Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Writing, Its Execution and Authenticity, How Proved.-Before
Writing, Its Execution and Authenticity, How Proved.-Before
Petitioner Cheng expressed interest in buying the subject ISSUE: W/N there is perfected sale over the parcels of land FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
properties. Genato showed to Ricardo Cheng copies of his between Genato and Cheng such that it gives rise to obligatory decision of the Court of Appeals. Respondent Guerrero filed
transfer certificates of title and the annotations at the back force. with the Bureau of Lands (now Lands Management Bureau) a
thereof of his contract to sell with the Da Jose spouses. Miscellaneous Sales Application covering a parcel of land
Genato also showed him the aforementioned Affidavit to Annul RULING: NO. Petition denied. We have ruled before that when situated at Quezon City, consisting of 256sqm. Guerrero’s
the Contract to Sell which has not been annotated at the back a Deed of Sale is inscribed in the registry of property on the application was approved and Miscellaneous Sales Patent
of the titles. Despite these, Cheng went ahead and issued a original document itself, what was done with respect to said No. 8991 was issued in favor of him as well as the Original
check for P50,000.00 upon the assurance by Genato that entries or annotations and marginal notes amounted to a Certificate of Title No. 0-28. Angelina Bustamante filed a
the previous contract with the Da Jose spouses will be registration of the sale. In this light, we see no reason why we protest claiming that respondent obtained the sales patent
annulled. Genato caused the registration of the Affidavit to should not give priority in right the annotation made by the Da through fraud and/or omission of material facts
Annul the Contract to Sell in the Registry of Deeds. While the Jose spouses with respect to their Contract to Sell. Moreover, considering that 174 sqm awarded to respondent covered
Da Jose spouses were at the Office of the Registry of Deeds, registration alone in such cases without good faith is not the land where her house is situated and where she has
processing the registration as well, they met Genato by sufficient. Good faith must concur with registration for such been residing since 1961. The Director of Lands dismissed
coincidence and discovered about the affidavit to annul their prior right to be enforceable. In the instant case, the annotation the protest of Bustamante, affirmed by the Minister of Natural
contract. Da Joses were protested against the rescission of made by the Da Jose spouses on the titles of Genato of their Resources and Office of the President. Bustamante filed a MR.
their contract. The Da Jose spouses assured Genato that they "Contract To Sell" more than satisfies this requirement. The President then ordered that the case be remanded to the
are willing and able to pay the balance of the agreed down Whereas in the case of Genato's agreement with Cheng such DENR to conduct an ocular investigation. It was found that 83
payment, later on in the day, Genato decided to continue the is unavailing. For even before the receipt issued to Cheng sqm of the titled property of Guerrero is under actual
Contract he had with them. The agreement to continue with information of such pre-existing agreement has been brought physical possession of Marcelo Bustamante (husband of
their contract was formalized in a conforme letter. Genato to his knowledge which did not deter him from pursuing his Angelina), thus, only 91 sqm is under the physical
advised Cheng of his decision to continue his contract with the agreement with Genato. Additionally, the Court held that one possession of Guerrero. Pursuant to the directive of the
Da Jose spouses and completely returned to Cheng the who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect of President, the Director of Lands instituted the instant action
checks for their payments. title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title (Petition for Amendment of Plan and Technical Description of
thereto in good faith as against an interest therein; and OCT No. 0-28 in the name of Benjamin Guerrero). Guerrero
the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge filed a motion to dismiss the petition alleging that the RTC
6
of Quezon City was without jurisdiction over the petition which have been fraudulently granted to private ISSUE: What is the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds
and that it was defective in form and substance, inasmuch individuals. However, this remedy of reversion can only be to annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens
as it failed to name who holds a certificate of title over the availed of in cases of fraudulent or unlawful inclusion. In certificate of title?
