Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 7

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 7

1/55

MND REGISTRAffiONBy:

Eduardo delosAngeles

I.IntroductionThe Tonens System was adopted toput stability to title. Title registeredunder this system enjoysindefeasibility (after one year fromentry of decree), imprescriptibility,and immunity from collateral attack.(Natalia Realty vs. Vallez, 173scRA 534)


2/55

Registration, however, is not a mode ofacquiring title. lt merely confirms (valid) title.(Municipality of Victorias v. Court of 'Appeals, 149 SCRA 32).

The indefeasibility of a Torrens Titledoes not apply where fraud attended theissuance of the title. The title does notfumish a shield for fraud. (Sacdalan v-Court of Appeals, 428 SCRA 586;Omandam v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA483). ,I l. Reqistration Under TonensSystem

A. Orioinal Reoistrationa. dminisfialive - registration of patents(Secs. 10$105, PD 1529; Secs- 123-124CA 141; Palomayo v. Manipon,39 SCRA676; Nieto v. Quines, 6 SCRA 74; De losReyes v. Razon, 3S Phil. 480; Rellin v.Cabigas, 109 Phil. 1128; Municipality ofHagonoy v. Secretary, 73 SCRA' 507;Rep. v. Garle,105 Phil. 12271.

2


3/55

b. cadastral - (Secs. 35'38, PD 1529;Pefia, "Land Tifles and Deeds' 1978 ed.pp. 427435; Merced v. Court of Appeals,5 SCRA 240; Acedo v. Court of Appeals,33 SCRA 936; El Hogar v. Olviga, 60Phir. 17).Judicial - (Secs. 14-U, PD 1529)

PD 1529 eliminated the distinctionbetueen the general iurisdi,cffon vested inOre Regbnd Trial Cout and the latte/slimited judsdic{ion when actng merely asland regishation court Land registrationcourts can now hear and decide evncontroversial and contentious cases.(SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578scRA 5s2).

3


4/55

1. Who mav applya)Those wtro by themselves or throughtheir predecessors have been in open,continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation of alienablelands of the public domain under claimof ownership since June 12, 1945 orearlier;b) Those udro have acquired ov*nenshipof private lands by prescription underthe provisions of existing laws;

c) Those who have acquired ownershipof orivate lands or abandoned riverbeds by right of amdon or aeetkrnunderexisting laws;d) Those wtro have acquired ownershipof land in any other manner providedfor by law. (Sec. 14, PD 1529).


5/55

2. id;CorporationsArticle XIV of the Constitutionprohibits a corporation fromacquiring/holding land of the publicdomain except by lease. (Director v.Heirs of Carolino, 140 SCRA 396). Aslessee, the possession of thecorporation cannot ripen intoownership. (Director v. !AC, 146

SCRA 509; Director v. Bengzon, 152scRA 369).

However, a corporation canacquirdtrold orivate land, and, apply forits registration if such land is stillunregistered or,ovided that thecorporalion is a Philippine ooporatftrnand at least 600/o of ib capital 'rs oirnedby filipinos. (RepuHic v. Court ofAppeals, 155 SCRA 344; Natividad v.Court of"Appeals, 202 SCRA 493).

This ruling now abrogates Meralco v.Casho-Bartolome (114 SCRA 799) andrelated cases.


6/55

There are 3 requisites for the filing of anapplication for registration under Section 14 G) ofPD 1529 (Republic v. Bibonia, 525 SCRA 268):(a) the property is alienable land of the publicdomain,

A certification from the DENR that theland is alienable and disposable is sufficientto establish the nature of the property(Republic vs. Consunli, 533 SCRA 269).

The applicant must establish thedisposable and alienable character of theland by a positive ac* of govemment such asa PresHential Prodamatinn, Exectrtiveffier, and Adminisfration action,lnvestigation Reports of the Bureau ofLands, Legislative Act or Certification by theDENR. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 392scRA 190).

6


7/55

But a notation by a surveYor in theSurvey Plan that the survey was insidealienable land does not constitute a positivegovemment act validly changing theclassification of lands. A mere surveyor hasno authority to reclassify land of the publicdomain. (Menguito v. Republic,348 SCRA128).

