of the mistake or negligence of the State's

agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a

fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The real

purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land

and put a stop forever to any question as to the legality

of the title, except claims that were noted in the

certificate at the time of the registration or that may

arise subsequent thereto.  Otherwise, the integrity of

the Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the

ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials,

who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly

performed their duties

Concepcion vs. Concepcion The land under dispute in the case at bar is the Whether or not the Yes, it is the decision of the Supreme Court that the

(GR No. 147928, Jan. 11, Zulueta property. The original owners of such lannd cadastral court has trial court sitting as a cadastral court has

2005) are spouses Regino and Famador. They have seven jurisdiction to resolve the jurisdiction to resolve the opposition brought about

(7) children and have left a will before they died. opposition. by herein petitioners. Under Section 2 of P. D. 1529,

The trial court in the partition case filed by Jose it is provided that Regional Trial Courts shall have

Concepcion, father of herein respondents (because exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original

such will impaired his legitime), declared Jose entitled registration of titles to lands, including improvements

to a part of the land under dispute and ordered and interests therein and over all petitions filed after

petitioners to contribute proportionately to satisfy said original registration of title, with power to hear and

claim. determine all questions arising upon such applications

Petitioners failed to comply said order. Hence, Jose or petitions.

Concepcion filed a petition for the cancellation of the The Supreme Court further held that the above

Transfer Certificate of Title of the questioned land provision has eliminated the distinction between the

before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu sitting as a general jurisdiction vested in the Regional Trial

Land Registration Court. Court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it

Said court ordered the delivery of said title to the by the former law when acting merely as a

Register of Deeds for the registration of Jose's part of cadastral court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits

the land. the change has simplified registration proceedings by

Petitioners opposed the decision but said opposition conferring upon the regional trial courts the authority to

was dismissed by the cadastral court on the ground act not only on applications for original registration but

that it does not have jurisdiction to resolve the matter. also over all petitions filed after original registration of

title, with power to hear and determine all questions

arising upon such applications or petitions.

IOW, SC said that the lower court has jurisdiction

because it is just an incidental matter. The RTC has

general jurisdiction over matters pertaining to

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 14
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

registration. That is how broad the jurisdiction of the

land registration court is.

De los Angeles vs. Santos Whether or not a land

(GR No. L-19615, Dec. 24, On November 21, 1959 an application for registration registration court which NEGATIVE. CFI is incorrect.

1964) of title on 12 parcels of land in Ampid, San Mateo, has validly acquired

Rizal, was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal It is well-settled that the Director of Lands’ jurisdiction,
jurisdiction over a parcel

by Leonor De Los Angeles and 7 co-applicants. administrative supervision and executive control extend
of land for registration of

They alleged that they are “owners pro-indiviso and only over lands of the public domain and not to lands
title thereto could be

in fee simple of the aforesaid land.” already or private ownership. Accordingly, a homestead
divested of said

patent issued by him over land NOT of the PUBLIC

jurisdiction by

The Director of Lands opposed, stating that the land is DOMAIN is a nullity, devoid of force and effect against
a subsequent administrat

“a portion of the public domain.” the owner. 

ive act consisting in the

issuance by the Director

During the pendency of the registration proceedings, As contended by the applicants, as of Nov. 21, 1957 –
of Lands of a homestead
the director of lands issued homestead patent of lot 11 date of application for registration, they are already
patent covering the same
to the respondents. “owners pro-indiviso” and in “fee simple”. If this is the
parcel of land.
case, then Julio Hidalgo’s homestead patent over Lot

Thus, the private oppositors, Julio HIidalgo one 11 makes said lot no longer public.

among them, filed their written opposition claiming

that they “are the lawful owners of the parcels of land Since proceedings for land registration in

in question, having acquired homestead patents over rem (enforcement is upon the property not against the

said lots”.  person), as against a homestead patent which is NOT,

the latter does not therefore finally dispose of the public

The CFI then ordered the dismissal of the case as or private character of the land. Hence, applicants

regards Lot 11 without prejudice on the part of the should be given opportunity to prove registrable title to

applicants to pursue the corresponding remedy in Lot 11.

any ordinary action.

SC said that it is within the jurisdiction of the lower

Motion for reconsideration having been denied,

courts to decide if in fact the applicant already owned

hence, this appeal.

the land based on her application. DL control is only for

public land. RTC cannot be merely divested of its

jurisdiction by the mere expedient of the RTC that it

was invalidly issued. There must be a full blown trial.

