RED NOTES 2001-2002

JURISPRUDENCE ON LAND REGISTRATION CASES

1. FRAUD

A title issued pursuant to a patent under administrative proceedings is as indefeasible as

a title secured in a judicial proceeding. But even after the lapse of one year from the
issuance of the patent, the government may still initiate an action for reversion of the land to
the public domain if the land is titled through fraud or misrepresentation as when the
applicant stated that subject land is exclusively possessed by him when in truth it overlaps
the land of an adjacent owner. (Republic of the Philippines vs. CA and Heirs of
Bullongan, 255 SCRA 335).

Generally, a forged deed is void but can be the root of a valid title if registered in the
name of the forger then transferred to an innocent purchaser for value absent any showing
that the buyer had any part in the anomaly. Hence, the rights of the innocent purchaser for
value must be respected. The proper recourse of the true owner is to bring an action for
damages against the party who caused the fraud. (Eduarte vs. CA, 253 SCRA 391).

A party deprived of his land by confirmation of title through actual fraud may seek for
reopening of a decree of registration within one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration. Before the expiration of the one year period from the entry of the decree, the
court retains control of the decision which, after hearing and actual fraud was proved to exist,
may adjudicate the land to any party entitled thereto. (Heirs of Manuel Roxas and Trinidad
De Leon vs. CA, 270 SCRA 309).

Actual fraud or extrinsic fraud proceeds from the intentional deception produced by
means of misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Extrinsic fraud prevents the
party from presenting his entire case to the court. (Heirs of Manuel Roxas and Trinidad De
Leon vs. CA, 270 SCRA 309).

Fraud is extrinsic or collateral where a litigant commits acts outside of the trial of the case
the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial, a real contest or from presenting his
case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, but
to the manner in which it was procured so that there is no fair submission of the controversy.
Accordingly, use of forged document or perjured witness are not extrinsic fraud as it does not
preclude the participation of any party in the proceedings. (Strait Times, Inc. vs. CA, 294
SCRA 714).

Constructive trust is created in equity in order to prevent unjust enrichment. Thus, one
who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property
which he ought not, in equity and good conscience so hold, has no valid title to said property
and therefore cannot dispose of the same. Hence, a widower who adjudicates the entire
conjugal property to himself holds the children's share in the property in trust. (Marquez vs.
CA, 300 SCRA 653).

A certificate of title cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate fraud. Any false statement
in the application for a land patent shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the same even
after the lapse of one year from issuance of said patent pursuant to Section 101 of the Public
Land Act wherein an action may be undertaken for the reversion of the land to the public
domain. (Francisco Baguio vs. Republic, et al., 301 SCRA 450).

CIVIL LAW 1
RED NOTES 2001-2002

2. GOOD FAITH; INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE

One who deals with property covered by the Torrens system of registration need not go
beyond the title to determine the condition of the property. (Legarda vs. CA, 280 SCRA
642).

Good Faith is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state of
condition of mind which can only be judged by actual or fancied tokens or signs. Otherwise
stated, 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. (Legarda vs. Ca, 280 SCRA 642).

A person dealing with registered land has the right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title
without the need of inquiring further. Hence, a purchaser who buys property without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full fair price for
the property is a buyer in good faith. (Sandoval vs. CA, 260 SCRA 283).

A person in good faith and for value is defined as one who buys property of another
without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a
full and fair price of the time of the purchase or before he has notice that other person has a
right to, or interest in the property. As a rule, he who asserts the status of a purchaser in
good faith and for value has the burden of proving said assertion. As is the common practice
in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises is a safeguard a cautious and
prudent purchaser usually takes and should he find out that the land is occupied by anybody
else other than the seller who is not in actual possession, it is incumbent upon the purchaser
to verify the extent of the occupants' possessory rights. (Spouses Sonya Mathay and
Ismael Mathay, Jr. vs. CA, 295 SCRA 356).

One who introduce improvements on a lot without the consent and knowledge of the
registered owner is not a builder in good faith. Hence, the grant of a right of way does not
legally entitle the grantee to occupy said right of way and the introduction of improvements
thereon makes him a builder in bad faith. (The Congregation of the Religion of the Virgin
Mary vs. CA and Protasio, 291 SCRA 385).

