MARTINEZ VS CA
G.R. No. 170409
FACTS:
Respondents are the heirs of the late Melanio Medina, Sr. who during his lifetime inherited the properties from his mother, Rosa Martinez Emitaño, who in turn inherited them from her own mother, Celedonia Martinez (Celedonia). The complaint alleged that sometime in !!", petitioner, #regoria Mer$uines, represented herself as #regoria Martinez and as thus one of the descendants of Celedoniaand under that name applied for free patents o%er the properties with the CE&R'. ne*nownst to pri%ate respondents, the corresponding 'CTs were thus issued in the name of #regoria Martinez. +hen pri%ate respondents later led an application for land registration o%er the same properties, petitioner opposed the same. This impelled pri%ate respondents to le the instant complaint. The onl- issue raised at the trial was whether the free patents and land titles should e annulled due to fraud and misrepresentation in their procurement. The trial court rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of petitioners titles. /efore the Court of 0ppeals, She argued the titles secured were alread- indefeasile in %iew of the lapse of one -ear from the issuance of the titles. Concerning the alleged indefeasiilit- of the titles issued to petitioner, the Court of 0ppeals ruled that the argument is untenale since petitioner emplo-ed fraud in the proceedings which led to the issuance of the free patents and the titles.
ISSUE:
+hether or not titles of the petitioner are alread- indefeasile and incontro%ertile following the lapse of one -ear from their issuance RULING:
&o, the titles of the petitioner are not considered indefeasile and incontro%ertile notwithstanding the lapse of one -ear from their issuance since the certicate of title in this case has een issued on the asis of free patent procured through fraud manifested in the facts that #regoria Mer$uines has misrepresented herself as #regoria Martinez who happened to e one of the descendants of Celedonia. nder the recent 1urisprudence, a certicate of title issued on the asis of free patent procured through fraud or in %iolation of the law ma- e cancelled since such title is not cloa*ed with indefeasiilit-. 2urthermore, the principle of title is una%ailing where fraud attended the issuance of the free patents and titles. The petition is denied.
CARAGAY-LAYNO VS CA 132 SCRA 718 FACTS:
3etitioner, 4uliana Caraga-, and the decedent, Mariano 5e 6era, were rst cousins, 7oth orphans, who li%ed together under one roof in the care of a common aunt. 8n -ear !9, Mariano 5e 6era died. :is widow administered his propert- until her death in !;;. 5e 6eras nephew (Sal%ador Estrada) too* o%er as administrator of 5e 6eras estate. 3rior to the widows death, she made an in%entor- showing that 5e 6eras propert- (located in Calasiao, 3angasinan) measures 9<= s$. m (more or less). Estrada howe%er noticed that the Torrens title under 5e 6era indicated that his propert- measures >=9" s$. m. :e learned that the discrepanc- is the ?=?" s$. m. eing occupied - 4uliana. Estrada sued to e%ict 4uliana.
4uliana a%erred that she and her father ha%e een in open, continuous, e@clusi%e and notorious possession and in the concept of an owner of the land since !"A that the-%e een pa-ing ta@esA that the title held - Estrada was registered in !<= ut it onl- too* them to initiate an action in !;= therefore laches has set in.
ISSUE:
+hether or not the disputed portion should e ad1udged in fa%or of 5e 6eras estate
RULING:
&o. The inclusion of 4ulianas land in 5e 6eras title was erroneousl- done. 8t was shown that 4uliana, an unlettered woman, agreed to ha%e Mariano de 6era orrow her title for the purposes of Mariano otaining a loan during de 6eras lifetimeA that when de 6era registered his portion of land ad1oined to that of 4uliana, the latters land was erroneousl- included.
The error is highlighted - the fact that de 6eras widow, in her in%entor- efore she died, attested that de 6eras portion of land is onl- 9<= s$. m. more or less. The discrepanc- appro@imates the portion of land actuall- eing occupied - 4uliana. /- that, the onl- portion that can e ad1udged in fa%or of de 6eras estate is that which was eing claimed - the widow (in her in%entor-). 0 recalculation must howe%er e made to specif- the e@act measure of land elonging to eachB ?=?" s$ m should e retained - 4uliana (portion which she actuall- occupies) and 9" s$. m. should go to de 6eras estate.
8n the case at ar, the principle of indefeasiilit- applies onl- in the claimed portion or propert- wherein it can e ad1udged not on the illegall- included area.
IGLESIA VS CFI OF NE 208 PIL 441
FACTS:
This petition see*s to re%erse the decision of the respondent court in the case of 5e%elopment /an* of the 3hilippines %. 8glesia ni Cristo, Register of 5eeds of &ue%a Eci1a, and the &ational Treasurer of the 3hilippines. The respondent court upheld the primac- of the respondent an*s title and ordered the cancellation of the petitioners title. 3etitioner raised the sole issue ofB Dwhich of the two titles is superior, an earlier title secured administrati%el- or a latter title secured thru 1udicial proceedingsF. The propert- in $uestion is co%ered - T.C.T. &o. &TG!; and that is wh- it was ad1udicated as pri%ate land and ordered registered in her name in Jand Registration Case &o. ?"<<, JRC. +ith this as factual ac*ground, the petitioner attac*s the %alidit- of the homestead patent and title issued to the respondent an*s predecessor, Emilio Jiunao.
8n case of Jahora %s 5a-angGhirangB 7The rule in this 1urisdiction, regarding pulic patents and the character of the certicate of title that ma- e issued - %irtue thereof, is that where land is granted - the go%ernment to a pri%ate indi%idual, the corresponding patent therefor, is recorded and the certicate of title is issued to the granteeA thereafter, the land is automaticallrought within the operation of the Jand Registration 0ct, the title issued to the grantee ecoming entitled to all the safeguards pro%ided in Section ?> of said 0ct. 8n other words, upon the e@piration of one -ear from its issuance, the certicate of title ecomes irre%ocale and indefeasile li*e a certicate issued in a registration proceeding.7 0ppl-ing the case of 3a1oma-o, Et. 0l. %. Manipon, Et 0l., (?! SCR0 ;=;) Court held onceJand a homestead patent granted in Supreme accordance with thethat 3ulic 0ct is registered pursuant to Section "" of 0ct
EIRS OF SPS! LIM VS. RTC "U#GE G.R. No. 173891 FACTS:
0mparo E. Cañosa (respondent Cañosa) led a petition efore the Regional Trial Court of Nuezon Cit- see*ing the reconstitution of the srcinal Transfer Certicate of Title (TCT) &o. ;!?!9 of the Register of 5eeds of the same cit-. The trial court had ex parte presentation of e%idence efore the ranch cler* of court. Con%inced that the 1urisdictional re$uirements were complied with and nding merit in the petition, the trial court ordered the reconstitution of the srcinal and owners duplicate cop- of TCT &o. ;!?!9. 3etitioners led a %eried petition for the annulment of the trial courts decision. 0ccording to petitioners, their parents, spouses Juciano 3. Jim and Salud &a*pil /autista, are the registered owners of a parcel of land. The- ac$uired it from 5omingo J. Santos. The lot contained an area of =!9 s$uare meters more or less and was co%ered - TCT &o. "=!!=. 2urthermore, the- alleged that their parents had een in actual ph-sical possession of the propert-. 0 red razed Nuezon Cit- :all, the records destro-ed was the srcinal cop- of TCT &o. "=!!= and thus, one of the petitioners applied for and was issued a reconstituted title, TCT &o. RTG!=""?, in Septemer !!<. 3etitioners claimed that when respondent Cañosa led a petition for the reconstitution of TCT &o. ;!?!9. The- insisted that the petition for reconstitution did not compl- with the re$uirements found in Sections " and ? of Repulic 0ct (R.0.) &o. "; as it
failed to state specicall- the oundaries of the propert- su1ect of the petition as well as the names of the occupants or persons in possession of the propert-. 3etitioners considered these circumstances as e@trinsic fraud. Cañosa alleged that there was no fraud and that the 1urisdictional re$uirements of notice and pulication had een complied with. The Court of 0ppeals dismissed the petition. 3etitioners sought reconsideration of the resolution, ut their motion for reconsideration was denied - the Court of 0ppeals. I$$%&: +hether or not the petitioners ha%e personalit- and right to e notied of the reconstitution proceedings nor do the- ha%e an- right to le the petition for annulment of 1udgment. R%'()*:
3etitioners are not real partiesGinGinterest ecause the reconstitution of the original and duplicate cop- of TCT &o. ;!?!9 will ha%e no eHect on their propert-, the latter eing diHerent from, and not e%en a part of the propert- co%ered - the reconstituted title. 'ne ha%ing no right or interest of his own to protect cannot in%o*e the 1urisdiction of the court as a partplaintiH in an action, thus petitioners petition for annulment of 1udgment was rightfull- dismissed. 3etitioners impute error to the Court of 0ppeals when it dismissed their petition after it concluded, on the asis of its simple comparison of petitioners and respondents TCTs, that the properties co%ered the two titles are entireldiHerent. 3etitioners argue that the Court of 0ppeals should ha%e conducted a trial and recei%ed e%idenceA and ha%ing failed to do so, its conclusion was allegedl- not onl- Lawed ut was also arri%ed at with gra%e ause of discretion and without due process. Supreme Court does not agree. The Court of 0ppeals did not dismiss the petition for annulment of 1udgment outright. 8n fact, it re$uired respondent Cañosa to le her answer, and e%en allowed the
ling of an amended answerOproof that it was predisposed to consider the arguments of oth parties efore it e%en decided to nall- dismiss the petition. Mere ling of a petition for annulment of 1udgment does not guarantee the holding of trial or reception of e%idence. 0 petition for annulment of 1udgment ma- in fact e dismissed outright if it has no prima facie merit. +ith more reason that the Court of 0ppeals ma- dismiss a petition e%en without a hearing if it nds that ased on the a%erments in the petition and the responsi%e pleading, the annulment of the assailed 1udgment is not warranted.
TAPUROC VS LO+UELLANO G.R. No. 1,2007 FACTS:
'n Septemer !, !!;, petitioners led a complaint against respondents, the complaint alleges that petitioners 3rocopio Tapuroc and all the successorsGinGinterest of deceased coGowner 0ntonia Ee are the coGowners, coGheirs of the srcinal owners of a parcel of land with an area of 9,=!9 s$uare meters situated in /oo-, Tagilaran, /oholA that in !!", when petitioners decided to partition the su1ect propert-, the- disco%ered from the 'ce of the Cit- 0ssessor that the title co%ering the land was alread- in the name of a certain E%ans Mende - %irtue of a 5eed of Sale e@ecuted in fa%or of the latter - their predecessorsGinGinterest in !;=A that said 5eed of Sale is a forged document ecause the alleged %endors therein, did not sign the con%e-ing deedA and that one of the alleged %endors, 0ntonia Ee, had alread- passed awa- in !;, ong efore the purported 5eed of Sale was said to ha%e een e@ecuted in !;=. :ence, 3etitioners, pra- for the
nullication of the same 5eed of Sale, the cancellation of the title issued pursuant thereto and the restoration of the pre%ious title in their names, plus damages. Respondents assert that the- had een in open, continuous, and peaceful possession of the land in $uestion from the time of said sale, and had een religiousl- pa-ing the realt- ta@es due thereon. 'n 4une =, !!!, the trial court nding that the e%idence adduced - the petitioners insucient to estalish their claim that the $uestioned 5eed of Sale was a forger-. 0 motion for reconsideration was led with the C0, which armed the decision of the trial court, ruling that petitioners are arred from ling their petition due to laches. ISSUE: +hether or not the recourse of the petitioners is %alid. RULING: &o. The recourse must fail. 0s it is, the petitioners call for a re%iew of the facts of the case. Their action calls for the determination of the truth or falsehood of an alleged fact, a matter not for this Court to resol%e.
8t appears that the assailed 5eed of Sale is a pulic document, ha%ing een dul- notarized - a certain 0tt-. Rodolfo Pap. /eing a notarial instrument, the deed in $uestion is a pulic document and as such en1o-s the presumption of regularit- in its e@ecution. More so, as a rule, forger- cannot e presumed. 8t must e pro%ed - clear, positi%e and con%incing e%idence. Mere allegation of forger- is not e%idence and the urden of proof lies on the part- alleging it. :ere, the petitioners failed to discharge their urden. 0 Torrens title cannot e collaterall- attac*ed. The $uestion on the %alidit- of a Torrens title, whether fraudulentl- issued or
not, can e raised onl- in an action e@pressl- instituted for that purpose. The title represented - the certicate cannot e changed, altered, modied, enlarged, diminished, or cancelled in a collateral proceeding. The action for the declaration of nullit- of deed of sale commenced - the petitioners in the RTC of Tagilaran Cit- is not the direct proceeding re$uired - law to attac* a Torrens certicate of title. 3etition was denied.
NATALIA REALTY VS VAL#EZ 173 SCRA ,34 FACTS: 3etitioner, &atalia Realt-, led separate e1ectment cases against respondents with the RTC of Rizal for allegedl- unlawfulloccup-ing parcels of lands which were co%ered - the petitioners transfer certicates. The respondents le a consolidated answer mo%ing to dismiss said case ased on the ground of lac* of 1urisdiction.
