civ - de los angeles - ltd 5

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 5

1/8

u


2/8

Possession, to ripen into ownership, must b open, actual, and 7. Ocular inspaction - improvements, lots owne6, adjacentcontinuoug thcc Jun 12, 1945 or earlier and musl b6 physical and owner. Thrn the court will prepare a report.material and not casual (e.9., going to the property once a yar.) 8. HearingiTrial -the applicant must prove three things:A Forest land is a non-registrable land, Only the executive branch ofthe government xan declassify a forest land into alienable a. Proof of publicatton (jurisdictional matte0agricultural lands. Mere payment of land taxes is not sufficient, ,t b. prolf of ownershipmust be coupled with possession in the concept of an owner. c. Proof of identity of landPROCESS OF REGISTRATION OF LAND Oppositor can introduce evidence to support opposition -.. rebuttal evidenco.

1 . Survey - results rn survey plan to be signed by ageodetic engineer and approved by the director of 9. Decision - three situations:Lands. a, court decide in favor of applicart2. File application for registration with RTO where land is b. court decides in favor of oppositor/sactually situated; c. court dismisses the case because nobodyproves.ownershipa. ldentity basis o, ownershipb, ldentify land 10. Court issues order for a Decreec. ldentify adjacent ownerd. ldentify occupantsi/tenants 11. lssuance Decreee. ldentifyencumbrances 12. Registr of Deeds lddues Original Certificate of Title3. Setting of initial hearing REMEDIES4. Publication/8osting (must precede initial hearing r rotherwise court without .iurisdiction) I . From an Order of Default

5. oppositor files verified opposition on or before hearins " 3:;:li, j;:i'j"hfl""r",,1fjr:irj,ff THff6. Otherwise, court issues order of general default OR if and excusable negligence.the oppositor attends the hearing but h6 Coes not file b. Atter decision - petition for relief on the groundsopposition, the court may grant extension but if at that of fraud, accident, mistake and negligence.time, still no opposition, the court will order a specialdefault. 2. From a Decision


3/8

a. The losing party may file a motion forreconsideration on the ground that the decisionig contrary to lawevidnce, lt must be filedWthin 15 days from receipt, otherwise thedecision becomes final.b. the losing party may lile a motion for new trial onthe grounds of fraud, accident, mistake andexcusable negligence or a newly discovered' evidence. lt must be filed within 15 days.c. The losing party may appeat on the ground thatthe decision is contrary to lawevidence. lt maybe filled within 15 days.

As a general rule, the party must file either a motion forreconsideration or a motion for new trial (Omnibus motionrule, put all grounds). lf there is newly discovered evidenceafter filing a motion for reconsideration and the party is notaware of it at the time of hearing, and if it was denied, thepart can file a motion for a new trial. lf the motion for a newtrial is dnied, the party may stil, appeal.3. From a Final Judgrnent - decision becomes final after thelapse of 15 days.

Where a decree has not yetrbeen issued, the losing party may file apetition for reliel under rule 38 of the Rules of Courl on the groundsof fraud, accident, mistake, and excusable negligonce. lt must beverified and filed 60 days from notice but no morg than 6 monthsfrom entry of decision.

Failure to intentional omission of applicant to disclose theactual physical possession of property in application for landregistration, as a result of which such person is not given notice ofproceedings, amounts to actual fraud. (Extrinsic fraud where itprevents a party from having a trial. ) (Roxas v. CA, 270 SCRA 209).

Where a decree has already been issued, the losing party may file apetitron for review under Sec. 32, PD 1529 on the ground ofdeprivation of dominical rights over the land thru aclual and extrinsicfraud. lt must be filed within I year from issuance of the decreeprovided there is no innocent purchaser for value (lpv). An lpv isone who buys the property without knowledge of any defect in thetitle AND pays lust price for the land.However, if more than one year has elapsed, the losing party mayfile an action for reconveyance on the ground that the person lostdominical rights over the property because of extrinsic fraud orbreach of trust, provided there is no lPV.So reconveyance is:

where a person is deprived of land because ofactual fraud or breach of trust, he may recover theland:i. within 4 years from discovery of fraud wherethere is need to annul a fraudulent deed (i.e.fraud is thru document or contract)ii. within 10 years from breach ot an impliedtrust if aggrieved party is not in possessionof land (because i, aggrieved party in, possession of land, auction is to quiet ti er which is imprescriptibte, pabrera v. CA , 267scRA 339)iii. at any time if there is breach os an expresstrust.

