Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship his notice of adverse claim, the BUYER

Requirement (2003) pays to the seller-owner the agreed purchase

price in full and registers the corresponding
In 1970, the spouses Juan and Juana de l
deed of sale. Because the annotation of the
a Cruz, then Filipinos, bought the parcel of
notice of levy is carried over to the new title in
unregistered land in the Philippines on which
his name, the BUYER brings
they built a house which became their
an action against the JUDGMENT
residence. In 1986, they migrated to Canada
and became Canadian citizens. CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but
the latter claims that his lien is superior
Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed by because it was annotated after
the Republic, for the registration of the the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso
aforesaid land in their names. Should the facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit
application of the spouses de la Cruz be prosper?
granted over the Republic’s opposition? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim
Yes, the application should be granted. As a duly annotated at the back of a title under
rule, the Constitution prohibits aliens from Section 7O of P.D. 1529 is good only for 30
owning private lands in the Philippines. This days, cancellation thereof is still necessary to
rule, however, does not apply to the spouses render it ineffective, otherwise, the
Juan and Juana de la Cruz because at the inscription thereof will remain annotated as a
time they acquired ownership over the lien on the property. While the life
land, albeit imperfect, they were still of adverse claim is 3O days under P.D. 1529,
Filipino citizens. The application it continuous to be effective until it is
for registration is a mere confirmation of canceled by formal petition filed with the
the imperfect title which the spouses have Register of Deeds.
already acquired before they became
Canadian The cancellation of the notice of levy is
citizens. (Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 [ justified under Section 108 of P.D. 1529
1994]). considering that the levy on execution can not
be enforced against the buyer
Adverse Claims; Notice of Levy (1998) whose adverse claim against the registered
Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 owner was recorded ahead of the notice of
, concerning adverseclaims on registered levy on execution.
land, provides a 30-day period of effectivity of Annotation of Lis Pendens; When
an adverse claim, counted from the date of Proper (2001)
its registration. Suppose a notice
Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for P1
of adverse claim based upon a contract to sell
million payable in five (5) equal annual
was registered on March 1, 1997 at the
installments. The sale was registered and title
instance of the BUYER, but on June 1, 1997,
was issued in Carmen’s name. Carmen failed
or after the lapse of the 30-day period, a
to pay the last three installments and Mario
notice of levy on execution in favor of a
filed an. action for collection, damages and
JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered
attorneys fees against her. Upon filing of the
to enforce a final judgment for money against
complaint, he caused a notice of lis pendens
the registered owner. Then, on June 15, 1997
there having been no formal cancellation of
to be annotated on Carmen’s title. Is the purposes, and only by lease when not needed
notice of lis pendens proper or not? Why? by the government for public service.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2) If the land is suited or actually used for
fishpond or aquaculture purposes, it comes
The notice of lis pendens is not proper for the under the Jurisdiction of the Bureau of
reason that the case filed by Mario against Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and
Carmen is only for collection, damages, and can only be acquired by lease (P.D. 705).
attorney’s fees.
(3) Free Patent is a mode of concession
Annotation of a lis pendens can only be done under Section 41, Chapter VII of the Public
in cases involving recovery of possession of Land Act, which is applicable only
real property, or to quiet title or to remove for agricultural lands.
cloud thereon, or for partition or any other
proceeding affecting title to the land or the (4) The certificate of the district forester that
use or occupation thereof. The actionfiled by the land is already “alienable and disposable”
Mario does not fall on anyone of these. simply means that the land is no longer
needed for forest purposes, but the Bureau of
Foreshore Lands (2000)
Lands could no longer dispose of it by
Regina has been leasing foreshore land from free patent because it is already covered by a
the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic lease contract between BFAR and Regina.
Resources for the past 15 years. Recently, That contract must be respected.
she learned that Jorge was able to obtain (5) The free patent of Jorge is highly
a free patent from the Bureau of Agriculture, irregular and void ab initio, not only
covering the same land, on the basis of a because the Bureau has no statutory
certification by the District Forester that the authority to issue a freepatent over a
same is already “alienable and foreshore area, but also because of the false
disposable”. Moreover, Jorge had already statements made in his sworn application
registered the patent with the Register of that he has occupied and cultivated the land
Deeds of the province, and he was issued an since July 4, 1945, as required by
Original Certificate of Title for the same. the free patent law. Under Section 91 of the
Regina filed an action for annulment of Public Land Act, any patent concession or
Jorge’s title on the ground that it was title obtained thru false representation is void
obtained fraudulently. Will ab initio. In cases of this nature, it is the
the action prosper? government that shall institute annulment
SUGGESTED ANSWER: proceedings considering that the suit carries
with it a prayer for the reversion of the
An action for the annulment of Jorge’s land to the state. However, Regina is a
Original Certificate of Title will prosper on party in interest and the case will prosper
the following grounds: because she has a lease contract for the same
(1) land with the government.
Under Chapter IX of C .A, No. 141, otherwise Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Holder
known as the Public Land Act, foreshore in Bad Faith (2005)
lands are disposable for residential,
Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in
commercial, industrial, or similar productive
his vehicle an envelope containing TCT No.
65432 over a lot registered in Cesar’s name.
Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesar’s signature In the given problem, the property was
on a Deed of Sale in Rod’s favor. Rod already registered in the name of Rod when
registered the said document with the he bought the same from the latter. Thus,
Register of Deeds, and obtained a new title in Don could be considered as a buyer in good
his name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, faith and for value. However, since Rod did
a buyer in good faith and for value, who also not actually sell any property to him, Don has
registered the lot in his name. no right to retain ownership over the
property. He has only the right to recover the
a)
purchase price plus damages.
Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain.
Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Mirror
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Principle (1991)
No, Rod did not acquire title to the land. The
Bruce is the registered owner, of a parcel of la
inscription in the registry, to be effective,
nd with a building thereon and is in peaceful
must be made in good faith. The defense of
possession thereof. He pays the real estate
indefeasibility of a Torrens Title does not
taxes and collects the rentals therefrom.
extend to a transferee who takes
Later, Catalino, the only brother of Bruce,
the certificate of title with notice of a flaw. A
filed a petition where he, misrepresenting
holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is
to be the attorney-in-fact of Bruce and
not entitled to the protection of the law, for
falsely alleging that the certificate of title was
the law cannot be used as a shield for
lost, succeeded in obtaining a second owner’s
frauds. (Samonte v. Court of Appeals, G.
duplicate copy of the title and then had the
R. No. 104223, July 12, 2001)
same transferred in his name through a
In the case at bar, Rod only forged Cesar’s simulated deed of sale in his favor. Catalino
signature on then mortgaged the property to Desiderio
the Deed of Sale. It is very apparent that there who had the mortgage annotated on the title.
was bad faith on the part of Rod from the very Upon learning of the fraudulent transaction,
beginning. As such, he is not entitled to the Bruce filed a complaint against Catalino and
protection of the Land Registration Act. Desiderio to have the title of Catalino and the
mortgage in favor of Desiderio declared null
b) Discuss the rights of Don, if any, over the
and void.
property.