properties subject of the petition. The lower court denied the present case, petitioner cannot successfully invoke
the motion due to lack of merit. The RTC ruled that the original this defense for it was never proven that respondent’s RULING: Section 10 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states
certificate of title in the name of respondent acquired the patent and title were obtained through fraud. that: “It shall be the duty of the register of deeds to
characteristics of indefeasibility after the expiration of one 13 immediately register an instrument presented for
year from the entry of the decree of registration. CA Baranda vs. Hon. Gustilo registration dealing with real or personal property which
affirmed. Petitioner then moved for a reconsideration but the G.R. No. 81163 complies with all the requisites for registration. If the
same was denied. Hence, this recourse. Gutierrez, J. instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny
registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in
ISSUE: W/N the certificate of title issued pursuant to any grant DOCTRINE OF LAW: The function of the Register of Deeds writing, stating the ground or reasons therefore, and advising
or patent involving public lands is conclusive and indefeasible with reference to the registration of deeds, encumbrances, him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with
despite the fact that respondent’s title was procured through instrument and the like is ministerial in nature. Section 117 of this Decree.”
fraud and misrepresentation.
FACTS: A petition for reconstitution of title was filed with the In the case at bar, Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in
RULING: YES. Petition denied. It must be pointed out that the CFI of Iloilo involving a parcel of land in the name of Romana sustaining the Acting Register of Deed’s stand that the notice
essential issue raised in this Petition ― the presence of fraud Hitalia. Eventually, the same was issued in the names of of lis pendens cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency
― is factual. As a general rule, this Court does not review petitioners Alfonso Hitalia and Eduardo Baranda. The Court of the case in the CA. The function of the Register of Deeds
factual matters, as only questions of law may be raised in issued a writ of possession, which respondents Gregorio with reference to the registration of deeds, encumbrances,
a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court. And Perez, Maria Gotera and Susana Silao refused to honor on instrument and the like is ministerial in nature . The Acting
as the Court has consistently held, factual findings of trial the ground that they also own the same lot by virtue of a Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a
courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and TCT. The Court later discovered that the said TCT was motion for reconsideration of the judge’s order directing him to
conclusive on this Court. It bears to stress that the property in fraudulently acquired by respondents and ordered that the writ cancel the notice of lis pendens. He may not validly refuse to
question, while once part of the lands of the public domain and of possession be carried out. Thereafter, a writ of demolition register a deed of sale presented to him for registration.
disposed of via a miscellaneous sales arrangement, is now was issued. Petitions were filed by respondents in opposition Whether a document is valid or not is NOT for the Register
covered by a Torrens certificate. Grants of public land were of the orders issued by the Court but the same were denied. In of Deeds to determine; this function belongs properly to a
brought under the operation of the Torrens system by Act No. compliance with the RTC orders, respondent Acting Register court of competent jurisdiction.
496, or the Land Registration Act of 1903. Under the Torrens of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the order declaring
system of registration, the government is required to respondents’ TCT as null and void, cancelled the same and TEODORO ALMIROL vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
issue an official certificate of title to attest to the fact that issued new certificates of titles in the name of petitioners. AGUSAN
the person named is the owner of the property described G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968
therein. The Torrens system aims to obviate possible However, by reason of a separate case that was still pending
conflicts of title by giving the public the right to rely upon in the CA, a notice of lis pendis was annotated in the new DOCTRINE: The purpose of registration is merely to give
the face of the Torrens certificate and to give him certificate of title. This prompted petitioners to file a motion notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
complete peace of mind that he would be secured in his directing the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the said instruments are expected to be decided after, not before,
ownership as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of notice of lis pendens. Judge Gustilo granted the motion registration. It must follow as a necessary consequence
any right over the covered land. Petitioner fails to and directed the Acting Register of Deeds to cancel. that registration must first be allowed, and validity or
convince the Court that the facts relied upon constitutes However, the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion of effect litigated afterwards.
