GR No.

179155 April 2, 2014

NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, petitioner vs. EULALIA BRACEWELL ET AL., respondents
FACTS:
Petitioner Nicomedes Lozada filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land covered by
Plan PSU-129514, which was granted by the RTC-Makati City, acting as a land registration court. The Land Registration
Authority (LRA) consequently issued a Decree in the name of petitioner, who later obtained Original Certificate of Title
covering said parcel of land. Subsequently, respondent James Bracewell filed a petition for review of the decree of
registration under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree
before the RTC-Las Pinas City, claiming that a portion of the aforementioned Plan of which he is the absolute owner and
possessor, is fraudulently included in the earlier mentioned Decree.
The RTC-Las Pinas City rendered a Decision finding that petitioner obtained the Decree in bad faith. Accordingly, it
directed the LRA to set aside said Decree and ordered petitioner to cause the amendment of the said Plan. Aggrieved,
petitioner elevated his case on appeal before the CA arguing mainly that the RTC-Las Pinas City had no jurisdiction over
a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529, which should be filed in the same branch of
the court that rendered the decision and ordered the issuance of the decree. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC-Las
Pinas, finding that respondents were able to substantiate their claim of actual fraud in the procurement of said Decree,
which is the only ground that may be invoked in a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of PD
No. 1529. It likewise held that, since the petition for review was filed within one (1) year from the issuance of the
questioned decree and considering that the subject lot is located in Las Pinas City, the RTC of said city had jurisdiction
over the case. With the motion for reconsideration denied, petitioner thus sought relief via the instant petition for review
challenging primarily the jurisdiction of the RTC-Las Pinas City.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC of Las Pinas City has jurisdiction over the petition for review of the Decree.
RULING:
Yes, the RTC of Las Pinas City has jurisdiction over the petition for review of the Decree.
Under Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act, as amended, which was the governing law at the time of the
commencement by both parties of their respective registration proceedings, jurisdiction over all applications for
registration of title was conferred upon the RTCs of their respective provinces in which the land sought to be registered is
situated. The land registration laws were updated and codified under PD NO. 1529 and under Section 17 thereof,
jurisdiction over an application for land registration is still vested on the RTC of the province or city where the land is
situated. Basically, Section 32 of PD No. 1529 provides that any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest
therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud may file in the proper Court of First Instance a
petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry
of such decree of registration.
As the land subject of this case is clearly situated in Las Pinas City, the application for its original registration should have
been filed before the RTC-Las Pinas City.










GR No. 187973 January 20, 2014
LZK HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner vs. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK,
respondent
Facts:
Petitioner LXK Holdings obtains a loan from respondent Planters Bank on December 16, 1996 and secures the same with
a Real Estate Mortgage over its lot located in La Union which measures 589 square meters and is covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-45337.
Subsequently, the lot is sold at a public auction after respondent bank extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage
thereon due to petitioners failure to pay its loan. Respondent bank emerges as the highest bidder during the auction sale
and its certificate of sale is registered accordingly.
Petitioner files before the RTC-Makati City a complaint for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure, mortgage contract,
promissory note and damages. Likewise, it prays for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin the consolidation of title over the lot by the respondent bank.
Respondent bank subsequently files an ex parte motion for the issuance of writ of possession with the RTC-San
Fernando. Three (3) days before the expiration of respondent banks redemption period, the RTC-Makati City issued a
TRO effective for 20 days enjoining respondent bank from consolidation its title over the property. The trial court ordered
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for the same purpose but said writ was issued only upon the respondent
banks posting of a bond.
Meantime, the respondent bank succeeds in consolidating its ownership over the property. However, the proceedings for
its ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession is suspended by the RTC-San Fernando in view of the TRO
and writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC-Makati City which prompts respondent bank to move for
reconsideration but is denied by the RTC-San Fernando.
On the other hand, upon motion of petitioner, the RTC Makati City declares as null and void the consolidated title of
respondent bank and which the Court of Appeals affirmed. Respondent bank further appealed the Order of the RTC-San
Fernando which held in abeyance the resolution of its ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession which the
Court of Appeals granted and accordingly annulled said Order. Hence, a petition for review is filed before the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent bank may apply for and is entitled to a writ of possession as the purchaser of the property in
the foreclosure sale.
Ruling:
Yes.
A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. Particularly,
it commands a sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the person entitled under the judgement. It may be
issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by
Act No. 4118.
Under said provision, the writ of possession may be issued to the purchaser in a foreclosure sale either within the one-
year redemption period upon filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a bond.
Well discussed in our jurisprudence that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ is
issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. Any
question regarding the regularity and validity of the sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be
determined in a subsequent proceeding as provided in Section 8 of Act No, 3135. Such question cannot be raised to
oppose the issuance of the writ, since the proceeding is ex parte. The recourse is available even before the expiration the
redemption period provided by law and the Rules of Court.




GR No. 192717 March 12, 2014
MINDA S. GAERLAN, petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
FACTS:
Petitioner Minda S. Gaerlan filed an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land situated in Cagayan De
Oro City, alleging that she acquired said property from a certain Mamerta Tan by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale of
Unregistered Land and accordingly had the property declared for taxation under her name. The trial court, finding said
application sufficient in form, set the case for initial hearing. Subsequently, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) filed an Opposition to said application for registration on the ground, among others, that neither petitioner
nor her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the subject Land since June 12, 1945or earlier and that the tax declarations do not constitute competent and sufficient
evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the subject land.
The trial court granted petitioners application for registration of title. The OSG appealed from said decision asserting that
the trial court erred in ruling that the subject parcel of land is available for private appropriation. The CA reversed the trial
courts Decision and dismissed the application for registration of title, finding that petitioner failed to present any proof to
establish that the subject land is alienable and disposable. The CA enunciated, among others that the petitioner must
prove that the DENR Secretary has approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable and that the land subject of the application falls within the approved area per verification through
the survey of the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources (PENRO) or Community Environment and Natural
Resources (CENRO).
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioners application for registration of title.
RULING:
No, the CA did not err in dismissing petitioners application based on the insufficiency of the evidence presented and the
incomplete requirements.
PD No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree in relation to Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.141, as amended
by Section 4 of PD No. 1073 specifies those who are qualified to apply for registration of land i.e., those who by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Moreover, under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State.
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership is on the person applying for registration who must
prove that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable. To prove that the land is alienable, an applicant
must establish the existence of positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order,
an administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Land Investigators, and a legislative act or statute. The
applicant may secure a certification from the government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable but said
certification must likewise show that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the same as
alienable and disposable, and that the same must fall within the approved area per verification of the PENRO or CENRO.