land,title,and deeds cases digest

7/21/2019 Land,Title,And Deeds Cases Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/landtitleand-deeds-cases-digest 1/41



Petitioner, throu$h the Solicitor ?eneral, appealed to the R%C of -alibo, A'lan, wherethe case was doc'eted as Ci1il Case No. *+36.

(n ay ), )66+, the R%C rendered its Decision a@rmin$ the C%C 5ud$ment withmodi=cation.

Petitioner Republic, represented by the ANCF and Dr. Elenita R. Andrade, in hercapacity as the new Superintendent of the ANCF, ele1ated the case to the Court of Appeals throu$h a Petition for Re1iew. %he petition was doc'eted as CA4?.R. SP No.*8)22.

(n February )2, )663, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissin$ thepetition for lac' of merit. ence, the petition to the Supreme Court.

I/- &hether or not respondents retain pri1ate ri$hts to the disputed property,thus pre1entin$ the application of the abo1e proclamation thereon. %he pri1ate ri$htreferred to is an alle$ed imperfect title.

H/- No. At the outset, it must be noted that respondents ha1e not =led an

application for 5udicial con=rmation of imperfect title under the Public "and Act orthe Property Re$istration Decree. %he Court has thus held that there are tworeuisites for 5udicial con=rmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. +2+,namelyB /+0 open, continuous, e!clusi1e, and notorious possession and occupationof the sub5ect land by himself or throu$h his predecessors4in4interest under a bona=de claim of ownership since time immemorial or from >une +), +28 and /)0 theclassi=cation of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. &ithrespect to the second reuisite, the courts a uo held that the disputed propertywas alienable and disposable before +*6, citin$ petitioner9s failure to showcompetent e1idence that the sub5ect land was declared a timberland before itsformal classi=cation as such on said year.++ Petitioner emphatically ob5ects, alle$in$

that under the Re$alian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belon$ to the Stateand that lands not appearin$ to be clearly within pri1ate ownership are presumed tobelon$ to the State.

Discussin$ the Re$alian Doctrine 1is441is the ri$ht of the claimants to lands theyclaim to ha1e possessed since time immemorial, heldB A positi1e act declarin$ landas alienable and disposable is reuired. ;n 'eepin$ with the presumption of Stateownership, the Court has time and a$ain emphasi:ed that there must be a positi1eact of the $o1ernment, such as an o@cial proclamation, declassifyin$ inalienablepublic land into disposable land for a$ricultural or other purposes. ;n fact, Section <of CA No. +2+ limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which ha1ebeen o@cially delimited and classi=ed.

%he burden of proof in o1ercomin$ the presumption of State ownership of the landsof the public domain is on the person applyin$ for re$istration /or claimin$ownership0, who must pro1e that the land sub5ect of the application is alienable ordisposable. %o o1ercome this presumption, incontro1ertible e1idence must beestablished that the land sub5ect of the application /or claim0 is alienable ordisposable. %here must still be a positi1e act declarin$ land of the public domain asalienable and disposable. %o pro1e that the land sub5ect of an application for



re$istration is alienable, the applicant must establish the e!istence of a positi1e actof the $o1ernment such as a presidential proclamation or an e!ecuti1e order anadministrati1e action in1esti$ation reports of #ureau of "ands in1esti$ators and ale$islati1e act or a statute. %he applicant may also secure a certi=cation from the$o1ernment that the land claimed to ha1e been possessed for the reuired numberof years is alienable and disposable.

&hile it is true that the land classi=cation map does not cate$orically state that theislands are public forests, the fact that they were unclassi=ed lands leads to thesame result. ;t is therefore the respondents which ha1e the burden to identify apositi1e act of the $o1ernment, such as an o@cial proclamation, declassifyin$inalienable public land into disposable land for a$ricultural or other purposes. Sincerespondents failed to do so, the alle$ed possession by them and by theirpredecessors4in4interest is inconseuential and could ne1er ripen into ownership.

G.R. No. 150000, /+/3/r 26, 2006

R/c o +h/ Ph/ '. Tr Corora+o

#UTRI#M#RTINE9, *.

Fac+- (n April 36, +7 %riGPlus Corporation, throu$h its president, Euclid C. Po,=led with the %C of Consolacion, etro Cebu, an Application for Re$istration of

%itle o1er two parcels of land desi$nated as "ots +6*+ and +6*) of the cadastralsur1ey of Consolacion, Cebu, containin$ an area of 3,3 and 2,7* suare meters,respecti1ely, and located at #aran$ay %ayud, Consolacion, Cebu. ;n its application,

%riGPlus alle$ed that it is the owner in fee simple of the sub5ect parcels of land,includin$ the impro1ements thereon, ha1in$ acuired the same throu$h purchaseand that it is in actual, continuous, public, notorious, e!clusi1e and peacefulpossession of the sub5ect properties in the concept of an owner for more than 36

years, includin$ that of its predecessorsGinGinterest. (n September 2, +7, the trialcourt recei1ed an (pposition to the Application for Re$istration =led by the Republicof the Philippines throu$h the (@ce of the Solicitor ?eneral /(S?0 on the $roundsthat neither the applicant nor its predecessorsGinGinterest ha1e been in open,continuous, e!clusi1e and notorious possession and occupation of the land inuestion since >une +), +28 or prior thereto that the muniments of title submittedby the applicant which consists, amon$ others, of ta! declarations and receipts of ta! payments, do not constitute competent and su@cient e1idence of a bona =deacuisition of the land applied for or of its open, continuous, e!clusi1e and notoriouspossession and occupation thereof in the concept of owner since >une +), +28 orprior thereto that the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of a Spanish

title or $rant may no lon$er be a1ailed of by the applicant because it failed to =le anappropriate application for re$istration in accordance with the pro1isions of Presidential Decree /P.D.0 No. <) and that the sub5ect parcels of land are portionsof the public domain belon$in$ to the Republic of the Philippines and are not sub5ectto pri1ate appropriation.

%he %C made a decision in fa1or of the respondent, it held thatB



%he totality of the e1idence, both documentary and testimonial, of the applicantclearly shows that it and its predecessorsGinGinterest had been in actual, public,e!clusi1e and continuous possession in concept of owner of the parcels of landabo1eGmentioned for no less than thirty /360 years prior to the =lin$ of the instantpetition for re$istration of its imperfect title. %his bein$ so, the applicant is entitledthat its title be con=rmed under the pro1isions of the %orrens System of Re$istration.

%he (S? appealed the trial courts 5ud$ment with the CA. owe1er the CA =nds nore1ersible error in the said decision by the trial court. ence, the petition to theSupreme Court.

I/- &hether or not respondent showed that the sub5ect property is alienable anddisposable properties

H/- No. Applicants for con=rmation of imperfect title must pro1e the followin$B /a0that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable a$ricultural lands of thepublic domain and /b0 that they ha1e been in open, continuous, e!clusi1e andnotorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona =de claim of

ownership either since time immemorial or since >une +), +28.

Section * of Commonwealth Act No. +2+, as amended, pro1ides that theclassi=cation and reclassi=cation of public lands into alienable or disposable,mineral or forest land is the prero$ati1e of the E!ecuti1e Department. Hnder theRe$alian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the publicdomain belon$ to the State, which is the source of any asserted ri$ht to anyownership of land. All lands not appearin$ to be clearly within pri1ate ownership arepresumed to belon$ to the State. Accordin$ly, public lands not shown to ha1e beenreclassi=ed or released as alienable a$ricultural land or alienated to a pri1ateperson by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.

;t must be stressed that incontro1ertible e1idence must be presented to establishthat the land sub5ect of the application is alienable or disposable.

;n the present case, the only e1idence to pro1e the character of the sub5ect lands asreuired by law is the notation appearin$ in the Ad1ance Plan statin$ in eIect thatthe said properties are alienable and disposable. owe1er, this is hardly the 'ind of proof reuired by law. %o pro1e that the land sub5ect of an application forre$istration is alienable, an applicant must establish the e!istence of a positi1e actof the $o1ernment such as a presidential proclamation or an e!ecuti1e order, anadministrati1e action, in1esti$ation reports of #ureau of "ands in1esti$ators, and ale$islati1e act or statute. %he applicant may also secure a certi=cation from the?o1ernment that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.

&ellGentrenched is the rule that the burden of proof in land re$istration cases restson the applicant who must show clear, positi1e and con1incin$ e1idence that hisalle$ed possession and occupation were of the nature and duration reuired by law.;n the present case, the Court =nds that respondent failed to pro1e, by clear andcon1incin$ e1idence, the le$al reuirements that the lands sou$ht to be titled arealienable and disposable and that its predecessorsGinGinterest were already inpossession of the sub5ect lots since +28 or earlier.



As to the last assi$ned error, respondent ha1in$ failed to pro1e that the sub5ectproperties are alienable and disposable public lands, the Court a$rees withpetitioner that there would be no basis in concludin$ that these lands ha1e alreadybecome pri1ate. %he presumption remains that said properties remain part of theinalienable public domain and, therefore, could not become the sub5ect of con=rmation of imperfect title.

Finally, while it is an ac'nowled$ed policy of the State to promote the distribution of alienable public lands as a spur to economic $rowth and in line with the ideal of social 5ustice, the law imposes strin$ent safe$uards upon the $rant of suchresources lest they fall into the wron$ hands to the pre5udice of the nationalpatrimony. %he Court must not, therefore, rela! the strin$ent safe$uards relati1e tothe re$istration of imperfect titles.

G.R. No. 16:766, */ 22, 2006

R/c o +h/ Ph/ '. Ca; Ma</r, Ic

C#LLE*O, R., *.Fac+- Sometime in +<, Candy a'er, ;nc. decided to purchase "ot No. 3+3<Cad. *<< of the CaintaG%aytay Cadastre, a parcel of land located below there$lementary la'e ele1ation of +).86 meters, about 66 meters away from the"a$una de #ay, and bounded on the southwest by the an$$ahan Floodway, and onthe southeast by a le$al easement.

(n April +, +<, ?eodetic En$ineer Potenciano . Fernande:, prepared and si$neda Subdi1ision Plan of the property for Apolonio Cru:. %he property was subdi1idedinto two lots. (n April ), +, Antonio, Eladia, and Felisa, all surnamed Cru:,e!ecuted a Deed of Absolute Sale in fa1or of Candy a'er, ;nc. %he buyer declared

"ot No. 3+3< for ta!ation purposes in + under %a! Declaration Nos. 662G+<),662G+<36 and 662G+<3+.

(n >une +*, +, Candy a'er, ;nc., as applicant, =led an application with the %Cof %aytay, Ri:al, for the re$istration of its alle$ed title o1er "ot No. 3+3<GA and "otNo. 3+3<G# under Presidential Decree /P.D.0 No. +8).

Actin$ thereon, the %C issued an (rder on >une +<, + directin$ the applicant tocause the publication of the notice of initial hearin$ and for the Deputy SheriI topost the same. %he Administrator of the "and Re$istration Authority /"RA0 and theDirectors of the "and ana$ement #ureau /"#0 and Forest ana$ement #ureau/F#0 were also instructed to submit their respecti1e reports on the status of the

parcels of land before the initial hearin$ scheduled on (ctober ), +. %he Community En1ironment and Natural Resources (@cer /CENR(0 of AntipoloCity =led a report that one of the land is alieanable and disposable. (n the otherhand, the other was e!lcuded on the $round that it is a le$al easement andintended for public use, hence, inalienable and indisposable.



(n September 36, +, the "a$una "a'e De1elopment Authority /""DA0 appro1edResolution No. ++3, Series of +3, pro1idin$ that untitled shoreland areas may beleased sub5ect to conditions enumerated therein.

%he applicant =led its Amended Application on December +8, + for thecon=rmation of its alle$ed title on land as applicant and their predecessorsGinG

interest ha1e been in open, public, continuous, and peaceful occupation andpossession of the said land since time immemorial in the concept of true ownersand ad1erse to the whole world.

%he Republic of the Philippines, the ""DA =led its (pposition+ to the AmendedApplication in which it alle$ed that the lot sub5ect of the application for re$istrationmay not be alienated and disposed since it is considered part of the "a$una "a'ebed, a public land within its 5urisdiction. ;t is indicated that it is Jlocated below there$lementary la'e ele1ation of +).86 meters referred to datum +6.66 meters belowmean lower waterJ and under Section 2+/++0 of R.A. No. 2<86, the property is apublic land which forms part of the bed of the "a$una "a'e.

(n (ctober +), )66+, the %C rendered a Decision $rantin$ the application forre$istration o1er the lots.

(n appeal to the CA, the petitioner contended that the %C did not acuire 5urisdiction o1er the application for re$istration since the actual copies of the (@cial?a:ette /(.?.0 where the notice of hearin$ was published were not adduced ine1idence the applicant li'ewise failed to establish e!clusi1e ownership o1er thesub5ect property in the manner prescribed by law. %he petitioner ar$ued further thatthe reuirements of Section )3, par. + of P.D. No. +8), 2 as amended, aremandatory and 5urisdictional, and that failure to obser1e such reuirements has afatal eIect on the whole proceedin$s. ;t noted that the testimonies of theapplicant9s witnesses are more of conclusions of law rather than factual e1idence of ownership. (ther than the $eneral statement that they planted rice and 1e$etableson the sub5ect lots, their possession could properly be characteri:ed as mere casualculti1ation since they failed to account for its e!clusi1e utili:ation since +28 orearlier. After stressin$ that ta! declarations are not conclusi1e proof of ownership, itconcluded that the sub5ect lots ri$htfully belon$ to the State under the Re$aliandoctrine.

