Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

Top ManManage
agemen
mentt Pro
Progra
grams
ms Cor
Corp.
p. v. Lui
Luis
s Faj
Fajard
ardoo and the Meanwhile, herein
Meanwhile, herein petit
petitioner
ioner Top Manag
Managemen
ementt Programs
Programs Corpor
Corporation
ation
Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City | GR 150462 | June 15, 2011 sought
sou ght the ann
annulm
ulment
ent of the CFI orders
orders on the ground
ground of ext
extrin
rinsic
sic
| J. Villarama, Jr. fraud. Petitioner claimed that by virtue of a notarized Deed of Absolute
Sale, the heirs of Gregorio sold to it a parcel of land and a TCT covering
FACTS: Emilio Gregorio filed an application for registration of title over the said property
property was issued in its name. The CA rendered
rendered its decision
Lots 1 to 4 of Plan Psu-204785 situated at Mag-asawang Mangga, Las dismissing the petition for annulment.
Piñas, Rizal, before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal; said court
issued an order declaring as abandoned the reserved oppositions of  ISSUE: W/N Petitioner may quiet title and order the cancellation of the
 Jose T. Velasquez
Velasquez and Pablo VVelasquez.
elasquez.  TCT in favor of Luis Fajardo.
Fajardo.

Meanwhile, Jose T. Velasquez filed an application for registration of title

Meanwhile, HELD: No. In an action for quieting of title, the plaintiffs
plaintiffs must show not
overr six lots befor
ove before
e the
the sam
samee cou
court
rt.. The
The CFI rend
rendere
ered
d a decis
decision
ion only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the subject real
declarin
decl aring
g Gregor
Gregorio
io to be the absolu
absolutete owner of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 property, but that they have a valid title to it. The court is tasked to
described in Plan Psu-204785.
Psu-204785. On March 9, 1966, an order was issued determi
determine
ne the respec
respective
tive rights of the complai
complainant
nant and the other
by said court for the issuance of the decree of registration. claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and to make
the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not
 The LRA called the attention of the Director of Lands regarding the disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that
overlapping
overlappin g of several lots awarded to Velasquez, with lots adjudicated
adjudicated whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property
to Gregorio, and requested that portions of these lots that are not diss
dissip
ipat
ated
ed,, and
and he ca can
n ther
therea
eaft
fter
er fefear
arle
less
ssly
ly intrintrod
oduc
uce
e the
the
in conflict be segre
segregated.
gated. LRA informed th the
e CFI that Lots 1 and 7 had improvem
impr ovement
ents
s he may desire,
desire, as well as use,
use, and even abuse the
been amended by the Bureau of Lands to exclude therefrom portions property as he deems fit.
covered by Lot 2, Psu-64894, Psu-96904, and Lots 1 to 4, Psu-204785
of Gregorio. Velasquez petitioned the CFI to set aside the award earlier  The TCT in the name of the heirs
heirs of Emilio Gregorio, on its face showed
made in favor of Gregorio. The CFI issued an Order declaring that the badg
badges
es of irre
irregu
gula
lari
rity
ty in it its
s issu
issuan
ance
ce.. Fir
First
st,, th
the
e tetech
chni
nica
call
application of Velasquez
Velasquez be given due course insofar as Lots 1 and 7 of  description.
description. Second, the decree num
number
ber and date of issuance, as well
Ap-11135
Ap-1113 5 which are identical to Lots 1 to 4, Plan Psu-204785 in favor of  as OCT number clearly indicate that the original decree pertained to
Gregorio respecting the same lots as null and void. Certificates of Title Velasquez
Velasque z and not Gregorio. Third, the name of the registered owner in