PROVIDED land is not transferred to an innocenl purchaserfor value.But if already sold to lPV, the only remedy for the losing party is tofile an action for damages against the perpetrato, of ,raud wilhin 4


4/8

years. He will not get the land back, only the value of the land plusdamags.So damages ar awarded when there is unlawful deprivation of land,no negligence of the party deprived, reconveyance is not possible,and action is filed within four years.lf the perpetrator of fraud is insolvent the losing party may file anaction for damages against the Assurance Fund within 6 yearsprovided there is no negligence and breach of trust.NOTE:lnnocent purchaser for value

no notice of flaw or claim ol other pr8onpays a full and fair pricemust examine the seller's duplicate certificate of title(lslamic Directorale v. CA,272 SCRA 254)As a general rule, a final decision with publication binds all parties inrem, therefore, binds the whole world. Persons (oppositors andsquatters) can be evlcted/ousted by a mere writ of possession fromcourl. lf a person eniers before the issuance of the decree. theowner can evict lhe oerson thru a writ of oossession. But if a oersonenters after th6 issuance of the decree. the owner must file aneiectment suit. tCertificate of TilleAn Original Certificate of Title is evidence of title, that the land isregistered under the Torrens System. lt is issued in two coDieg: oneorhinal which is uJ:lh the Reqister of Deeds and one duolicate for tlgreoistered owner,Conflicting certificates - prior title prevails unless defective

1 . AmendmentsAmendments can be done summarilv under Sec. 108 of PD 1529 if:- registored interest terminates or there is error

in ce rtificate- no serious dispute as to error of change of status- does not amount to reopening- does not impair rights of innocent purchassr.But if there is a substantial change in the OCT or the chanqe isdisouted. the oartv must oo thru the ordinarv reoistfation oroceedino.E.9.

1. change from 16 degrees to 18 degrees - cannot be changedsummarily under Sec. 108 because this is a substantialchange. File an ordinary proceeding.2. typographical error - change from 'Joaquin Beeernas" to"Joaquin Bernas."3. change from "Sed Cande, married to Ana Santos" to "SedCande." lf wife ob.iects, Sec. 108 is not applicable. lt must' go thru a full-blown hearing.

2. Reconstitutionlf a duqlicate OCT ir lost. one mav file an action for roelacement. lfthe orioinal OCT is lost. one mav file for an action of reconstitution. lfa title has been reconstiluted, anyone dealing with the title mustexercise extraordinary diligence to be deemed an lPV.Petition must notifv occuoants, adiacent owners and adverseclaimants bv oublication. oostino anq Dersonal notices. Otherwise,reconstituted title is voirJ.Where brother-in.-lavv pretends to be the registered owner of theIand, files for reconstitution, obtains reconstituted certificate and


5/8

mortgages to another, mortgagee has no better right than mortgagorespecially vyhers true registered owner still has copy of his TCT(Torres v. Ca, 186 SCRA 167)3. Double Sale .A sale affects third persons onlv from date of resistration. Under Art.'1544 of the Civil Code, ownership passes to buyer in good faith whofirst records the sale in registry of property.Notice of adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interestof a person over a piece of land and serves as a warning to thirdpersons dealing with said property that someone is claiming aninterest thereon. (Sajonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79). But notice muststate how and under whom the alleged right of claimant acquired.(Lozano v. Ballesteros, 195 SCRA 681). Adverse claim effectiveonce entered in a dav book even if owner's duplicate notsurrendered. (Garcia v. CA, 95 SCRA 380).SUBSEOUENT REGISTRATION (,.e., the land is already titled andyou deal with it)Note: there is registration of voluntary transactions (sale, mortgage,etc.) once deed entered in day book AND registrant surrendersownde/s duplicate certificate and pays fees.

1. MortgagoA mortgage is deemed reoistered if the mortoage is entered inthe dav book even if it is not annotated at the back of th title.Therefore, a buyer is bound by mortgage. Latest SC decision;

entry of mortgage in day book = registration

An adverse claim has a life of 30 davs. othBrwise, it lapses. Anatfidavit of adverse claim must be entered at once into the davbook so that the subsequent buyer is constructively bound. lncase of double sale, the oerson cannot invoke reoistration inqood faith as mentioned in Nt. 1544 of th Civit Code of thePhilippines when there is a lis oendens annotated at the backof the title. Filing of an action may take time.CHAIN OF TIMEThis is an exception to the cival law doctrine that the stream cannotbe higher than the source, i.e., even if the seller has no ti e, thebuyer can have titl6. So foroed document can be the root of a val;dtitle.The parties who lorged th deed and simulated the signatures ofother parties are in bad faith and the forged deed is a nullity andcannot serye as a just title (Reyes v. CA, 258 SCM 651).Example # 1TITLE