Then the trial court rendered a summar- 1udgment upon nding that there is no %alid issue raised - the respondents, ut onl-
conclusions that the- ha%e een in actual possession of the su1ect lands for more than ? -ears. The- were then ordered to %acate the lots and to pa- monthl- rents. So the respondents led an appeal with the 8ntermediate 0ppellate Court. ISSUE: +hether or not respondents ha%e a %alid claim o%er the disputed land RULING: The Supreme Court appro%ed the ruling of the lower court that the certicate of title issued to the petitioners in accordance with the Jand Registration 0ct is indefeasile after the e@piration of one -ear from the entr- of the decree of registration. 0fter the lapse of one -ear, the decree of registration ecomes incontro%ertile and is inding upon and conclusi%e against all persons whether or not the- were notied of or participated in the registration proceedings. The said titles were issued to the
petitioners more than ? -ears ago. 2urthermore, the SC a%erred that, under the law, Section <> of the 3ropert- Registration 5ecree " e@pressl- pro%ides that a certicate of title cannot e su1ect to collateral attac* and can e altered, modied or cancelled onl- in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. 0ppellantsQ claim of ac$uisiti%e prescription is li*ewise aseless. nder 0rticle "; of the Ci%il Code, prescription of ownership of lands registered under Jand Registration shall that e go%erned - special laws. the Correlati%el-, 0ct &o.
0pparentl-, appellants were misled or induced to elie%e that the- ac$uired the parcels of land in $uestion when the whole countr- was declared - the pre%ious regime as a land reform area.
I#OS AN# ORPANS ASSOCIATION VS CA 201 SCRA 1, FACTS:
'n 0ugust "=, !=<, +idows and 'rphans 0ssociation, 8nc. (+idora) led an application for registration of title of a parcel of
land. 8t alleged that the parcel of land has an area of 9; hectares, more or lessA and that the applicant ac$uired said propert- from the heirs of 5on Mariano San 3edro on 5ecemer ", !9<. 5olores Molina led an opposition, claiming ownership o%er " to < hectares and pra-ing for a decree of registration o%er said portions of Jot >. Same with 'rtigas and Compan- Jimited 3artnership ('rtigas) led a motion to dismiss the case alleging, among others, that respondent court had no 1urisdiction o%er the case, the land eing applied for ha%ing een alread- registered under the Torrens S-stem and in the name of 'rtigas under TCT ==;9" and TCT ==;9?. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss of petitioner 'rtigas, holding, among others, that TCT ==;9" and TCT ==;9? on their face show that the- were deri%ed from 'CT ??=, !, ??;, ??<, pursuant to 5ecree <"9A 'rtigas then led a motion for reconsideration pra-ing the respondent court to reconsider its order of March ?, !>> on the ground that it had no 1urisdiction o%er the application for registration, the parcels of land su1ect thereof eing alread- co%ered - Torrens Certicates of Title. &ot satised, respondent 'rtigas instituted an action for certiorari, prohiition and mandamus efore respondent court pra-ing for the annulment of the March ?, !>> and Ma- !, !>! orders of the trial court. 8t also pra-ed that the trial court e ordered to dismiss the land registration case,the trial court then rendered the decision in fa%or to 'rtigas. ISSUE: 5o a Torrens Certicate of Title e su1ected to a collateral attac* RULING:
'rtigas alleges that 5ecree <"9 emraces the lots co%ered - its TCT &os. ==;9" and ==;9? which are identical to the lots applied for - petitioner. 'n the other hand, petitioner maintains that 5ecree <"9 co%ers a =Ghectare lot located at Sta. 0na, Manila while the lot applied for is alienale and disposale as certied the /ureau of Jands and - the /ureau of 2orestr- and has an area of 9; hectares located in Nuezon Cit- four (<) *ilometers awa- from Sta. 0na, Manila. :ence, the necessit- of a trial on the merits to ascertain the disputed facts. nder 0ct
ESLANISLAO VS. ONRA#A 114 SCRA 748 FACTS/
This is a petition for re%iew on certiorari which see*s to nullif- the decision of respondent Court of 0ppeals granting ex-parte the cancellation of title registered in the name of Ching Jeng in fa%or of 3edro 0sedillo. 8n Ma- !;, 5ecree &o. &G=>=; was issued to spouses Ma@imo &ofuente and 5ominga Jumandan in Jand Registration Case &o. &G"9=! of the Co% o F($ I)$)& o R(5' and 'riginal Certicate of Title &o. "9" s$uare meters. /- %irtue of a sale to Ching Jeng with postal address at &o. << Jiertad Street, 3asa- Cit-, Transfer Certicate of Title &o. !?= was issued on Septemer >, !;. 'n 'ctoer !, !;9, Ching Jeng died in /oston, Massachusetts, nited States of 0merica. :is legitimate son 0lfredo Ching led with the Co% o F($ I)$)& o R(5' 6) III! P$ C( a petition for administration of the estate of deceased Ching Jeng. 0lfredo Ching was appointed then asthe administrator of Ching JengQs estate on 5ecemer ">, !;9 and letters of administration issued on 4anuar- ?, !;;.
Thirteen -ears after Ching JengQs death, a suit against him was commenced on 5ecemer "=, !=> - 3edro 0sedillo with the Co% o F($ I)$)& o R(5'! 6) VII! P$ C( doc*eted as Ci%il Case &o. ;>>>G3 for recon%e-ance of the ao%esaid propert- and cancellation of T.C.T. &o. !?= in his fa%or ased on possession. Ching JengQs last *nown address is No. 44 Jiertad Street, 3asa- Cit- which appears on the face of T.C.T. &o. !?= (not No. 441 Jiertad Street, 3asa- Cit-, as alleged in pri%ate respondentQs complaint). The trial court ruled in fa%or of 3edro 0sedillo, declaring him to e the true and asolute owner of the propert- and ordering alfredo ching to surrender the title to the Registr- of 5eeds for its cancellation. The title and o%er a the the name of Ching Jeng in was cancelled newpropertTransfer in Certicate of Title was issued fa%or of 3edro 0sedillo who suse$uentl- sold the propert- to 6illa Esperanza 5e%elopment, 8nc. on Septemer ?, !=!. pon *nowing, 0lfredo Ching learned of the ao%estated decision. :e led a %eried petition on &o%emer , !=! to set it aside as null and %oid for lac* of 1urisdiction which was granted - the court on Ma- "!, !>. ISSUE: +here to le an action for the cancellation of a title RULING:
0n action to redeem, or to reco%er title to or possession of, real propert- is not an action in rem or an action against the whole world, li*e a land registration proceeding or the proate of a willA it is an action in personam, so much so that a 1udgment therein is inding onl- upon the parties properl- impleaded and dul- heard or gi%en an opportunit- to e heard. 0n action to reco%er a parcel of land is a real action ut it is an action in personam, for it inds
a particular indi%idual onl- although it concerns the right to a tangile thing. 3ri%ate respondentQs action for recon%e-ance and cancellation of title eing in personam, the 1udgment in $uestion is null and %oid for lac* of 1urisdiction o%er the person of the deceased defendant Ching Jeng. 6eril-, the action was commenced thirteen (?) -ears after the latterQs death. 0s ruled - this Court in Dumlao v. Quality Plastic Products , Inc. (= SCR0 <=9) the decision of the lower court insofar as the deceased is concerned, is %oid for lac* of 1urisdiction o%er his person. :e was not, and he could not ha%e een %alidl- ser%ed with summons. :e had no more ci%il personalit-. :is 1uridical personalit-, that is tness to e su1ect of legal relations, was lost through death. The complaint cancellation of Ching case, JengQs Torrens Title must e led in the for srcinal land registration RTC, 3asig, Rizal, sitting as a land registration court in accordance with Section " of the Jand Registration 0ct (0ct &o. >>G3 (Estanislao %. :onrado, < SCR0 =<>). Section " of the same law re$uires 7notice to all parties in interest.7 Since Ching Jeng was alread- in the other world when the summons was pulished he could not ha%e een notied at all and the trial court ne%er ac$uired 1urisdiction o%er his person. The ex-parte proceedings for cancellation of title could not ha%e een held (Estanislao %. :onrado, supra). The sole remed- of the landowner whose propert- has een wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered in anotherQs nameafter one -ear from the date of the decreeis not to set aside the decree, ut respecting the decree as incontro%ertile and no longer open to re%iew, to ring an ordinar- action in the ordinar- court of
1ustice for damages if the propert- has passed unto the hands of an innocent purchaser for %alue.
FERRER VS. 6AUTISTA 231 SCRA 748 FACTS:
nder contro%ers- is a strip of land south of Jot !> of the Cadastral sur%e- of 0ringa-, Ja nion. 3etitioner claims its ownership - %irtue of accretion, she eing the owner of Jot !>
co%ered - TCT &o. TG?">, which is immediatel- north of the land in $uestion. 'n the other hand, pri%ate respondents e$uallassert ownership o%er the propert- on account of long occupation and - %irtue of Certicate of Title &o. 3G;>, in the name of respondent Magdalena 5omondon, pursuant to 2ree 3atent &o. ?!9< issued on "< 4anuar- !;; .
'n "? March !=;, petitioner #loria 0. 2errer led a complaint with /ranch 888 of the then Court of 2irst 8nstance of Ja nion to 7Nuiet Title to Real 3ropert-7 against herein respondents Mariano /alanag and Magdalena 5omondon. The case was denominated Ci%il Case &o. 0G9<.
3rior to Ci%il Case &o. 0G9<, petitioner had also led with the Court of 2irst 8nstance of Ja nion, /ranch 888, a complaint for rei%indicacion (Ci%il Case &o. 0G>;), dated "9 &o%emer !;9, against pri%ate respondents. :erein respondent 4udge, who also handled the case, dismissed, on 2eruar- !=;, the complaint, without pre1udice, on the ground that the court had no authoritto cancel or annul the decree and the title issued - the 5irector of Jands on the asis of a mere collateral attac*.
3etitioner led for motion for reconsideration ut the same was denied.
3etitioner claimed that the respondent 1udge committed an error in outright dismissing on the ground of collateral attac* on 2ree
3atent 5ecree &o. ?!9< eing an ause of 1udicial discretion and an e@cess of his 1urisdiction.
ISSUE: +hether or not a %oid title can e su1ect to collateral
attac*.
RULING: Pes. The 5irector of Jands has no authorit- to grant a free patent o%er land that has passed to pri%ate ownership and which has there- ceased to e pulic land. 0n- title thus issued or con%e-ed - him would e null and %oid. The nullit- arises, not from fraud or deceit, ut from the fact that the land is no longer under the 1urisdiction of the /ureau of Jands, the latterQs authorit-
eing limited onl- to lands of pulic dominion and not those that are pri%atel- owned.
:erein pri%ate respondents, therefore, ac$uired no right or title o%er the disputed land - %irtue of the free patent since at the time it was issued in !;;, it was alread- pri%ate propert- and not a part of the disposale land of the pulic domain.
0lthough, ordinaril-, a title ecomes incontro%ertile one -ear after it is issued pursuant to a pulic grant, the rule does not appl- when such issuance is null and %oid. 0n action to declare the nullit- of that %oid title does not prescrieA in fact, it is susceptile to direct, as well as to collateral attac*.
NATIONAL GRAINS AUTORITY VS IAC
1,7 SCRA 380
FACTS:
'n 5ecemer ", !=, the spouses 3aulino 6i%as and Engracia Jizards, as owners of a parcel of land situated in /o. San 2rancisco, 6ictoria, Jaguna, comprising more or less 9,= s$uare meters, sold for 3?,. said propert- in fa%or of spouses Melencio Magcamit and &ena Cosico, and 0melita Magcamit ,herein pri%ate respondents, as e%idenced 7Iasulatan &g /ilihang Mailing Muli.7 This sale with right to repurchase was recorded in the 'ce of the Register of 5eeds of Jaguna on 5ecemer ;,!= under 0ct &o. ??<<. 'n 4anuar?,!=" the sale was made asolute - the spouses 6i%as and Jizardo in fa%or of the pri%ate respondents for the sum of 3!,.A 39,. of which was paid upon the e@ecution of the instrument, entitled 7Iasulatan &g /ilihan Tulu-an,7 after eing credited with the 3?,. consideration of the 7Iasulatan &g Maiiling Muli,7 and the alance of 3<,. was to e paid the moment that the certicate of title is issued. 2rom the e@ecution of said Iasulatan, pri%ate respondent ha%e remained in peaceful, ad%erse and open possession of su1ect propert-. 'n 2eruar- ";, !=9, an 'riginal Certicate of Title &o. TG="> co%ering the propert- in $uestion was issued to and in the name
of the spouses 6i%as and Jizardo without the *nowledge of the pri%ate respondents and on 0pril ?, !=9, said Spouses e@ecuted a Special 3ower of 0ttorne- in fa%or of 8renea Ramirez authorizing the latter to mortgage the propert- with the petitioner, &ational #rains 0uthorit- (�). 'n Ma- ", !=<, the counsel for the petitioner wrote the 3ro%incial SheriH in Sta. Cruz, Jaguna, re$uesting for the e@tra1udicial foreclosure of the mortgage e@ecuted - 8renea Ramirez on Ma- >, !=9, co%ering, among others, the propertin%ol%ed in this case, for unpaid indetedness in the amount of 3;?,!<>.> in fa%or of the petitioner. The 3ro%incial SheriH then caused the issuance of the notice of sale of the propert- in $uestion, scheduling the pulic auction sale. The petitioner was the highest and successful idder so that a Certicate of Sale was issued in its fa%or on the same date the 3ro%incial SheriH. 'n 4ul- , !=<, � in its capacit- as attorne-GinGfact of the mortgagor sold the su1ect real propert- in fa%or of itself. /%irtue of the deed of asolute sale, TCT &o. TG=9= of the Register of 5eeds for the 3ro%ince of Jaguna was issued in the name of the petitioner on 4ul- ;, !=<. 0 month after, the pri%ate respondents learned that a title in the name of the 6i%as spouses had een issued co%ering the propertin $uestion and that the same propert- had een mortgaged in fa%or of the petitioner. 3ri%ate respondent &ena Magcamit oHered to pa- the � the amount of 3<,. which is the alance of the amount due the 6i%as spouses under the terms of the asolute deed of sale ut the petitioner refused to accept the pa-ment and claimed ownership of the propert- in $uestion and has no intention of disposing of the same. The pri%ate respondents are in possession of su1ect propert- were as*ed the � to %acate it ut the former refused. 3etitioner led a suit for e1ectment against pri%ate respondents in the Municipal Court of 6ictoria, Jaguna, ut the case was dismissed.