fraud. Fraud cannot be presumed, and the failure of reconsideration contending that since the case is still pending
petitioner to prove it defeats its own cause. Petitioner argues with the CA, it is the CA that can order the cancellation of the FACTS: Teodoro Almirol purchased from Arcenio Abalo a
that the right of the State for the reversion of unlawfully notice of lis pendens, and not this Court in a mere cadastral parcel of land. Sometime in May, 1962 Almirol went to the
acquired property is not barred by prescription. True, proceeding. Judge Gustilo granted the Acting Register of office of the Register of Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to
prescription, basically, does not run against the State and Deeds’ motion. Hence, this petition. register the deed of sale and to secure in his name a transfer
the latter may still bring an action, even after the lapse of certificate of title. Registration was refused by the Register of
one year, for the reversion to the public domain of lands Deeds upon the following grounds: 1. That Original
7
Certificate of Title No. P-1237 is registered in the name of and Liquidation of Property. While the case was ongoing She opposed by Bayaua, Reyes, and the Philippine Cacao and
Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo, and by legal learned that Rogelio intends to sell the subject property. Farm Products.
presumption, is considered conjugal property; 2. That in Shirley then advised the interested buyers one of whom is the
the sale of a conjugal property acquired after the petitioner Josefina V. Nobleza their neighbor of the existence The case went on until on 1981, 20 years after, the Heirs of
effectivity of the New Civil Code it is necessary that both of the cases and cautioned them against buying the property Sandoval, Heirs of Bayaua, and the Bureau of Lands and
spouses sign the document; but 3. Since, as in this case, until the cases are closed and terminated. Nonetheless, under Bureau of Forest Development entered a compromise
the wife has already died when the sale was made, the a Deed of Absolute Sale, Rogelio sold the subject property to agreement, which effectively distributed parts of lot 7454
surviving husband cannot dispose of the whole property petitioner without Shirley’s consent. The court ordered the among the aforesaid parties and the counsel of the Heirs
without first liquidating and transferring in the name of the petitioner to reconvey the property to Shirley, hence, this of Sandoval as attorney's fees. The compromise
surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased wife by petition. Petitioner claims she is a buyer in good faith as agreement was approved by the court and confirmed the
means of extrajudicial settlement or partition and that the the TCT of the subject property states that its sole owner title and ownership of the parties in accordance with its
consent of such other heir or heirs must be procured by is the seller Rogelio himself who was therein also terms.
means of another document ratifying this sale executed described as "single.
by their father. In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Having knowledge of the incident, the Solicitor General filed a
Court of First Instance of Agusan on a petition for mandamus ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is a purchaser in good complaint before the court to annul the decision rendered by
to compel the Register of Deeds to register the deed of sale faith. the court a quo for being void and made in excess of
and to issue to him the corresponding transfer certificate of title jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor
RULING: No, the petitioner is not a buyer in good faith. A General contended that the Heirs of Sandoval et. al. did
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can compel the Registry of buyer cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value by not present any evidence to support their claims of
Deeds to register the deed of sale in question. merely relying on the TCT of the seller while ignoring all the ownership or registration, nor did the government
other surrounding circumstances relevant to the sale. Had agencies involve have a y authority to enter into the
RULING: Yes. Whether a document is valid or not, is not petitioner been more prudent as a buyer, she could have
for the register of deeds to determine; this function compromise agreement, and finally, that he was not
easily checked if Rogelio had the capacity to dispose of notified of the proceedings and so had not opportunity to
belongs properly to a court of competent jurisdiction. The the subject property. Had petitioner been more vigilant,
register of deeds is entirely precluded by section 4 of take part therein.
