Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Republic v. Espinosa, GR No. 186603

    Uploaded by

    Talledo Sandra
    1) The Republic of the Philippines filed a case seeking to annul the title and revert ownership of land, claiming it was inalienable public land within a timberland area. 2) Respondent Caliston argued her title, issued in 1962 and covered by an OCT from the same year, was legitimate as it was purchased from the original title owner. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the property was not inalienable forest land when the original title was granted, as a cadastral decree had already deemed the land alienable and issued the original title. Thus, respondent Caliston's ownership was maintained.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic v. Espinosa, GR No. 186603

    Uploaded by

    Talledo Sandra
    48 views1 page
    1) The Republic of the Philippines filed a case seeking to annul the title and revert ownership of land, claiming it was inalienable public land within a timberland area. 2) Respondent Caliston argued her title, issued in 1962 and covered by an OCT from the same year, was legitimate as it was purchased from the original title owner. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the property was not inalienable forest land when the original title was granted, as a cadastral decree had already deemed the land alienable and issued the original title. Thus, respondent Caliston's ownership was maintained.

    Original Title

    1. Republic v. Espinosa, GR No. 186603

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Republic of the Philippines filed a case seeking to annul the title and revert ownership of land, claiming it was inalienable public land within a timberland area. 2) Respondent Caliston argued her title, issued in 1962 and covered by an OCT from the same year, was legitimate as it was purchased from the original title owner. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the property was not inalienable forest land when the original title was granted, as a cadastral decree had already deemed the land alienable and issued the original title. Thus, respondent Caliston's ownership was maintained.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic v. Espinosa, GR No. 186603

    Uploaded by

    Talledo Sandra
    1) The Republic of the Philippines filed a case seeking to annul the title and revert ownership of land, claiming it was inalienable public land within a timberland area. 2) Respondent Caliston argued her title, issued in 1962 and covered by an OCT from the same year, was legitimate as it was purchased from the original title owner. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the property was not inalienable forest land when the original title was granted, as a cadastral decree had already deemed the land alienable and issued the original title. Thus, respondent Caliston's ownership was maintained.

    Copyright:

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

    SANDRA P.

    TALLEDO, JD 2-C
    PROF: ATTY. MARCELINO S. MARATA

    CASE DIGEST PAPER FOR LAND TITLE AND DEEDS

    1. CASE TITLE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ESPINOSA, GR NO. 186603


    DATE: April 5, 2017
    PONENTE: Justice Francis H. Jardeleza

    FACTS:

    1. Petitioner represented by the Regional Executive Director of the Department of


    Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region VI, Iloilo City filed a
    Complaint for annulment of title and/or reversion of land with the RTC, Branch 61 of
    Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental on January 13, 2003.
    2. Petitioner claimed that the property is inalienable public land because it fell within a
    timberland area.
    3. Respondent Caliston argued that her title was issued earlier in 1962. The said property
    was sold to her by Valentina Espinosa on June 17, 1976 with Transfer Certificate of
    Title (TCT) No. T- 9111. The TCT N o. is covered with OCT No. 191-N issued on
    October 15, 1962 after the Cadastral Decree1 No. N-31626 was issued to Valentina
    Espinosa.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the property involve in this case is part of inalienable forest land at
    the time Espinosa was granted the cadastral decree and issued a title.

    RULING:

    No. The property involve in this case is not part of inalienable forest land at the time
    Espinosa was granted the cadastral decree and issued a title.
    Jurisprudence holds that in land registration proceedings it must establish that the land
    sought to be registered is alienable or disposable based on a positive act of the government.2
    In the instant case, Espinosa was granted a cadastral decree and was subsequently
    issued OCT No. 191-N, the predecessor title of Caliston's TCT No. 91117. Having been
    granted a decree in a cadastral proceeding, Espinosa can be presumed to have overcome the
    presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. 
    Thus, the property involve in this case is not part of inalienable forest land at the time
    Espinosa was granted the cadastral decree and issued a title.

    1
    The decree shall be the basis for the issuance of the certificate of title which shall have the same effect as issuance of the
    certificate of title granted under the Property Registration Decree, J. Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, Property Registration Decree and
    Related Laws (2018) p. 19
    2
    Cited in Secretary of DENR v. Yap, GR No. 167707, October 8, 2008
    Page 1 of 1

    You might also like