civ - de los angeles - ltd 4

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 4

1/8

..il

LANDTITLESAND DEEDS(200s)

Alonso v. Cebu Country Club (417 S Il5)Friar lands are private or parrimonial propcrty of the govemment and canbe alienated only upon proper compliance with the requirements of ActI 120 or the Friar Lands Act.

Franco v. CA (418 S 60)

Under thc kod Regishatiotr Acg titlc to ploperty becomes irddeasibleafter thc srpiration of one ycar from elrtry of ilccrec of registratiotr-Here, Quintin Franco was registered owner of proprty since 1954. Uponhis deatlq his brother Miguel was appoinrcd Sp. Administrator. Hc filedan inventory of the Estate listing the whole property as bclooging toQuintin. However, in 1973, using a "General Power of Administration",he caused the tansfer of % of the property to himself through a summarypmceeding under Section I 12 which took all of4 days only. The SupremeCourt nrled that this uras not only impmper but fraudulent. Sec. 112contemplates corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only clericalbut not controversial. Besides, in filing the inventory, he judiciallyadmitted that Quintin owned the cntire property.

Mistice v. Naguiet (418 S 73)

Mistica sold a 2@ sq.m. Iot to Naguiat for P20,000 payablcr as followsF2,000 down and thc balancc in l0 years. If Naguiat is unable to pay thebakince in l0 years, the balance Shirll eard interest dt l2%.p.a. Afterpaying P3,000, Naguiat defaulted (although he claimed he was offering topay balance during the wake of Mistica but the heirs refised). Meanwhile,Naguiat was ablc to get a TCT in his name.' Heirs of Mistica sued forrescission under Art. ll9l and also pointed out that the title included anextra 58 sq.m.Thc SC ruled that whilc a review of thc dccree is no longer possiblc aftcrone year from entry of decrcc, an equitable rcmcdy is still availablc tothose wrongfirlly deprived of property. Land enoneously included in TCTmust be reconveyed in favor of true owner. However, such is not possiblein an ordinary action for rescission because that is tantamount to acollateral attack on the title.


2/8

Shopper's Paradise v. Roquc (419 S 93)

Wrcre a party has knowledgc of a prior oristing intcrcs (donatioo) whichis unegistqed at the timc hc acqufud a right thercto, his knowledge ofthat intercst would havc thc cffcct ofregistration as regards to him.

De la Cruz v. de la Cruz (4I9 S 648)

A pcrson dealing with rcgistercd land may safely rely upon the correctressof thc ccrtificste of title and thc law will in no way obligc him to gobchind ttre ccrtificatc to dctcrminc thc coldition of tbc tropaty.Republic v. Neri (424 S 67Q

Submission of the plan approvcd by the Director, Bureau of Lands is astatutory requirement which is mandatory.Dimaculangau v. Romasanta (424 S 88)

Although at the time of purchase, the notice of lis pendens annotated onthe title was already cancelle4 the buyers. were put on notice of alitigation. They should havc becn prr on guard as to thc possibility of anydefect thcrein since it did not mention that therc has been an enEy ofjudgrnent.Here, there was a question of whether the transaction *", " *" o. umortgage. After the seller rcsted her case, the buyer confessed judgrnenti.e., admitted that the intention lvas merely to mortgage. So, seller movedfor rendition ofjudgment. However, therc werc changes ofjudges until ajudge asked the parties to submit memo and set the case for preliminaryconference. When seller did not attend (because notice was sent to herlanycr wlro had dicd), thc judge dismisscd thc casc. Meanwhile, buyerdccided to rcsell thc propaty providcd thc notice of lis pendens would bcremoved. After the lawyer and rcal cstatc broker of new buyerDimaculangan helpcd, the notice was rcmoved.Meanwhile, the original seller moved to set aside order of dismissal andthe court confirmed that the original transaction was one of mortgage.


3/8

,(

In an action for reconveyance, the court held that Dimaculangan was notan innocent purchaser for valuc notwithstanding canccllation of lispcndem. HiJ consultant, lawyer ard broker was also thc lawyer of the-*igio"t Urryo who kncw ttrat tnc original transaction was onc ofmortgagc, and who likewise knew that the dismissal of the original casewas not on the merits.

Republic v. Alconala (427 S 611)

Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove (l) that the landforios part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of thc prblicd"mri and (b) thar thcy havc bcco in opcq cootinuous, atchsivc mdnotorious posscssion and occupation of thc samc rmder a bona fidc claimof ownership either sincc timc immemorial or sincc 12 Junc 1945'Occupation means actual possession. There must be manifestation of actsofdominion over it such as introduction of improvements. Bare assertionsof possession and occupation by prcdecessors are hardly the "well-nighincontrovertible" evidence requiied in cases of this nature.While belated declaration of properly for tax purposes does not necessarilynegale fact of possessioq tax declaration or realty tax payments are goodindicia ofpossession in the concept ofowner.

Srcdahn v. CA (428 S 586)'The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrcns Title does not apply wherefraud ancnded thc issuancc of a titlc - thc Torrens Title does not fumish ashield for fraud.

Republic v. CA (432 S 593)

Forcshore land rernains part of ttrc public domain and iscommcrce of man. It is not capable of private appropriatiop. outside the


4/8

4' Abrigo v. De Vera (432 S 544)A doublc salc of immovables tsansfcrs owncrship to (l) thc first rcgistrantin good faith, (2) thsL thc first possessor in good ftith, (3) firdly' tbbuyer who in gogd faith prcscnts the oldest title.A registration must bc donc in thc proper rcgistry in ordcr to bind the lad'If th-e pmperry in dispute is rcgistered under the Torrcns System'regisration of the sate under Act 3344 is not effective for purposes ofAd1544 ofthe Civil Code.ConstructivenoticetothesecondbuycrthroughregistrationunderAct3344 docs not apply if the property is rcgistered undcr ttrc Tonens System'

FostenGellcgo v. Galang (435 S 2?5)

Any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who arenoiparties to the action' Suits lo quiet title arc actions quasi-in rern ardthe judgment in such proceedings iJconclusive only between the parties tothe action.