'n 4une <, !=9, pri%ate respondents led a complaint efore the then Court of 2irst 8nstance of Jaguna and San 3alo Cit-, /ranch 888, San 3alo Cit-, against the � and the spouses 6i%as and Jizardo, pra-ing, among others, that the- e declared the owners of the propert- in $uestion and entitled to continue in possession of the same, and if the petitioner is declared the owner of the said propert-, then, to order it to recon%e- or transfer the ownership to them under such terms and conditions as the court ma- nd 1ust, fair and e$uitale under the premises. 8n its answer to the complaint, the &ational #rains 0uthoritmaintained that it is a purchaser in good faith and for %alue of the propert- formerl- co%ered - 'CT &o. =">A and that the title is now indefeasile, hence, cause of action of &ena Magcamit has alread- prescried. 0fter due hearing, the trial court rendered its decision in fa%or of &ational #rains 0uthorit- the lawful owner of the propert- in $uestion - %irtue of its indefeasile title to the same and ordering plaintiHs to turn o%er possession of the land to defendant &ational #rains 0uthorit-. The pri%ate respondents interposed an appeal from the decision of the trial court to the 8ntermediate 0ppellate Court which rendered its decision re%ersing and setting aside the decision of the trial court ordering the &ational #rains 0uthorit- to e@ecute a deed of recon%e-ance sucient in law for purposes of registration and cancellation of transfer Certicate of Title &o. TG=9=.
The petitioner led a motion for reconsideration of the said decision ut the same was denied.
ISSUE: +hether or not the &ational #rains 0uthorit- is the rightful owner of the disputed land.
RULING:
Pes. 8n this case, it will e noted that the third part- �, is a registered owner under the Torrens S-stem and has o%iousl- a etter right than pri%ate respondents and that the deed of asolute sale with the suspensi%e condition is not registered and is necessarilinding onl- on the spouses 6i%as and Jizardo and pri%ate respondents. 8t has een in%arial- restated - this Court, that the real purpose of the Torrens S-stem is to $uiet title to land and to stop fore%er an- $uestion as to its legalit-. 'nce a title is registered, the owner ma- rest secure, without the necessit- of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the 7mirador su casato,7 a%oid the possiilit- of losing his land. 0n indirect or collateral attac* on a Torrens Title is not allowed. The onl- e@ception thiselonging rule is where a person certicate of title to atoland to another and heotains has full a *nowledge of the rights of the true owner. :e is then considered as guilt- of fraud and he ma- e compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner so long as the propert- has not passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for %alue. n$uestional-, therefore, the � is an innocent purchaser for %alue, rst as an innocent mortgagee under Section ?" of 3.5. 9"! and later as innocent purchaser for %alue in the pulic auction sale. ROAS ET. AL VS TAGAYTAY FACTS:
'n March >, !>", Ma@ima, a daughter of Candido and #regoria (the owners of land) entered into a 5eed of E@traG1udicial 3artition with the heirs of her deceased rothers, Mario and Euseio Macahilig. Ma@ima e@ecuted a Statement of Conformit- in which she conrmed the e@ecution of the 5eed of E@traG1udicial 3artition and conformed to the manner of partition and ad1udication made therein. Ma@ima sold 3arcel 'ne to spouses 0delino and Rogelia 5aclag (petitioners) as e%idenced - a 5eed
of Sale, an 'CT was issued in the name of 5aclag - %irtue of her free patent application.Respondents led with the RTC for recon%e-ance. The RTC rendered its 5ecision in fa%or of the respondents. The C0 dismissed the appeal and armed the RTC decision.
ISSUE: +hether the recon%e-ance of the su1ect land - the respondents is proper.
RULING:
Pes, it is proper. The essence of an action for recon%e-ance is that the free patent and certicate of title are respected as incontro%ertile. +hat is sought is the transfer of the propert-, which has een wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered in another personQs name, to its rightful owner or to one with a etter right. 8n an action for recon%e-ance, the issue in%ol%ed is one of ownershipA and for this purpose, e%idence of title ma- e introduced. Respondents had sucientl- estalished that 3arcel 'ne, co%ered - 'CT of which respondentsQ northern one half portion formed a part, was not owned - Ma@ima at the time she sold the land to petitioners. 0n action for recon%e-ance prescries in -ears, the point of reference eing the date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certicate of title o%er the propert-. Records show that while the land was registered in the name of petitioner Rogelia in !><, the instant complaint for recon%e-ance was led - the respondents in !!, and was thus still within the tenG-ear prescripti%e period.
#IGRAN VS AU#ITOR GENERAL 4 OG 19 FACTS:
'n 4une "", !!, RupertaCaucos ought from, and full- paid to the #o%ernment, Jot &o. ;?> of the /anilad 2riar Jands Estate situated in Ceu Cit- for which a formal deed of con%e-ance was e@ecuted in her fa%or on &o%emer "=, !9 - the 2riar Jands 0genc-. 'n 2eruar- ">, !; Transfer Certicate of Title &o. RTG ?!> (TG?") was issued to her. The /anilad 2riar Jands Estate was among the friar lands ac$uired - the #o%ernment for resale to actual tenants or occupants pursuant to 0ct " of the 3hilippine Commission. Sometime in !< or !9, without prior e@propriation proceedings, the go%ernment constructed Mango 0%enue, a municipal road, passing through Jot &o. ;?>. 0 claim for compensation was led with the Municipalit- of Ceu ut it was still unpaid when +orld +ar 88 ro*e out.RupertaCaucos died in !<. 8n !9 her heirs sudi%ided Jot &o. ;?> into eight lots. 'n 2eruar- ;, !;? Ra-munda S. 5igran, a daughter of Candida Samson, ecame administratri@ of the estate of RupertaCaucos. 'n 2eruar- >, !;? the 5eput- 0uditor #eneral, as stated, denied the claim. This decision was the su1ect of two motions for reconsideration, the later one ha%ing een denied on 4une , !;?. 'n 4ul- ! of the same -ear Ra-munda S. 5igran appealed to this Court from said decision altho on 4ul- , !;? she led an amended claim for compensation with the 0uditor #eneral. 'n 0ugust =, !;? the 0uditor #eneral desisted from rendering a decision on the amended claim on 4ul- , !;? for the reason that the case was alread- sub judice.
ISSUE: +hether or not the heirs of RupertaCaucos are entitled to compensation for Jot &o. ;?>G/, the road lot. RULING: The #o%ernment denies the oligation to gi%e due compensation for Jot &o. ;?>G/ mainl- on the grounds that RupertaCaucosQ title o%er Jot &o. ;?> was su1ect to the
#o%ernmentQs reser%ations for pulic use, such as rights of waand other pulic ser%itudes under Sections !, " and " of 0ct " and Section ?! of 0ct
SEC. ". 0ll persons recei%ing title to lands under the pro%isions of this 0ct shall hold such lands su1ect to the same pulic ser%itudes as e@isted upon lands owned - pri%ate persons under the so%ereignt- of Spain, including those with reference to the littoral of the sea and the an*s of na%igale ri%ers and ri%ers upon which rafting ma- e done. SEC. ". The Ci%il #o%ernor, when authorized - resolution of the Commission, ma- - proclamation, designate an- tract or tracts of said lands as nonalienale, and reser%e the same for pulic use, and thereafter such tracts shall not e su1ect to sale, lease, or other disposition under this 0ct. Section ! withholds from a purchaser of a friar land e@clusi%e right to an- canal, ditch, reser%oir, or other irrigation wor*s, or to an- water suppl- upon which such irrigation wor*s are or ma- e dependent which were alread- e@isting at the time of purchase. 8t also su1ects the land so purchased to the right of wa- of such canal, ditch, reser%oir or irrigation wor*s. Section " holds the friar lands su1ect to pulic ser%itudes also imposed on other lands owned - pri%ate persons. Section " gi%es the Ci%il #o%ernor, upon resolution of the 3hilippine Commission, the authorit- to designate an- tract or tracts of friar land as nonG alienale and reser%e the same for pulic use. &eedless to sa-, the road construction through Jot &o. ;?>G/ is not the ser%itude contemplated in Sections ! and ", ao%e $uoted. Moreo%er, it has not een shown that Jot &o. ;?>G/ was declared nonalienale - the Ci%il #o%ernor prior to sale to, and purchase -, Ruperta Caucos so as to pre%ent her from ac$uiring ownership thereo%er.
O5& P')! 3 OG 3! ;. 77,
FACTS:
Ramon 5eln (pri%ate respondent) led an application for a parcel of land located in 6alenzuela, /ulacan. 8t was granted and now co%ered with an 'CT issued - the Registr- of 5eeda, /ulacan. 5eln as an applicant, led for a petition for +rit of 3ossession against spouses 2rancisco and /asilisaEsconde, as the- ha%e een occup-ing the said land. Suse$uentl-, on March of !=> the opposition led - the petitioner was denied - 4udge /autista. Moreo%er, 4udge constantino, who too* o%er the same ranch presided o%er 1udge /autista issued an order for +rit of 3ossession against the spouses. 8mmediatel-, petitioner led a motion to $uash which was denied. 3etitioner then led complaint for con%e-anceagainst5eln which was reutted - the latter %ia motion to dismiss on the ground that () the cause of action, if an-, is arred - re 1udicata (") the complaint fails to state sucient cause or causes of action for recon%e-ance and (?) the plaintiH is arred - prescription or laches from ling the case. Thereafter, petitioner led a re1oinder to motion to dismiss and motion for lea%e of court. The sheriH
then, upon the courts order, deli%ered possession to 5eln howe%er he was arred in entering the premises. 5eln led a motion for an 0lias writ of possession which was granted. The sheriH turned o%er the possession to the representati%e of 5eln, howe%er, when the latter went to the premises he was again arred - the petitioner. Then, 5elne as*ed for demolition and he mo%ed for a second alias writ of possession which was again, granted. Suse$uentl-, the writ of recon%e-ance led - the petitioner was dismissed. 0fter which motions and motions ha%e een led. The second resol%e the issue, a temporar- restraining order directing the sheriH and 5eln to refrain from enforcing andKor carr-ing out the third alias writ of possession. 3etitioner then led motion to amend the resolution and TR', either nullif-ing third alias writ of possession ser%ed orto issue a mandator- in1unction which was denied - the said court.
ISSUE: +hether or not action for recon%e-ance is the proper remed-. RULING: 0n action for recon%e-ance is a legal and e$uitale remedgranted to the rightful owner of land which has een wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or recon%e- the land to him. The
pre%ailing rule in this 1urisdiction does not ar a landowner whose propert- was wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered under the Torrens S-stem from ringing an action, after one -ear from the issuance of the decree, for the recon%e-ance of the propert- in $uestion. Such an action does not aim or purport to reGopen the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration, ut onl- to show that the person who secured the registration of the $uestioned propert- is not the real owner thereof. 0n ordinarci%il action for recon%e-ance does not see* to set aside the decree ut respecting the decree as incontro%ertile and no
longer open to re%iew, see*s to transfer or recon%e- the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner. nder the circumstances in the case at ar, it is apparent that recon%e-ance is not the proper remed-. There was no proof of irregularit- in the issuance of title, nor in the proceedings incident thereto, nor was it estalished that fraud had indeed inter%ened in the issuance of said title, and the period of one -ear within which intrinsic fraud could e claimed had long e@pired. nder similar conditions, the Court ruled that the land should e ad1udicated to the registered owner thatB 74ustice is done according to law. 0s a rule, e$uit- follows the law. There ma- e a moral oligation, often regarded as an e$uitale consideration (meaning compassion), ut if there is no enforceale legal dut-, the action must fail although the disad%antaged part- deser%es commiseration or s-mpath-.7 0n action for recon%e-ance of real propert- on the ground of fraud must e led within four (<) -ears from the disco%er- of the fraud. Such disco%er- is deemed to ha%e ta*en place from the issuance of an srcinal certicate of title.
ELISEO FA"AR#O! "R.! )< MARISSA FA"AR#O%s. FREE#OM TO 6UIL#! INC.
G.R. No. 13492
A%*%$ 1! 2000
FACTS:
2reedom To /uild, 8nc., an ownerGde%eloper and seller of lowGcost housing, sold to petitioners, a house and lot in /arang*a, Mari*ina, Manila. The Contract to Sell and the Transfer Certicate of Title co%ering the lot issued in the name of petitioners contained a Restricti%e Co%enant pro%iding prohiitions such as easement of two meters in front, second store- e@pansion to e placed ao%e the ac* of the house and should not e@tend forward e-ond the ape@ of the srcinal uilding, and the "nd Loor e@pansion, in front, is ; meters ac* from the front propertline and < meters ac* from the front wall of the house. 3etitioners, despite repeated warnings from respondent, e@tended the roof of their house to the propert- line and e@panded the second Loor of their house to a point directl- ao%e the srcinal front wall. Respondent led an action to demolish the unauthorized structures. The RTC ruled against Spouses 2a1ardo and directed them to immediatel- demolish and remo%e the e@tension of their e@panded housing unit that e@ceeds the limitations imposed - the Restricti%e Co%enant. The Court of 0ppeals armed the decision of the trial court. The spouses led petition for re%iew efore the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
+hether the pro%isions of the Restricti%e Co%enant are %alid. +hether respondent has the personalit- to enforce the pro%isions of the co%enant.
