Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
By
Preliminaries: The LRA and the RD
3)
1.
4)
2.
3.
When there is more than one copy of the owners duplicate CT and not all
copies are presented
Where the voluntary instrument bears a patent infirmity on its face
Where the validity of the instrument sought to be registered is in issue in a
pending court suit (here, the remedy is to file a notice of lis pendens)
When the instrument is a private document (deeds of conveyance affecting
land should be notarized)
Who may apply in ordinary registration proceedings? (PD 1529 Sec 14)
1)
2)
5.
What must the applicant prove and how will he prove it?
i. That the land is alienable and disposable AT THE TIME of the
application for the registration of title (Republic v. CA)
1. This can be done by showing a positive act of the
government
(Pres.
Proclamation,
EO,
Law,
Certification of the CENRO/DENR)
ii. The identity of the land must be proven
1. Survey plan
2. Tracing cloth plan
3. Blue print copy (conflicting rules on whether the blue
print copy is enough, but to be safe, the blue print
copy only suffices if the tracing cloth plan is
attached)
4. Technical Description signed by the geodetic
engineer
iii. Proofs of Private Ownership (How the applicant traces his
title through his predecessors in interest)
1. Spanish Titles: Inadmissible as proof of ownership in
LR cases filed AFTER August 16, 1976
2. Tax Declarations (indication of possession only, and
they lose their value if the taxes are not regularly
paid OR if the land was acquired earlier but the land
was declared for taxes much later)
3. Deed of Sale
4. When legislature reserves land for specific purpose
or in favor of a juridical person/person
iv. What if the applicants ground is INITIALLY Sec 14(1)
but when it was denied, the applicant alternatively
used the ground of Sec 48 of CA 141?
1. Actually, this is a ground under CA 141 Sec 48
2. Possession must be adverse, continuous, open,
public, peaceful and in the concept of owner
PAGE | 1
6.
7.
9.
What happens once the petition is filed? (PD 1529 Sec 23)
8.
These persons must have an INTEREST in the land which must be based on
a right of dominion
Or some other real right independent from the government (it must not be
subordinate to that of the government, however)
o
Example
A homesteader who has not yet been issued his title BUT
has fulfilled all the conditions required by law to entitle
him to a paten
Note: Even if everyone is declared in default, it is still incumbent upon the
applicant to substantiate his claim to that portion with evidence, otherwise,
that uncontested/unproven portion will be declared public land
1)
Publication:
o
Once in the OG
o
Once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines
o
When defective?
2)
3)
What is the effect if the oppositors dont file on time? (PD 1529
Sec 26)
i. The court will order them to be in default (all allegations
deemed confessed)
What is the remedy of a person held in default? (REQUISITES)
i. He must file a motion to set aside an order of default
BEFORE judgment
ii. His failure to answer must be due to fraud, accident, mistake
excusable neglect
iii. He must have a meritorious defense
Is a motion to dismiss the application for registration or
application for opposition allowed?
i. Yes, because the rules of court can supplement PD 1529
ii. Example: An oppositor filing a motion to dismiss on the
ground of res judicata, meaning the court lacks jurisdiction
over the land applied for because it was already registered in
the name of another is VALID
PAGE | 2
2)
11. What happens after the trial court disposes of the case?
Sec 27: The trial court will dispose of the case w/in 90 days from the date
of submission
Sec 29:
The court will determine the conflicting claims of the
applicant/oppositor and will render judgment confirming title
o
In this case, the court will either rule in favor of the applicant or of
the oppositor
Sec 30: 15 days from notice of judgment of parties, the decision becomes
final
o
HOWEVER the court retains control/jurisdiction of the case until
expiration of 1 year AFTER entry of decree of registration
12. When may a writ of possession not be issued? (Ordinarily, after a land
registration case, the winner is entitled to a writ of possession as a
mere post judgment incident)
A writ of possession cannot be issued in a land registration case against a
person who entered the property after the issuance of the final decree
and who was not a party to the case (this person must be given his day in
court)
