Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

LAND TITLES REVIEWER SEC 1 – 12 National Grains Authority vs.

IAC  Purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to the land and to stop forever any question to its legality.  Proceedings for the registration of title to the land under the Torrens System is an action in rem. Solid State vs. CA  Registration does not vest title; it is merely evidence of such title. The holder of the certificate of title does not acquire any better right than what he actually has.  The torrens certificate is the best evidence of ownership over registered land.  *According to Property Cases: Title is that upon which ownership is based.  *Registration of public land does not make it private. Traders Royal Bank vs. CA  The main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative to real estate by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens Certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.  In short, you can rely on the face of the title and are not bound to go beyond it. [Effect: Good Faith.] Aznar Brothers vs. Aying  Registration to be effective must be in the proper registry.  A parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is registered under Act No. 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, the land is not considered registered and the registration of the deed does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.  As such prescription would not begin to run from that date. Moscoso vs. CA  Proceedings for the registration of title to land under the Torrens System is in rem, not in personam, hence, personal notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res, and neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration proceeding. Arceo vs. CA  Under Sec 2 PD 1529, the distinction between the general and limited jurisdiction vested in the RTC as cadastral court [or land registration court] has been eliminated.  The amendment was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits by conferring upon the trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for registration but also over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications. Evangelista vs. Santiago and San Pedro vs. CA  PD 892 abolished the Spanish System of Registration  Under PD 892, Spanish Titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership or be used to claim ownership. The deadline for the registration under the Torrens System of a Spanish Title was Aug 16, 1976. Noblejas vs. Teehankee  Commissioner of the LRA is an executive official and thus may be investigated by the office of the President.

Laburada vs. LRA  Issuance of Decree of Registration by the LRA is part of the judicial function of courts, involving the exercise of discretion. It is not a ministerial act and thus not compellable by mandamus.  The LRA is mandated to refer to the trial court any doubt it may have in regard to the preparation and the issuance of a decree of registration. In this respect, LRA officials act not as administrative officials, but as officers of the court and their act is the act of the court. LRA is specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in land registration proceedings.  There remains things to be done such as the preparation of amended plans and descriptions of the lot. Republic vs. CA  The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public depository of records or documents affecting titles to lands.  The existence of a Certificate of Title in the RD further supports the authenticity of the title. Baranda vs. Gustilo  Sec 10 of PD1529 provides that “it shall be the duty…”. Hence, the function of the Register of Deeds is ministerial.  In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed, the RD should ask the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration. Balbin vs. RD  Exception to the Duty of RD as ministerial: when only one copy of the co-owners duplicate of certificate of title is presented when there are several issued, then the a voluntary instrument cannotb e registered without surrendering all the copies of the same title to the RD so that every copy thereof would contain identical entries of the transactions affecting the land covered by the title. Toleda-Banaga vs. CA  It is a ministerial function of the RD to comply with the decision of the court to issue a title and register a property in the name of a certain person, especially when the decision had attained finality.  You need not wait for the losing party or the “former owner” to surrender her duplicate of certificate of title for cancellation.

10 sqm). If the amendment INCLUDES an area of land not previously included in the original application. Benin vs Tuason  Amendment to Application Need Not Be Published if it Excludes Portions of Lands  A publication of a new amendment to an application for registration is to give notice to all persons about the said amendment.  Hence. the law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the "buyer" or the person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the applicant. IAC  A decree of registration bars all claims and rights which arose or may have existed prior to the decree of registration.  *If not. the CLR cannot acquire jurisdiction over the parcel of land added to the original application. therefore. and it is on the basis of said decree that the RD issues the corresponding certificate of title. 1 increased the portion of land (by 27. and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear. he may not be deemed to have a priority right to register title. the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent title.  Accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the lot which received the accretion is covered by a Torrens title. the added area is too minimal to be of the decisive factor in the validity of OCT 735. Republic  Sec 14(1) provides that applicants for registration of title must prove both: 1. Lopez vs. while his application is being processed. vs. Accretion is susceptible to prescription. a new publication of the amended application must be made. the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan need not be presented. It made UP the absolute owner. it ceded and transferred full ownership to UP. Cureg vs. a new publication is not necessary. UP  When RA No. Director of Lands  Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and. relinquished and conveyed its rights and title to UP. it removed such lands from public domain. As such. Naguit  Sec 14(1) merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed  Need not be alienable and disposable since June 12. Reyes  Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. Director of Lands vs. as published. then it would not be nullified by reason of the prior institution st of the 1 application. subject only to the existing concession. and divested. the land is bound and title thereto quieted. It is outside the commerce of men. even though an applicant precedes another. 3990 was enacted. Also. 1945 or earlier International Hardwood and Veneer Co.  But if no publication of amendment. and non-publication will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court.  Publication operates as constructive notice.  A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity. AND. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal.SEC 14 – 34 Ong vs. And the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been complied with. strong. Republic vs Munoz  Best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands but blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification. 2. Hence.  Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application. That they have been in OCEN possession and occupation And that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12. . 1945 or earlier. hence the st nd 1 applicant must file an opposition in the 2 application. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to the case. Republic vs. De Buyser vs. convincing evidence. But if the amendment EXCLUDES an area of land. the accretion must also be palced under the operation of the Torrens System. which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory. By the issuance of the decree. Without new publication. as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act.  the blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the lot’s technical description duly certified as to their correctness by the Bureau of Lands are adequate to identify the land applied for registration. unless otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of the government. As such. Another court may also proceed with registration nd  And if the 2 application were processed first. an applicant is duty-bound to observe vigilance and to take care that his right or interest is duly protected.  Note: Example of 14(4) – those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. then the registration proceedings or decree of registration is void insofar as the land not included in the publication is concerned.  Exception: And even if the amendment in Parcel No. subject only to sec 44 PD1529. Mendoza vs CA  Under Section 29 of the Land Registration Act. not open to acquisition by adverse possession by private persons. De Castro  Even though one court is already proceeding with the registration of a parcel of land.  Where more than one certificate of tilte is issued. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands under the public domain upon filing.

