The correct title of this course is Registration of Land Titles and Deeds. what is being brought to be registered in not the land but the title or deeds to such land.

Q: Differentiate accretion from alluvium. A: Alluvium is the soil imperceptibly and gradually deposited on lands adjoining the banks of rivers

caused by the current of the water. Accretion is the process whereby the soil is so deposited. (Pineda, Property, p. 124, 1999 ed)

Q: To whom does accretion belong?

1. Accretions on the bank of a lake – belong to the owners of the estate to which they have been added.2. Accretion on the sea bank – still of public domain, and is not available for private ownership until formally declared by the government to be no longer needed for public use (Republic v. Amanda Vda. De Castillo, G.R. No. L‐69002 June 30, 1988).

Q: If the area of a non‐registrable land is increased due to accretion, may the alluvial deposits be subjected to private ownership?

A: No. Non‐registrable lands (property of public dominion) are outside the commerce of man, they are not subject to private appropriation. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 83, 2008 ed)

Q: If the land, the area of which is increased by accretion, has already been registered, is there still a need to register the alluvion?

A: Yes. Accretion does not automatically become registered. It needs a new registration.

The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the banks of the Marikina River. At certain times of the year, the river would swell and as the water recedes, soils, rocks and other materials are deposited on Jessica’s and Jenny’s properties. This pattern of the river swelling, receding and depositing soil and other materials being deposited on the neighbors’ properties have gone on for many years. Knowing this pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about 2 meters from her property line and extending towards the river, so that when the water recedes, soil and other materials are trapped within this barrier. After several years, the area between Jessica’s property line to the concrete barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively increasing Jessica’s property by 2 meters. Jenny’s property, where no barrier was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of the river.

Can Jessica and Jenny legally claim ownership over the additional 2 meters and one meter, respectively, of land deposited along their properties?

A: Jenny can legally claim ownership of the lands by right of accession (accretion) under Article 457 of the Civil Code. The lands came into being over the years through the gradual deposition of soil and silt by the natural action of the waters of the river. Jessica cannot claim the two meter‐wide strip of land added to her land. Jessica constructed the cement barrier two meters in front of her property towards the river not to protect her land from the destructive forces of the water but to trap the alluvium. In order that the riparian owner may be entitled to the alluvium the deposition must occur naturally without the intervention of the riparian owner (Republic v. CA 132 SCRA 514 [1984]).

If Jessica’s and Jenny’s properties are registered, will the benefit of such registration extend to the increased area of their properties?

A: No, the registration of Jessica’s and Jenny’s adjoining property does not automatically extend to the accretions. They have to bring their lands under the operation of the Torrens system of land registration following the procedure prescribed in P.D. No. 1529.

Assume the two properties are on a cliff adjoining the shore of Laguna Lake. Jessica and Jenny had a hotel built on the properties. They had the earth and rocks excavated from the properties dumped on the adjoining shore, giving rise to a new patch of dry land. Can they validly lay claim to the patch of land?

A: Jessica and Jenny cannot validly lay claim to the price of dry land that resulted from the dumping of rocks and earth materials excavated from their properties because it is a reclamation without authority. The land is part of the lakeshore, if not the lakebed, which is inalienable land of the public domain. (2008 Bar Question)

Q: What is reclamation? A: Reclamation is the act of filling up of parts of the sea for conversion to land.

Note: It must be initially owned by the government. It may be subsequently transferred to private owners.

Q: Who may undertake reclamation projects? A: Only the National Government may engage in reclamation projects.

Q: To whom does a reclaimed area belong? A: Under the Regalian doctrine, the State owns all waters and lands of the public domain, including

those physically reclaimed. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 110, 2008 ed)

Q: Differentiate title over land, land title, certificate of title, and deed. A: Title is a juridical act or a deed which is not sufficient by itself to transfer ownership but provides only

for a juridical justification for the effectuation of a mode to acquire or transfer ownership. Land title is the evidence of the owner’s right or extent of interest, by which he can maintain control, and

as a rule, assert right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of property. Certificate of title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the Register of Deeds in the

registry. It accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee simple title which an owner possesses. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 245, 2008 ed)

A deed is the instrument in writing, by which any real estate or interest therein is created, alienated, mortgaged or assigned, or by which title to any real estate may be affected in law or equity.

Q: What law governs the ownership and disposition of ancestral lands and ancestral domains? A: RA 8371 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) which was enacted October 29, 1997.

The IPRA is a law dealing with a specific group of peoples, ie., the Indigenous cultural communities or the indigenous peoples. The law allows indigenous peoples to obtain recognition of their right of ownership over ancestral lands and ancestral domains by virtue of native title.

Q: What is a native title? A: it refers to a pre‐ conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have

been held under a claim of private ownership by Indigenous Cultural Communities of Indigenous Peoples, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way before Spanish conquest. (Agcaoili, p. 124, 2008 ed)

Q: What is time immemorial possession? A: It refers to a period of time as far back as memory can go, certain Indigenous Cultural Communities

of Indigenous Peoples are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a defined territory devolved to them, by operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and tradition. (Agcaoili, p. 124, 2008 ed)

Q: What is the nature of the proceeding for land registration under the Torrens System? A: The Torrens system is judicial in character and not merely administrative. Under the Torrens system,

the proceeding is in rem, which means that it is binding upon the whole world.

Q: What are the modes of acquiring title over land? A: I‐AS‐DO

1.By possession of land since time Immemorial;2.By possession of Alienable and disposable public land;

Note: Under the Public Land Act (CA No. 141), citizens of the Philippines, who by themselves or through their predecessors‐in‐interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, (except when prevented by war or force majeure), shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title.

3. By Sale, Donation, and Other modes of acquiring ownership;

Q: What is Torrens title? A: It is a certificate of ownership issued under the Torrens system of registration by the government,

through the Register of Deeds (RD) naming and declaring the owner in fee simple of the real property described therein, free from all liens & encumbrances, except as may be expressly noted there or otherwise reserved by law.

Note: It is conclusive against the whole world (including the government and to a holder in good faith), guaranteed to be indefeasible, unassailable & imprescriptible.

Q: What is the mirror doctrine? A: All persons dealing with a property covered by Torrens certificate of title are not required to

go beyond what appears on the face of the title. Where there is nothing on the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may defeat his right thereto.

Note: Stated differently, an innocent purchaser for value relying on the Torrens title issued is protected.

Q: When does the mirror doctrine apply? A: When a title over a land is registered under the Torrens system (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 246, 1999 ed)

Q: What are the exceptions to the application of the mirror doctrine? A: BOB LIKA

1. Where the purchaser or mortgagee is a Bank/financing institution; 2. Where the Owner still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering the same property because

the law protects the lawful holder of a registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any transmissible right; 3. Purchaser in Bad faith; 4. Purchases land with a certificate of title containing a notice of Lis pendens; 5. Sufficiently strong indications to impel closer Inquiry into the location, boundaries and condition of the lot; 6. Purchaser had full Knowledge of flaws and defects in the title; or 7. Where a person buys land not from the registered owner but from whose rights to the land has been merely Annotated on the certificate of title.