Will the complaint prosper, or will the title of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Catalino and the mortgage to Desiderio be
It is a well-known rule in this jurisdiction sustained?
that persons dealing with registered land
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
have the legal right to rely on the face of the
Torrens Certificate of Title and to dispense The complaint for the annulment of
with the need to inquire further, except when Catalino’s Title will prosper. In the first place,
the party concerned has actual knowledge of the second owner’s copy of the title secured
facts and circumstances that would impel a by him from the Land Registration Court is
reasonably cautious man to make such void ab initio, the owner’s copy thereof
inquiry (Naawan Community Rural Ban having never been lost, let alone the fact that
k v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128573, said second owner’s copy of the title was
January 13, 2003). fraudulently procured and improvidently
issued by the Court. In the second place, the
Transfer Certificate of Title procured by he was issued a corresponding Original
Catalino is equally null and void, it having Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 375,
been issued on the basis of a simulated or Subsequently, Nestor sold the land to Eddie.
forged Deed of Sale. A forged deed is an The deed of sale was submitted to the
absolute nullity and conveys no title. Register of Deeds and on the basis thereof,
OCT No, 375 was cancelled and Transfer
The mortgage in favor of Desiderio is likewise
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4576 was issued
null and void because the mortgagor is not in the name of Eddie. In 1986, the Director of
the owner of the mortgaged property. While Lands filed a complaint for annulment of
OCT No, 375 and TCT No. 4576 on the
it may be true that under the
ground that Nestor obtained the Free Patent
“Mirror Principle” of the Torrens System through fraud. Eddie filed a motion to
of Land Registration, a buyer or mortgagee dismiss on the ground that he was an
has the right to rely on what appears on the innocent purchaser for value and in good
faith and as such, he has acquired a title to
Certificate of Title, and in the absence of the property which is valid, unassailable and
anything to excite suspicion, is under no indefeasible. Decide the motion.
obligation to look beyond the certificate and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
investigate the mortgagor’s title, this rule
The motion of Nestor to dismiss the
does not find application in the case at hand
complaint for annulment of O.C.T. No. 375
because here. Catalino’s title suffers from two and T.C.T. No. 4576 should be denied for the
fatal infirmities, namely: following reasons:
1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an
a)
innocent purchaser for value nor can he
The fact that it emanated from a forged deed
interpose the defense of indefeasibility of his
of a simulated sale;
title, because his TCT is rooted on a void title.
b) Under Section 91 of CA No. 141, as amended,
The fact that it was derived from a fraud otherwise known as the Public Land Act,
ulently procured or improvidently issued statements of material facts in the
second owner’s copy, the real owner’s copy applications for public land must be under
being still intact and in the possession of the oath. Section 91 of the same act provides that
true owner, Bruce. such statements shall be considered as
essential conditions and parts of the
The mortgage to Desiderio should be
concession, title, or permit issued, any
cancelled without prejudice to his right to go
false statement therein, or omission of facts
after Catalino and/or the government for
shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of
compensation from the assurance fund.
the concession. The patent issued to Nestor in
Fraud; Procurement of Patent; this case is void ab initio not only because it
Effect (2000) was obtained by fraud but also because it
covers 30 hectares which is far beyond the
In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a
maximum of 24 hectares provided by the free
Free Patent over a parcel of agricultural land
patent law.
with an area of 30 hectares, located in
General Santos City. He presented the 2)
Free Patent to the Register of Deeds, and The government can seek annulment of the o
riginal and transfer certificates of title and the On the other hand, B’s defense of
reversion of the land to the state. Eddie’s pari delicto is equally untenable. While as a
defense is untenable. The protection
rule, parties who are in pari delicto have no
afforded by the Torrens System to an
innocent purchaser for value can be availed of recourse against each other on the principle
only if the land has been titled thru judicial that a transgressor cannot profit from his
proceedings where the issue of fraud becomes
own wrongdoing, such rule does not apply
academic after the lapse of one (1) year from
the issuance of the decree of registration. In to violations of Section 118 of the Public
public land grants, the action of the Land Act because of the underlying public
government to annul a title fraudulently
policy in the said Act
obtained does not prescribe such action and
will not be barred by the transfer of the title “to conserve the land which a homesteader ha
to an innocent purchaser for value. s acquired by gratuitous grant from the
Homestead Patents; Void Sale (1999) government for himself and his family”. In

In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homest keeping with this policy, it has been held that
ead patent to A. Three years later, A sold the one who purchases a homestead within the
homestead to B. A died in 1990, and his heirs five-year prohibitory period can only recover
filed an action to recover the homestead from
B on the ground that its sale by their father to the price which he has paid by filing a claim
the latter is void under Section 118 of the against the estate of the deceased
Public Land Law. B contends, however, that seller (Labrador vs. Delos Santos 66 Phi
the heirs of A cannot recover the homestead
l. 579) under the principle that no one shall
from him anymore because their action has
prescribed and that furthermore, A was in enrich himself at the expense of another.
pari delicto. Decide. Applying the pari delicto ruleto violation of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Section 118 of the Public Land Act, the Court
The sale of the land by A to B 3 years after of Appeals has ruled that “the homesteader
issuance of the homestead patent, being in suffers the loss of the fruits realized by the
violation of Section 118 of the Public Land
vendee who in turn forfeits the improvement
Act, is void from its inception.
that he has introduced into the land.”
The action filed by the heirs of B to declare
(Obot vs. Sandadi
the nullity or inexistence of the contract and
to recover the land should be given due Uas, 69 OG,April 35,1966}
course.
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B’s defense of prescription is untenable
The action to declare the nullity of the sale
because an action which seeks to declare did not prescribe (Art. 1410}, such sale being
the nullity or inexistence of A contract one expressly prohibited and declared void by
does not the Public Lands Act [Art. 1409, par. (7)]. The
prohibition of the law is clearly for the
prescribe. (Article 1410; Banaga vs. Soler
protection of the heirs of A such that their
, 28 SCRA 765) recovering the property would enhance the
public policy regarding ownership of lands SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acquired by homestead patent (Art. 1416).