 However. a decrease in the area need not be published. Marcos  Publication is required when additional territory is sought to be included in the original plan.  A movant under sec 129 PD 1529 is not required to file motion to lift Republic vs.  Holders of Spanish Title may no longer use this to register land. 9. CA  Applicant must present muniments of title to substantiate the claim of ownership. Evangelista vs. Entry of the decree of registration in the LRA Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding RD. Fernandez vs. CA  Duty of the land registration officials to issue the decree of registration is ministerial in the sense that they act under orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record. 2. Without which the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register title of applicants. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owners duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the RD upon payment of the prescribed fees. 8. A party in default cannot even appeal from the judgment rendered. 6. To rule otherwise would negate the principal purpose of PD 1529 which is to strengthen the Torrens System though safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property. LMB vs.  However. Service of notice upon contiguous owners.  In an action for the declaration of nullity would require allegations of the plaintiff’s ownership of the lot prior to the issuance of defendant’s title as well as the fraud or mistake in obtaining the documents of title.  Posting and Mailing and mandatory and jurisdictional.  A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title. Setting the date of initial hearing of the application by the court Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing to together with all the documents or other evidences attached thereto by the clerk of court to the LRA. adduce evidence. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not. 5. 4. and they have no discretion in the matter. the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Santiago  In an action for reversion. Director. Without which judgment is void as to the additional territory. a party in default cannot appear in court. the Commissioner of the LRA.  Notwithstanding the absence of opposition.  The owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable length. 13. Enriquez  A motion to lift the order of general default should be filed before entry of final judgment. Director of Lands vs. an applicant in a land registration proceeding it not relieved from the burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed. Descala  The subsequent sale of land to a Filipino cures the defect of the sale to a non-Filipino. 7. Publication of the notice of the filing of the application. His ownership does not give him the right to extract or utilize said mineral without permission of the State to which such minerals belong. Filing of application for registration of by the applicant 3. Hearing of the case by the court Promulgation of judgment by the court Issuance of the decree by the court declaring the decision final and instructing the LRA to issue the decree of confirmation and registration. occupants and those known to have interests in the property by the sheriff.  Thus as long as the decree has not been entered by the LRA an 1 year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such decree. 11. Survey of Land by the LMB or a duly licensed surveyor. date and place of hearing in the OG and newspaper of general circulation. 12. CA  The owner of agricultural land does not own minerals formed underneath the land. However. CA  Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory. Further a claim is only noted on the survey plan and such notation cannot prevail over the actual decree of registration as reproduced in the certificate.  A party declared in default loses his standing in court. Publication in the newspaper alone would not suffice.  An application to extract the minerals must be filed. it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. The real party in interest is the State. in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Marasigan  Despite the wording of the law. Borromeo vs.  An oppositor to the land registration proceedings is required to file a motion to lift default. And the real party-in-interest is the plaintiff alleging a preexisting right of ownership over the parcel of land.Lopez vs. It wont affect the jurisdiction of the court. In this case the nullity arises not form the fraud or mistake but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title is void. unless he files a motion to set aside the order of default on grounds under sec 3 Rule 9. 1. . the title is not finally adjudicated and decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control of the court. Gomez vs. or be entitled to notice.  Bare allegations will not suffice.  Preponderance of evidence. 10. Abrille  Procedure for the Original Registration of imperfect or incomplete title or claim to land.  Publication in the OG is not enough. Aboratigue  Prescription does not run against registered land under the Torrens System. Republic vs. De Casto vs. although the law mandates publication to be in the OG and newspaper of general circulation.  The adjudication of land in cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final. the Spanish Title may be used to prove ownership through prescription. if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree. as a result. Republic vs. publication in the OG is sufficient for complying with publication requirements. be heard.