were
the issued
CFI to theinCA.
favor of Velasquez. Gregorio appealed the decision of  the original
.” And certificate
Corp.”
Corp fourth, theiscertificat
fourth, not Velasquez
certif e from or
icate Gregorio
which TCT but
No. “Delta
107729Motor
was
supposedly a transfer should have been the OCT (of Gregorio) and not
Somet
Som etime
ime after
after this,
this, he enente
tere
red
d into
into an agree
agreemen
mentt with
with Tom
Tomas
as those unfamiliar TCT numbers indicated therein.
 Trinidad (Trinidad) and Luis Fajardo (Fajardo) entitled “Kasunduan na
may Pamb
Pambihir
ihirang
ang Kapangy
Kapangyariha n.”  By vir
arihan. virtu
tue
e of this
this agree
agreeme
ment
nt,,  There are serious
serious discrepanc
discrepancies
ies in the registra
registration
tion proce
process.
ss. In fact, it is
Fajardo would finance the cost of the litigation and in return he would not far-fetched that the erroneous entries could have been intended to
be entitled to one-half of the subject property after deducting twenty create the impression that TCT No. 107729 was a separate and distinct
per cent (20%) of the total land area as attorney’s fees for Trinidad if  title from the previously issued TCT No. S-91911 even if they pertain to
the appeal is successful. Fajardo and Trinidad filed Civil Case before one and the same lot adjudicated
adjudicated to Emilio Gregorio. Such conclusion is
the RTC of Pasig to enforce their agreement
agreement with Gregorio. The court reinforced by the unexplained inaction or failure of the heirs of Gregorio
rendered judgment in their favour. to rectify the alleged errors in their title before selling the property to
peti
petiti
tion
oner
er.. The
The he
heir
irs
s of Greg
Gregororio
io knew
knew th that
at th
thei
eirr TC
TCT
T bobore
re
encumbrances in favor of third parties, notably the notice of pending
litigation
litigation (Lis Pendens) involv
involving
ing the property
property cov
covere
ered
d by said
said title
title
1
 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

before the CFI of Pasig, Metro Manila in Civil Case, which Trinidad caused for mand
mandamus
amus alle
alleging
ging that the respond
respondent
ent judge
judge committe
committed
d grav
gravee
to be annotated thereon. The issuance of a new certificate with exactly abuse of discretion. Moreover, a fire engulfed the Tambunting estate
identical entries would mean that the aforesaid annotations had to be covering the disputed
disputed area of the land. The expropriation case was not
carried over to such new certificate. gran
grante
ted
d and
and the
the law
law that
that prov
provid
ided
ed foforr susuch
ch was
was decl
declar
ared
ed
unconstitutional. The petitioner is contending
unconstitutional. contending that the execution of the
Petitioner being a mere transferee at the time the decision of the RTC decision must now involve the delivery of possession due to the fire.
of Pasig in Civil Case had become final and executory, it is bound by
ISSUE: Whether or not the execution of the decision must now involve
the said judgment which ordered the heirs of Emilio Gregorio to convey
the delivery of possession by the respondent to the petitioner due to
the lots in favor of private respondent
respondent and Trinidad.
Trinidad. As such buyer of 
the fire
one of the lots to be conveyed to private respondent pursuant to the
court’
cou rt’s
s decre
decree
e with
with not
notice
ice that
that said
said pro
proper
pertie
ties
s are in litlitiga
igatio
tion,
n,
HELD: Yes. When the decision
decision of the trial court beca
became
me final and
petitioner merely stepped into the shoes of its vendors who lost in the
executory, it becomes incumbent upon the respondent judge to issue
case. Such vested right acquired by the private responde
respondentnt under the
the necessary writ for the execution of the same. There is, therefore,
final judgment in his favor may not be defeated by the subsequent
no basis for the respondent judge to deny the petitioner's motion to
iss
issuan
uancece of anoth
another
er ce
certi
rtific
ficate
ate of title
title to the
the heirs
heirs of Greg
Gregori
orio
o
avail
avail of its option
option to appr
appropr
opriat
iate
e the
the imp
improv
roveme
ement
nts
s mad
madee on its
respecting
respecti ng the same parcel of land. For it is well-settled that being an
involu
involunt
ntary
ary transa
transact
ction
ion,, en
entry
try of the
the not
notice
ice of lis pendens
pendens in th thee propert
property.
y. Settled
additions can be ismade
the rule that after
thereto, and anothing
judgment
judgmen t has
can be become final, no
done therewith
primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute
except
except its exexecu
ecutio
tion,
n, other
otherwis
wisee ther
there
e would
would be no enend
d to leg
legal
al
registration and such entry is notice to all persons of such claim.
processes.

