LTD DOCTRINES

1. PEOPLE VS CELIS

Requisites for Original Registration of Title To The Land

 Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree tells us who may, or what is necessary
to, apply for the original registration of title to land. It provides:

Section 14. Who may apply - The following persons may file in the proper Court
of the First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) an application for registration of
title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) Those 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 the public domain under a
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription

under the provisions of existing laws.

Application under Section 14(1) / Possession Since Time Immemorial

 Under the aforequoted Section 14(1), an applicant for the registration of title over a
parcel of land must establish possession thereof under a bona fide claim of ownership,
·by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, since June 12, 1945 or earlier, and
that the property sought to be registered is alienable and disposable.
 Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic has clarified that said Section 14 (1)
requires possession since June 12, 1945, albeit it does not require that the lands
should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession.
Hence, a possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his title over what
was once a piece of land of the public domain as soon as it is declared alienable
disposable. In other words, what is important is that the subject property has
already been declared alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of the
application and that the applicant can prove possession ·since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.
(But the nagging reality is that there is no substantive evidence showing that the said
possession started on June 12, 1945 or earlier. Further, respondent failed to submit
sufficient evidence proving that the subject property is alienable and disposable.)

Applicant Must Show Approval of DENR Secretary Besides CENRO Certificate

 T.A.N. Properties, Inc. requires the applicant
1.) to show 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 for registration falls within the approved area per
verification through survey by the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Office or CENRO.
2.) to present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

CENRO Certificate Without DENR Secretary’s Approval is INSUFFICIENT

 Republic v. San Mateo, thus:
x x x A CENRO certification that a certain property is alienable, without the
corresponding proof that the DENR Secretary had approved such
certification, is insufficient to support a petition for registration of land. Both
certification and approval are required to be presented as proofs that the land is
alienable. Otherwise, the petition must be denied.

Application Under Section 14 (2) / Acquisition Through Prescription

 Under Section 14(2), those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
prescription under the provisions of existing laws are qualified to apply for original
registration.

All things Within The Commerce Of Men May Be Acquired Through

Prescription Except Property Of the State Not Patrimonial In Character
 The Civil Code provisions on prescription tell us that all things which are within the
commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, except, among others, property of
the State not patrimonial in character. On this basis, this Court clarified in
Malabanan that a person may acquire ownership by prescription and, thus, apply for
registration under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree only when the
land involved is patrimonial property, a term defined in Article 421 in relation to
Article 420 of the Civil Code as property of the State which is not intended for public
use, public service, or for the development of national wealth.

Requisites Under Section 14 (2)

 There must be, as Malabanan held, an express declaration by the State that the public
dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the
national wealth or that the property has been controverted into patrimonial. In other
words, there must be a formal declaration of the withdrawal of the subject property
from the public dominion. Without such declaration, the property, even if classified
as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion and, thus,
incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is only when such alienable and disposable
lands are expressly declared by the state to be no longer intended for public service or
for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription
 can begin to run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly
authorized by law.

 Hence, it is clear that to be qualified under Section 14(2), a registrant must be able to
show not only
(1) that the subject property is alienable or disposable but also that the
same is patrimonial property of the state,
(2) no longer intended for public use or service or for the development of
national wealth.

2. REPUBLIC VS DOLDOL

 The original Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141 provided for possession and occupation of
lands of the public domain since July 26, 1894. This was superseded by R.A. No.
1942,[2] which provided for a simple thirty year prescriptive period of occupation by
an applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The same, however, has
already been amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, approved on January 25,
1977. As amended, Section 48(b) now reads:
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier,
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of
title, except when prevented by wars or force majeure. Those shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the
provisions of this chapter. (Italics ours)
 Thus, in the aforecited Republic vs. CA case, we stated that the Public Land Act
requires that the applicant must prove (a) that the land is alienable public land and (b)
that his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the
same must either be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public
Land Act. When the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor of the
land, by operation of law, acquires a right to a grant, a government grant, without the
necessity of a certificate of title being issued.

3. REPUBLIC VS NAGUIT

Who May Apply For Property Registration

 Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, governing original registration
proceedings, bears close examination. It expressly provides:

SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether
personally or through their duly authorized representatives:

(1) those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been

in 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.

(2) Those who have acquired ownership over private lands by prescription under
the provisions of existing laws.

Requisites Under Section 14 (1)

 There are three obvious requisites for the filing of an application for registration of
title under Section 14(1) :
1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public
domain;
2) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation,
and;
3) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945
or earlier.

Section 14(1) Is That It Merely Requires The Property Sought To Be Registered

As Already Alienable And Disposable At The Time The Application
 Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires
the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time
the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the
application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation
or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to
utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective
of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has
already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is
already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over
the property.

Positive Act Of The Government

 In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Court noted that to prove that the land subject of
an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of
a positive act of the government such as a
1. presidential proclamation or an executive order;
2. an administrative action;
3. investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and
4. a legislative act or a statute.