or development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted to patrimonial. there must be 1. 3.  Once the requisite 30 year prescription has been completed two legal events ensue: 1. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. Bacus  Only the President.  Under 14(2).  What defines a piece of property is not the numerical data indicated as the area of the land but the “metes and bounds” or boundaries of the property specified in its technical description as enclosing it and showing its limits. possession must not be by mere fiction.  Without number 2.  Torrens is not a means of acquiring titles to lands.  Actual possession of the land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion. use. 2. The patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private land.  Note: 14(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession while 14(2) of prescription. The counting starts when both 1 and 2 are present. The boundaries prevail.Republic vs. the property even if classified as alienable and disposable. it is enough that the land be alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of the application. upon the recommendation of the Sec of DENR may reclassify lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable. the person in possession acquires ownership by operation of the CC. For an applicant to qualify.  Forest lands are not alienable unless reclassified. land erroneously included is not acquired by the holder of such certificate. Jacob  The law speaks of the requirement of Possession and Occupation. and mineral. Vano  Res Judicata applies to land registration and cadastral proceedings. and 2. Vencilao vs. There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service. investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators and a legislative act or statute. Republic vs. CA  In case of discrepancy or conflict between the boundaries and areas stated in the title. . Republic vs. remains property of the public dominion and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription.  An applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a PP or an EO. timber. an administrative action. Malabanan  Reiteration of Naguit  Under 14(1). Reclassification of the land as alienable and disposable.

CLT Realty  Jurisdiction of Cadastral Court is limited to 1. Director of Lands vs. does not preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land. Parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues already determined by final judgment. Duran vs. Failure to do so authorizes the court to declare the land public.k. Judgment on the merits. Anyone claiming ownership of any land so affected should lay claim. then the decision is void for having been rendered without jurisdiction. Director of Lands vs. or the making of such changes in the title as to impair his substantial rights. Heirs of Luzuriaga vs.a. Veranga vs. Upon request of the registered owner. new publication is not needed.SEC 35 – 38 Municipality of Santiago Isabela vs. as required by Sec 1 ACT 2259 a.  In other words.  Under this doctrine parties are precluded from relitigating the same issues already determined by final judgment. already issued in the name of a person. 2. Determine between 2 parties who has a better right over the property or which of the conflicting titles should prevail 3. which says that ownership is vested once the certificate of title has been registered in the RD. CA –  Cadastral Proceeding is in rem and any decision is binding against the whole world. CA  A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public.  Elements of Res Judicata: 1. divesting the registered owner of the title already issued in his favor. File a motion to dismiss. Court w/c rendered former judgment had jurisdiction over parties and subject matter. 4. after 15 days from receipt of the decision and no appeal was made. The reason for this is because a cadastral proceeding is in rem. provided he complies with the requirements of law.  Res Judicata applies in a non-registration case.  **May be over-ruled by Manotok. it is necessary that notice thereof be given to those who claim an adverse interest in the land. Republic vs.  A decision in the cadastral case is not a bar to the application for registration because a decision is not the final decree contemplated in the Land Registration Act. property can no longer be acquired by prescription. Benitez  Besides the filign of the petition for reopening of a cadastral case. which shall likewise be posted in a conspicuous place on the land to be surveyed. by publishing such notice in 2 successive issues in the OG.  Cadastral court has no jurisdiction over registered land. 3. What is prohibited in a cadastral proceeding is the registration of land. Republic  No publication. Republic  Publication is a condition sine qua non for the RTC acting as a cadastral court to acquire jurisdiction. 2. De La Merced vs. Former Judgment Final. subject matter and cause of action.  After the lapse of the period to appeal. registered through a homestead patent under the land registration act cannot be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and any title issued thereon is null and void. in the name of another. Vera  A Cadastral proceeding is in rem. Due publication is required to give notice to all interested parties of the claim and identity of the property to be surveyed.  But where the identity of the land and area of the claimed property is not the subject of the amendment but other collateral matters. Manotok Realty vs.  . There must be identity of parties. as well as the municipal building. 1. as well as the general public. Cadastral Act. CA  In a cadastral proceeding. title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision of the cadastral court adjudicating ownership in favor of one claimant. the cadastral court can issue new title. Technical errors in the description of the lands provided they do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner and cannot operate to deprive the registered owner of his title.  One of the main purposes of a cadastral proceeding is to settle titles to lands.  If amendment is to include additional portion of property then there must be publication.  And any additional territory or change in the area cannot be included by amendment without new publication. Olivia  A piece of land.