Q: Spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land to A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but they continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan to the latter. A however, without the knowledge of X and Y, forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and then sold the land to B.

B bought the land relying on A's title, and thereafter got a TCT in his name. It was only then that the spouses X and Y learned that their land had been titled in B's name. May said spouses file an action for reconveyance of the land in question against B? Reason.

A: The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance of the land will not prosper because B has acquired a clean title to the property being an innocent purchaser for value.

A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. The fact that the forged deed was registered and a certificate of title was issued in his name, did not operate to vest upon A ownership over the property of X and Y. The registration of the forged deed will not cure the infirmity. However, once the title to the land is registered in the name of the forger and title to the land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the latter acquires a clean title thereto. A buyer of a registered land is not required to explore beyond what the record in the registry indicates on its face in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his right thereto. This is the "mirror principle" of the Torrens system which makes it possible for a forged deed to be the root of a good title.

Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are guilty of contributory negligence when they delivered the OCT to the mortgagee without annotating the mortgage thereon. Between them and the innocent purchaser for value, they should bear the loss. (1999 Bar Question)

(b.) The curtain principle states that the register is the sole source, all controversies that may arise after the issuance of the title may not be raised anymore as the Torrens title is binding against the whole world and carries with it the character of indefeasibility.(c.) The insurance principle states that the applicant is entitled for compensation by the government in case there arises a material error in the registration of the title. Such compensation shall be taken from the Assurance Fund.(d.) Composicion con el estado is a method of acquisition of title to land during the Spanish period premised upon the assumption that all lands are property of the Spanish Crown, and whoever exceeds the limits provided for in their original grant may acquire additional lands subject to certain adjustment by the Crown.(e.) Concession especial is another method of acquiring title to lands under the Spanish period but such authority is exclusively vested under the authority granted to the Governor-general, acting on behalf of the King.

Q: Who is a purchaser in good faith and for value? A: A purchaser in good faith and for value is 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 for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property. (San Roque Realty and Development Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No. 163130, Sept. 7, 2007)

Note: An innocent purchaser for value includes a lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrances for value. Purchaser in good faith and for value is the same as an innocent purchaser for value. Good faith

consists in an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscious advantage of another.

Q: In 1913, Gov. Gen. Forbes reserved a parcel of land for provincial park purposes. Sometime thereafter, the court ordered said land to be registered in Ignacio Palomo’s name. What is the effect of the act of Gov. Gen Forbes in reserving the land for provincial park purposes?

A: As part of the reservation for provincial park purposes, they form part of the forest zone. It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest land cannot be owned by private persons. It is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. (Sps. Palomo, et. al. v. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 95608, Jan. 21, 1997)

Q: Is adverse possession similar with the possession required in acquisitive prescription? A: Yes. Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be possession under a

claim of title or it must be adverse. (Cuaycong v. Benedicto, G.R. No. 9989, Mar. 13, 1918)

Q: What are the requisites in order to acquire land title thru adverse possession? A: 1. Possession must be: OCENCU

a. Open; b. Continuous; c. Exclusive; d. Notorious; e. In the Concept of an owner; and f. Uninterrupted possession for:

10 Years – If possession is in good faith and with just title 30 Years – If possession is in bad faith and without just title

2. Land possessed must be an alienable or disposable public land

Q: RP opposed the application for registration filed by Manna Properties under Sec. 48(b), CA No. 141 arguing that, as a private corporation, it is disqualified from holding alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease, citing Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, Manna Properties claims that the land in question has been in the open and exclusive possession of its predecessors‐in‐interest since the 1940s, thus, the land was already private land when Manna Properties acquired it from its predecessors‐in‐interest. Decide.

A: Lands that fall under Sec. 48, CA No. 141 are effectively segregated from the public domain by virtue of acquisitive prescription. Open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by CA No. 141 ipso jure converts such land into private land. Judicial confirmation in such cases is only a formality that merely confirms the earlier conversion of the land into private land, the conversion having occurred in law from the moment the required period of possession became complete.

Under CA No. 141, the reckoning point is June 12, 1945. If the predecessors‐in‐interest of Manna Properties have been in possession of the land in question since this date, or earlier, Manna Properties may rightfully apply for confirmation of title to the land. Manna Properties, a private corporation, may apply for judicial confirmation of the land without need of a separate confirmation proceeding for its predecessors‐in‐interest first. (Republic v. Manna Properties Inc., G.R. No. 146527, Jan. 31, 2005)

Q: What if a certificate of title was issued covering non‐registrable lands without the government opposing such, is the government estopped from questioning the same?

A: The government cannot be estopped from questioning the validity of the certificates of title, which were granted without opposition from the government. The principle of estoppel does not operate against the government for the acts of its agents.

Q: What are the steps or requisites in ordinary registration proceedings and judicial confirmation of imperfect title?

A: SA‐ST‐PSA‐HPIEST 1. Survey of land by Bureau of Lands or any duly licensed private surveyor 2. Filing of Application for registration by applicant 3. Setting of date for initial hearing by the court 4. Transmittal of application and date of initial hearing together w/ all documents or other pieces of evidence attached thereto by clerk of court to National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA) 5. Publication of notice of filing of application and date and place of hearing 6. Service of notice by sheriff upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have interest in the property 7. Filing of Answer or opposition to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not;8. Hearing of case by court9. Promulgation of judgment by court10. Issuance of a decree by court declaring the decision final, and instructing the NALDTRA to issue a decree of confirmation and registration11. Entry of decree of registration in NALDTRA12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to corresponding RD13. Transcription of decree of registration in the registration book and issuance of owner’s duplicate original certificate of title (OCT) of applicant by RD, upon payment of prescribed fees

Note: After judgment has become final and executory, the issuance of decree and OCT is ministerial on the part of LRA and RD. (Aquino, p. 14‐15; Agcaoili, Registration Decree and Related Laws, p. 182‐183)

Q: Where shall the application be filed? A: If the application covers a single parcel of land situated within:

1. Only one city or province: RTC or MTC, as the case may be, of the province or city where the land is situated.

2. Two or more provinces or cities:

a. When boundaries are not defined – in the RTC or MTC of the place where it is declared for taxation purposes.

b. When boundaries are defined – separate plan for each portion must be made by a surveyor and a separate application for each lot must be filed with the appropriate RTC or MTC.

Note: MeTC, MCTC, and MTC has jurisdiction to decide cadastral and land registration cases, provided: 1. There is no controversy or opposition (uncontested lots); or 2. Value of contested lots does not exceed P100,000 (Sec. 4, R.A. 7691)

In other cases, the RTC has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the MTCs was delegated through the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (R.A. 7691).

Q: What is original registration? A: It is a proceeding brought before the MTC where there is no controversy or opposition, or

contested lots where the value of which does not exceed P100,000.00 (Sec. 4, R.A. 7691) or in the RTC (as a land registration court) when the value exceeds P100,000 to determine title or ownership of land on the basis of an application for registration or answer/opposition by a claimant in a cadastral registration.