she could have inquired with such facility - considering
Republic Act 1151 from exercising his personal judgment that her sister lived in the same Ladislao Diwa Village
and discretion when confronted with the problem of As for the Heirs of Sandoval et.al.'s contention, they
where the property is located - if there was any person asseverate that the land is not a public land as the possessory
whether to register a deed or instrument on the ground other than Rogelio who had any right or interest in the
that it is invalid. information title in their name and of their predecessors in-
subject property. In the Deed of Absolute Sale, the civil interest, the pre-war certification appearing in the Bureau
SABTALUH status of Rogelio as seller was not stated, while petitioner as of Archives, and the fact that the proceeding of the
NOBLEZA V. NUEGA buyer was indicated as "single," It puzzles the Court that while registration was brought under the Torrens act which
G.R. NO. 193038 petitioner has repeatedly claimed that Rogelio is "single" under presupposes an existing title to be confirmed, are all
VILLARAMA, JR., J. TCT No. 171963 and Tax Declaration Nos. D-012-04723 and evidences that the land is a private land.
D-012-04724, his civil status as seller was not stated in the
DOCTRINE OF LAW: A buyer cannot claim to be an Deed of Absolute Sale - further creating a cloud on the ISSUE: W/N the respondent's evidences can be considered as
innocent purchaser for value by merely relying on the TCT claim of petitioner that she is an innocent purchaser for proof that the lot 7454 is
of the seller while ignoring all the other surrounding value. a private land.
circumstances relevant to the sale.
Republic v. Sayo RULING: NO. Under the Regalian Doctrine all lands not
FACTS: Shirley B. Nuega and OFW was married to Rogelio GR No. L-60413 otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
Nuega. She sent Rogelio money for the purchase of a Narvasa, J. presumed to belong to the State. Hence it is that all applicants
residential lot. Upon her arrival she settled the balance for the in land registration proceedings have the burden of
equity over the subject property and paid for the succeeding FACTS: The case at bar started at 1961 whe the spouses overcoming the presumption that the land thus sought to be
monthly amortizations. While overseas she learned that Casiano and Luz Sandoval filed an application for a parcel of registered forms part of the public domain. Unless the
Rogelio had brought home another woman and had been land, Lot 7454 originally party of Santiago but had since then applicant succeeds in showing by clear and convincing
introducing her as his wife. She then filed for Legal Separation been transferred to Nueva Vizcaya. The registration was evidence that the property involved was acquired by him or his
8
ancestors either by composition title from the Spanish the Court for approval. It is, after all, the Solicitor General, who remedy. The SC held that though their possession of the land
Government or by possessory information title, or any other is the principal counsel of the Government; this is the reason to that of their predecessors-in-interest as a result of which
means for the proper for our holding that "Court orders and decisions sent to the they now have more than thirty (30) years' possession of the
acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to be part fiscal, acting as agent of the Solicitor General in land same, the fact remains that the subject land has not yet been
of the public domain. The applicant must present competent registration cases, are not binding until they are actually released from its classification as part of the military
and persuasive proof to substantiate his claim; he may not rely received by the Solicitor General." reservation zone and still has to be reclassified as alienable
on general statements, or mere conclusions of law other than public land.
factual evidence of possession and title.
Republic vs. IAC, Mendoza, and Pasahol The SC also states that they are mindful that the private
In the proceeding at bar, it appears that the principal document (G.R. No. 71285) respondents who have in good faith possessed and occupied
relied upon and presented by the applicants for registration, to the disputed land for more than (30) years. That is why if what
prove the private character of the large tract of land subject of DOCTRRINE OF THE LAW: To have the right to possess is needed is only the formal release of the property from its
their application, was a photocopy of a certification of the the title of a military reservation zone, it must be first classification as a military reservation and its reclassification to
National Library. But, as this Court has already had occasion reclassified as alienable public land. disposable agricultural land, the respondent should, for
to rule, that Spanish document cannot be considered a title equitable reasons, take the necessary steps towards the
to property, it not being one of the grants made during the FACTS: Petition for review by Certiorari. A petition was filed by declassification of the same.