(a) An RTC court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an
adverse claim.
(b) Purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without
notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a
full and fair price for the same on the time of the purchase or before he has notice of
the claims or interest of some other person in the property. (GSIS vs. CA, 240 SCRA
737).

The right of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected even if the
seller of the property obtained title thereto thru fraud citing Santos vs. CA, 189 SCRA
declaring that forgery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence. (Obsequio vs. CA, 230 SCRA 550).

3. OWNERSHIP / POSSESSION

An action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on constructive or implied trust

prescribes in ten (10) years reckoned from the issuance of title or date of registration. This
rule applies only when plaintiff or party enforcing the trust is not in possession of the
property, but if he is in possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect is
an action to quiet title, does not prescribe. (Cabrera vs. CA and Felicio, ET Al., 267 SCRA
339).

CIVIL LAW 2
RED NOTES 2001-2002
In ejectment cases, even if the question of ownership is raised, the court may pass upon
such issue only to determine the question of possession but it cannot dispose with finality the
issue of ownership. (Dizon vs. CA and Elizabeth Santiago, 264 SCRA 391).

A party's failure to raise a restraining arm or a shout of dissent to another party's

possession of a parcel of land in a span of thirty (30) years is contrary to his claim of
ownership. (Heirs of Teodoro Dele Cruz vs. CA, Et Al., 298 SCRA 172).

Torrens system does not vest title because it is not recognized as a mode of acquiring
ownership. While registered land under the system makes the title thereto imprescriptible,
the same may be lost by laches caused by a party's inaction or passivity in asserting his
rights over the disputed property. (Santiago vs. CA, 278 SCRA 803).

When a person has no knowledge that he encroached on his neighbor's lot, he is deemed
a builder in good faith until the latter informed him of his encroachment on his property.
Good faith is always presumed and upon him who alleges bad faith of the possessor of his
property rests the burden of proof.
The right to choose between appropriating the improvement or selling the land where the
improvement stands is given to the owner of the land who may also obligate the builder to
purchase the land, otherwise, the owner may remove the improvements thereon.
The builder is not obliged to purchase the land if its value is more than the building, in
which case, he has to pay the rent to the landowner.
If a sale is agreed upon, it must be based on the prevailing market value based not on the
time of the taking the land but at the time of payment. (Eden Ballatan vs. CA, ET AL., 304
SCRA 34).

Tax declaration and tax receipts become strong evidence of ownership acquired by
prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession. (Oclarit vs. CA, 233 SCRA
39).

4. PUBLIC LANDS

If public land was titled but turned out to be forest land instead of agricultural land, the
one year period to file a review of the decree does not apply. On the contrary, the land may
revert to the public domain upon petition of the Solicitor General. (Republic vs. CA and
Heirs of Ribaya, 258 SCRA 223).

Absent any publication in newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court
cannot validly confirm and register the title of the applicant. Publication of the notice of initial
hearing in the Official Gazette is not enough to confer jurisdiction to the court because the
law requires publication also in a newspaper. The word "shall" denotes an imperative and
thus indicates the mandatory character of the statute that publication shall be in the Official
Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation. (Director of Lands vs. CA, 276 SCRA
276).

Under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act (CA 141), persons who complied with the
requirements of a claimant to claim title to land such as open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land of the public domain for a 30-year period
prior to the filing of application is deemed to have acquired the land by operation of law and
the Director of Lands has no authority to dispose of the same because the land ceased to be
part of the public domain. (Rural Bank of Compostela vs. CA, 271 SCRA 76).

A free patent issued to private land has no effect whatsoever. The remedy of the
landowner is to file an action to quiet title which does not prescribe. (Heirs of Mariano
Nagano vs. CA, 282 SCRA 43).

CIVIL LAW 3
RED NOTES 2001-2002
The grantees' title of ownership of patented land to be perfected should comply with the
requirements of the law one of which is to keep the property for herself and her family within
the prescribed period of five (5) years. If the requirements are not complied with, the State
may take action for reversion of the land to the public domain. (Republic vs. CA and
Josefina Morato, 281 SCRA 639).

When the seawater moves toward the estate of an owner, the invaded property becomes
foreshore land and becomes part of the public domain. Citing the case of Government vs.
Cabangis, the land under the Torrens system which becomes part of the foreshore land
reverts to the public domain and the title is annulled. (Republic vs. CA and Josefina
Morato, 281 SCRA 639).