 The repairs and improveme

improvements
nts introduc
introduced
ed by the said responde
respondents
nts
Manotok Realty v. Tecson | GR L-47475 | August 19, 1988 | J. after the complaint was filed cannot be considered to have been built
Gutierrez, Jr. in good faith, much less, justify the denial of the petitioner's option.
Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and therefore, the
FACTS: In a compcomplalain
intt fi
file
led
d by th
the
e pe
peti
titi
tion
oner
er for
for re
reco
cove
very
ry of  basis for private respondent's right to retain the premises has already
possession against defendants, Court of First Instance of Manila ruled been extinguished without the fault of the petitioner, there is no other
declarin
declaring
g res
respond
pondent
ent Nilo Madlanga
Madlangawa
wa a buil
builder
der in good faith. The recourse for the private respondent but to vacate the premises and
Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court dismissed for lack of  deliver the same to herein petitioner.
merit.
 The petitione
petitionerr filed with the trial court, presided over by respond
respondent
ent Heirs of Labanon v. Heirs of Labanon | GR 160711 | August 14,
 Judge Tecson, a motion for the approval of petitione
petitioner's
r's exercise of  2004 | J. Velasco, Jr.
option and for satisfaction of judgmen
judgment,t, praying that the court issue an
order: a) approving the exercise of petitioner's option to appropriate FACTS: Constanc
Constancio
io Laba
Labanon
non settle
settled
d upon a piece
piece of alienable
alienable and
the
the imp
improv
roveme
ementntss in
intro
trodu
duced
ced by thethe priva
private
te res
respon
ponde
dent
nt on thethe disposable public agricultural
agricultural land situated in Kidapawan, Cotabato. He
property
prop erty;; b) thereaft
thereafter,
er, priv
private
ate resp
responde
ondentnt be ordered
ordered to deliver
deliver cultivate
cultivated
d the said lot and intr introduc
oduced
ed perm
permanen
anentt impr
improvem
ovement
ents.
s.
possession of the property in question to the petitioner. Constancio asked his brother, Maximo, who was better educated
educated to file
a public land application under the express agreement that they will
However, since there is a pending case involving the expropriation of  divide the said lot as soon as it would be feasible for them to do so.
the land in question it is better to suspend the current case until after During the time of the application it was Constancio who continued to
the outcome of the expropria
expropriation
tion proceedings is done. After a denial of  cultivate the said lot. The Homestead Application was approved and an
its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed the present petition
2
 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

Original Certificate of Title over said lot was issued in favor of Maximo 2. No. Maximo Laban
Labanon
on maintai
maintained
ned the title over the proper
property
ty while
Labanon. acknowledging the true ownership of Constancio Labanon over the
  eastern
eastern portio
portion
n of the land. The existen
existence
ce of an express trust
Maximo Labanon executed a document denominated as “Assignment cannot be doubted nor disputed. In the case at bar, Maximo never
of Rights and Ownership” to safeguard the ownership and interest of  repudiated the express trust instituted between him and Constancio.
his brother Constancio Labanon. Later on, Maximo executed a sworn And after Maximo’s death, the trust could no longer be renounced;
statement reiterating his desire that his elder brother Constancio, his thus,
thus, respond
respondents
ents’’ right
right to enfo
enforce
rce the trust
trust agreemen
agreementt can no
heirs and assigns shall own the eastern portion of the Lot. longer
long er be rest
restrict
ricted
ed nor prej
prejudi
udiced
ced by pre
prescri
scriptio
ption.
n. In addition
addition,,
petit
petition
ioner
erss can no longe
longerr quest
question
ion the validi
validity
ty of the
the pos
positi
itive
ve
After the death of Constancio, his heirs executed an [e]xtra-judicial declarat
dec laration
ion of Maxi
Maximo
mo Labanon
Labanon in the Assignmen
Assignmentt of Righ
Rightsts and
settlementt of estate with simultaneous sale over the aforesaid eastern
settlemen Owne
Ownersrshi
hip
p in favo
favorr of ththe
e lalate
te Cons
Consta
tanc
ncio
io Laba
Labano
non,
n, as th thee
portion of the lot in favor of Alberto Makilang, the husband of Visitacion agreement was not impugned during the former’s lifetime and the
Labanon, one of the children of Constancio. Subsequently, the parcel recognition of his brother’s rights over the eastern portion of the lot
of land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Alberto. The was furth
further
er affirm
affirmed
ed and con confir
firme
medd in the
the su
subse
bsequ
quen
entt Swo
Swornrn
defendants heirs of Maximo caused to be cancelled from the records of  Statement.
the
the defen
defendan
dantt Provi
Provinc
ncial
ial Ass
Assess
essor
or of Cot
Cotaba
abato
to the
the afores
aforesaid
aid tax
declaration and the latter, without first verifying the legality of the Paz
2011v.| J.
DENR, PEA, and Filinvest | GR 157367 | November 23,
Bersamin
basis for said cancellation,
cancellation, cancelled the same. The heirs of Constancio
demande
dema ndedd the owner’s copy of the certifi
certificate
cate of title
title cove
covering
ring the
FACTS: Petitioner Luciano Paz brought a petition for the cancellation of 
aforesaid Lot to be surrendered to the Register of Deeds.
OCT, he averred that he was the owner of a parcels of land situated in
 
