Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Tichangco Digest

    Uploaded by

    runish venganza
    1) Petitioners filed a land title verification request regarding land they occupied in Tondo, Manila, claiming it was public land. They sought to nullify OCTs Nos. 820 and 7477 covering the land. 2) The Court of Appeals affirmed the LRA administrator's finding that there were no legal grounds to nullify the OCTs or subsequent TCTs derived from them. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, holding that OCT No. 820 was properly issued and OCT No. 7477 had become incontrovertible, as the decree was not challenged within one year of registration.

    Copyright:

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

    Tichangco Digest

    Uploaded by

    runish venganza
    40 views1 page
    1) Petitioners filed a land title verification request regarding land they occupied in Tondo, Manila, claiming it was public land. They sought to nullify OCTs Nos. 820 and 7477 covering the land. 2) The Court of Appeals affirmed the LRA administrator's finding that there were no legal grounds to nullify the OCTs or subsequent TCTs derived from them. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, holding that OCT No. 820 was properly issued and OCT No. 7477 had become incontrovertible, as the decree was not challenged within one year of registration.

    Original Title

    Tichangco-Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioners filed a land title verification request regarding land they occupied in Tondo, Manila, claiming it was public land. They sought to nullify OCTs Nos. 820 and 7477 covering the land. 2) The Court of Appeals affirmed the LRA administrator's finding that there were no legal grounds to nullify the OCTs or subsequent TCTs derived from them. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, holding that OCT No. 820 was properly issued and OCT No. 7477 had become incontrovertible, as the decree was not challenged within one year of registration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views1 page

    Tichangco Digest

    Uploaded by

    runish venganza
    1) Petitioners filed a land title verification request regarding land they occupied in Tondo, Manila, claiming it was public land. They sought to nullify OCTs Nos. 820 and 7477 covering the land. 2) The Court of Appeals affirmed the LRA administrator's finding that there were no legal grounds to nullify the OCTs or subsequent TCTs derived from them. 3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, holding that OCT No. 820 was properly issued and OCT No. 7477 had become incontrovertible, as the decree was not challenged within one year of registration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tichangco v.

    Enriquez
    G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004
    Facts:
    On March 1996, Renato Tichangco, in behalf of the homeowners’ association of Gagalangin and Sunog Apog (Tondo,
    Manila), filed a land title verification request with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), docketed as LTV No. 96-0376.
    The verification request was prompted by an alleged claim of ownership of a certain Manotok over the land which
    petitioners occupy, and which they perceive as public land, being portions of the dried or filled bed of Estero de Maypajo
    and Sunog Apog area, and which allegedly have already been identified as Area for Priority Development under the
    Urban Poor Law.

    Petitioners sought the assistance of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for legal action on OCTs Nos. 820 and 7477.
    On 18 February 1999, the OSG wrote a letter to public respondent for a review and evaluation of the records on the
    issuance of TCTs Nos. 128240 to 128249, and 128270 covering parcels of land in Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila, docketed as
    Task Force TM No. 98-0087.

    However, this case is a Petition for Review challenging the August 8, 2001 Decision and the October 29, 2002 Resolution
    of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 54648. The assailed Decision affirmed the findings of the then Land
    Registration Authority (LRA) administrator, Alfredo Enriquez, that there were no legal grounds to initiate appropriate
    proceedings to nullify Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. 820 and 7477 and the subsequent titles derived therefrom:
    Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 128240 to 128249, inclusive, and TCT No. 128270 - all covering parcels of land in
    Tondo, Manila registered in the names of private respondents.

    Issue:
    Whether the Court of Appeals commits grave abuse of discretion tantamount to or in excess of jurisdiction when it failed
    to declare OCT Nos. 820 and 7477 null and void?

    Held:
    The CA held that OCT No. 820 had been issued on January 7, 1907, not on January 31, 1905, as petitioners claim. True,
    Decree No. 1424 had been issued on January 31, 1905, but it was entered or transcribed in the registration book of the
    Register of Deeds only in 1907. Pursuant to Section 42 of Act No. 496 (otherwise known as the Land Registration Act),
    OCT No. 820 took effect on January 7, 1907, the date of the transcription of the decree.

    The CA also held that OCT No. 7477 was already incontrovertible, because it had been the subject of regular land
    registration proceedings. More than one year after its registration, the decree was not controverted by any adverse
    party.

    The fundamental purpose of the Land Registration Law (Act No. 496, now PD 1529) is to finally settle title to real
    property in order to preempt any question on the legality of the title -- except claims that were noted on the certificate
    itself at the time of registration or those that arose subsequent thereto. Consequently, once the title is registered under
    the said law, owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession.

    The proceedings for the judicial registration of land under the Torrens system involve more consequences than an
    ordinary action would. Once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system, and the reglementary period has
    passed within which the decree may be questioned, the title is perfected and cannot be collaterally questioned later on.

    Finally, assuming arguendo that the validity of the two titles may still be impugned, petitioners do not have any legal
    standing to ask directly for their annulment. The first paragraph of Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution mandates
    that “[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
    on which it is based.”
    The Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

    http://cbclawmatters.blogspot.com/2010/01/tichangco-vs-enriquez.html

    You might also like