REMEDIES IN LAND REGISTRATION

by Bernz Velo Tumaru

REMEDIES
 Actions availed of by an aggrieved party in a suit. Several reasons exist and are legally recognizable by
the court to allow an aggrieved part to seek the remedy or relief being sought. These reasons are important
because not all reasons will give rise to a legal remedy and employing an erroneous remedy can be fatal to
a party’s cause of action.
 The important considerations in seeking a proper remedy are:
1. Legal Reason that gives rise to a cause of action (i.e. fraud, mistake, excusable negligence)
2. Prescription period of the remedy or Reglementary Period of taking an appeal
3. Relevant provisions or laws under which the remedy can be invoked

 REMEDIES under PD 1529 – the following are the remedies in Land Registration Cases under PD 1529
with corresponding period of filing
1. Section 32 –
a. Petition for Review of Decree – anytime after decision to w/in 1 year from entry of final decree
of registration
b. Action for Damages – within 10 years from the date of issuance of the certificate of title
2. Section 33 – (Appeal)
a. Ordinary Appeal – 15 days from notice of judgment or final order
b. Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the RRC – same
3. Section 34 – (Rules of Court are Applicable – supplemental remedies)
a. Motion for New Trial under Rule 37 of the RRC – same
b. Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 37 of the RRC – same
c. Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 of the RRC – w/in 60 after learning of the
judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than 6 months after such
judgment or final order was entered
d. Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal under Rule 38 of the RRC– same
e. Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47- after 6 months from the entry of final order or
judgment, until 4 years from the discovery of extrinsic fraud, and before laches and estoppel if
based on lack of jurisdiction
4. Section 53 and 96 – Action for Reconveyance – even before issuance of decree up to 10 years for
good faith acquisitive prescription, 30 years for bad faith; 4 years if based on fraud; 10 years if there
is constructive implied trust; no prescription if based of void contract
5. Section 95 – Claim Against the Assurance Fund – within 6 years from the time the right to bring
such action accrues
 Other Remedies outside of PD 1529:
a. Action for Quieting of Title – imprescriptible if person is in possession otherwise 10 years for
good faith acquisition, 30 years for bad faith
b. Action for Reversion under Section 101 of CA No 141 (Public Lands Act) – imprescriptible
c. Action for Cancellation of Title – imprescriptible as it is based on Torrens Title
d. Criminal Prosecution under Revised Penal Code – prescription based on RPC

1
 Bernz Velo Tumaru 2D12
REMEDIES available within the 15 day Reglementary Period of taking an Appeal

1. Motion for New Trial – relief sought is to grant a new trial for one or more of the causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of the party. If granted, the judgment will be set aside. The grounds to
grant the motion are:

1) Fraud, Accident, Mistake, Excusable Negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded
against and by reason of which the aggrieved party has been impaired his rights (FAME)

a. Fraud – must be actual or extrinsic fraud. It is extrinsic when the fraud is committed outside of
the trial and is meant to deprive the party of his day in court. As opposed to intrinsic fraud, this
type of fraud does not go into the merits of the case and is not determined upon by the trial court
in the presentation of evidence. (i.e. Telling the court that there are no occupants in the property
when in fact there are, therefore preventing the trial court in ordering the sending of notice of
hearing to such occupants hence preventing them from filing their opposition)
b. Accident – event which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, and by reason of
which the party applying has probably been impaired in his rights. (i.e. Illness, Failure to attend
trial for lack of advance notice)
c. Mistake – unintentional act, omission or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition or
misplaced confidence (i.e. belief there is no need to appear during trial because there was
already compromise agreement is a ground for new trial).
d. Excusable Negligence – failure to take proper steps at the proper time in consequence of some
unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or accident, or reliance on the care and vigilance of his
counsel, or on promises made by the adverse party. The party must not be must be guilty of
carelessness, inattention or willful disregard of the process of the court.

2) Newly Discovered Evidence – evidence previously not discovered, despite reasonable diligence, and
not produced at the trial which if presented could alter the result.

 Form requirements:
 Motion must be in writing
 Written notice must be served to the trial court and the adverse party
 Affidavits of Merit – A Motion for New Trial based on FAME should be accompanied by two affidavits:
1) Setting forth the facts and circumstances alleged to constitute FAME; 2) Setting forth the particular
facts claimed to constitute the movant’s meritorious cause of action or defense. However, affidavits of
merit are NOT necessary when the grant is NOT discretionary with the court but is demandable as a right
– i.e. a) movant has been deprived in his day in court due to lack of notice of hearing; b) the attack is on
the jurisdiction of the court.
 For Motion for New Trial based on Newly discovered evidence – Affidavits of the witness who will
testify to the evidence, or duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence

2. Motion for Reconsideration – If granted, it amends the judgment. It shall point out specifically the
findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not:
1) Supported by the evidence
2) Contrary to Law
• Excessive awarding of damages is also a ground for the motion, but it has been held that this reason
does NOT apply in a Land Registration Proceeding as there are no damages awarded.