%he applicant a1erred in its Appellee9s #rief that it had mar'ed in e1idence theactual copy of the (.?. where the notice of initial hearin$ was published. oreo1er,Sec. +2, par. + of P.D. +8) is inapplicable since it spea's of possession andoccupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. ;nstead, par. 2 of

the same section88 should $o1ern because the sub5ect parcels of land are lands of pri1ate ownership, ha1in$ bein$ acuired throu$h purchase from its predecessorsGinGinterest, who, in turn, inherited the same from their parents. ;t pointed out thatthere were no ad1erse claims of interest or ri$ht by other pri1ate persons and e1en$o1ernment a$encies li'e the Pro1ince of Ri:al. "astly, while ta! declarations andta! receipts do not constitute e1idence of ownership, they are nonetheless primafacie e1idence of possession.



(n ay )+, )662, the appellate court rendered 5ud$ment which dismissed theappeal and a@rmed in toto the Decision of the %C, %he Republic, now petitioner,=led the instant Petition for Re1iew.

I/- &hether or not the sub5ect land is alienable and disposable

H/- Kes, %he property sub5ect of this application was alienable and disposablepublic a$ricultural land until >uly +<, +**. owe1er, respondent failed to pro1e thatit possesses re$isterable title o1er the property.

Section 2</b0 of Commonwealth Act No. +2+, as amended by R.A. No. +2), readsB

Section 2<. %he followin$ described citi:ens of the Philippines, occupyin$ lands of the public domain or claimin$ to own any such lands or an interest therein, butwhose titles ha1e not been perfected or completed, nay apply to the Court of First;nstance of the pro1ince where the land is located for con=rmation of their claimsand the issuance of a certi=cate of title therefor, under the "and Re$istration Act, towitB

/b0 %hose who by themsel1es or throu$h their predecessors inGinterest ha1e been inopen, continuous, e!clusi1e, and notorious possession and occupation of a$ricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona =de claim of acuisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately precedin$ the =lin$ of theapplication for con=rmation of title e!cept when pre1ented by war or force ma5eure.

%hese shall be conclusi1ely presumed to ha1e performed all the conditions essentialto a ?o1ernment $rant and shall be entitled to a certi=cate of title under thepro1isions of this chapter.

%his pro1ision was further amended by P.D. No. +673 by substitutin$ the phrase Jforat least thirty yearsJ with Jsince >une +), +28J thusB

Sec. 2. %he pro1isions of Section 2</b0 and Section 2</c0, Chapter L;;;, of the Public"and Act are hereby amended in the sense that these pro1isions shall apply only toalienable and disposable lands of the public domain which ha1e been in open,continuous, e!clusi1e and notorious possession, and occupation by the applicanthimself or throu$h his predecessorGinGinterest, under a bona =de claim of acuisitionof ownership, since >une +), +28.

Section +2/+0 of P.D. No. +8), otherwise 'nown as the Property Re$istrationDecree, pro1idesB

SEC. +2. &ho may apply. M%he followin$ persons may =le in the proper Court of First ;nstance now Re$ional %rial CourtO an application for re$istration of title to

land, whether personally or throu$h their duly authori:ed representati1esB

/+0 %hose who by themsel1es or throu$h their predecessorsGinGinterest ha1e been inopen, continuous, e!clusi1e and notorious possession and occupation of alienableand disposable lands of the public domain under a bona =de claim of ownershipsince >une +), +28, or earlier /emphasis supplied0.

Applicants for con=rmation of imperfect title must, therefore, pro1e the followin$B/a0 that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable a$ricultural lands of the



public domain and /b0 that they ha1e been in open, continuous, e!clusi1e, andnotorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona =de claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since >une +), +28.

Hnder the Re$alian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearin$ to be clearly withinpri1ate ownership are presumed to belon$ to the State. %he presumption is that

lands of whate1er classi=cation belon$ to the State.Hnless public land is shown toha1e been reclassi=ed as alienable or disposable to a pri1ate person by the State, itremains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of the public domain isbeyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of pri1ate appropriation andacuisiti1e prescription. (ccupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter howlon$ cannot ripen into ownership and be re$istered as a title. %he statute of limitations with re$ard to public a$ricultural lands does not operate a$ainst theState unless the occupant pro1es possession and occupation of the same after aclaim of ownership for the reuired number of years to constitute a $rant from theState.

No public land can be acuired by pri1ate persons without any $rant from the$o1ernment, whether e!press or implied. ;t is indispensable that there be a showin$of a title from the State. %he rationale for the period Jsince time immemorial orsince >une +), +28J lies in the presumption that the land applied for pertains to theState, and that the occupants or possessor claim an interest thereon only by 1irtueof their imperfect title as continuous, open and notorious possession.

A possessor of real property may acuire ownership thereof throu$h acuisiti1eprescription.

%o pro1e that the land sub5ect of an application for re$istration is alienable, anapplicant must conclusi1ely establish the e!istence of a positi1e act of the$o1ernment such as a presidential proclamation or an e!ecuti1e order, oradministrati1e action, in1esti$ation reports of the #ureau of "ands in1esti$ator or ale$islati1e act or statute.7 Hntil then, the rules on con=rmation of imperfect title donot apply. A certi=cation of the Community En1ironment and Natural Resources(@cer in the Department of En1ironment and Natural Resources statin$ that theland sub5ect of an application is found to be within the alienable and disposable siteper a land classi=cation pro5ect map is su@cient e1idence to show the realcharacter of the land sub5ect of the application.

%he applicant is burdened to oIer proof of speci=c acts of ownership to substantiatethe claim o1er the land.Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion o1er it of such a nature as a party would actually e!ercise o1er his own

property. A mere casual culti1ation of portions of the land by the claimant does notconstitute su@cient basis for a claim of ownership such possession is not e!clusi1eand notorious as to $i1e rise to a presumpti1e $rant from the State.

;n this case, the e1idence on record shows that the property is alienable a$riculturalland. Romeo Cadano of the Community En1ironment and Natural Resources (@ce,Antipolo Ri:al, certi=ed that the property Jfalls within the Alienable and Disposable:one, under "and Classi=cation Pro5ect No. 8GA, per ".C. ap No. *3 certi=edreleased on arch ++, +)7.J owe1er, under R.A. No. 2<86 which was appro1ed on



>uly +<, +**, lands located at and below the ma!imum la'e le1el of ele1ation of the "a$una de #ay are public lands which form part of the bed of said la'e. Suchlands denominated as la'eshore areas are linear strips of open space desi$ned toseparate incompatible element or uses, or to control pollutionnuisance, and foridentifyin$ and de=nin$ de1elopment areas or :one. Such areas of the la'e with anappro!imate total area of +2,666 hectares form a strip of the la'ebed alon$ itsshores alternately submer$ed or e!posed by the annual risin$ and lowerin$ of thela'e water. %hey ha1e en1ironmental ecolo$ical si$ni=cance and actual potentialeconomic bene=ts.

=#LI#O '. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE /+ a,

G.R. No. 170757, No'/3/r 28, 2011

PER#LT#, *.-

Fac+B (n Au$ust ++, +<7, petitioners Paci=co, "odo1ico, Ricardo, #ien1enido, allsurnamed Laliao, and Nemesio ?randea =led with the R%C of -aban'alan, Ne$ros

(ccidental an application for re$istration of a parcel of land with an area of 862,838suare meters, more or less, situated in #arrio ?alicia, unicipality of ;lo$, Ne$ros(ccidental.

(n >une )6, +<<, pri1ate oppositors acario Qafra and anuel Kusay =led theirotion to Dismiss the application on the followin$ $roundsB /+0 the land applied forhas not been declared alienable and disposable /)0 res 5udicata has set in to barthe application for re$istration and /30 the application has no factual or le$al basis.#ut the motion was bereft of merit.

(n Au$ust )2, +<<, the Republic of the Philippines /Republic0, throu$h the (@ce of the Solicitor ?eneral /(S?0, opposed the application for re$istration on the followin$

$rounds, amon$ othersB that neither the applicants nor their predecessorsGinGinterest had been in open, continuous, e!clusi1e and notorious possession andoccupation of the land in uestion since >une +), +28 or prior thereto that themuniments of title andor the ta! declarations and ta! paymentsreceipts of applicants, if any, attached to or alle$ed in the application, does not constitutecompetent and su@cient e1idence of a bona =de acuisition of the land applied foror of their open, continuous, e!clusi1e and notorious possession and occupation inthe concept of owner, since >une +), +28 or prior thereto that the parcel of landapplied for is a portion of public domain belon$in$ to the Republic, which is notsub5ect to pri1ate appropriation and that the present action is barred by a pre1ious=nal 5ud$ment in a cadastral case prosecuted between the same parties andin1ol1in$ the same parcel of land.

;n support of their application for re$istration, petitioners alle$ed that they acuiredthe sub5ect property in +27, upon the death of their uncle #asilio illare: /#asilio0,who purchased the land from a certain Fermin Payo$ao, pursuant to a Deed of Saledated ay +, ++* entirely handwritten in Spanish lan$ua$e. #asilio possessed theland in uestion from ay +, ++* until his death in +27. #asilios possession wasopen, continuous, peaceful, ad1erse, notorious, uninterrupted and in the concept of an owner. Hpon #asilios death, the applicants as coGheirs possessed the said land



until +**, when oppositor Qafra unlawfully and 1iolently dispossessed them of theirproperty, which compelled them to =le complaints of ?ra1e Coercion and uali=ed

%heft a$ainst Qafra. ;n support of their claim of possession o1er the sub5ectproperty, petitioners submitted in e1idence %a! Declaration No. 8*) datedSeptember ), +7* under the names of the heirs of #asilio illare:.

%he R%C, in its Decision dated December +8, +8, $ranted petitioners applicationfor re$istration of the sub5ect property.

A$$rie1ed by the Decision, the pri1ate oppositors and the Republic, throu$hAssistant Prosecutor >osue A. ?atin, =led an appeal with the CA, which re1ersed thetrial courts =ndin$s in its Decision dated >une )3, )668.

Petitioners =led a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in aResolution dated No1ember +7, )668. ence, the present petition

I/- &hether or not the sub5ect land is alienable and disposable of the publicdomain

H/- No. Hnder the Re$alian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, alllands of the public domain belon$ to the State, which the source of any is assertedri$ht to any ownership of land. All lands not appearin$ to be clearly within pri1ateownership are presumed to belon$ to the State. Accordin$ly, public lands not shownto ha1e been reclassi=ed or released as alienable a$ricultural land or alienated to apri1ate person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain. Hnlesspublic land is shown to ha1e been reclassi=ed as alienable or disposable to a pri1ateperson by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Property of thepublic domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of pri1ateappropriation and acuisiti1e prescription. (ccupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how lon$ cannot ripen into ownership and be re$istered as a title.

%he burden of proof in o1ercomin$ the presumption of State ownership of the landsof the public domain is on the person applyin$ for re$istration /or claimin$ownership0, who must pro1e that the land sub5ect of the application is alienable ordisposable. %o o1ercome this presumption, incontro1ertible e1idence must beestablished that the land sub5ect of the application /or claim0 is alienable ordisposable.

%here must be a positi1e act declarin$ land of the public domain as alienable anddisposable. %o pro1e that the land sub5ect of an application for re$istration isalienable, the applicant must establish the e!istence of a positi1e act of the$o1ernment, such as a presidential proclamation or an e!ecuti1e order anadministrati1e action in1esti$ation reports of #ureau of "ands in1esti$ators and ale$islati1e act or a statute. %he applicant may also secure a certi=cation from the$o1ernment that the land claimed to ha1e been possessed for the reuired numberof years is alienable and disposable.

No such e1idence was oIered by the petitioners to show that the land in uestionhas been classi=ed as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. ;n theabsence of incontro1ertible e1idence to pro1e that the sub5ect property is alreadyclassi=ed as alienable and disposable, we must consider the same as still



inalienable public domain. Lerily, the rules on the con=rmation of imperfect title donot apply unless and until the land sub5ect thereof is released in an o@cialproclamation to that eIect so that it may form part of the disposable a$riculturallands of the public domain.

;t is settled that the applicant must present proof of speci=c acts of ownership to

substantiate the claim and cannot 5ust oIer $eneral statements which are mereconclusions of law than factual e1idence of possession. Actual possession consists inthe manifestation of acts of dominion o1er it of such a nature as a party wouldactually e!ercise o1er his own property.

Petitioners assertion that #asilio possessed the property in uestion from ++* to+27 is, at best, con5ectural and selfGser1in$.

As re$ards petitioners possession of the land in uestion from +27 to +**,petitioners could only support the same with a ta! declaration dated September ),+7*.At best, petitioners can only pro1e possession since said date. &hat isreuired is open, e!clusi1e, continuous and notorious possession by petitioners and

their predecessorsGinGinterest, under a bona =de claim of ownership, since >une +),+28 or earlier. Petitioners failed to e!plain why, despite their claim that theirpredecessorsGinGinterest ha1e possessed the sub5ect properties in the concept of anowner e1en before >une +), +28, it was only in +7* that they started to declarethe same for purposes of ta!ation. oreo1er, ta! declarations and receipts are notconclusi1e e1idence of ownership or of the ri$ht to possess land when notsupported by any other e1idence. %he disputed property may ha1e been declaredfor ta!ation purposes in the names of the applicants for re$istration, or of theirpredecessorsGinGinterest, but it does not necessarily pro1e ownership. %hey aremerely indicia of a claim of ownership.

G.R. No. 1711:6 Oc+o/r 2:, 201:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, '. L"!I# C#PCO !E TENU#N, r/r//+/

; CL#U!I# C. #RUELO,

LEON#R!O!E C#TRO, *.-

Fac+- (n Au$ust ++, +<, %ensuan, represented by her sister, Claudia C. Aruelo/Aruelo0, =led with the e%C an Application for Re$istration of "ot Nos. ++6GA and++6G#.

(n Au$ust )6, +<, %ensuan =led an Hr$ent E! Parte otion to &ithdraw "ot ++6G# from the Application for Re$istration and to Amend the Application.8 Accordin$ to

%ensuan, she was withdrawin$ her Application for Re$istration of "ot ++6G#because a re1iew of Plan SwoG66G66+28* had re1ealed that said lot, with an area of 33< suare meters, was a le$al easement. %he e%C, in its (rder* dated September36, +<, $ranted %ensuan9s motion.