Lands covered by a sales patent application cannot be validly mortgaged by the applicant
because title thereto is not yet released by the government. While it is true that the applicant
is in possession of the land, it is because he should comply with the requirement prescribed
by law in cultivating the land before the final patent could be issued in his favor.
(Development Bank of the Philippines vs. CA, 253 SCRA 414).

Period required in possession and occupation of public land to qualify as claimant:

a. Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act (CA 141) - December 1, 1936 - those who by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership except as against the
government since July 26, 1894. x x x.
b. Republic Act 1942 - June 22, 1957 - amended Section 48 (b) of CA 141 by
prescribing open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation for
at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title.
c. Presidential Decree 1073 - January 23, 1977 - amended further Section 48 (b) of CA
141 by stating that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation by the applicant himself or through his predecessors-in-
interest under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12, 1945.
(See also Sec. 14 of PD 1529)
Accordingly, the period of thirty (30) years of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation would not suffice to confer title to a settler, particularly so when
the President reserves said public land for a public purpose. (Republic Opol National
Secondary Technical School vs. Nicanor Doldol, 295 SCRA 359).

A void act cannot be validated or ratified as when a subsequent release of a forest land
as alienable and disposable does not cure any defect in the issuance of a homestead patent
for said land. It is settled that forest land are not capable of private appropriation and
possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them to private property. (Spouses
Federico Reyes, ET AL. Vs. CA and Republic, 295 SCRA 296).

Foreshore lands or submerged areas which may be reclaimed under RA 1899 by local
governments are part of the public domain which could only be subject of reclamation by the
national government under PD 3-A. The authority granted to local governments to undertake
reclamation projects was a mere grant by the sovereign which, in the exercise of police
power, may be withdrawn as shown in PD 3-A. (Republic vs. CA and Pasay City, Et Al.
(Cultural Center), 299 SCRA 199).

The prohibition against the alienation of the public lands acquired by homestead or free
patent commences on the date of approval of the application and the 5-year period of
prohibition commences from the issuance of the patent, the reckoning point is actually the
date of the approval of the application and the prohibition embraces the entire 5-year period
from and after the grant. Hence, the prohibition will not apply when an execution sale took

CIVIL LAW 4
RED NOTES 2001-2002

place before the issuance of the patent. (Pablito Taneo, Et Al vs. CA and Abdon Gilig,
304 SCRA 308).

Under Section 101 of the Public Land Act (CA 141) an action for reversion to the public
domain of land fraudulently titled may be initiated even after the lapse of one year as said
action is not barred by prescription. (Fransico Baguio vs. Republic, Et Al., 301 SCRA 450).

The government's prolonged inaction for twenty (20) years whereby it failed to correct
and recover the increased area in the land of a private party militates against its cause as it is
tantamount to laches which is the failure or neglect for unreasonable length of time to do that
which by exercising due diligence could have been done earlier. While the general rule is that
the state cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes and errors of its officials and its agents,
this is subject to exception if it would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy
adopted to protect the public. The government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably with
its citizens and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing. (Republic vs. CA and St.
Jude Enterprises, 301 SCRA 3).

Alluvion gives to the owners of land adjoining the banks of rivers and streams any
accretion which is gradually received from the effects of the current of waters pursuant to
Article 457 of the New Civil code, the rationale being to compensate the owners being
continually exposed to the destructive force of water and subjected to various easements
citing Agustine vs. IAC 187 SCRA 218 and Binalay vs. Manalo 195 SCRA 374.(Ferrer vs.
Bautista, 231 SCRA 257).

Inalienable public lands cannot be acquired irrespective of the period of possession until
so classified as alienable and disposable by the executive branch of the government
(Ampoloquio vs CA 232 SCRA)

(a) The decision of a land registration court, ordering the consolidation and registration of
title being the result of a proceeding in rem binds the whole world.
(b) Requisites for the acquisition of property - Accretion as a mode of acquiring property
under Article 457 NCC requires the concurrence of the ff:
1. That the deposition of soil or sediments is gradual and imperceptible.
2. That it be the result of the action of the waters of the river.
3. That the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to riverbanks.
(c) Under the Public Land Act where free patent and title was registered in the name of
the applicant who employed fraud, the principle of indefeasibility of title is unavailing

5. DECREE OF REGISTRATION

As long as a final decree has not been entered by the LRA and the period of one year
has not yet elapsed from the date of entry of such decree the title is not finally adjudicated
and the decision of the court in the registration proceedings continuous to be under the
control and sound discretion of the court rendering it. (Ramos vs Rodriguez, 244 SCRA
418).