an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.  The defense of indefeasibility of title does not extend to a transferee who takes it with notice of the flaws in his transferor’s title. to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title.SEC 39 .  If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed with the LRA. the better approach is to trace the OCTs from which the certificates of title were derived and then the TCT derived from the earlier OCT prevails. Even assuming that the previously issued title is obviously fraudulent or attended by flaws and as such cannot be countenanced by the legal system. Degollacion vs Register of Deeds of Cavite  Where there are 2 TCTs purport to include the same land. By Title. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment. On the other hand. within one (1) year from its issuance.  Such as Forest Land. and the person in whose name the title was issued cannot transmit the same.  All TCTs emanating from the void OCT are void.  Even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession by virtue of laches. it is indirect or collateral when.  . the TCT issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail. Laches deals wit the effect of unreasonable delay. there is nothing further the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition.  Where issuance of the title was attended by fraud. Although property registered under the Torrens may not be acquired through prescription. and not with the LRA. without prejudice. CA  Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. as amended which provides that "in all cases of registration procured by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud. or before the OCT becomes indefeasible does not apply to a case which involves the annulment of a TCT. whether wholly or partly. on the ground of fraud.  If there be only one common OCT.  The third party complaint for cancellation of TCT being in the nature of an original complaint for cancellation of TCT.  This is a mere affirmation of the recognized principle that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the same land is in existence. which has for its purpose the reopening of the decree of title.  Burden of proof on plaintiff – incontrovertible evidence Pasino vs Monterroyo  A Counterclaim is Not a Collateral Attack on the Title  A counterclaim is considered an original complaint and the attack on the title in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be considered as a collateral attack on the title Sarmiento vs CA  A third party complaint is in the nature of an original complaint because it is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff’s complaint. Bornales vs IAC  Purchaser in bad faith cannot invoke indefeasibility of certificate of title. the same is not true with laches. Timbancaya  The one-year rule within which to contest the decree of registration.  However. for he has no true title thereto. the property is registered from the date of entry in the RD. even if the land is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value because the grant of the title was not within the jurisdiction of the grantor such as land registration court or the LRA.  A certificate of title is not conclusive evidence if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate is in existence. Placing a parcel of land under the Torrens does not mean that the ownership can no longer be disputed. Manotok vs Barque  The LRA is powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its legal effect. warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. Gregorio Araneta vs RTC  An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title. or in the words of Cadiz. and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. Cabrera vs. Register vs PNB  The indefeasibility of titles under the Torrens System could be claimed only if a previous valid title to the same parcel of land does not exist. It is independent and distinct from that authorized by Sec 38 thereof. Inequity. or enjoin its enforcement. the corrective recourse lies with the courts.50 MWSS vs CA. Heirs of Gonzaga vs CA Manotok Cases  Where two certifcates purport to include the same land. and it appears from the official records that the subject property is already covered by an existing Torrens title in the name of another person. the earlier in date prevails. however.  Ownership is different from a certificate of title. the law refers to the ownership which a certificate of title merely represents." This is a remedy which is available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. Arguelles vs.  The action to annul the title or the action for reconveyance has its basis in Section 55 of Act 496. it constitutes a direct attack of such TCT Erasusta vs CA  Collateral Attack on a certificate of title is prohibited  But what cannot be collaterally attacked is the Certificate of Title and not the Title itself. Republic vs CA  Exception to indefeasibility of Title: when the property is incapable of registration. the same cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it. the Certificate of Title shall take effect only when it is entered in the Book of Registery by the RD. in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief.

