Question and Answer

1. Can you oust from possession occupants of a judicially registered parcel of land who
entered upon the same after the judgment in the land registration case had already
become final and executory but before the issuance of a decree of registration, by
means of a mere motion for the issuance of a writ of possession filed before the land
registration court rather than instituting an ordinary action for ejectment?

Answer: Yes, as long as they entered upon the land prior to the issuance of the decree of
registration.

2. Who carries the burden of overcoming the presumption of state ownership of lands of
the public domain applied for in land registration proceedings and what generally
does he need to prove?

Answer: The person applying for registration has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of state ownership of lands of public domain. The applicant must prove his
conclusive ownership over the land with clear and convincing evidence. He must prove that
he has met the requirements provided for under the law such as open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession.

3. When the Director of Lands allows the filing of a public land application for property
that is forest land, would that be equivalent to a declaration that said land was no
longer public domain?

Answer: No. Before any land may be declassified from the forest group and converted into
alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act
from the government, by way of an official proclamation to the effect that it may form part
of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.

4. State the requirement of notice that the application for land registration should
contain, and explain the effect or the implication of its absence in the judicial
registration process.

Answer: The notice for the application for land registration should be by publication, mailing
or posting. The court must notify all adjoining and adjacent land owners of the land in
question so they can file their opposition, if any. The notice must also be posted in a
conspicuous place where the trial and the lot in question is located. Without the required
notice, any judgment rendered by the court will be null and void, and subject to attack
because it deprived other parties of their right to be heard and assert their right of
ownership.

5. Where title to the land was registered without notice to adjoining owners and its
occupants, the applicant having falsely attested to the absence of any adverse claim,
 including the absence of any possession of the land, obviously in order to prevent
contest on the application, what do you think should be the legal status of the title if
one were obtained after the judicial registration process?

Answer: The legal status of the title is valid, but such absence of notice constitutes extrinsic
fraud and grants a remedy to a party deprived of his interest in the land, by way of review
of the decree of registration.

6. Discuss the Regalian Doctrine as applied to lands of public domain.

Answer: Regalian doctrine is derived from the Spanish concept that “all lands belong to the
crown”. As applied to lands of public domain, it means that all lands are presumed to be
owned by the State. It includes all lands, whether alienable or inalienable, and those not yet
acquired in a private capacity.

7. In support of her claim of ownership, in proceedings for judicial confirmation of

imperfect title to alienable and disposable land of the public domain, the applicant
presented a deed of sale. It stated that the vendor of the property, JA, was the true
and lawful owner and that she sold the same. Would said deed of sale constitute
sufficient evidence for purposes of land registration?

Answer: No. A deed of sale is insufficient evidence for purposes of land registration. All a
deed of sale would prove is that a sale transpired between the parties. It does not show
that ownership was subsequently acquired by the buyer for purposes of registration.

8. What is the probative value of tax declarations or tax receipts as evidence of

ownership of land?

Answer: The presentation of tax declarations of the subject property as well as tax receipts
of payment of the realty tax due are of little evidentiary weight and constitutes a mere
indicta of a claim of ownership.

9. Define extrinsic fraud and differentiate it from intrinsic fraud.

Answer: Extrinsic fraud is fraud committed by a party outside trial which results in the
deprivation of the other parties’ right to be heard in the proceedings.

Intrinsic fraud takes the form of “acts of a party in litigation during trial, such as the use of
forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case,
but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case.”

10. Give examples of extrinsic, actual or collateral fraud, underlying their common
characteristics.
Answer: Example of extrinsic fraud is when an applicant falsely states the absences of any
adverse claims when in fact there exists one, or when he states that he is the sole owner of
a property when there are co-owners. Common characteristic is to prevent any contest on
his application.

11. Differentiate laches from prescription of actions, and indicate how they may
complement each other.

Answer: Prescription is the fact of the delay which bars an action once the prescriptive
period provided by law has lapsed. Laches is the effect of the delay. An action not barred by
prescription may be barred by reason of laches because of equity considerations. The law
will not favor one who has slept on his rights in favor or a party who has asserted ownership
and enjoyed possession of a thing continuously.