PROCEEDING IN ACT NO. 496 (P.D. 1529) VS. CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER ACT NO. 2259

1. In the former, Registration is voluntary. Owner of the land and his representative is the applicant. In the Latter, Registration is compulsory. Director of Lands (on gov’t.’s behalf and represented by the Sol. Gen.) is the Petitioner.2. In the former, Application usually refers to private land. It can be public alienable land (PAL) if the applicant asks for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title CA 141). All classified lands are included in the proceedings, private lands, PAL, lands of public ownership. Public lands to be declared as such in the hearing. PAL maybe adjudicated under Sec. 48 of C.A. 141.3. In the former, Person who files his application for registration is called and the applicant and the person who objects to the registration. Owners of land.4. In the former, Petitioner asks the court to confirm his title and order the registration of the land in his name. Gov’t. asks court to settle and adjudicate the title to the land described in the petition.5. In the former, Land is surveyed at the request of the owner. Lands surveyed by the gov’t. which initiates the registration of lands in municipality for public interest.

ACT NO. 496 (PD 1529)IF there is no adverse claim here, and the applicant fails to prove his title to the land, the application may be dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal is not res judicata. The applicant can refile his application when he believes that he ahs sufficient evidence to support his claim.

(ACT 2259) IF none of the claimants can prove his entitlement to the land, the land is declared public and this judgment becomes res judicata. HOWEVER, applicant may still apply for individual confirmation of imperfect title provided he complies with the provisions of Sec. 48 of CA 141. Public remains alienable and disposable.

BQ: May the land Registration Court resolve issues other than those pertaining to land registration?Answer: RTCS now have exclusive jurisdiction not only over applications for original registration of title to

lands, including improvements and interests therein but also over petitions filed after original registration of title with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such application or petition

BQ: In a verified petition filed before the CFI sitting as a land registration court and under the summary proceeding for amendment or alteration outlined in section 112 of the Land Registration Act, husband “H” being the registered owner of three parcels of land sought to strike out the words “married to W” appearing in the said titles and to place in lieu thereof the word “single” on the ground that the phrase “married to W” was entered by reason of clerical error or oversight. Opposition was filed by “W” who alleged that she is the legal wife of “H” and that the insertion was not a result of clerical error but a voluntary act of “H”. May the CFI continue to take cognizance of the case and resolve the issue posed? Explain

Answer: Under Section 2 of PD 1529, the jurisdiction of the RTC acting as land registration court has been broadened.

Q: May private corporations hold alienable lands of public domain? A: No. The word “persons” refers to natural persons who are citizens of the Philippines. Juridical or

artificial persons are excluded. Sec. 3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease.

Q: May a corporation own lands? A: It depends.

Corporation sole can acquire by purchase a parcel of private agricultural land without violating the constitutional prohibition since it has no nationality.

Corporation:Private Lands 1. At least 60% Filipino (Sec. 7, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) 2. Restricted as to extent reasonably necessary to enable it to carry out purpose for which it was created 3. If engaged in agriculture, it is restricted to 1,024 hectares.

Patrimonial property of the State (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) 1. Lease (cannot own land of the public domain) for 25 years renewable for another 25 years 2. Limited to 1,000 hectares 3. Applies to both Filipinos and foreign corporations.

Q: Can an alien acquire a private land in the Philippines? A:

GR: An alien cannot acquire private lands. XPN: Acquisition by aliens is allowed when:

1. It is thru hereditary succession;Note: Succession is limited only to intestate succession

2. The alien is a former natural‐born citizen of the Philippines, provided he only acquires: 5,000 square meters – urban land; or 3 hectare – rural land

Note: Said land should be for his residence. 3. Foreign Sovereign States; and4. Acquisition of Condominium Units;

Q: Spouses Pinoy and Pinay, both natural‐born Filipino citizens, purchased property in the Philippines. However, they sought its registration when they were already naturalized as Canadian citizens. Should the registration be denied on the ground that they cannot do so, they being foreign nationals?

A: No. Foreign nationals can apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which they acquired by purchase while still citizens of the Philippines, from a vendor who has complied with the requirements for registration under the Public Land Act. (Republic v. CA and Lapina, G.R. No. 108998, Aug. 24, 1994)

Q: Joe, an alien, invalidly acquired a parcel of land in the Philippines. He subsequently transferred it to Jose, a Filipino citizen. What is the status of the transfer?

A: If a land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. Since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation’s land for future generations of Filipinos, that aim is achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in dispute is already in the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no more public policy to be protected. The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved. (Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, Feb. 24, 2009)

Q: If Joe had not transferred it to Jose but he, himself, was later naturalized as a Filipino citizen, will his acquisition thereof remain invalid?

A: No. If a land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. (Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, Feb. 24, 2009).

BQ: May an alien acquire private land in the Phils? Why is the rule absolute?ANS: As a general rule, an alien may not acquire private lands in the Philippines. Public policy demands that

lands in the Philippines should be exclusively owned by Filipinos.Exceptions:

1. Acquisition through hereditary succession;2. Former Filipino citizen who wishes to come and reside in the Phils. Urban land: 5000 sqm Rural: 3

hectares;3. Foreign Sovereign States;4. Acquisition of Condominium Units;

Q: May publication of the notice of filing of application and date and place of hearing be dispensed with? A: No. Publication of the notice of filing of application and date and place of hearing is mandatory.

Publication of the notice of filing of the application and date and place of hearing is a Jurisdictional requirement.

PURPOSE of Publication is to confer jurisdiction upon the court to hear case and invite all persons who have interests to come to court to show why application should not be granted.

Q: Where must the said notice be published? A:

1. Once in the Official Gazette (OG) – this confers jurisdiction upon the court; and2. Once in a newspaper of general circulation.

Note: Publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. (Sec. 23, P.D. 1529)

BQ: Is newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case mandatory or directory? Why?

ANSWER: It is mandatory as shown by the use of the word “shall” ( Sec 23, PD 1529). In Republic vs Marasigan (198 SCRA 219), it was held that the law requires notice of the initial hearing by means of 1) publication 2) mailing and 3) posting, all of which must be complied with. If the intention of the law were otherwise, said section would not have stressed in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in the petition who include owners of adjoining properties and occupants of the land. indeed, if mailing of notice

is essential, then by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general publication is likewise imperative since the law included such requirement in its detailed provision. (Dir of lands vs CA Jul 28 1997)

BQ: An application for land registration was filed by A covering 50 hectares. After the publication of the notice of hearing, A amended the application to include another 20 hectares of land. Is there a need for republication? Why? Suppose the amendment included only 200 square meters, is there a need for republication? Why?

Answer: If the amendment included 20 hectares, there is a need for republication of the notice of hearing because the additional land is substantial. However, if it is only 200 square meters, the amendment is not substantial; hence, there is no need for republication. The area can be considered as encompassed in the phrase “more or less.”