The Order of Default may be set aside by a motion to lift the order of default upon a showing of: o Failure due to fraud. This constitutes an infirmity on the face of the document. The applicant must prove that he is the real and absolute owner. o Must prove that the land has been declassified from the forest land and now part of agricultural and is alienable and disposable by positive act of Gov  Presidential Proc  EO  Administrative Order by DENR  Bureau of Forest Development Land Classification Map  Certification by the Director of Forestry  Investigation Reports of LMB  Legislative Act or Statute o Must prove the identity of the land  See Rep vs. accident. Amendment needs publication when: o Substantial change in the boundaries o Increase in the area of land applied for o Inclusion of an additional land     . Such as when the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse. Only the LMB has the authority to approve Original Survey plans for registration proceedings. ceding full ownership. o Public land sales applicant o Mortgagee o Antechretic creditor o Claim of ownership denied in a reinvidicatory action Court having territorial jurisdiction of the land should take cognizance of the case. o Muniment – instrument or written evidence to prove title or proofs of ownership. Accretion by the Sea – Public land and outside the commerce of man. Signed and sworn to. Non-resident applicant may be represented by an agent or representative resding in the Phil. Strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession. Persons who cannot apply for an application for registration. excusable neglect o And that he has a meritorious defense When an oppositor has already filed an opposition but only failed to appear at the initial hearing of the application. then the order of default is improper o Oppositor must file a petition for certiorari to have the judgment by default set aside as a nullity. o Where there is a pending case in court where the character of the land and validity of the conveyance are in issue o Document presented is merely a private instrument – not notarized. Munoz o Must prove possession and occupation for the length of time and in the manner required by law.           Other Modes of acquiring ownership o Proclamation effecting a land grant. o And If he claims Private Ownership. o Where the voluntary instrument bears on its face an infirmity. If there are 2 lands in 2 different places.Some Final Notes  Impt Functions of the Commission of the LRA o Issue the decree of registration pursuant to final judgments o Resolve cases elevated en consulta by. Application must be accompanied by survey plan and muniments of title. then he must prove the basis of such claim by submitting the muniments of title. mistake. or on appeal from the decision of RDs o Verify and approve sudivision and consolidation and consolidation-subdivision survey plancs of properties titles except those under PD 957 [subdivision for sale. But may be used as evidence of posssession.  Spanish Title no longer allowed as evidence of ownership. Oppositor must state all objections to the application and set forth the interest claimed and apply for the remedy desired. Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are at best indicia of possession.  Purposes and Effects of Publication o Confer jurisdiction over the land applied for upon the court o Constructive Notice: To Charge the whole world with knowledge of the application and invite them to take part in the case and assert and prove their rights over the property. Must present evidence of private ownership or of acquisition from the government. thus ownership through acquisitive prescription. o Petition for accretion is in effect a request for confirmation of title already vested in the riparaian owner by the law. Accretion by the river – private land if adjoined to a private land. o By law. then 2 applications. go to HLURB]  Register of Deeds may refuse registration when: o When there are several copies of the title but only one is presented with the instrument to be registered. in fee simple [absolute ownership].

Liability to be recovered by  an assignee in insolvency cases. Liability to attachment or levy on execution. the court continues to retain control of the case until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry of decree of registration by the LRA. Cadastral Proceeding: Subject Matter is Unregistered land. The adjudication does not become incontrovertible until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry. Only OCT is incontrovertible. o However. Approved by HLURB pursuant to PD 957 3. Rights of Partition between co-owners. Registered lands or the owners thereof shall not be relieved from: 1. Register with the RD When Government files for expropriation. 5.     Any disposition/limitation on the property – those by virtue of PD27 or any other law or regulations on agrarian reform Sec. 3. Government Expropriation proceedings – cleanses the defect of the title from the very beginning Exceptions to indefeasibility of title: 1. Survey 2. 6. Liability to any lien established by law on the land or the buildings thereon. But writ will not issue against persons taking possession after issuance of final decree. claims. Public highway or private way. there is a previous valid title. there must be inequity. Right or Liability that may arise due to Change of the laws on descent. Partial judgment allowed when only a portion of the land is contested. Approved by the LRA 3. Except those under Sec 44 and 46 [Mem!] Sec 44: Exception to those noted in the certificate and any of the following which may be subsisting 1. Rights incident to the relation of  Husband and wife. Steps: Subdivision of lot but NOT for SALE 1. which are not required to appear of record in the RD in order to be valid.         . Approved by the LRA or DENR [or is it LMB] 3. No need for discussing collateral attack or direct attack when the OCT or TCT is void from the beginning. Judgment confirming title carries with it the delivery of possession. There may be prescription when the plaintiff claims title from his predecessor in whose name the OCT was issued. Register with the RD Steps: Subdivision for Sale 1. or on the interest of the owner on such land or buildings. Property registered under Torrens may not be acquired through prescription buy registered owner may be barred by laches. Writ of possession is inherent. 3. Fraud or misrepresentation in the acquisition. Forest Land is still forest land even if there’s no forest. Register with the RD.         Splitting and Consolidation of Title. But the applicant must substantiate the claim of ownership with regards to the unconstested portion. or any government irrigation canal or lateral thereof – those established or recognized by law. After the judgment becomes final. Property is already Titled.  Landlord and tenant. Other rights or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land 4. Registered lands are subject to burdens and incidents arising by operation of law. only requirement is a written request to the RD because the technical descriptions are already covered in the OCT or TCT Consolidation without technical Descriptions 1. Liens. 8. Judgment becomes final after lapse of 15 days after receipt of the notice of judgment. 2. the effect of which is the cleansing of the defects or flaws in the title because such is in rem. without prejudice to the government’s right to collect taxes payable before that period from the delinquent taxpayer alone. 4. Property Not capable of registration 4. if registered then property can no longer be subject of cadastral but only those exception in Manotok. Right of Gov to take the land by eminent domain.  trustee in bankruptcy cases. Action for cancellation of TCT General Rule: insofar as the registered owner and innocent purchaser is concerned. if the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such highway or irrigation have been determined. or rights – arising or existing under the laws and Constitution. Survey 2. 3. 2. 46 – General Incidents of registered lands. the property is burdened only by those noted on the title 1. Unpaid real estate taxes – those levied and assessed w/in 2 yrs immediately preceding the acquisition of any right over the land by an innocent purchaser for value. the court shall issue an order for the issuance of the decree of registration and corresponding certificate of title. 2. Counsel for Applicant must prove o Jurisdictional Requirements o Ownership o Identity of the land. 7. Survey 2.