13. What is the decree of registration and the certificate of title?
Remember, it is pursuant to the order of a court that the Administrator of the
LRA prepares and issues a decree of registration, as per the orders of the court
(It is then that THIS will be sent to the RD for registration)
Case: The Admin of LRA is NOT obliged to issue a decree where, upon his
verification, he finds that the land has already been titled to anothers
name AND he cannot be compelled through mandamus because the
issuance of a decree is part of the judicial function
The original certificate of title, on the other hand, is the true copy of the
decree of registration
3)
PAGE | 3
4)
PAGE | 4
may
Applicant/Oppositor
registration Proceedings
in
Appeal
ONLY
the
applicant/oppositor
(must be a party in the trial)
Applicant/Oppositor
in
registration
proceedings
1.
1.
Claimant in cadastral
Grounds:
1.
2.
3.
Appeal to the CA
by filing a notice
of appeal with
the RTC
Reconveyance
Requisites:
1. Petitioner has real and
dominical right
2. He has been deprived
of that right
3. Deprivation
due
to
actual/extrinsic fraud:
fraud
committed
outside trial against
defeated party whereby
he is prevented from
fully presenting his side
of the case (like when
hes induced NOT to
oppose)
4. Property
has
not
passed to an IPV
1.
Other grounds:
No jurisdiction
Aggrieved
who was
land
party, one
deprived of
Fraud or mistake
Notes: prescription
If fraud/mistake, must
be done within 10 years
from issuance of decree
If by virtue of an
implied/constructive
trust, 10 years from
issuance
BUT
if
petitioner in possession,
imprescriptible
If by virtue of an
express/resulting trust,
imprescriptible
If basis is void K of sale,
imprescriptible
If patent and CT were
acquired in breach of
constructive/implied
trust (when a co-heir
obtains
title
over
portions of land not
belonging to him/tenant
obtained title on the land
he was tilling)
When can it be
filed?
Barring Effect:
PAGE | 5
Resulting trust presumed to have been contemplated by the parties, the intent found in the nature of the transaction, though not expressed in the deed or instrument of
conveyance; found in articles 1448-1455
Constructive trust: raised by construction of law, or by operation of law created not by intent, but by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice
Damages
Who may apply?
Aggrieved party
Grounds:
1.
Compensation from
Assurance Fund
Aggrieved party (filed against
the
party
responsible:
RD/National Treasurer)
REQUISITES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
When must it be
filed?
Aggrieved
party
sustained
loss/damage
or deprived of land
The loss or damage was
because the land was
brought
under
the
Torrens
system/arose
after registration
Loss due to fraud, error,
omission,
mistake
or
misdescription in any CT
or in any entry in the
registration book
Party is not negligent
He
is
BARRED
or
PRECLUDED under PD
1529 or any provision
of law from bringing
an action for recovery
of such land
Cancellation Suit
Quieting of Title
Reversion Suit
Instituted
by
the
Government through the
Solgen
1. A CT illegally issued
in the favor of an
individual or private
person: Free patent
illegally issued
2. When land patented
or titled is NOT
capable
of
registration
3. Alienation/sale
of
homestead
patent
executed within the
5 year period
4. When alien acquired
the land (Exception:
When its sold back
to another Filipino)
Imprescriptible
if
in
possession of the plaintiff
Case: Representing himself to be the registered owner, A sold a piece of land to B. B acquired a TCT which was declared void because the transfer was made by an
impostor. B cannot claim damage from the Assurance fund because the TCT was voided and it had no legal effect. It did NOT come under the Torrens system.