Par
Paraña
añaquque
e Cit
City,
y, Pasay
Pasay CitCity,
y, Tagui
Taguig
g Cit
Cityy and San Pedr Pedro,
o, Lag
Lagununa,
a,
ISSUES:
Alabang, Muntinlupa,
Muntinlupa, Parañaque City and Las Piñas City; and that such
1. W/N the OCT issuedissued the name of MAXIMO LABANON be
OCT was regisregiste
tered
red in thethe nam
namee of the
the Rep
Repub
ublic
lic,, that
that Filinv
Filinvest
est
now considered indefeasible and conclusive; and
devel
developoped
ed one of thethe lots
lots into
into a su
subd
bdivi
ivisio
sion
n based
based on their
their joint
joint
 
ventu
ven ture
re agreem
agreemen entt with
with thethe Govern
Governme
ment
nt;; that
that lot was furth
furtherer
2. W/N the Trust Ag Agreement
reement allegedly made by Constancio
subdivided, causing the cancellation of TCT and the issuance of TCTs
Labanon and Maximo Labanon prescribed
for the resulting individual subdivision lots in the names of the Republic
HELD: and Filinvest;
Filinvest; and tha
thatt the subdivisio
subdivision
n lots were then sold to third third
parties.
 
1. No. Sect
Section
ion 32 of PD 1529 does not tota totally
lly depr
deprive
ive a party of any
Filinvest moved to dismiss the petition for cancellation contending that
remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered in the name
the serious and controv
controversia
ersiall dispute
dispute spawned by the PetitioPetitionn for
of another. It merely pre precludes
cludes ththe
e reopening of of the registr
registration
ation
cancellation of title is litigable in an ordinary action outside the special
proceedings for titles covered by the Torrens System, but does not
and limit
limited
ed juri
jurisdic
sdiction
tion of land reg registra
istration
tion cour
courts.
ts. The peti
petition
tioner
er
foreclose other remedies
remedies for the reconveyance
reconveyance of the property to its
count
cou nter
ered
ed that
that his
his petit
petition
ion for can
cance
cella
llatio
tion
n was not an initia
initiator
tory
y
rightful owner.
owner. While it is true
true that Section 32 of PD 1529 pr provides
ovides
pleading that must comply with the regular rules of civil procedure but
that the decree
decree of reg
registr
istration
ation becomes
becomes incontr
incontrover
overtibl
tible
e afte
afterr a
a mere incident of a past registration proceeding; that unlike in an
year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy
ordinary action, land registration was not commenced by complaint or
in law. The acceptability
acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if 
petition
petition,, and did not require
require summons to brin bring
g the perso
persons
ns of the
it is utilized to perpetuate fraud against the real owners. The action respondents
respond ents within the jurisdiction of the trial court; and that a service
for Recovery of Ownership before the RTC is indeed the appropriate
of the petition sufficed to bring the respondents within the jurisdiction
remedy.
3
 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