In that case, the subject land had been certified by the DENR as alienable and
disposable in 1980, thus the Court concluded that the alienable status of the land,
compounded by the established fact that therein respondents had occupied the land
even before 1927, sufficed to allow the application for registration of the said
property. In the case at bar, even the petitioner admits that the subject property was
released and certified as within alienable and disposable zone in 1980 by the DENR.

Possession of Forest Lands Cannot Ripen Into Ownership

 A different rule obtains for forest lands, such as those which form part of a
reservation for provincial park purposes the possession of which cannot ripen into
ownership. It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest land
cannot be owned by private persons. As held in Palomo v. Court of Appeals, forest
land is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert
it into private property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable
and alienable.

Alienable Public Lands May Be Converted To Private Property By Presciption

 Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code.[25]
There is a consistent jurisprudential rule that properties classified as alienable public
land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and
exclusive possession of at least thirty (30) years. With such conversion, such property
may now fall within the contemplation of private lands under Section 14(2), and thus
susceptible to registration by those who have acquired ownership through
prescription. Thus, even if possession of the alienable public land commenced on a
date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession being been open, continuous and
exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to register the land by virtue of
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.

Tax Declarations Are Not Conclusive Evidence of Ownership, But Good Indicia
Of Possession
 Although tax declarations and realty tax payment of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of the possession in the
concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property
 that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least
proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration
of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only ones sincere and
honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against
the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed
revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens ones bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership.

4. REPUBLIC VS INC

No Public Land Can Be Acquired By Private Persons Without Any Government

Grant
 It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any
grant, express or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that the
persons claiming title to a public land should show that their title was acquired from
the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.
 In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic (Malabanan), the Court upheld Naguit and
abandoned the stringent ruling in Herbieto.
 In declaring that the correct interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 is that which was
adopted in Naguit, the Court ruled that the more reasonable interpretation of Sec.
14(1) of PD 1529 is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as
already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is
filed.
 Moreover, we wish to emphasize that our affirmation of Naguit in Malabananas
regards the correct interpretation of Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 relative to the reckoning of
possession vis--vis the declaration of the property of the public domain as alienable
and disposableis indeed more in keeping with the spirit of the Public Land Act, as
amended, and of PD 1529. These statutes were enacted to conform to the States
policy of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur
economic growth and remain true to the ideal of social justice.The statutes
requirements, as couched and amended, are stringent enough to safeguard against
fraudulent applications for registration of title over alienable and disposable public
land. The application of the more stringent pronouncement in Herbieto would indeed
stifle and repress the States policy.
 Finally, the Court in Malabanan aptly synthesized the doctrine that the period of
possession required under Sec. 14(1) of PD 1527 is not reckoned from the time of the
declaration of the property as alienable and disposable, thus:
We synthesize the doctrines laid down in this case, as follows:
(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree,
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that those who
 by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945 have acquired ownership of,
and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their
possession.

(a) Since Section 48 (b) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and
does not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable
during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to secure
judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and
disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land
Act.

(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act
is further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

Note:

1. It is possible for current possessor to add time to possession of predecessor if there is

privity between them. This procedure is called tacking.

5. WEE VS GONZALES

Land Ceases To Be A Public Land And Becomes Private Once Patent Is Issued
 In the case of Republic vs. Umali, this Court ruled that once a patent is registered and
the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of public
domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands has neither
control nor jurisdiction. A public land patent, when registered in the corresponding
Register of Deeds, is a veritable Torrens title, and becomes as indefeasible upon the
expiration of one (1) year from the date of issuance thereof. Said title, like one issued
pursuant to a judicial decree, is subject to review within one (1) year from the date of
the issuance of the patent. This rule is embodied in Section 103 of PD 1529, which
provides that:
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. – Whenever public land is by
the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be
brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. x x x After due registration
and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered
land to all intents and purposes under this Decree.
 Verily, once a title is registered, as a consequence either of judicial or administrative
proceedings, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the
portals of the court sitting in the mirador de su casa to avoid the possibility of losing
his land.

The Certificate Of Title Cannot Be Defeated By Adverse, Open And Notorious

Possession Nor By Prescription
 The certificate of title cannot be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession.
Neither can it be defeated by prescription. As provided under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, no
title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

Torrens Title Or Validity of Title Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked

 It is settled in this jurisdiction that the issue of the validity of title can only be assailed
in an action expressly instituted for such purpose. A certificate of title cannot be
attacked collaterally. This rule is provided under Section 48 of PD 1529 which states
that:
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. ― A certificate of title shall
not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Emphasis supplied)
 In Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals,10 it was stated that it is a well-known doctrine that
the issue as to whether title was procured by falsification or fraud as advanced by
petitioner can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. A
Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud, within one year after the date of the
issuance of the decree of registration. Such attack must be direct, and not by a
collateral proceeding. The title represented by the certificate cannot be changed,
altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding.

Application For Registration Of A Titled Land Constitutes A Collateral Attack

 Thus, in Carvajal v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that an application for registration
of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title. The title
may be challenged only in a proceeding for that purpose, not in an application for
registration of a land already registered in the name of another person. After one year
from its registration, the title is incontrovertible and is no longer open to review.