A title may be jdicially confirmed underSec. 48 of the Public Land Act only if itpertains to. alienable hnds of the p$licdomain, and that unless such lands aretdassified and considered disposable ardalienable, occupation thereof in the conceptof an owner, no matter how long, cannotripen into ownership and be registered as atitle. (De Ocampo v. Arlos, 343 SCRA 716;Ponciano v. LLDA, 570 SCRA 2O7;Secretaryv. Yap,568 SCRA let).


8/55

The alienable and disposable cfraracter ofthe lands lo be registered should havealready been established on June 12, 1945or earlier, and where they were declaredalienable only on March 15, 1982, theapplicants could not have maintained abna fide claim of ownership since June 12,1945 or earfier. (Lim v. RepuHic, 59S SCRA247).

The more reasonaHe interpretation of Sec.la (a) of PD 1529 is that il merely re$dresthe property soqglt to be registered asalready alienable and disposable at Ore tmethe application for registration of title is filed.(Republic v. lglesia ni Cristo, 591 SCRA438)


9/55

Occupation means actual possession.There must be manifestation of acts ofdominion over it such as intoduction ofimprovements. Bare assertions ofpossession and occupation by predecessorsare hardly the \rvell-nigh incontrovertible'evidence required in cases of th,is nature.(RepuHic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 61 1).

10

(c) such possession is under bona fide claimof ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.The rationale for the period "since timeimmemorial" or since June 12, 194^.5" lies inthe presumptbn that the lard applied furpertains to the $tate, and that the ocanpantof possessor daims an interest thereon byvirtue of his imperfect title as continuous,open and notorious possessor. (Republic v.Jacob,495 SCRA 529).

'Bd paldb *rciha lnmemorH.rrb.fh. fm oo lhd Ir tstdfr, rl.ls b6.l pdt d f. pu$c do.rrdn q $d f tr.d !,'t Firi. p{o9.rfyGrUr b{rbc Sr.nur Col4rd" (Brage v. S{d.eo, ('i1 SCR 7L}


10/55

As the law now stahds, a mere showingof possession for thirty (30) years or more isnot sufficient. Thus, it must be shown thatpossession and occupation had started on12 June 1945 or earlier. (ln Re Applicationfor Land Registration of Title, FieldmanAgricultural Trading, 55O SCRA 92).

Where claim of posseesion of landstarted in 1962, suclr is not suffident basbto apply for regisfrali,on of land whicft urderPD 1073 ard PD 1529 stutld have startedsince 12 June 1945 or earlier. (Nadela v.City of Cebu, 411 SCRA 315).

1


11/55

However, even if the possessbn ofalienable land commenced only afler 12June 1945, application for registration isstill possible by virtue of Sec. 14 (b) ofPD 1529 which speaks of prescription.But here, the land must alreadY beorivate. (Buenaventura v. Republic, 517scRA271).

Even if possession of alienable publicland commenced on a date later than June12, 1945, if such possession was oPen,continuous and exdusive, then thepossessr rnay harre the rirttb registerthelard urder Sec. 14 (b) cf PD 1529.(Repub$c v. Court of Appeals, 'l'18 SCRA.4421.

Possession of public agricultural landunder claim of ownelship for a period of ten(10) pars is not enough unless possessionis rnade ln geod falh. (Alba v. Court ofAppeals, 314 SC,RA 36).


12/55

Open, exclusive and undisputedpossession for the period.prescribed bylaw converts ipso jure disposable publicland into private land. (Director v.Meralco, 153 SCRA 686; Pineda v. Courtof Appeals,23 March 1980).

3. Acbretionland formed by aocretbn belorgsto the riparian owner. Consequently,the Director of Lands, who only hasjurisdiction over public lands, cannotdispose of accreted land. (luason v.cA,147 SCRA 37).

,.

l


13/55

' However, a riparian owner cannotregister accretions.to his land arisingfrom special works or man-madedikes. Accretion as a mode ofacquiring ownership occurs where (a)the deposit is gradual andimperceptible, (b) it is made throughthe effects of the cunent of the waterand (c) the hrd where accretion takesplace is adiacent to tfie banks ofrivers. (Republic vs. CA, 132 SCRAs14).

4. What not ReqistrableForest land cannot be appropriated byposses-sion horever bng. (Republic v.Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 476). Thefac't that bggers have cut the bees doesnot declassiff the forest land. (Republicv. Carantes, 52 SCRA 238). Only theExecutive Department can reclassfi

forest !and. (Director v. Court of.Appeals,129 SCRA 689).