Publication of the notice of initial hearing – cadastral is in rem because of the publication requirement. The Administrator of the LRA is not legally obligated to issue the decree where upon his verification. Judgment 7. any piece of property Order adjudicating title to person who really are entitled Claimant ahead of Gov – those who filed an answer Government     . Land Registration Case: Incontrovertible Evidence. LRA to issue the decree of registration. Not subject to Prescription 2.takes the form of an original application for registration (claimant will present evidence before government)  Declaration of default (general or special) 5. After the court declares the decision final. However. 2. 9.  Published in OG twice  Notice and  Mailing --.Sec7&8 of Act 2259 [cadastral act] 4. And he could not be compelled by mandamus because the issuance of the decree is part of the judicial function of courts and not a mere ministerial act. File the petition by the OSG representing the DENR 3. Court will order the issuance of the decree 8. Hearing  It would be the claimant who will present evidence (note: in cadastral it is called claimant while in original registration it is called opposition) 6. RD will make the corresponding entries Advantages of a Registered owner under the Torrens System: 1. he finds that the subject land has already been decreed and titled in another’s name. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. in doubt. Duty of the LRA is ministerial in the sense that they act under orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity of the judgment and with the data found in the record. they must refer the matter to the court. Survey  By the DENR upon the directive of the President  Notice of survey including the technical description published in the OG. Posting and mailing are also necessary. Party who initiates Original Registration Party claiming ownership Person Claiming Private Land Filing Subject Matter Prayer of application Person to Present Evidence Conducts Survey Title be issued in his name Applicant first presents evidence Applicant Cadastral Proceeding DENR upon President’s judgment OSG Unregistered land. Steps in a Cadastral Proceeding 1. Filing of an Answer  Answer is to be filed by the person claiming the property --.

such as when it was not impleaded as a party because it failed to effect the timely registration of its Deed of Sale. National Treasurer  The assurance fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land.  The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court. IAC  Good Faith consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title. De Guzman vs. Pineda vs.  There is no extrinsic fraud where the failure of a party to present its case was caused by its own inaction.  Good Faith is the opposite of fraud and it refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. such as forged instruments or perjured testimonies. Pino vs. CA  When the action for reconveyance based on constructive trust has prescribed [more than 10 years from the issuance of the certificate]. is not extrinsic fraud Rivera vs. Petition is filed from 1 year from the issuance of the decree. or from presenting all of his case to the court. CA  “Fresh Period Rule”.  Auction sale retroacts to the date of the registration of the mortgage putting the auction sale beyond the reach of any intervening lis pendens. Property has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value 4.  Actual fraud is the intentional concealment or omission of a fact required by law to be stated in the application or statement of a claim against the truth.  The plaintiff need not wait the termination of the registration proceedings before filing an action for reconveyance. He has been deprived thereof through fraud 3. Cabrera vs. Rufloe. the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial. CA  An action for reconveyance based on a constructive trust prescribes in 10 years after the issuance of the certificate of title. Heirs of Jose Olviga vs.  There is Extrinsic fraud when it is employed to deprive a party of his day in court.  Chain of Title: a fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. Neypes vs. counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. sale or attachment. Navarro  A review of the decree of registration is warranted when: 1.REMEDIES Francisco vs. a real contest. Because of such omission. which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. Adriano and Sandoval Cases  Cases merely discuss what it takes to be an innocent purchaser/mortgagee for value as a requisite of a petition for review of the decree. thereby preventing him from asserting his right to the property. Rexlon Realty vs. CA  To bind third parties to an unregistered encumbrance. . Moran  A petition for review may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from entry of the final decree of registration. either of which is calculated to deprive another of his legal rights. Petitioner has a real and dominical right 2. A fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC.  Thus an action for recovery of property may be treated as an action for reconveyance filed within the 1 year reglementary period. CA  Extrinsic fraud contemplates a situation where a litigant commits acts outside of the trial of the case.  Fraud must be actual and extrinsic.  Filing of a timely motion for new trial precludes filing of a petition for relief after denial of motion.  The government is not an insurer of the unwary citizen’s property against the chicanery of scoundrels. Duran vs. But this rule applies only if the person claiming to be the owner is not in possession.  Relief From Judgment is only appropriate in cases where a party aggrieved by a judgment has not been able to file a motion for new trial.  Here. the decision becomes final after the lapse of the original period to appeal Cruz vs. Puno  The Remedies of Petition for Relief from judgment and motion for new trial and/or reconsideration are exclusive of each other. then the remedy of the defrauded party is to bring an action for damages against those who caused the fraud or were instrumental in the deprivation.  Fraud committed during trial. otherwise if his the right to seek reconveyance which in effect is an action to quiet does not prescribe  One who is in actual possession of land claiming to be the owner may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. the possessors were not notified. there must be actual notice. the reason being that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and rd determine the nature of the adverse claim of a 3 party and its effect on his own title. there is fraud when the applicant for land registration failed to inform the court of persons in actual possession of the land registered in the applicant’s name. otherwise. CA  An action for reconveyance may be filed even before the issuance of the decree of registration. Just see the discussions in the next page.  The fresh 15 day period may only be availed of only if either a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed.