12. Who may be applicants in ordinary land registration proceedings and what categories
of lands may be registered?

Answer:

(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.

13. What is the status of lands covered by Spanish titles?

Answer: all lands recorded under the Spanish Mortgage Law which are not yet covered
by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands.

14. When is an action for reconveyance an appropriate remedy for a person aggrieved by
land registration proceedings? Discuss the grounds, period of its availability, included
cases where the land has passed on to an innocent purchaser for value.

Answer: An action for reconveyance is made to show that the person who secured the
registration of the property is not the owner thereof. It is made on the grounds of trust.
 It is available within 10 years if based on an implied or constructive trust, but it is
imprescriptible if based on an express trust or void contracts. It must be done before the
land registered under the Torrens system is passed on to an innocent purchaser for
value. If the land has already been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value, the lot
may not be reconveyed because the title is now indefeasible.

15. Discuss the remedy prescribed under Sec. 32 of PD 1529.

Answer: Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The
decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority,
or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in
any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person,
including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or
interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud,
to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of
such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the
court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest
therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for
value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an
innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.

Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such
decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against
the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.

16. What is a decree of registration? When may it be issued and what legal consequences
flow from its issuance?

Answer: The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject
only to such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon
and against all persons, including the National Government and all branches thereof,
whether mentioned by name in the application or notice, the same being included in the
general description "To all whom it may concern".

17. What is the effect of the passage of 1 year from the entry of the decree of
registration?

Answer: Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and
the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by
such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages
against the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.
 18. The right of a person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud is recognized by law as
valid and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of registration. In the context of
this rule, what is meant by actual fraud?

Answer: Outside the proceedings?

19. May lots erroneously or fraudulently registered in the name of another be reconveyed
to the lawful owner even if it has already been acquired by innocent purchasers for
value?

Answer: No. Acquisition of erroneously or fraudulently registered land by an innocent

purchaser for value renders the title indefeasible and bars an action for reconveyance.

20. What is required of a person who acquires rights or interests over a land that is
subject of pending land registration proceedings for the protection of such right or
interests; what benefits arise from doing so and what would be the consequences
from omitting to do so?

Answer: 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 a
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.

21. What liens and encumbrances affect registered lands and bind the same even as regards
to innocent purchasers for value?

Answer: Those noted on the title? Statutory liens? Liens or encumbrances actually
known to him by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Problem Solving:

1. X owns a parcel of land that is subject of pending land registration proceedings. X

entered into a pacto de retro sale involving the said parcel of land in favor of Spouses
M. What must spouses M do in order to make the transaction binding upon the land
or against all persons who may subsequently deal with the same or with X?

Answer: Comply with Sec. 22 of PD 1529.

2. What if the spouses M had registered the sale under Sec. 113 and when X got the
certificate of title pursuant to the land registration proceedings, he turned around and
sold the land to N, who was unaware of the pacto de retro sale in favor of spouses M?
Whose right would prevail over the land and why?

Answer:

3. Two certificates of title were issued to GA over the same parcel of land, one under the
Homestead Law in 1935 and one under the Cadastral Act in 1936. Said titles were
regularly issued and valid on their face. GA took advantage of the situation and sold
the land to two different persons surrendering to each purchaser the pertinent
certificate of title. Both purchases were in good faith. GA first sold the land to SC on
November 24, 1941 using the 1936 certificate. SC registered it his name on the same
date. 7 years later, GA sold thee land to MB Brothers using the 1935 certificate. MB
registered it in his name on the same date. Which of the two buyers should be
considered the rightful owner?

Answer: SC. The sale made by GA to SC is the valid one considering that when GA sold
the same land to MB he had nothing more to sell even if the title her surrendered to
them is the one first issued covering the same property.