Q: When may a person be declared in default in land registration proceedings? A: A person may be declared in default if he fails to file an opposition. A general default happens when upon the issuance of the court of notice of hearing addressed to all

persons, no one appeared and filed oppositions to the application of registration. On the other hand, a special default takes place when upon notice of the court to some persons of the application for registration, these particular set of persons did not appear during the hearing nor filed any opposition thereto.

A general default applies to all persons while a special default only operates upon a particular set of persons who may be affected by the application for registration.

Q: What is the effect of failure to oppose? A: Order of default – The court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing,

order a default to be recorded and require applicant to present evidence.

Q: A judge declared in default an oppositor who had already filed with the court an opposition based on substantial grounds for his failure to appear at the initial hearing of the application for registration. Is the default order proper? If not, what is his remedy?

A: No, it is not. Failure of the oppositor to appear at the initial hearing is not a ground for default. In which case, his proper remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to contest the illegal declaration or order of default, not an appeal. (Agcaoili, p. 175, 2006)

Q: What is the effect of the absence of an opposition as regards allegations in the application? A: When there is no opposition, all allegations in the application are deemed confessed on the part of

the opponent.

Q: If an order of general default is issued, may the court automatically grant the application? A: No. Even in the absence of an adverse claim, the applicant still has to prove that he possesses all the

qualifications and none of the disqualifications to obtain the title. If he fails to do so, his application will not be granted. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 174, 2008)

The parties affected by the default order are barred from later on contesting the application or any decree entered therein. It bars any claim which has not been presented within the time prescribed for the filing of the application unless the order of default is first set aside.Director of Lands vs. Santiago 160 SCRA 186: Default order is improper when an oppositor has filed an opposition but fails to appear at the initial hearing.

BAR QUESTION: On June 30, 1986, A filed in the RTC of Abra an application for registration of title to a parcel of land under PN 1529, claiming that since June 12, 1945, he has been in OCEN possession and occupation of said parcel of land of the public domain which was alienable and disposable, under a boa fide claim of ownership. After issuance of the notice of initial hearing and publication, as required by law, the petition was heard on July 29, 1987. On the day of the hearing nobody but the applicant appeared. Neither was there anyone who opposed the application. Thereupon, on motion of the applicant, the RTC issued an order of general default and allowed the applicant to present his evidence. That he did. On Sept. 30, 1989, the RTC dismissed A’s application for lack of sufficient evidence. A appealed to the CA. the appellant urged that the RTC erred in dismissing his application for registration and in not ordering registration of his title to the parcel of land in question despite the fact that there was no opposition filed by anybody to his application. Did the RTC err?

Answer: No. In an application for judicial confirmation. of imperfect title to public agricultural lands under Sec. 48 of the Public Land Act, the lack of opposition and the consequent order of default against those who did not answer or show up on the date of the initial hearing, does not guarantee the success of the application. It is still incumbent upon the applicant to prove with well nigh incontrovertible evidence that he has acquired a title to the land that is fit for registration. Absent such registrable title, it is the clear duty of the Land Registration Court to dismiss the application and declare the land as public land.

Q: Are the Rules of Court applicable in land registration proceedings? A: The Rules of Court could be applied in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character or

whenever practicable or convenient.

Note: Motion to intervene in a land registration case is not allowed.

Q: What are the requisites for a valid opposition? A:

1. Set forth objections to the application; 2. State interest claimed by oppositor; 3. Apply for the remedy desired; and 4. Signed and sworn to by him or by some other duly authorized person.

Q: Who may be an oppositor to the application for registration or judicial confirmation? A: Any person whether named in the notice or not, provided, his claim of interest in the property applied

for is based on a right of dominion or some other real right independent of, and not subordinate to, the rights of the government.

Q: What if the Oppositor filed an anwer but did not appear? Should he be declared in default?A: No. Default is not proer. (Martinez vs Rep Oct 30, 2006)

Q: Can an oppositor be granted title?A: Yes, because as an oppositor, he can pray that he be declared the owner of the land even if he is not

the applicant. He must however adduce evidence to prove his interest. (City of Manila vs IAC reiterated in City of Davao vs Juliana Monteverde May 21, 2001)

Q: Can a defaulted defendant file a notice of appeal?A: Yes. (Lina vs CA reiterated in Martinez vs Republic Oct 30, 2006)

Remedies: a) Defendant in Default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath (Affidavit of Merit), to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to FAME and that he has meritorious defenses (Sec 3 Rule 18);

b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37;

c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he may file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and

d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him. (Section 2, Rule 41).

Q: What is the doctrine of non‐collateral attack of a decree or title? A: A decree of registration and registered title cannot be impugned, enlarged, altered, modified, or

diminished either in collateral or direct proceeding, after the lapse of one year from the date of its entry.

Q: Is a counterclaim in the answer considered a collateral attack against a title?

Traditional Rule: Simafranca vs IAC (147 SCRA 611) It is a collateral attack.

New Rule: Proline Sports Center vs CA (281 SCRA 162): Counterclaim is a direct attack on the certificate of title since all the essential facts of the case for the determination of the title’s validity are now before the court, to require the other party to institute cancellation proceedings would be pointlessly circuitous and against the best interest of justice. (Direct Attack if the certificate of title is the subject of the counterclaim).

Leyson vs Bontuyan (Feb 18, 2005): An action to attack a certificate of title may be an original action or a counterclaim in which a certificate of title is assailed as void. A counterclaim is considered a new suit in which the defendant is the plaintiff and the plaintiff in the complaint becomes the defendant.

Q: Can a complaint for recovery of possession be considered as a direct attack?

A: No, In DBP vs CA cited in Luna vs Cabales (Dec 14, 2009) the original complaint is for recovery of possession filed by petitioner against private respondent, not an original action filed by the latter to question the validity of TCT No. 10101 on which petitioner bases its right. To rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery of possession is tantamount to a collateral attack.

Abobon vs. Abobon (2012 case), a counterclaim is a collateral attack.

Q: During the hearing of the case, what must the applicant for land registration prove?A:

1. Jurisdictional Requirements – Prove that the notice of the initial hearing of the application had been published, mailed, and posted as required by law;

The official gazette (containing the notice of initial hearing of the application for land registration) and the corresponding Affidavit of Publication executed by the editor certifying to the fact of such publication (PD 1529, Sec 23(1));

A newspaper of general circulation (containing the notice of initial hearing) and the corresponding Affidavit of publication by the editor, certifying the fact of such publication (PD 1529, Sec 23(1);

The certificate of the Administrator of the LRA certifying that the notice of initial hearing of the

application has been published and mailed to the persons concerned as required by law (PD 1529 Sec 24);Certificate of the sheriff that the notice of initial hearing was posted.