14/55

5. PaymentofLandTaxPayment of land tax is noi per seevidence of ownership. (Masaganda v.Argamosa, 109 SCRA 53; Rizal Cementv. Villareal, 135 SCRA 15). But taxreceipts accompanied by actual andcontinuous possession of land for theperiod specified by law qualifiespossssor to register ti$e to bnd.

(Samson v. Courtof Appeals, 141 SCRA1e4).

llt. Procedure in Oriqinal Reqistrationr Survey (PD 329; Fernandez v.AboaUgue, 36 SCRA 476).A suruey of land subject of anapplication for registration is essentialrequisite. (Dolino v. Court of Appeals,401 SCRA 69s).


15/55

r Filirg of PeUtion (Sec. lt PD 1529)Attich original tracing cloth plan.(Director v. IAC, 214 SCRA 604), asapproved by the Director of the Bureauof Lands. (Republic v. Neri, 424 SCRA676).

However, -the ourt has deemed assubstantial ompliance the submlssftrn ofthe fiollowing in lieu of the original tracingdoth:(a) a blue pint of Bre dans, (b) atechnical description appro\red by UteLand Management Bureau of DEN& and(c) a'Cedfication from the CENRO thatthe property has not been forfeited fornon-payment of real estate taxes.(Republic v. Enriquez, 501 SCRA 436;RepuHk v. Hubilh, 451 SCRA 181).


16/55

! Amendments (Sec. 19, PD 1529; Mndozavs. C-ourt of Appeals, 84 SCRA 67).The law does not require that theapplication for registration being amendedby substituting the "buyer" for theapplicant. The only requirements are: (a)that the instrument of sale be presentedto the ourt bgether with a nntion, and(b) Urat prior notice be given b Bteparties to the case. (Casibes v. Pantoja,496 SCRA 273).

u

r Publication and posffng (Secs. 2 and 23, PD.1s29).Before ttre ourt can act on the apilmonbr land regtsuaton, lt b a nrisAcmrntrequirenrent Utat Ste puHic be given plor.noti@ of lniUal hearlng. Publittron on tteOfficial Gazette should precede the initialhearing date. Where the issue of the OfficialGazette is released after lni$al heafng, thecourt did not aquire JurisdlcHon. (Rep,ttbllcv. Courtof Apfls,236 SCRA.l42).

I

t9


17/55

Publication in the Official Gazette atleast thirty (30) days prior to initialhearing is required to conferjurisdiction to the court. (Republic v.Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 94).

fublkaton is requlred if trcre is nedto amend borlrdarks and area.(Dfuector v. tAC, 219 SCRA 33!)).

a


18/55

r Opposition (Sec. 25, PD 1529; Leyrua v.Jandoc, 4 SCRA 595; Miller v. Director;12 SCRA 292).Absence of opposition fromgovernment agencies is of no momentbecause the State cannot be estoppedby the omission, mistake or enor of itsofficials arud agents. (Republh v. tao, .40s scRA 291).

r Order of dehultA rno[on to lift the order of generaldefauft in land registration proeedlngsshould be Rhd before the enty of finaljudgment. (Lopez v. Enriquez, 449scRA 173).

2


19/55

. Ocular inspectionr Hearing

There are two facts that the applicantmust prove to support an applicationfor registration: The first is that theland sought to be registered is thesame land described in the application,ard tfie se@rd ls 8tat the apf,kantmust be the owner of the land. (Diaz-Enriquez v. Republig 437 SCRA 311).

/o

The blue fint of the plan and tecfrniraldesoiptbn can prwide sufficientidentiflcation of the lard. (Republic v.Muffoz, 536 SCRA 108).


20/55

. Opposition (Sec. 25, PD 1529; Leyva v..Jandoc,4 SCRA 595; Miller v. Dinector,12 SCRA 292).Absence of opposition fromgovernment agencies is of no momentbecause the State cannot be estoppedby Ute ornission, misbke or error of itsfficiab and agenB. (Republk v. Lao,',m5 SCRA 291).

r Order of defrultA rnotion to lift the oder of generaldehult in land registr-aUon proceedingsshould be filed before the entry of finaljudgment. (Lopez v. Enriquez, 449scM 173).