of the trial court. The RTC ruled in favor of Filinvest which was reverse
reversed
d description of each lot.
by the CA.
 The RTC issued an Order  setsettin
ting
g the
the initia
initiall heari
hearing
ng of the
the case,
case,
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can reconvey the property in notifying all adjoining owners mentioned in the petition and no one
question in favor of him inter
interpos
posed
ed any objobjec
ectio
tion
n ther
thereteto.
o. The origin
original
al and thethe own
owner'
er's
s
dupl
duplica
icate
te cop
copies
ies of the
the TCT wer weree rec
recons
onstit
titut
uted
ed in thethe nam
namee of 
HELD: No. The filing of the petition would have the effect of reopening Dominad
Domi nador
or Sant
Santua.
ua. The Solicito
Solicitorr General
General opposed,
opposed, filing
filing a Notice
Notice of 
the decree
decree of regi
registra
stration
tion,, and could ther
thereby
eby impair the righ
rights
ts of  Appeal.
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. To reopen the decree
of registration was no longer permissible, considering that the one-year ISSUE: W/N tax declarations, survey plans, and technical descriptions
period to do so had long ago lapsed, and the properties covered by are suffic
sufficien
ientt bases
bases for the
the rec
recons
onstit
tituti
ution
on of lost
lost or des
destro
troye
yedd
OCT had already been subdivided into smaller lots whose ownership certificates of title.
had passed to third persons.
persons. Thusly, the petition
petition tended to violate the
proviso in Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: HELD: No.No. A tax
tax decl
declar
arat
atio
ionn is not
not a reli
reliab
able
le so
sour
urce
ce fo
forr the
the
reconstitution of a certificate of title. At most, the tax declaration can
xxx Provided, however , That this section shall not be construed to give only be prima facie evidence of possession or a claim of ownership,
the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, which
which how
howeve
everr is not
not the ississue
ue in a rec
recon
onsti
stitu
tutio
tion
n proce
proceed
eding
ing.. A
and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of the land
impair the title or other interest of a purchaser
purchaser holding a certificate for covered by the lost or destroyed title but merely determines
determines whether a
value in good faith, or his heirs and assigns without his or their written reissuance of such title is proper.
consent. Where the owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, a
similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section. As for the surv
survey
ey plans
plans and tech
technica
nicall descript
descriptions
ions,, the Cour
Courtt has
previously dismissed the same as not the documents referred to in
No
Norr is it subj
subjec
ectt to di
disp
sput
ute
e th
that
at th
thee pe
peti
titi
tion
on wawas
s no
nott a mere
mere Section 3(f) but merely additional documents that should accompany
continua
continuation
tion of a previous
previous registratio
registration
n proc
proceed
eeding.
ing. The Peti
Petition
tion for the petition
petition for the rec
reconst
onstitut
itution
ion as req
require
uired
d by law. Moreove
Moreover,
r, a
Review on Certiorari is denied. survey plan or technical description prepared
prepared at the instance of a party
cannot be considered in his favor, the same being self-serving.

Repu
Republ
blic
ic v. Sa
Sant
ntua
ua | GR 15
1557
5703
03 | Se
Sept
ptem
embe
berr 8, 20
2008
08 | J.
RECONSTITUTION OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE denotes RESTORATION
Nachura
in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument
attesting the title of a person to the piece of land. It partakes of a land
FACTS: Dominador Santua filed with the RTC of Calapan a petition for
registration
registrat ion proceeding. Thus, it must be granted upon clear proof that
 judicial reconstitution
reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). Respondent the titles sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner. In
alleged
alleged that he is the registered
registered owner of cert
certain
ain parcels of land
this regards, Section 3 of RA 26 enumerates the documents regarded
situated in Poblacion, Victoria however the original copy of the TCT was as valid and sufficient bases for reconstitution of a transfer certificate
destroyed by the fire that completely razed the Capitol Building then
of title.
housing the Office of the Register of Deeds. The owner's duplicate copy
was lost while in responde
respondent's
nt's possess
possession.
ion. The responden
respondentt and his
family are in actual possession of the property and have been paying
taxes thereon; and there are no deeds affecting the property. Attached Manotok v. Barque | GR 162335 & 162605 | March 6, 2012 | J.
to the petition
petition were a tax declaration
declaration,, surv
survey
ey plan,
plan, and techni
technical
cal Villarama, Jr.