Case: It is a condition that the person who brings an action for damages against the Assurance Fund be the registered owner and as holders of TCTs, that they be
innocent purchasers in GF and for value
Sec 101: Assurance Fund will not compensate someone who has been caused loss, damage or deprivation due to a breach of trust whether express, implied or constructive,
or by any mistake in the resurvey
PAGE | 6
Case: An action for quieting of title is equivalent to an action for reconveyance of title wrongfully registered in anothers name. The existing title wrongfully issued to
another is cancelled.
a. Case: Examples would be a land that is covered by another certificate in the name of another person. Further, other claims like mortgages, rescinded contracts
of sale may also constitute clouds
Case (Manotok): Rules:
a. If two OCTs over the same land, OLDER TCT prevails
b. If two TCTs, trace back to their respective OCTs
i. The TCT that can be traced back to the older OCT wins
Evangelista v. Santiago: DIFFERENCE of Action for Declaration of Nullity and Reversion
An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the
allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified.
In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Hence, where the plaintiff in his
complaint admits that he has no right to demand the cancellation or amendment of the defendants title because even if the title were cancelled or amended the ownership
of the land embraced therein or of the portion affected by the amendment would revert to the public domain, we ruled that the action was for reversion and that the only
person or entity entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands (now DENR). DENR must be imp
On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiffs ownership of
the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendants fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining
these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the
land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefore is consequently void ab
initio. The real party-in-interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before
the grant of title to the defendant
PAGE | 7
To whom issued:
Requirements
Homestead Patent
To any Filipino citizen over 18
years old or head of a family
Free Patent
To any NATURAL born citizen of
the Philippines (extended until
12/31/2020)
Sales Patent
Citizens of the Philippines of
lawful age or head of the family
(not more than 12 ha)
Continuously
occupied
and
cultivated tracts of disposable
agricultural
land
by
himself/predecessor in interest
For at least 30 years before
March 28
Paid Taxes on the land
Limited to 12 hectares only
Restrictions
Right
repurchase
to
Lease
Any citizen of lawful age or any
corporation with 60% Filipino
capital stock may lease any tract
of agricultural land available for
lease
Once lease has been approved,
1/3
must
be
broken
and
cultivated
Corporations:
1000ha
not
to
exceed
full
Cavile: A Torrens title issued on the basis of the free patents become as indefeasible as the one which was judicially secured upon the expiration of one year from date of
issuance of the patent
o
PROVIDED (de Guzman v. Agbagala) the principle of indefeasibility does NOT apply when the patent and the title based thereon are NULL and VOID. In this
particular case, the DL issued a patent over PRIVATE land because the applicants claimed it was public. It produces no effects whatsoever.
o
PROVIDED (reiteration by Martinez v. CA): A CT issued on the basis of a free patent procured through fraud/in violation of the law may be canelled, as such
title is NOT cloaked with indefeasibility
Borromeo v. Descallar: Purchase of land by an alien is cured by a subsequent sale to a Filipino
PAGE | 8
20. What are the requirements for the judicial confirmation of imperfect
title?
The following may apply:
1)
2)
3)
19. What are the salient parts on the provision on land transfer patents?
(Sec 104-106 PD 1529)
The DA, pursuant to PD 27, will issue a Certificate of Land Transfer for
every land brought under Operation Land Transfer
o
2 Stages of Land transfer under PD 27
Filipino citizens who by themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of public domain under a
bona fide claim of acquisition since June 12,1945 or prior thereto or even
since time immemorial
Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors in interest have
been prior to Jan 25, 1977, in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under
a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership for at least 30 years, or at
least since Jan 24, 1947
Private corporations or associations which had acquired lands formerly part
of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain from Filipino
citizens who have possessed the same (in the same manner in 1&2)
o
Note: A private corporation may institute confirmation
proceedings under Sec 48(b) of the Public Land Act if at the time
of the institution of the registration proceedings, the land was
already private land (if the land was still public, the corporation
cannot institute)
o
Note: ALIENABLE (meaning it has been declared patrimonial by
government with a manifestation) public land held by a possessor
for 30 years with OCENO becomes private property ipso jure
Reconstitution:
21. What is reconstitution?
Reconstitution: denotes restoration of the instrument in its original form and
condition
1.
2.
3.