21/55

r Ocular inspectionr Hearing

There are two facts that the applicantmust prove to support an applicationfor registration: The first is that theland sought to be registered is thesame land desoibed in the apdkation,and the se@rd is UEt the apflicantmust be the owner of the land. (Diaz-Enriquez v. Republic,437 SCRA 311).

l'

The blue print of the phn and tednicaldesoiptron czrn provlde sufficientidentiffcaUon of the land. (Republic v.Muffoz, 536 SCRA 108).


22/55

r ludgrnent(Secs.29-30, PD 1529).The iudgrnent rerdered in a land registuationproeedirg beomes final upon erpiration ofthirty (30) days and no appeal is taken.Cling v. Diego, 518 SCRA 334).The failure of the Republic to file anOpposition to the applkaUon for landregiffion, @iE reeig d rdce Urereof,does not @ire lt of its riglt b appeal thebial ourfs dedsion. (Regalado v. Republic,516 SCRA 38).

,6

Until the decree is issued by the LandRegis0ation Atthorlty, the C-ourt stillhas jurisdiction over ttre proceedings.(Ramos v. Rodriguez, 2,14 SCRA 418)


23/55

The date when the 'decree ofregistration is received for transcriptionby the Register of Deeds is the date ofregistration. (Manotoc Realty v. CLTRealty, 540 SCRA 304).

r Original Certificate of TiUeThe original certificate of tiUe is theevfttence of omership. (Er,mil v.. Ernac,'m3 SCRA 291).Lands covered by a title cannot beaquired by prescripUon or adversepossession. (Ragudo v. Fabella Estate,466 SCRA 136).

2


24/55

The general rule is that Utle toregistered propefi becomesindefeasible after one year from date ofregistration except where there isactual fraud. (Balangcad v. Coutt ofAppeals,206 SCRA 169).

r Writ of PossessionA writ of possession can be issuedagainst the original oppositors in thetand Registration Case and theirsu@ssors, and against persOns wtrcunlauftlly and adversely occupy theproperly at anytime before and up tothe issuance of the final decree.(Villanueva v. Albano, 157 SCRA 131).:the right for the issuance of the writdoes not prescribe. (Rodil v.Berredicto, 95 SCRA 137).

t


25/55

lV. Some Remedies Available To AggrievedParties ln A Land Rggistration ProceedingsMotign for Reconsideration and/or NewTrial;Appeal;Petition for Relief under Rule 38, RevisedRules of CourUPebtbn for Revierru under Section 32', W1529;Adion br Reoonvqfance; andActon br Damagps

2.3.

5.5.

Petition for ReliefWhen a judgment or order b enteredagairrt a party Utrough fratd, aaidnt,mhtake or orcusable negftgence, he rnay.ffb a peffion in srdt ooult Yvithkt 60 da)lsafur peiiUono kans of the Judgment orfinal order, and rpt more than 6 monthsafter such judgment or order was enteredto set aside the judgment or order (Secs. Iarfr 2, Rule 38, Ro/sed Rules of Coutt)' provided that no decree has been is$ed lnthe rneanfime.

2


26/55

Petition for ReviewWhere an owner is deprived of adominical right through extrinsicfraud, he may, within one year fromissuance of the decree file a petitionfor review provided that the propertyhm rmt been transferred to aninnoent purdnser for value.(Ubudan v. Gil,45 SCRA 14.

Only dnl and elrtrin$c fraud hasbeen aepted as a ground to rcvlewor rcopen a decree of regisfiation.(Rabaja Ranch v. AFP Retirement, 592scRA 20r).


27/55

A decree of regisbation and thecertificate of tith issued pursuantthereto may be attacked on theground of fraud within one (1) yearfrom the date of their issuance,which attack must be direct and notby collateral proceedings. Attack isdirect when the object of the actionis to annul or set asitle srJdt decree.(De Guzman v. Agbagala, 546 SCRA278).

Innocent Purchaser for ValueAn innocent purchaser is one whobtrlts properly withor.t notke Btatsome otfis person has a right to orinterest in such property, and pays afull and hir price for the same at thetime of such purdrase (De Santos v.IAC, 157 SCRA 295) or before he hasnotice of the claim of interest ofanother person . in the property(Legarda v. Court of Appeals, 280scRA 642).

ct

2


28/55

The presumption is that a buyer ofrEi$ered land is not aware of defects inthe tide hi purdnsed. Oalnera v. 6uftof Appeab, 103 SCRA ,167). But one whopurchases unreoistered land does so at hisperil. (David v. Bandin, April 8, 1987).One who buys land covered by areconstituted title must beware (De Santosv. IAC, Sgpra); and one who acquires landwith a pending noUce of lis pendens is in@ f;aiBr. (PNB v. Conrt of Appeals, 98SCRA 207). In fact, ii the rer case theaoquisitirn is subled b EE resrlt of Uteliti,gation. (Marasigan v. IAC, 152 SCRA2s3).