4
 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

FACTS:  The surviving heirs of the late Homer Barque, filed a petition the veracity of its recitals because the name of the registered owner
with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original copy of  and date of issuance do not appear
appear at all. No Register of Deeds
Deeds had
 TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer L. Barque, which was testified and attested
attested to the fact that the original of TCT No. 22813 was
destroyed in the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall, including the not under his/her custody, nor that said certificate of title in the name
Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, sometime in 1988. In of Severino Manotok existed in the files of the Registry of Deeds of 
support
sup port of the petition
petition,, petition
petitioners
ers subm
submitte
itted
d the owner’s
owner’s dup
duplicat
licate
e Caloocan or Quezon City.
copy of TCT No. 210177, real estate tax receipts, tax decla-ration
decla-rations
s and
the Plan FLS 3168 D covering the property.  The claim of the Barques who, just like the Manahans, were unable to
produce an authentic and genuine sale certificate, must likewise fail.
 The Manotoks filed their opposition to the Barques’ petition, claiming  The Decision discussed extensive
extensively
ly the findings of the CA that the
that the lot covered by the title sought to be reconstituted by the latter Barques’
Barques’ document
documentary
ary evid
evidenc
encee were eiteither
her spu
spuriou
rious
s or irre
irregula
gularly
rly
forms part of the land covered by the former’s own reconstituted title, procured, which even buttressed the earlier findings mentioned in the
 TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging that TCT No. 210177 in the name of  December 18, 2008 Resolution.
Homer L. Barque is spurious.
On the other hand, the belatedly submitted copy of Sale Certificate No.
reconstitution was denied on grounds that the two lots covered by
 The reconstitution 511 by the Manahans was not among those official documents which
the Barques’ title appear to duplicate the lot covered by the Manotoks’ the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) offered as evidence, as in fact
own reconstituted title; and that the Barques’ plan, Fls-3168-D, is a no copy thereof can be found in the records of either the DENR-NCR or
spurious document. LMB. Moreover
Moreover,, the sudden
sudden emer
emergen
gence
ce of this unauthen
unauthenticat
ticated
ed
docum
documenentt is su
suspi
spicio
cious
us,, con
consid
sideri
ering
ng that
that Ce
Celzo
lzo who testif
testified
ied,, as
On appeal, the LRA reversed the reconstituting officer and ordered that witness for both the OSG and the Manahans, categorically admitted
reconstitution of the Barques’ title be given due course, but only after that she never actually saw the application to purchase and alleged
the Manotoks’ own title has been cancelled upon order of a court of  Sale Certificate No. 511 of the Manahans.
competent jurisdiction. The CA ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel
the Manotoks’ title. The latter filed these petitions to the SC.

ISSUE: Who is the legal owner of the Piedad Estate in Quezon City? Repulic v. Tuastumban | GR 173210 | April 24, 2009 | J. Tinga
 
HELD: The national government of The Repulic of the Philippines is the FACTS: The respondents filed a petition for reconstitution of the OCT
legal owner of the subject property. The Supreme Court denied with covering a lot in Talisay-Minglanilla Estate in the name of the Legal
finality all the motions for reconsideration filed by all parties in this Heirs of Sofia Lazo. Respondent claims she bought the property from
case. A valid certificate of sale issued to Severino the official document the
the said
said own
owners
ers who are also her relarelativ
tives,
es, as evievide
denc
nced
ed by an
denominated
denominat ed as “Sale Certificate” clearly required both the signatures Extrajudicial
Extrajud icial Declaration of Heirs with Waiver of Inheritan
Inheritancece Rights and
of the Director of Lands who issued such sale certificate to an applicant Deed of Absolute Sale. She claims that since
since the time of purc
purchase,
hase, she
settler/occupant and the Secre
Secretar
tary
y of the
the Int
Inter
erior
ior/Ag
/Agric
ricult
ultur
ure
e and
and has been occupying and possessing the land and paying the realty
Natural Resources indicating his approval of the sale. These forms had taxes thereon. The OCT which was in the possession of the Register of 
been prepared and issued by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands Deeds of the Province of Cebu was allegedly either lost or destroyed
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with during World War II. The RTC found the petition to be sufficient in form
Act No. 1120.
1120. Manotok’
Manotok’s s assig
assignors
nors cannot
cannot simply
simply be presu
presumed
med from and
and susubst
bstanc
ancee and set thethe heari
hearing
ng of the
the petit
petition
ion,, notify
notifyin
ing
g all
adjoining owners.
owners. The petition was not oppos
opposed
ed by anyone. Thus, the
the execution
execution of assignment documents
documents in his favor. Neither can it be Register of Deed of Cebu ordered to reconstitute the lost OCT in the
dedu
deduced
ced from the
the alleg
alleged
ed iss
issuan
uance
ce of the
the hal
half-t
f-torn
orn TCT,
TCT, itself
itself a
doubtful document as its authenticity was not established, much less
5
 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

name of the
name the Leg
Legal
al Heirs
Heirs of Sof
Sofia
ia Lazo,
Lazo, the
the Rep
Repub
ublic
lic throu
through
gh the
the FACTS: In the July 5, 2011 Decision, the Court denied the petition for
Solicitor General opposed. review filed
review filed by HLI and affirmed the assai
assailed
led Preside
Presidentia
ntiall Agraria
Agrarian
n
  Reform
Refo rm Coun
Council
cil (PA
(PARC)
RC) Reso
Resoluti
lutions
ons with the modifica
modification
tion that the
ISSUE: Whether the documents presented by respondent constitute original 6,296 qualified farmworker-beneficiarie
farmworker-beneficiariess of Hacienda Luisita
sufficient basis for the reconstitution of title (FWBs) shall have the option to remain as stockhold
stockholders
ers of HLI.
 