EL#:
The pro%isions of the Restricti%e Co%enant are %alid since the- are not s-non-mous with easements. Restricti%e co%enants on the use of land or the location or character of uildings or other structures thereon ma- roadl- e said to create easements or rights ut it can also e contended that such co%enants, eing limitations on the manner in which one ma- use his own propert-, do not result in true easements, ut a case of ser%itudes (urden), sometimes characterized to e negati%e easements or reciprocal negati%e easements, which is the most common easement created - co%enant or agreement whose eHect is to preclude the owner of the land from doing an act, which, if no easement e@isted, he would e entitled to do. The pro%isions in a restricti%e co%enant prescriing the t-pe of the uilding to e erected are crafted not solel- for creating easements nor as a restriction as to the t-pe of construction, ut ma- also e aimed as a chec* on the suse$uent uses of the uilding conformal- with what the de%eloper srcinall- might ha%e intended the stipulations to e. /roadl- spea*ing, a suit for e$uitale enforcement of a restricti%e co%enant can onl- e made - one for whose enet it is
intended. 8t is not thus normall- enforceale - one who has neither right nor interest in the land for the enet of which the restriction has een imposed. Thus, a de%eloper of a sudi%ision can enforce restrictions, e%en as against remote grantees of lots, onl- if he retains part of the land. There would ha%e een merit in the argument of petitioners G that respondent, ha%ing relin$uished ownership of the sudi%ision to the homeowners, is precluded from claiming an- right or interest on the same propert- G had not the homeownersQ association, conrmed - its oard of directors, allowed respondent to enforce the pro%isions of the restricti%e co%enant. The decision of the Court of 0ppeals is armed.
REME#IES OF PARTIES AGGRIEVE# 6Y REGISTRATION A. APPEAL . R&*'&=&) ;&(o<: 1, <$ o= &&(;. (. A$ *()$ & *o&)=&). REPU6LIC VS SAYO
191 SCRA 71 FACTS: The spouses, Casiano Sando%al and Juz Mar$uez, led an srcinal application for registration of a tract of land. The land was formerl- part of the Municipalit- of Santiago, 3ro%ince of 8saela,
ut had een transferred to &ue%a 6izca-a in %irtue of Repulic 0ct &o."?;. The #o%ernment including the heirs of Jierato /a-aua opposed such registration. 0n order of general default was thereafter entered against the whole world e@cept the oppositors. The case dragged on for aout twent- (") -ears until a compromise agreement was entered into - and among all the parties. nder the compromise agreement, the :eirs of Casiano Sando%al (as applicants) renounced their claims and ceded portions of land in fa%or of /ureau of Jands, /ureau of 2orest 5e%elopment, :eirs of Jierato /a-aua, and 3hilippine Cacao U 2arm 3roducts, 8nc. nder the compromise agreement, 9,9 hectares was ad1udicated to and ac*nowledged as owned - the :eirs of Casiano Sando%al, ut out of this area, ,9 hectares were assigned - the Casiano :eirs to their counsel, 4ose C. Re-es, in pa-ment of his attorne-Qs fees. The parties also mutuall- wai%ed and renounced all their prior claims to and o%er Jot &o. =<9< of the Santiago Cadastre. 'n March 9, !>, the respondent 4udge appro%ed the compromise agreement and conrmed the title and ownership of the parties in accordance with its terms. The Solicitor #eneral, in ehalf of the Repulic of the 3hilippines, has ta*en the present recourse in a id to ha%e that decision of March 9, !> annulled as eing patentl- %oid and rendered in e@cess of 1urisdiction or with gra%e ause of discretion. ISSUE: +hether or not compromise agreement is a proper remedin conrming the title of the pri%ate respondents o%er a tract of land EL#: The assent of the 5irectors of Jands and 2orest 5e%elopment to the compromise agreement did not and could not suppl- the
asence of e%idence of title re$uired of the pri%ate respondent. 8t was error to disregard the Solicitor #eneral in the e@ecution of the compromise agreement and its sumission to the Court for appro%al. 8t is, after all, the Solicitor #eneral, who is the principal counsel of the #o%ernmentA this is the reason for our holding that 7Court orders and decisions sent to the scal, acting as agent of the Solicitor #eneral in land registration cases, are not inding until the- are actuall- recei%ed - the Solicitor #eneral.7 8t thus appears that the compromise agreement and the 1udgment appro%ing it must e, as the- are here-, declared null and %oid, and set aside. Considerations of fairness howe%er indicate the remand of the case to the Registration Court so that the pri%ate parties ma- e aHorded an opportunit- to estalish competent e%idence their respecti%e claims to the propert-. +:ERE2'RE, the decision of the respondent 4udge complained of is 0&&JJE5 and SET 0S85E. Jand Registration Case &o. &G! su1ect of the petition is REM0&5E5 to the court of origin which shall conduct further appropriate proceedings therein, recei%ing the e%idence of the parties and thereafter rendering 1udgment as such e%idence and the law ma- warrant.
REPU6LIC VS CA 13, SCRA 1, FACTS: 8n !;, the C28 of Nuezon rendered a decision, ordering the registration of >>9 hectares of pulic forestland in fa%or of the Ma@inos. The decision ecame nal and e@ecutor- so a decree of
registration and an 'CT were issued. Eight (>) -ears after the decision was rendered, the Repulic of the 3hilippines led with the same C28 an amended petition to annul the decision, decree, and title on the ground that the- are %oid ecause the land in $uestion was still a part of the unclassied pulic forest. The Ma@inos opposed the petition. The C28 1udge denied the petition and when appealed, the same was dismissed on the ground that the order had allegedl- long ecome nal and unappealale so the #o%ernment was estopped thru the registration made - its agents. ISSUE: +hether or not the #o%ernment was estopped in appealing the registration order RULING: &o. The #o%ernment sucientl- pro%ed that the parcel of land in%ol%ed in the present case is a part of a forestland, thus nonGregisterale. 0s to the ruling of C0 that the go%ernment was estopped to appeal ecause the land was erroneousl- registered - its own agenc-, the Court ruled otherwise asing on its decision in #o%ernment of the . S. %s. 4udge of st 8nst. of
3ampanga, (9 3hil. !=9, !>), where it held that the #o%ernment should not e estopped - the mista*es or errors of its agents.
GOMEZ VS COURT OF APPEALS 18 SCRA ,03 FACTS: 0 court ruling (3hilippine 8slands %s 0ran) settled that " parcels of land elonged to one Consolacion #omez. Consolacion later died and the " parcels of land were inherited - #omez et al V her heirs. The heirs agreed to di%ide the propert- among them. 0fter notice and pulication, and there eing no opposition to the application, the trial court issued an order of general default. 'n 9 0ugust !>, the court rendered its decision ad1udicating the su1ect lots in #omez et als fa%or. The decision ecame nal and e@ecutor- hence the court directed the Chief of the #eneral Jand Registration 'ce to issue the corresponding decrees of registration o%er the lots ad1udicated. #JR' Chief Sil%erio 3erez opposed the ad1udication and petitioned for its setting aside. :e disco%ered that the " parcels of land were formerl- part of a titled land which was alreadgranted - homestead patent in !"!. nder the law, land alread- granted - homestead patent can no longer e the su1ect of another registration. The lower court granted Sil%erios recommendation. #omez et al in%o*ed Sec. ? and ?" of 35 9"! (Jand Registration 0ct) which pro%ides that after 1udgment has ecome nal and e@ecutor-, the court shall forthwith issue an order to the Commissioner of Jand Registration for the issuance of the decree of registration and certicate of title. That once the 1udgment ecomes nal and e@ecutor- under Sec ?, the decree of registration must issue as a matter of course. ISSUE: +hether or not to set aside the lower courts initial ruling on appro%ing the ad1udication e%en after it had ecome nal and e@ecutor-. EL#:
Pes. nli*e ordinar- ci%il actions, the ad1udication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not ecome nal, in the sense of incontro%ertiilit- until after the e@piration of one () -ear after the entr- of the nal decree of registration. The Supreme Court has held that as long as a nal decree has not een entered - the Jand Registration Commission (now &JT5R0) and the period of one () -ear has not elapsed from date of entrof such decree, the title is not nall- ad1udicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to e under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
R&;%>'( $. E$&)5o 1,8 SCRA 282 FACTS:
'n &o%emer !;, the Jand Tenure 0dministration, representing the Repulic, initiated and prosecuted e@propriation proceedings in the Court of 2irst 8nstance of Je-te for the ac$uisition of some 9!.;9< hectares of pri%ate agricultural lands situated in San 8sidro, Je-te, and owned - respondents Espeletas, Martinezes and 3achecos, for resale to tenants, pursuant to Repulic 0ct &o. <.chanroles% 'n < 4une !;", the lower court rendered a decision condemning the said land for 3<,!!9.=>. 1 The Repulic, ha%ing alreadpaid the partial sum of 3";,>9., was, accordingl-, ordered to pa- the alance of 3"9,<9.=>, plus the further sum of 3",. for a farmhouse, copra drier and warehouses, or a total of 3""9,<9.=>. This was supplemented - an amendatororder pro%iding for pa-ment of ;W per annum interest starting < 4une !;" on the unpaid alance. 8mplementing orders, the last of which was dated "> 4ul- !;", were thereafter successi%elissued.chanrolesi Came " 0pril !;? and the alance of 3
in1unction. /efore the Supreme Court could rule on the petition, howe%er, the parties entered anew into another compromise agreement. The Repulic, now represented - the Jand 0uthorit-, co%enanted to satisf- on or efore ? 0ugust !;< the alance of 39,";.;9 on the principal and 3=,.!> on the interest, or a total of 3","=.;? onl-. This precipitated the ling of respondentsGlandownersQ motion, dated &o%emer !;<, in the lower court pra-ing for issuance of an order directing the SheriH of the Cit- of Manila to enforce the writ of e@ecution of "> 4ul- !;". nroles%irtualaw The Repulic mo%ed for reconsideration of the lower courtQs order alleging, in addition to the two asic arguments pre%iousl- raised in its oposition to respondentsGlandownersQ motion of &o%emer !;<, that the garnishment of the funds of the Jand 0uthorit- %iolates Sections < and " 10 of Repulic 0ct &o. !!", otherwise *nown as the Re%ised /udget 0ct, ecause the monegarnished was appropriated - Congress 7for the operation and maintenance of the nineteen (!) Settlement 3ro1ects and twel%e (") 0gencies under the administration of . . . (the) 0uthorit-, pursuant to the pro%ision of R. 0. ?><<, (and) to co%er salaries of personnel, tra%elling, supplies and materials and other administrati%e e@penses,7 and are, therefore, not funds for the pa-ment of e@propriated estates. This was opposed respondentsGlandowners who argued that Sections < and " of Repulic 0ct &o. !!" 7refer to %oluntar- e@penditure andKor pa-ment - the go%ernment ocial charged with custod- of such funds ut are not applicale to forcile seizure through garnishment pursuant to a writ of e@ecution,7 as in the case at ar.chanroles%irtualawlir
:ence, this present petition for certiorari and prohiition with preliminar- in1unction. ISSUE:
whether the lower court acted without or e@cess of its 1urisdiction or with gra%e ause of discreton in hearing the case.lnro EL#: The rst plea of herein petitioner, that the Court of 2irst 8nstance of Je-te lac*ed 1urisdiction to act in the case ecause of Section 9< (?) of the Jand Reform Code (Repulic 0ct &o. ?><<), enacted on > 0ugust !;?, is plainl- without merit. Said Section 9< (?) pro%ides that G
E@propriation proceedings instituted - the Jand Tenure administration pending in the Court of 2irst 8nstance at the time of the eHecti%it- of this Code shall e transferred and continued in the respecti%e Courts of 0grarian Relations where- the Repulic undertoo* pa- the of the+hate%er e@propriation with interest on to or efore ? alance 0ugust !;<. writ ofprice e@ecution could e issued - the respondent 1udge must necessaril- e predicated on the second compromise, and conform to the terms thereof.chanroles%ir and that it is undeniale that the petitioner Repulic had not made full pa-ment of 3 of the Rules of Court, the proper mo%e for respondentsG landowners would ha%e een to le a separate and independent ci%il action to set aside, - annulment or rescission, oth the rst
compromise agreement and the amended decision emod-ing the same.chanroles%irtualawl lirar-anroles%irtualaw The writs of certiorari and prohiition are granted, and the respondent Court of 2irst 8nstance of Je-te restrained from further proceeding in its Ci%il Case.The preliminar- in1unction heretofore issued is made permanent. &o costs. Jet a cop- of this opinion e sent to the :onorale, the 3resident of the 3hilippines, through the Secretar- of 4ustice.
EIRS OF CRISTO6AL MARCOS VS #E 6ANUVAR 2, SCRA 31 F$:
Respondent court conrmed the titles of Ja rana, 8nc. o%er lots in $uestions with reser%ations, and ordered the registration of these lots in fa%or of the /enu%ar. 0 petition for reconstitution was made. 0t the pendenc- of the reconstitution proceedings, the respondent 5e /anu%ar ac$uired lot from Santiago de Er$uiaga, who was thus sustituted as a part- for the latter. The petitioners opposed, on a claim that theha%e een in actual, ad%erse, open and uninterrupted possession and occupation of the said parcel in the concept of owners since time immemorial, long efore the second world war. 2or 7lac* of proper notices,7 the respondent court denied the petition. :owe%er, in its later order the court reconsidered and
granted the petition. The petitioners interposed an appeal from this last order. Respondent court dismissed the appeal 7for failure to post the re$uired ond,7 ut withheld action on the motion for immediate e@ecution as to lot 7until after this order dismissing the appeal shall ha%e ecome nal.7 The herein petitioners then led a petition for mandamus with the Court of 0ppeals, to compel the trial court to gi%e due course to their appeal. This petition was nall- dismissed. 5e /anu%ar led a motion for the issuance of a decree o%er lot . The petitioners opposed and contended that the decision is not nal and e@ecutor- ecause Ja rana, 8nc. appears to ha%e appealed from the said decision - %irtue of a notation the counsel recei%ed the same 7 Con mi excepcion F ma*ing the e@ecution of the said decision impossile. 5e /anu%ar asserted that the issuance of the decree is ut a ministerial dut- of the respondent court. Respondent court ordered the issuance of a decree in fa%or of 5e /anu%ar with respect to lot onl-, after nding that the decision in the land registration case had alread- ecome nal and e@ecutor-. I$$%&:
+hether or not the decision is not -et nal and e@ecutorecause the Ja rana, 8nc. appealed therefrom, as ma- e seen from the notation of the reconstituted decision stating, 7Rec ii copia. Con mi
[email protected] R%'()*B This contention is without merit.