Filing A Separate Proceeding Is The Remedy To Attack The Title

 Remedy of the petitioner is to file a separate proceeding such as an action for specific
performance or for reconveyance
 In several cases, the Court has ruled that an attack is indirect or collateral when, in an
action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or proceeding is
nevertheless made as an incident thereof.
 It is settled that an application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by a
Torrens title is actually a collateral attack, not permitted under the principle of
indefeasibility of a Torrens title.

Title or Ownership Can Be Collaterally Attacked

 What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title or
ownership which is represented by such certificate. Ownership is different from a
certificate of title. The fact that a person was able to secure a title in his name did not
operate to vest ownership upon him of the subject land. Registration of a piece of land
under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of
acquiring ownership.
 A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular
property described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner;
nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud: neither does it permit one
to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a particular person
does not foreclose the possibility that the real prope1iy may be co-owned with
persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person
by the registered owner.

Remedy In Case Collateral Attack Is No Longer Allowed

 The remedy of the petitioner is to file a separate proceeding or action to protect
her alleged interest. As she claimed that she bought the subject property for value
from the respondent as evidenced by a deed of sale, she can file an action for
specific performance to compel the respondent to comply with her obligation in
the alleged deed of sale and/or an action for reconveyance of the property. She
can also file an action for rescission. Needless to state, petitioner must prove her
entitlement because the respondent claims that the sale was falsified.

Reconveyance Is An Action Personam

 Reconveyance is based on Section 55 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 3322,
which states that in all cases of registration procured by fraud the owner may pursue
all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud, without
prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of
title. It is an action in personam available to a person whose property has been
wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name. It does not seek to
set aside the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open to
review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the
 rightful owner. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not
passed to an innocent third person for value.

6. BIENVINIDO VS GABRIEL

Registration Does Not Create Or Vest Title

 Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title,
because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an
evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. Thus,
notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the registered owner may still
be compelled to reconvey the registered property to its true owners. The rationale for
the rule is that reconveyance does not set aside or re-subject to review the findings of
fact of the Bureau of Lands. In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration
is respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property
or its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another persons
name, to its rightful or legal owner, or to the one with a better right.

Action For Annulment Of Title Or Reconveyance Based On Fraud Is

Imprescriptible
 An action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible
where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts. The totality of
the evidence on record established that it was petitioners who are in actual possession
of the subject property; respondents merely insinuated at occasional visits to the land.
However, for an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, this Court has
held that the party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing
evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud.

Questions Of Facts Are Not Reviewable Except When The Inference Drawn By
Appellate Court Is Manifestly Mistaken
 Settled is the rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as only questions of law shall be raised
in such petitions. While this Court is not a trier of facts, if the inference drawn by the
appellate court from the facts is manifestly mistaken, it may, in the interest of justice,
review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct factual conclusions based on the
record.

Acquisitive Prescription Is A Mode Of Acquiring Ownership

 Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership by a possessor through the
requisite lapse of time. In order to ripen into ownership, possession must be in the
 concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Possession is open when it is
patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when
uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the
adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of
it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. The
party who asserts ownership by adverse possession must prove the presence of the
essential elements of acquisitive prescription.
 On the matter of prescription, the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1117. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be
ordinary or extraordinary.

Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good faith and

with just title for the time fixed by law.

Art. 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired
by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.

Art. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe
through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of
title or of good faith.

Tax Receipts and Declarations Are Prima Facie Proofs Of Ownership Or

Possession
 It is settled that tax receipts and declarations are prima facie proofs of ownership or
possession of the property for which such taxes have been paid. Coupled with proof
of actual possession of the property, they may become the basis of a claim for
ownership.

Civil Interruption Takes Place With The Service Of Judicial Summons Not By
Filing Of Notice Of Adverse Claim
 In the case of Heirs of Marcelina Azardon-Crisologo v. Raon this Court citing Article
1123 of the Civil Code held that civil interruption takes place with the service of
judicial summons to the possessor and not by filing of a mere Notice of Adverse
Claim.

Limitations Of Judicial Summons/ Interruption of Acquisitive Prescription

 Article 1123 of the Civil Code is categorical. Civil interruption is produced by
judicial summons to the possessor. Moreover, even with the presence of judicial
 summons, Article 1124 sets limitations as to when such summons shall not be
deemed to have been issued and shall not give rise to interruption, to wit:
1) if it should be void for lack of legal solemnities;
2) if the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should allow the
proceedings to lapse; or 3) if the possessor should be absolved from the
complaint.
 Both Article 1123 and Article 1124 of the Civil Code underscore the judicial
character of civil interruption. For civil interruption to take place, the possessor must
have received judicial summons.

Action To Recover The Ownership

 Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to recover the
ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two
(2) things:
first, the identity of the land claimed; and
second, his title thereto.

In regard to the first requisite, in an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who

claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix the identity of the
land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof.