2
 Bernz Velo Tumaru 2D12
REMEDIES available within the 15 day Reglementary Period of taking an Appeal ~~ part 2

3. Ordinary Appeal – Appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by: 1) filing a notice of appeal with the RTC court
which rendered judgment or final order from and; 2) serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. The
reglementary period is 15 days from notice of judgment of final order.

 NO appeal may be taken from:

a. Order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration
b. Order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment
c. Interlocutory order
d. Order disallowing or dismissing an appeal
e. Order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession, or compromise on the ground
of fraud, mistake or duress or any other ground vitiating consent
f. Order of execution
g. Judgment or final order for or against parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and
third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows it
h. Order dismissing an action without prejudice

 Doctrine: Neypes vs. CA: In case a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration has been denied, the
party litigant is given a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of the final order denying his motion within
which to file the notice of appeal.

4. Appeal by Certiorari – In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall
be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. The question
raised must be a question of substance not a question of fact.

REMEDIES when 15 day Reglementary Period has LAPSED

1. Petition for Relief From Judgment – under Rule 38, a party who has been denied due process or
representation in a proceeding to which a judgment or final order has already been rendered or any
proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through FAME, he may file a petition in such
court to have the judgment, order or proceeding to be set aside.

Requisites:
a. A judgment or final order, or any proceedings thereafter is taken against a party;
b. Such party was not made aware of the judgment or final order or the proceeding thereafter;
c. Such lack of notice was due to FAME committed by the party who sought the judgment, or FO;
d. The reglementary period of 15 days for filing an appeal, or motion for new trial has lapsed.

Example: Party relied on the representations of other party that they will file motion for postponement
when in fact they did not.

2. Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal – also under Rule 38, a party who has been denied his
remedy to appeal due to FAME may file a petition with the such court rendering judgment or final order
praying that the appeal be give due course.

 Petition for Relief is mutually exclusive with Motion for New Trial. So once a motion for new trial has
been entered, party cannot file thereafter a Petition for Relief.
3
 Bernz Velo Tumaru 2D12
REMEDIES when 15 day Reglementary Period has LAPSED ~~ part 2

3. Annulment of Judgment – When other remedies of motion for new trial, ordinary appeal and petition
for relief is NO longer available, and the party has been denied due process due to 1) extrinsic fraud or
2) lack of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may seek the annulment of the judgment or final order with
the Court of Appeals. As per jurisprudence, denial of due process is also a ground for annulment of
judgment.

Requisites:
a. Final or judgment is entered, and NOT under appeal in either CA or SC;
b. 6 months from the entry of judgment or final order has already lapsed;
c. Ordinary remedies of appeal, new trial and petition for relied has not been availed of;
d. Petitioner was not at fault when he lost opportunity to employ such remedies;
e. Ground for annulment is extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.

REMEDIES specifically available in PD 1529

1. Petition for Review of Decree of Registration under Section 32 – Specific to land registration cases.
Decree of registration shall NOT be opened for any reason EXCEPT for actual or extrinsic fraud.
However, it cannot be opened after entry of final decree of registration or when the land has passed on
any innocent purchaser for value.

Requisites:
a. Petitioner has an estate or interest in the land;
b. He must show actual or extrinsic fraud in the procurement of the decree of registration;
c. Petition is filed within one year from the issuance of the decree by the LRA;
d. Property has not passed on to any innocent purchaser for value.

 Examples of Extrinsic Fraud:

a. Deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested when in fact they are;
b. Applying for and obtaining adjudication and registration in the name of a co-owner of the land
which he knows had not been allotted to him in a partition
c. Intentionally concealing facts, and conniving with the land inspector to include in the survey plan a
bed of navigable stream
d. Willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims
e. Deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to a notice
f. Inducing a claimant not to oppose the application for registration
g. Misrepresentation by the applicant about the identity of the of the lot to the true owner causing the
latter to withdraw his opposition
h. Failure to disclose in the application the vital facts that her husband’s previous application for a
permit to purchase the lands have been rejected because such lands were already reserved as a site
for school purposes
i. Deliberate falsehood that the lands were allegedly inherited, which misled the Bureau of Lands into
not filing an opposition

 In all these cases, the overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme prevented a party from
having his day in court and from presenting his case.

4
 Bernz Velo Tumaru 2D12
REMEDIES specifically available in PD 1529 ~~ part 2 Petition for Review of Decree of Registration

 Innocent purchaser for value – one who buys the property of another without notice that some other
person has a right 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.