Supreme Court held that the decision of March "<, !?> had long ecome nal and e@ecutor- as no appeal was ta*en therefrom. The certication of the acting pro%incial land ocer of Masate, dated March >, !;, recites that no 7appeal has een ta*en the 5irector of Jands or an- pri%ate oppositors from the decision rendered.7 The notation found at the foot of the last page of the reconstituted decision, showing that the Ja rana, 8nc. e@cepted from that decision, did not ha%e the eHect of perfecting an
appeal. 0n appeal was not perfected - the mere notation, 7Con mi
[email protected] The 1udgment rendered in a land registration case ecomes nal upon the e@piration of thirt- da-s to e counted from the date on which the part- appealing recei%es notice of the decision. The re$uirement contained in the decision of March "<, !?> regarding the segregation of a portion of lot , su1ect of an agreement etween the 5irector of Jands and the applicant, while it does lea%e something -et to e done, does not detract from the nalit- of the decision, ecause the segregation ad%erted to refers to a dened and delimited portion of the said parcel and ma- e accomplished an-time after the decision ecame nal and e@ecutor-.
NIETO V. +U INES SCRA 74 ?G.R. NO. L-1443@ FACTS: /artolome Nuines led a homestead application to the /ureau 'f Jands cadastral, sur%e-s were made - the /ureau of Jands in the municipalit- of 0ulug, during which the tract of land applied for as a homestead - /artolome Nuines was designated
as Jot &o. ?<< of the 0ulug Cadastre. 0fter the sur%e-s were completed, cadastral proceedings were initiated in !"= - the 5irector of Jands in the Court of 2irst 8nstance of Caga-an. Rel-ing upon the assurances made - the emplo-ees of the /ureau of Jands that the- would ta*e care of his homestead in the cadastral proceedings, /artolome Nuines did not le an- answer therein. :owe%er, one Maria 2lorentino led an answer claiming se%eral lots including Jot &o. ?<<. 0fter hearing, the cadastral court, on 0ugust ;, !?, rendered its decision wherein Maria 2lorentino was awarded the lots claimed - her. Jot &o. ?<< was included in the award, apparentl- ecause neither the 5irector of Jands nor an- of his representati%es appeared during the earing to inform the court that it was under homestead application. 'n 0ugust "!, !?, pending the issuance of the nal decree of registration and the srcinal certicate of title to Maria 2lorentino, a homestead patent co%ering Jot &o. ?<< was granted to /artolome Nuines, and pursuant thereto, the Register of 5eeds of Caga-an, on Septemer 9, !? issued 'riginal Certicate of Title &o. ;"? in his name. Si@ months thereafter, or on March ", !?, the same Register 5eeds issued 'riginal Certicate of Title &o. !>" in the name of Maria 2lorentino co%ering the lots awarded to her the cadastral court including Jot &o. ?<<. 2loretino sold the said land to 0rturo &ieto. ISSUE: +hether or not the title of &ieto,which is from cadastral proceedings, pre%ails o%er the title of Nuines, which is from homestead. +hat is the eHect of failure to appeal EL#: The court held that the title of &ieto shall pre%ail ecause a cadastral proceeding is one in rem and an- decision rendered therein - the cadastral court is inding against the whole world, including the #o%ernment. 0s a general rule, registration of title under the cadastral s-stem is nal, conclusi%e, and indisputale, after the passage of thirt-Gda- period allowed for an appeal from the date of receipt - the part- of a cop- of the 1udgment of the court ad1udicating ownership without an- step ha%ing een ta*en to perfect an appeal. The pre%ailing part- ma- then ha%e
e@ecution of the 1udgment as of right and is entitled to the certicate of title issued - the Chief of the Jand Registration 'ce. The e@ception is the special pro%ision pro%iding for fraud.7 nder the foregoing pronouncement, the title of ownership on the land is %ested upon the owner upon the e@piration of the period to appeal from the decision or ad1udication - the cadastral court, without such an appeal ha%ing een perfected. The certicate of title would then e necessar- for purposes of eHecting registration of suse$uent disposition the land where court proceedings would no longer e necessar-.
NIETO V. +U INES SCRA 74 ?G.R. NO. L-1443@
FACTS: /artolome Nuines led a homestead application to the /ureau 'f Jands cadastral, sur%e-s were made - the /ureau of Jands in the municipalit- of 0ulug, during which the tract of land applied for as a homestead - /artolome Nuines was designated as Jot &o. ?<< of the 0ulug Cadastre. 0fter the sur%e-s were
completed, cadastral proceedings were initiated in !"= - the 5irector of Jands in the Court of 2irst 8nstance of Caga-an. Rel-ing upon the assurances made - the emplo-ees of the /ureau of Jands that the- would ta*e care of his homestead in the cadastral proceedings, /artolome Nuines did not le an- answer therein. :owe%er, one Maria 2lorentino led an answer claiming se%eral lots including Jot &o. ?<<. 0fter hearing, the cadastral court, on 0ugust ;, !?, rendered its decision wherein Maria 2lorentino was awarded the lots claimed - her. Jot &o. ?<< was included in the award, apparentl- ecause neither the 5irector of Jands nor an- of his representati%es appeared during the earing to inform the court that it was under homestead application. 'n 0ugust "!, !?, pending the issuance of the nal decree of registration and the srcinal certicate of title to Maria 2lorentino, a homestead patent co%ering Jot &o. ?<< was granted to /artolome Nuines, and pursuant thereto, the Register of 5eeds of Caga-an, on Septemer 9, !? issued 'riginal Certicate of Title &o. ;"? in his name. Si@ months thereafter, or on March ", !?, the same Register 5eeds issued 'riginal Certicate of Title &o. !>" in the name of Maria 2lorentino co%ering the lots awarded to her the cadastral court including Jot &o. ?<<. 2loretino sold the said land to 0rturo &ieto. ISSUE: +hether or not the title of &ieto,which is from cadastral proceedings, pre%ails o%er the title of Nuines, which is from homestead. +hat is the eHect of failure to appeal EL#: The court held that the title of &ieto shall pre%ail ecause a cadastral proceeding is one in rem and an- decision rendered therein - the cadastral court is inding against the whole world, including the #o%ernment. 0s a general rule, registration of title
under the cadastral s-stem is nal, conclusi%e, and indisputale, after the passage of thirt-Gda- period allowed for an appeal from the date of receipt - the part- of a cop- of the 1udgment of the court ad1udicating ownership without an- step ha%ing een ta*en to perfect an appeal. The pre%ailing part- ma- then ha%e e@ecution of the 1udgment as of right and is entitled to the certicate of title issued - the Chief of the Jand Registration 'ce. The e@ception is the special pro%ision pro%iding for fraud.7 nder the foregoing pronouncement, the title of ownership on the land is %ested upon the owner upon the e@piration of the period to appeal from the decision or ad1udication - the cadastral court, without such an appeal ha%ing een perfected. The certicate of title would then e necessar- for purposes of eHecting registration of suse$uent disposition the land where court proceedings would no longer e necessar-.
TALAVERA VS MANGO6A 8 SCRA 837! 193 FACTS:
'n 5ecemer ", !9=, Tala%era led efore the C28 of &ue%a Eci1a for the reco%er- of sum of mone- against 6ictor Mangoa and his cousin &ie%es Saru, allegedl- representing the costs of /GMeg 3oultr- 2eeds, which latter recei%ed from former. 5efendants presented separate 0nswers, wherein the- admitted some and denied other allegations in the complaint. /oth also interposed separate counterclaims of 3,. each. 8n the hearing scheduled on March , !9>, neither Mangoa et,. al nor their counsel appeared, so that the trial court recei%ed Tala%eras e%idence in their asence. 'n March >, !9>, a decision was rendered in fa%our of Tala%era. 0ppellant claims that the ao%e decision was recei%ed him on March "9, !9> and the ne@t da-, wherein it was stated that the failure to appear at the hearing was due to accident or e@cusale negligence, counsel ha%ing een ill of March inLuenza which was e%idenced - a medical certicate. Counsel for appellant as*ed the Court to hear the motion for new trial on 0pril ", !9>, howe%er, one da- ahead of the date, the trial court denied said motion. 8n the appeal rief, appellant contends that in den-ing the motion for new trial, the court a quo depri%e him of his da- in court.
RULING:
#enerall-, courts are gi%en the discretion to grant or not, motions for new trial and appellate courts will not del%e into the
reasons for the e@ercise of such discretion. 8n this particular case, howe%er, it was shown that the asence of counsel was e@plained and immediatel- upon receipt of the decision, a motion for new trial, accompanied - an ada%it of merit, and a medical certicate, were presented. Said motion for new trial could well e considered as motion to set aside 1udgment or one for relief, since it contained allegations purporting to show the presence of good defenses. The ends of 1ustice could ha%e een ser%ed more appropriatel- had the lower court gi%en appellant the chance to present his e%idence at least. 2urthermore, it appears that pa-ments had een made - appellant to appellee, which were dul- recei%ed and receipt for. This particular circumstance merits consideration. 0fter all, court litigations are primaril- for the search of truth, and in this present case, to nd out the correct liailit- of defendantGappellant to appellee. 0 trial, - which oth parties are gi%en the chance to adduce proofs, is the est wa- to nd out such truth. 0 denial of this chance, would e too technical. The dispensation of 1ustice and the %indication of legitimate grie%ances, should not e arred - technicalities (Ron$uillo %. Marasigan, JG;", Ma- ", !;"A Santiago, et al. %. 4oa$uin, JG9"?=, Ma- ?, !;?). :ad not the trial court resol%ed the motion for new trial, one da- efore the date set for its hearing, the defendantGappellant could ha%e presented the documents (receipts of pa-ments), itemized in his rief, to counteract appellantQs claim. 8& 68E+ '2 0JJ T:E 2'RE#'8&#, the decision appealed from is here- set aside, and another entered, remanding the case to the court of origin, for the reception of appellantQs e%idence and for the rendition of the corresponding decision. &o pronouncement as to costs.
ANTONIO VS RAMOS 2 SCRA 731! 191 FACTS: 'n 4anuar- of !9?, 5ominga 0ntonio et., al. led for reco%er- of a parcel of land against 4ose, Jeonora and &icolas 2rancisco. 'nl- 2rancisco was ale to answer, thus, declaring
&icolas and Jeonora in default. 'n the date of trial, neither 2rancisco not his counsel appeared despite earl- notice. :ence, e%idence was presented - the plaintiHs. 'n 0ugust "?, !9; a 1udgment has een redndered in fa%our of the 0ntonios. 2rancisco led a motion for a new trial on Septemer of !9;, pra-ing that the decision dated 0ugust "? of !9; e set aside, alleging that their failure to appear during the hearing of the case was due to accident, mista*e and e@cusale negligence which ordinar- prudence could not ha%e guarded against(Counsel lost the en%elope containing the notice to the trial efore he has the
opportunit- to open the same). This, howe%er, was denied - the court. 2rancisco appealed to the C0, denied. 0ppealed to the SC. ISSUE: +hether or not the omission of counsel constitute an e@cusale mista*e and negligence, so as to entitle his client, the
appellant herein, to e heard. RULING: The allegation of counsel that he forgot to note the notice of hearing in his calendar is Lims-. 8t does not constitute the accident, mista*e or e@cusale negligence, contemplated - the Rules of Court. The e@ercise of ordinar- prudence on his part could ha%e guarded against or a%oided such mista*e or negligence. Counsel did not e@ercise ordinar- prudence ecause he did not perform his routine 1o or dut- of noting down the notice of hearing in his calendar. 'n this point, the learned trial
1udge commentedB Considering the motion for new trial and the opposition thereto, the court elie%es the negligence of the counsel is not e@cusale in %iew of his admission that he recei%ed the reistry notice from the court on Ma- "<, !9;, and that it was dulregistered and that its envelope s!o"s it came from t!e court which made the en%elope and its contents so important that he should ha%e immediatel- opened the same and not 1ust put it aside, that he misplaced the same is also indicati%e of his rec*lessness (See #onzales %s. 0mon, JG>!;?, 2e. "!, !9;). 2urthermore counsel for the defendant &icolas 2rancisco had all the time from March "<, !9;, until the date of the trial on 0ug. ", !9; to in$uire from the Court records or Cler* of Court aout the nature of the registered notice that was sent to him on March "<, !9;, if he reall- misplaced the same. This is what a diligent counsel should do as re$uired - ordinar- prudence. 0ll he had to do was e@amine the records of this case. This Court noted that since it recon%ened 4une >, !9;, counsel for the defendant &icolas 2rancisco has een appearing in Court almost e%er- wee* if not e%er-da-. :e had therefore, ample opportunit- to %erif- the nature of the said registered notice of hearing which he allegedlmisplaced upon his receipt thereof on March "<, !9;. Jittle need
e added to these oser%ations of the trial court, e@cept to state that law-ers should alwa-s e %igilant and alert, in order to properl- safeguard the rights and interests of their clients. pon the law-ers speciall- de%ol%e the dut- to e%aluate the urgencand importance of registered letters coming from the courts where the- dail- pl- their trade.