I

To be a purchaser in good frith, it isenough that one examines the latestTCT. (De Leon v. Kalabo,391 SCRA7s2).When a party has actual knoruledge offacts and circumshnces that wouldimpel a reasonable cautious man tomake inquiry relying on the face ofthe title is not enough.' (NaawanCommunity Rural Bank v. Court ofAppeals,3gs SCRA43). ,.


29/55

The presence of anything whidto


30/55

Action for ReconvevanceAn action for reconveyance is onethat seeks to transfer property,wrongfully or fraudulently registeredby another, to its rightful and legalowner. (Cavile v. Utania-Hong, 581SCRA'f08).

In an action for reconveyance, thedecree of regisbation is respected asinontrorerUble but rvhat is songhtinstead is the transfer of the propertywrwEfully and erroneously registeredin anothe/s name to its rightful owneror to one with a better rlght.(Rementizo v. Heirs of Madarieh, 576scRA 109).

3


31/55

Where a person is deprived of landbecause of actual fraud or breach ofbust, he may recover the land -

- within 4 years from discovery of thefraud wtrere there is need to annul afradulnt deed. (Gerona v. Guzman,11 SCRA 153).

-within 1O years ftom breach of animplied bust- at anylime, if tnre is breach of ane4press bustprovided, the land had not beentransfened to an innocent purchaserfor value.

t


32/55

Actual fraud is intenilonal deceptionpnctied by means ofmisrepresentation or concealment of amaterial fract. Constructive fraud is anact not done with an actual design tocommit fraud upon other person Uutnonetheless has detrimental effectupon public interest. Extrinsic fraud isthat whidr prevents a party fromhavirp hb day in courg wtrile inbinsicfi?ud is a fraudulent act pertaining toan issue involved in an action. (id)

Discovery of fraud must be deemed tohave taken place frronr tlre issmne ofthe cerdffcate of tiUe because ofregistration of real property isconsidered constucttve notice to all.(Sema v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA527; Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 302scRA s89).

3


33/55

Yet, in one case the four (4)-yearperiod to rescind a fraudulent contractis counted from actual discovery infraud not from registration ofconveyance. (Khe Hong Cheng v.Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 701).

An action for reconveyance, whidr is a legalremedy granted to a land (Mrner whoseproperty has been wrongfully or enoneouslyregi$rcd in anohe/s name must be filedwithin 10 years ftorn the lsEane of Ure Udesine sdr issrance operdes as unstructivenoffie. (De Oaro v. Court of Appeab, 346scRA57).An adion for reoonvryance based onconstn"dive trust presqibes in 10 yearsfrom date of rcgisfration of the deed or thedate of isstnnce of the ertificate of Ufle.(Villaruara'Mipres v. Cowt of Appeals, 330scRA 3{9).

a

34


34/55

A petition to quiet tifle for an actionquasi in REM that is binding onlybetween the 'parties. (Serrille v.NaUonal Development Co. 35f SCRA112).An action to quiet title may be broughtwhen there o


35/55

While remnveyance whidr is based onimplied trust must be fited within 10 yearsfrom regisbation, sudr rule applbs onlywhen the person enforcing the trust is not inpossession of property. If such person is inpossession of the property, then the actionis one to quiet title which is imprescripUble.(Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA339). The reason b because one who is inactual pffiim rnay wait until hispossesim is dlshrbed or his tiUe attackdbefore taking step to virdirate hls rights.(id).

DamaoesAfter I year, the land owner whoseproperty is wrongfully registered inanothefs name Gnnot ask the courtto set aside the decee, but can suefor damages if property is with aninnocent purchaser for value. (Ignaciov. Basilio, 366 SCRA l5).