Castillo vs. Escutin (GR No. Petitioner Dinah Castillo is a judgment creditor of a Whether or not No. As between Catigbac’s title, covered by a certificate

56232, June 22, 1984) certain Raquel Moratilla. Racquel here is indebted to petitioner’s title of title, and petitioner’s title, evidenced only by a tax

Castillo. Castillo, in the course of the search for evidenced by tax declaration, the former is evidently far superior, and is,

properties to satisfy the judgment in her favor, declaration must be in the absence of any other certificate of title to the

petitioner discovered that Raquel, her mother Urbana upheld rather than that same property, conclusive and indefeasible as to

and sister Perla, co-owned Lot 13713, a parcel of land covered by the certificate Catigbac’s ownership of Lot 1-B.

consisting of 15,000 square meters, situated at of title.

Batangas and covered Tax Declaration No. 00449. Catigbac’s certificate of title is binding upon the whole

Petitioner upon verifying the ownership of the said lot world, including respondent public officers and even

was able to secure an order issued by the Department petitioner herself. Court has ruled that tax declarations

of Agrarian Reform approving the application of and corresponding tax receipts cannot be used to

Summit Point Golf & Country Club, Inc. for conversion prove ownership of a real property inasmuch as they

of several agricultural landholdings, including Lot are not conclusive evidence of the same. Petitioner
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 15
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

13713. She was also able to get from the Office of the acquired her title to the 5,000 square meter property

City Assessor, Lipa City, a certification stating that Lot from Raquel, her judgment debtor who, it is important

13713, covered by tax Declaration No. 00554-A, was to note, likewise only had a tax declaration to prove her

in the name of the co-owners Raquel, Urbana, and evidence.

Perla; and a certified true copy of Tax Declaration No.

00554-A itself. Lastly, the Register of Deeds of Lipa What does a tax declaration prove?

City issued a certification attesting that Lot 13713 in - proves of possession

the name of the co-owners Raquel, Urbana and Perla, - used for prescription proceedings

was not covered by a certificate of title, whether Introduction of which type of evidence to prove which

judicial or patent, or subject to the issuance of a type of right

Certificate of Land Ownership Award or patent under - Certificate of title proves ownership, tax declaration

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. merely proves possession

The auction pushed through and the property was

awarded to the petitioner. Consequently, she was If one person has a tax declaration over a parcel of

issued a tax declaration indicating that she owned the land and another has a certificate of title over that

property. same parcel of land, as to determining who the real

When petitioner attempted to pay real estate taxes, owner is, the one who has the certificate of title has the

she was shocked to find out that her Tax Declaration better right, not the person who has a mere tax

No. 00942-A was cancelled. Lot 13713 was said to declaration.

be encompassed in and overlapping with a parcel Tax declarations and corresponding tax receipts cannot

of land covered by a TCT and Tax Dec, both in the be used to prove title to ownership of a real property in

name of Francisco Catigbac. as much as they are not conclusive evidence of the

On July 2002, TCT in the name of Catigbac was same. This is so it is very easy to procure a tax

cancelled and replaced in the name of Summit declaration than to secure a certificate of title.

Realty.

Republic vs. Court of Appeals Naguit filed a petition for registration of title of a parcel Whether or not it is No, it is not necessary.

and Naguit (G.R. of land on June of 1993. The application sought a necessary under Section

No. 144057, January 17, 2005) judicial confirmation of imperfect title over the land. 14(1) of the Property The more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is

Registration Decree that that it merely requires the property sought to be

The evidence revealed that the subject parcel of land the subject land be first registered as already alienable and disposable at the

was originally declared for taxation purposes in the classified as alienable time the application for registration of title is filed. If the

name of Urbano in 1945. Urbano executed a Deed of and disposable before State, at the time the application is made, has not yet

Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of Maming, wherein he the applicant’s deemed it proper to release the property for alienation

renounced all his rights to the subject property and possession under a bona or disposition, the presumption is that the government

confirmed the sale made by his father to Maming fide claim of ownership is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence,

sometime in 1955 or 1956. could even start. the need to preserve its ownership in the State

irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if

Subsequently, the heirs of Maming executed a deed in good faith. However, if the property has already been

of absolute sale in favor of respondent Naguit who classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this

thereupon started occupying the same. case, then there is already an intention on the part of

the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the

Naguit constituted Blanco, Jr. as her attorney-in-fact property.

and administrator. The administrator introduced

improvements, planted trees in addition to existing In this case, the 3 requisites for the filing of registration

coconut trees which were then 50 to 60 years old, and of title under Section 14(1) had been met by Naguit.
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 16
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

paid the corresponding taxes due on the subject land. 1. The parcel of land had been declared alienable;

2. Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest had been in

Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest had occupied open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession

the land openly and in the concept of owner without and occupation of the land evidenced by the 50 to 60-

any objection from any private person or even the year old trees at the time she purchased the property;

government until she filed her application for 3. as well as the tax declarations executed by the

registration. original owner Urbano in 1954, which strengthened

one's bona fide claim of ownership.