2. Applicant must prove ownership; The applicant must show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for

registration (Turquesa vs Valera 322 SCRA 573).Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or right of possession over a

piece of land (FERRER vs CA 150 SCRA 303), but Tax declaration becomes strong evidence of ownership of land acquired by prescription when accompanied by a proof of actual possession (Bautista vs CA 131 SCRA 52). While it is true that together with a person’s actual and adverse possession of land, tax declarations constitute strong evidence of ownership of the land occupied by him, this legal precept does not apply in cases where property is declared to be a mere easement of right of way ( Bogo Medellin CO vs CA 407 Scra 518).

Note: OCEAN has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence and must be conclusively established (SMC v. CA, Mun. of Santiago, Isabela v. CA, Feb. 21, 1983)

Q: Can a foreign national apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which he acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Phils from a vendor who has complied with the requirements for registration under the Public Land Act?

ANS: REPUBLIC VS CA AND SPS LAPIÑA AND FLOR DE VEGA (235 SCRA 567), It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were natural-born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private respondents are no longer Filipino citizens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in question. What is important is that private respondents were formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution. Considering that private respondents were able to prove the requisite period and character of possession of their predecessors-in-interest over the subject lots, their application for registration of title must perforce be approved.

Q: Tiok Chua, a chinese national and permanent resident of the Phils., purchased a parcel of land from Bernardo Cruz. Two years after the sale, he became a Filipino. Can the parcel of land be recovered by Bernardo Cruz on the ground that at the time of the sale, Chua was an alien? Why?A: No more. While it is true that by reason of public policy, aliens cannot acquire land in the Philippines as the

law reserves ownership of lands to Filipinos only, the subsequent naturalization of Tiok Chua erased the public policy sought to be enforced. (Yap vs Grageda Mar 28, 1983) The rule is so because the land is now in the hands of a qualified person (Godinez vs Fong Pak Luen Jan 27, 1983; Vasquez vs Si Guao 96 Phil 447; Sarsosa vda de Barsobia vs Cuenca 113 SCRA 547; Rep vs CA Aug 24, 1994 where it was held that a Filipino Citizen who became a naturalized Canadian can register a parcel of land bought by him while he was still a Filipino)

BQ: A, a Filipina, is married to B, an American. During their marriage, A purchased with conjugal funds a piece of real property and placed in under the name “A married to B.” Without B’s consent, A sold the land, hence B now wants to annul the sale because it was done without his consent, contending that he is also an owner. Will the action prosper? Why?

Ans: No because B never acquired ownership over the land even if conjugal funds were used in acquiring the same. This is so because as an alien, he is disqualified from acquiring residential land in the Philippines. (Sec 7 Art XII 1987 Constituion, Cheesman vs IAC, Jan 21, 1991)

3. Applicant must prove identity of the land (actual Survey or original tracing cloth); and

In Republic vs T.A.N. Properties, June 26, 2008, under RA 9176, the application for judicial confirmation is limited only to 12 hectares consistent with Section 3, Art XII of the 1987 Constitution. Hence, respondent as successor-in-interest of an individual owner of the land, cannot apply for registration of land in excess of 12 hectares. Since respondent applied for 56, 400 hectares, the application for the excess area of 44,4007 hectares is contrary to law, and thus void ab initio. In applying for land registration, a private corporation cannot have any right higher than its predecessor-in-interest from whom it derived its right. Respondent failed to prove that any portion of the land was already private land when respondent acquired it from Porting in 1997.

Q: What if there is a conflict in the identity of the land between the boundaries described therein as against the area?A: Boundary prevails over area. In Hutchison vs Buscas (459 Scra 214), what defines a piece of land is not the

size mentioned in the instrument but the boundaries thereof which enclose the land and indicates its exact limits.

Exception: When there is overlapping of boundaries or when the boundaries are not sufficiently certain (Heirs of Oclarit vs CA 233 SCRA 239). Although it is true that what defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its description but the boundaries therein laid down, in controversial cases, where there appears to be overlapping boundaries, the actual size of the property gains importance.

4. PROVE THAT THE LAND IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE.

If the land subject of the registration proceeding is public land, the applicant must prove that the land is alienable public land (Pagkatipunan vs CA, 379 SCRA 621).

In proving that the land is alienable public land, it must establish that the classification of land as alienable and disposable by (Republic vs. Gloria Jaralve, 2012):1. The Certification of the Classification as alienable and disposable land approved by the DENR Secretary; and2. CENRO or PENRO Certification that the land has been released as alienable and disposable land.

Q: What must a judgment in land registration proceedings contain? A: When judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the court shall order the entry of a new certificate

of title and the cancellation of the original certificate and owner’s duplicate of the former registered owner.

Q: What is decree of registration? A: It is a document prepared in the prescribed form by the LRA Administrator, signed by him in the name

of the court, embodying the final disposition of the land by the court and such other data found in the record, including the name and other personal circumstances of the adjudicate, the technical description of the property, liens and encumbrances affecting it, and such other matters as determined by the court in its judgment (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 169. 2008; Agcaoili, Registration Decree and Related Laws, p. 508)

Q: What does a decree of registration cover? A: Only claimed property or a portion thereof can be adjudicated. A land registration court has no

jurisdiction to adjudge a land to a person who has never asserted any right of ownership thereof.

Q: May the court render a partial judgment in land registration proceedings? A: Partial judgment is allowed in a land registration proceeding, where only a portion of the land, subject

of registration is contested, the court may render partial judgment provided that a subdivision plan showing the contested land and uncontested portions approved by the Director of Lands is previously submitted to said court.

Q: In a registration case, the court rendered a decision granting Reyes’ application, hence the Director of Lands appealed. Reyes moved for the issuance of a decree of registration pending appeal. May his motion be granted?

A: No. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal. A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity as it violates the explicit provisions of the LRA, which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory. (Dir. of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L‐27594, Nov. 28, 1975)

A Torrens title which is issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity. Execution pending appeal is not applicable in land registration proceedings.

BQ: Suppose A applied for the registration of a parcel of land which was granted and after the decree of registration was issue, B and C entered into the premises. Can the court issue a Writ of Possession against B and C? Why? If Not, what is A’s remedy? Why?A: A writ of possession cannot be issued against persons who occupied the land AFTER the issuance of the

decree of registration. This is because they were not parties to the case. Persons who are not parties to registration proceedings who took possession of the land after final adjudication of the same cannot be summarily ousted by a mere motion. The remedy is to resort to the courts of justice and institute a separate action for ejectment for unlawful entry or detainer or for reinvidicatory action, as the case may be. Only after the judgment can the prevailing party secure a writ of possession. ( Bemos vs Hon. Nuevo June 31, 1984)

BQ: If an application for land registration is denied, can the applicant refile it? Why?ANS: Yes, because the dismissal is not res judicata except if the dismissal is with prejudice. The denial of the

application for registration mean that he has not furnished that kind of proof showing an absolute title in fee simple which is required under the law. (Hermanos vs CA, Sep 28, 1989). If his evidence can now show absolute ownership, he can refile the application.

MOTION FOR EXECUTION, NOT REQUIRED. Upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the winning party does not file a motion for execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a Petition with the LRCourt for the issuance of an order directing the LRA to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to the Register of Deeds for transcription in the registration book, and the issuance of the original certificate of title.