7. MATTHEWS VS TAYLOR

Aliens Cannot Acquire Private And Public Lands

 Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
 Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring
lands of the public domain. Hence, by virtue of the aforecited constitutional
provision, they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands. The primary
purpose of this constitutional provision is the conservation of the national patrimony.
Our fundamental law cannot be any clearer. The right to acquire lands of the public
domain is reserved only to Filipino citizens or corporations at least sixty percent of
the capital of which is owned by Filipinos.
 The rule is clear and inflexible: aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or
private lands in the Philippines, save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions.
There is no rule more settled than this constitutional prohibition, as more and more
aliens attempt to circumvent the provision by trying to own lands through another. In
a long line of cases, we have settled issues that directly or indirectly involve the
above constitutional provision. We had cases where aliens wanted that a particular
 property be declared as part of their fathers estate;that they be reimbursed the funds
used in purchasing a property titled in the name of another; that an implied trust be
declared in their (aliens) favor; and that a contract of sale be nullified for their lack of
consent.
 In Krivenko v. Register of Deeds,[22] cited in Muller v. Muller,[23] we had the occasion
to explain the constitutional prohibition:
Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, natural resources, with
the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and with
respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino
citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural resources
in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino
citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of
aliens.
8. VICENTE VS AVERA

Injunction/Requisites
 Injunction, as a preservative remedy, aims to protect substantive rights and interests.
To be entitled to a writ of injunction, the complainant must establish the following
requisites:
(1) there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and
(2) the act against which injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right.

The grant of the writ is conditioned on the existence of the complainants clear
legal right, which means one clearly founded in or granted by law or is
enforceable as a matter of law.

TCT Is The Best Proof Of Ownership

 Section 51 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 provides that registration is the
operative act that conveys or affects registered land as against third persons.Thus, a
TCT is the best proof of ownership of land.

Petition Questioning The Validity Of Sale For Registered Land Constitutes A

Collateral Attack On A Torrens Title
 Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529 prohibits a collateral attack on a Torrens title. This Court
has held that a petition which, in effect, questioned the validity of a deed of sale for
registered land constitutes a collateral attack on a certificate of title.
 Notice Of Lis Pendens Is Deemed To Have Constructive Notice Of The Pendency
Of The Action Only From The Time Of Filing Such Notice
 Section 24, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a purchaser of
the property affected by the notice of lis pendens is deemed to have constructive
notice of the pendency of the action only from the time of filing such notice. Section
14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reiterates this rule. Thus, a notice of
lis pendens affects a transferee pendente lite, who by virtue of the notice, is bound by
any judgment, which may be rendered for or against the transferor, and his title is
subject to the results of the pending litigation.

A notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a
lien.
 A notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits of a case nor creates a right or a lien.
It serves to protect the real rights of the registrant while the case involving such rights
is pending resolution. While the notice of lis pendens remains on a certificate of title,
the registrant could rest secure that he would not lose the property or any part of it
during the litigation. Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any
subsequent transaction affecting the land involved would have to be subject to the
outcome of the litigation. For this reason, the Court has pronounced that a purchaser
who buys registered land with full notice of the fact that it is in litigation
between the vendor and a third party stands in the shoes of his vendor and his
title is subject to the incidents and result of the pending litigation.

When Injunction Would Violate Registered Owner’s Rights

 If allowed to be carried out, the act against which the injunction is directed, the
implementation of the writ of execution, would violate petitioners rights as the
registered owners and actual possessors of the property in dispute. The registered
owner has the right to possess and enjoy his property, without any limitations other
than those imposed by law. The implementation of the writ of execution would
unduly deprive petitioners, as the registered owners, of their right to possess the
subject property, which is one of the attributes of ownership.
9. DRILON VS DRILON

Agrarian Dispute
10. YAP VS REPUBLIC

RES JUDICATA
 In a catena of cases, the Court discussed the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment,
as a concept of res judicata as follows:
The second concept - conclusiveness of judgment - states that a fact or question
which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed upon and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the
judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with
them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between
such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent
jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment
remains unreversed by proper authority. It has been held that in order that a
judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another
action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be
identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the
judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a
former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and
conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and
adjudicated in the first suit x x x. Identity of cause of action is not required but
merely identity of issue.
 The general rule precluding the re-litigation of material facts or questions which were
in issue and adjudicated in former action are commonly applied to all matters
essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. Thus, it extends to
questions necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding may
have been made in reference thereto and although such matters were directly referred
to in the pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. Under this rule, if the
record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered
without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that
matter as to all future actions between the parties and if a judgment necessarily
presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself.
 In Nabus v. CA,35 the Court stressed that when a party seeks relief upon a cause of
action different from the one asserted by him in a previous one, the judgment in the
former suit is conclusive only as to such points or questions as were actually in issue
or adjudicated therein.
 in Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City,37 the Court clarified that the bar on
re-litigation of a matter or question extends to those questions necessarily implied in
the final judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference
thereto, and although those matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were
not actually or formally presented.38 "If the record of the former trial shows that the
 judgment could not have been rendered without deciding a particular matter, it will be
considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties."
 Verily, as developed, these principles now embody paragraph (c) of Section 47, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest,
that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order
which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and
necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

Torrens Title Must Not Be Collaterally Attacked

 A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The title must be attacked directly in a
case filed in court specifically to annul the said title.
 Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 mandates that for a reversion case to
prosper, it is not enough to prove that the original grantee of a patent has obtained the
same through fraud; it must also be proven that the subject property has not yet been
acquired by an innocent purchaser for value, because fraudulent acquisition cannot
affect the titles of the latter.