] Quiniano vs.  Doctrine – Registration retroacts to the date of entry in the day book. then make an inquiry into the nature of the possession. Buyer]. Chain of Title Theory requires at least 3 Titles [Orig Owner. Except: 1. And any title issued shall be cancelled.  In involuntary registration. otherwise mortgage is void. Entry in the day book 3.SEC 51 – 68 Garcia vs. expected of a man of ordinary prudence. Except: Mortgagee in Good Faith.  “The Earth. PNB vs.”  The buyer who could not have failed to know or discover that the land sold to him was in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad faith. 5. not by a forged deed. titles to which were erroneously issued.  An OCT covering property of the public domain classified as forest or timber or mineral land is void. Surrender TCT 4. such knowledge being equivalent to registration. if not bad faith. is “that universal manuscript open to the eyes of all. Mingoa vs. Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Llanto vs. even if the mortgagor is not the owner. Failing in this exercise is tantamount to bad faith. Monillas  Prior registration of lien creates a preference. Facts and circumstances that compel a reasonable man to investigate 2. 3. an entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons even if the owner’s duplicate certificate of title is not presented to the RD. to look and see who is there upon it. Forger. CA  A distinction is made with regard to voluntary and involuntary registration. Annotation of notice of lis pendens.  Doctrine – if you’re not buying from the registered owner. Francisco vs. acquire no protection under the Torrens. Solivel vs. Egao vs. Production of the owner’s duplicate is required by Sec 53 PD1529 and only after compliance with this and other requirements shall actual registration retroact to the date of entry in the day book. the presentation of the deed of sale and its entry in the day book must be done with the surrender of the owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title. or the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered Land Bank vs. Present deed 2. you must look at the land and if someone is in adverse possession. This is based on the rule that all persons dealing with property under the Torrens are not required to look beyond the face of the title. CA  One who buys from the registered owner need not look beyond the certificate of title. Buying property not from the registered owner 4. that is. and such purchaser merely had his deed of sale annotated on the certificate of title. Bornales vs. When a man proposes to buy or deal with realty his first duty is to read this public manuscript. Republic  Mortgagees of non-disposable lands. Vendee has actual knowledge of the flaw. Pay Fees 5.  Under this doctrine. you must look at the land. even if in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. and what are his rights. Alzona  The General Rule is that the mortgagor should be the owner of the property mortgaged. you must make an inquiry. Francisco  The innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself. .  On the other hand. Land is in possession of another. [impliedly SC said that you can’t rely on the certificate of title alone. in voluntary registration. Notes:  Involuntary Registration – mere entry in the day book is sufficient  Voluntary – 1. the innocent purchaser for value becomes the registered owner the moment he presents and files a duly notarized and valid deed of sale and the same is entered in the day book and at the same time he surrenders the owner’s duplicate certificate of title covering the land sold and pays the registration fees. CA  To affect the land sold. one who buys from another who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate but also the all the factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws. actual entry?  General Rule: Buyer is not required to make an inquiry. IAC  The fact alone that the purchasers purchased the property with full knowledge of the flaws and defect in the title of their vendors is enough proof of their bad faith.  Note: this also includes an innocent lessee.  Doctrine – if buying real property. LRC  The date of mailing is the date of filing Pilapil vs. CA  One who buys land where there is a pending notice of lis pendens is a purchaser in bad faith.” it has been said. CA  An inquiry is in truth dictated by common sense.  Doctrine – deal with the registered owner always! Even if he’s the forger. the mortgage contract and eventual foreclosure sale are given effect by reason of public policy.  The subsequent annotation of an adverse claim cannot defeat the rights of the mortgagee. he is not considered a subsequent purchaser of the land who takes certificate of title for value and in good faith and who is protected against any encumbrance except those noted on said certificate. CA  Where a person buys land not from the registered owners but from one whose right to the land has been merely annotated on the certificate. Here there were only two titles.