X- registered owner of TCT 12345VALID

z-VALID

gos to us, so gives title toI isnd Yntrusted to by x iforges X's signature in deed of saleof land in Y's favor, Y gets TCT 12346from Register of Deeds(Y is a torger, therefore, Y has avoid title)Y sells land to Z as IPV

voto

2. Advorse Claims or Lis Pendans


6/8

Z registers land and gets TCf 12347Z has a valid titleX returns and asks Y for title and learns the sale of land to Z. Xcannot recovor from Z because as between two persons, the onewho caused the loss and who is deemed negligent must suffer.Remedv of X is to file an action aoainst Y for damaoes. But if Z.has not vet obtrained title. X can recover from 4Example # 2X- owns TCT 12345Y- misrepresents to Z that he is X and sellsland to Z

Z- if Z gets title TCT 12347 --r title is VOID; ZGneoliqent because he has the dutv to find out that the seller isthe reoistered owner. therefore. X can recover the oropertv fromZ. Also if the price of the property is suspiciously low. There is nochain of title since Y did not get any tille in his name, therefore, Zhas no title also.Example # 3

Y forges the deed of sale but does not register it to get anew litle. Y Fhows to Z. Z buys. Y makes deed of title in favof of Z. Xcan recover the prooertv from Z because there is no chain of title. Asbetween 2 persons, the one who should shoulder the loss is the onewho is negligent. ln this example, Z is negligent. Note that X musthave a valid title in the first place, otheMise, there can be NO chainof title but land is mortgaged, X can recover trom Z but must respectthe mortgago.

Cases on Chain of Title

Duran v. IAC138 SCRA 48SCirce owned two lots. She left for the U.S. Later, a deed of sale wasmade in favor of Circ's mother, which deed was registered. Circe'smother then mortgaged the lots. When Circe learned about this, shewrote the register Of dseds that she never executad the deed of saleto her mother. ln the meEntime, the mortgagee has foreclosed.When Circe's mother ,ailed to redeem, the mortgagee obtained titlein its name. Circe claimed her signature in the deed was forgery.HELD: While Article 2085 of the Civil Coe requires ownership by themortgagor of the land to make the mortgage valid, insofar as thirdparties are concorned, Circe's mother was the registered owner. lt isa oeneral rule that there is no dutv to look bevond the certificate oftitle. The mortoaoe is in oood faith. lt acouired title. Circe did noteven intervene in the foreclosure sale. She was neolioent.Tinio-Obsequio v. CA, 230 SCRA 550It has ben consistently held that a forged deed can legally be theroot of a valid titte when an innocent purchasar for value inervenes.A deed ot sale was executed by an impostor without the authority ofthe owner of the land Eold is a nullity, and registration will notvalidate what otherwise is an invalid document. However, where thecertificatB of title was alreadv trqnsferred from the name of the trueowner to the foroer and. while it remained that wav. the land wassubseouently sold to an innocent ourchaser. the vendee had therioht to relv uoon what aopeared in the certificate and in the absenceof anvthino to excite suspicion. was under no oblioation to lookbevond the cerlifieat6.

Suruey of Recent Caaes on Land Titles and Doeds


7/8

Notices to owners of adjoining lots and actual occupants of thesubject property are not mandatory and jurisdictional in petition forjudicial roconstitution of destroyed OCT when the source of suchreconstitution is the owner's duplicate copy thereof (Republic v.Planes, 381 SCRA 215).Reqistratron is nalESulyelCllgl-tllle. Under the Torrens System,registration only gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien uponthe land. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled tothe protection of law, for the law cannot be used as a shield for fraud.(Lee v. Manipon, 381 SCRA 788)Anv lien annotated on Eevious certificates of title should beincoroorated in or carried over to the ne\,v certificate of title. Such lienis inseparable from the property as it is a right in rem. (PadconCondo Corp. v. Ortigas center, 382 SCRA 222).It requires more than a party's bare allegation to defeat the OCTwhich on its face eniovs the leoal Dresumotion of reoularitv ofissuance. (Alvarico v. Sola, 383 SCRA 232).A orivate individual mav not brino an action for reversion (ld.)Historicalty, lands reclaimed by government are not available for saleto private parttes unlike other alienable public lands #elEimgdlands retain their inherent Dotential as areas for oublic use or DUblicseryice (Chavez v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152). rJurisprudence holding that the orant of Datent of issuance ofcertaficate of title the alienable land of the oublic dompinautomaticallv becomes Drivate land gAnnot aoolv to oovernmentunites and entities like PEA. (ld.)Such lands must be transferred to disqualified Drivate Da4ieg oro6iernnrent uiilities not tasred to disoose of oubtic lan-ds.beforetlrese lands can become private or oatrimonial lands. (ld.)