%he Republic, throu$h the (@ce of the Solicitor ?eneral /(S?0, =led an (ppositionto %ensuan9s Application for Re$istration on December )<, +<. %he Republicar$ued that /+0 neither %ensuan nor her predecessorsGinGinterest ha1e been in open,continuous, e!clusi1e, and notorious possession and occupation of the sub5ect



property since >une +), +28 or prior thereto /)0 the muniments of title andor ta!declarations and ta! payment receipts attached to the application does notconstitute competent and su@cient e1idence of a bona =de acuisition of thesub5ect property or of %ensuan9s open, continuous, e!clusi1e, and notoriouspossession and occupation of the sub5ect property in the concept of owner since

>une +), +28 or prior thereto /30 the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basisof Spanish title or $rant can no lon$er be a1ailed of by %ensuan who failed to =le anappropriate application for re$istration within the period of si! months fromFebruary +*, +7*, as reuired by Presidential Decree No. <) and /20 the sub5ectproperty forms part of the public domain not sub5ect of pri1ate appropriation.7

%he "a$una "a'e De1elopment Authority /""DA0 also =led its own (pposition datedFebruary +), + to %ensuan9s Application for Re$istration

%he e%C $ranted %ensuan9s Application for Re$istration, the dispositi1e portion isas followsB

&EREF(RE, from the e1idences adduced and testimonies presented by the

parties, the Court is of the considered 1iew that herein applicant has pro1en bypreponderance of e1idence the alle$ations in the application, hence, this Courthereby con=rms the title of applicant "KD;A CAPC( DE %ENSHAN married toR(D("F( %ENSHAN, of le$al a$e, Filipino and a resident of No. 23 Ri:al Street,Poblacion, untinlupa City to the parcel of a$ricultural land /"ot ++6GA, cadm86GD, %a$ui$ Cadastral appin$0 located at ;bayoGSta. Ana, %a$ui$, etro anilacontainin$ an area of Four %housand Si! /2,66*0 suare meters and order there$istration thereof in her name.

After the =nality of this decision and upon payment of the correspondin$ ta!es dueon said land sub5ect matter of this application, let an order for issuance of decree beissued.

%he Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, insistin$ that the e%C should notha1e $ranted %ensuan9s Application for Re$istration considerin$ that the sub5ectproperty is part of the "a$una "a'e bed, hence, is not alienable and disposable. %heappeal was doc'eted as CAG?.R. CL No. <2+)8.

;n the herein assailed Decision of >anuary +3, )66*, the Court of Appeals a@rmedthe e%C Decision.

ence, the Republic =led the present Petition

%he Republic contends that %ensuan failed to present incontro1ertible e1idence to

warrant the re$istration of the property in the latter9s name as owner. Aruelo9stestimony that her father possessed the land e1en before the Second &orld &arand arasi$an9s claim that he and his father ha1e been tillin$ the land for a total of more than *8 years are doubtful considerin$ that the sub5ect property is locatedbelow the re$lementary la'e ele1ation and is, thus, part of the "a$una "a'e bed.Also, the CENR( Certi=cation is not su@cient e1idence to o1ercome thepresumption that the sub5ect property still forms part of the public domain, and isnot alienable and disposable. (n the other hand, %ensuan asserts that the Petition



should be dismissed outri$ht for raisin$ uestions of fact. %he =ndin$s of the e%Cand the Court of Appeals that the sub5ect property is alienable and disposable, andthat %ensuan and her predecessorsGinGinterest had been in open, ad1erse,continuous, e!clusi1e, and notorious possession of the same for the period reuiredby law, are supported by preponderance of e1idence.

I/- &hether the sub5ect property is alienable and disposable

H/- No. Hnder the Re$alian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belon$ to theState, and that the State is the source of any asserted ri$ht to ownership of landand char$ed with the conser1ation of such patrimony. %he same doctrine also statesthat all lands not otherwise appearin$ to be clearly within pri1ate ownership arepresumed to belon$ to the State. Conseuently, the burden of proof to o1ercomethe presumption of ownership of lands of the public domain is on the personapplyin$ for re$istration. Hnless public land is shown to ha1e been reclassi=ed andalienated by the State to a pri1ate person, it remains part of the inalienable publicdomain.

A positi1e act declarin$ land as alienable and disposable is reuired. ;n 'eepin$ withthe presumption of State ownership, the Court has time and a$ain emphasi:ed thatthere must be a positi1e act of the $o1ernment, such as an o@cial proclamation,declassifyin$ inalienable public land into disposable land for a$ricultural or otherpurposes. ;n fact, Section < of CA No. +2+ limits alienable or disposable lands onlyto those lands which ha1e been Jo@cially delimited and classi=ed.J

%he burden of proof in o1ercomin$ the presumption of State ownership of the landsof the public domain is on the person applyin$ for re$istration /or claimin$ownership0, who must pro1e that the land sub5ect of the application is alienable ordisposable. %o o1ercome this presumption, incontro1ertible e1idence must beestablished that the land sub5ect of the application /or claim0 is alienable ordisposable. %here must still be a positi1e act declarin$ land of the public domain asalienable and disposable. %o pro1e that the land sub5ect of an application forre$istration is alienable, the applicant must establish the e!istence of a positi1e actof the $o1ernment such as a presidential proclamation or an e!ecuti1e order anadministrati1e action in1esti$ation reports of #ureau of "ands in1esti$ators and ale$islati1e act or a statute. %he applicant may also secure a certi=cation from the$o1ernment that the land claimed to ha1e been possessed for the reuired numberof years is alienable and disposable. /Citations and emphasis omitted.0

As proof that the sub5ect property is alienable and disposable, %ensuan presented aCerti=cation dated >uly ), + issued by the CENR(GDENR which 1eri=ed that

Jsaid land falls within alienable and disposable land under Pro5ect No. )7G# ".C. apNo. )*)3 under Forestry Administrati1e (rder No. 2G++2+ dated >anuary 3, +*<.Jowe1er, we ha1e declared uneui1ocally that a CENR( Certi=cation, by itself, isinsu@cient proof that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable. As we held inRepublic 1. %.A.N. Properties, ;nc.

;t is not enou$h for the PENR( or CENR( to certify that a land is alienable anddisposable.



%he applicant for land re$istration must pro1e that the DENR Secretary hadappro1ed the land classi=cation and released the land of the public domain asalienable and disposable, and that the land sub5ect of the application for re$istrationfalls within the appro1ed area per 1eri=cation throu$h sur1ey by the PENR( orCENR(. ;n addition, the applicant for land re$istration must present a copy of theori$inal classi=cation appro1ed by the DENR Secretary and certi=ed as a true copyby the le$al custodian of the o@cial records. %hese facts must be established topro1e that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so becausethe certi=cations presented by respondent do not, by themsel1es, pro1e that theland is alienable and disposable.

?i1en the lac' of e1idence that the sub5ect property is alienable and disposable, itbecomes unnecessary for us to determine the other issue in this case, i.e., whether

%ensuan has been in open, continuous, e!clusi1e and notorious possession andoccupation and that such possession is under a bona =de claim of ownership since

>une +), +28 or earlier. Re$ardless of the character and len$th of her possession of the sub5ect property, %ensuan cannot acuire re$isterable title to inalienable public

land.

##! #GROIN!UTRIE, INC '. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE,

G.R. No. 152570, /+/3/r 27, 2006

TING#, *.-

Fac+- (n +< (ctober +*7, Socorro (rcullo /(rcullo0 =led her application for FreePatent for "ot No. +232 of CadG3+8GD, a parcel of land with an area of +).<277hectares located in #aran$ay Abu$on, Sibon$a, Cebu. %hereafter, on +2 February+7+, the Secretary of A$riculture and Natural Resources issued Free Patent No.27326< for "ot No. +232, while the Re$istry of Deeds for the Pro1ince of Cebu issued

(ri$inal Certi=cate of %itle /(C%0 No. 6G***7 o1er the said lot. Subseuently, thesub5ect lot was sold to SAAD A$roG ;ndustries, ;nc. /petitioner0 by one of (rcullosheirs.

Sometime in +8, the Republic of the Philippines, throu$h the Solicitor ?eneral,=led a complaint for annulment of title and re1ersion of the lot co1ered by FreePatent No. 27326< and (C% No. 6G***7 and re1ersion of "ot No. +232 of CadG3+8GDto the mass of the public domain, on the $round that the issuance of the said freepatent and title for "ot No. +232 was irre$ular and erroneous, followin$ thedisco1ery that the lot is alle$edly part of the timberland and forest reser1e of Sibon$a, Cebu. %he disco1ery was made after Pedro Hr$ello =led a letterGcomplaintwith the Re$ional E!ecuti1e

Director of the Forest ana$ement Sector, Department of En1ironment and NaturalResources /DENR0 Re$ion L;;, Cebu City, about the alle$ed ille$al cuttin$ of man$ro1e trees and construction of di'es within the area co1ered by Hr$ellosFishpond "ease A$reement. (n +2 >uly +8, Hr$ello =led a complaintGinGinter1ention a$ainst the heirs of (rcullo, adoptin$ the alle$ations of respondent.owe1er, the heirs failed to =le their answer to the complaint and were thusdeclared in default.



%he trial court dismissed the complaint, =ndin$ that respondent failed to show thatthe sub5ect lot is part of the timberland or forest reser1e or that it has beenclassi=ed as such before the issuance of the free patent and the ori$inal title. (nappeal, the Court of Appeals in its Decision re1ersed and set aside the trial courts

5ud$ment. ;t held that timber or forest lands, to which the sub5ect lot belon$s, arenot sub5ect to pri1ate ownership, unless these are =rst classi=ed as a$riculturallands. %hus, absent any declassi=cation of the sub5ect lot from forest to alienableand disposable land for a$ricultural purposes, the o@cers erred in appro1in$(rcullos free patent application and in issuin$ the (C% hence, title to the lot mustbe cancelled. Conseuently, the Court of Appeals in1alidated the sale of the lot topetitioner. owe1er, it declared that Hr$ellos Fishpond "ease A$reement maycontinue until its e!piration because lease does not pass title to the lessee butthereafter, the lease should not be renewed.

I/- &hether or not the land should be re1erted bac' to the ?o1ernment

H/- No. Hnder the Re$alian doctrine or 5ura re$alia, all lands of the public domainbelon$ to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted ri$ht to ownershipin land and char$ed with the conser1ation of such patrimony. Hnder this doctrine,lands not otherwise appearin$ to be clearly within pri1ate ownership are presumedto belon$ to the State. ;n instances where a parcel of land considered to beinalienable land of the public domain is found under pri1ate ownership, the?o1ernment is allowed by law to =le an action for re1ersion, which is an actionwhere the ultimate relief sou$ht is to re1ert the land to the $o1ernment under theRe$alian doctrine. Considerin$ that the land sub5ect of the action ori$inated from a$rant by the $o1ernment, its cancellation is a matter between the $rantor and the$rantee.

;t has been held that a complaint for re1ersion in1ol1es a serious contro1ersy,

in1ol1in$ a uestion of fraud and misrepresentation committed a$ainst the$o1ernment and it is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the publicdomain. ;t see's to cancel the ori$inal certi=cate of re$istration, and nullify theori$inal certi=cate of title, includin$ the transfer certi=cate of title of the successorsGinGinterest because the same were all procured throu$h fraud andmisrepresentation. %hus, the State, as the party alle$in$ the fraud andmisrepresentation that attended the application of the free patent, bears thatburden of proof. Fraud and misrepresentation, as $rounds for cancellation of patentand annulment of title, should ne1er be presumed but must be pro1ed by clear andcon1incin$ e1idence, mere preponderance of e1idence not e1en bein$ adeuate.

;t is but 5udicious to reuire the ?o1ernment, in an action for re1ersion, to show the

details attendin$ the issuance of title o1er the alle$ed inalienable land and e!plainwhy such issuance has depri1ed the State of the claimed property.

&hile the ?o1ernment has the ri$ht to classify portions of public land, the primaryri$ht of a pri1ate indi1idual who possessed and culti1ated the land in $ood faithmuch prior to such classi=cation must be reco$ni:ed and should not be pre5udicedby afterGe1ents which could not ha1e been anticipated. %hus, &e ha1e held that the?o1ernment, in the =rst instance may, by reser1ation, decide for itself what portions



of public land shall be considered forestry land, unless pri1ate interests ha1einter1ened before such reser1ation is made.

(b1iously, pri1ate interests ha1e inter1ened before classi=cation was madepursuant to P.D. No. 768. Not only has (rcullo by herself and throu$h herpredecessorsGinGinterest culti1ated and possessed the sub5ect lot since +36, a free

patent was also awarded to her and a title issued in her name as early as +7+. ;nfact, it appearsthat the issuance of the free patent and certi=cate of title wasre$ular and in order. (rcullo complied with the reuisites for the acuisition of freepatent pro1ided under Commonwealth Act No. +2+ /Public "and Act0, as certi=ed bythe Director of "ands and appro1ed by the Secretary of A$riculture and NaturalResources.

#esides, the records do not show that respondent has considered the lot in uestionas forest reser1e prior to the issuance of Free Patent No. 27326< and (C% No. 6G***7. %o declare the land now as forest land on the authority of ".C. ap No. )*+appro1ed only in +<6, and opinions based on the said map, would unduly depri1epetitioner of their re$istered property.

%he Re$alian doctrine is wellGenshrined not only in the present Constitution, but alsoin the +38 and +73 Constitutions. %he Court has always reco$ni:ed and upheldthe Re$alian doctrine as the basic foundation of the States property re$ime.Ne1ertheless, in applyin$ this doctrine, we must not lose si$ht of the fact that ine1ery claim or ri$ht by the ?o1ernment a$ainst one of its citi:ens, the paramountconsiderations of fairness and due process must be obser1ed. Respondent in thiscase failed to show that the sub5ect lot is part of timberland or forest reser1e itad1erted to. ;n the face of the uncontro1erted status of Free Patent No. 27326< and(C% No. 6G***7 as 1alid and re$ular issuances, respondents insistence on theclassi=cation of the lot as part of the forest reser1e must be re5ected.

>G.R. No. 1:5:85. !/c/3/r 6, 2000?

CRU9 /+ a, '. ECRET#R" OF EN=IRONMENT #N! N#TUR#L REOURCE,

/+ a

PER CURI#M-

Fac+- Petitioners brou$ht this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citi:ens andta!payers, assailin$ the constitutionality of certain pro1isions of Republic Act No.<37+ /R.A. <37+0, otherwise 'nown as the ;ndi$enous Peoples Ri$hts Act of +7/;PRA0, and its ;mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations /;mplementin$ Rules0.

(n (ctober +, +<, respondents 1iew that the ;PRA is partly unconstitutional onthe $round that it $rants ownership o1er natural resources to indi$enous peoplesand prays that the petition be $ranted in part.

(n No1ember +6, +<, a $roup of inter1enors, 5oin the NC;P in defendin$ theconstitutionality of ;PRA and prayin$ for the dismissal of the petition.

%he motions for inter1ention of the aforesaid $roups and or$ani:ations were$ranted.



Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the followin$ pro1isions of the ;PRA and its;mplementin$ Rules on the $round that they amount to an unlawful depri1ation of the States ownership o1er lands of the public domain as well as minerals and othernatural resources therein, in 1iolation of the re$alian doctrine embodied in Section), Article T;; of the Constitution

Petitioners also content that, by pro1idin$ for an allGencompassin$ de=nition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands which mi$ht e1en include pri1ate landsfound within said areas, Sections 3/a0 and 3/b0 1iolate the ri$hts of pri1atelandowners.

;n addition, petitioners uestion the pro1isions of the ;PRA de=nin$ the powers and 5urisdiction of the NC;P and ma'in$ customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes in1ol1in$ ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the $round that thesepro1isions 1iolate the due process clause of the Constitution.

Finally, petitioners assail the 1alidity of Rule L;;, Part ;;, Section + of the NC;PAdministrati1e (rder No. +, series of +<, which pro1ides that the administrati1e

relationship of the NC;P to the (@ce of the President is characteri:ed as a lateralbut autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and pro$ram coordination. %heycontend that said Rule infrin$es upon the Presidents power of control o1er e!ecuti1edepartments under Section +7, Article L;; of the Constitution.

I/- &hether or not ;PRA "aw contra1ene the Constitution

H/- No, the pro1isions of ;PRA do not contra1ene the Constitution. E!aminin$ the;PRA, there is nothin$ in the law that $rants to the ;CCs;Ps ownership o1er thenatural resources within their ancestral domain. (wnership o1er the naturalresources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the ri$hts $ranted bythe ;PRA to the ;CCs;Ps o1er the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely

$i1es them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found,the ri$ht to the small scale utili:ation of these resources, and at the same time, apriority in their lar$e scale de1elopment and e!ploitation.

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of thepublic domain. %hey are pri1ate lands and belon$ to the ;CCs;Ps by nati1e title,which is a concept of pri1ate land title that e!isted irrespecti1e of any royal $rantfrom the State. owe1er, the ri$ht of ownership and possession by the ;CCs;Ps of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the ri$htto alienate the same.

After due deliberation on the petition, the members of the Court 1oted as followsB

Se1en /70 1oted to dismiss the petition. Se1en /70 other members of the Court1oted to $rant the petition. As the 1otes were eually di1ided /7 to 70 and thenecessary ma5ority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. owe1er,after redeliberation, the 1otin$ remained the same. Accordin$ly, pursuant to Rule8*, Section 7 of the Rules of Ci1il Procedure, the petition is D;S;SSED.

G.R. No. 5246 /+/3/r 16, 1@10



M#NUEL# GRE" #LB#, ET #L., '. #N#CLETO R. !E L# CRU9,

TRENT, *.-

Fac+- %he petitioners, sou$ht to ha1e re$istered the followin$Gdescribed propertyBA parcel of land situated in the barrio of %alampas, municipality of #aliua$, Pro1ince

of #ulacan, upon which are situated three houses and one camarin of li$ht material,ha1in$ a super=cial area of 8) hectares, 8+ ares, and )) centares bounded on thenorth by the hi$hway /cal:ada0 of %alampas and the lands of Rita Rui: ateo on theeast by the lands of the said Rita Rui: ateo, ermene$ildo Prado, Policarpo de

>esus, and a stream called Sapan$ #uslut on the south by the same stream and thelands of the capellania and on the west by the stream called Sapan$ #uslut, andthe lands of Licente de la Cru:, >ose Camacho and Domin$o Rui: ateo.

%his parcel of a$ricultural land is used for the raisin$ of rice and su$ar cane and isassessed at U+,666 Hnited States currency. %he petition, which was =led on the +<thof December, +6*, was accompanied by a plan and technical description of theabo1eGdescribed parcel of land.

After hearin$ the proofs presented, the court entered, on the +)th of February,+6<, a decree in accordance with the pro1isions of para$raph * of section 82 of ActNo. )*, directin$ that the land described in the petitioner be re$istered in thenames of the four petitioners, as coowners, sub5ect to the usufructuary ri$ht of Licente Reyes, widower of Remedios ?rey.

(n the +*th of >une, +6<, Anacleto Ratilla de la Cru: =led a motion in the Court of "and Re$istration as'in$ for a re1ision of the case, includin$ the decision, upon the$round that he is the absolute owner of the two parcels of land which are describedin said motion, and which, accordin$ to his alle$ations, are included in the landsdecreed to the petitioners. e alle$ed that the decree of February +), +6<, was

obtained maliciously and fraudulently by the petitioners, thereby depri1in$ him of said two parcels of land. %he "and Court upon this motion reopened the case, andafter hearin$ the additional e1idence presented by both parties, rendered, on the)3rd of No1ember, +6<, its decision modifyin$ the former decree by e!cludin$ fromthe same the two parcels of land claimed by Anacleto Ratilla de la Cru:. From thisdecision and 5ud$ment the petitioners appealed and now insist, =rst, that the trialcourt erred in reopenin$ the case and modifyin$ its decree dated the +)th of February, +6<, for the reason that said decree was not obtained by means of fraudand, second, that the court erred in holdin$ that the two parcels of land described inthe appellees motion are not their property.

I/- &hether or not modi=cation of the decree as to e!clude said land willprosper.

H/- No, the main principle of re$istration is to ma'e re$istered titles indefeasible.Hpon the presentation in court if an application for the re$istration of the title tolands, the theory under the %orrens system is that all occupants, ad5oinin$ owners,ad1erse claimants, and other interested persons are noti=ed of the proceedin$s,and ha1e a ri$ht to appear in opposition to such application. ;n other words, theproceedin$ is a$ainst the world.



A proceedin$ is in rem when the ob5ect of the action is to bar indiIerently all whomi$ht be minded to ma'e an ob5ection of any sort a$ainst the ri$ht sou$ht to beestablished, and if anyone in the world has a ri$ht to be heard on the stren$th of alle$in$ facts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest.

E1ery decree of re$istration shall bind the land and uiet title thereto, sub5ect only

to the e!ceptions stated in the followin$ section. ;t shall be conclusi1e upon anda$ainst all persons, includin$ the ;nsular ?o1ernment, and all the branches thereof,whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the$eneral description Jto all whom it may concern.J Such decree shall not be openedby reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person aIectedthereby, nor by any proceedin$s in any court for re1ersin$ 5ud$ments or decreessub5ect, howe1er, to the ri$ht of any person depri1ed of land or of any estate orinterest therein by decree of re$istration obtained by fraud to =le in the Court of "and Re$istration a petition for re1iew within one year. . . . /Sec. 3< of Act No. 2*.0

;t will be seen that the applicant is reuired to mention not only the outstandin$interest which he admits but also all claims of interest, thou$h denied by him. #ye!press pro1ision of law the world are made parties defendant by the description inthe notice Jto all whom it may concern.J

%he said decree of February +), +6<, should not ha1e been opened on account of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person aIected thereby, and couldha1e been opened only on the $round that the said decree had been obtained byfraud. %hat decree was not obtained by fraud on the part of the applicants,inasmuch as they honestly belie1ed that the appellee was occupyin$ these twosmall parcels of land as their tenant. (ne of the petitioner went upon the premiseswith the sur1eyor when the ori$inal plan was made.

%he main principle of re$istration is to ma'e re$istered titles indefeasible. As weha1e said, upon the presentation in the Court of "and Re$istration of an applicationfor the re$istration of the title to lands, under this system, the theory of the law isthat all occupants, ad5oinin$ owners, ad1erse claimants, and other interestedpersons are noti=ed of the proceedin$s, and ha1e ha1e a ri$ht to appear inopposition to such application. ;n other words, the proceedin$ is a$ainst the wholeword. %his system was e1idently considered by the "e$islature to be a public pro5ectwhen it passed Act No. 2*. %he interest of the community at lar$e was consideredto be preferred to that of pri1ate indi1iduals.

%he followin$ summary of bene=ts of the system of re$istration of titles, made bySir Robert %orrens, has been fully 5usti=ed in its useB

First. ;t has substituted security for insecurity.

Second. ;t has reduced the costs of con1eyances from pounds to shillin$s, and thetime occupied from months to days.

%hird. ;t has e!chan$ed bre1ity and clearness for obscurity and 1erbia$e.

Fourth. ;t has so simpli=ed ordinary dealin$s that he who has mastered the JthreeRsJ can transact his own con1eyancin$.



Fifth. ;t aIords protection a$ainst fraud.

Si!th. ;t has restored to their 5ust 1alue many estates held under $ood holdin$ titles,but depreciated in conseuence of some blur or technical defect, and has barredthe reoccurrence of any similar faults.

#y J%orrensJ system $enerally are meant those systems of re$istration of transactions with interest in land whose declared ob5ect . . . is, under $o1ernmentalauthority, to establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and indefeasibletitle to realty, and to simplify its transfer.

C#IMIRO !E=ELOPMENT CORPOR#TION, ' M#TEO,

G.R. No. 175485, *; 27, 2011

BER#MIN, *.-

Fac+- %he sub5ect of this case is a re$istered parcel of land /property0 with an areaof *,*3 suare meters, more or less, located in #arrio Pulan$ "upa, "as Pias City,

that was ori$inally owned by ;saias "ara, the respondents maternal $randfather.Hpon the death of ;saias "ara in +36, the property passed on to his children. ;n+*), the coGheirs eIected the transfer of the full and e!clusi1e ownership toFelicidad under an a$reement denominated as Pa$aayos Na ?awa Sa "abas N$u'uman.

Felicidad "araGateo had =1e children, namelyB "aura, respondent Renato, Cesar,Candido, >r. and "eonardo. &ith the a$reement of the entire "araGateo family, adeed of sale co1erin$ the property was e!ecuted in fa1or of "aura, who, in +*7,applied for land re$istration. After the application was $ranted, (ri$inal Certi=cateof %itle /(C%0 No. *3<* was issued in "auras sole name.

;n due course, the property now co1ered by (C% No. *3<* was used as collateral tosecure a succession of loans. %he =rst loan was obtained from #acoor Rural #an'/#acoor #an'0. %o repay the loan to #acoor #an' and secure the release of themort$a$e, "aura borrowed funds from Parmenas Pere: /Pere:0, who, howe1er,reuired that the title be meanwhile transferred to his name. %hus, (C% No. *3<*was cancelled and %ransfer Certi=cate of %itle /%C%0 No. 23<8 was issued in thename of Pere:. Subseuently, "aura reco1ered the property by repayin$ theobli$ation with the proceeds of another loan obtained from Rodolfo Pe /Pe0, resultin$in the cancellation of %C% No. 23<88, and in the issuance of %C% No. SG+88 in"auras name. She later e!ecuted a deed of sale in fa1or of Pe, leadin$ to theissuance of %C% No. SG+73< in the name of Pe, who in turn constituted a mort$a$e

on the property in fa1or of China #an'in$ Corporation /China #an'0 as security for aloan. ;n the end, China #an' foreclosed the mort$a$e, and consolidated itsownership of the property in +<8 after Pe failed to redeem. %hus, %C% No. /8)70

%G++72GA was issued in the name of China #an'.

;n +<<, CDC and China #an' ne$otiated and e1entually came to terms on thepurchase of the property, with China #an' e!ecutin$ a deed of conditional sale forthe purpose. (n arch 2, +3, CDC and China #an' e!ecuted a deed of absolute



sale o1er the property. Resultantly, on arch ), +3, CDC was issued %C% No. %G32*26 in its own name.

;n the meanwhile, on February )<, ++, Felicidad died intestate.

(n >une *, ++, CDC brou$ht an action for unlawful detainer in the etropolitan

%rial Court /e%C0 in "as Pias City a$ainst the respondents siblin$s, namelyB Cesar,Candido, >r., and "eonardo, and the other occupants of the property. (n (ctober +,+), the e%C ruled in fa1or of CDC, 1i:B

%he Court, after careful consideration of the facts and the laws applicable to thiscase resol1es that the defendants alle$ed that the land in uestion is an a$riculturalland by presentin$ a %a! Declaration Certi=cate classifyin$ the land as F;SP(ND.

%he classi=cation of the land in a ta! declaration certi=cate as a =shpond merelyrefers to the use of the land in uestion for the purpose of real property ta!ation.

%his alone would not be su@cient to brin$ the land in uestion under the operationof the Comprehensi1e A$rarian Reform "aw.

;t should be noted that the sub5ect land is co1ered by a %ransfer Certi=cate of %itlein the name of plaintiIs predecessorGinGinterest China #an'in$ Corporation.Certi=cates of %itle under the %orrens System is indefeasible and imprescriptible. Asbetween two persons claimin$ possession, one ha1in$ a %orrens title and the otherhas none, the former has a better ri$ht.

%he defense of the defendants that the sub5ect property was a forest land when thesame was ori$inally re$istered in +*7 and hence, the re$istration is 1oid is not forthis Court to decide for lac' of 5urisdiction. %he certi=cate of title o1er the propertymust be respected by this Court until it has been nulli=ed by a competent Court.

&EREF(RE, premises considered, 5ud$ment is hereby rendered in fa1or of the

plaintiI. %he decision of the e%C was assailed in the R%C 1ia petition for certiorari andprohibition. %he R%C resol1ed a$ainst CDC, and held that the e%C had actedwithout 5urisdiction because the land, bein$ a =shpond, was a$ricultural hence, thedispute was within the e!clusi1e 5urisdiction of the DARA# pursuant to Republic ActNo. **87 /Comprehensi1e A$rarian Reform "aw of +<<0.

CDC appealed to the CA, which, on >anuary )8, +*, found in fa1or of CDC,declarin$ that the e%C had 5urisdiction. As a result, the CA reinstated the decisionof the e%C.

(n appeal /?.R. No. +)<3)0, the Court a@rmed the CAs decision in fa1or of CDC,

%he decision in ?.R. No. +)<3) became =nal.

Nonetheless, on >une ), +2, the respondent brou$ht an action for uietin$ of title, recon1eyance of fourG=fths of the land, and dama$es a$ainst CDC and "aura inthe R%C in "as Pias City entitled Renato ". ateo 1. Casimiro De1elopmentCorporation and "aura ateo de Castro. ;n para$raph 2 of his complaint, he statedthat he was brin$in$ this action to uiet title on behalf of himself and of his three /30brothers Cesar, "eonardo, and Candido, >r., all surnamed A%E( in his capacity as



one of the coGowners of a parcel of land situated at #arrio Pulan$ "upa, unicipalityof "as Pias, etro anila.

(n ay , )66+, the R%C held in fa1or of CDC

(n appeal /C.A.G?.R. CL No. 7+**0, the CA promul$ated its decision on Au$ust 3+,

)66*, re1ersin$ the R%C and declarin$ CDC to be not a buyer in $ood faith due to itsbein$ char$ed with notice of the defects and Vaws of the title at the time it acuiredthe property from China #an', and decreein$B

%he CA denied CDCs motion for reconsideration.

ence, this appeal, in which CDC ur$es that the CA committed serious errors of law,

I/- &hether or not the title may be collaterally attac'

H/- No. %here is no doubt that the land in uestion, althou$h once a part of thepublic domain, has already been placed under the %orrens system of landre$istration. %he ?o1ernment is reuired under the %orrens system of re$istration to

issue an o@cial certi=cate of title to attest to the fact that the person named in thecerti=cate is the owner of the property therein described, sub5ect to such liens andencumbrances as thereon noted or what the law warrants or reser1es. %he ob5ecti1eis to ob1iate possible conVicts of title by $i1in$ the public the ri$ht to rely upon theface of the %orrens certi=cate and to dispense, as a rule, with the necessity of inuirin$ further. %he %orrens system $i1es the re$istered owner complete peace of mind, in order that he will be secured in his ownership as lon$ as he has not1oluntarily disposed of any ri$ht o1er the co1ered land.

%he ?o1ernment has adopted the %orrens system due to its bein$ the most eIecti1emeasure to $uarantee the inte$rity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibilityonce the claim of ownership is established and reco$ni:ed. ;f a person purchases a

piece of land on the assurance that the sellers title thereto is 1alid, he should notrun the ris' of bein$ told later that his acuisition was ineIectual after all, which willnot only be unfair to him as the purchaser, but will also erode public con=dence inthe system and will force land transactions to be attended by complicated and notnecessarily conclusi1e in1esti$ations and proof of ownership. %he furtherconseuence will be that land conVicts can be e1en more abrasi1e, if not e1en1iolent. %he ?o1ernment, reco$ni:in$ the worthy purposes of the %orrens system,should be the =rst to accept the 1alidity of titles issued thereunder once theconditions laid down by the law are satis=ed.

Ket, re$istration under the %orrens system, not bein$ a mode of acuirin$ ownership,

does not create or 1est title. %he %orrens certi=cate of title is merely an e1idence of ownership or title in the particular property described therein. ;n that sense, theissuance of the certi=cate of title to a particular person does not preclude thepossibility that persons not named in the certi=cate may be coGowners of the realproperty therein described with the person named therein, or that the re$isteredowner may be holdin$ the property in trust for another person.

Nonetheless, it is essential that title re$istered under the %orrens system becomesindefeasible and incontro1ertible.



%he land in uestion has been co1ered by a %orrens certi=cate of title /(C% No. *3<*in the name of "aura, and its deri1ati1e certi=cates0 before CDC became there$istered owner by purchase from China #an'. ;n all that time, neither therespondent nor his siblin$s opposed the transactions causin$ the 1arious transfers.;n fact, the respondent admitted in his complaint that the re$istration of the land inthe name of "aura alone had been with the 'nowled$e and upon the a$reement of the entire "araGateo family. ;t is unthin'able, therefore, that the respondent, fullyaware of the e!clusi1e re$istration in her sister "aura9s name, allowed more than )6years to pass before assertin$ his claim of ownership for the =rst time throu$h thiscase in midG+2. a'in$ it worse for him is that he did so only after CDC hadcommenced the e5ectment case a$ainst his own siblin$s.

&orthy of mention is that Candido, >r., "eonardo, and Cesars defense in thee5ectment case brou$ht by CDC a$ainst them was not predicated on a claim of theirownership of the property, but on their bein$ a$ricultural lessees or tenants of CDC.E1en that defense was ultimately re5ected by this Court by obser1in$ in ?.R. No.+)<3) as followsB

&ith re$ard to the =rst element, the petitioners ha1e tried to pro1e that they aretenants or a$ricultural lessees of the respondent corporation, CDC, by showin$ thatthe land was ori$inally owned by their $randfather, ;saias "ara, who $a1e thempermission to wor' the land, and that CDC is merely a successorGinGinterest of their$randfather. ;t must be noted that the petitioners failed to adeuately pro1e their$randfathers ownership of the land. %hey merely showed si! ta! declarations. ;t hasbeen held by this Court that, as a$ainst a transfer certi=cate of title, ta!declarations or receipts are not adeuate proofs of ownership. ?rantin$ ar$uendothat the land was really owned by the petitioners $randfather, petitioners did note1en attempt to show how the land went from the patrimony of their $randfather tothat of CDC. Furthermore, petitioners did not pro1e, but relied on mere alle$ation,

that they indeed had an a$reement with their $randfather to use the land.

As for the third element, there is apparently no consent between the parties.Petitioners were unable to show any proof of consent from CDC to wor' the land. Forthe sa'e of ar$ument, if petitioners were able to pro1e that their $randfather ownedthe land, they nonetheless failed to show any proof of consent from their$randfather to wor' the land. Since the third element was not pro1en, the fourthelement cannot be present since there can be no purpose to a relationship to whichthe parties ha1e not consented.

%he respondents attac' a$ainst the title of CDC is li'ewise anchored on his assertionthat the only purpose for ha1in$ (C% No. *3<* issued in the sole name of "aura was

for "aura to hold the title in trust for their mother. %his assertion cannot stand,howe1er, inasmuch as "aura9s title had lon$ a$o become indefeasible.

oreo1er, the respondents suit is e!posed as bein$, in reality, a collateral attac' onthe title in the name of "aura, and for that reason should not prosper. Re$istration of land under the %orrens System, aside from perfectin$ the title and renderin$ itindefeasible after the lapse of the period allowed by law, also renders the titleimmune from collateral attac'. A collateral attac' occurs when, in another action to



obtain a diIerent relief and as an incident of the present action, an attac' is madea$ainst the 5ud$ment $rantin$ the title. %his manner of attac' is to be distin$uishedfrom a direct attac' a$ainst a 5ud$ment $rantin$ the title, throu$h an action whosemain ob5ecti1e is to annul, set aside, or en5oin the enforcement of such 5ud$ment if not yet implemented, or to see' reco1ery if the property titled under the 5ud$menthad been disposed of.

A purchaser in $ood faith is one who buys property of another, without notice thatsome other person has a ri$ht to, or interest in, such property and pays a full andfair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of theclaim or interest of some other persons in the property. e buys the property withthe belief that the person from whom he recei1es the thin$ was the owner andcould con1ey title to the property. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts whichshould put a reasonable man on his $uard and still claim he acted in $ood faith.

G.R. No. L8@:6 Oc+o/r 2, 1@15

CONUELO LEG#R!#, A+h h/r ha M#URO PRIETO '. N.M. #LEEB"

*OHNON, *.-

Fac+- %hat the plaintiIs and the defendant occupy, as owners, ad5oinin$ lots inthe district of Ermita in the city of anila.

Second. %hat there e!ists and has e!isted a number of years a stone wall betweenthe said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the plaintiIs.

%hird. %hat the plaintiIs, on the )nd day of arch, +6*, presented a petition in theCourt of "and Re$istration for the re$istration of their lot. After a consideration of said petition the court, on the )8th day of (ctober, +6*, decreed that the title of the plaintiIs should be re$istered and issued to them the ori$inal certi=cate

pro1ided for under the torrens system. Said re$istration and certi=cate included thewall.

Fourth. "ater the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition in the Court of "and Re$istration for the re$istration of the lot now occupied by him. (n the )8thday of arch, ++), the court decreed the re$istration of said title and issued theori$inal certi=cate pro1ided for under the torrens system. %he description of the lot$i1en in the petition of the defendant also included said wall.

Fifth. Se1eral months later /the +3th day of December, ++)0 the plaintiIsdisco1ered that the wall which had been included in the certi=cate $ranted to themhad also been included in the certi=cate $ranted to the defendant. %hey

immediately presented a petition in the Court of "and Re$istration for anad5ustment and correction of the error committed by includin$ said wall in there$istered title of each of said parties. %he lower court howe1er, without notice tothe defendant, denied said petition upon the theory that, durin$ the pendency of the petition for the re$istration of the defendants land, they failed to ma'e anyob5ection to the re$istration of said lot, includin$ the wall, in the name of thedefendant.



Si!th. %hat the land occupied by the wall is re$istered in the name of each of theowners of the ad5oinin$ lots. %he wall is not a 5oint wall.

I/- &hether or not plaintiI has the better ri$ht

H/- Kes. %he real purpose of the torrens system is to uiet title to land to put a

stop fore1er to any uestion of the le$ality of the title, e!cept claims which werenoted at the time of re$istration, in the certi=cate, or which may arise subseuentthereto. %hat bein$ the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title isre$istered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waitin$ in the portalsof the court, or sittin$ in the Jmirador de su casa,J to a1oid the possibility of losin$his land. (f course, it can not be denied that the proceedin$ for the re$istration of land under the torrens system is 5udicial. ;t is clothed with all the forms of an actionand the result is =nal and bindin$ upon all the world. ;t is an action in rem.

&hile the proceedin$ is 5udicial, it in1ol1es more in its conseuences than does anordinary action. All the world are parties, includin$ the $o1ernment. After there$istration is complete and =nal and there e!ists no fraud, there are no innocent

third parties who may claim an interest. %he ri$hts of all the world are foreclosed bythe decree of re$istration. %he $o1ernment itself assumes the burden of $i1in$notice to all parties. %o permit persons who are parties in the re$istration proceedin$/and they are all the world0 to a$ain liti$ate the same uestions, and to a$ain castdoubt upon the 1alidity of the re$istered title, would destroy the 1ery purpose andintent of the law. %he re$istration, under the torrens system, does not $i1e theowner any better title than he had. ;f he does not already ha1e a perfect title, hecan not ha1e it re$istered. Fee simple titles only may be re$istered. %he certi=cateof re$istration accumulates in open document a precise and correct statement of the e!act status of the fee held by its owner. %he certi=cate, in the absence of fraud,is the e1idence of title and shows e!actly the real interest of its owner. %he title

once re$istered, with 1ery few e!ceptions, should not thereafter be impu$ned,altered, chan$ed, modi=ed, enlar$ed, or diminished, e!cept in some directproceedin$ permitted by law. (therwise all security in re$istered titles would belost. A re$istered title can not be altered, modi=ed, enlar$ed, or diminished in acollateral proceedin$ and not e1en by a direct proceedin$, after the lapse of theperiod prescribed by law.

%he rule, we thin', is well settled that the decree orderin$ the re$istration of aparticular parcel of land is a bar to future liti$ation o1er the same between thesame parties .;n 1iew of the fact that all the world are parties, it must follow thatfuture liti$ation o1er the title is fore1er barred there can be no persons who are notparties to the action. %his, we thin', is the rule, e!cept as to ri$hts which are noted

in the certi=cate or which arise subseuently, and with certain other e!ceptionswhich need not be dismissed at present. A title once re$istered can not be defeated,e1en by an ad1erse, open, and notorious possession. Re$istered title under thetorrens system can not be defeated by prescription /section 2*, Act No. 2*0. %hetitle, once re$istered, is notice to the world. All persons must ta'e notice. No onecan plead i$norance of the re$istration.



&e ha1e decided, in case of double re$istration under the "and Re$istration Act,that the owner of the earliest certi=cate is the owner of the land. %hat is the rulebetween ori$inal parties. ay this rule be applied to successi1e 1endees of theowners of such certi=catesW Suppose that one or the other of the parties, before theerror is disco1ered, transfers his ori$inal certi=cate to an Jinnocent purchaser.J %he$eneral rule is that the 1endee of land has no $reater ri$ht, title, or interest than his1endor that he acuires the ri$ht which his 1endor had, only. Hnder that rule the1endee of the earlier certi=cate would be the owner as a$ainst the 1endee of theowner of the later certi=cate.

;t would be seen to a 5ust and euitable rule, when two persons ha1e acuired eualri$hts in the same thin$, to hold that the one who acuired it =rst and who hascomplied with all the reuirements of the law should be protected.

>G.R. No. 14167. #+ 14, 1@1@. ?