Q: Is the issuance of a decree ministerial?A: As a general rule, Yes. Cacho vs CA (269 SCRA 159), significantly, the issuance of subject

decrees presupposes a prior final judgment because the issuance of such decrees is a mere ministerial act on the part of the LRA upon presentation of final judgment.

Exception:BQ: What is the nature of the issuance of a decree of registration? Explain.

A: the issuance of a decree of registration forms part of the judiciary function of the courts and is not a ministerial act which maybe compelled by mandamus. In Valmonte vs Nable 85 Phil 256, it was said that after the rendition of a decision by a land registration court, there remains many things to be done before the final decree can be issued. Although the final decree is actually prepared by the Chief of the LR Office, an administrative officer, the issuance of the final decree can hardly be considered a ministerial act for the reason that he is an officer of the court and so the issuance of the final decree is a judicial function and not an administrative one. ( De los Reyes vs De Villa 48 Phil 227)

Republic vs Lourdes Nillas (Jan 23, 2007)Q: “The central question raised in this case is whether prescription or laches may bar a petition to revive

a judgment in a land registration case?”A: Rule 39, applies only to ordinary civil actions, not to other or extraordinary proceedings not expressly governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure but by some other specific law or legal modality such as land registration cases. Unlike in ordinary civil actions governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, the intent of land registration proceedings is to establish ownership by a person of a parcel of land, consistent with the purpose of such extraordinary proceedings to declare by judicial fiat a status, condition or fact. Hence, upon the finality of a decision adjudicating such ownership, no further step is required to effectuate the decision and a ministerial duty exists alike on the part of the land registration court to order the issuance of, and the LRA to issue, the decree of registration.

Q: What are the effects of the entry of the decree of registration in the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Authority (NALDTRA)? A: 1. This serves as the reckoning date to determine the 1‐year period from which one can impugn the

validity of the registration. 2. 1 year after the date of entry, it becomes incontrovertible, and amendments will not be allowed except

clerical errors. It is deemed conclusive as to the whole world.3. Puts an end to litigation.

REMEDIES IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE DECISION is rendered:If a person wants to participate, file a Motion to Lift Order of General Default and if lifted, file an

Opposition, except: (Pael vs CA 371 SCRA 587).

AFTER DECISION:

1. File a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Within 15 days from the final judgment. The 15 days required for a decree to attain finality is counted from the date of receipt of the notice of judgment.

Grounds: Evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order. The findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by evidence or

are contrary to law must be specified, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to said findings or conclusion.

A second motion for reconsideration is not allowed.

2. File a MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Within 15 days from the final judgment (accompanied with Affidavit of Merits).GROUNDS:1. FAME

Fraud: Possessor deliberately not included in the PetitionAccident: failure of counsel to attend because of lack of notice

2. Newly Discovered EvidenceA. New evidence was discovered after the trialB. Evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of

reasonable diligenceC. Evidence is material and not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and is of such

weight that if admitted, will probably alter judgment.3. Insufficiency of Evidence

NOTE: A second motion for new trial may be filed if it is based on a ground NOT existing nor available at the tile when the last motion was made.

3. File an Appeal within 15 days from receipt of the judgment or final order appealed from. Under PD 1529, judgments and orders in land registration cases are appealable to the CA or to the SC in the same manner as ordinary actions.

When cannot be filed?When the party did not: Challenge the application for registration, Participate in the Proceedings,

File an Adverse Claim, or When the property involved belongs to the public domain.

Neypes vs CA (Sep 14, 2005): To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or reconsideration.

4. File a Petition for RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT Within 60 DAYS from knowledge of judgment but not more than 180 days or 6 months after entry of judgment or decree on the grounds of FAME. The petition must be accompanied with Affidavit of Merits showing the FAME relied upon and the facts constituting

Petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense as the case maybe. (Filed with the MTC to MTC or RTC to RTC)

Note: No Relief from judgment of decisions of the Court of Appeals.

When Cannot be filed?1. When the judgment has not become final and executory *If petition for relief is denied => subject to appeal and in the course thereof, a party may also

assail the judgment on the merits upon the ground that it is not supported by evidence or is contrary to law.

2. If filed beyond the 6 month period after entry of judgment;3. If the decree of registration has been issued;4. When the party had already filed a timely motion for new trial which has been denied (the 2

remedies are exclusive of each other).

5. File a Petition for Review of Judgment After the expiration of 6 months from the entry of judgment and BEFORE the decree of registration has been issued on the grounds of ACTUAL FRAUD. (With The Land Registration Court which rendered the decision)

When cannot be filed? If the property has been transferred to an Innocent Purchaser for Value (IPV). The

Remedy of the IPV will be an action for Damages or Estafa.

Q: Who is a buyer in good faith and for value?A: he is one who buys a 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 at the time of the purchase of before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property (Santos vs CA Sept 13, 1990)

BQ: A stole the title of B and then forged the latter’s signature. He was able to transfer the title under his name. In case B discovers such act, can he file an action for the recovery of property?

A: Yes, for as long as it is still under A’s name because said title is void.

Q: Can A interpose the defense that a title has already been issued in his name?A: No. A title does not provide a shield for the commission of a fraudulent or illegal act.

Q: Suppose A has already sold the land to C, a buyer in good faith and for value, can B still recover the land?

A: No because of the protection afforded to C, a buyer in good faith and for value. Since the title of A appeared to be clean, then C had to rely on the face of the title. Even on the assumption that A’s title is void, it can be the root of a valid title the moment it passes to the hands of a buyer in good faith and for value. To require him to look beyond the title is to defeat the objective of the Torrens System .(GSIS vs CA 1/30/95)

Exception: When the buyer has actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances that would him impel him as a cautious man to make an inquiry. (Embrado vs CA Jun 27, 1994)

Q: Ferdie donated a piece of property belonging to Meldy. Cory, the donee, was able to register the deed of donation and secure a title. Is the title valid? Why?

A: No. Because a donor cannot lawfully convey what does not belong to him. If at all, Cory merely holds the property in trust for the true owner. While the land registration proceeding is a proceeding in rem and binds the whole world, the simple possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens system does not necessarily make the holder the true owner of the property described therein. Registration does not vest title. It is a mode of acquiring ownership. ( De Guzman vs CA 156 SCRA 701)

Q: The Solivels were the registered owners of parcels of land. Juan, claiming to be their attorney‐in‐fact passed the title to the real property to an innocent purchaser using a forged deed of sale. Was the buyer an innocent purchaser for value protected by law?

A: No. 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, not on a forged deed. In order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good faith for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. (Solivel v. Francisco, G.R. No. 51450, Feb. 10, 1989)

Q: Spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land to A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but they continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan to the latter. A however, without the knowledge of X and Y, forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and then sold the land to B.

B bought the land relying on A's title, and thereafter got a TCT in his name. It was only then that the spouses X and Y learned that their land had been titled in B's name. May said spouses file an action for reconveyance of the land in question against B? Reason.

A: The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance of the land will not prosper because B has acquired a clean title to the property being an innocent purchaser for value.

A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. The fact that the forged deed was registered and a certificate of title was issued in his name, did not operate to vest upon A ownership over the property of X and Y. The registration of the forged deed will not cure the infirmity. However, once the title to the land is registered in the name of the forger and title to the land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the latter acquires a clean title thereto. A buyer of a registered land is not required to explore beyond

what the record in the registry indicates on its face in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his right thereto. This is the "mirror principle" of the Torrens system which makes it possible for a forged deed to be the root of a good title.

Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are guilty of contributory negligence when they delivered the OCT to the mortgagee without annotating the mortgage thereon. Between them and the innocent purchaser for value, they should bear the loss. (1999 Bar Question)

A FORGED DEED MAY BE THE ROOT OF A VALID TITLEIn Spouses Lim vs Chuatoco (March 11, 2005), The fraudulent registration of the property in Rafael’s

name using a forged deed of sale is not sufficient to vest title to the entire property in him. Settled is the rule that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title; registration does not vest tile. It is merely evidence of such title over a property. Certificates of title merely confirm or record 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. The Torrens system has never been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership. It is a familiar doctrine that a forged or fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title, if the property has already been transferred from the name of the owner to that of the forger. This doctrine serves to emphasize that a person who deals with registered property in good faith will acquire good title from a forger, and be absolutely protected by a Torrens title.

6. File a Petition for REVIEW OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION Within one (1) year from the actual date of entry of the decree by the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority on the grounds of Actual Fraud, Fatal infirmity of the decision for lack of due process or Lack of jurisdiction e.g. land is a forest land. (Filed at the RTC in the City or province where the land lies)

Principle of Continuing Jurisdiction - Ramos vs Rodriguez 294 SCRA 418, As long as a final decree has not been entered by the LRA and 1 year has elapsed, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision on the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.

When Cannot be filed? Petitioner does not claim the land to be his; Property has been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value; Oppositor abandoned his opposition; or Oppositor who had notice of the claim but did not oppose

What is the effect of the expiration of the Period for review? The decree of registration and certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible.

What is the available remedy of a person whose property has been wrongfully registered in another’s name? An ordinary action in court for reconveyance provided a period of 10 years has not prescribed.

7. File an ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE (By the person deprived of his property by fraud, whether actual or constructive, and who is not at fault) (at any RTC) After the lapse of one (1) year from the issuance of decree of registration up to:

4 years from the discovery of the fraud; or 10 years when it is based on constructive trust.

On the Ground of Actual or constructive fraud. The action cannot be filed if the property has been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.

Note: The sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another’s name is, after one year from the date of the decree, but respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an action in the ordinary course of justice for reconveyance provided the property has not passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

What is sought here is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully registered in another person’s name. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered. Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens.

What is the legal basis for reconveyance?Sec 55 Act 496 as amended by Act 3322 states 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, without prejudice, however, to the rights of any IPV of a certificate of title” (Lopez vs Enriquez Jan 21, 2005; Tabia vs CA Feb 22, 2007)

What is the nature of an action for reconveyance?It is an action in personam. An action in personam is directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments, while an action in rem is directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto against the whole world.

BQ: Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land in Quezon City. One year later, Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis

pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks the cancellation of the lis pendens.

Will Rachelle’s suit prosper? May the court cancel the notice of lis pendens even before final judgment is rendered? Explain.

1. Yes, Rachelle’s suit will prosper because all elements for an action for reconveyance are present namely: Rachelle is claiming dominical rights over the same land; Rommel procured his title by fraud; The action was brought within4 years from discovery of fraud and not later than 10 yeas from the date of

registration of Rommel’s title; and Title to the land has not passed into the hands of an IPV.

Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if Rachelle had filed a petition to reopen or review the decree of registration. But Rachelle filed an ordinary action for reconveyance. In the latter, indefeasibility is not a valid defense because in filing such action, Rachelle is not seeking to nullify not to impugn the indefeasibility of ROmmel’s title. She is only asking the court to compel Rommel to reconvey the title to her as she is the legitimate owner.

Alternative Answer: Yes. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered. The Torrens system was not designed to shield one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad faith. (Walstrom vs Mapa, Jan 29, 1990)

2. A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled even before final judgment upon proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse party or that the notice of lis pendens is not necessary to protect the right of the party who caused it to be registered. (Sec 77 PD 1529)

In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the legitimate owner of the land in question. It can be said therefore that when she filed her notice of lis pendens, her purpose was to protect her interest in the land and not just to molest Rommel. It is necessary to record the lis pendens to protect her interest because if she did not do it, there is a possiblity that the land will fall into the hands of an IPV and in that event, the court loses control over the land, making any favorable judgment thereon moot and academic.

Period of Filing of the ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE:1. If based on fraud, four years from the discovery of the fraud.

Registration of an instrument in the office of the Register of Deeds constitutes constructive notice to the whole world and therefore the discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of registration. (Villagonzalo vs IAC 167 scra 535) or from the issuance of the original certificate of title (Endozo vs Buck Oct 19, 2007)

2. If based on implied constructive trust, 10 yearsAn action for reconveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property has been

wrongfully registered in another’s name but the action must be filed within 10 years from the issuance of the title since such issuance constitutes constructive notice. (Declaro vs CA 288 scra 287, Retuerto vs Bars 372 scra 712)

3. Imprescriptible (based on a void contract)The right to file an action for reconveyance on the ground that the certificate of title was obtained by

means of a fictitious deed of sale is, virtually an action for the declaration of its nullity, which action does not prescribe. Hence, the fact that the alleged deed of sale took place in 1971 and the action to have it declared void or inexistent was filed in 1983 is of no moment. To reiterate, an action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible. (Lacsamana vs CA 288 scra 287 in relation with Villarino vs Avila sep 26, 2006)

8. Recovery of Damages.

The sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another’s name after one year from the date of the decree, is not to set aside the decree, but respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for damages if the property has passed into the hands of an IPV.

Damages are not recoverable from the Assurance Fund when they can be recovered from the person who caused the loss.

Q: What must be established before an action against any person for damages for the wrongful deprivation of land can prosper?That the person is in reality wrongfully deprived of his land by the registration in the name of another of the land by actual or constructive fraud; That there was no negligence on his part; That he is barred or in anyway precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of land or interest therein; That the action for compensation has not prescribed.

Q: is the right of an heir or another person deprived of his lawful participation to file an action to recover property or damages limited to the 2 year period prescribed in Sec 4 Rule 74 of the Rules of court?A: no. such period refers only to the institution of a special proceeding for the administration and settlement of estates of deceased persons but not to an ordinary action for the recovery of property or damages which falls under the general law of prescription.

The said rule does not deprive an heir of his participation in the estate.> After 1 year from the date of decree and if reconveyance us not possible since the property

has passed to IPV, the aggrieved party may bring an ordinary action for damages only against the applicant or persons responsible for the fraud or were instrumental in depriving him of the property. This prescribes in 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. (Dino vs CA 198 scra 434, Ybanez vs IAC 194 scra 743)

9. Action against the Assurance Fund.

10. Cancellation Suit

Q: Can an action for “Annulment of Judgment and Cancellation of Decree and Titles” be considered as a Cancellation suit over which the RTC has jurisdiction?

A: RTC has jurisdiction. The body of the pleadings determines the nature of the action and not the title or the heading. The case is for cancellation of void titles and not for annulment of judgment. (Eagle Realty vs RP July 4, 2008)

Martinez vs CA (Jan 28, 2008)An action for declaration of nullity of title is different from action of reversion of title to the State. Director

of Lands need to be impleaded in this case. The difference between them is the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit ownership of the disputed land; hence, the only person entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands. In an action for the declaration of nullity of the title, the Plaintiff is already the owner of the contested lot prior to the issuance of the patent, hence, he is the real party in interest to institute the action.

Estate of Yujuico vs Republic ( Oct 26, 2007)An action for reversion for titles issued by the RTC effective July 1, 1997 ( 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

which incorporated Rule 17 in relation with PD 1529) is lodged with the Court of Appeals. Hence, the filing of the reversion suit with the Paranaque RTC should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is only actions for reversion to cancel titles derived from homestead patents or free patents based on transfers and conveyances in violation of CA 141 which is filed by the OSG with the RTC.

11. Action to Quiet Title

Q: What is action for quieting of title? A: It is an action that is brought to remove clouds on the title to real property or any interest

therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title.

Q: Who may file an action to quiet title? A: Registered owner; A person who has an equitable right or interest in the property; or The

State.

12. Annulment of Jugment (Filed with The Land Registration Court which rendered the decision)

Available ONLY when the ordinary remedies of new trial, Petition for Relief, or the appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the Petitioner. (Lintog vs CA 291 SCRA 309).

13. Criminal Action

Q: What is the remedy in case a person lost his certificate of title? A: It depends. 1. If what is lost is the OCT or TCT – Reconstitution of certificate of title; 2. If, however, it is the duplicate of the OCT or TCT – Replacement of lost duplicate certificate of title.

Q: What are the elements of reconstitution of certificates of title? A: 1. Certificate has been lost or destroyed; 2. Petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest therein; and 3. Certificate was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.

Q: What are the jurisdictional requirements in petitions for reconstitution of title? A: Notice thereof shall be: 1. Published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette; 2. Posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city, where the land is situated; and 3. Sent by registered mail to every person named in said notice

Note: The above requirements are mandatory and jurisdictional.

In Heirs of Navarro vs Willy Go ( June 17, 2008), Publication is a jurisdictional requirement and non-compliance therewith is fatal to the petition for reconstitution of title. Moreover, notwithstanding compliance with the notice of publication, the requirement of actual notice to the occupants and the owners of the adjoining property under Sec 12 and 13 of RA 26 is itself mandatory to vest jurisdiction upon the court in a Petition for Reconstitution of Title and essential in order to allow said court to take the case on its merits. The non-

observance of the requirement invalidates the whole reconstitution proceeding in the trial court.

Q: What is meant by reversion? A: It is an action instituted by the government, through the Solicitor General, for cancellation of

certificate of title and the consequential reversion of the land covered thereby to the State. (Aquino, p. 154, 2007 ed)

Note: The difference between reversion suit and action for declaration of nullity of title is that in the former, the allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. On the other hand, action for declaration of nullity of title requires allegation of the plaintiff’s ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of free patent and certificate of title. (Aquino, p. 155, 2007 ed)

Q: When does reversion apply? A: Generally, reversion applies in all cases where lands of public domain and the improvements thereon

and all lands are held in violation of the Constitution. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 221, 1999 ed)

Q: Luis filed a complaint for annulment of title involving a foreshore land which was granted in Flores’ favor, alleging that his application therefor was granted by the government. Is Luis the real party in interest with authority to file a complaint for annulment of title of foreshore land?

A: No. In all actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon, the Republic of the Philippines is the real party in interest. The action shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioners must first lodge their complaint with the Bureau of Lands in order that an administrative investigation may be conducted under Sec. 91, Public Land Act. (Manese v. Sps. Velasco, G.R. No. 164024, Jan. 29, 2009)

Note: Indefeasibility of title, prescription, laches and estoppel do not bar reversion suits.

Q: Must voluntary dealings be registered? A: No. Registration is not a requirement for validity of the contract as between the parties. However, the

act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third parties are concerned. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 276, 1999 ed)

Q: What are the requirements for registrability of deeds and other voluntary acts of conveyance? A: PIPE1. Presentation of owner’s duplicate certificate whenever any duly executed voluntary instrument is filed for registration;2. Inclusion of one extra copy of any document of transfer or alienation of real property, to be furnished to the city or provincial assessor; 3. Payment of prescribed registration fees and requisite doc stamps; and 4. Evidence of full payment of real estate tax as may be due.

Q: What is the effect of registration of such voluntary dealings? A: It:

1. creates a lien that attaches to the property in favor of the mortgagee; and 2. constitutes constructive notice of his interest in the property to the whole world.

Q: What is notice of lis pendens? A: Lis pendens literally means a pending suit. The doctrine of lis pendens refers to the jurisdiction,

power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 343, 2008 ed)

It merely creates a contingency and not a lien. It does not produce any right or interest which may be exercised over the property of another. It only protects the applicant’s rights which will be determined during trial. (Aquino, p. 221, 2007 ed; Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 255, 1999 ed)

Q: What are the purposes of a notice of lis pendens? A: To:

1. protect the rights of the party causing the registration of the lis pendens; and 2. advise third persons who purchase or contract on the subject property that they do so at their peril and subject to the result of the pending litigation. (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 344, 2008)

Note: A notice of lis pendens is intended to constructively advise, or warn all people who deal with the property that they so deal with it at their own risk, and whatever rights they may acquire in the property in any voluntary transaction, are subject to the results of the action, and may well be inferior and subordinate to those which may be finally determined and laid down therein.

Q: What are non‐registrable lands? A: These are properties of public dominion which, under existing legislation, are not the subject of

private ownership and are reserved for public purposes. (Aquino, p. 38, 2007 ed) Q: What is the reason behind their non‐registrability?

A: They are intended for public use, public service or development of the national wealth. They are outside the commerce of men and, therefore, not subject to private appropriation.

Q: Which lands are non‐registrable?A: 1. Property of public domain or those intended for public use, public service or development of the national wealth. 2. Forest or timber lands 3. Water sheds 4. Mangrove swamps 5. Mineral lands 6. Parks and plazas 7. Military or naval reservations 8. Foreshore lands 9. Reclaimed lands 10. Submerged areas 11. River banks 12. Lakes 13. Reservations for public and semi‐public purposes 14. Others of similar character (Agcaoili Reviewer, p. 82, 2008)