PLL Case Digest 2,7,12,17

2.
)HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI

vs.
DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY
G.R. No. L-27873. November 29, 1983.
DOCTRINE:
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such
classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.
FACTS:
The case involves a dispute over the classification of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 885
in Pilar, Capiz. The petitioners, heirs of Jose Amunategui, filed an application for
confirmation of imperfect title and registration of the land. However, the Director of
Forestry opposed the application, claiming that the land is classified as forest land and part
of the public domain..
The Heirs of Jose Amunategui maintain that Lot No. 885 cannot be classified as forest land
because it is not thickly forested but is a "mangrove swamp". Furthermore, they contend
that Lot 885, even if it is a mangrove swamp, is still subject to land registration proceedings
because the property had been in actual possession of private persons for many years, and
therefore, said land was already "private land" better adapted and more valuable for
agricultural than for forest purposes and not required by the public interests to be kept
under forest classification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Lot No. 885 can be subjected to registration and confirmation of title ?
RULING:
NO. The court held that the disputed land is part of the public domain and classified as
forest land. The fact that no trees enumerated in Section 1821 of the Revised
Administrative Code are found in Lot No. 885 does not divest such land of its being
classified as forest land, much less as land of the public domain.
This Court ruled in the leading case of Director of Forestry v. Muoz (23 SCRA 1184) that
possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership. And in
Republic v. Animas (56 SCRA 499), we granted the petition on the ground that the area
covered by the patent and title was not disposable public land, it being a part of the forest
zone and any patent and title to said area is void ab initio. It bears emphasizing that a
positive act of Government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest and to
convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
7.)CRESENCIANO DE LA CRUZ
vs.
JULIO CRUZ
G.R. No. L-27759. April 17, 1970.
DOCTRINE:
Appellant is not a co-owner of the registered parcel of land, taken as a unit or subject of co-
ownership, since he and the spouses do not "have a spiritual part of a thing which is not
physically divided" nor is each of them an "owner of the whole and over the whole he
exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is
truly abstract.
FACTS:
On 1966, Cresenciano de la Cruz, filed a complaint against Julio Cruz, Zenaida Montes and
Alfonso Miranda, praying the court to have declared by way of pre-emption and legal
redemption, the one-half (1/2) portion of the land that was sold to Miranda. Appellant's
alleged that after he bought from the spouses Julio Cruz and Zenaida Montes the northern
half of the parcel of land embraced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10680, he and the
spouses became co-owners of the said parcel of land, "the plaintiff owning one-half (1/2)
(northern part) and defendants Julio Cruz and Zenaida Montes owning the remaining one-
half (1/2) portion (southern part)", such that plaintiff has the right of pre-emption or legal
redemption over the portion that was subsequently sold to Alfonso Miranda
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cresenciano de la Cruz, is a co-owner of the land and entitled to pre-
emption and legal redemption rights over a portion of the land that was sold to Miranda?
RULING:
NO.Tested against the concept of co-ownership, appellant is not a co-owner of the
registered parcel of land, taken as a unit or subject of co-ownership, since he and the
spouses do not "have a spiritual part of a thing which is not physically divided", nor is each
of them an "owner of the whole, and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but
he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly abstract . . ." The portions of
appellant-plaintiff and of the defendant spouses are concretely determined and identifiable,
for to the former belongs the northern half, and to the latter belongs the remaining
southern half, of the land. That their respective portions are not technically described, or
that said portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title, does not make
said portions less determinable or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from the other, nor
that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners. Hence, no right
of redemption among co-owners exists.
12.) ONG, ET AL.
VS.
SPS. CABUCOS
G.R. NO. 148056, APR. 19, 2001
DOCTRINE:
A title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession
FACTS:
The case involves a dispute over ownership and possession of a residential property in
Cebu City, Philippines. The property was originally owned by Pedro and Josefa Quiamco,
who had six children. After the death of their parents, the Quiamco children executed an
Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs with a Deed of Donation, transferring the property to
their sister Trinidad Quiamco. Trinidad allowed her sister-in-law Elizabeth Quiamco and
her children to occupy the property. In 1994, the respondents, Richard and Nilda Cabucos,
purchased the property from Trinidad and obtained a new title in their names. They
subsequently demanded that the petitioners vacate the premises, but the petitioners
refused Petitioners insist that they had acquired ownership of subject property by
acquisitive prescription as shown by their uninterrupted, open, continuous and peaceful
possession since 1972 up to the present, as well as by donation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the donation could stand over the certificate of title?
RULING:
NO. A title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious
possession. The subject property was previously titled in the name of spouses Pedro and
Josefa Quiamco, then transferred to Trinidad, and later to respondents. Moreover, in
asserting ownership by donation, petitioners were in effect assailing the title of
respondents. The Court of Appeals correctly brushed aside this argument of petitioners by
invoking our ruling that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on its
validity can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Having failed
to show any right to possess subject property, petitioners must surrender possession to
respondents as the new owners and rightfully entitled thereto.
17.) VDA DE RETUERTO
VS.
BARZ
GR No. 148180 DEC. 19, 2001
DOCTRINE:
It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence
of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein. Such indefeasibility commences after the lapse or expiration of one
year from the date of entry of the decree of registration. The act of registration is
considered a constructive notice to all persons respecting title to property; hence, after the
lapse of one year, title to the property can no longer be contested.
FACTS:
The respondents filed a case for quieting of title with damages against the petitioners..
Records show that in 1966, an application for confirmation of title over Lot 896 was filed by
Pedro Barz, herein respondents' predecessor-in-interest, with the Court of First Instance of
Cebu .Thereafter, a decision declaring Pedro Barz as the lawful owner of the said property
was rendered by the court and consequently, an original certificate of title, OCT No. 521,
was issued in his name on November 13, 1968. . Thus, after the lapse of one year, which was
November 13, 1969, private respondent's title to the property already became indefeasible
and can no longer be controverted.
Petitioners contest such title and claim that as early as 1929, their predecessor-in-interest,
Panfilo Retuerto, bought the property from Juana Perez Barz and that in 1937, the then
Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cebu adjudicated said property to Panfilo Retuerto in
GLRO Record No. 4030. However, nowhere has it been shown that a decree of registration
was ever issued affecting the property.The RTC declared the respondents as the absolute
owners of the property and nullified the documents presented by the petitioners and
affirmed by CA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners' claim of title over the property constitutes a collateral
attack on the respondents' original certificate of title?
RULING:
NO.Under Section 48 of PD 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, "a certificate of title
cannot be subject to collateral attack; it cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding. The issue of the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently
issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.

PLL Case Digest 2,7,12,17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLL Case Digest 2,7,12,17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLL Case Digest 2,7,12,17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

)HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI

You might also like