PEOPLE $ #ELA CRUZ 207 SCRA 32 ?1992@ FACTS: 8n the earl- dawn of March !, !!, Cesar Soli%en was standing at the corner of the Mc0rthur :ighwa- and 2elomina St. in 0guilar, 3angasinan waiting for a ride ac* to his residence in /aranga- 3agomoa after spending the night around the
polacion during the e%e of the townQs esta (pp. ?G<, tsn, Ma- !,
!!). +hile standing at the aforementioned place, a man smelling of li$uor, who was identied later on as Eduardo dela Cruz (appellant herein), stood eside him. Suse$uentl-, MerlCaurna-, a neighor of Soli%en, passed -, proceeding towards the direction of /aranga- 3ogomoa. 0ppellant, who appeared drun* followed the girl ut Soli%en did not mind. 8nstead, he went home. Earl- the following morning, Soli%en, while in his house, heard the cr- of Carmelita Caurna-, mother of his neighor, Merl-. +hen he went out of the house, he learned that Merl- was raped and her dead od- was found in a near- riceeld (pp. 9G;, tsn, id.). 3rior to Soli%enQs *nowledge of the happening, Ma-or 5omingo Madrid of 0guilar was alread- informed of the disco%erof the dead od- of the %ictim and was ale to proceed immediatel- to the crime site. There, the Ma-or was informed that a man wal*ing suspiciousl- has sic 1ust left the place. So, Ma-or Madrid lost no time, too* a tric-cle and o%ertoo* the man. The man was identied as appellant and he was found with dirtclothes, his maong pants torn and his TGshirt stained with lood. :e also ore scratches on his nec* and arms. +hen as*ed to e@plain his dirt- appearance and the presence of dried straws of pala- at the ac* of his pants, appellant onl- answered that on his was home, he felt sleep- and lied down for a while on the eld. /ecause of his unsatisfactor- e@planation, the police arrested him on that same morning on suspicion that he was the perpetrator of the crime. (pp.
, tsn, March <, !!). 2our da-s later, Cesar Soli%en was in%ited to the police head$uarters for the purpose of identif-ing the man he saw in the earl- dawn of March !, !! following the %ictim MerlCaurna-. Standing in front of the prison cell, Soli%en pointed to appellant, who was among the four men inside the cell, as the person he saw. The %ictim, Merl- Caurna-, was at the time of the crime onl- ten -ears old while the accused was fort-Geight -ears old. 8n his defense, the accused asserted that on > March !! he was in%ited - one 0ndo- 6ersoza, his landlord, to coo* and prepare food for the latterQs %isitors. 0t around ;B p.m. of the said date, he, together with his two aunts, went around the plaza and watched some shows until midnight. Thereafter, he dran* a ottle of gin and another ottle of eer until B a.m. of the
following da-. The- then strolled aout the plaza for two hours. 0fterwards, the- rested for awhile near the highwa- eside the church and at aout 9B a.m., the- attended mass. +hen he was ad%ised - his aunts to go home, he decided to wal* ecause he had no more mone-. 0long the wa-, he was arrested - the police for raping and *illing Merl- Caurna-. :e %ehementl- denied ha%ing committed the crime. :e li*ewise claimed that there were no rice stal*s at the ac* of his pants when he was arrested. 0lthough the prosecution did not present an- e-ewitness, the trial court found the circumstantial e%idence as sucient for con%iction. Moreo%er, the defense has not shown an- improper or ulterior moti%e on the part of Soli%en for testif-ing against the accused. 8t is settled that where there is no e%idence, and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated - an- improper moti%e, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimon- is thus entitled to full faith and credit. &or is the nonGpresentation of the %ictimQs companions of an- help to the cause of the accused. 8n the rst place, it was ne%er estalished that the two companions were with the %ictim when she was on her wa- home or when she was raped and *illed. 8t was dul- estalished that, after otaining permission from her mother, she went 7to the esta in 0guilar7 with her cousin and her motherQs sisterGinGlaw, and that immediatelefore the incident the %ictim was wal*ing alone ut 7was following persons.7 0ccordingl-, her two companions, who were not e-ewitnesses, could not ha%e testied on the rape and *illing of the %ictim. 8n an- e%ent, the prosecution has the prerogati%e to determine who should e presented as witnesses on the ases of its own assessment of their necessit-. E%er- o1ection to the admissiilit- of e%idence shall e made at the time such e%idence is oHered, or as soon thereafter as the ground for o1ection shall ecome apparent, otherwise the o1ection shall e considered wai%ed. Moreo%er, the loodstains on the pants of the accused were testied to - 5r. +ilma 2loresG3eralta 28 and Ma-or 5omingo Madrid. 2inall-, the presence of scratches on his nec* and arms was not satisfactoril- e@plained - the accused. Ta*en together with the other circumstances present here, this fact ser%es to uttress the prosecutionQs case.
ISSUES: (a) There is more than one circumstanceA() The facts from which the inferences are deri%ed are pro%enA and(c) The comination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a con%iction e-ond reasonale dout. EL#: 8t is settled that for alii to prosper, the re$uirements of time and place must e strictl- met. 8t is not enough to pro%e that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, ut he must also demonstrate - clear and con%incing e%idence that it was ph-sicall- impossile for him to ha%e een at the scene of the crime at the time the same was committed. 31 8n this case, the place where the accused claims to e 32 is more or less ten meters awa- from the scene of the crime )a riceeld in /aranga3ogomoa). 33 2urthermore, the place where he was $uestioned - Ma-or Madrid of 0guilar and apprehended - the police
authorities is twent- meters awafrom the place where the na*ed od- of the %ictim was found. 34 :ence, the ph-sical impossiilitof the accusedQs presence at the crime scene, which is necessaris order that the defense of alii ma- e considered, is lac*ing. The accused committed a heinous crime. :e was not content with unleashing his estial lust upon the tender and frail od- of a G -earGoldA he also rutall- inLicted upon her se%ere in1uries which caused her untimel- demise. 0nother life was lost ecause a east in manQs clothing was on the loose. :e must pa- for what he did in prison, a place which, unfortunatel-, is denitel- much etter than what he trul- deser%es. +:ERE2'RE, the instant appeal is 58SM8SSE5 and the challenged decision of /ranch ?= of the Regional Trial Court of Jinga-en, 3angasinan, in Criminal Case &o. JG<""= is here- 0228RME5 in toto, with costs against the accusedGappellant Eduardo dela Cruz - Jaoang.
REPU6LIC V #IRECTOR OF LAN#S FACTS: 3ri%ate respondent &orma Jeuenerger, inherited the whole of Jot &o. < from her grandmother. 8n !9", she donated a portion of Jot &o. <, aout ? ha., to the municipalit- for the purpose of high school and had < ha. con%erted into a sudi%ision. :owe%er, in !;?, she disco%ered that more or less < ha. of the parcel of land, was used - petitioner, as a cemeter- from !?<. 'n !;?, respondent wrote the Ma-or of the municipalitregarding her disco%er-, demanding pa-ment of past rentals and re$uesting deli%er- of the area allegedl- illegall- occupied petitioner. 'n !;<, respondent led a complaint in the C28 for reco%er- of possession of the parcel of land occupied - the municipal cemeter-. :owe%er, the petitioner defended its alleged ownership of the su1ect lot, ha%ing ought it from Simeona 5itching in !?<. The lower court decided in fa%or of the Municipalit-. ISSUE:
+hether or not the respondents are estopped from $uestioning the possession and ownership of the petitioner which dates ac* to more than ? -ears.
RULING:
8t is certain that petitioner failed to present efore the Court a 5eed of Sale to pro%e its purchase of the land in $uestion which is included in the TCT in the name of pri%ate respondent &orma Jeuenerger. Thus, it has een held that where the land is decreed in the name of a person through fraud or mista*e, such
person is - operation of law considered a trustee of an implied trust for the enet of the persons from whom the propertcomes. The eneciar- shag has the right to enforce the trust, notwithstanding the irre%ocailit- of the Torrens title and the trustee and his successorsGinGinterest are ound to e@ecute the deed of recon%e-ance.
GARCIA VS MEN#OZA 203 SCRA 732 ?1991@ FACTS: 3etitioner Mercedes 0. #arcia claims that she and her husand, Cirilo Mendoza, had purchased Jot &o. ?"> located in San Carlos Cit-, 3angasinan on 0pril "<, !?>. The- suse$uentlsold it under a 3acto de Retro sale to coGpetitioners Sps. 5ulcesimo Rosario and 6ioleta Re-es and Erlinda '. Rosario, who then too* possession of said lot. 'n 2eruar- "?, !>>, the cadastral court issued a decision ad1udicating Jot &o. ?"> in fa%or of 5ominador #. Mendoza, their son. #arcia claims that there was actual fraud ecause Mendoza falsel- claimed that his father, Cirilo Mendoza, inherited the
propertfromJot :ermenegildo that propertMendoza of made appear that ?"> was MendozaA an e@clusi%e Ciriloit Mendoza, who had een in possession of the lot since 'ctoer 9, !>=, and suse$uentl-, donated the same to his son, Mendoza. The petitioners led with the court a petition for re%iew of 1udgment ut denied, so the- appealed. Mendoza countered that a petition for relief from 1udgment under Sec. ?>, 0ct &o.
+hether or not the remed- of petition for re%iew of 1udgment e@ists or is warranted - 0ct &o. ""9! (Cadastral 0ct). EL#: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners. Sec. , 0ct ""9! clearl- states that e@cept as otherwise pro%ided - the Cadastral
0ct, all the pro%ision of the Jand Registration 0ct are applicale to cadastral proceedings as well as to the decree and certicates of title granted and issued under the Cadastral 0ct.
RU6LICO VS ORELLANO 30 SCRA ,11 ?199@ FACTS: 2austo 'rellana, led his answer in Cadastral Case &o. 8JG&G ", J.R.C. Record &o. &G" for Jots &os. ;;< and ;;9, with the Court of 2irst 8nstance of Janao, claiming ownership and pra-ing that the said lots e ad1udged and decreed in his fa%or. 'n " &o%emer !;<, the court a $uo appro%ed the report and recommendation of the cler* of court and rendered 1udgment ad1udicating Jots ;;< and ;;9 in fa%or of respondentGappellee 'rellana. 3etitionersGappellants led a petition to annul the 1udgment andKor re%iew the decree of registration, alleging ownership of the lots ad1udicated to the respondentA that respondent, 7- means of fraud, made the court to elie%e that he is the owner7 and that said 1udgment 7was secured - means of fraud7. 'rellana led a motion to dismiss the petition. The court, on "? Septemer !;9, sustained the motion, holding that petitionersGappellants had no personalit- to le their petition ecause the- did not le an answer and were declared in default and that the- should ha%e rst secured the lifting of the order of
general default, with respect to themsel%es, efore the- led their petition for re%iew. ISSUE?S@: #!et!er or not a petitioner for revie" under $ection %& of 'ct 4() need not be an oriinal claimant in a cadastral proceedin and need not secure t!e liftin of t!e order of eneral default "it! respect to !imself
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that a petitioner for re%iew under Section ?> of 0ct
parties would e limited to those who had led their opposition to the petition for registration or to rst re$uire them to procure the lifting of the order of general default efore the- could le a petition for re%iew. The essential re$uisites or elements for the allowance of the reopening or re%iew of a decree areB (a) that the petitioner has a real or dominical rightA () that he has een depri%ed thereofA (c) through fraudA (d) that the petition is led within one -ear from the issuance of the decreeA and (e) that the propert- has not as -et een transferred to an innocent purchaser. The pro%ision does not re$uire that the petitioner e an original claimant who had led an answer and ecause fraud might inter%ene precisel- to pre%ent a person from ling an answer.
CRISOLO $. CA 8 SCRA 43, ?197,@ FACTS: 'n 0ugust ", !;9, 1udgment was rendered - the Court of
2irst 8nstance, /ranch 688, of 3angasinan, ordering the registration of Jots and ", situated in the 3olacion of Maini, 3angasinan, and more particularl- ounded and descried in the technical descriptions (E@hiits / and /G) in the name of applicant spouses, 3edro C. Crisolo and Soledad de #. Crisolo. 'n Septemer ", !;9, the court ordered the issuance of the 5ecree, followed three months later - writ of possession in fa%or of the spouses. +ithin a -ear from the issuance of this decree of registration, respondentGward, represented - his guardian, led a petition for re%iew of the decree under Section ?> of 0ct
ta*ing ad%antage of the insanit- of respondentGward to secure the e@ecution of a deed of e@change of properties - and etween the petitioner and said respondentGward, and in petitioners instituting the land registration proceedings while said ward was conned at the &ational 3s-chopathic :ospital. The trial court dismissed the petition and held that Section ?> of 0ct
opening of the land registration proceedings.
RULING: &'. Respondents are not entitled to the remed- under Section ?> of 0ct of 0ct
their opportunit- to e heard in the srcinal registration case and not those who were not denied for their da- in court - fraud, which the law pro%ides as the sole ground for reopening the decree of registration. Thus, where an oppositor, through counsel, announced his opposition to the registration of the land in%ol%ed ut later aandoned the same, he cannot claim that he was fraudulentl- depri%ed of his da- in court to entitle him of the remed- under Section ?> of 0ct
notice of the srcinal proceeding ut failed to sustantiate his claim.