When the court decision has become final and the court directs the LRA to issue a
decree of registration the LRA is not legally obligated to follow the court's order when the
land sought to be registered is discovered to have been already decreed and titled in the
name of another. (Ramos vs Rodriguez, 244 SCRA 418).

Party deprived of his property in a cadastral proceeding may file within one year from
entry of the decree a petition for review. (Linzag vs Ca, 291 SCRA 304).

CIVIL LAW 5
RED NOTES 2001-2002
An action for reconveyance of land if the property is not yet transferred to an innocent
purchaser value, attacks not only the judgment of the cadastral court but seeks confirmation
by the court of plaintiff's title to the land. (Linzag vs Ca, 291 SCRA 304).

6. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Real purpose of Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to land and put a stop to
any question of legality of title except claims which have been recorded in the certificate of
title at the time of registration. Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser for
value in good faith holds title to land free from all encumbrances, except those provided by
law. Hence, a registered owner who executed a deed of sale in favor of another without any
consideration (except their common-law relationship) and caused the registration of said
conveyance validly transmits the property which can be conveyed to an innocent purchaser
for value. (Gloria Cruz vs. CA, 281 SCRA 492).

Where two (2) certificates of title purport to cover the same land, the certificate bearing
the earlier date prevails. Hence, in cases where two certificates cover the same land, a
certificate of title is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the land had already
been registered and an earlier certificate is in existence. (MWSS vs. CA, 215 SCRA 783).

Certificate of title merely confirms or records the title already existing and vested. They
cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner nor can they be used as a shield for
the commission of fraud nor to permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another.
Hence, one who loses his property and review of decree is no longer available, the equitable
remedy of reconveyance may be restored to. (Esquivas vs. CA, 272 SCRA 803).

A certificate of title is conclusive evidence with respect to ownership of the land described
therein and other matters that can be litigated and decided in land registration proceedings.
Hence, an application for registration of land already covered by an existing title constitutes a
collateral attack. It is therefore the duty of a land registration court to determine whether the
issuance of a new certificate will alter a valid and existing certificate of title. (Carvajal vs.
CA, 280 SCRA 351).

A land registration proceeding is in rem and therefore a decree of registration issued

thereafter is binding upon and conclusive against all persons including the government. A
decree of registration that has become final shall be conclusive not only on questions actually
contested and determined but also upon all matters that ought to be litigated or decided in
land registration proceedings. (Teofilo Cacho vs. CA, 269 SCRA 359).

Registration does not vest title but is merely evidence of such title over a particular
property. The defense of indefeasibility of Torrens title does not extend to a transferee
thereof who takes the certificate of title with notice of a flaw in the title. (Cabrera vs. CA and
Felicio, Et Al., 267 SCRA 339).

A certificate of title 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 is in existence. Where two
titles have been issued on different dates to two different persons for the same parcel of land,
even if both are presumed to be titleholders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that
he who holds the earlier title should prevail. Assuming that there was regularity in
registration leading to the issuance of title, the better approach is to trace the original
certificate from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived, should there be one
common original title, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must
prevail absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration. (Spouses
Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr. vs. CA, 295 SCRA 356).

CIVIL LAW 6
RED NOTES 2001-2002
Annotation in the certificate of title that a parcel of land is not tenanted are not conclusive
proof and therefore not binding upon the courts. (Policarpio Nisnisan vs. CA, 294 SCRA
173).

Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title to determine the condition of the property. Thus, all the property of the
marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or wife. (Heirs of the Spouses Benito Ganico vs. CA,
281 SCRA 495).

When the certificate of title is issued in the name of the original buyer on installment who
died before completion of payment, the heirs who continued the installment payments may
invoke Section 108 of PD 1529 to correct the error and have the land registered in their
names. (Ernesto Dawson, Et Al., vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City and RTC, QC,
295 SCRA 733, citing the case of Cruz vs. Tan, 93 Phil 348).