HELD: No. the following must be present for an order for reconstitution Upon separate motions of the parties for reconsideration,
reconsideration, the Court, by
to issue: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed
destroyed;; (b) Resolution of November 22, 2011, recalled and set aside the option
that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to thus granted to the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI,
warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) while maintaining that all the benefits and homelots received by all the
that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them.
interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time  
it was lost
lost and
and destr
destroye
oyed;
d; and (e) thatthat the
the descr
descript
iption
ion,, are
area
a and Hacienda Luisita and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac were sold by the
bound
bou ndari
aries
es of the
the prope
propert
rty
y are substa
substant
ntial
ially
ly the
the sam
same e as those
those Span
Spanisish
h ow owne
ners
rs of Ta Taba
baca
cale
lera
ra to Tade
Tadeco
co.. The
The Cent
Centra
rall Bank
Bank of 
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. the
the Phili
Philipp
ppine
ines
s ass
assist
isted
ed Tadeco
Tadeco in obtai
obtainin
ning
g a doldollar
lar loan
loan from
from
a US ban
bank.k. Also,
Also, the GSIS exteextende
nded
d them a loan.
loan. The martial law
 The respondent
respondent merely relied on the CENRO certification
certification which is administration
administrat ion filed a suit before the Manila RTC against Tadeco, et al.,
however not the authenticated copy of the decree of registration or for them to surrend
surrenderer Hacienda Luisita to the then Ministry of Agrarian
patent required
required by law. The certification plain
plainly
ly states only that the lot Reform (MAR) so that the land can be distributed to farmers at cost.
is patented in the the name of the Legal Heirs
Heirs of Sofia Lazo. It is not even  Tadeco alleged that Hacienda Luisita does not have tenants and not
a cop
copy y of thethe dec
decre
ree
e of reg
regist
istrat
ration
ion or paten
patentt itself
itself but a mer
meree covered
cove red by existing
existing agra
agrarian
rian reform legi
legislat
slations
ions.. The Manila
Manila RTC
ce
certi
rtific
ficati
ation
on of the the iss
issuan
uance
ce of su such
ch paten
patent.
t. Als
Also,
o, she has not rendered judgment ordering Tadeco to surrender Hacienda Luisita to
established
establishe d the issuance or existence of the certificate of title covering the MAR.
the
the sub
subjec
jectt lot nor
nor of the
the oth
other
er doc
docum
ument
entss that
that would
would prove
prove the
the
existence, execution and contents of the certificate of title sought to be
reconstituted. During the administration of President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the
Office of the Solicitor General moved to withdraw the government’s
case agai
against
nst Tade
Tadeco,
co, et al. Tadeco
Tadeco orga
organize
nized d a spin-off
spin-off corporat
corporation
ion
 The factPhilippine
of the that pines
Philip no opposition
op
s position
will notisrelieve
filed
relievebyrespondent
a private
private
respon party
dent,, as or bytioner
peti theerRepublic
petition Rein
public
the (HLI) as veh
vehicle
icle to faci
facilitat
litate
e stock
stock acqu
acquisiti
isition
on by the farmworkers.
farmworkers.
petition for reconstitution, of his burden of proving not only the loss or  Tadeco conveyed to HLI the agricultural land portion and other farm-
destruction of the title sought to be reconstituted but also that at the related properties of Hacienda Luisita in exchange for HLI shares of 
time the said title
title was lost or destroy
destroyed,
ed, he or his pred
predece
ecessor
ssor-in–
-in– stock.
inter
interest
est was the the reregis
gister
tered
ed ownowner
er there
thereof.
of. The
The Re
Repu
publi
blic
c is not
estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition if, on the Some of the then farmwork
farmworker-b
er-bene
eneficia
ficiaries
ries (FWB
(FWBs)
s) compleme
complement
nt of 
basis
basis of the law and the evidence
evidence on record,
record, such petition
petition has no Hacienda Luisita signified
Hacienda signified in a referend
referendumum the
their
ir acceptan
acceptance
ce of the
merit. proposed HLI’s Stock Distribution
Distribution Option Plan (SODP). The SDOA was
formally entered into by Tadeco, HLI, and qualified FWBs. This attested
to by then DAR Secretary Philip Juico.