CRUZ $. NAVARRO ,4 SCRA 109 ?1973@
FACTS:
Sometime in !;; the respondent 0lfonso Sando%al led with the Court of 2irst 8nstance of Rizal (/ranch 88, 3asig) an
application for registration (under 0ct , which was originall- a pulic land ut to which said petitioners had perfected a homestead right long efore respondents secured aforementioned decrees and certicates of title, their homestead applications thereof ha%ing een dul- appro%ed - the /ureau of lands and the- ha%ing full- complied with all re$uirements for the ac$uisition of a homestead and possessed and culti%ated the same as their respecti%e pri%ate propert-. 'n 0pril "<, !;=, acting on the petition, ut without recei%ing an- e%idence in the premises, the respondent 4udge issued an order stating that 7the Court ... nds the petition for re%iew to e without sucient merit and therefore 5E&8ES the same.7 The petitioners then led a 7Motion for &ew Trial andKor Reconsideration7 of the mentioned order, ut this was denied on Ma- "9, !;=.
ISSUE:
+hether or not petitioners has legal personalit-, homestead applicants, to le this petition for re%iew.
as
RULING:
PES. 8n *esina vs+ Pineda vda+ de $on,a the Supreme Court, citing $usi vs+ .a,on , held that once a homestead applicant has complied with all the conditions essential to a #o%ernment grant, he ac$uires 7not onl- a right to a grant, ut a grant of the #o%ernment.F 8n Nieto vs+ Quines the Court armed the doctrine in these wordsB Considering the re$uirement that the nal proof must e presented within 9 -ears from the appro%al of the homestead application (sec. <, 3ulic Jand 0ct), it is safe to assume that /artolome Nuines sumitted his nal proof wa- ac* -et in !"? and that the 5irector of Jands appro%ed the same not long thereafter or efore the land ecame the su1ect of cadastral proceedings in !"=. nfortunatel-, there was some dela- in the ministerial act of in suing the patent and the same was actuallissued onl- after the cadastral court had ad1udicated the land to Maria 2lorentino. Nevert!eless !avin complied "it! all t!e terms and conditions "!ic! "ould entitle !im to a patent /artolome Quines even "it!out a patent actually issued !as unquestionably acquired a vested ri!t in t!e land and is to be rearded as t!e equitable o"ner t!ereof . 8t is the Courts %iew that the petitioners ha%e ampl- alleged elow such real, legall- protected interest o%er the parcels in $uestion sucient to clothe them with the necessar- personalitto $uestion, independentl- of the 5irector of Jands, the %alidit- of
the grant of title o%er the said properties to the pri%ate respondents.
6ONIEL VS REYES 3, SCRA 218 ?1970@ FACTS: 3etitioners therein alleged to e the
bona 0de actual
occupants ofas a <;.">==Ghectare parcel of pulicat agriculturaland landculti%ators designated Jot &o. S8G=;>G5 and located /o. Jang*a, Jupon, 5a%ao pro%ince, and that on 'ctoer ", !;9, one Ramon 'ma-, late husand of coGpetitioner Mauricia 'ma- had led a free patent application for the landA that sometime on Septemer , !;<, one Rafael S. Pap had clandestinel- led a sales application for the %er- same parcel of land, which was fa%oral- - the land inspector of the /ureau of Jands who certied in the records the ndings of his in%estigation as to the asence of an- claimants of the landA and that as a result of such alleged fraud and collusion etween Pap and the
ureau personnel, Pap was issued, the sales patent in 5ecemer, !;9 and the corresponding original certicate of title &o. 3G >? on 2eruar- , !;;. 3etitioners pra-ed of respondent court that it annul PapQs title and instead award the land to them. ISSUE:
+hether or not respondent court %alidl- dismissed the petition. RULING: 0 person claiming to ha%e een depri%ed of the land or an interest therein, in which case within one -ear from entr- of the decree he ma- in the same proceeding as* for re%iew and the issuance of the decree in his own name and implead the ad%erse part-. /ut here, the land is not claimed to e pri%ate propert- of petitioner nor of his coGpetitioners ut was admittedl- formerl- a part of the alienale and disposale pulic land awarded under
sales patent to Pap. 0ccordingl-, since petitioner and his coG petitioners ma*e no claim of their application for a free patent to the land ha%ing een appro%ed nor a patent their fa%or ha%ing een awarded, the- had no %alid cause of action to le an action for annulment of PapQs patent and for cancellation of the title issued to Pap - %irtue thereof. Their claim ased on alleged fraudulent issuance of title to the pulic land in fa%or of Pap should e addressed in proper administrati%e proceedings to the 5irector of Jands, who if he nds the claim sustantiated, mathen ta*e the necessar- steps towards the re%ersion of the land, to the pulic domain, and petitioners ma- then press for fa%orale action on their application and the award of the land to the tenant. The mere re%ersion of the land to the State would not entitle them of itself to an award of the land to them, which is e-ond respondent courtQs 1urisdiction. +:ERE2'RE, the petition for certiorari is here- denied.
6AL#OZ VS PAPA 14 SCRA 91 ?19,@ FACTS: 'n 4anuar- =, !9=, the spouses /runo 3apa and 6alentina 0gaceta, parents of herein appellees, applied for the registration under 0ct >) containing an area of ?=,;= s$. meters in the Court of 2irst 8nstance of 3angasinan (Case &o. ""9, J.R.C. Record &o. "?>!). 0fter the re$uisite pulication of the application in the 'cial #azette, the case was called for hearing on Ma- ;, !9= in the course of which an order of general default was entered. 'n the same date, howe%er, /aldomero /aldoz father of herein appellant, led a petition to lift
the order of default as against him and pra-ing that his opposition to the application, thereto attached, e admitted. 3rior to 'ctoer , !9>. oppositor /aldoz died. 'n 'ctoer , !9>, the latterQs counsel led a motion to set aside the order of default alleging that the reason for the nonappearance of oppositor /aldoz was his death on 4ul- ">, !9= and pra-ing that his son, appellant herein, e sustituted as part-Goppositor. 0lthough this motion was denied on 'ctoer ? of the following -ear, appellant appears not to ha%e appealed from the order of denial aforesaid. 'n 2eruar- ;, !9!, the court rendered 1udgment decreeing the registration of the parcel of land descried in 3su 9!;>> in fa%or of appellees. ISSUE: +hether or not the court in said case committed a re%ersile error in declaring oppositor /aldoz in default despite his ha%ing led a written opposition which was dul- admitted - it and that
its order den-ing appellantQs motion for sustitution as oppositor therein has depri%ed him of his da- in court. RULING: The court issued an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds () that the nal 1udgment in Registration Case &o. ""9 is res judicata in the present action and (") that the instant action, eing in the nature of a petition for re%iew of a decree, cannot prosper ecause it was led more than one -ear from the date of the issuance of the decree and ecause it is not ased on fraud as pro%ided for in Section ?> of 0ct
from said order.
ALSTROM V. MAPA "R. 181 SCRA 431 FACTS: Cacao 5ianson, the predecessorGinGinterest of petitioner, led for 2reeGpatent application for Jot and Jot " of 3suG9?;9. 4osefa Mapa, predecessorGinGinterest of respondent, led for
miscellaneous sales application. The lot was awarded to 4osefa in !?<. 8n !9;, Cacao led a letter protesting the construction of 4osefa of a camarin in D3ortion 0F of Jot of 3suG9?;9=. Mapa countered claiming that such area was awarded to her in pulic idding. /ureau of Jands 8n%estigator then in%estigated and found that Cacao sold the land to a certain 0gripino 2arol. 0gripino 2arol also transferred the rights and interests to herein petitioner +alstrom. The regional land director rendered a decision in fa%or of Mapa, e@cluding 3ortion 0 from Jot of 3suG9?;9=. The 5irector of Jands re%ersed the decision. Mapa appealed with 50&R ut the appeal was dismissed. pon reconsideration, howe%er, the 50&R Secretar- reinstated the order of the regional land director. +astrom led for reconsideration ut was denied for eing led out of time. Suse$uent motions for reconsideration were also denied and the writ of e@ecution in fa%or of Mapa was granted. 'riginal Title issued in the name of Mapa pursuant to miscellaneous sales patent was issued in !=. 8n !=", +astrom led with C28 /aguioG/enguet for 1udicial relief as the prescripti%e period is aout to lapse ut such petition was denied on the ground of failure to e@haust administrati%e remedies. :ence, this petition. ISSUE: +hether the case ma- e reopened - the RTC RULING: &o. a decree of registration ma- e reopened or re%iewed the proper Regional Trial Court upon the concurrence of %e
essential re$uisites, to witB (a) that the petitioner has a real and a dominical rightA () that he has een depri%ed thereofA (c) through fraudA (d) that the petition is led within one -ear from the issuance of the decreeA and (e) that the propert- has not as -et een transferred to an innocent purchaser for %alue The rst element is patentl- not present ecause the petitioner can not allege that she has alread- a real and dominical right to the piece of propert- in contro%ers-. The second element is also
asent since corollar- to the aforecited ruling of the 50&R Secretar-, the petitioner can not a%er that she was depri%ed of propert- ecause she did not ha%e a real right o%er portion 707. The third element, the records are ereft of an- indication that there was fraud in the issuance of the certicates of title.
STERLING INVESTMENT CORPORATION V. RUIZ 30 SCRA 318 ?199@
FACTS: Teodorico Caascas, the late father of respondent 0le1andro Caasas, owns a parcel of land as e%idenced - 'CT no. >9. 3etitioners allege that the contro%ers- arose from Ci%il Case &o. <>= led - 0le1andro to reco%er the lot of his father against 4ose 0. de Iastro and Estanislawa de Iastro, spouses Jutgardo Re-es
and Elisa 0. Re-es, and 5emetrio de 4esus. 3ursuant to a compromise agreement entered into - the parties, the spouses Jutgardo Re-es and Elisa 0. Re-es, and 5emetrio de 4esus were declared to e the registered owners of the western portion of the land originall- owned - the late Teodorico Caasas as per 'riginal Certicate of Title &o. ;9, the land su1ect of the petition. Suse$uent transfers were then made until the petitioners ac$uired ownership of the land su1ect of the petition. 8n !;>, 0le1andro led another complaint pra-ing for the nullication of the compromise agreement with the allegation that it was otained through fraud as it was made to appear efore the court of rst instance that the con%e-ance of title was made on 2eruar-, !<; when in fact it too* place on Septemer <, !<<, in %iolation of the :omestead Jaw. 0lleging res 1udicata, petitioners pra-ed for the dismissal of the case. :owe%er, 4udge Ruiz refused to dismiss the case asserting that the sale of a parcel of land was made on Septemer <, !<< in %iolation of the %eG -ear period within which a transfer of a homestead patent is prohiited. ISSUE:
+hether there was an actual or e@trinsic fraud rendering the 1udgment null RULING: &o. 2raud to e ground for nullit- of a 1udgment must e e@trinsic to the litigation. +as this not the rule there would e no end to litigations, per1ur- eing of such common occurrence in trials. 8n fact, under the opposite rule, the losing part- could attac* the 1udgment at an- time - attriuting imaginarfalsehood to his ad%ersar-Qs proofs. /ut the settled law is that 1udicial determination howe%er erroneous of matters rought
within the courtQs 1urisdiction cannot e in%alidated in another proceeding. 8t is the usiness of a part- to meet and repel his opponentQs per1ured e%idence. &ot e%er- *ind of fraud, howe%er, is sucient ground to set aside a 1udgment. 'nl- e@trinsic or collateral, as distinguished from intrinsic, fraud is a ground for annulling a 1udgment. E@trinsic fraud refers to an- fraudulent act of the successful part- in a litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated part-, or his agents, attorne-s or witnesses, where- said defeated part- is pre%ented from presenting fulland fairl- his side of the case. 'n the other hand, intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a part- in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged instruments on per1ured testimon-, which did not aHect the presentation of the case, ut did pre%ent a fair and 1ust determination of the case.
RAMIREZ VS CA 144 SCRA 292 ?198@ FACTS:
'n Septemer 9, !9!, petitionersGspouses led an application for registration of a parcel of riceland in Rizal. 0n order of general default was issued. Thereafter, the petitioners presented parol e%idence that the- ac$uired the land in $uestion - purchase from #regorio 3ascual during the earl- part of the 0merican regime ut the corresponding contract of sale was lost and no cop- or record of the same was a%ailale. 'n March ?, !;, the pri%ate respondents led a petition to re%iew the decree of registration on the ground of fraud. 0fter trial, the court found that deeds of sale spurious. 8t further found that the respondents too* possession of the land as owners after the death of 0gapita /onifacio and in !?>, mortgaged it to the spouses Ramirez to secure the pa-ment of a loan in the amount of 3<. - wa- of antichresis. The trial court then ordered the recon%e-ance of the propert-. The decision was armed - the Court of 0ppeals. The petitioners led a petition for re%iew on certiorari.
ISSUE: +as there an actual or e@trinsic fraud
RULING:
Pes. The a%erments in the petition for re%iew of the decree of registration constitute specic and not mere general allegations of actual and e@trinsic fraud. The petitioners in this case did not merel- omit a statement of the respondentsQ interest in the land. The- positi%el- attested to the asence of an- ad%erse claim therein. This is clear misrepresentation. The omission and concealment, *nowingl- and intentionall- made, of an act or of a fact which the law re$uires to e performed or recorded is fraud, when such omission or concealment secures a enet to the pre1udice of a third person. +:ERE2'RE, the decision appealed from is here- 0228RME5.