Rules to be a purchaser in good faith:

a. A person dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to rely on the title. He is
charged with notice only of such burdens and claims which are annotated on the title, for registration
is the operative act that binds the property.
b. But if a person is buying from one who is NOT the registered owner, he must go beyond the title and
must examine all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the
title or in the vendor’s capacity to transfer the land.
c. If dealing with an agent, or a person other than the registered owner, he must 1) inquire as to the
authority of the agent, and 2) the extent of such authority
d. In a series of transfers, it is enough that the vendee examines the latest certificate of title
e. If the purchaser, regardless of certificate of title, in fact knows of such defect or lack of title in his
vendor, he cannot be considered in good faith
f. Rule of Caveat Emptor – If the property is in actual possession of others, to be in good faith, buyer
must make some inquiry concerning the right of those in possession

 Rule on Double Sale of Immovable Property – There is double sale when the same property is sold to
different persons. Article 1544 of the NCC. Applicable only if the land in question is registered under the
Torrens system and both vendees are in good faith:
a. Person acquiring in good faith who first registers
b. Next is first possessor in good faith should there be no registration
c. An in the absence thereof, person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith

 Remalante vs. Tibe – rule does not apply when there is only one valid sale, the previous sale having
been found to be fraudulent

 In cases where the land is NOT registered under the Torrens system or both petitioners are in bad faith,
the rule that applies is the principle of “Prior est temporae, prior est in jura” or “Prior tempore, potior
jure” – the first vendee has the better right.

Rule in “Prior tempore, potior jure”:

a. Knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat his rights except when the second
buyer first registers in good faith
b. Knowledge by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his right even if he is first to register. Such
knowledge must be prior his registration.

 Can the petition for review be filed even before the entry of final decree? Yes. Doctrine of Rivera vs.
Moran: “It has been ruled that the petition for review of decree of registration may be filed at any time
after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of the one year from entry of the final
decree.”

5
 Bernz Velo Tumaru 2D12
REMEDIES specifically available in PD 1529 ~~ part 3

2. Action for Damages – when a party is no longer able to open the decree for review because it is after
the lapse of one year or the property has passed on to an innocent purchaser for value, then he can file an
action for damages against the party who are responsible for depriving him of his rights or interest in the
property. NOT necessary that it be reason of actual fraud and notwithstanding a petition for review on
the ground of fraud has been denied.

Requisites:
a. Period of filing for petition for review of decree has lapsed;
b. Action for reconveyance is no longer proper because property has passed to an innocent purchaser
for value;
c. Filed within ten years from the date of issuance of the questioned certificate of title.

3. Claim against the Assurance Fund – in case the person who is being sought to be answerable for
damages is INSOLVENT, the aggrieved party may file an action for recovery against the Assurance
Fund under Section 95 of PD 1529 within a period of 6 years from the time the right to bring such action
accrues. The action is against the Treasure of the Philippines.

Requisites for conditions under Section 32:

a. There was no negligence on his part;
b. He was deprived as a consequence of the bringing of his land or interest therein under the provisions
of PD 1529; or by registration by any other person; or by mistake, omission or misdescription in any
certificate of owner’s duplicate, or in any entry or memorandum in the register or by any
cancellation;
c. He is barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or
interest therein, or claim upon the same. (Ergo, person answerable for damages is insolvent and the
property has passed on to an innocent purchaser for value.)

4. Action for Reconveyance – An action that seeks to transfer property wrongfully registered to another to
its rightful and legal owner. In this action, the certificate of title is respected as incontrovertible. What is
sought instead is the transfer of the property to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better right.
It is an action in personam and is available only as long as the property has not passed on to any
innocent purchaser for value.

Requisites:
a. Brought in the name of the person claiming ownership or dominical right
b. Registration of the land was procured by fraud or other illegal means
c. Property has NOT yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value
d. Action filed AFTER one year from entry of final decree of registration but within 4 years from
discovery of fraud, or not later than ten years in the case of an implied trust. The prescriptive periods
only apply when there is an actual need to reconvey the property, as when the plaintiff is NOT in
possession of the property.
e. However, a party who is prejudiced by the action of another who seeks to register the land may file
an action for reconveyance of the property of which he had been illegally deprived, even before the
issuance of the decree (obviously, he need not wait for the issuance to assert his right).

6
 Bernz Velo Tumaru 2D12
REMEDIES specifically available in PD 1529 ~~ part 4 Action for Reconveyance

 A Notice of lis pendens may be annotated on the COT immediately upon the institution of the action in
court. The notice lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third person for value and preserve the
claim of the real owner.