THE GO=ERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE IL#N! /+ a '. RUFIN# #BUR#L

ET. #L.,

M#LCOLM, *.

Fac+- Cadastral proceedin$s were commenced in the municipality of ini$aran,Pro1ince of (ccidental Ne$ros, upon an application of the Director of "ands, on >une+*, ++*. Notice of the proceedin$s were published in the (@cial ?a:ette aspro1ided by law. %he trial 5ud$e also issued $eneral notice to all interested parties.Amon$ others, Lictoriano Si$uen:a presented an answer as'in$ for re$istration inhis name of lot No. +*6<. %he instant petitioners, Antipas La:ue: and #asilio?ayares, althou$h said to reside in this municipality, and althou$h said to ha1eparticipated in other cadastral cases, did not enter any opposition as to this lot.earin$ was had durin$ September, ++*. (n September )+ of this year, the court

issued the followin$ decreeB

J;t is hereby decreed that, upon a pre1ious declaration of $eneral default, thefollowin$ lots be ad5ud$ed and re$istered in the names of those persons whosenames appear ne!t after the lots, and in accordance with the followin$conditionsB . . .

J"ot No. +*6< with the impro1ements thereon to the con5u$al partnership of Lictoriano Si$uen:a and arcela ?uan:on.J

(n No1ember )3 of the same year, the court declared =nal the fore$oin$ decree inthe followin$ lan$ua$eB

J%he decision rendered by the court in the abo1eGentitled case ha1in$ become =nalon September )+, ++*, it is hereby ordered that the Chief of the ?eneral "andRe$istration (@ce issue the decrees correspondin$ to the lots ad5ud$ed by saiddecision.

JAn appeal ha1in$ howe1er been interposed as to the lots enumerated as follows,the decrees thereon, must be suspended until further order by this courtB



Ei$ht months later, that is, on >uly )3, ++7, but before the issuance by the "andRe$istration (@ce of the soGcalled technical decree, Antipas La:ue: and #asilio?ayares, the latter as $uardian of the minor Estrella La:ue:, came into the case forthe =rst time. %he petitioners, after settin$ forth their ri$ht of ownership in lot No.+*6<, and that it was included in their Jacienda Santa Filomena,J and after statin$that they were in complete i$norance of the proceedin$s, as'ed that the 5ud$mentof the court be annulled and that the case be reopened to recei1e proof relati1e tothe ownership of the lot. Counsel for Lictoriano Si$uen:a answered by counterGmotion, as'in$ the court to dismiss the motion presented on behalf of La:ue: and?ayares. %he court denied the motion for a new trial on the theory that there bein$a decree already rendered and no alle$ation of fraud ha1in$ been made, the courtlac'ed 5urisdiction. ;t may also be stated parenthetically that counsel for La:ue:and ?ayares made an unsuccessful attempt in the Supreme Court, throu$hmandamus, to ha1e the record completed by the ta'in$ of e1idence.

I/- &hether or not the declaration may be annuled

H/- No. %he prime purpose of the %orrens System is, as has been repeatedlystated, to decree land titles that shall be =nal, irre1ocable, and indisputable.;ncontestability of title is the $oal. All due precaution must accordin$ly be ta'en to$uard a$ainst in5ustice to interested indi1iduals who, for some $ood reason, maynot be able to protect their ri$hts. Ne1ertheless, e1en at the cost of possible crueltywhich may result in e!ceptional cases, it does become necessary in the interest of the public weal to enforce re$istration laws. No stron$er words can be found thanthose appearin$ in Section 3< of the "and Re$istration "aw /Act No. 2*0 wherein itis said thatB JE1ery decree of re$istration shall bind the land, and uiet title thereto.;t shall be conclusi1e upon and a$ainst all persons, includin$ the ;nsular?o1ernment and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in theapplication, notice, or citation, or included in the $eneral description 9%o all whom it

may concern,9 Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy,or other disability of any person aIected thereby, nor by any proceedin$ in anycourt for re1ersin$ 5ud$ments or decrees sub5ect, howe1er, to the ri$ht of anyperson depri1ed of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of re$istrationobtained by fraud to =le in the Court of "and Re$istration /Court of First ;nstance0 apetition for re1iew within one year after entry of the decree, pro1ided no innocentpurchaser for 1alue has acuired an interest.J

&hile such statements can be made of the %orrens System proper, they becomee1en more incisi1e and peremptory when we come to consider the oIsprin$ of thissystem, here 'nown as the Cadastral System. Hnder the %orrens System proper,

whether action shall or shall not be ta'en is optional with the solicitant. Hnder theCadastral System, pursuant to initiati1e on the part of the ?o1ernment, titles for allthe land within a stated area, are ad5udicated whether or not the people li1in$within this district desire to ha1e titles issued. %he purpose, as stated in section oneof the Cadastral Act /N(. ))80, is to ser1e the public interests, by reuirin$ that thetitles to any lands Jbe settled and ad5udicated.J

%he 5ud$ment in a cadastral sur1ey, includin$ the rendition of the decree, is a 5udicial act. As the law says, the 5udicial decree when =nal is the base of the



area of )*6,86 s m, more or less, is situated in the Sitio of %ulayG#uhan$in, #arrioof "a$uimanoc, unicipality of Atimonan /now Padre #ur$os0, Pro1ince of ue:on.

%he sub5ect lots were re$istered in the name of Domin$a ?oyma on February *,+2< under %C% No. %G)<87.

%he spouses Rodri$ue: alle$edly caused the cancellation of %C% No. %G)<87 despite

the fact that the owners duplicate copy thereof was in the possession of Pablo?oyma "im, >r. (n February +6, +78, %C% No. %G+)<*68 was issued in the name of Frisco ?udani, estran$ed husband of Domin$a ?oyma. %his title was cancelled by

%C% No. %G+)<*6* issued in the name of Eduardo Licta also on February +6, +78. %he latter certi=cate of title, in turn, was cancelled by %C% No. %G+)<*67 issued inthe name of the spouses Rodri$ue: also on February +6, +78.

Since ay +78, the spouses Rodri$ue: alle$edly tried to enter and occupy thesub5ect lots by force and intimidation. Pablo ?oyma "im, >r. thus prayed in hiscomplaint that the spouses Rodri$ue: be permanently en5oined from enterin$ andoccupyin$ the sub5ect lots %C% No. +)<*67 be declared null and 1oid and %C% No. %G)<87 in the name of Domin$a ?oyma be reinstated and the spouses Rodri$ue: beordered to pay Pablo ?oyma "im, >r. dama$es, attorneys fees and the costs of suit.

;n their Answer, the spouses Rodri$ue: denied the material alle$ations in thecomplaint. %hey alle$ed that Domin$a ?oyma was not the mother of Pablo ?oyma"im, >r. %hey a1erred that the sub5ect lots were the con5u$al property of Frisco?udani and his wife Domin$a ?oyma. &hen the latter died, Frisco ?udani was hersole sur1i1in$ heir.

%hereafter, Frisco ?udani alle$edly sold the sub5ect lots to Eduardo Licta who, inturn, sold the same to the spouses Rodri$ue:. %he latter claimed that they werepurchasers in $ood faith and for 1alue. Further, they denied that they had tried toenter the sub5ect lots by means of force and intimidation. (n the contrary, thespouses Rodri$ue: claimed that they ha1e been in possession of the sub5ect lots bythemsel1es and their predecessorsGinGinterest.

#ased on the e1idence presented by both parties, the court a uo rendered 5ud$ment in fa1or of Pablo ?oyma "im, >r. and a$ainst the spouses Rodri$ue:.

#ased on its factual =ndin$s, the court a uo concluded that the e1idence showedthat the transactions in1ol1in$ the sub5ect lots, particularly the transfers thereof from the deceased Domin$a ?oyma to Frisco ?udani and from him to Eduardo Lictawere fraudulent and made throu$h the machinations of Atty. A$uilan.%he latter,accordin$ to the court a uo, too' ad1anta$e of his le$al trainin$ in ma'in$ Frisco?udani, a simpleG minded laborer, an unsuspectin$ and na1e tool in a $rand schemeto dispossess plaintiI Pablo ?oyma "im, >r. of the property ri$htfully his byinheritance from his mother, the deceased Domin$a ?oyma.

?i1en the fraudulent character of the transactions, the court a uo held that thespouses Rodri$ue: could not a1ail of the protecti1e mantle of the law protectin$purchasers for 1alue in $ood faith. %he spouses Rodri$ue: were declared to bepurchasers in bad faith because they had prior 'nowled$e of the claim of Pablo



?oyma "im, >r. o1er the sub5ect lots and e1en anticipated his =lin$ of the casea$ainst them.

%he court a uo also stated that e1en $rantin$ ar$uendo that fraud attendant to thetransactions were not su@cient to 1itiate consent as to nullify the transactions, stillthe transactions entered into by Frisco ?udani relati1e to the sub5ect lots were 1oid

for want of authority to sell them.

&EREF(RE, premises considered, 5ud$ment is hereby rendered in fa1or of thesubstituted plaintiIs, C(NC(RD;A (N? ";, EHRES%ES "; and E"ER "; anda$ainst the defendants, the spouses REKNA"D( R(DR;?HEQ and NANCK A.R(DR;?HEQ

A$$rie1ed, the spouses Rodri$ue: =led an appeal with the Court of Appeals whichrendered the assailed Decision dated >uly +<, +8 a@rmin$ in toto the decision of the court a uo. ;t stressed that Pablo ?oyma "im, >r. was the son of the decedentDomin$a ?oyma as e1idenced by a 1oluntary ac'nowled$ment made in his recordof birth and in the other documentary e1idence presented durin$ trial. is ri$ht to

succession was transmitted when Domin$a ?oyma passed away on >uly +, +7+followin$ Article 777 of the Ci1il Code. (n the other hand, Frisco ?udani could notdispose of the sub5ect lots before partition of the estate of Domin$a ?oyma andwithout authority $i1en by Pablo ?oyma "im, >r.

Forthwith, the spouses Rodri$ue: /petitioners0 =led the present petition for re1iewon certiorari.

I/- &hether or not the indefeasibility of %orren9s title can be raise

H/- No. Petitioners cannot raise the defense of indefeasibility of a %orrens titlewith respect to %C% No. %G+*<*67 because the principle of indefeasibility of a %orrens

title does not apply where fraud attended the issuance of the title. %he %orrens titledoes not furnish a shield for fraud. %hey cannot deny any 'nowled$e of the fraudthat attended the transactions in1ol1in$ the sub5ect lots, includin$ their acuisitionthereof. Stated diIerently, petitioners cannot claim that they were purchasers in$ood faith and for 1alue because the transactions in1ol1in$ the sub5ect lots were soreplete with bad$es of fraud and irre$ularities that should ha1e put them on $uardabout the defects in the respecti1e titles of Frisco ?udani and Eduardo Licta.

%o recall, %C% No. %G)<87 was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, %C% No. %G+)<*68 wasissued in the name of Frisco ?udani, on February +6, +78. %he latter was thereaftercancelled by %C% No. %G+)<*6* issued in the name of Eduardo Licta also onFebruary +6, +78. %he latter certi=cate of title, in turn, was cancelled by %C% No. %G

+)<*67 issued in the name of the spouses Rodri$ue: also on February +6, +78. %hese hi$hly irre$ular transfers of ownership, i.e., cancellation andor issuance of certi=cates of title, in1ol1in$ the sub5ect lots all transpirin$ on the same dateelouently betray the fraud that attended the transactions, includin$ petitionersacuisition thereof. ;t is certainly unli'ely that petitioners had no 'nowled$e of thesefraudulent transactions.



Petitioners claim of bein$ purchasers in $ood faith and for 1alue was debun'ed bythe court a uo, thusB

Defendant spouses, under the premises, cannot a1ail of the protecti1e mantle of law protectin$ a purchaser for 1alue and in $ood faith, as they are not purchasersfor 1alue and neither ha1e they acted in $ood faith. Defendants cannot successfully

put up a picture of innocence as to the fraud that characteri:ed the transactionsrelati1e to their ultimate acuisition of the properties sub5ect of this liti$ation.Defendant Reynaldo Rodri$ue: was well aware that on his acuisition of theproperties, Pablo ?oyma "im, >r. will =le suit a$ainst him that is why he retainedP+6,666.66 of the purchase price, which amount is intended to be used in thee!pected liti$ation. ;n fact, defendant Reynaldo Rodri$ue: admitted to Frisco ?udanithat he purchased the properties at a 1ery low price because of which he promisedto $i1e Frisco ?udani an additional amount of P+,866.66 upon the termination of thecase.

G.R. No. 174004, Oc+o/r 0@, 201:

=IRGILIO G. C#G#T#O, ' GUILLERMO #LMONTE, #RTHUR #GUIL#R, P.ERNETO FERN#N!E9 #N! #=ELIN# FERN#N!E9, M#R=IN *OHN

FERN#N!E9, M#RON FERN#N!E9, #N! M#R*UN FERN#N!E9

MEN!O9#, *.-

Fac+- %his case stemmed from an action for annulment of deeds of sale,cancellation of title and dama$es =led on April +<, +* by petitioner Lir$ilio ?.Ca$atao /Ca$atao0 a$ainst respondents ?uillermo Almonte /Almonte0, ArthurA$uilar /A$uilar0, Spouses Ernesto and A1elina Fernande: /Spouses Fernande:0, andar1in >ohn Fernande:, arson Fernande: and ar5un Fernande: /collecti1ely theFernande: Siblin$s0.

(n February +*, +2, a homestead patent o1er the property sub5ect of thiscontro1ersy /"ot No. 88<, PlsG*70 was issued in fa1or of >uan ?atchalian. Ca$ataoclaimed that sometime in +26, ?atchalian sold the lot to Del=n an:ulin /an:ulin0in e!chan$e for one carabao, as embodied in a barter a$reement which wasunfortunately destroyed or lost durin$ the Second &orld &ar.* ;n +6, an:ulinalle$edly e!ecuted a pri1ate written document in the ;locano dialect, transferrin$ownership o1er the property to his sonGinGlaw, Ca$atao. %he latter then occupiedand culti1ated the land until the Fernande: Siblin$s attempted to ta'e possession of the lot, thereby promptin$ him to =le the sub5ect complaint before the R%C.

