Transportation Office, is the rightful owner thereof,
and as such, he is entitled to its possession.
PAGE 84 – DOUBLE SALE
TAINA MANIGQUE-STONE VS CATTLEYA LAND,
INC. (G.R. No. 195975, September 5, 2016)
“Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except
to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified
to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.” That
aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are
disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain.
Hence, they are also disqualified from acquiring
private lands. The primary purpose of the
constitutional provision is the conservation of the
national patrimony.
PAGE 84 – DOUBLE SALE
DOMINGO VS MANZANO (G.R. No. 201883,
November 16, 2016)
As what the Court ruled in Luzon Development Bank
v. Enriquez, 654 Phil. 315 (2011), since failure to
pay the price in full in a contract to sell renders
the same ineffective and without force and
effect, then there is no sale to speak of.
In the case at bar, the petitioners failed to pay the
purchase price in full, while Aquino did, and thereafter
she was able to register her purchase and obtain a
new certificate of title in her name. As far as this Court
is concerned, there is only one sale - and that is, the
one in Aquino's favor. Since there is only one valid
sale, the rule on double sales under Article 1544 of the
Civil Code does not apply.
PAGE 33 – REMEDIES TO RECOVER
POSSESSION
SIY VS TOMLIN (G.R. No. 205998, April 24, 2017)
As what the Court ruled in Superlines Transoortation
Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction
Company, 548 Phil. 354 (2007), “In a complaint for
replevin, the claimant must convincingly show that he
is either the owner or clearly entitled to the possession
of the object sought to be recovered, and that the
defendant, who is in actual or legal possession
thereof, wrongfully detains the same." In the case at
bar, since Ong was able to sell the subject vehicle to
Chua, petitioner thus ceased to be the owner thereof.
Nor is he entitled to the possession of the vehicle;
together with his ownership, petitioner lost his right of
possession over the vehicle. Considering that he was
no longer the owner or rightful possessor of the
subject vehicle at the time he filed Civil Case No. Q-
11-69644 in July, 2011, petitioner may not seek a
return of the same through replevin. Quite the
contrary, respondent, who obtained the vehicle from
Chua and registered the transfer with the Land
PAGE 132 – REGALIAN DOCTRINE
REPUBLIC VS SPOUSES BENIGNO (G.R. No.
205492, March 11, 2015)
Under the Regalian doctrine, "all lands of the public
domain belong to the State, and the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership in land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony."
Furthermore, as provided under PD 1529, applicants
must prove: "(1) that the subject land forms part of
the disposable and alienable lands of the public
domain at the time the application for registration is
filed; and (2) that they have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since
12 June 1945 or earlier.
PAGE 133 – ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
*see page 135
BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT VS BALCOM-TAMBUYAT
(G.R. No. 202805, March 23, 2015)
Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for the
erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of
title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1) when
registered interests of any description, whether
vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have
terminated and ceased; (2) when new interests have
arisen or been created which do not appear upon the
certificate; (3) when any error, omission or mistake
was made in entering a certificate or any
memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate;
(4) when the name of any person on the certificate
has been changed; (5) when the registered owner has
been married, or, registered as married, the marriage
has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs
or creditors will thereby be affected; (6) when a
corporation, which owned registered land and has
been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within
three years after its dissolution; and (7) when there is
reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of
title. In the case at bar, the situation falls under (3)
and (7), where the Registrar of Deeds of Bulacan
committed an error in issuing TCT T-145321 in the
name of "Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E.
Banguis" when, in truth and in fact, respondent
Wenifreda – and not Banguis – is Adriano’s lawful
spouse.
PAGE 136
REPUBLIC VS PASICOLAN (G.R. No. 198543, April
15, 2015)
Section 2. Original certificates of title
shall be reconstituted from such of the
sources hereunder enumerated as may
be available, in the following order:
(a) The owner's duplicate of the
certificate of title;
(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or
lessee's duplicate of the certificate of
title;
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of
title, previously issued by the register of
deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) An authenticated copy of the decree
of registration or patent, as the case
may be, pursuant to which the original
certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on file in the registry of
deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said
document, is mortgaged, leased or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy
of said document showing that its
original had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the
judgment of the court, is sufficient and
proper basis for reconstituting the lost
or destroyed certificate of title.
As discussed in Republic vs. Heirs of Julio Ramos, a
vague Certification by the LRA without stating the
nature of the decree, as well as the claimant in such
case cannot be considered as a sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting a lost or destroyed certificate
of title. Neither do the tax declarations submitted
support respondents’ cause. As held in Republic of the
Philippines vs. Santua, a tax declaration can only be
prima facie evidence of claim of ownership, which,
however, is not the issue in the reconstitution
proceeding. The non-submission of Affidavit of Loss by
the person who was allegedly in actual possession of
OCT No. 8450 at the time of its loss casts doubt on
respondents’ claim that OCT No. 8450 once existed
and subsequently got lost.
PAGE 130 – TORRENS SYSTEM
MAHILUM VS ILANO (G.R. No. 197923, June 22,
2015)
Since a new title was never issued in respondents’
favor, and instead, title remained in petitioner’s name,
the former never came within the coverage and
protection of the Torrens System, where the issue of
good or bad faith becomes relevant. Since
respondents never acquired a new certificate of title
in their name, the issue of their good or bad faith
which is central in annulment of title case is of no
consequence; petitioner’s case is for annulment of the
Agreement and Deed of Absolute Sale, and not one to
annul title since the certificate of title is still in her
name.
It is petitioner who must be protected under the
Torrens System – as the registered owner of the
subject property. “A certificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title
to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein. The real purpose of the Torrens
System of land registration is to quiet title to land and
put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of
the title.”
PAGE 131 – TORRENS SYSTEM
REPUBLIC VS. DAYAOEN (G.R. No. 2007773, July
8, 2015)
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State. The classification and
reclassification of such lands are the prerogative of the
Executive Department. The President may at any time
transfer these public lands from one class to another.
While judicial notice of Presidential Proclamation No.
209 may be taken, the DENR certificate of land
classification status or any other proof of the alienable
and disposable character of the land may not be
dispensed with, because it provides a more recent
appraisal of the classification of the land as alienable
and disposable, or that the land has not been re-
classified in the meantime. The applicable law –
Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 – requires that the
property sought to be registered is alienable and
disposable at the time the application for registration
of title is filed; one way of establishing this material
fact is through the DENR certificate of land
classification status which is presumed to be the most
recent appraisal of the status and character of the
property.
Such notations or certifications in approved survey
plans refer only to the technical correctness of the
surveys plotted in the plans and have nothing to do
whatsoever with the nature and character of the
properties surveyed, and that they only establish that
the land subject of the application for registration falls
within the approved alienable and disposable area per
verification through survey by the proper government
office; they do not indicate at all that the property
sought to be registered is alienable and disposable at
the time the application for registration of title is filed.