3


36/55

DamaqesRequirements:.r Unlawfuldeprivationr No negligencer Reonvryance not possibler File withln four (4) )@s

Damages against Assurance Fund;Requirementsr unlarrYftrl depriyationr i,lo negl[ener No breadr of bustr There is fraud, errorr No other remdyr File within six (6) yeats

3


37/55

V. Cefficate of Titlea. The original certificate of title is evidencb ofownership (Ermac v. Ermac, 403 SCRA291\;b. Conclusivec. Exceptiens:

1. wtrere land part of mineral or forestpreserve (Director v. Muffoz, 23 SCRA1184; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 154SCRA 476; RepuHic v. Garantes, 52SCRA238; Direc{orv. Court of Appeals,129 SCRA 689; Verturanzav. Republic,528 SCRA 238). But mangrove tandregistrable (Tongson v. Director, TgscRA 130).

2. wtrere land part of govemmentreservation (Republic v. Marcos, 52SCFIA 2.38; Pabmo v. Court of Appeals,266 SCRA 393).


38/55

3. where land is part of navigable riverbed. (Republic v. Siosor\ 9 SCRA 533;Lovina v. Moreno, I SCRA 557:Republic v. Reyes, 155 SCM 313;Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRAs32).4.where court which ordered registrationof land without jurisdiction (Tuason v.Macalindorg, 6 SCRA 908; Fewkes v-Vasquez, 39 SCRA 514; Benin v.Tuason,57 SCRA 531)-

5. where certificate of title was issued froma void decree, the decree being issuedbefore the decision became fina!.6. wtrerc oertificate oJ litle based onhomestead or other administratfuepatent u/hich was issued over private

7. where land covered by a previous title(Azarcon v. Vallarta, 100 SCRA 450)because it constitutes a collateral attackon the existing title. (Carvaialv. pourtofAppeals, 28O SCRA 351).

3


39/55

A. lard registration court has nojurisdic{bn to order registration of landalready decreed in the name of anotherin an earlier land registration case.(Laburada v. Land RegistrationAuthority, 287 SCRA 333).8. where certr'ficate of tite is a forgery.

1. Conflicting TiflesWhen tnlo certificates of tiUe cover thesame land, the prior ti0e prevails, untessthe prior.title is defective. (Azarcon v.Vallarta, 100 SCRA 4S0).

a

40


40/55

When two certificates of title are issued todifferent person covering the same land inwhole or in part, the earlier in date mustprevail. (Antonio v. Santos, 538 SCRA 1).

Vl. Proceedinqs After Orioina! Reqistration. Amendment (Albienda v. Court of Appeals,135 SCRA lt()4 Martinez v. Evarpelista, 102SCRA 551; ln re Santos, 102 SCRA 744.. Replacement of Lost Gertificate andReconstitution (Bunagan v. CFl, 97 SCRA72; Director v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA370; Republic v. lAC, 157 SCRA 62; Alabang

v- Valenzuela, 116 SCRA 261).. ReconstiMion


41/55

a). Amendments under Section 108 arepermissible if:r Registered interest terminates or there iserror in OCT;r No serious dispute;r Does not amount to reopening;r Does not impair nghts of innoentpurdraser.

b). ReconstitutionThe purpose is to restore/reprcduce losttitle. (Bunagan v. CFl, 97 SCRA 72).The purpose is to have, after observingthe procedures prescribed by law, the titlereprodrced in exactly the same way it hasbeen when the loss or destructionoccuned. (Republic v. Court of Appeals,309 SCRA 110).

4


42/55

Petitioner should follow requirements of R.A.26 lo the letter. He is required to notifyocanpants, adjacent owners and adversedaimants. (Director v. Court of Appeals, 102SCRA 370; Tahanan v. Court ofAppeals, 118SCRA 273)- Secs. 12and 13 of RA 26 (noticesto adjacent owners) are mandatory and notamended by Sec. 23 of PD 1529. (Republic v.Marasigan, 198 SCRA 219). However, if thebasis for rmnstiMion is the or(linal owne/sdqlicate of me, personal notice to occupantsand adiacent o,vners is not required. (Sec. 13,RA 26); Republic v. Planas, 381 SCRA 215).

R.A 26 requires publicatbn in the O'ffici'alGazette, pcting in the provincial capibland municipal hall and personal notices.(Subido v. Republic, 488 SCRA 1781Republic v. lAC, 157 SCRA 62).