%he respondents, on the other hand, contended that on April 3, +3, the Spouses

Fernande: purchased the property from Almonte and A$uilar who had in theirpossession a ta! declaration co1erin$ the said land. %o protect their interest, on

>anuary +7, +*, Spouses Fernande: once a$ain bou$ht the same property forP))6,666.66 from Emmaculada Carlos /Carlos0, belie1ed to be the owner of the lotby 1irtue of %ransfer Certi=cate of %itle /%C%0 No. %G+)+8GA, a reconstituted titleinher name. %he former, in turn, e!ecuted a deed of sale, dated >anuary )), +*, infa1or of their children, the Fernande: Siblin$s, resultin$ in the issuance of %C% No. %G)2237 in their names.



%he R%C, after notin$ that Ca$atao had no 1alid title, ruled that his claim of possession could not pre1ail o1er the claim of ownership by Spouses Fernande: ase1idenced by a certi=cate of title. Accordin$ly, it upheld the 1alidity of the deed of sale, dated >anuary +7, +*, between Spouses Fernande: and Carlos. ;t, howe1er,nulli=ed the transfer from Spouses Fernande: to Fernande: Siblin$s because A1elinaherself admitted that she and her husband ne1er si$ned the deed of sale whichtransferred ownership to their children. Finally, the R%C sustained the 1alidity of %C%No. %G+)+8GA in the name of Carlos, theori:in$ that someone must ha1e applied foran ori$inal certi=cate of title from which the said title was deri1ed.

A$$rie1ed, Ca$atao ele1ated the case to the CA. (n >uly ), )668, the CA partly$ranted his petition and modi=ed the decision of the R%C. %he CA deemed asspeculati1e and without le$al basis the trial court9s conclusion that ?atchalian mi$htha1e abandoned his homestead patent, lea1in$ it open for another person to applyfor a patent and secure an ori$inal certi=cate of title from which %C% No. %G+)+8GAin the name of Carlos ori$inated. ;n other words, the ownership of the landremained with ?atchalian by 1irtue of the homestead patent in his name, and

neither the alle$ed transfer to an:ulin nor the theory of abandonment of the R%Ccould di1est him of said title.

%he respondents mo1ed for a reconsideration of the CA decision on Au$ust )2,)668. (n arch , )66*, the CA rendered the uestioned Amended Decision,re1ersin$ itself when it ruled that the deed of sale between Carlos and SpousesFernande: could not be declared null and 1oid, especially because Carlos was notimpleaded as a party in the case. ;t, howe1er, stressed that Ca$atao9s possessionof the sub5ect property should be respected. Any party, includin$ the respondents,who would li'e to assert their claim of ownership or a better ri$ht o1er the lotshould assert their ri$ht in an appropriate action in court a$ainst him.

Not in conformity, Ca$atao mo1ed for reconsideration but the motion was denied bythe CA in its Resolution, dated Au$ust 7, )66*. ence, this petition.

I/- &hether or not the certi=cate of title can be collaterally attac'

H/- No. Ca$atao9s entire petition re1ol1es around the assertion that thereconstituted %C% No. +)+8GA in the name of Carlos was a fa'e and should ha1ebeen declared 1oid. %his claim is based on the e!istence of an alle$edly falsi=edannotation /Entry No. 7)80, the speculati1e nature of the R%C9s declaration that thesaid title appeared 1alid, and the fact that the respondents were not able to presentan a@da1it of loss or any proof of 5udicial reconstitution.

From the ar$uments of Ca$atao, it is clear that he is assailin$ the 1alidity of the titleof Carlos o1er the land in uestion. Section 2< of P.D. No. +8) clearly states thata certi=cate of title shall not be sub5ect to collateral attac'. ;t cannot be altered,modi=ed, or cancelled e!cept in a direct proceedin$ in accordance with law. Anattac' on the 1alidity of the title is considered to be a collateral attac' when, in anaction to obtain a diIerent relief and as an incident of the said action, an attac' ismade a$ainst the 5ud$ment $rantin$ the title. Ca$atao9s ori$inal complaint beforethe R%C was for the cancellation of %C% No. %G)2237 in the name of the Fernande:Siblin$s and the nulli=cation of the deeds of sale between the Fernande: Siblin$s



and Spouses Fernande:, and the earlier one between the latter and Almonte andA$uilar. Nowhere in his complaint did Ca$atao mention that he sou$ht to in1alidate

%C% No. +)+8GA. ;t was only durin$ the course of the proceedin$s, when SpousesFernande: disclosed that they had purchased the property from Carlos, thatCa$atao thou$ht of uestionin$ the 1alidity of %C% No. +)+8GA.

Althou$h the CA correctly ruled that the transfer from ?atchalian to an:ulin wasin1alid, the e!istence of a 1alid %orrens title in the name of Carlos which hasremained unchallen$ed before the proper courts has made irrele1ant the issue of whether ?atchalian and his successorsGinGinterest should ha1e retained ownershipo1er the property. %his is pursuant to the principle that a %orrens title is irre1ocableand its 1alidity can only be challen$ed in a direct proceedin$. %he purpose of adoptin$ a %orrens System in our 5urisdiction is to $uarantee the inte$rity of landtitles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is establishedand reco$ni:ed. %his is to a1oid any possible conVicts of title that may arise by$i1in$ the public the ri$ht to rely upon the face of the %orrens title and dispensewith the need of inuirin$ further as to the ownership of the property. ence, a

%orrens certi=cate of title is indefeasible and bindin$ upon the whole world unless itis nulli=ed by a court of competent 5urisdiction in a direct proceedin$ forcancellation of title.

oreo1er, Carlos, as the re$istered owner of the lot whose title Ca$atao see's tonullify, should ha1e been impleaded as an indispensable party. Section 7, Rule 3 of the +7 Rules of Ci1il Procedure de=nes indispensable parties to be parties ininterest without whom no =nal determination can be had of an action. ;t is clear inthis case that Ca$atao failed to include Carlos in his action for the annulment of %C%No. +)+8GA. #asic is the rule in procedural law that no man can be aIected by anyproceedin$ to which he is a stran$er and stran$ers to a case cannot be bound by a

5ud$ment rendered by the court. ;t would be the hei$ht of in5ustice to entertain an

action for the annulment of Carlos9 title without $i1in$ her the opportunity topresent e1idence to support her claim of ownership throu$h title. ;n addition, it iswithout uestion a 1iolation of the constitutional $uarantee that no person shall bedepri1ed of property without due process of law.

%hus, should Ca$atao wish to uestion the ownership of the sub5ect lot of Carlos andSpouses Fernande:, he should institute a direct action before the proper courts forthe cancellation or modi=cation of the titles in the name of the latter two. ecannot do so now because it is tantamount to a collateral attac' on Carlos9 title,which is e!pressly prohibited by law and 5urisprudence.

%he %orrens system was adopted in this country because it was belie1ed to be the

most eIecti1e measure to $uarantee the inte$rity of land titles and to protect theirindefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and reco$ni:ed. ;f aperson purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the sellers title thereto is1alid, he should not run the ris' of bein$ told later that his acuisition wasineIectual after all. %his would not only be unfair to him. &hat is worse is that if thiswere permitted, public con=dence in the system would be eroded and landtransactions would ha1e to be attended by complicated and not necessarilyconclusi1e in1esti$ations and proof of ownership. %he further conseuence would be



that land conVicts could be e1en more numerous and comple! than they are nowand possibly also more abrasi1e, if not e1en 1iolent. %he ?o1ernment, reco$ni:in$the worthy purposes of the %orrens system, should be the =rst to accept the 1alidityof titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are satis=ed.

&hile the Court =nds that the 1alidity of %C% No. +)+8GA cannot be attac'ed

collaterally and that Ca$atao had not su@ciently established his claim of ownershipo1er the sub5ect property, it a$rees with the CA that he, the current possessor, shallremain to be so until such time that his possession is successfully contested by aperson with a better ri$ht.

G.R. No. 170528 #+ 26, 2008

HEIR OF *ULI#N TIRO, ' PHILIPPINE ET#TE CORPOR#TION,

CHICON#9#RIO, *.-

Fac+- Petitioners ?uillerma %iro, Domin$a %iro Nune: and a!imo %iro =led beforethe R%C a Complaint for uietin$ of %itle a$ainst respondent Philippine Estates

Corporation, a corporation duly or$ani:ed and e!istin$ under the laws of thePhilippines. %he complaint was doc'eted as Ci1il Case No. 2<)2G". Petitionersalle$ed that they are the children of the late >ulian %iro and the authori:edrepresentati1es of the eirs of the late Pedro %iro. #oth decedents were purportedly,durin$ their lifetime, the lawful absolute and re$istered owners of the disputed landas e1idenced by (ri$inal Certi=cate of %itle /(C%0 No. R(G++)+.

Petitioners a1erred that they and their predecessorsGinGinterest had been in actualpossession of the disputed land since time immemorial until they were pre1entedfrom enterin$ the same by persons claimin$ to be the new owners sometime in+8. After e!aminin$ the records found in the (@ce of the Re$ister of Deeds of

"apuG"apu City, they disco1ered that (C% No. R(G++)+ had already been cancelledas early as +* and that the sub5ect property, after se1eral other transfers, waspresently re$istered in the name of respondent under %ransfer Certi=cate of %itle/%C%0 No. 38*7).

%he records in the (@ce of the Re$ister of Deeds showed each transfer in1ol1in$the disputed land. Petitioners learned that (C% No. R(G++)+, re$istered in thenames of >ulian and Pedro %iro, was cancelled on +6 September +*. ;n its place,

%C% No. )<2< was issued in fa1or of Spouses >ulio #aba and (limpia esa. %here$istration of the disputed property in fa1or of the Spouses #aba was supported bytwo documentsB /+0 an E!tra5udicial Declaration of eir and Con=rmation of Saledated )6 Au$ust +*, e!ecuted by a!ima (chea /(chea0, claimin$ to be the only

sur1i1in$ heir of >ulian and Pedro %iro, wherein she con=rmed and rati=ed an alle$edsale of the sub5ect land made before &orld &ar ;; by >ulian and Pedro %iro in fa1or of Spouses #ibiano Amores and ;sabel Di$no and /)0 another document entitled JDeedof Con=rmation,J also dated )6 Au$ust +*, e!ecuted by the Spouses Amores,wherein they 1eri=ed that they subseuently transferred the disputed property tothe Spouses #aba sometime in +27.



fraud or misrepresentation can still be the source of a completely le$al and 1alidtitle if the same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for 1alue.

;n the present case, respondent was clearly an innocent purchaser for 1alue. ;tpurchased the disputed property from Paci=c Rehouse Corporation, alon$ with otherparcels of land for a 1aluable consideration, i.e., shares of common stoc' of

respondent with a 1alue of P+2<,+66,266.66. Paci=c Rehouse Corporation, in turn,purchased the property from Spouses Lelayo, also for 1aluable consideration in theamount of P+,2*+,*66.66. %he certi=cates of title of Paci=c Rehouse Corporation andthe Spouses Lelayo were clean and appeared 1alid on their face, and there wasnothin$ therein which should ha1e put the respondent on its $uard of some defectin the pre1ious re$istered owners9 title to the disputed property. ;n addition to theircerti=cate of title, the Spouses Lelayo e1en presented to Paci=c RehouseCorporation a copy of the %C Decision dated )< >une +2 in Ci1il Case No. RG+)6)orderin$ petitioners to 1acate the disputed property, which they forcibly entered,and to restore possession thereof to the Spouses Lelayo. %he said Decisionsupported the Spouses Lelayo9s claim of title to the disputed property.

%he ri$ht of an innocent purchaser for 1alue must be respected and protected, e1enif the seller obtained his title throu$h fraud. %he remedy of the person pre5udiced isto brin$ an action for dama$es a$ainst those who caused or employed the fraud,and if the latter are insol1ent, an action a$ainst the %reasurer of the Philippines maybe =led for reco1ery of dama$es a$ainst the Assurance Fund.J

G.R. No. L4:105 #+ :1, 1@84

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE '. THE HON. COURT OF #PPE#L, /+ a

CUE=#, *.-

Fac+- %he lot sub5ect matter of this land re$istration case, with an area of +7,3++suare meters, is situated near the shore of "a$una de #ay, about twenty /)60meters therefrom /E!h. D0, 3 in #arrio Pina$bayanan, Pila, "a$una. ;t was purchasedby #enedicto del Rio from An$el Pili on April +, +6. %he Deed of Sale e1idencin$said purchase is duly recorded with the Re$istry of Deeds of Sta. Cru:, "a$una. %heland was declared for ta! purposes be$innin$ the year ++<, and the realty ta!esthereon had been paid since +2<. &hen #enedicto del Rio died in +87, his heirse!tra5udicially partitioned his estate and the sub5ect parcel passed on to his son,Santos del Rio, as the latters share in the inheritance.

Santos del Rio, herein applicantGpri1ate respondent, =led his application forre$istration of said parcel on ay , +**. %he application was opposed by the

Director of "ands and by pri1ate oppositors, petitioners in ?.R. No. "G23+6.

Sometime before +**, pri1ate oppositors obtained permission from Santos del Rioto construct duc' houses on the land in uestion. Althou$h there was no de=nitecommitment as to rentals, some of them had made 1oluntary payments to pri1aterespondent. ;n 1iolation of the ori$inal a$reement, pri1ate oppositors constructedresidential houses on the land which prompted pri1ate respondent to =le ane5ectment suit a$ainst the former in +**. 2eanwhile, durin$ the latter part of



+*8 and in +**, pri1ate oppositors had simultaneously =led their respecti1e salesapplications with the #ureau of "ands, and in +**, they opposed Santos del Riosapplication for re$istration. %he Court of First ;nstance of "a$una dismissed theapplication for re$istration. Applicant appealed and obtained a fa1orable 5ud$mentfrom the Court of Appeals. %he Director of "ands and the pri1ate oppositors =ledtheir respecti1e Petitions for Re1iew of said decision.

