Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Rivas
LTD 2-4
5:00-7:00 PM
The mortgagor or debtor to the Agricultural and Industrial Bank * , whose real
property has been sold at public auction, judicially or extra-judicially, for the full or
partial payment of an obligation to said Bank, shall, within one year from the date
of the auction sale, have the right to redeem the real property by paying to the
Bank all the amount he owed the latter on the date of the sale, with interest on
the total indebtedness at the rate agreed upon in the obligation from said date,
unless the bidder has taken material possession of the property or unless this has
been delivered to him, in which case the proceeds of the property shall
compensate the interest ( Emphasis Ours)
Cases:
Facts:
Issue/s:
2. Based on Section 31 of C.A 459, the borrower should pay the entire amount
he owed to the Bank on the date of the sale, with interest thereon at the rate
agreed upon
Facts:
Spouses Leonardo Jimenez and Corazon Benito are registered owners of a parcel
of land. the said spouses mortgaged the said property to the DBP for P15,000 and
P2,000, respectively. The mortgages were duly registered. On 25 March 1966, the
same property was sold at a public auction in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale,
due to the mortgagors' inability to pay the amortizations on said loans. The only
bidder at the public auction was the mortgagee itself, the DBP, represented by its
Branch Attorney, and which paid P11,000. In 1967, the mortgagors sold their said
registered land, including the right of redemption to their daughter and
redemptioner herein, Josefina B. Jimenez. She filed a petition praying for an order
of this court requiring the Branch Manager of the Development Bank of the
Philippines, Dagupan City, to cause the delivery of Original Certificate of Title No.
14483, to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, for the purpose of
annotating the deed of redemption.
Issue: Whether or not The lower Court erred in issuing, without previous hearing,
the Order of April 1, 1967 directing the mortgagee-DBP to surrender the owner's
copy of OCT No. 14483 to the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan on the basis of
redemptioner-appellee's ex-parte motion, contrary to Section 111 of Act No. 496?
While it is true that the redemptioner should have applied to the court by petition
instead of mere Ex-parte Motion and that a hearing should have been had to
enable said Bank to interpose its objections to the surrender and consequent
cancellation of the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title in its
possession. However, that procedural defect was cured when the DBP presented
its Motion for Reconsideration of the said orders of 1 April and 7 April 1967,
contesting the validity of the Deed of Redemption on grounds discussed therein.
When the court, therefore, overruled the DBP's said objections and arguments and
affirmed its previous orders, the DBP was given its day in court, and the objection
of lack of notice or opportunity to be heard is overcome.
EE.
CHAPTER 6-7 Assigned Cases
Facts:
Natividad Sta. Ana Victoria applied to have a 1,729-square meter lot (Lot5176-D,
Mcadm-590-D of the Taguig Cadastral Mapping) in Bambang, Taguigregistered in
her name on 2 November 2004 before MeTCTaguig City. The Officeof the Solicitor
General (OSG) which represents Republic of the Philippines,opposed her
application. Victoria testified and oered documentary evidence showing the
subject lot is a portion of a 17,507-sq. m. parcel of land originally owned by her
father Genaro Sta. Ana and previously declared in his name for tax purposes.
Upon her fathers death, Victoria and her siblings inherited the land and divided it
via deed of partition among themselves. The Conversion/Subdivision Plan that
Victoria submitted as documentary evidence showed that the land is inside the
alienable and disposable are certified by the Bureau of Forest Development on 3
January 1968 (under Project 27-B as per L.C. Map 2623). She also testified that
she and her predecessors-in-interest possessed that property
continuously,uninterruptedly, openly, publicly, adversely and in the concept of
owners since the early 1940s (or for more than 30 years) and have been declared
as owners for taxation purposes. The Republic did not present any evidence in
support of its opposition. The MeTC Taguig City granted Victorias application via
its 25 January 2006decision, finding that Victoria sufficiently established her claim
and right under the land registration law to have the property registered in her
name. The Republic appealed the MeTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), as
they pointed out that Victoria failed to: first, establish continuous,
uninterrupted,open, public, adverse possession in the concept of owner; second,
the subject property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. The CA
reversed and set aside the judgment of MeTC Taguig via its 19 June2007 decision.
The Appellate Court upheld the second argument/point of the OSG, as Victoria
failed proving the property as alienable and disposable land. They said that she
could not rely on the notation in the Conversion/Subdivision Plan submitted before
the MeTC.
Issues:
1.Whether Natividad Victoria amply proved the subject lot is alienable
and disposable land of the public domain?
2.Whether she has amply proved her claim of ownership?
Legal Provisions:
Section 14 (1)of the Property Registration Decree hasthree requisites for
registration of title: (a) that the property in question isalienable and disposable
land of the public domain; (b) that the applicants by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation; and (c) that such possession is under a
bona fide claim ofownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
FACTS:
On January 19, 2001, petitioner DCD Construction, Inc., through its President and
CEO Danilo D.Dira, Jr., filed a verified application for registration of a parcel of land
situated in Taytay, DanaoCity with an area of 4,493 square meters. It was alleged
that applicant which acquired the property by purchase, together with its
predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous, open, adverse, public,
uninterrupted, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the property
for more than thirty (30) years. Thus, petitioner prayed to have its title judicially
confirmed. Based on petitioners documentary and testimonial evidence, it
appears that the approved technical description is allegedly identical to that of
another lot consisting of 3,781 square meters. 712 square meters of said lot can
be segregated as salvage zone pursuant to DENR Administrative Order No. 97-
05.On August 22, 2002, the trial court declared that the applicant DCD
CONSTRUCTION INC., has a registerable title to subject lot.On appeal by
respondent Republic of the Philippines, the CA reversed the trial court. The CA
ruled that the evidence failed to show that the land applied for was alienable and
disposable considering that only a notation in the survey plan was presented to
show the status of the property. It was further noted that the earliest tax
declaration submitted was issued only in1988. It was also held that petitioner did
not prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject lot is indeed alienable and disposable.