Metrobank’s defense is untenable. As a rule,
The defense of pari delicto is not applicable
an innocent purchaser for value acquires a
either, since the law itself allows the
good and a clean title to the property.
homesteader to reacquire the land even if it
However, it is settled that one who closes his
has been sold.
eyes to facts that should put a reasonable
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: man on guard is not an innocent purchaser
for value. In the present problem the bank is
Prescription does not arise with respect to
expected, as a matter of standard operating
actions to declare a void contract a nullity
procedure, to have conducted an ocular
(Article 1410). Neither is the doctrine of
inspection, of the promises before granting
pari delicto applicable because of public
any loan. Apparently, Metrobank did not
policy. The law is designed for the protection
follow this procedure. Otherwise, it should
of the plaintiff so as to enhance the public
have discovered that the condominium unit
policy of the Public Land Act to give land to
in question was occupied by Cesar and that
the landless.
fact should have led it to make further
If the heirs are not allowed to recover, it could inquiry. Under the circumstances, Metrobank
be on the ground of laches inasmuch as 40 cannot be considered a mortgagee and buyer
years had elapsed and the owner had not in good faith.
brought any action against B especially if the
Mirror Principle (1990)
latter had improved the land. It would be
detrimental to B if the plaintiff is allowed to In 1950’s, the Government acquired a big
recover. landed estate in Central Luzon from the
registered owner for subdivision into small
Innocent Purchaser for Value (2001)
farms and redistribution of bonafide
Cesar bought a residential condominium unit occupants, F was a former lessee of a parcel of
from High Rise Co. and paid the price in full. land, five hectares in area. After completion
He moved into the unit, but somehow he of the resurvey and subdivision, F applied to
was not given the Condominium buy the said land in accordance with the
Certificate of Title covering the property. guidelines of the implementing agency. Upon
Unknown to him, High Rise Co. subsequently full payment of the price
mortgaged the entire condominium building in 1957, the corresponding deed of absolute s
to Metrobank as security for a loan of P500 ale was executed in his favor and was
million. High Rise Co. failed to pay the loan registered, and in 1961, a new title was issued
and the bank foreclosed the mortgage. At the in his name. In 1963, F sold the said land to
foreclosure sale, the bank acquired the X; and in 1965 X sold it to Y, new titles were
building, being the highest bidder. When successively issued in the names of the said
Cesar learned about this, he filed an action to purchasers.
annul the foreclosure sale insofar as his unit
In 1977, C filed an action to annul the deeds
was concerned. The bank put up the defense
of sale to F, X and Y and their titles, on the
that it relied on the condominium certificates
ground that he (C) had been in actual
of title presented by High Rise Co., which
physical possession of the land, and that the
were clean. Hence, it was a mortgagee and
sale to F and the subsequent sales should be
buyer in good faith. Is this defense tenable or
set aside on the ground of fraud. Upon
not? Why?
motion of defendants, the trial court
dismissed the complaint, upholding their successors in title that the land shall be and
defenses of their being innocent purchasers always remain registered land. A title under
for value, prescription and laches. Plaintiff
Act 496 is indefeasible and to preserve that
appealed.
character, the title is cleansed anew with
(a)
Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain your a every transfer for value (De Jesus v. City of
nswer Manila; 29 Phil. 73; Laperal v. City of
(b) Suppose the government agency Manila, 62 Phil. 313; Penullar v.
concerned joined C in filing the said action PNB, 120 SCRA 111).
against the defendants, would that change the
result of the litigation? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) Even if the government joins C, this will
not alter the outcome of the case so much
(a) The appeal is not meritorious. The trial
because of estoppel as an express provision in
court ruled correctly in granting defendant’s
Sec 45 of Act 496 and Sec 31 of PD 1529 that a
motion to dismiss for the following reasons:
decree of registration and the certificate of
1. While there is the possibility that F, a title issued in pursuance thereof “shall be
former lessee of the land was aware of the conclusive upon and against all persons,
fact that C was the bona fide occupant including the national government and all
thereof and for this reason his transfer branches thereof, whether mentioned by
certificate of title may be vulnerable, the name in the application or not.”
transfer of the same land and the issuance of
Mirror Principle; Forgery; Innocent
new TCTs to X and Y who are innocent
Purchaser (1999)
purchasers for value render the latter’s titles
indefeasible. A person dealing with registered The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of reg
land may safely rely on the correctness of the istered land to A, delivering as well the OCT
certificate of title and the law will not in any to the latter, but they continued to possess
way oblige him to go behind the certificate to and cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of each
determine the condition of the property in harvest to A in partial payment of their loan
search for any hidden defect or inchoate to the latter, A, however, without the
right which may later invalidate or diminish knowledge of X and Y, forged a deed of
the right to the land. This is the mirror sale of the aforesaid land in favor of
principle of the Torrens System of land himself, got a TCT in his name, and then sold
registration. the land to B, who bought the land relying on
A’s title, and who thereafter also got a TCT
2. The action to annul the sale was instituted
in his name. It was only then that the
in 1977 or more than (10) years from the date
spouses X and Y learned that their land had
of execution thereof
been titled in B’s name. May said spouses file
in 1957, hence, it has long prescribed.
an action for reconveyance of the land in
3. Under Sec 45 of Act 496, “the entry of a question against b? Reason.
certificate of title shall be regarded as an SUGGESTED ANSWER:
agreement running with the land, and The action of X and Y against B for
binding upon the applicant and all his reconveyance of the land will not prosper
because B has acquired a clean title to the possession. If after learning of such
property being an innocent purchaser for possession, B simply closed his eyes and did
value. nothing about it, then the suit for
reconveyance will prosper as the buyer’s bad
A forged deed is an absolute nullity and
faith will have become evident.
conveys no title. The fact that the forged deed
Notice of Lis Pendens (1995)
was registered and a certificate of title was
Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a
issued in his name, did not operate to vest
parcel of land in Quezon City. One year
upon an ownership over the property later Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the
of X and Y. The registration of the forged land, discovered the fraudulent registration
deed will not cure the infirmity. However, obtained by Rommel. She filed a complaint
against Rommel for reconveyance and caused
once the title to the land is registered in the the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on
name of the forger and title to the land the certificate of title issued to Rommel.
thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent Rommel now invokes the indefeasibility of his
title considering that one year has already
purchaser for value, the latter acquires a
elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks the
clean title thereto. A buyer of a registered cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens.
land is not required to explore beyond what May the court cancel the notice of lis pendens
the record in the registry indicates on its face even before final judgment is rendered?
in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate Explain.