I/- &hether or not applicant pri1ate respondent has re$isterable title to theland.

H/- Kes. %he purpose of land re$istration under the %orrens System is not theacuisition of lands but only the re$istration of title which applicant alreadypossesses o1er the land. Re$istration under the %orrens "aw was ne1er intended asa means of acuirin$ ownership. Applicant in this case asserts ownership o1er theparcel of land he see's to re$ister and traces the roots of his title to a publicinstrument of sale in fa1or of his father from whom he inherited said land. ;naddition to this muniment of title, he presents ta! declarations co1erin$ the landsince ++< and also ta! receipts datin$ bac' to +2<. &hile it is true that bythemsel1es ta! receipts and declarations of ownership for ta!ation purposes are notincontro1ertible e1idence of ownership, they become stron$ e1idence of ownershipacuired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of theproperty. %he then Court of Appeals found applicant by himself and throu$h hisfather before him, has been in open, continuous, public, peaceful, e!clusi1e andad1erse possession of the disputed land for more than thirty /360 years, countedfrom April +, +6, when the land was acuired from a third person by purchase.

%he record does not show any circumstance of note su@cient enou$h to o1erthrowsaid =ndin$s of facts which is bindin$ upon us. Since applicant has possessed thesub5ect parcel in the concept of owner with 5ust title and in $ood faith, hispossession need only last for ten years in order for ordinary acuisiti1e prescription

to set in. Applicant has more than satis=ed this le$al reuirement. And e1en if theland sou$ht to be re$istered is public land as claimed by the petitioners still,applicant would be entitled to a 5udicial con=rmation of his imperfect title, since hehas also satis=ed the reuirements of the Public "and Act /Commonwealth Act No.+2+ as amended by Republic Act No. +2)0. Sec. 2< of said Act enumerates asamon$ the persons entitled to 5udicial con=rmation of imperfect title, the followin$B

/b0 %hose who, by themsel1es or throu$h their predecessorsGinGinterest, ha1e beenin the open, continuous, e!clusi1e, and notorious possession and occupation of a$ricultural lands of the public domain, under bona =de c of ownership, for at leasttirty years immediately precedin$ the =lin$ of the application for con=rmation of

title. %he claim of pri1ate oppositors, petitioners in ?.R. No. "23+6, that they ha1ereclaimed the land from the waters of "a$una de #ay and that they ha1e possessedthe same for more than twenty /)60 years does not impro1e their position. ;n the=rst place, pri1ate persons cannot, by themsel1es reclaim land from water bodiesbelon$in$ to the public domain without proper permission from $o1ernmentauthorities. And e1en if such reclamation had been authori:ed, the reclaimed landdoes not automatically belon$ to the party reclaimin$ the same as they may still be



sub5ect to the terms of the authority earlier $ranted. Pri1ate oppositorsGpetitionersfailed to show proper authority for the alle$ed reclamation, therefore, their claimedtitle to the liti$ated parcel must fall. ;n the second place, their alle$ed possessioncan ne1er ripen into ownership. (nly possession acuired and en5oyed in theconcept of owner can ser1e as the root of a title acuired by prescription. )+ Ascorrectly found by the appellate court, the pri1ate oppositorsGpetitioners enteredinto possession of the land with the permission of, and as tenants of, the applicantdel Rio. %he fact that some of them at one time or another did not pay rent cannotbe considered in their fa1or. %heir use of the land and their nonGpayment of rentsthereon were merely tolerated by applicant and these could not ha1e aIected thecharacter of the latters possession which has already ripened into ownership at thetime of the =lin$ of this application for re$istration.

%he applicant pri1ateGrespondent ha1in$ satisfactorily established his re$isterabletitle o1er the parcel of land described in his application, he is clearly entitled to there$istration in his fa1or of said land.

G.R. No. 1715:1 *aar; :0, 200@

GU#R#NTEE! HOME, INC., '. HEIR OF M#RI# P. =#L!E9, /+ a

Ta, *.-

Fac+- %he descendants of Pablo Pascua =led a complaint /in their complaintrespondents alle$ed that Pablo died intestate sometime in >une +28 and wassur1i1ed by his four children, one of whom was the deceased Cipriano0 see'in$recon1eyance of a parcel of land with an area of )3.7)) hectares situated inCabitau$an, Subic, Qambales with (ri$inal Certi=cate of %itle /(C%0 No. 262 in thename of Pablo. ;n the alternati1e, the heirs of Lalde: prayed that dama$es beawarded in their fa1or.

(C% No. 262 was attached as one of the anne!es of respondents9 complaint. ;tcontained se1eral annotations in the memorandum of encumbrances which showedthat the property had already been sold by Pablo durin$ his lifetime to Ale5andriaaruine: and Restituto orales.

;t was further a1erred in the complaint that >or$e Pascua, Sr., son of Cipriano, =led apetition before the R%C of (lon$apo City for the issuance of a new owner9s duplicateof (C% No. 262. owe1er, the R%C denied the petition and held that petitioner wasalready the owner of the land, notin$ that the failure to annotate the subseuenttransfer of the property to it at the bac' of (C% No. 262 did not aIect its title to theproperty.

Petitioner =led a motion to dismiss the complaint on the $rounds that the action isbarred by the Statute of "imitations, more than )< years ha1in$ elapsed from theissuance of %C% No. %G+6<*3 up to the =lin$ of the complaint, and that the complaintstates no cause of action as it is an innocent purchaser for 1alue, it ha1in$ relied onthe clean title of the spouses Rodolfo.

%he R%C $ranted petitioner9s motion to dismiss.



%he appellate court further held that the rulin$ of the R%C that petitioner is aninnocent purchaser for 1alue is contrary to the alle$ations in respondents9complaint.

ence, the present petition for re1iew.

I/- &hether or not petitioner has the ri$ht to rely on the titleH/- Kes. %he complaint does not alle$e any defect with %C% No. %G<)2) in thename of the spouses Rodolfo, who were petitioner9s predecessorsGinGinterest, or anycircumstance from which it could reasonably be inferred that petitioner had anyactual 'nowled$e of facts that would impel it to ma'e further inuiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo. ;t is basic that a person dealin$ with re$istered property neednot $o beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his predecessorGinGinterest. SinceJthe act of re$istration is the operati1e act to con1ey or aIect the land insofar asthird persons are concerned,J it follows that where there is nothin$ in the certi=cateof title to indicate any cloud or 1ice in the ownership of the property, or anyencumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not reuired to e!plore farther than what

the %orrens title upon its face indicates in uest for any hidden defect or inchoateri$ht that may subseuently defeat his ri$ht thereto. ;f the rule were otherwise, thee@cacy and conclusi1eness of the certi=cate of title which the %orrens system see'sto insure would entirely be futile and nu$atory. %he public shall then be denied of itsforemost moti1ation for respectin$ and obser1in$ the %orrens system of re$istration.;n the end, the business community stands to be incon1enienced and pre5udicedimmeasurably.

Re$istration in the public re$istry is notice to the whole world. E1ery con1eyance,mort$a$e, lease, lien, attachment, order, 5ud$ment, instrument or entry aIectin$re$istered land shall be, if re$istered, =led or entered in the (@ce of the Re$ister of Deeds of the pro1ince or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructi1enotice to all persons from the time of such re$isterin$, =lin$ or enterin$.

%itle to real property refers to that upon which ownership is based. ;t is the e1idenceof the ri$ht of the owner or the e!tent of his interest, by which means he canmaintain control and, as a rule, assert ri$ht to e!clusi1e possession and en5oymentof the property.

oreo1er, there is nothin$ in the complaint which speci=ed that the respondentswere in possession of the property. %hey merely alle$ed that the occupants orpossessors are Jothers not defendant Spouses RodolfoJ who could be anybody, andthat the property is in actual possession of Ja number of the Pascua heirsJ whocould either be the respondents or the heirs of Cipriano. %he admission of the truthof material and rele1ant facts well pleaded does not e!tend to render a demurrer anadmission of inferences or conclusions drawn therefrom, e1en if alle$ed in thepleadin$ nor mere inferences or conclusions from

G.R. No. L6@:0: *; 2:, 1@87

HEIR OF M#RI# M#R#IG#N, '. INTERME!I#TE #PPELL#TE COURT /+ a

GUTIERRE9, *R., *.-



Fac+- %he disputed property in this case is a residential lot /"ot No. )GA0 co1ered by %ransfer Certi=cate of %itle No. +66*+) issued by the Re$ister of Deeds of the City of anila in the name of one Fe Sprin$aelG#a:ar, married to Felicisimo #a:ar. (n April)2, +78, Ci1il Case No. 727 entitled Jaria arron 1. Felicisimo #a:ar and Fe S.#a:aarJ was =led before the then Court of First ;nstance of anila, #ranch T;;;. %heaction sou$ht to compel defendants #a:ar to e!ecute a re$istrable Deed of AbsoluteSale of their lot co1ered by %.C.%. No. +66*+) in fa1or of aria arron.

(n >anuary )7, +7*, while Ci1il Case No. 727 was still pendin$, the pri1aterespondent caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the bac' of %.C.%. No.+66*+).

(n February )2, +7*, the Court of First ;nstance rendered 5ud$ment in fa1or of aria arron. After the 5ud$ment became =nal and e!ecutory, aria arron =led amotion for e!ecution which was li'ewise $ranted by the same court. %hus a writ of e!ecution was issued by the court on >uly +), +7*. %he spouses #a:ar, howe1er,refused to surrender their title to the property in uestion and to e!ecute thereuired Deed of Sale. As a result, the lower court ordered the Cler' of Court toe!ecute the Deed of Sale in behalf of the spouses. Prior to the ci1il case institutedby aria arron, on December +<, +72, a deed of absolute sale of "ot )GA wase!ecuted by Fe #a:ar in fa1or of aria arasi$an for the amount of P+8,666.

owe1er, it was only on >uly 8, +77 that said deed was re$istered with the Re$istryof Deeds of anila. Conseuently, the %ransfer Certi=cate of %itle of the spouseswere cancelled and a new title was issued in arasi$ans name and li'ewise thenotice of lis pendens caused to be annotated by arron was carried o1er to the newtitle.eanwhile on ay )*, +77, the #a:ars =led a petition for relief from 5ud$mentdated February )2, +7* and while their petition was pendin$, the spouses mo1edto set aside said 5ud$ment on >une )), +7 on the $round of lac' of 5urisdiction. (n

the other hand, on February )2, +7, arron instituted a "and Re$istration Courtcase a$ainst aria arasi$an prayin$ that the Re$ister of Deeds of anila bereuired to re$ister the deed of sale e!ecuted by the Cler' of Court in behalf of thespouses #a:ar, but the case was dismissed on the $round that the "and Re$istrationCourt had no 5urisdiction o1er the case.

(n September *, +7, arron =led another case in the Court of First ;nstance of anila which see's to nullify arasi$ans title o1er the sub5ect lot. owe1er thecase was dismissed by the lower court on the $round that arrons complaint waspremature since the 5ud$ment rendered by CF ;of anila, #ranch T;;; had not yetbecome =nal and e!ecutory.

(n appeal, the ;ntermediate Appellate Court ruled that arron is entitled to thesub5ect property by 1irtue of the notice of lis pendens and that the decision of CF; of anila, #ranch T;;; had become =nal and e!ecutory because the petition for relief from 5ud$ment of the spouses #a:ar was =led out of time.

I/- &hether or not between arasi$an has better ri$ht o1er the sub5ect lotW

H/- No. aria arron has the better ri$ht o1er the sub5ect property.



%here is a clear showin$ that althou$h the late aria arasi$an acuired theproperty in uestion from the #a:aars pursuant to a deed of absolute sale onDecember +<, +72 or a little o1er four months before the =lin$ of Ci1il Case No.727, the transaction became eIecti1e as a$ainst third persons only on >uly 8,+77 when it was re$istered with the Re$istry of Deeds of anila. ;t is the act of re$istration which creates constructi1e notice to the whole world. Section 8+ of Act2*, as amended by Section 8) of the Property Re$istration Decree /P.D. +8)0pro1idesB

Sec. 8). Constructi1e notice upon re$istration. M E1ery con1eyance ... aIectin$re$istered land shall, if re$istered, =led or entered in the o@ce of the Re$ister of Deeds for the pro1ince or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructi1enotice to all persons from the time of such re$isterin$, =lin$ or enterin$.

oreo1er, there is no uestion that when the late aria arasi$an was issued hertransfer certi=cate of title to the sub5ect property /%.C.%. No. +)*68*0, the Re$istrarof Deeds of anila then carried o1er to the new title the notice of lis pendens whichthe pri1ate respondent had caused to be annotated at the bac' of the #a:ars title.;n case of subseuent sales or transfers, the Re$istrar of Deeds is duty bound tocarry o1er the notice of lis pendens on all titles to be issued. (therwise, if hecancels any notice of lis pendens in 1iolation of his duty, he may be held ci1illy ande1en criminally liable for any pre5udice caused to innocent third persons.

A notice of lis pendens means that a certain property is in1ol1ed in a liti$ation andser1es as notice to the whole world that one who buys the same does it at his ownris'. ;t was also a clear notice to aria arasi$an that there was a court caseaIectin$ her ri$hts to the property she had purchased.

As earlier stated it was only on >uly 8, +77 that the sale between aria arasi$anand the #a:aars became eIecti1e as a$ainst third persons. %he re$istration of thedeed of sale o1er the sub5ect property was de=nitely subseuent to the annotationmade on >anuary )7, +7*. Conseuently, arasi$an was bound by the outcome of the liti$ation a$ainst her 1endors or transferors.

land,title,and deeds cases digest

Documents