Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 180 views

    10) Duran v. Oliva

    Uploaded by

    Lourd Mantaring
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that a motion to dismiss is a proper remedy in a land registration case under the Rules of Court. 2. The Court also ruled that the oppositor's title under an original certificate of title (OCT), which was issued through a homestead patent, sales patent, or free patent, prevails over the applicant's application for registration. 3. Once a patent has been registered under the Land Registration Act of 1902, it becomes indefeasible as a Torrens title and cannot be subject to a subsequent land registration proceeding. The dismissal of the application was therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10) Duran v. Oliva

    Uploaded by

    Lourd Mantaring
    180 views2 pages
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that a motion to dismiss is a proper remedy in a land registration case under the Rules of Court. 2. The Court also ruled that the oppositor's title under an original certificate of title (OCT), which was issued through a homestead patent, sales patent, or free patent, prevails over the applicant's application for registration. 3. Once a patent has been registered under the Land Registration Act of 1902, it becomes indefeasible as a Torrens title and cannot be subject to a subsequent land registration proceeding. The dismissal of the application was therefore affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court ruled that a motion to dismiss is a proper remedy in a land registration case under the Rules of Court. 2. The Court also ruled that the oppositor's title under an original certificate of title (OCT), which was issued through a homestead patent, sales patent, or free patent, prevails over the applicant's application for registration. 3. Once a patent has been registered under the Land Registration Act of 1902, it becomes indefeasible as a Torrens title and cannot be subject to a subsequent land registration proceeding. The dismissal of the application was therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    180 views2 pages

    10) Duran v. Oliva

    Uploaded by

    Lourd Mantaring
    1. The Supreme Court ruled that a motion to dismiss is a proper remedy in a land registration case under the Rules of Court. 2. The Court also ruled that the oppositor's title under an original certificate of title (OCT), which was issued through a homestead patent, sales patent, or free patent, prevails over the applicant's application for registration. 3. Once a patent has been registered under the Land Registration Act of 1902, it becomes indefeasible as a Torrens title and cannot be subject to a subsequent land registration proceeding. The dismissal of the application was therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Jose Duran and Teresita Diaz vda. De Duran v.

    Bernabe
    Oliva et.al. Re: Motion to dismiss in Land Registration Cases
    GR No. L-16589 Sept. 29, 1961
    By express provision of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the
    Doctrine: rules contained therein apply to land registration and cadastral
    Once patent has been registered under Act. 496, it become cases in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
    indefeasible as a torrens title. convenient (Dulay vs. The Director of Lands, 53 Off. Gaz. p. 161).
    The Land Registration Act does not provide for a pleading similar or
    Facts: corresponding to a motion to dismiss. As a motion to dismiss is
    1. Applicants Jose Duran and Teresita Diaz vda De Duran filed necessary for the expeditious termination of land registration
    an application for the registration in their names for sixteen cases, said motion contained in the Rules of Court can be availed
    (16) lots under Plan PSU-128386 in the Court of First of by the parties in this case.
    Instance in Camarines Sur.
    Re: Indefeasibility of Torrens Title
    2. When the case was initially heard on May 5, 1954, the
    oppositors filed an opposition with a motion to dismiss Upon careful scrutiny of the Court, the Court held that the lots
    stating that the court has no jurisdiction because the said presented by the petitioners were the same. Thus, the SC held that
    lots are already registered and certificate of registration the Court of First Instance cannot assume jurisdiction over the
    had already been issued under their names. They attached application because the oppositors title is already considered as
    the respective Original Certificate of Titles to prove their indefeasible.
    claim.
    We have to consider that a patent once registered under
    a. As their defense, the applicants averred that the Act No. 496 becomes indefeasible as a torrens title (Manalo
    claims were mere assertions and the court has vs. Lukban, et al., 48 Phil., 973).
    jurisdiction even though the subject lots were
    covered by a certificate of titles.
    "Sec. 122.Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands
    3. The Court ruled in favor of the oppositors and dismissed belonging to the Government of the United States or to the
    the case. Government of the Philippine Islands are alienated, granted, or
    conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same
    Issue/s: shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act and shall
    1. Whether or not a motion to dismiss is a proper remedy in a become registered lands. * * * After due registration and issue
    land registration case. YES of the certificate and owner's duplicate, such land shall be
    registered land for all purposes under this Act." (Act 496)
    2. Whether the oppositors OCT (As manifested by a
    homestead, sales and free patent) prevail over the The primary and fundamental purpose of the Torrens
    applicants application. YES. Once patent has been System of registration is to finally settle the titles to land;
    registered under Act. 496, it become indefeasible as to put to stop any question of legality of title thereto. That
    a torrens title. being the purpose of the law, there would be no end to
    litigation if every property covered by Torrens title may still
    Ruling: be relitigated in a subsequent land registration
    proceedings. Pursuant to the above purpose, we have held 31, 1959; Samonte et al., vs. Descallar, et al., G. R. No. L-12964,
    in a long line of decisions that a homestead patent once Feb. 29, 1960.)
    registered under the Land Registration Act can not be the
    subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and that any title The same may be said of a sales patent. Once a certificate of title
    issued thereon is null and void. is issued under the Land Registration Act in lieu of a sales patent,
    the land is considered registered under the Torrens system and the
    All that the cadastral court may do is to make correction of title of the patentee becomes indefeasible.
    technical errors in the description of the property contained in its
    title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by two or Dispositive: Oppositors WIN. Dismissal of Application is
    more co-owners." (Ramoso vs. Obligado, et al., 70 Phil., 86; See AFFRIMED
    also Pamintuan vs. San Agustin, 43 Phil., 558; El Hogar Filipino vs.
    Olviga, 60 Phil., 17; Republic vs. Carle, et al., G. R. No. L-12485, July

    You might also like