Haci
Hacienda
enda
171101 Luisita,
Luisita
| April 24,, 2012
Inc. v.
| J. Secretary
SecretaryJr.of Agrar
Velasco, Agrarian
ian Reform | GR HLI applied for the conversion of 500 hectares of land of the hacienda
from agricultural to industrial use, which was approved by the DAR. In
exch
exchan
ange
ge for
for subs
subscr
crip
ipti
tion
on of 12 12,0
,000
00,0
,000
00 shar
shares
es of stoc
stocks
ks of 
6
 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

Centennary, ceded 300 hectares of the converted area to the latter. otherwis
other wise,
e, all these
these rheto
rhetoric
ric about
about agrar
agrarian
ian ref
reform
orm will
will be
Subsequ
Subsequentl
ently,
y, Cent
Centenn
ennary
ary sold the enti
entire
re 300 hect
hectares
ares to Luisita
Luisita rendered
rendere d for naught. The agrarian reform program is founded on
Industri
Industrial
al Park Corpor
Corporation
ation (LIPCO),
(LIPCO), whic
whichh used
used it in deve
developi
loping
ng an the right of farmers and regular farm workers, who are landless, to
industrial complex. It was resolved that the subject lands be forthwith own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of 
placed under the compulsory coverage or mandated land acquisition other farm workers, to receive a share of the fruits thereof, as
scheme of the CARP. stated in the Constitution.

ISSUES:
1. W/N just compensation for the homelots be given to the FWBs  
2. W/N the qualified FWBs have control ov
over
er the agricultur
agricultural
al lands

HELD:
1. The issu
issuee on just compens
compensati ation
on and the grou
grounds
nds HLI anandd Malla
Mallari,
ri,
et al. rely upon in support of their respective stance on the matter
had been previpreviou
ously
sly raised
raised by themthem in their
their fir
first
st motion
motion for
reco
recons
nsid
ider
erat
atio
ion
n anandd fu
full
lly
y pa
pass
ssed
ed up
upon
on by th thee Cour
Courtt in it
its
s
November 22, 2011 Resolution. Considering that the issue on just
compensation has already been passed upon and denied by the
Court in its November 22, 2011 Resolution, a subsequent motion
touching
touc hing on the same issu issue
e undenia
undeniably
bly partake
partakes s of a seco
second
nd
motion for reconside
reconsideration,
ration, hence, a prohibit
prohibited
ed pleading. However,
if such issue is again entertained by the Court, the end goal of 
equitably distributing ownership of land is, therefore, undeniable.
And
And sinc
sincee it is on
only
ly up
uponon ththe
e ap
appr
prov
oval
al of th
thee SDSDPP that
that th
thee
agricult
agri cultural
ural land
landss actu
actually
ally came under CARP cove coverage
rage,, such
approval operates and takes the place of a notice of coverage
ordina
ord inaril
rily
y iss
issue
ued
d unde
underr comcompu pulso
lsory
ry acq
acquis
uisiti
ition
on.. Mor
Moreov
eover
er,,
precisely
to just because
just com
compepens due
nsation,regard
ation, the is
the given
law on tostock
the
stock rights
distr of landowners
distribu
ibutio
tion
n optio
option
n
acknowledges that landowners can require payment for the shares
of stock corresponding to the value of the agricultural lands in
relation to the outstanding capital stock of the corporation.

2.  Yes. The Court agrees that the option given to the qualified FWBs
wh
whet
ethe
herr to rema
remain
in as ststoc
ockh
khol
olde
ders
rs of HL
HLII or opoptt for
for la
land
nd
distribu
distribution
tion is neit
neither
her iniquito
iniquitous
us nor prejudi
prejudicial
cial to the FWBs.
Nonetheless, the Court is not unmindful of the policy on agrarian
reform that control over the agricultural land must always be in
the hands of the farmers. Contrary to the stance of HLI, both the
Constitu
Cons titution
tion and RA 6657
6657 inte
intended
nded the farmers,
farmers, indi
individu
vidually
ally or
collectiv
collectively,
ely, to have contr
control
ol over the agricult
agricultural
ural lands of HLI;
7