Who Is A Buyer In Good Faith

 In Trifonia D. Gabutan, et al. v. Dante D. Nacalaban, et al., the Court held that:

A buyer for value in good Faith is one who buys property of another, without notice
that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and
fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the
claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with the
well-founded belief that the person from whom he receives the thing had title to the
property and capacity to convey it.

 To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show that he
relied on the face of the title to the property. He need not prove that he made further
inquiry for he is not obliged to explore beyond the four comers of the title. Such
degree of proof of good faith, however, is sufficient only when the following
conditions concur:
first, the seller is the registered owner of the land;
second, the latter is in possession thereof; and
third, at the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of
some other person in the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of the
seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property.
 Absent one or two of the foregoing conditions, then the law itself puts the buyer
on notice and obliges the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence by
scrutinizing the certificate of title and examining all factual circumstances in
order to determine the seller's title and capacity to transfer any interest in the
property. Under such circumstance, it is no longer sufficient for said buyer to
merely show that he relied on the face of the title; he must now also show that he
exercised reasonable precaution by inquiring beyond the title. Failure to exercise
such degree of precaution makes him a buyer in bad faith.52 (Emphasis and italics
in the original)

 [T]he law protects to a greater degree a purchaser who buys from the registered
owner himself. Corollarily, it requires a higher degree of prudence from one who
buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the
transaction is registered. While one who buys from the registered owner does not
need to look behind the certificate of title, one who buys from one who is not the
registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual
circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the
transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land.
 This Court has consistently applied the stricter rule when it comes to deciding the
issue of good faith of one who buys from one who is not the registered owner, but
who exhibits a certificate of title.

Torrens Title Emanating From A Fraudulent Free Patent Does Not Become
Indefeasible
 In the case of Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr. the Court reiterated that a Torrens title
emanating from a free patent which was secured through fraud does not become
indefeasible because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no
effect whatsoever.
 Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land
covered thereby ceases to be part of public domain and becomes private property, and
the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the
expiration of one year from the date of such issuance. However, a title emanating
from a free patent which was secured through fraud does not become indefeasible,
precisely because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no
effect whatsoever.
 On this point, the Court's ruling m Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr.62 is
instructive:
True, once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title [is]
issued, the land covered by them ceases to be part of the public domain and
becomes private property. Further, the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent
becomes indefeasible a year after the issuance of the latter. However, this
 indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. Well-settled is the doctrine that the registration of a patent
under the Torrens System does not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the
registrant's already existing one. Verily, registration under the Torrens System is
not a mode of acquiring ownership.

Only The Government May Assail The Certificate Of Title Issued Pursuant To
Free Patent Fraudulently Acquired
 Nonetheless, a free patent that was fraudulently acquired, and the certificate of title
issued pursuant to the same, may only be assailed by the government in an action for
reversion, pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act. In Sherwill Development
Corporation v. Sitio Sta. Nino Residents Association, Inc., the Court pointed out that:
It is also to the public interest that one who succeeds in fraudulently acquiring
title to a public land should not be allowed to benefit therefrom, and the State
should, therefore, have an even existing authority, thru its duly-authorized
officers, to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of any such
title, to the end that the Republic, thru the Solicitor General or any other officer
who may be authorized by Jaw, may file the corresponding action for the
reversion of the land involved to the public domain, subject thereafter to disposal
to other qualified persons in accordance with law. In other words, the
indefeasibility of a title over land previously public is not a bar to an investigation
by the Director of Lands as to how such title has been acquired, if the purpose of
such investigation is to determine whether or not fraud had been committed in
securing such title in order that the appropriate action for reversion may be filed
by the Government.

11. LOCSIN VS HIZON

Who Is An Innocent Purchaser For Value

 An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another
without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who
pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any
notice of another person’s claim. As such, a defective title–– or one the
procurement of which is tainted with fraud and misrepresentation––may be the source
of a completely legal and valid title, provided that the buyer is an innocent third
person who, in good faith, relied on the correctness of the certificate of title, or an
innocent purchaser for value.

Mirror Doctrine
 Complementing this is the mirror doctrine which echoes the doctrinal rule that
every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of
the certificate of title issued therefor and is in no way obliged to go beyond the
certificate to determine the condition of the property. The recognized exceptions
to this rule are stated as follows:
[A] person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens
certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further except when
the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has
knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to
induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the
property in litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion
should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the
title of the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within
the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the protection of the law.

 Thus, in Domingo Realty, Inc. v. CA, we emphasized the need for prospective parties
to a contract involving titled lands to exercise the diligence of a reasonably prudent
person in ensuring the legality of the title, and the accuracy of the metes and bounds
of the lot embraced therein, by undertaking precautionary measures, such as:

1. Verifying the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the
Office of the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority;
2. Engaging the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify
the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the
technical description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land
Management Bureau;
3. Conducting an actual ocular inspection of the lot;
4. Inquiring from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the
true and legal ownership of the lot in question;
5. Putting up of signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and
6. Undertaking such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot
will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties.