right which may subsequently defeat his right SUGGESTED ANSWER:

thereto. This is the “mirror principle‘ of A Notice of Lis Pendens may be cancelled
the Torrens system which makes it possible even before final judgment upon proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of
for a forged deed to be the root of a good title.
molesting or harassing the adverse
party or that the notice of lis pendens is not
Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are
necessary to protect the right of the party who
guilty of contributory negligence when they
caused it to be registered. (Section 77, P.D.
delivered this OCT to the mortgagee without
No. 1529)
annotating the mortgage thereon. Between
them and the innocent purchaser for value, In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the
they should bear the loss. legitimate owner of the land in question. It
can be said, therefore, that when she filed
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
her notice of lis pendens her purpose
If the buyer B, who relied on the teller A’s was to protect her interest in the land and
title, was not aware of the adverse possession not just to molest Rommel. It is necessary
of the land by the spouses X and Y, then the to record the Lis pendens to protect her
latter cannot recover the property from B. B interest because if she did not do it, there is a
has in his favor the presumption of good faith possibility that the land will fall into the
which can only be overthrown by adequate hands of an innocent purchaser for value
proof of bad faith. However, nobody buys and in that event, the court loses control over
land without seeing the property, hence, B the land making any favorable judgment
could not have been unaware of such adverse thereon moot and academic. For these
reasons, the notice of lis pendens may not be Carlos is a transferee pendente lite insofar as
canceled. Sancho’s share in the co-ownership in the
land is concerned because the land was
Notice of Lis Pendens; Transferee
transferred to him during the pendency of the
Pendente Lite (2002)
appeal.
Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a
B. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner
parcel of land. Sancho sold the property to
by pursuing his appeal; asking the Court of
Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and Bart for
Appeals to order the re-annotation of the lis
annulment of the sale and reconveyance of
pendens on the title of Carlos; and by
the property based on the fact that the sale
invoking his right of redemption of Bart’s
included his one- half pro-indiviso share.
share under Articles 1620 of the New Civil
Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens annotated
Code.
on the title covering the property and ordered
the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The notice of lis pendens could not be
A. Carlos is a purchaser in good faith. A
cancelled immediately because the title over
possessor in good faith has been defined as
the property was with a bank to which
“one who is unaware that there exists a flaw
the property had been mortgaged by Bart.
which invalidates his acquisition of the thing”
Pacifico appealed the case. While the appeal
(Art. 526, NCC). Good faith consists in the
was pending and with the notice of lis
possessor’s belief that the person from whom
pendens still uncancelled, Bart sold the
he received the thing was the owner of the
property to Carlos, who immediately
same and could convey his title. In the case
caused the cancellation of the notice of lis
[at bar], in question, while Carlos bought the
pendens, as well as the issuance of a new title
subject property from Bart while a notice of
in his name.
lis pendens was still annotated thereon, there
Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) was also an existing court order canceling the
a transferee pendente lite? If your answer is same. Hence, Carlos cannot be considered as
(a), how can the right of Pacifico as co-owner being “aware of a flaw which invalidates
be protected? Explain. [their] the acquisition of the thing” since the
alleged flaw, the notice of lis pendens, was
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
already being ordered cancelled at the time
A. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of of the purchase. On this ground alone, Carlos
lis pendens was still annotated at the back of can already be considered a buyer in good
the title at the time he bought the land from faith.
Bart. The uncancelled notice of lis pendens (PoLam v. Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA
operates as constructive notice of its contents 86, [2000]).
as well as interests, legal or equitable, B. To protect his right over the subject
included therein. All persons are charged property, Pacifico should have timely filed an
with the knowledge of what it contains. In an action for reconveyance and reinstated the
earlier case, it was held that a notice of an notice of lis pendens.
adverse claim remains effective and binding
notwithstanding the lapse of the 30 days from Prescription &Laches; Elements of
its inscription in the registry. This ruling is Laches (2000)
even more applicable in a lis pendens. In an action brought to collect a sum of
money based on a surety agreement, the
defense of laches was raised as the claim was construction of the sports complex had
filed more than seven years from the maturity started. Upon completion of the construction
of the obligation. However, the action was in 1952, she tried but failed to get free
brought within the ten-year prescriptive membership privileges in Verde.
period provided by law wherein actions based
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the
on written contracts can be instituted.
annulment of the sale on the ground that she
a) Will the defense prosper? Reason. did not consent to the sale. In answer, Verde
contends that, in accordance with the Spanish
b) What are the essential elements of laches?
Civil Code which was then in force, the sale in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1948 of the property did not need her
concurrence. Verde contends that in any case
No, the defense will not prosper. The problem
the action has prescribed or is barred by
did not give facts from which laches may be
laches. Winda rejoins that her Torrens title
inferred. Mere delay in filing an action,
covering the property is indefeasible, and
standing alone, does not constitute
imprescriptible.
laches (Agra v. PNB, 309 SCRA 509).
A. Define or explain the term “laches”.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. Decide the case, stating your reasons for yo
b) The four basic elements of laches are; (1)
ur decision.
conduct on the part of the defendant or of one
under whom he claims, giving rise to the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
situation of which complainant seeks a
A. LACHES means failure or neglect,
remedy; (2) delay in asserting the
for an unreasonable and unexplained length
complainant’s rights, the complainant having
of time, to do what, by exercising due
had knowledge or notice of the defendant’s
diligence, could or should have been done
conduct and having been afforded an
earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a
opportunity to institute suit; (3) lack of
right within a reasonable
knowledge on the part of the defendant that
time. (De Vera v. CA, 305 SCRA 624 [199
the complainant would assert the right on
9])
which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or
prejudice to the defendant in the event relief B. While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil
is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is Code did not require the consent of the wife
not held to be barred. for the validity of the sale, an alienation by
the husband in fraud of the wife is void as
Prescription & Laches; Indefeasibility
held in Uy Coque v. Navas, 45 Phil. 430
Rule of Torrens Title (2002) (1923). Assuming that the alienation in 1948
was in fraud of Winda and, therefore, makes
Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in fa
the sale to Verde void, the action to set aside
vor of Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde)
the sale, nonetheless, is already barred
a 10-hectare property belonging to their
by prescription and laches. More than 52
conjugal partnership. The sale was made
years have already elapsed from her discovery
without Winda’s knowledge, much less
of the sale in 1950.
consent. In 1950, Winda learned of the sale,
when she discovered the deed of sale among ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the documents in her husband’s vault after
his demise. Soon after, she noticed that the B. Winda’s claim that her Torrens Title
covering the property is indefeasible and
imprescriptible [does not hold water] is not In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death
tenable. The anniversary of his father O. son P filed a suit
rule of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title mean to annul the mortgage deed and subsequent
s that after one year from the date of issue of sale of the property, etc., on the ground
the decree of registration or if the land has of fraud. He asserted that the property in
fallen into the hands of an innocent question was conjugal in nature actually
purchaser for value, the title becomes belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O
incontestable and incontrovertible. and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to
their sons (S and P) and to O.
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY, on the other hand,
means that no title to the land in derogation (a) Is the suit filed by P barred by prescriptio
of that of the registered owner may be n? Explain your answer.
acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive
(b) After the issuance of the sheriff’s final dee
prescription or that the registered owner does
d of sale in 1966 in this case, assuming that M
not lose by extinctive prescription his right to
applied for registration under the Torrens
recover ownership and possession of the land.
System and was issued a Torrens Title to the
The action in this case is for annulment of the said property in question, would that added
sale executed by the husband over a fact have any significant effect on your
conjugal partnership property covered by a conclusion? State your reason.