A building in good faith is one who builds with the beliefs that theland he is building on is his. (Orquiola v. CA, 386 SCRA 301).An action to ouit titlG mav be brouaht when there exists a cloud onthe title to real orooertv or anv interest thereon.. (Gapacan v. Omipet,387 SCRA 383).Once a parcel is included within a watershed reservation dulyestablished by Executive Prociamation, a presumotion arises that theland contrnues to b6 part of such reservation - and is inalienable -until clear and convincino evidence of subseouent declassification isshown. (Collado v. CA, 390 SCRA 343).The rioht of reversion or reconvevance to the State of publicproperties registered and which are not capabl of privateappropriation does not prescribe. (ld.)Persons dealino with prooertv covered bv a Torrens certificate ofti!!C-as buyers or mortgages, are not reouired to oo befond whataooears on the face of the title. (De Leon v. Calalo, 391 SCRA 752).Mere-AEJeISe-pgSSgSCiEfor a period provided by law wouldautomaticallv entitle the oossessor to the riqht to reoister Dublic landin his name - but ha has to @character of the land bv a oositive act ofqovernment such as apresidential proclemation, executive order, an administrative action,investigation reports of lha Bureau of Lands, legislative act orcertification of the DENR (Republic v. CA, 392 SCRA 190).The State rrohibits the sale or encumbrance of lhe homqslgq.dlithinIlyeJqgIg ifter the orant of oatent. (Republic v. Alejaga, 393 SCRA361)Even after :he lapse of one year, the State mavgino action iorreversion if oublic land has been fraudulentlv qranted.lld.)


8/8

When a p.rty hrr actual knowledge of facts End circum8tancB thatwould imprl a r.asonably cautious man to make inquiry, rolying onthe face ol the title i3 not enough. (Naawan Com. Rural Bank v. CA,39s SCRA 43)Cancellation of titles case cannot be orooerly dismissed on theoround of forum shoooino predicated on filino and oendino of adamage case. (UP v. Susi, 397 SCRA 365)A survev of land subject of an application for registration is anessential reouisite.(Dolino v. CA, 401 SCRA 695)A certification of title cannot.be subiect of collateral 8$ack. (Anicetev. Ealanon, 402 SCRA 514)Ownership is not th6 same as@ownershio. (Erman v. Erman, 403 SCRA 193)An action is an attack on a title when the object of the action is tonullify the title and thus challenge the judgment or proceedingpursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is dlrect when theuirject of an irclrJrr iJ ti a:'lnirl c: 3et sside such il^igrnent oi ei Lioir r iisenforcement. (ld.)A counter-claim can be considered a direct attack on the title. (ld.)

IThe one-year period does not apply when the person seekingannulmenl of title @r re-conveyance is in possession of the lot. (ld.)Absence of opposition from government_agencies ls of no momentbecause the State cannot be estopped bv the elnission. mistake orerror of its officials and aoents. (Republic v. Lac, 405 SCRA 291)Declassification of forest land and conversion into alienable landrequires an express and positive act from the government. (ld.)

lf the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not lost or destroyed,there is nothing to rsconltitute. The reconstitution proceedings andsecond owner's duplicate certificate of title are void. (Pinda v. CA,409 SCRA 438)No valid TCT can issue from a void TCT unless an innocentpurchaser for value has intervened. (ld.)But the nullity of th scond duplicate TCT did not affect the validityof the sale belween spouses Benitez and Mojica nor the validity of amortgage annotated therson ,f the mortgage annotatsd the mortgagein good faith. What b void is the reconstituted TCT, not the title ofownership of Mojica or Gonzales. (ld.)The fact that the oiginal owner (Mojica) had knowledge of a firstunregistered mortgage did not constitute actual notice to the secondmortgagee (Gonzales), absent proof that the latter had actualknowledge of such unregistered mortgage. The subsequentannotation of lis pendens does not defeat the rights of the mortgagee(Gonzales) who registBred his mortgage when the notice of lispendens was not yet annotated or the purchaser at the auction salewho derives his rights trom the mortgagee. The rule is that theauction sale ret occ'ls to ihe date ef thc :'csistraticn Df lhe mortgage.(td.)Where calim of possession of land started in 1962, such is notsufficient basis to apply for registration of luch land which underPD1073 and 1529 should have started in June 12, 1945 or earlier.(Nadela v. City of Cebu, 411 SCRA 315)The private parties are precluded from claiming ownorship of theland in dispute as the issue of ownership by UP haB long beensettled in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and havetherefore become incontestable. (Pael v. CA, 415 SCRA 451)

civ - de los angeles - ltd 5

Documents