a subsequent sale cannot prevail over the adverse claim which was previously annotated in the certificate of title over the property. o Or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who registered it.  Aquino – notice may also be cancelled upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration. CA  In a voluntary sale. as it is a right in rem.  The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure to protect an interest where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the law on registration of real property Ligon vs. SLDC vs. Thus against such 3 party the rights of a litigant cannot prevail  Only original parties to an action may apply for a notice of lis pendens.  Entry alone produces the effect of registration so long as the registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and annotation. CA  Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title which subsists should be incorporated or carried over to the new TCT.  Constructive notice operates from the time of the registration of the notice of lis pendens which can no longer affect consummated sales done prior to registration.  The registration or cancellation of the notice does not affect the merits on the action. a 3 party who acquires the property after relying only on the TCT is rd a purchaser in good faith. Bautista  In involuntary registration. which is more permanent. all people who deal with the property that they so deal with it at their own risk. rd  Without the notice of lis pendens.  Statement that the property is subject to consulta cannot serve as warning and notice to third persons. And entry in the day book is sufficient to affect the property. Lopez vs. Doronilla vs.  Notice is meant merely to constructively advise. the filing of a notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien that does not previously exist. the grantee [buyer] may file with the RD a statement setting forth his adverse claim. of the land to the judgment that the court will promulgate subsequently. CA  A purchase and delivery made in good faith cannot be affected by a subsequent annotation of lis pendens.  A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court after o Proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party. and whatever rights they may acquire in the property are subject to the results of the action. where the registered owner refuses to surrender the duplicate certificate for the annotation of the voluntary instrument. the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective. Enriquez  Two-fold effect of the filing of lis pendens o Keeps the SM of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations o It binds the purchaser.  However.SEC 69 – 92 Caviles vs. CA  Annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right that that of the registered owner. CA  Notice of lis pendens and adverse claim are not contradictory or repugnant to one another. entry in the day book [primary entry book] is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. or warn.  After the lapse of 30 days effectivity of the adverse claim. Thus. nor does the existence of one automatically nullify the other  Should any be considered unnecessary and superfluous it would be the notice of lis pendens because an adverse claim. and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the RD. CA  A notice of lis pendens is proper in the ff: o Action to recover possession o Action to quiet title o Action to remove cloud o Action for partition o Any other proceeding in court directly affecting the title to the land or use or occupation thereof. requires hearing and proper disposition of the claim before it may be cancelled. . [The annotation may be cancelled by the filing of the verified petition by the party in interest] Rodriguez vs. Magdalena Homeowners vs. a lien on the property whoever its owner may be. Sajonas vs. bona fide or not.  A REM is inseparable from the property mortgaged.

 Applicants in the land registration court should be given to prove registrable title and if meritorious. If not registered. Esquierdo  The right of an innocent mortgagee must be protected.  Omission to do investigation constitutes negligence.  The remedy of those prejudiced is an action for damages against those who caused the fraud.  Once the patent is registered. CA  Recovery from the Assurance Fund may be had in two instances: o Any person who without negligence sustains damage through the omission. . De Los Angeles vs.  The CLT prescribes the terms and conditions of ownership over said land and likewise describes the landholding – its area and location. and if insolvent against the Assurance Fund. Santos  A land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title cannot be divested of its jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of land. the court would order a decree of title issued in applicant’s favor and declare the homestead patent a nullity for the Director of Lands had no jurisidiction to issue such patent. Treasurer vs. Orciga  A CLT proves inchoate ownership of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn. Del Castillo vs. even if the mortgagor obtained title through fraud. the only remedy is to go after the impostor for damages or prosecution under RPC. Ybanez vs.  Land Transfer under PD 27 is effected in two stages: o Issuance of a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary o Issuance of an EP as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon payment of the annual amortizations or lease rentals by the farmer or beneficiary. Aliwalas  An OCT issued on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a OCT issued in a judicial proceeding. or they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. mistake or malfeasance of the clerk of court or the RD or his personnel in the performance of their duties.  Thus. Tengco vs. If there are circumstances which should have put the buyers on guard and prompted them to investigate.  A certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding. provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land. Monterroyo  It is the act of registration of the Patent which is the operative act to affect and convey the land.  Title acquired through a homestead Patent is imprescriptible. IAC  Public land certificate of title attains the status of indefeasibility 1 year after the issuance of patent. failure to do so would preclude recovery from the assurance fund. o Any person who without negligence has been deprived  It is a condition sine qua non that the person who brings an action for damages against the assurance fund be the registered owner and as holders of the TCT. CA  A person seeking to recover from the Assurance fund must be in good faith. as long as the land is disposable land of the public domain and becomes indefeasible after 1 year from the order of Director of Lands to issue the patent.SEC 91 – 106 Torres vs. the land is no longer part of the public domain and the Director of Lands loses control and jurisdiction over it. the patent shall operate only as a contract between the Gov and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the RD to make registration.  A Certificate of Land Transfer is a provisional title of ownership while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of the land’s value or for as long as the beneficiary is an amortizing owner. A Homestead Patent once registered under the Land Registration Act becomes indefeasible as a Torrens Title. Blanco vs. Pasino vs. if neither.