Cases:
Case: If the petition showed that one of the registered co-owners was
Pedro Pinote, the court could not receive evidence proving that Petra
Pinote is a registered owner
PAGE | 9
Sources:
For OCT (Sec 2 of RA 26): OCCADA
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Owners duplicate CT
Co-owners, mortgagees or lessees duplicate CT
Certified copy of the duplicate CT previously issued by the RD or
by a legal custodian
Authenticated copy of the decree of registration/patent which was
the basis of the certificate of title
Deed, mortgage, lease or encumbrance containing description of
the property covered by the CT on file with the RD OR an
authenticated copy thereof indicating that its original has been
registered
Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed title
e)
f)
Owners duplicate CT
Co-owners, mortgagees or lessees duplicate CT
Certified copy of the duplicate CT previously issued by the RD OR by
a legal custodian
Deed of transfer or other document containing description of
property covered by TCT OR an authenticated copy thereof indicating
the original had been registered and pursuant to which, the lost or
destroyed certificate of title was issued
Deed, mortgage, lease or encumbrance containing description of the
property covered by the CT on file with the RD OR an authenticated
copy thereof indicating that its original has been registered
Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed title
Case: As regards the last option (any other document), the applicant must
show that he sought to secure the PRIOR documents and FAILED to find them
22. What is the rule on notice?
Sources of AdminRecon
o
Owners duplicate CT
o
Co-owners, mortgagees or lessees duplicate CT
The LRA may review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm any decision of the
reconstituting officer of the RD
o
Remedy in LRA finding: to the CA by appeal
Any party who by FAME has been unjustly deprived or prevented from
taking part in the proceedings may file a petition in the proper court to set
aside the decision and to re-open the proceedings. (RTC)
o
It must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the
decision but not more than 6 months
Case:
PAGE | 10
26. What are the limitations on the courts authority in alteration cases?
PAGE | 11
o
How he acquired the right
o
Description of the right
o
Certificate of title number
Such statement must be signed and sworn before a notary public
The claimant shall state his residence or place to which all notices may be
served upon him
PAGE | 12
Balbuena v. Sabay: You are not a purchase in good faith if you buy the land
from a non-registered owner
Rural Bank of Pangasinan v. Manila Mission: The general rule is that a duly
annotated attachment is superior to an unregistered prior sale. HOWEVER,
where the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered
at that time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that sale is
equivalent to registration as to him. Basically, A duly registered levy on
attachment takes preference over a prior unregistered sale IF the attaching
creditor has no constructive/actual knowledge of the prior unregistered sale.
Phil Cotton Corporation v. Gagoomal: An annotation of an interest that DID
NOT appear in the reconstituted certificate of title requires a petition to be filed
in court. The RD cant just re-annotate a right that was not DULY noted in the
reconstituted title pursuant to its ministerial functions.
Erasusta v. CA: The title, which vests ownership (how the land was
acquired)can be collaterally attacked. It is only the piece of paper that cannot
be collaterally attacked
Eagle Realty v. Republic: The principle of indefeasibility does not apply where
fraud attended the issuance of the title. As such, a title issued based on void
documents may be annulled. Furthermore, prescription does not run against
the state. Additionally, companies engaged in the real estate business is
expected to exercise a higher standard of care and diligence in ascertaining the
status and condition of said property.
Amodia v. CA: If the land is registered under the Torrens system and it is sold
and the sale is registered under Act 3344, such is not considered registered and
does not come within the coverage of Art 1544 (double sales)
Manotok v. Barque: The administrative proceeding for reconstitution cannot
result into the cancellation of a CT. Furthermore, the LRA or the CA cannot
cancel titles. In an administrative reconstitution case, if it appears that the
property is already covered by a Torrens title, it should be dismissed subject to
judicial review. Remember that administrative reconstitution is essentially nonadversarial.
Lanuza v. de Leon: Prior unregistered sale over registered land takes
preference over a duly annotated levy on attachment because registration is
without prejudice to the better right of 3rd parties (act 3344)
PAGE | 13