Spanish regime, and obviously not constituting primary Esteban Mendoza and Leon Pasahol alleging ownership of the 18
evidence of ownership. It is an inefficacious document on land in question (Lot 444) by purchase from its original owners. Cariño vs. Insular Government
which to base any finding of the private character of the Evidence of ownership and possession show that (1) G.R. No. L-2746
land in question. Mendoza and Pasahol bought the land from Feliciano
Ignacio as shown by the deed of sale; (2) they had FACTS: In 1903, Mateo Cariño, through his attorney in fact,
It thus appears that the decision of the Registration Court a possessed the land peacefully, openly and continuously Metcalf Clarke, filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration
quo is based solely on the compromise agreement of the under claim of ownership, as had their predecessors-in- asking that he be inscribed as the owner of a parcel of land in
parties. But that compromise agreement included private interest before them; (3) that before the purchase of the Baguio, Benguet, containing 146 hectares. He presented no
persons who had not adduced any competent evidence of their land, it had been declared for taxation purposes in the evidence except possessory information by provisions of
ownership over the land subject of the registration proceeding. name of Maria Nunez since 1932. the Mortgage Law. This only produced those effects which
Portions of the land in controversy were assigned to persons the laws give to mere possession. His main contention was his
or entities who had presented nothing whatever to prove their Solicitor General alleges that (1) petitioners' possession began use and occupation of the land since time immemorial. This
ownership of any part of the land. The assent of the Directors only in 1957, they could not tack their possession to their would lead to his award of a grant due to the prevailing
of Lands and Forest Development to the compromise predecessors-in-interest because of the failure of the latter to jurisprudence at the time. The State opposed the petition by
agreement did not and could not supply the absence of lay claim to the property in question ; (2) it is claimed that arguing that the land is part of the military reservation of the
evidence of title required of the private respondents. registration is not possible as said land is actually already US government. He countered by stating that the land is
forest land and/or part of a military reservation. agricultural and the government did not possess any titles of
As to the informacion posesoria invoked by the private ownership, thus the State is barred by the statute of limitations.
respondents, it should be pointed out that under the Spanish The IAC (CA) ruled in favor of the respondents sstating that The Court of First Instance dismissed his petition.
Mortgage Law, it was considered a mode of acquiring title to the land may have been a military reservation in the past, but
no longer; because it had already been "delimited and ISSUE: (1) Whether Cariño is the rightful owner due to his use
public lands, subject to two (2) conditions: first, the inscription and occupation?
thereof in the Registry of Property, and second, actual, public, classified by our bureau (Forestry) as alienable and disposable
adverse, and uninterrupted possession of the land for twenty block under the Proposed Land Classification. Hence this (2) Whether prescription runs against the
(20) years (later reduced to ten [10] years); but where, as here, petition. government?
proof of fulfillment of these conditions is absent, the
informacion posesoria cannot be considered as anything more ISSUE: W/N Mendoza and Pasahol should be given the title of RULING: (1) NO. The possession of the land has not been of
than prima facie evidence of possession. the land. such a character as to require the presumption of a grant. No
one has lived upon it for many years. It was never used for
Finally, it was error to disregard the Solicitor General in the RULING: NO. PETITION GRANTED, without prejudice to anything but pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions
execution of the compromise agreement and its submission to the respondent’s recourse to the proper administrative thereof, and since the insurrection against Spain it has
9
apparently not been used by the petitioner for any purpose. the Undersecretary of Agricultural and Natural The Court of First Instance adjudicated 117,956 square meters
While the State has always recognized the right of the Resources issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent and to Emeterio Bereber and the rest of the land containing
occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient an OCT was issued by the Register of Deeds of Naga 527,747 square meters was adjudicated in the proportion of
length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make City in favor of the respondent. 5/6 share to Angel Alpasan and 1/6 share to Melquiades Borre.