7. LACHES

Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do
that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier or negligence
or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or has declined to assert it. (Margolles vs. CA,
230 SCRA 97).

8. REMEDIES

1. The Writ of Possession. A writ of possession is an order issued by the land

registration court commanding the sheriff to enter the land and to deliver the possession
thereof to the successful registrant.
A. A writ of possession may be availed of by a successor-in-interest.
B. It is ministerial and it can be invoked as a matter of right. The court has no
discretion and a judge who refuses it can be compelled by mandamus to issue the
writ. (De Luna vs. Kayanan, 61 SCRA 49).
C. A collateral attack on the title does not bar the issuance of a writ of
possession. Sorsogon vs. Makalintal, 80 Phil 259).
D. A writ is available against all (1) persons who answered and appeared; (2)
persons who were served with notice but did not appear or answer; (3) persons
who were defeated in the case; and persons who unlawfully occupied the land
during the proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
E. However, a judgment in a land registration cannot be executed by the
issuance of a final decree of registration while the case is on appeal. Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court which allows execution while the case is on appeal cannot be
applied because it violates PD No. 1529 which provides that a final decree of
registration can only be issued after the decision has become final. But more than
that it is fraught with dangerous consequences and goes against the very essence
of the torrens system of land registration. (Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68
SCRA 177).

2. Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration. A remedy found in the Rules of Court, it
is available during the period within which to appeal (15 days from receipt) to losing party in
land registration proceedings in a suppletory character and may be granted on the following
grounds:
A. Fraud, accident, mistake or inexcusable neglect which ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against and by reason of which the movant's rights have
been impaired.

CIVIL LAW 7
RED NOTES 2001-2002
B. Newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered prior to
the trial with the exercise of our diligence and which is of such character as would
probably alter the outcome of the case.
C. The evidence is not sufficient to support the decision; and
D. The decision is contrary to law.

3. Appeal. This remedy may be availed of within fifteen (15) days from notice of
judgment. An appeal can be perfected thru the simple expedient of serving a notice of
appeal upon the adverse party and the court. The record on appeal and the appeal bond
have been eliminated under the new rules promulgated by the Supreme Court under BP No.
129.

4. Petition for Relief from Judgment. When a party is unjustly deprived of a hearing or
has been prevented from taking an appeal due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence he may file a petition for relief from judgment with the same court within six (6)
months from the entry of judgment.

5. Petition for Review of the Degree of Registration. A remedy expressly provided in

Section 32 of PD No. 1529 (formerly Section 38, Act 496), this remedy has the following
elements:
A. This petition must be filed by a person claiming dominical or other real
rights to the land registered in the name of another.
B. The registration of the land in the name of the respondent was procured by
means of actual, (not just constructive) fraud, which must be extrinsic. Fraud is
actual if the registration was made through deceit or any other intentional act of
down right dishonesty to enrich oneself at the expense of another.
C. The petition, must be filed within one (1) year from the date of the issuance
of the decree.
D. Title to the land was not passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
(Libudan vs. Gil, 48 SCRA 27; Pabico vs. Arrelane, 30 SCRA 539; RE vs. CA,
578 GR No. 40402, March 16, 1987).

6. Action for Reconveyance. This remedy is in the nature of an action in personam

that may be availed of by a person claiming to own the land which was wrongfully registered
in the name of defendant. It is based on Section 32, par. 2, which provided that upon the
expiration of the period of one year the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued
shall be incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case
may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person
responsible for the fraud. Its purpose is not to annul the decree because at this stage
annulment thereof is no longer possible. For this remedy to succeed, the following elements
must be present:
A. The action must be filed by a person claiming ownership or dominical
rights over the land which was registered in the name of the defendant.
B. That the registration of the land in the defendant's name was procured by
fraud or mistake.
C. That the action is brought within four (4) years from the date of discovery
of the fraud or mistake but not later than ten (10) years from the date of
registration.
D. That the property was not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
(Ciriaco vs. Sorsogon, Et Al., GR No. L-59879, May 13, 1985). Hence, it is an
established rule that:
a. Where a trustee registers a piece of entrusted land in his name, the real
owner can always ask for reconveyance of the title. But if the trustee has
repudiated the trust and such act has been made known to the cestui que
trust, and evidence of such repudiation is clear and conclusive, the
prescription will lie and reconveyance barred. (Ramos vs. Ramos, G.R. No.
L-19872, Dec. 3, 1974).