T

1


43/55

ln reconstitution, the following must be compliedwith:

a) Notice of petition published twice inOfficial Gazette and post in main entrance ofProvincial and Municipal Building at least thirty(30) days before hearing.b) Notie-shall state rhter atia lhe numberof bst or deslroyed TCT, name of registeredowner, occupants, orvner of aS


44/55

Where' the publication of the order ofhearing in the Official Gazette was ontyfive (5) days instead of the required thirty(30) days prior to the hearing, there is fatatiurisdictional defect. (Republic v. Court ofAppeals,309 SCRA 110).

Without giving the necessary notice, thereconstihrted tite b void. (AlabangDevelopment v. Valenzueta, 116 SCRA261). Reconstituted TCT secured throughfraud cannot be the source of legal rights(Jose v. Court of Appeats, December 26,1eeo).

4


45/55

lf the certfficate of title is not lost but is infact in the possession of another person,the constituted title is void. (Demetriou v.Courtof Appeals,238 SCRA 158).ln reconstitution, petitioner must presentall documents required by RA 26 and nptmerely the tracing cloth. (Dordas v. Courtof Appeals, 27O SCRA 328); Cabello v.Republic,467 SCRA 330).

46

The canceilation of a person's title cannotarise incidentally from fle adminis&ativeproceeding for reoonstiMion of anotherperson's title even if the evidence from thatproceeding revealed the formeCs title asfake. (Manotok v. Heirs of Barque, S74scRA 468).


46/55

c). Replacement of lost Owner's Duplicateof TitleFor lost duplicate certificate of title, Sec.109 of PD 1529 (not RA 26) applies.Where duplicate was in the possession ofthe owner and never lost, the court doesnot acquire jurisdiction over petition forlost duplir:ate of tifle and the new duplicatecerlificate of ti0e issued is void. (NewDurawood v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA74O). s

Nothing in the law requires notice to besent to the OSG. in the issuance of anownefs duplicate certificate of tite.(Republic v. Court of Appeals, 317 SCRA504).lf a TCT is not lost, but is in thepossession of another person, then thereconstituted title is void and the court thatrenders the decision is without jurisdiction.(Strait Tirnes v. Court of Appeals, Zg4scFtA 714't.

9a

4


47/55

Vl. Reqistration of Documentsa. Purpose (Sec.51 and 52;PD 1529)b. Requirements for Registration of VoluntaryDealings (Bilog, 'Tifle Search, flocumentHunting and Registration" published in AteneoContinuing Legal Education 1975 ed.pp. 3044)

Form (Sec. 112,55, PD 1529)Presentatirn of Otrplicate CertificaG(Sea 53, PD 1529ftoof of Paynentof Real Estate TaxPayment of Fees (Luzon v. LRC, 5 SCRA145(Bilog, supra) s

PNCB v. Mllalon, 139 SCRA 570; Campillo v.Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 513)c. Requlrements fur Registsation of lnwbntaryDealingq1.. Attachment(Sc.69, PD 1529;2. Adverse Claim (Sec.70, PD 1529; Arrazola v.Bemas,86 SCRA 279; Cheng v. Lim, 77 SCRA440; Doronilla v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA26).

48


48/55

This is good only for 30 days (Sec.70 PD.1529). But lhe notice of adverse claim'rernainsvalid even after the lapee of 3O dapas long as there is no petition for theciancellation. (Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA388).

Annotation of .adverse claim is a measuredesigned to protect the interest of a personover a pkrce of land and senes as a wamingto third persons dealiqg wtth sakl property thatsonreone is claiming an interest thereto.(Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCFA 79).

9'

Failure of claimants to state in their affidavitof adverse claim irow and under wtrom theirallege*t nght is acquird renders theadverse claim norrregistrable ardineffective. Hence, such adverse c-laimdoes not make a buyer in bad faith.(Lozano v. Ballesteros, 195 SCRA 681).

I

49


49/55

When EffectiveThere is registration of an adverse claim,attachment or lis pendens once entry ofsuch notice is made on the day book, evenif the owner's duplicate is not sunendered.(Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380).

3. Lis Pendens (Sec. 7&77, PD 1529;Constantino v. Espiritu, 45 SCRA 557;Marasigan v. lAC, 152 SCRA254).Notice of lis pendens is an announcementto the world that a particular property is inlitigation and serves as a waming that onewtro seeks to acquire property does so athis own dsk. (Yared v. llarde, 337 SCRA53).