In short, Naguit presented that his predecessors in

interest was already occupying such parcel of land Notes:

since June 12, 1945 but it was only declared A and D It does not need dating back to June 12, 1945 that it is

on Oct. 15,1980. declared alienable and disposable (A&D). To do that

means that there would be no more lands that are

The OSG argued that the property which is in open, going to be registered.

continuous and exclusive possession must first be All you have to take note is that such land that you

alienable. Since the subject land was declared wish to register is already A & D upon application for

alienable only on October 15, 1980, Naguit could not registration.

have maintained a bona fide claim of ownership since

June 12, 1945, as required by Section 14 of the

Property Registration Decree, since prior to 1980, the

land was not alienable or disposable.

The OSG suggested an interpretation that all lands of

the public domain which were not declared alienable

or disposable before June 12, 1945 would not be

susceptible to original registration, no matter the

length of unchallenged possession by the occupant.

Ong vs. Republic (G.R. No. Petitioner Charles Ong, in behalf of his brothers, filed Whether or not petitioner, No, they do not.

175746, March 21, for an application of Registration of Title over their lot together with his

2008) on July of 1999. brothers, have Although there is no question that the land is alienable

* Ong alleged that his brothers and him are the co- registrable ownership and disposable, possession alone is not sufficient to

owners of the land, which they purchase from the over the real property acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain

spouses Tony Bautista and Alicia Villamil. subject matter? because the law requires possession and

* And they and their predecessor-in-interest have occupation.

been in open, continuous and peaceful possession of  

the lot in the concept of owners for more than 30 Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 ("Property Registration

years. Decree"), as amended, provides —

   

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the OSG, SEC. 14. Who may apply? –The following persons may

opposed the application for registration. file in the proper Court of First Instance an application

for registration of title to land, whether personally or

Respondent contends that neither the applicants nor through their duly authorized representatives:

their predecessor-in-interest have been in open,  

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and (1) Those who by themselves or through their

occupation of the lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier. predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 17
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

  continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and

The trial court favored Petitioner Ong and declared occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the

the land in the name of the applicant. public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership

since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Respondent appealed before the Court of Appeals  

and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s Taken together with the words open, continuous,

ruling. exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to

highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his

possession must not be a mere fiction.

Actual possession of a land consists in the

manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a

nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own

property.

Petitioner admitted that after he and his brothers

bought the subject lot from spouses Tony Bautista and

Alicia Villamil in 1998, neither he nor his brothers

actually occupied the subject lot. No improvements

were made thereon and the most that they did was to

visit the lot on several occasions.

The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on

the applicant who must show by clear, positive and

convincing evidence that his alleged possession and

occupation of the land is of the nature and duration

required by law. Unfortunately, petitioner’s evidence do

not constitute the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence

necessary in cases of this nature.

The Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the

Decision of the trial court and in denying his application

for registration of title over the subject lot.

Republic vs. Abrille (G.R. No. A parcel of land with a Torrens Title was adjoining a Wether or not the lower No, lower court was correct in cancelling the TCT.

L-39248, May 7, 1976) river that eventually dried up. The lot owner claimed court erred in ordering

Art. 457 of the Civil Code that the dried up river bed the cancellation of TCT. Just because the adjacent land (the dried up river) was

was his by accretion, so he drew up a subdivision plan already registered land does not automatically convert

that included the river bed. the alluvial deposit of that dried up river as registered

land. IOW, it is still considered unregistered land thus

The plan was approved both by the Land Registration you still have to apply for registration.

Commission and by the CFI, and two titles were

issued, there being two parcels in the subdivision. SC said that just having a subdivision plan amended

just to include the excess land does not bring it under

A complaint for Annulment of Certificate of Title was the operation of the Torrens System. Acquisition is one

filed by the Republic of the Philippines (represented thing and imprescriptibility under PD 1529 is quite
 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 18
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

by the Director of Lands), with the Court of First another.