Torrens
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Title. Action on contracts are subject to presc
ription. (a) Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the
Prescription (1990) action is barred by prescription because the
wife had only ten (10) years from the
In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was m transaction and during the marriage to file a
ortgaged by owner O to M, a family friend, as suit for the annulment of the mortgage deed.
collateral for a loan. O acted through his
attorney-in-fact, son S, who was duly Alternative Answers to (a) first Alternative
authorized by way of a special power of Answer:
attorney, wherein O declared that he was the (a) The mortgage contract executed by O, if at
absolute owner of the land, that the tax all, is only a voidable contract since it
declarations/receipts were all issued in his involves a conjugal partnership property. The
name, and that he has been in open, action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or
continuous and adverse possession in the eleven years after the execution of the
concept of owner. sheriff’s final sale, has obviously prescribed
As O was unable to pay back the loan plus because:
interest for the past five [5) years, M had to 1) An action to annul a contract on the
foreclose the mortgage. At the foreclosure
ground of fraud must be brought within four
sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance
of the sheriff’s final deed of sale and (4) years from the date of discovery of the
registration in January, 1966, the mortgage fraud. Since this is in essence an action to
property was turned over to M’s possession
recover ownership, it must be reckoned
and control M has since then developed the
said property. In 1967, O died, survived by from the date of execution of the
sons S and P. contract or from the registration of the
alleged fraudulent document with the A sold the Tarlac parcel to X in a deed of sale
assessor’s office for the purpose of executed as a public instrument by A and X.
After X paid in full the, price of the sale, X
transferring the tax declaration, this being
took possession of the Pangasinan parcel in
unregistered land, (Baelu the belief that it was the Tarlac parcel covered
v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. L- by the deed of sale executed by A and X.
74423, Jan. 30, 1989, 169 SCRA 617). After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose
between B and X on the issue of the
2) ownership of the Pangasinan parcel, B claims
If the action is to be treated as an action to re a vested right of ownership over the
cover ownership of land, it would have Pangasinan parcel because B never sold that
prescribed just the same because more than parcel to X or to anyone else.
10 years have already elapsed since the date
of the execution of the sale. On the other hand, X claims a vested right of
ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: acquisitive prescription, because X
(a) The action to recover has been barred by possessed this parcel for over ten (10]
acquisitive prescription in favor of M years under claim of ownership.
considering that M has possessed the land Decide on these claims, giving your reasons.
under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years
with a just title. SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) If M had secured a Torrens Title to the At this point in time, X cannot claim the right
land, all the more S and P could not recover of vested ownership over the Pangasinan
because if at all their remedies would be: parcel by acquisitive prescription. In addition
to the requisites common to ordinary and
1. A Petition to Review the Decree of extraordinary acquisitive prescription
Registration. This can be availed of within consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public,
one (1) year from-the entry thereof, but only adverse and actual possession in the concept
upon the basis of “actual fraud.” There is no of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription
showing that M committed actual fraud in for ten (10) years requires (1) possession in
securing his title to the land; or good faith and (2) just title. “Just title” means
2. An action in personam against M for the that the adverse claimant came into
reconveyance of the title in their favor. Again, possession of the property through one of the
this remedy is available within four years modes recognized by law for the acquisition
from the date of the discovery of the fraud but of ownership but the grantor was not the
not later than ten (10) years from the date of owner or could not transmit any right
registration of the title in the name of M. (Art. 1129. Civil Code). In this case, there is
no “just title” and no “mode” that can be
Prescription; Real Rights (1992) invoked by X for the acquisition of the
A owned a parcel of unregistered land located Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive
on the Tarlac side of the boundary between delivery of the Pangasinan parcel because it
Tarlac and Pangasinan. His brother B owned was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale.
the adjoining parcel of unregistered land on Hence, B retains ownership of the
the Pangasinan side. Pangasinan parcel of land.
Primary Entry Book; Acquisitive No title to registered land in derogation of the
Prescription; Laches (1998) title of the registered owner shall be acquired
by prescription or adverse possession.
In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel (Section 47, P.D. No, 1529)
of registered land evidenced by a duly
The right to recover possession of registered
executed deed of sale. The owner presented
land likewise does not prescribe because
the deed of sale and the owner’s certificate of
possession is just a necessary incident of
title to the Register of Deeds. The entry
ownership.
was made in the daybook and
corresponding fees were paid as evidenced by SUGGESTED ANSWER:
official receipt. However, no transfer of b) Mikaelo’s defense of laches, however,
certificate of title was issued to Renren appears to be more sustainable. Renren
because the original certificate of title in bought the land and had the sale registered
Robyn’s name was temporarily misplaced way back in 1965. From the facts, it appears
after fire partly gutted the Office of the that it was only in 1998 or after an
Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the land had inexplicable delay of 33 years that he took the
been possessed by Robyn’s distant first step asserting his right to the land. It was
cousin, Mikaelo, openly, adversely and not even an action to recover ownership but
continuously in the concept of owner since only possession of the land. By ordinary
1960. It was only in April 1998 that Renren standards, 33 years of neglect or inaction is
sued Mikaelo to recover possession. Mikaelo too long and maybe considered unreasonable.
invoked a) acquisitive prescription and b) As often held by the Supreme Court, the
laches, asking that he be declared owner of principle of imprescriptibility sometimes has
the land. Decide the case by evaluating these to yield to the equitable principle of laches
defenses. which can convert even a registered land
SUGGESTED ANSWER: owner’s claim into a stale demand.

a) Renren’s action to recover possession of Mikaelo’s claim of laches, however, is weak

the land will prosper. In 1965, after buying insofar as the element of equity is concerned,
the land from Robyn, he submitted the Deed there being no showing in the facts how he
of Sale to the Registry of Deeds for entered into the ownership and possession of
registration together with the owner’s the land.
duplicate copy of the title, and paid the Reclamation of Foreshore Lands;
corresponding registration fees. Under Limitations (2000)
Section 56 of PD No. 1529, the Deed of Sale to
Renren is considered registered from the time Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities
the sale was entered in the Day Book (now and chartered cities to reclaim foreshore
called the Primary Entry Book). lands bordering them and to construct
thereon adequate docking and harbor
For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is facilities. Pursuant thereto, the City of
considered the registered owner of the land. Cavite entered into an agreement with the
After all, it was not his fault that the Fil-Estate Realty Company, authorizing the
Registry of Deeds could not issue the latter to reclaim 300 hectares of land
corresponding transfer certificate of title. from the sea bordering the city, with 30% of
Mikaelo’s defense of prescription can not be the land to be reclaimed to be owned by Fil-
sustained. A Torrens title is imprescriptible. Estate as compensation for its services. The
 Solicitor General questioned the validity se, it does not vest, alienate or transfer
of the agreement on the ground that it will ownership of land under the sea. The city
mean reclaiming land under the sea which is merely engaged the services of Fil-Estate to
beyond the commerce of man. The City reclaim the land for the city.
replies that this is authorized by RA. 1899
Registration; Deed of Mortgage (1994)
because it authorizes the construction of
docks and harbors. Who is correct? How do you register now a deed of mortgage
of a parcel of land originally registered under
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the Spanish Mortgage Law?