 Quantum of proof – a) Clear and convincing evidence, NOT merely preponderance of evidence.; b) He
who alleged fraud, or forgery has the burden of proof of proving the same; c) Property must be identified;
d) Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title and not the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

 Prescription of Action:
a. Action based on Fraud – four years after the discovery of the alleged fraud. Such discovery is
deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the OCT to the adverse party.
b. Action based on Constructive Implied Trust – ten years from the date of issuance of the OCT in the
name of the adverse party which was procured by fraud. Such registration operates as a constructive
notice to the world.
c. Action based on Void Contract – imprescriptible but may be barred by estoppel or laches
d. Action to quiet title where plaintiff is in possession – imprescriptible. An action for reconveyance
where the plaintiff is in possession of the property is actually is in the nature of action to quiet title.
e. Action against acquisitive prescription – within 10 years for good faith acquisitive prescription (when
adverse party is in good faith and with just title) or 30 years for bad faith (no just title), from the
moment the adverse party is in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the property
in the concept of owner. May also be barred by laches. The only difference with this action compared
to other actions is that the property involved is NOT registered under the Torrens system. Hence this
kind of action is not available as a remedy when the land is actually registered in the name of the
plaintiff. An action based on the Torrens system, where the title is actually registered to the plaintiff,
is imprescriptible.

Other Specific Remedies Available

1. Quieting of Title under Article 476 of the NCC and governed by Section 1, Rule 63 of the RRC –

An action quasi in rem, this action seeks to remove any cloud on the title of the person in possession or
who has legal title over the property. The registered owner, or the one with the legal title is the proper
party to bring an action to quiet title. However, if the plaintiff is already dispossessed of his property,
then the proper action will be one of accion interdictal or accion publiciana or reinvindicatoria. If the
person is in possession of the property or already registered in his name under the Torrens system, the
action is imprescriptible. If not in possession and not under the Torrens system, then subject to 10 years
good faith, and 30 years bad faith acquisitive prescription.

 Cloud in title – an outstanding claim or encumbrance which, if valid, would affect or impair the title of
the owner of particular estate, and on its face has that effect, but can be shown by extrinsic proof to be
invalid or inapplicable to the estate in question.

7
 Bernz Velo Tumaru 2D12
Other Specific Remedies Available ~~ part 2

2. Action for Reversion – Can only be instituted by the Solicitor General. It is an action to seek to restore
public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to the mass of
public domain. It is based on Section 124 of CA No. 141 (Public Lands Act). This is filed pursuant to
Rule 47 of the RRC regarding the action for annulment of judgment. Consequently, it is barred by a
motion for new trial, petition for relief, or an ordinary appeal if already availed of.

Examples when reversion is proper:

a. Public domain is held by private individuals or corporations in violation of the Constitution
b. Fraudulent or unlawful inclusion of lands in patents or certificates of title
c. Violation by the grantee of a patent of the conditions imposed by law
d. Lack of jurisdiction of the Director of Lands to grant patent because the land covers forest land or
portion of a river; hence inalienable
e. Alienation of land acquired under free patent or homestead provisions in violation of Section 118 of
CA No. 141
f. Conveyances made by non-Christians in violation of Section 120, CA No. 141
g. Alienation of lands acquired under CA No. 141 in favor of persons not qualified under Sections 121,
122, and 123

 Action for Reversion does NOT prescribe and government is NOT estopped by the error or mistake of
its agents.
 The Director of Lands has a continuing authority to conduct investigation, from time to time, to determine
whether or not public land has been fraudulently awarded or titled to the end that the corresponding
certificate of title be cancelled and the land reverted to public domain.
 Res judicata does not operate against the government when it can be proved that registration was
procured by fraud, or that the land subject of the proceedings is in fact inalienable.
 However, in Yujuico vs. Republic, the SC ruled that the 27 years of government inaction is cause to bar it
under laches.
 In Republic vs. CA and Santos, SC ruled that government is estopped by laches due to the presumption or
regularity in the performance of the function of its agents, although the government later claims it was a
mistake but was unable give sufficient proof of that error. In other words, a party who, in good faith, has
relied on the assurances and verification of the government agency most capable in settling any doubts as
to the ownership of the property can claim the defense of estoppel against the government.

3. Cancellation of Title – Initiated by a private party usually in a case where there are two titles issued to
different persons for the same lot. When one of the two titles is held to be superior over the other, one
should declared null and void and ordered cancelled. Action is imprescriptible.

Rule on Double Titles:

a. The earlier or the oldest title prevails
b. In case of successive registrations, the person holding under the prior certificate prevails

4. Criminal Prosecution – State may criminally prosecute for perjury or falsification the party who
obtains registration through fraud.