Instance of Davao alleging that the land in question as

formerly a portion of the Davao River which dried up Just because the civil code says the riparian owner

by reason of the change of course of the said Davao owns that, it does not mean it is automatically protected

River is a land belonging to the public domain. They by the Torrens System. You still have to register it.

consequently prayed that the TCT’s of Heirs of Luisa

Villa Abrille under the Torrens System be declared null Notes:

and void. Further, for an applicant to have his imperfect or

incomplete title or claim to a land to be originally

CFI gave its decision in favor of the Republic of the registered under Act 496, the following requisites

Philippines and rendered its judgment to cancel the should all be satisfied:

said TCTs and directing the Register of Deeds of 1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly

Davao to issue new certificates of title in lieu thereof licensed private surveyor;

after the portions consisting of 82,127 square meters, 2. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;

the land involved, shall have been segregated 3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the

therefrom in accordance with law. application by the Court;

4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial

Not satisfied with the decision of the CFI, Heirs of hearing together with all the documents or other

Luisa Villa Abrille filed an appeal with CA contending evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the

that it erred in holding the approval of Subdivision Land Registration Commission;

Plan of no legal effect merely on ground of lack of 5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application

notice to interested persons, and in ordering the and date and place of the hearing in the Official

cancellation of Certificates of Title. Gazette;

6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners,

Simply put, her main reason for having amended the occupants and those known to have interests in the

subdivision plan is that Davao river dried up and that property by the sheriff;

her land expanded 7. Filing of answer to the application by any person

whether named in the notice or not;

8. Hearing of the case by the Court;

9. Promulgation of judgment by the Court;

10. Issuance of the decree by the Court declaring the

decision final and instructing the Land Registration

Commission to issue a decree of confirmation and

registration;

11. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land

Registration Commission;

12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the

corresponding Register of Deeds, and

13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the

registration book and the issuance of the owner's

duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by

the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed

fees.

With the foregoing requisites not having been complied

 It’s not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves. 19
William Shakespeare
KARA’S NOTES
Case Facts Issue Ruling

with, the lower court committed no error in its appealed

decision.

Republic vs. CA, et. al (G.R. On June of 1930, CFI Cagayan issued a decree in Whether or not the No, the complaint for annulment of decree has no

No.155450, August 6, 2008) favor of Spouses Carag, predecessors in interest of complaint for Annulment merit.

private respondents Heirs of Antonio Carag and of Decree has merit.

Victoria Turingan. The Register of Deeds of Cagayan Here, petitioner has not alleged that the disputed

issued OCT in the name of the spouses Carag. portion had been declared as mineral or forest zone, or

reserved for some public purpose in accordance with

Buenvenida Taguiam Vds. De Dayag and others filed law, during the Spanish regime or therafter.

with the DENR a letter petition requesting to annul the

aforementioned decree on the ground that the trial This was the first time that land classification was made

court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a portion as a requirement prior to disposition. The law in effect

of the subject property which was allegedly still when the decree was issued is already Act 2874.

classified as timber when such decree was issued. Section 8 of such act is an exemption. It states that

where the land is already a private land under existing

The DENR then created an investigative team to law, it is deemed exempted from the classification

conduct ground verification and ocular inspection of requirement. Meaning, it does not need to be classified

the subject property. It reported that such land was as agricultural land for it to be registered. It is

found to be still within the timber land area at the time considered ipso facto a private land under existing law.

the issuance of the decree and the same was only

released as alienable and disposable in 1982. Thus, IOW, this exclusion in Section 8 recognizes that during

the Director of Lands cancelled the OCT as well as its the Spanish regime, crown lands were per se alienable

derivative titles. unless falling under timber or mineral zones, or

otherwise reserved for some public purpose in

Sixty eight (68) years after the issuance of such accordance with law.

decree, petitioner filed with the CA a complaint for

annulment of judgment, cancellation and declaration Clearly, with respect to lands excluded from the

of nullity of titles on the ground that in 1930, the trial classification requirement in Section 8, trial courts had

court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate to Spouses jurisdiction to adjudicate these lands to private parties.

Carag the disputed portion of the subject property. It Petitioner has not alleged that the disputed portion had

claims that such portion was still classified as timber not become private property prior to the enactment of

land and thus not alienable and disposable when the Act No. 2874. Neither has petitioner alleged that the

decree was issued in 1930. Petitioner argues that in disputed portion was not land on which a private right

1930s, only the Executive and the Legislative branch, may be claimed under any existing law at that time.

not the trial courts, had the power to reclassify or

reclassify lands of the public domain.