The Solicitor General is correct. The authority
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the City of Cavite under RA 1899 to
reclaim land is limited to foreshore lands. a) After the Spanish Mortgage Law was
The Act did not authorize it to reclaim land abrogated by
from the sea. “The reclamation being P.D. 892 on February 16, 1976, all lands cover
unauthorized, the City of Cavite did not ed by Spanish titles that were not brought
acquire ownership over the reclaimed land. under the Torrens system within six (6)
Not being the owner, it could not have months from the date thereof have been consi
conveyed any portion thereof to the dered as “unregistered private lands.”
contractor.
Thus, a deed of mortgage affecting land
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: originally registered under the Spanish
Mortgage Law is now governed by the
It depends. If the reclamation of the land
system of registration of transactions
from the sea is necessary in the construction
or instruments affecting unregistered land
of the docks and the harbors, the City of
under Section 194 of the Revised
Cavite is correct. Otherwise, it is not. Since
Administrative Code as amended by Act No.
RA 1899 authorized the city to construct
3344. Under this law, the instrument or
docks and harbors, all works that are
transaction affecting unregistered land is
necessary for such construction are deemed
entered in a book provided for the purpose
authorized. Including the reclamation of land
but the registration thereof is purely
from the sea. The reclamation being
voluntary and does not adversely affect
authorized, the city is the owner of the
third persons who have a better right.
reclaimed land and it may convey a portion
thereof as payment for the services of the b) By recording and registering with the
contractor. Register of Deeds of the place where the land
is located, in accordance with Act 3344.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
However, P.D. 892 required holders of
On the assumption that the reclamation Spanish title to bring the same under the
contract was entered into before RA 1899 Torrens System within 6 months from its
was repealed by PD 3-A, the City of Cavite is effectivity on February 16, 1976.
correct. Lands under the sea are “beyond the
Remedies; Judicial Confirmation;
commerce of man” in the sense that they are
Imperfect Title (1993)
not susceptible of private
appropriation, ownership or alienation. On June 30, 1986, A filed in the RTC of
The contract in question merely calls for the Abra an application for registration of title to
reclamation of 300 hectares of land a parcel of land under P. D. No. 1529,
within the coastal waters of the city. Per claiming that since June 12, 1945, he has
been in open, continuous, exclusive An application for land registration is a
and notorious possession and occupation of proceeding in rem. Its main objective is to
said parcel of land of the public domain establish the status of the res whether it is
which was alienable and disposable, under a still part of our public domain as presumed
bona fide claim of ownership. After issuance under the Regalian doctrine or has acquired
of the notice of initial hearing and the character of a private property. It is
publication, as required by law, the petition the duty of the applicant to overcome that
was heard on July 29, 1987. On the day of the presumption with sufficient evidence.
hearing nobody but the applicant appeared.
Remedies; Judicial Reconstitution of
Neither was there anyone who opposed the
Title (1996)
application. Thereupon, on motion of the
applicant, the RTC issued an order of general In 1989, the heirs of Gavino, who died on Aug
default and allowed the applicant to present ust 10, 1987, filed a petition for reconstitution
his evidence. That he did. On September 30, of his lost or destroyed Torrens Title to a
1989, the RTC dismissed A’s application for parcel of land in Ermita, Manila. This was
lack of sufficient evidence. A appealed to the opposed by Marilou who claimed ownership
Court of Appeals. of the said land by a series of sales. She
claimed that Gavino had sold the property to
The appellant urged that the RTC erred in
Bernardo way back in 1941 and as evidence
dismissing his application for registration
thereof, she presented a Tax Declaration in
and in not ordering registration of his title to
1948 in the name of Bernardo, which
the parcel of land in question despite the fact
cancelled the previous Tax Declaration in the
that there was no opposition filed by anybody
name of Gavino. Then she presented two
to his application.
deeds of sale duly registered with the Register
Did the RTC commit the error attributed to it of Deeds, the first one executed by Bernardo
? in 1954 selling the same property to Carlos,
and the second one executed by Carlos in
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1963, selling the same property to her. She
No, the RTC did not commit the error also claimed that she and her predecessors in
attributed to it. In an application for Judicial interest have been in possession of the
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title property since 1948.
to public agricultural land under Section 48
If you were the judge, how will you decide the
of the Public Land Act, the lack of opposition
petition? Explain.
and the consequent order of default against
those who did not answer or show up on SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the date of initial hearing, does not guarantee
If I were the judge, I will give due course to
the success of the application. It is still
the petition of the heirs of Gavino despite the
incumbent upon the applicant to prove with
opposition of Marilou for the following
well nigh incontrovertible evidence that he
reasons:
has acquired a title to the land that is fit for
registration. Absent such registrable title, it is a) Judicial reconstitution of a certificate of
the clear duty of the Land Registration Court title under
to dismiss the application and declare the RA. No. 26 partakes of a land registration pro
land as public land. ceeding and is perforce a proceeding in rem.
It denotes restoration of an existing
instrument which has been lost or destroyed
in its original form and condition. The the Register of Deeds concerned and pay the
purpose of reconstitution of title or any consulta fee.
document is to have the same reproduced,
3) After receipt of the Consulta and payment
after proceedings. In the same form they were
of the corresponding fee the Register of
when the loss or destruction occurred.
Deeds makes an annotation of the pending
b) If the Court goes beyond that purpose, it consulta at the back of the certificate of title.
acts without or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus,
4) The Register of Deeds then elevates the
where the Torrens Title sought to be
case to the LRA Administrator with certified
reconstituted is in the name of Gavino, the
records thereof and a summary of the facts
court cannot receive evidence proving that
and issues involved.
Marilou is the owner of the land. Marilou’s
dominical claim to the land should be 5)
ventilated in a separate civil action before the The LRA Administrator then conducts hearin
Regional Trial Court in its capacity as a court gs after due notice or may just require parties
of general jurisdiction. to submit their memoranda.
REFERENCES: Heirs of Pedro Pinate v 6) After hearing, the LRA Administrator
s. Dulay, 187 SCRA 12-20 (1990); Bunag issues an order prescribing the step to be
taken or the memorandum to be made. His
an vs. CF1 Cebu Branch VI, 97 SCRA 72 resolution in consulta shall be conclusive and
(1980); Republic vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 62, binding upon all Registers of Deeds
66 (1988); Margolles vs. CA, 230 SCRA unless reversed on appeal by the Court of
Appeals or by the Supreme Court. (Section
709; Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA
117, P.D. 1529).