5


50/55

Registration of notice of lis pendens with theRegister of Deeds over the propeny binds anyprospective buyer to the outconre d a pendingcivil case over said property. (Knecht v. Courtof Appeals,228 SCRA 1).Courts can cancel a notice of . lis pendens ontwo grounds:

a) after a proper showing that the notice isfor the Brrpose of molesting the adverseparly, orb) it is not necessary to protec{ the interestof the party who caused it to be recorded.(Lim v. Vera Cruz, 356 SCRA 386). !3,

Order of cancellation of notice of lis pendens -even if not ac'tually cancelled - terminates theeffects of notice and makes buy'ers after theorder, purcfiasers in good fdth. (Po Lam v.'Court of Appeals,347 SCRA 86).However, it was also held that atthough at thetime of purchase, the notice of lis pendensannotated on the tiUe was already cancelled,the buylrs were put on notice ofa litigation.(Dlmaorlangan v. Romasanla,424 SCRA 88).

'51


51/55

4. Regbtration of Judgments (Sec. 78-80, PD152e).

d. When Registration of Document deemedeffective (Sec. 56, PD 1529; Govemmenl v.Aballe,60 Phil. 986; Levin v. Bass, 91 Phil. 419;Bass v. de la Rama, 73 Phil. 682; Director v.Reyes, 69 SCRA 415; Potenciano v. Dineros, 97Phil 1961; SWU v. Laurente, 26 SCRA 52;Gatbaan v. Gaffrld, 27 SCRA 706; Garcia v.Corrt of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380).e. DouHe sale (Campillo u. Court of Appeals, 129scRA513).

Ornership in an immovable shall belong tothe buyer wtro in good faith registers it frstin the registry of propefi. (Tafiedo v. Courtof Appeals, 252 SCRA 80).Art 1544 of the Civil Code applies whenthere are two deeds of sale over the sameproperty (not when one deed is anExtraiudicial Partition). (Alcantara v. Courtof Appeals, 252 SCRA457).

5


52/55

A double sale of immovable transfersownership to (a) the first registrant in goodfaith, (b) the first possessor in good faith,(c) finally, the buyer who in good faithpresents the oldest title. (Abrigo v. DeYera,432 SCRA 544).

It has been consistenfly held that a forgpd deedcan legally be the root of a valid title when anlnnocent Purctraser for Value intervenes. Adeed of sale executed by an impostor ui&to"ttthe artrority of the otner of tre }and sold b anullity, and regisbalion wil not vafidate wtratotherwise is an inrralid documents. l'lowver,where the certificate of titls was alleadytansfened fiom the name of the true omter tothe forger and, while it remained that way, theland was subsequently sold to an innocentpurchaser, the vendor had the right to rely uponwhat appeared in the certificate and in theabsence of anythirXg to orcite $rspidon, wasunder no obligrilion to look belpnd ttecertificate. (Teniobseryio, 230 SCRA 550). r


53/55

OIIYNER wiih TCT 1234sdeposlted with

x who forgesand obtainSTCT 23456ln X's name

Iand sells to Ywhoohlns.

TCT 34sC7ln Y's nameY obtalns valid titte if he isinnocent purchaser for vabe

of

OWNERwIthTGT 12345deposlted wtth X who forgesDeed of Sale h hls favor. Then,sellD lot to Y. Or, reprcsentshlrnself c tho OUW{ER and seltslot to Y who secrrres

TCT 2ilrs6ln Ys name Y does not obtaln valld tltle as hels not lnnocent purchaser forvaltr. He fafied to verlfy realldcnttyof oumer.

5


54/55

A title procured through fraud andmisrepresentation can still be the source ofa valid title if the same is in the hands of aninnocent purchaser for value. Moreso, ifcomplainant fails to prove, much lessimpute. bad faith. (Chu v. Benelda Estate,3s3 SCRA424).

It is a familiar Ooctlne that' a forgeddocument rnay become the root of a valH.ti0e if tte property has already beentransfened from the name of the ownef tothat of a forger. And is then acquired by aninnocent purchase for value. (Lim v.Ghuatoco, 453 SCRA 308).t,


55/55

lf the property has already been transfenedfrom the name of the owner to that of theforger, a person who deals with suchregistered property in good faith will acquiregood title from a forger. (PNB v. Militar,4e4 SCRA308).

Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 7

Documents

Transcript of Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 7