CIVIL LAW 8
RED NOTES 2001-2002

7. The Assurance Fund. This is a special fund created under the torrens system for the
compensation of certain persons who sustain losses by the operation of the system.
A. Source of Fund. It is made up of one-fourth of 1% of the assessed value
of the real estate, to be paid upon the original registration of a certificate of title of
a building or other improvement on the land, or upon the entry of a certificate of
title in the name of the registered owner.

B. Elements required for compensation to prosper:

1. The claimant must be a person who sustains damages or is deprived of his
land or any estate therein as a consequence of bringing the land under the
operations of the Torrens System. (Urbana vs. Bernardo, 62 SCRA 603).
2. The claimant must not be guilty of negligence or laches (Dela Cruz vs.
Fabie, 35 Phil 144; Estrellado vs. Martinez, 38 Phil. 256).
3. The loss or damage was due to fraud or in consequence of any error,
omission, mistake or malfeasance of personnel of the register of deeds in the
performance of their duties. (Qayanadato vs. Treasurer of the Philippines,
49 Phil.; Hernandez vs. Alcanaz, Lawyers Journal 230).
4. The plaintiff is barred or otherwise precluded from bringing an action for
the review of the decree or recovery of such land or estate or interest therein,
or damages from the party causing the loss or damage. (Pascual vs.
Kingcome Macleod; CA VIII Lawyer's Journal 767).
5. The action must be brought within six (6) years from the issuance of the
certificate of title. (Villanueva vs. Enriquez, 44 Phil 885).
6. The loss is not caused by breach of trust, whether express, implied or
constructive committed by any registered owner. (Sec 10 PD 1529).

After the lapse of one year, a decree of registration is no longer open to review or attack
but the aggrieved party may file a civil action for reconveyance which is in personam
provided that the property has not yet been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value. It is
essential that in order to recover the ownership of the real property that the person claiming
has a better right must not only prove his ownership but also satisfactorily prove the identity
of the land. (Javier vs. A, 231 SCRA 498).

9. ADVERSE CLAIM

The purpose of the annotation of adverse claim is to protect the interest of a person over
real property where the registration of such right or interest is not otherwise provided under
the Torrens system. Mere registration of adverse interest does not make such claim valid nor
is it permanent in character because judicial determination of the issue of ownership is still
necessary. (Garbin vs. CA, 253 SCRA 187).

While the law states that the adverse claim is effective within 30 days, the annotation
thereof remains and cancellation is necessary, otherwise the inscription will continue as a lien
on the title. To limit to 30 days the effectivity of an adverse claim will defeat the very purpose
for which the law provides for the remedy of inscription of the adverse claim/ Hence, a
sheriff's levy on property already covered by an adverse claim is considered subservient to
said claim. (Sajonas vs. CA, 250 SCRA 737).

A court sitting as a land registration court may determine the validity of an adverse claim
and, if found to be invalid, order the cancellation of said adverse claim. (GSIS vs. CA, 240
SCRA 737).

A notice of adverse claim annotated on the title of a registered owner remains valid even
after the lapse of thirty (30) days. As long as no petition for its cancellation has been filed,

CIVIL LAW 9
RED NOTES 2001-2002
the notice of adverse claim remains. A hearing must first be conducted wherein the parties
are given the opportunity to prove the propriety or impropriety of the adverse claim. Hence,

the cancellation automatically being done by the Register of Deeds after the lapse of 30 days
from registration is improper. (Rogelio Duarte vs. CA, Et Al., 298 SCRA 388).

10. LIS PENDENS

One who deals with property subject of lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser
in good faith; neither can he acquire a better right than that of his predecessor-in-interest.
(Yu vs. CA, 251 SCRA 509).

Once annotated upon the original copy of the title, the notice of lis pendens is an
announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation serving as a
warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk. (Yu vs.
CA, 251 SCRA 509).

The notice of lis pendens is but an incident in an action. It does not affect the merits
thereof. It is intended merely to constructively advice or warn all people who deal with the
property that they deal with it at their own risk and whatever rights they may acquire in the
property are subject to the result of the action. (Heirs of Maria Marasigan vs. IAC, 152
SCRA 253).

The cancellation of lis pendens is a mere incident in the action and may be ordered by
the court at any given time. (Magdalena Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. CA, 184 SCRA
325).