924.
• The procedure of consulta is a mode of
Remedies; Procedure; Consulta (1994) appeal from denial by the Register of Deeds
of the registration of the instrument to the
What is the procedure of consult
Commissioner of Land Registration.
a when an instrument is denied registration?
• Within five days from receipt of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
notice of denial, the interested party may
1) The Register of Deeds shall notify the elevate the matter by consulta to the
interested party in writing, setting forth the Commissioner of Land Registration who shall
defects of the instrument or the legal enter an order prescribing the step to be
ground relied upon for denying the taken or memorandum to be made.
registration, and advising that if he is not Resolution in consulta shall be binding upon
agreeable to such ruling, he may, all Registers of Deeds provided that the party
without withdrawing the documents from in interest may appeal to the Court of Appeals
the Registry, elevate the matter by Consulta within the period prescribed (Sec. 117, P.D.
to the Administrator of the Land Registration 1529).
Authority (LRA).
Remedies; Reconveyance
2) vs. Reopening of a Decree;
Within five {5) days from receipt of notice of Prescriptive Period (2003)
denial, the party-in-interest shall file his
Louie, before leaving the country to train as a
Consulta with
chef in a five- star hotel in New York, U.S.A.,
 entrusted to his first-degree cousin Dewey an There is no need to reopen the registration
application for registration, under the Land proceedings, but the property should just be
Registration Act, of a parcel of land reconveyed to the real owner.
located in Bacolod City. A year later, Louie
The action for reconveyance is based on
returned to the Philippines and discovered
implied or constructive trust, which
that Dewey registered the land and obtained
prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of
an Original Certificate of Title over the
issuance of the original certificate of title.
property in his Dewey’s name. Compounding
This rule assumes that the defendant is in
the matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an
possession of the land. Where it is the
innocent purchaser for value. Louie promptly
plaintiff who is in possession of the land, the
filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel
action for reconveyance would be in the
of land against Huey.
nature of a suit for quieting for the title which
(a) action is
Is the action pursued by Louie the proper re imprescriptible (David v. Malay, 318 SCR
medy? A 711 [1999]).
(b) Assuming that reconveyance is the Remedies; Reconveyance;
proper remedy, will the action prosper if the Elements (1995)
case was filed beyond one year, but within ten
Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a
years, from the entry of the decree of
parcel of land in Quezon City. One year later,
registration?
Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the land,
• Brain Damage discovered the fraudulent registration
• Deed of sale
• Criminal Law obtained by Rommel. She filed a complaint
• Answers against Rommel for reconveyance and caused
• Amendment
the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the certificate of title issued to Rommel.
(a) An action for reconveyance against Huey Rommel now invokes the indefeasibility of his
is not the proper remedy, because Huey is an title considering that one year has already
innocent purchaser for value. The proper elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks the
recourse is for Louie to go after Dewey for cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens.
damages by reason of the fraudulent
Will Rachelle’s suit for reconveyance
registration and subsequent sale of the
prosper? Explain.
land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file
a claim against the Assurance SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De Castr Yes, Rachelle’s suit will prosper because all
o 324 SCRA 591 [2000] citing Sps. elements for an action for reconveyance are
Eduarte v. CA, 323 Phil 462, 467 present, namely:
[1996]).
a) Rachelle is claiming dominical rights
(b) Yes, the remedy will prosper because the over the same land.
action prescribes in ten (10) years, not within
one (1) year when a petition for the reopening b) Rommel procured his title to the land by
of the registration decree may be filed. The fraud.
action for reconveyance is distinct from the c)
petition to reopen the decree of registration The action was brought within the statutory p
(Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. 49 [1910}). eriod of four (4) years from discovery of the
fraud and not later than ten (10} years from rtificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2277 was issued
the date of registration of Rommel’s title. in the name of Melvln.
d) On 7 September 1971, Percival filed a protest
Title to the land has not passed into the hand alleging
s of an innocent purchaser for value. that Lot B which he had been occupying and c
ultivating since 1947 was included in the Free
Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his
Patent issued in the name of Melvin. The
title if Rachelle had filed a petition to reopen
Director of Lands ordered the investigation of
or review the decree of registration. But
Percival’s protest. The Special Investigator
Rachelle instead filed an ordinary action in
who conducted the investigation found that
personam for reconveyance. In the latter
Percival had been in actual cultivation of Lot
action, indefeasibility is not a valid defense
B since 1947.
because, in filing such action, Rachelle is not
seeking to nullify nor to impugn the On 28 November 1986, the Solicitor General
indefeasibility of Rommel’s title. She is only filed in behalf of the Republic of the
asking the court to compel Rommel to Philippines a complaint for cancellation of
reconvey the title to her as the legitimate the free patent and the OCT issued in the
owner of the land. name of Melvin and the reversion of the land
to public domain on the ground of fraud and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
misrepresentation in obtaining the free
Yes. The property registered is deemed to be patent. On the same date, Percival sued
held in trust for the real owner by the person Martin for the reconveyance of Lot B.

in whose name it is registered. The Torrens Melvin filed his answers interposing the
sole defense in both cases that the Certificate
system was not designed to shield one who
of Title issued in his name became
had committed fraud or misrepresentation incontrovertible and indefeasible upon the
and thus holds the title in bad lapse of one year from the issuance of the free
faith. (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr.,(G.R 38387 patent.

, 29 Jan. 1990) as cited in Martinez, D., Given the circumstances, can the action of the
Solicitor General and the case for
Summary of SC Decisions,
reconveyance filed by Percival possibly
January to June,1990,p.359]. prosper?

Remedies; Reconveyance; Prescriptive SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Period (1997)
“If fraud be discovered in the application
On 10 September 1965, Melvin applied for a f which led to the issuance of the patent and
ree patent covering two lots – Lot A and Lot B Certificate of Title, this Title becomes ipso
– situated in Santiago, Isabela. Upon facto null and void. Thus, in a case where a
certification by the Public Land Inspector that person who obtained a free patent, knowingly
Melvin had been in actual, continuous, open, made a false statement of material and
notorious, exclusive and adverse possession essential facts in his application for the same,
of the lots since 1925, the Director of Land by stating therein that the lot in question was
approved Melvin’s application on 04 part of the public domain not occupied or
June 1967. On 26 December 1967, Original Ce claimed by any other person, his title
becomes ipso facto canceled and Besides, well settled is the rule that once
consequently rendered null and void.” public land has been in open, continuous,
“It is to the public interest that one who exclusive and notorious possession under a
succeeds In fraudulently acquiring title to bonafide claim of acquisition of ownership for
public land should not be allowed to the period prescribed by Section 48 of the
benefit therefrom and the State, through Public Land Act, the same ipso jure ceases to
the Solicitor General, may file the be public and in contemplation of law
corresponding action for annulment of the acquired the character of private land. Thus,
patent and the reversion of the land involved reconveyance of the land from Melvin to
to the public domain” (Dinero Percival would be the better
vs. Director of Lands; Kayaban vs. Rep procedure (Vitale vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 855
ublic L-33307, 8-20- ; Pena, Land Titles and Deeds, 1982, p.
73; Director of Lands 427).
vs. Hon. Pedro Samson Animas, L-
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
37682,3-29-74).
The action of the Solicitor General should
This action does not prescribe. With respect prosper, considering that the doctrine of
to Percival’s action for reconveyance, it would indefeasibility of title does not apply to free
have prescribed, having been filed more than patent secured through fraud. A certificate of
ten (10) years after registration and issuance title cannot be used as shield to perpetuate
of an O.C.T. in the name of Melvin, were it fraud. The State is not bound by the period of
not for the inherent infirmity of the latter’s prescription stated in Sec. 38 of Act
title. Under the facts, the statute of 496. (Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, 124
limitations will not apply to Percival because SCRA 358).
Melvin knew that a part of the land covered
The action for reconveyance filed by Percival
by his title actually belonged to Percival. So,
may still prosper provided that the property
instead of nullifying in toto the title of Melvin,
has not passed to an innocent third party for
the court, in the exercise of equity and
value (Dablo
jurisdiction, may grant prayer for the
vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 618),
reconveyance of Lot B to Percival who has
and provided that the action is filed within
actually possessed the land under a claim of
the prescriptive period of ten years
ownership since 1947. After all, if Melvin’s
(Tale vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 2
title is declared void ab initio and the land is
66). Since the action was filed by Percival
reverted to the public domain, Percival would
19 years after the issuance of Melvin’s title, it
just the same be entitled to preference right
to acquire the land from the government.
is submitted that the same is already barred a)
by prescription. The petition must be filed by a person cl
aiming dominical or other real rights to the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (to second part land registered in the name of respondent.
of question) b) The registration of the land in the name
of respondent was procured by means of
The action for reconveyance filed by Percival actual, (not just constructive) fraud, which
will prosper, because the land has ceased to must be extrinsic. Fraud is actual if the
be public land and has become private land registration was made through deceit or any
by open, continuous, public, exclusive other intentional act of downright dishonesty
possession under a bona fide claim of to enrich oneself at the expense of another. It
ownership for more than thirty years, and is extrinsic when it is something that was not
Percival is still in possession of the property raised, litigated and passed upon in the main
at present. His action for reconveyance can be proceedings.
considered as an action to quiet title, which
does not prescribe if the plaintiff is in c) The petition must be filed within one (1)
possession of the year from the date of the issuance of the
property. (Olviga v.CA, G.R. decree.
No. 1048013, October 21,1993) d) Title to the land has not passed to an
Remedies; Reopening of a Decree; Innocent purchaser for value (Libudan vs.
Elements (1992) Gil, 45 SCRA 27, 1972), Rublico vs.
Orrelana. 30 SCRA 511, 1969);
What are the essential requisites or eleme RP vs. CA, 57 G. R No. 40402. March 16
nts for the allowance of the reopening or , 1987).
review of a decree of registration?
Torrens System vs.Recording of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Evidence of Title (1994)
The essential elements are: (1) that the Distinguish the Torrens system of land
petitioner has a real or dominical right; (2) registration from the system of recording of
that he has been deprived thereof through evidence of title.

fraud; (3) that the petition is filed within one SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) year from the issuance of the decree; and a) The TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND
(4) that the property has not yet been REGISTRATION is a system for the
registration of title to the land. Thus, under
transferred to an innocent purchaser
this system what is entered in the Registry of
(Rublico vs. Orellana 30 SCRA 511; Ubu Deeds, is a record of the owner’s estate
dan vs.Gil 45 SCRA 17). or interest in the land, unlike the system
under the Spanish Mortgage Law or the
OPTIONAL EXTENDED ANSWER: system under Section 194 of the Revised
Administrative Code as amended by Act
Petition for review of the Decree of
3344 where only the evidence of such title is
Registration. A remedy expressly provided
recorded. In the latter system, what is
in Section 32 of P. D. No. 1529 (formerly
recorded is the deed of conveyance from
Section 38. Act 496), this remedy has the
following elements:
hence the owner’s title emanated—and not rate to divert Maria of her ownership? If it
the title itself. did, who then is the owner of the property?
b) Torrens system of land registration is that SUGGESTED ANSWER:
which is prescribed in Act 496 (now PD
A. The sale of the land to Juan is not valid,
1529), which is either Judicial or quasi-
being contrary to law. Therefore, no transfer
judicial. System or recording of evidence of
of ownership of the land was effected from
title is merely the registration of evidence of
the delinquent taxpayer to him. The original
acquisitions of land with the Register of
certificates of title obtained by Maria thru a
Deeds, who annotates the same on the
free patent grant from the Bureau of Lands
existing title, cancels the old one and issues a
under Chapter VII, CA 141 is valid but in view
new title based on the document presented
of her delinquency, the said title is subject to
for registration.
the right of the City Government to sell the
Unregistered Land (1991) land at public auction. The issuance of the
OCT did not exempt the land from the tax
Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty tax
sales. Section 44 of P.O. No. 1529 provides
es on her unregistered agricultural land
that every registered owner receiving a
located in Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to
Certificate of Title shall hold the same free
satisfy the taxes due, the City sold it at public
from an encumbrances, subject to certain
auction to Juan Miranda, an employee at the
exemptions.
Treasurer’s Office of said City, whose bid at
P10,000.00 was the highest. In due time, a B. Juan may recover because he was not a
final bill of sale was executed in his favor. party to the violation of the law.
Maria refused to turn-over the possession of t C. No, the sale did not divest Maria of her
he property to Juan alleging that (1) she had title precisely because the sale is void. It is as
been, in the meantime, granted a free patent good as if no sale ever took place.
and on the basis thereof an Original
In tax sales, the owner is divested of his land
Certificate of Title was issued to her, and (2)
initially upon award and issuance of a
the sale in favor of Juan is void from the
Certificate of Sale, and finally after the lapse
beginning in view of the provision in
of the 1 year period from date of registration,
the Administrative Code of 1987 which
to redeem, upon execution by the treasurer of
prohibits officers and employees of the
an instrument sufficient in form and effects to
government from purchasing directly or
convey the property. Maria remained owner
indirectly any property sold by the
of the land until another tax sale is to be
government for nonpayment of any tax, fee or
performed in favor of a qualified buyer.
other public charge.
(a) Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the
effect of the Issuance of the Certificate of Title
to Maria?
(b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P
10,000.00? If not, why not?
(c)
If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, ope