that proof before the proper administrative officers, and obtain Only the Heirs of Jose Amunategui and the Director of Forestry
from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the filed their respective appeals with the Court of Appeals. The
absolute owner. ISSUE: Whether or not the conveyance of land to Heirs of Jose Amunategui maintain that Lot No. 885 cannot
David is valid? be classified as forest land because it is not thickly
(2) NO. It is well settled in the US that prescription forested but is a "mangrove swamp. Furthermore, they
does not run against the government as to its public land. RULING: YES. The property conveyed to defendant David
was part of the property owned by the state and therefore contend that Lot 885, even if it is a mangrove swamp, is still
In other words, if a person desires to obtain title to the public subject to land registration proceedings because the property
lands of the US situated within the boundaries of the States, the conveyance was valid. The only party with legal
standing to question the validity of such is the had been in actual possession of private persons for many
he must do so in the way pointed out by the law. It is not years, and therefore, said land was already "private land"
understood that a person in possession of unsurveyed public government and that the period to contest and claim
lands in the State of Minnesota, for example, whose ancestors otherwise is within 1 year only. The transaction followed ISSUE: W/N Lot No. 885 is public forest land which not
had occupied that the land for forty years, could maintain in all the rules and procedures for patent sale to prosper and capable of registration in the names of the private applicants.
court a claim that he was the legal owner of the lands by no fraud was done as the auction sale and the document
granted the land to his ancestors. The same is true of the processing were all made in public. RULING: YES. A forested area classified as forest land of the
public lands of Spain in the Philippine Islands. public domain does not lose such classification simply because
loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. The
Lee Hong Kok v. David classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and
G.R. No. L-30389 20 does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks
Fernando, J. Heirs of Amunategui Vs. Director of forestry like. Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released
GR 27873 in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part
DOCTRINE OF LAW: The land which is considered to be of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the
Public Domain belongs to the Crown or State. Any FACTS: These two petitions have their genesis in an rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
conveyance by the state to a Private Individual through application for confirmation of imperfect title and its
sale is valid and may only be questioned by the registration. The parcel of land sought to be registered is In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders
Government for nullity. The period of 1 year is given in the known as Lot No. 885 of the Cadastral Survey of Pilar, Capiz, the burden of proving that he meets the requirements of
case the conveyed property by the state is a private and has an area of 645,703 square meters. Roque Borre, Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by
property wherein the rights of the private owners are petitioner in G.R. No, L-30035, and Melquiades Borre, filed the Republic Act No. 1942. He must overcome the presumption
violated. Imperium is the authority by the state embraced application for registration. In due time, the heirs of Jose that the land he is applying for is part of the public domain but
ibn the concept of sovereignty and dominion is the power Amunategui, petitioners in G.R. No. L-27873 filed an that he has an interest or that he has had continuous, open,
to own and acquire properties. opposition to the application of Roque and Melquiades Borre. and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands
At the same time, they prayed that the title to a portion of Lot of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
FACTS: Petitioners Lee Hong Hok et al. claim that the No. 885 of Pilar Cadastre containing 527,747 square meters ownership for at least thirty (30) years preceding the filing of
Torrens Title of Respondent David over the disputed be confirmed and registered in the names of said Heirs of Jose his application. The possession of public land however long
land (which is part of the Naga Cadastre) should be Amunategui. The Director of Forestry, filed an opposition to the the period thereof may have extended, never confers title
declared null and void. The CA found no legal application for registration of title claiming that the land was thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations
justification for nullifying the right of David over the mangrove swamp which was still classified as forest land and with regard to public land does not operate against the State,
disputed land arising from the grant made in his favor part of the public domain.Another oppositor, Emeterio Bereber unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of
by appropriate public officials. filed his opposition insofar as a portion of Lot No. 885 was the same under claim of ownership for the required number of
concerned and prayed that title to said portion be confirmed years to constitute a grant from the State.
David had acquired lawful title over said land. The and registered in his name. During the progress of the trial,
Director of Lands awarded him an order for issuance applicant-petitioner Roque Borre sold whatever rights and
of a sales patent pursuant to his miscellaneous sales interests he may have on Lot No. 885 to Angel Alpasan.
application. Subsequently, on the basis of such order,
10