 These circumstances, taken altogether, strongly indicate that Carlos and the spouses
Guevara failed to exercise the necessary level of caution expected of a bona fide
buyer and even performed acts that are highly suspect.
12. SPS PERALTA VS HEIRS OF BERNARDINA

Torrens System and It’s Legal Implications

 It is well-settled that "a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. The real purpose of the Torrens system of land registration is to quiet title to
land and put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title."
 In Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, we explained the purpose of the Torrens
system and its legal implications to third persons dealing with registered land, as
follows:
The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title to
real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the
right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the
need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge
of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make
such further inquiry. Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of
the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court
cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The
effect of such an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the
certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens
system would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title has been
regularly or irregularly issued by the court. Every person dealing with registered
land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor
and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine
the condition of the property.

Torrens System Merely Confirms Ownership

 The Torrens system was intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the
certificate of registration, but the system cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud
against the real owner of the registered land. The system merely confirms ownership
and does not create it. It cannot be used to divest lawful owners of their title for the
purpose of transferring it to another one who has not acquired it by any of the modes
allowed or recognized by law. Thus, the Torrens system cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner or to shield the commission of fraud or to enrich oneself
at the expense of another.

Exceptions to the Mirror Doctrine

 It is well-established in our laws and jurisprudence that a person who is dealing with
a registered parcel of land need not go beyond the face of the title. A person is only
 charged with notice of the burdens and claims that are annotated on the title. This
rule, however, admits of exceptions, which we explained in Clemente v. Razo:
Any buyer or mortgagee of realty covered by a Torrens certificate of title, in the
absence of any suspicion, is not obligated to look beyond the certificate to
investigate the titles of the seller appearing on the face of the certificate. And, he
is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the
title.
 In Sandoval vs. CA, we made clear the following:
The aforesaid principle admits of an unchallenged exception: that a person
dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title
and to dispense with the need of inquiring further except when the party has
actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of
a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property
in litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should
then prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of
the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within the
exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith; and hence does not merit the protection of the law.

Who Is An Innocent Purchaser For Value

 Jurisprudence has defined an innocent purchaser for value as one who buys the
property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest
therein and who then pays a full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase or
before receiving a notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the
property. Buyers in good faith buy a property with the belief that the person from
whom they receive the thing is the owner who can convey title to the property. Such
buyers do not close their eyes to facts that should put a reasonable person on guard
and still claim that they are acting in good faith.

A Forged or Fraudulent Document May Then Become The Root Of A Valid

Title
 The appellate court cited Fule v. Legare26 as basis for its ruling. In the said case, the
Court made an exception to the general rule that a forged or fraudulent deed is a
nullity and conveys no title. A fraudulent document may then become the root of a
valid title, as it held in Fule:
Although the deed of sale in favor of John W. Legare was fraudulent, the fact
remains that he was able to secure a registered title to the house and lot. It was
this title which he subsequently conveyed to the herein petitioners. We have
 indeed ruled that a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title
(Director of Lands vs. Addison, 49 Phil., 19). However, we have also laid down
the doctrine that there are instances when such a fraudulent document may
become the root of a valid title. One such instance is where the certificate of
title was already transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger,
and while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an
innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to rely upon what
appeared in the certificate (Inquimboy vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-13953, July 28,
1960).

Chain of Registered Titles

 The established rule is that a forged deed is generally null and cannot convey title, the
exception thereto, pursuant to Section 55 of the Land Registration Act, denotes the
registration of titles from the forger to the innocent purchaser for value. Thus, the
qualifying point here is that there must be a complete chain of registered titles. This
means that all the transfers starting from the original rightful owner to the innocent
holder for value – and that includes the transfer to the forger – must be duly
registered, and the title must be properly issued to the transferee.

Instances When The Chain Of Registered Titles Is Broken

 In Fule, the original owner relinquished physical possession of her title and thus
enabled the perpetrator to commit the fraud, which resulted in the cancellation of her
title and the issuance of a new one. The forged instrument eventually became the root
of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. The new title under the
name of the forger was registered and relied upon by the innocent purchaser for
value. Hence, it was clear that there was a complete chain of registered titles.On the
other hand in Torres, the original owner retained possession of the title, but through
fraud, his brother-in-law secured a court order for the issuance of a copy thereof.
While the title was in the name of the forger, the original owner annotated the adverse
claim on the forged instrument. Thus, before the new title in the name of the forger
could be transferred to a third person, a lien had already been annotated on its back.
The chain of registered titles was broken and sullied by the original owner’s
annotation of the adverse claim. By this act, the mortgagee was shown to be in bad
faith.

13. TAN VS REPUBLIC

Who May Register For Incomplete Title

 Presidential Decree No. 1529 (P.D. No. 1529), otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, is a codification of all the laws relative to the registration of
 property and Section 14 thereof specifies those who are qualified to register their
incomplete title over an alienable and disposable public land under the Torrens
system. Particularly:
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court
of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally
or through their authorized representatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest

have been in 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.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription
under the provision of existing laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned
river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
provided for by law.