RULING
No. Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following: (a) that
the land formspart of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public
domain and (b) that theyhave been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership
either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.
The bare statement of petitioners witness, Andrea Batucan Enriquez, that her
family had been in possession of the subject land from the time her father bought
it after the Second World War does not suffice. Moreover, the tax declaration in
the name of petitioners father was issued only in 1994, whilethe other in its own
name was issued in 2000. She never mentioned any act of
occupation,development, cultivation or maintenance over the property throughout
the alleged length of time.
Republic v. T.A.N. Properties Inc.
Facts:
In 1999, T.A.N. Properties filed in the RTC of Batangas an application for the
registration of a land, located at Sto. Tomas, Batangas and with an area of
56.4007 hectares. To support its application, it submitted two certificates, issued
by CENRO and FMS-DENR and both certifying that the land applied for was
alienable and disposable. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Director of Lands,opposed the application on the ground that T.A.N. Properties did
not prove that the land was alienable and disposable.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the applicant proved that, the land is alienable and
disposable.
Ruling:
No. It is the burden of the applicant to prove that the land subject to registration is
alienable and disposable and for such the applicant must prove that the DENR
Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public
domain as alienable and disposable. In the present case, T.A.N. Properties did not
provide the needed proof. For the documents provided by the company, the Court
cited DENR Administrative Order No. 20 (DAO No. 20) and DAO No. 38; DAO No.
20 proves that FMS-DENR has no authority to issue certificates, classifying lands
to be alienable and disposable; and DAO No. 38 provides that CENRO can issue
certificates of land classification for lands having a maximum area of 50 hectares.
The land applied for in the case has an area of 56.4007 hectares, thus CENRO has
no jurisdiction over it. It is clear from the aforementioned DAOs that the
documents submitted by T.A.N. Properties did not prove that the land is alienable
and disposable.
Facts:
In December 1, 2004, the Corporation filed before the RTC of Agoo, La Union four
applications for land registration covering various parcels of land. The Republic
opposed the applications, citing Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution. The
corporation presented testimonial evidence as well as documentary evidence,
particularly the Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans, which all noted that
thesubject lands are "inside alienable and disposable area as per project No. 5-A,
LCMap No. 2891," to support its claim .After the trial, the RTC granted the
application of the corporation by relyingon the testimonies oered by the
witnesses of the latter. On appeal by the Republic, the CA reversed the trial
courts decision, holding that the corporation presented no evidence to show that
the subject parcels of land have been reclassified by theState as alienable or
disposable to a private person. The corporation in its answer,I nsisted that the
Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans it presented proved that theparcels of land
are alienable.
Issue: Whether or not the parcels of land are proven alienable and disposable.
Ruling: No. The Court ruled that the Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans are
hardly thecompetent pieces of evidence that the law requires. The notation by a
geodeticengineer on the survey plans that properties are alienable and disposable
does notsuffice to prove the lands classification.
FACTS:
Petitioner Soledad Yu Chang, for herself and in representation of her brother and
co-petitioner, Vicente Yu Chang, filed a petition for registration of title over a piece
of land. In their petition, they declared that they are the co-owners of the subject
lots; that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, physical,
material, exclusive, open, occupation and possession of the above described
parcels of land for more than 100 years; and that allegedly, they have
continuously, peacefully, and adversely possessed the property in the concept of
owners.
Petitioners insist that the subject properties could no longer be considered and
classified as forest land since there are buildings, residential houses and even
government structures existing and standing on the land.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court erred in dismissing their application for
registration of title on the ground that they failed to prove compliance with the
requirements of Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
HELD:
Petitioners did not adduce any evidence to the eect that the lots subject of their
application are alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Instead,
petitioners contend that the subject properties could no longer be considered and
classified as forest land since there are building structures, residential houses and
even government buildings existing and standing on the area. This, however, is
hardly the proof required under the law.
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such
classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest
cover. Unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in an official
proclamation to that eect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not
apply.
Facts:
Candido filed with the RTC of Bulacan a petition for reconstitution of theburned
Original of TCT No. T-141671 and issuance of a new owners duplicate copyin lieu
of the destroyed one. Attached with his petition are the Kasulatan, Plan, Technical
Description and Tax Declaration of the land. The RTC granted the petitionbut the
Republic appealed the ruling to CA arguing about the sufficiency to order
areconstitution of the lost title of those presented by Candido. The CA also held
insufficient evidence the Kasulatan, which was executed only in 1996, long after
theoriginal TCT was burned and the owners duplicate title was lost but it also
affirmedthe RTCs order regarding the issuance of a new owners duplicate copy in
lieu of the destroyed one.
Issue: Whether or not the issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of the
Certificate of Title in lieu of the destroyed one is proper.
Ruling: