Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS CASE DIGEST CERNAL, JOHN VINCENT I. LLB 2-2 HEIRS OF BRUSAS VS.

COURT OF APPEALS 313 SCRA 176 FACTS: The case revolves around the dispute over a 19-hectare land located in San Francisco, Baao, Camarines Sur. Petitioners heirs of Juan, Mariano, Tarcela and Josefa Brusas claimed that said property, formerly a public land, was part of the 33 hectare land in the actual physical possession of their grandfather Sixto Brusas who have inherited the same from their great grandfather. On july 1968 Ines Brusas applied and was granted free a patent over lots 1 and 2 of said land. Thus when mariano and josefa Brusas filed their sworn statements of landholdings in 1973 they discovered that their properties were already titled in the name of their sister Ines. Which then made siblings mariano and josefa brusas filed a petition for reconveyance of said property. ISSUE: Who is the rightful owner of said property? RULING: Ines Brusas is the lawful owner of the property as It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as an evidence of incontrovertible title of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. And the primary purpose of the Torrens System was to quiet the title and to prevent forever the questions of its legality. And a title once registered in the Torrens system can no longer be defeated by actual, open or notorious possession or even by prescription. While it is correct that the siblings Mariano and Josefa Brusas ask for reconveyance it cannot be granted as there was no preponderant proof of fraud on the part of Ines Brusas which could have warranted the transfer of ownership over the property unless it has come into the possession of an innocent purchaser.

LAHORA VS. DAYANGHIRANG 37 SCRA 346 FACTS: On November 26, 1965 appellant Francisco Lahora and Toribia Moralizon petitioned the cpurt for registration of 9 parcels of land in Davao. Registration of one of the parcels of land identified as lot no. 2228 was opposed by appellee Emilio Dayanghirang who alleged that said lot was already registered in the name of his wife. Director of Lands also filed opposition to the petition arguing that appellants never had sufficient title over such land sought to be registered nor were they been in open, continuous or notorious possession of said lot. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for the original registration of lot no. 2228 is valid? RULING: No. the registration of lot no. 2228 is invalid as the lot has already been registered under the name of oppositors wife. It was not denied by the appellants that said land was a public land grant in favor of oppositors wife, because when the Government grants land to a private individual a patent thereof is recorded and a certificate of title is issued to the grantee then it comes within the land registration act that after 1 year of issuance said title becomes indefeasible, incontrovertible and irrevocable. And as the court ruled in Pamintuan vs. San Agustin that a cadastral court cannot decree a registration over a land which has already been registered in an earlier case, and a second decree for said land is null and void.

HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING VS COURT OF APPEALS 276 SCRA 601 FACTS: This is an action for annulment of partition of 2 parcels of land, a Riceland and Sugarland in Calasiao, Pangasinan. Petitioners claim that they together with private respondents own said lots in common and pro indiviso. Private respondents aver that their father Roque Bauzon owned said lots by virtue of a donation propter nuptias in 1926. Petitioners however claimed that Roque had already repudiated the co-ownership over said land and adjudicated it to himself in 1965 and Juan and Maria maningding renounced and quitclaimed their shares in said lots and that the donation was void. However in 1986 petitioners demanded for partition because it was found out that said lots belong to Roque and Segunda Maningding in common and in pro indiviso and concluded that Roque could not have validly transferred said lots in Favor of his heirs as it belonged to Segunda and Her heirs.

ISSUE: Whether or not Roques Heirs validly own said property. RULING: It must be noted that said lots were unregistered lands and that both parcels are only covered by tax declarations evidencing ownership, however . It is true the even if the donation was a void donation it still has to be given effect. First Roque owned the property by acquisitive prescription, the donation became valid at 1969 however petitioners demanded partition only sometime in 1986. Acquisitive prescription has the following elements which were present first is the concept of the owner second is publicly holding ownership. Third, peaceful possession, and uninterrupted possession. Considering that tax declarations are the only evidence of ownership it must be stressed that tax declarations are good indicators of possession and when coupled by actual possession becomes a strong evidence of ownership.