Section 14(1) Covers Alienable And Disposable Lands While Section (2) Covers
Patrimonial Property Of The State
 As this Court clarified in Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines, and
Republic of the Philippines v. East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation,
Section 14(1) covers alienable and disposable lands while Section 14(2) covers
private property. Thus, for ones possession and occupation of an alienable and
disposable public land to give rise to an imperfect title, the same should have
commenced on June 12, 1945 or earlier. On the other, for one to claim that his
possession and occupation of private property has ripened to imperfect title, the same
should have been for the prescriptive period provided under the Civil Code. Without
need for an extensive extrapolation, the private property contemplated in Section
14(2) is patrimonial property as defined in Article 421 in relation to Articles 420
and 422 of the Civil.

Possession And Occupation Of A&D Public Land Will Not Convert It To

Patrimonial Property
 Going further, it was explained in Heirs of Malabanan and East Silverlane, that
possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land for the periods
provided under the Civil Code will not convert it to patrimonial or private property.
There must be an express declaration that the property is no longer intended for
public service or the development of national wealth. In the absence thereof, the
property remains to be alienable and disposable and may not be acquired by
prescription under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.
  Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or
disposable, remains property of the State, and thus, may not be acquired by
prescription.

Condition Of Possession
 It is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by
law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public,
peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Possession is open when it is patent, visible,
apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted,
unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor
can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use
and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and
talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. The party who asserts
ownership by adverse possession must prove the presence of the essential elements of
acquisitive prescription.

TD Is Not A Competent Evident When Invoking Prescription

 Tax declarations per se do not qualify as competent evidence of actual possession for
purposes of prescription.
 More so, if the payment of the taxes due on the property is episodic, irregular and
random such as in this case.

Condition Of Possession Must Be Positively Proved

 In East Silverlane, it was emphasized that adverse, continuous, open, public
possession in the concept of an owner is a conclusion of law and the burden to prove
it by clear, positive and convincing evidence is on the applicant. A claim of
ownership will not proper on the basis of tax declarations if unaccompanied by proof
of actual possession.

14. REPUBLIC VS ESPINOSA

Regalian Doctrine
 It is doctrinal that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion
presumptively belong to the State. Public lands not shown to have been reclassified or
released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State
remain part of the inalienable public domain. Unless public land is shown to have
been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the
inalienable public domain. The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the
presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable or
disposable rests with the applicant.
  Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the
public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any
ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been
reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person
by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.

Quantum Of Evidence Required To Prove That The Land Is A&D

 To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action,
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the lands
applied for are alienable and disposable.

15. REPUBLIC VS VALENTINA REGISTER OF PROVINCE OCCIDENTAL

 Here, it is undisputed that Espinosa was granted a cadastral decree and was
subsequently issued OCT No. 191-N, the predecessor title of Caliston's TCT No.
91117. Having been granted a decree in a cadastral proceeding, Espinosa can be
presumed to have overcome the presumption that the land sought to be
registered forms part of the public domain. 33 This means that Espinosa, as the
applicant, was able to prove by incontrovertible evidence that the property is
alienable and disposable property in the cadastral proceedings.

Burden of Proof In Land Registration Proceedings
 In land registration proceedings, the applicant has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of State ownership. It must establish, through incontrovertible evidence,
that the land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable based on a positive act
of the government. Since cadastral proceedings are governed by the usual rules of
practice, procedure, and evidence, a cadastral decree and a certificate of title are
issued only after the applicant proves all the requisite jurisdictional facts-that they are
entitled to the claimed lot, that all parties are heard, and that evidence is considered.
As such, the cadastral decree is a judgment which adjudicates ownership after
proving these jurisdictional facts.

Reversion / Burden Of Proof In Reversion Proceeding

 Reversion is the remedy where the State, pursuant to the Regalian doctrine, seeks to
revert land back to the mass of the public domain. It is proper when public land is
fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations. There are
 also instances when we granted reversion on grounds other than fraud, such as when a
"person obtains a title under the Public Land Act which includes, by oversight, lands
which cannot be registered under the Torrens system, or when the Director of Lands
did not have jurisdiction over the same because it is of the public domain."
 Since the case is one for reversion and not one for land registration, the burden is on
the State to prove that the property was classified as timberland or forest land at the
time it was decreed to Espinosa.
 In this reversion proceeding, the State must prove that there was an oversight or
mistake in the inclusion of the property in Espinosa' s title because it was of public
dominion. This is consistent with the rule that the burden of proof rests on the party
who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts the affirmative
of an issue.

Rule on Evidence
 The rules require that documentary evidence must be formally offered in evidence
after the presentation of testimonial evidence, and it may be done orally, or if allowed
by the court, in writing. Due process requires a formal offer of evidence for the
benefit of the adverse party, the trial court, and the appellate courts. This gives the
adverse party the opportunity to examine and oppose the admissibility of the
evidence. When evidence has not been formally offered, it should not be considered
by the court in arriving at its decision. Not having been offered formally, it was error
for the trial court to have considered the survey map. Consequently, it also erred in
ordering the reversion of the property to the mass of the public domain on the basis of
the same.