Morandarte v. CA (436 S 213)

Justastheoldbedhadbeenofpublicdominionbeforetheabandonment'the new riverbed shall likewise be ofpublic dominion

Diaz-Enriquez v. Rcpublic (437 S 3ll)Therc are two facts that the applicarit must prove to support an applicationfor regisEation - the first is oat ttrc land sought to be registered is thesamelanddescribedintheapplication.Thesecondisthattheapplicantmust be the owner of the land.


5/8

Apuyan v. Haldcman (438 S 402)

Whcrc pctitioncr has not complicd rnith tlrc requircments of continuousoccupation and cultivation of pmpcrty, hc is not qualifiod to apply for afiee patentA certificatc of tittc issucd on thc basis of a frcc patcnt that is procuredthrough fraud may bc canccllcd and the indefeasibility of title is nodefense.

Tancuntian v. Gempesaw (440 S 431)

An ordirary action for dcclaraioo of nullity of frec patcat md ccrtificdcof title is not thc samc as an action for rerrcrsion In tbc ldter, thecomplaint would adrnit slate owncrship of thc lmd, In the formcr, this isnot necessarily so as in the casc of an isstancc of a patent oner priva-tcland.

Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic (44f S f88)

Sec. 44 of the Public Land Act applies to free patents, and not to judicialconflrmation of an imperfect title to which Sec. 48 (b) applies.

Bongolan v. CA (441 S 553)

A transfer ccrtificatc of titledocuments.

bc annullcd if issued based on void

Gamos i. Frando (447.S 136)Private pcrsons may gain title to agriculture lands of thc public domain byvirtuc of public grant, adversc procession (or prescription), accrction and- in ccrtain cases - rcclamationThe Director of L^and has no authority to grant to a third person a patcntcovering land that has alrcady passed to private ownership.

may


6/8

Republic v. CA (448 S d42)

Tlrcre are no matcrial diffcrenccs between Sec. l4(l) of P.D. 1529 andScc. 48(b) ofthe Public Land ActEvcn if posscssion of alicnablc public land cotrmcnccd on a date latcrthan June t2, t945, and such posscssion having becn open, continuou andexclusivg then the possessor may have the right to register the land byvirtue of Section l4(2) of P.D. 1529.

Sansorjo v. Quijano (449 S 15)

A pcrson acquiring propcrty through fraud becomcs by opcrarion of law atrustec of an implicd trust for the bencfit of tbc rcal owner of thc propcrty.The prescriptivc pctiod for an implied trust fotndcd on an allcgation offraud is l 0 yeam counted from the time thq certificate of title was issued.

Lopez v. Enriqucz (449 S 173)

A motion to lift the order of general fraud in land registration proceedingsshould be frled before the entry of final judgment

Lapanday v. Estita (449 S 240)Under the Public Land Act, the management and disposition of publiclands is under thc primary control of the Diredtor of L,ands, subject toreview by thc DENR Sccretary

Republic v. Manna (450 S 247)

Lands that fall under Sec. 48 of the Public Land Act are effectivelyscgregated from the public domain by virtue of acquisitive prescriptionJudicial confirmation in such cases is only a formality that mcrclyconfirms thc carlier conversion of the land iDto private land, theconversion h3ving occurred in law from the moment the required pcriod ofprcscription became complete.


7/8

. Republic v. Hubilla (451 S l8f)By way of exccptioq a certified true copy of thc blue print of tbe suvcyplan approvcd by thc Dirctor of L^ands was admittcd during tEgistrationp@ings. Anyway, during appeal, the tracing cloth was srbmittcd withthe Court of Appea.ls, and thc blue print was found to bc an aact copythereof.

De Pedro v. Romasan (452 S 564)

An action for recovery of possession of a propcrty and damages is not adirect, btrt, a collatcral attack, on a certificatc of title.Lim v. Churtoco (453 S 308)

It is a familiar doctriac that a forged document may become &e root of avalid title if the property has already been transferred from the name oftheowner to that ofa forger. And is then acquired by an innocent purchasefor value.Premier Development Bank v. CA (453 S 630)

A purchaser cannot be in good faith where the title shows that it wasreconstituted.A bank rrytich is in the busincss of cxtcnding loaru scctred by real cstateeortgagq is familiar with rules on- land registatio4 is oEccted toorercisc 6oFe carc and prudcncc than privarc individuals in dcaling withregistercd lands:

Acabal v. Acabal (454 S 555)

Thc isstc of good faith or bad faith of a buycr is relcvant only where thcsbject of sale is registercd land butnot when property is an unregistercdland.


8/8

'- r' ' ..'l 't ""' ',':' . Grringrn v. Garing.n (4SS $.1g0) tftc aard- coataqitGd in scc, 3g of Act ag6 pfus to atsinsic 6collacral fiaudltc attcgdion ta acnOcr3egf&n oor hil reod scsor hls cwrboca in ct,al poction of G pnogcrty sfnoc ti#iorcmo,it does-;constitute orlrinsic ft ard.

la$rra.o.toaau l*wltad $tlqand dc.ds OW)

civ - de los angeles - ltd 4

Documents