EIRS OF TOMAS #OLLETON $. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC. G. R. No. 17 07 ,0 . A;(' 7! 2009 FACTS: 8n 'ctoer !!=, led efore the RTC separate Complaints for Nuieting of Title andKor Reco%er- of 'wnership and 3ossession with 3reliminar- 8n1unctionKRestraining 'rder and 5amages against respondents. 3etitioners claimed in their Complaints that the- had een in continuous, open, and e@clusi%e possession of the su1ect properties for more than ! -ears until the- were forcil- ousted - armed men hired - respondents in !! and that the su1ect properties from which the- were forcil- e%icted were not co%ered - respondents certicates of title. Respondents mo%ed for the dismissal of the eight Complaints on
the grounds of () prescriptionA (") lachesA (?) lac* of cause of actionA and (<) res judicata. The RTC dismissed the complaints of petitioners. The trial court determined that the su1ect properties were alreadregistered in the names of respondents, and that petitioners were unale to pro%e - clear and con%incing e%idence their title to the said properties. The Court of 0ppeals denied petitioners appeal and armed the RTC Resolutions. 3etitioners led a Motion for Reconsideration which the Court of 0ppeals denied. :ence, the petitioners led a 3etition for Re%iew on Certiorari. ISSUE: +hether the actions instituted - petitioners efore the RTC were for the reopening and re%iew of the decree of registration and recon%e-ance of the su1ect properties. RULING:
Section ?" of the 3ropert- Registration 5ecree pro%ides that a decree of registration ma- e reopened when a person is depri%ed of land or an interest therein - such ad1udication or conrmation otained - actual fraud. 'n the other hand, an action for recon%e-ance respects the decree of registration as incontro%ertile ut see*s the transfer of propert-, which has een wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered in other persons names, to its rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to ha%e a etter right. 8n oth instances, the land of which a person was depri%ed should e the same land which was fraudulentl- or erroneousl- registered in another persons name, which is not the case herein, if the Court considers the allegations in petitioners Complaints. +hile petitioners improperl- pra-ed for the cancellation of respondents TCTs in their Complaints, there is nothing else in the said Complaints that would support the conclusion that the- are either petitions for reopening and re%iew of the decree of registration under Section ?" of the 3ropert- Registration 5ecree or actions for recon%e-ance ased on implied trust under 0rticle <9; of the Ci%il Code. 8nstead, petitioners Complaints ma- e said to e in the nature of an accion rei%indicatoria, an action for reco%er- of ownership and possession of the su1ect properties,
from which the- were e%icted sometime etween !! and !!< - respondents. 8& 68E+ '2 T:E 2'RE#'8&#, the instant 3etition is #R0&TE5.
NE REGENT SOURCES! INC.! $. TAN"UATCO G.R. No. 18800. April 16, 2009) FACTS: &RS8 alleged that in !!<, it authorized 6icente 3. Cue%as 888, its Chairman and 3resident, to appl- on its ehalf, for the ac$uisition of two parcels of land - %irtue of its right of accretion. Cue%as purportedl- applied for the lots in his name to the /ureau of Jands. +hile the application for appro%al in the /ureau of Jands is pending, Cue%as assigned his right to
Tan1uatco. 5irector of Jands released an 'rder, which appro%ed
the transfer of rights from Cue%as to Tan1uatco on !!;, wherefore TCTs were then issued in the name of Tan1uatco. 3etitioner led a Complaint for RescissionK5eclaration of &ullit- of Contract, Recon%e-ance and 5amages. Tan1uatco argued that the complaint stated no cause of action against him ecause it was Cue%as who was alleged to ha%e defrauded the corporation. :e a%erred further that the complaint did not charge him with *nowledge of the agreement etween Cue%as and &RS8. ISSUE: +hether or not the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners complaint for recon%e-ance. RULING: The trial court correctl- dismissed petitioners complaint for recon%e-ance. 0n action for recon%e-ance is one that see*s to transfer propert-, wrongfull- registered - another, to its rightful
and legal owner. 8n an action for recon%e-ance, the certicate of title is respected as incontro%ertile. +hat is sought instead is the transfer of the propert-, specicall- the title thereof, which has een wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered in another persons name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a etter right. To warrant a recon%e-ance of the land, the following re$uisites must concurB () the action must e rought in the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right o%er the land registered in the name of the defendantA (") the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal meansA (?) the propert- has not -et passed to an innocent purchaser for %alueA and (<) the action is led after the certicate of title had alread- ecome nal and incontro%ertile ut within four -ears from the disco%er- of the fraud, or not later than -ears in the case of an implied trust. 3etitioner failed to show the presence of these re$uisites.
ALEGRIA VS #IRLONG! GR. NO. 11317! 1 "ULY 2008 ,,8 SCRA 4,9 ?2008@ FACTS: 'n < 4une !!", #ariel 5rilon, husand of respondent Eusta$uia 5rilon, applied for the issuance of titles - 2ree 3atent o%er the properties. 'n > 'ctoer !!?, spouses 5rilon sold the properties to respondent spouses 0lfredo and 2redeswenda Piosa (spouses Piosa). Sometime in !!;, Eusta$uia 5rilon and spouses Piosa demanded that petitioners %acate Jot &os. ?;9>
and ?;;. This prompted petitioners to le, on "? 4anuar- !!=, an action for recon%e-ance and declaration of nullit- of the sale of Jot &o. ?;9> and Jot &o. ?;;. 3etitioners alleged that spouses Piosa were in ad faith when the- ought the properties as the- were full- aware that petitioners were actuall- and continuousl- occup-ing, culti%ating and claiming portions of the properties. The petition for recon%e-ance was dismissed. 'n appeal, the Court of 0ppeal s armed the decision of the trial court. 3etitioners, although occupants of the properties, ha%e no legal personalit- to assail the patents issued to #ariel 5rilon as well as the sale of the properties to spouses Piosa. ISSUE: +hether petitioners ma- $uestion the %alidit- of the and as* for recon%e-ance of the properties.
sale
RULING: 8n Caro v+ $ucaldito the Court held that an applicant for a free patent cannot e considered a part-GinGinterest with personalit- to le an action for recon%e-ance. Citing $pouses an2i2o v+ Ce,arthe Court statedB 3nly t!e $tate can 0le a suit for reconveyance of a public land+ !erefore not bein t!e o"ners of t!e land but mere applicants for sales patents t!ereon respondents !ave no personality to 0le t!e suit+ Neit!er "ill t!ey be directly aected by t!e judment in suc! suit+ Since petitioners failed to show proof that the- ha%e title to the properties, the trial and appellate courts correctl- ruled that petitioners ha%e no legal personalit- to le a case for recon%e-ance of Jot &os. ?;9> and ?;;.
ALEGRIA VS #IRLONG! GR. NO. 11317! 1 "ULY 2008 ,,8 SCRA 4,9 ?2008@ FACTS:
'n < 4une !!", #ariel 5rilon, husand of respondent Eusta$uia 5rilon, applied for the issuance of titles - 2ree 3atent o%er the properties. 'n > 'ctoer !!?, spouses 5rilon sold the properties to respondent spouses 0lfredo and 2redeswenda Piosa (spouses Piosa). Sometime in !!;, Eusta$uia 5rilon and spouses Piosa demanded that petitioners %acate Jot &os. ?;9> and ?;;. This prompted petitioners to le, on "? 4anuar- !!=, an action for recon%e-ance and declaration of nullit- of the sale of Jot &o. ?;9> and Jot &o. ?;;. 3etitioners alleged that spouses Piosa were in ad faith when the- ought the properties as the- were full- aware that petitioners were actuall- and continuousl- occup-ing, culti%ating and claiming portions of the properties. The petition for recon%e-ance was dismissed. 'n appeal, the Court of 0ppeal s armed the decision of the trial court. 3etitioners, although occupants of the properties, ha%e no legal personalit- to assail the patents issued to #ariel 5rilon as well as the sale of the properties to spouses Piosa. ISSUE: +hether petitioners ma- $uestion the %alidit- of the and as* for recon%e-ance of the properties.
sale
RULING: 8n Caro v+ $ucaldito the Court held that an applicant for a free patent cannot e considered a part-GinGinterest with
personalit- to le an action for recon%e-ance. Citing $pouses an2i2o v+ Ce,arthe Court statedB 3nly t!e $tate can 0le a suit for reconveyance of a public land+ !erefore not bein t!e o"ners of t!e land but mere applicants for sales patents t!ereon respondents !ave no personality to 0le t!e suit+ Neit!er "ill t!ey be directly aected by t!e judment in suc! suit+ Since petitioners failed to show proof that the- ha%e title to the properties, the trial and appellate courts correctl- ruled that petitioners ha%e no legal personalit- to le a case for recon%e-ance of Jot &os. ?;9> and ?;;.
#'* M('(* G.R. No. 1,9,78 "%' 28! 2008 FACTS:
'n March >, !>", Ma@ima, a daughter of Candido and #regoria (the owners of land) entered into a 5eed of E@traG1udicial 3artition with the heirs of her deceased rothers, Mario and Euseio Macahilig. Ma@ima e@ecuted a Statement of Conformit- in which she conrmed the e@ecution of the 5eed of E@traG1udicial 3artition and conformed to the manner of partition and ad1udication made therein. Ma@ima sold 3arcel 'ne to spouses 0delino and Rogelia 5aclag (petitioners) as e%idenced - a 5eed of Sale, an 'CT was issued in the name of 5aclag - %irtue of her free patent application.Respondents led with the RTC for recon%e-ance. The RTC rendered its 5ecision in fa%or of the respondents. The C0 dismissed the appeal and armed the RTC decision.
ISSUE:
+hether the recon%e-ance of the su1ect land - the respondents is proper.
RULING:
Pes, it is proper. The essence of an action for recon%e-ance is that the free patent and certicate of title are respected as incontro%ertile. +hat is sought is the transfer of the propert-, which has een wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered in another personQs name, to its rightful owner or to one with a etter right.
8n an action for recon%e-ance, the issue in%ol%ed is one of ownershipA and for this purpose, e%idence of title ma- e introduced. Respondents had sucientl- estalished that 3arcel 'ne, co%ered - 'CT of which respondentsQ northern one half portion formed a part, was not owned - Ma@ima at the time she sold the land to petitioners. 0n action for recon%e-ance prescries in -ears, the point of reference eing the date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certicate of title o%er the propert-. Records show that while the land was registered in the name of petitioner Rogelia in !><, the instant complaint for recon%e-ance was led - the respondents in !!, and was thus still within the tenG-ear prescripti%e period.
6AUTISTA-6OR"A 6AUTISTA G.R. No. 13197 #&&=>& 10! 2008 FACTS: /- petitioners claim, respondents, through fraud and deception, con%inced her to ta*e possession and culti%ate parcels of land which would e%entuall- e partitionedA and that un*nown to her, howe%er, the titles to the lands were cancelled - %irtue of 5eeds of Sale purportedl- e@ecuted on diHerent dates - her parents in fa%or of her silings Simplicio and 2rancisco, a fact
which she came to *now aout in !!<.of 3etitioner led a complaint efore the RTC for onl0nnulment the 5eedsthus of Sale andKor 3artition of 3roperties. The trial court held that petitioners cause of action had prescried as actions for recon%e-ance ased on implied trust prescrie in -ears, and that laches had set in. The Court of 0ppeals armed the trial courts ruling. ISSUE: +hether the petitioner can still le an action for recon%e-ance RULING:
Pes, the petitioner can. 8f the trial court nds that the deed of sale is %oid, then the action for the declaration of the contracts nullit- is imprescriptile. 8ndeed, the Court has held in a numer of cases that an action for recon%e-ance of propert- ased on a %oid contract does not prescrie. :owe%er, if the trial court nds that the deed of sale is merel- %oidale, then the action would ha%e alread- prescried.F 0t all e%ents, since the complaint on its face does not indicate that the action has prescried, an allegation of prescription can eHecti%el- e used in a motion to dismiss onl- when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has alread- prescried. 'therwise, the issue of prescription is one in%ol%ing e%identiar- matters re$uiring a fullG lown trial on the merits and cannot e determined in a mere motion to dismiss.
NE REGENT SOURCES! INC.! $. TAN"UATCO G.R. No. 18800. April 16, 2009) FACTS: &RS8 alleged that in !!<, it authorized 6icente 3. Cue%as 888, its Chairman and 3resident, to appl- on its ehalf, for the ac$uisition of two parcels of land - %irtue of its right of accretion. Cue%as purportedl- applied for the lots in his name to
the /ureau of Jands. +hile the application for appro%al in the /ureau of Jands is pending, Cue%as assigned his right to Tan1uatco. 5irector of Jands released an 'rder, which appro%ed the transfer of rights from Cue%as to Tan1uatco on !!;, wherefore TCTs were then issued in the name of Tan1uatco. 3etitioner led a Complaint for RescissionK5eclaration of &ullit- of Contract, Recon%e-ance and 5amages. Tan1uatco argued that the complaint stated no cause of action against him ecause it was Cue%as who was alleged to ha%e defrauded the corporation. :e a%erred further that the complaint did not charge him with *nowledge of the agreement etween Cue%as and &RS8.
ISSUE: +hether or not the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners complaint for recon%e-ance. RULING:
The trial court correctl- dismissed petitioners complaint for recon%e-ance. 0n action for recon%e-ance is one that see*s to transfer propert-, wrongfull- registered - another, to its rightful and legal owner. 8n an action for recon%e-ance, the certicate of title is respected as incontro%ertile. +hat is sought instead is the transfer of the propert-, specicall- the title thereof, which has een wrongfull- or erroneousl- registered in another persons name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a etter right. To warrant a recon%e-ance of the land, the following re$uisites must concurB () the action must e rought in the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right o%er the land registered in the name of the defendantA (") the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal meansA (?) the propert- has not -et passed to an innocent purchaser for %alueA and (<) the action is led after the certicate of title had alread- ecome nal and incontro%ertile ut within four -ears from the disco%er- of the fraud, or not later than -ears in the case of an implied trust. 3etitioner failed to show the presence of these re$uisites.