16. LOPEZ VS ENRIQUEZ

Notice Of Lis Pendens

 Section 14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SECTION 14. Notice of lis pendens. – In an action affecting the title or the right
of possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative
relief is claimed in his answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of
the province in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the
action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the
action or defense, and a description of the property in that province affected
thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or
encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive
notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the parties
designated by their real names.
 The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only upon
order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of
molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the
party who caused it to be recorded.

 Section 76 of PD 1529 states:

SECTION 76. Notice of lis pendens. – No action to recover possession of real
estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or for
partition or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to
land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgment,
and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgment, shall have any effect upon
registered land as against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a
memorandum or notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and the
court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of the institution thereof,
together with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate
description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall have been
filed and registered.

Definition Notice of Lis Pendens

 Lis pendens literally means a pending suit. The doctrine of lis pendens refers to the
jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit,
pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment.

Purposes Of Lis Pendens

 The purposes of lis pendens are (1) to protect the rights of the party causing the
registration of the lis pendens, and (2) to advise third persons who purchase or
contract on the subject property that they do so at their peril and subject to the result
of the pending litigation.

Legal Effects Of Lis Pendens

 The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect.
First, it keeps the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court
until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by
successive alienations.
Second, it binds a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation
to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently.
 However, the filing of a notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien that
previously did not exist.

Application of Notice Of Lis Pendens

 A] notice of lis pendens is proper in the following cases, viz:
a) An action to recover possession of real estate;
b) An action to quiet title thereto;
c) An action to remove clouds thereon;
d) An action for partition; and
e) Any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title to the
land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.
 On the other hand, the doctrine of lis pendens has no application in the following
cases:
a) Preliminary attachments;
b) Proceedings for the probate of wills;
c) Levies on execution;
d) Proceedings for administration of estate of deceased persons; and
e) Proceedings in which the only object is the recovery of a money judgment.

Reconveyance
 An action for reconveyance is an action in personam available to a person whose
property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another’s name.
Although the decree is recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review,
the registered owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action
for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice and
not with the land registration court.Reconveyance is always available as long as the
property has not passed to an innocent third person for value.1awphi1.nét A notice of
lis pendens may thus be annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the
institution of the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an
innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.

Order Of General Default

 Section 26 of PD 1529 provides thus:
Sec. 26. Order of default; effect. – If no person appears and answers within the
time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the
contrary appearing, order a default to be recorded and require the applicant to
present evidence. By the description in the notice "To All Whom It May
Concern", all the world are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the
default order.

Procedure In Cases Of Conveyance

 Mendoza v. Court of Appeals35 explains the procedure in cases of conveyance of the
land subject of a registration proceeding by an instrument executed between the time
of filing of the application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title.
 The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by
substituting the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" for
the applicant. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the
property has been conveyed" be a party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to
the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the
instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion
that the same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice
be given to the parties to the case xxx.

Effect Of Order Of Default

 In Lim Toco v. Go Fay, this Court explained the effect of an order of default to the
party defaulted. A party declared in default loses his standing in court. As a result of
his loss of standing, a party in default cannot appear in court, adduce evidence, be
heard, or be entitled to notice. A party in default cannot even appeal from the
judgment rendered by the court, unless he files a motion to set aside the order of
default under the grounds provided in what is now Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
 Section 22 of PD 1529 to Section 29 of Act 49633 and its judicial interpretation in
Mendoza v. Court of Appeals.34
SECTION 22. Dealings with land pending original registration.—After the filing
of the application and before the issuance of the decree of registration, the land
therein described may still be the subject of dealings in whole or in part, in which
case the interested party shall present to the court the pertinent instruments
together with the subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of
transfer of portions thereof, and the court, after notice to the parties, shall order
such land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance created by said
instruments, or order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the
person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments.

SECTION 29. After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the
decree of title by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the land
therein described may be dealt with and instruments relating thereto shall be
recorded in the office of the register of deeds at any time before issuance of the
decree of title, in the same manner as if no application had been made. The
interested party may, however, present such instruments to the Court of First
Instance instead of presenting them to the office of the Register of Deeds, together
with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application, and the
court, after notice to the parties shall order such land registered subject to the
encumbrance created by said instruments, or order the decree of registration
 issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has been
conveyed by said instruments. x x x
 One should be careful, however, to distinguish between movants as mere interested
parties prescribed under Section 22 of PD 1529 and movants as intervenors-
oppositors to the land registration proceedings. It is only in the latter case that a
motion to lift the order of general default is required. It is only in the latter case that
the doctrine pronounced in Serrano v. Palacio,39 as repeatedly invoked by the LRA
and OSG, is applicable:
x x x [P]etitioners committed an error of procedure when they filed a motion to
intervene in the x x x land registration case for the proper procedure would have
been for them to ask first for the lifting of the order of general default, and then, if
lifted, to file an opposition to the application of the applicants. This is so because
proceedings in land registration are in rem, and not in personam, the sole object
being the registration applied for, and not the determination of any right not
connected with the registration (Estila vs. Alvero, 37 Phil. 498).