4. X has been in possession of a parcel of registered land since 1942. Such possession
was known to the registered owners Y and Z. Despite knowledge, the did not do
anything to assert their right over the property. It took them 45 years before they
instituted an action for recovery of possession in 1986. Would the long period of
inaction bar them from recovering the property from X by laches, notwithstanding the
fact that Y and Z’s ownership is evidenced by a Torrens title, which cannot be defeated
by prescription or adverse possession?

Answer: Yes. Their long inaction to possess or lay an adverse claim to the subject land
has been converted into a stale demand, thereby barring them from recovering
possession of the subject land by laches.

5. Spouses XY were owners of an unregistered land. In 1978, they went abroad until
1981. In 1987, Spouses AB took advantage and registered the land in their name. In
1979, the land registration court approved the application and the register of deeds
issued an OCT to Spouses AB. In 1980, the title was transcribed in the registration
book of the register of deeds. In 1981, spouses XY filed an action for reconveyance and
sought the annulment of the OCT on the ground of fraud. Since more than 1 year has
passed since the entry of the decree of registration, will the action for reconveyance
prosper?

Answer: Yes, the action for reconveyance was properly grounded and timely, as it was
filed within 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
6. Two parcels of land were covered by three Torrents titles – TCT to R in 1958, TCT to C
in 1970 derived from OCT issued on the same day, TCT to Q, derived from OCT issued
in 1942 pursuant to a sales patent but reconstituted only in 1970. R, C and Q’s
predecessors were all in possession of various portions of the two lands at the time
the proceedings for reconstitution of the 2nd OCT commenced and terminated. C
purchased it from B, the original registered owner, by virtue of a deed dated in 1970.

Answer: R should prevail because his title is earlier in time than that of C, and the title of
Q suffers from a fatal infirmity.

7. In an ordinary action for recovery of possession of land, filed by the registered owner
under an OCT, can the defendants assail the validity of the said certificate of title by
raising the following allegations as affirmative defenses?

a. Defendant is the true and lawful owner and in actual possession of the land
b. That the sole basis of the plaintiff in adversely claiming the land is due to the
erroneous issuance of the OCT in his name which covers said lot, and this
erroneous issuance has been duly acknowledged and investigated no less by the
Bureau of Lands
c. That the plaintiff has never been in possession of the land and therefore is not
lawfully entitled to such title so he is obliged to reconvey the same to defendant

Answer: No. The foregoing allegations attach the validity of the OCT, which is not
permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrents title.

8. An ordinary land registration proceeding over a parcel of land is commenced by Y one

year after a decree of registration was issued over the same parcel of land in favor of X
in a cadastral case, and the same being successful, a certificate of title was issued,
pursuant to another decree, in favor of Y, ahead of X. Transactions involving the land are
entered into by X, but all of these are never registered. The certificate of title issued in
favor of Y becomes the subject of a series of titles issued in favor of the successive
transferees. Who would prevail if, eventually, persons who transacted with Y got
entangled in litigation involving the land with the ultimate transferee who traces his title
to X? What if there was no X, but all Y?

Answer:```

9. A parcel of unregistered land owned by Y is erroneously included by the Director of

the Lands Management Bureau in a free patent granted to X. The free patent was
registered and the certificate of title was issued therefor. One year passed after the
issuance of said certificate of title. Y then filed an application for registration of title to
the same parcel of land not realizing that the same is already included in the
 certificate of title issued in favor of X. X filed an opposition invoking prior registration
in his favor. Should it be sustained?

Answer: No, because the prior title is a nullity.

10. What if Z acquires a certificate of title to the land as X’s transferee. Can Z file an
opposition against Y’s application, invoking the prior registration of the land in his favor?
Discuss the legal status of X/Z’s title.

Answer: Yes. Acquisition of erroneously or fraudulently registered land by an innocent

purchaser for value renders the title indefeasible and bars an action for reconveyance.

11. X is the owner of an unregistered land, adjacent to a vast track of land long declared as
alienable and disposable lands of public domain. The Director of the Lands Management
Bureau issued free patents, some of which covered areas belonging to X, which
thereupon were brought under operation of the Torrens system. What is the legal status
of the titles issued pursuant to such free patents? What may X do under the
circumstances?

Answer: