7/31/2019 Land Titles Case Doctrines

1/2

1. AVILA vs. TAPUCAR

- Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of

acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of such

title over a particular property. It does not give the

holder any better right that what he actually has,

especially if the registration was done in bad faith.

The effect is that it is as if no registration was made

at all.

2. REPUBLIC vs. LEE

- No public land can be acquired by private persons

without any grant, express or implied from

government.

- In land registration cases, the burden of proof is

upon the applicant to show that he is the real and

absolute owner in fee simple.

-The bare statement of the applicant that the land

applied for has been in the possession of her

predecessors-in-interest for more than 20 years,

does not constitute the well-nigh controvertible

and conclusive evidence required in land

registration.

3. CACHO vs. CA

- A land registration proceeding is in rem and,

therefore, the decree of registration is binding and

conclusive against all persons including the

government and its branches.

- A decree of registration that has become final shall

be deemed conclusive not only on the questions

actually contested and determined but also upon all

matters that might be litigated or decided in land

registration proceedings.

- As a proceeding in rem, the decree of registration

issued in land registration cases is binding upon and

conclusive against the entire world.

4. DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. CA

- Land registration proceedings are actions in rem. It

is not necessary to give personal notice to the

owners or claimants of the land sought to be

registered, to vest the court with the authority over

the res. Instead, it is the publication of notice of the

application for registration which serves to apprise

the whole world that such petition has been filed

and whosoever is minded to oppose it, may do so

within 30 days before the date set by the court for

hearing the petition.

- It is the publication of such notice that brings in th

whole world as a party and vests the court with

jurisdiction to hear the case.

-In this case, the petitioner did not oppose theinstitution of land registration proceedings despite

notice of publication.

- Failure to oppose the same at its institution,

petitioner is now stopped to contest the validity o

the decree.

5. CHING vs. CA

- The landowner whose property has been

wrongfully registered in anothers name, after the

one year period, could not ask for the court to set

aside the decree, but he could bring an ordinary

action for damages if, as in this case, the property

has passed unto the hands of innocent purchasers

for value.

6. HEIRS OF TEODORO de la CRUZ vs. CA

- Laches sets in if would take 18 years for a person

file an action to annul the land registration

proceedings, especially so if the registrant has

already subdivided the land and sold the same to

innocent third parties. A partys long inactionor

passivity in asserting his rights over disputed

property precludes him from recovering the same

7. SALAO vs. CRISOSTOMO

- However, where a private individual opposing an

application for registration alleges while the land

sought to be registered was part of the public

domain for which he had a sales application

approved by the Bureau of Lands and was in actupossession thereof by authority of said Bureau, it

was held that such an opposition cannot be

dismissed inasmuch as it is predicated upon actua

possession which constitutes sufficient interest to

make the oppositor an adverse claimant within the

meaning of Sec. 34 of Act No. 496.

8. AVERIA vs. CAGUIAO

7/31/2019 Land Titles Case Doctrines

2/2

- Sec. 2 of the Property Registration Decree (P.D No.

1529) has eliminated the distinction between the

general jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the

limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former

law (Act 496) when acting merely as a cadastral

court.

- Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change

has simplified registration proceedings by

conferring upon the RTCs the authority to act not

only on original applications but also those filed

after original registration, with power to hear anddetermine all questions arising upon such

applications or petitions.