11. RECONSTITUTION

Reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates in the office of the RD can be done only
thru judicial proceedings. Notice of hearings shall be sent to the RD and the LR
Commissioner. Decision on Reconstitution becomes final only after 30 days from receipt
thereof by said officials.
1. When it is conceded that some deficiencies exist in the formal requisites for the
issuance of a transfer certificate of title covering a parcel of land with an increased or
expanded area, and where the Register of Deeds noting such facts has
recommended the cancellation of the certificate of title pursuant to LRC Circular No.
167, there is a serious or substantial controversy as to the ownership of the
expanded area. This kind of controversy can only be heard in the exercise of the
courts’ general jurisdiction, the proper remedy would be a petition for declaratory
relief under Section 64 of the Rules of Court. (Santos vs. Aquino, GR No. 32949,
Nov. 28, 1980).

2. In reconstitution of allegedly lost certificate of title, greatest caution must be exercised

in acting on such petitions, especially when it is filed after an inexplicable delay of 25
years. It is mandatory that:
a) Aside from publication actual and personal notice be duly served to indispensable
parties, i.e. the actual owners and possessors of the land involved.;
b) The land has in fact been previously registered under Act 496 but the
corresponding certificate of title has been lost or destroyed. In other words, the
title is no longer subsisting.

The reconstitution of a certificate of title literally and within the meaning of RA No. 26
denotes the restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in
its original form and condition.

CIVIL LAW 10
RED NOTES 2001-2002
Courts must proceed with extreme caution in proceedings for reconstitution of titles under
RA No. 26, and should not only require strict compliance therewith but also establish the

identity of every person who files the petition. If filed by some other person than the
registered owner, no effort should be spared to assure itself of the authenticity and due
execution of petitioner's authority to institute the proceedings. It should avoid itself being
unwittingly used as a tool of swindlers and impostors robbing someone of his title. (Heirs of
Pedro Pinoto vs. Hon. Jude Dulay, GR No. 58694, July 2, 1990).

The essential requirements in the reconstitution of title should be complied with are the
following:
a) Notice of petition should be published in the Official Gazette and posted on the main
entrance of the provincial and municipal building where the land is situated;
b) The notice should state the number of the lost or destroyed title, the name of the
registered owner, occupants or persons in possession; the names of adjoining owners
and interested parties; the area and boundaries of the property and stating the date
on which all interested parties must appear;
c) Copy of the notice must also be sent by registered mail or otherwise to every person
named therein or to the occupant or adjoining owners whose addresses are known, at
least 30 days prior to the hearing;
d) At the date of the hearing of the petition, the petitioner must submit proof of
publication, posting and service of notice as required by the court. (Calalang vs.
Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, 231 SCRA 88; Ortigas vs. Velasco, 234 SCRA
455).

12. JURISDICTION

The distinction between general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction
when acting as a land registration court has been eliminated by Sec. 2 of PD 1529. Hence,
the RTCs now have authority to act on questions after original registration with power to hear
and decide substantial and contentious issues to avoid multiplicity of suits. (Ignacio vs. CA,
246 SCRA 243).

The land registration court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue regarding the
existence or non-existence of tenancy relationship under RA 3844 (Agricultural Reform Code
as amended by RA 6389) since exclusive jurisdiction over such relationship was vested by
the law to the Court of Agrarian Relations, now the Regional Trial Court pursuant to BP 129.
(Ouano vs. CA, 237 SCRA 122).

Presidential Decree 1529 abolished the difference between the general jurisdiction of
regular courts and the limited jurisdiction of the land registration court such that pursuant to
Section 2 of PD 1529, the court may issue a writ of possession to effectuate the result of a
tax sale, citing the leading case of Averia vs. Caguion, 146 SCRA where it was declared that
a land registration court has jurisdiction to decide contentious and substantial issues after
original registration. (Cloma vs. CA, 234 SCRA 665).

(a) No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds unless the
owner's duplicate certificate is presented together with the instrument except in some
cases or upon order of the court for cause shown.
(b) Any lien annotated on the previous certificate of title which subsist should be
incorporated in or carried over to the new TCT. (Leticia Ligon vs. CA and Iglesia ni
Kristo, 244 SCRA 693).

CIVIL LAW 11