Remedies in general

The Torrens system is not perfect. It has its pitfalls but these pitfalls do not detract from
the merits of the system. Our citizens must be made aware that despite these pitfalls,
there are safeguards provided by law and there are remedies within their reach. Ubi jus,
ibi remedium (Where there is a right, there is a remedy.)
What follows are the different remedies to the aggrieved parties. The question may be
asked: Can these remedies be availed of at the same time? Bearing in mind that these
remedies are alternative options, any one of which may be availed of depending on the
circumstances of the particular case, the answer is NO. The exception is with regard to
the recovery of damages which may be availed of simultaneously with some other
remedies. Thus an action for reconveyance and damages is permissible; and damages
may be filed simultaneously with a petition for relief from judgment or with a petition for
review of the decree of registration.

Motion for new trial/motion for

reconsideration
What rule governs? READ: Rule 37, Revised Rules of Court
Grounds. READ: Rule 37, Revised Rules of Court
a) Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence
b) Newly discovered evidence
Queries:
Is failure of a party’s counsel to attend trial for lack of advance notice an accident
sufficient to grant a motion for new trial? What about failure to attend due to
forgetfulness? READ: Talavera vs. Mangoba, 8 SCRA 837 (1963)

Yes.  In this particular case, however, it was shown that the absence of counsel was explained and
immediately upon receipt of the decision, a motion for new trial, accompanied by an affidavit of merit,
and a medical certificate, were presented. Said motion for new trial could well be considered as
motion to set aside judgment or one for relief, since it contained allegations purporting to show the
presence of good defenses. The ends of justice could have been served more appropriately had the
lower court given appellant the chance to present his evidence at least. Furthermore, it appears that
payments had been made by appellant to appellee, which were duly received and receipt for. This
particular circumstance merits consideration. After all, court litigations are primarily for the search of
truth, and in this present case, to find out the correct liability of defendant-appellant to appellee. A
trial, by which both parties are given the chance to adduce proofs, is the best way to find out such
truth. A denial of this chance, would be too technical. The dispensation of justice and the vindication
of legitimate grievances, should not be barred by technicalities

Is failure to hire new counsel excusable negligence? READ: Antonio vs. Ramos, 2 SCRA
731 (1961)

Does the omission of counsel constitute an excusable mistake and negligence,

so as to entitle his client, the appellants herein, to be heard?

The aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment and grant a
new trial on the ground of

"(a) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could
not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably
been impaired in his rights" (Sec. 1, (a), Rule 37; Sunico v. Villapando, 14 Phil. 352).

The allegation of counsel that he forgot to note the notice of hearing in his calendar is
flimsy. It does not constitute the accident, mistakes or excusable negligence,
contemplated by the Rules of Court. The exercise of ordinary prudence on his part could
have guarded against or avoided such mistake or negligence. Counsel did not exercise
ordinary prudence because he did not perform his routine job or duty of noting down
the notice of hearing in his calendar. On this point, the learned trial judge commented: jgc:chan

What are the requisites for invoking newly-discovered evidence as a ground for new
trial? READ: People vs. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA 632 (1992)

(a) the evidence was discovered after the trial;

(b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise
of reasonable diligence; and

(c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that,
if admitted, will probably change the judgment.

Who may file? READ: Republic vs. Director of Lands, 71 SCRA 426 (1976)
Appeal
Reglementary period: 15 days from receipt. READ: Sec. 30 & 33, PD 1529 in relation to
Sec. 39, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) and Sec. 1(e),
PD 478.
As against the government. READ: Republic vs. Sayo, 191 SCRA 71; Republic vs. CA, 135
SCRA 156

Republic vs. Sayo, 191 SCRA 71 as this Court had occasion to rule, that
Spanish document, cannot be considered 
a title to property, it not being one of the
grants made during the Spanish regime,
and obviously not constituting primary
evidence of ownership. It is an
inefficacious document on which to base
any finding of the private character of the
land in question. And, of course, to argue
that the initiation of an application for
registration of land under the Torrens Act
is proof that the land is of private
ownership, not pertaining to the public
domain, is to beg the question.

Republic vs. CA, 135 SCRA 156 It is already a settled rule that forest lands or forest reserves
are not capable of private appropriation, and possession
thereof, however long, can not convert them into private
property unless such lands are reclassified and considered
disposable and alienable by the Director of Forestry.
Furthermore, with the passage of Presidential Decree No.
892, effective February 16, 1976, Spanish Titles can no
longer be used as evidence of land ownership. Under the
same decree, lands not under the Torrens System shall be
considered as unregistered.

Note: Despite the pendency of the appeal, the court retains jurisdiction until the
expiration of one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. READ: Gomez vs.
Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 503; HENCE, the case may still be reopened and the
decision set aside when granted. READ: Cayanan vs. Estenzo, 21 SCRA 1348
Gomez vs. Court of Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land
Appeals, 168 SCRA registration proceeding does not become final, in the sense of
incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one (1) year after the entry of
503 the final decree of registration.  This Court, in several decisions, has held
9

that as long as a final decree has not been entered by the Land
Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year
has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally
adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to
be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.

Cayanan vs. Estenzo,

21 SCRA 1348

Requirements. READ: Republic vs. Estenzo, 158 SCRA 282

 "the requirements of our Rules of Court relative to the perfection of an appeal in an ordinary case
apply in the same manner and with equal force and effect to appeals from a decision of a court of
first instance in registration and cadastral proceedings." And under the provisions of the Rules of
Court then obtaining the period within which to appeal the decision of the Court of First Instance
(now, Regional Trial Court) to the Supreme Court was thirty days (Rule 42 section 1 and Rule 41
section 3.). Hence, from August 28, 1972 when the assailed decision was received by herein
petitioners until September 15, 1972 when the petition was filed, the thirty-day period had not yet
elapsed.

Queries:
When is appeal not deemed perfected? READ: Heirs of Cristobal Marcos vs. De
Banuvar, 25 SCRA 316

An appeal was not perfected by the mere notation.

The appeal interposed by the petitioners from this order was dismissed by the respondent court for
"failure to post the required bond." 

What is the effect of failure to appeal? READ: Nieto vs. Quines, 6 SCRA 74

  As a general rule, registration of title under the cadastral system is

final, conclusive, and indisputable, after the passage of thirty-day
period allowed for an appeal from the date of receipt by the party of
a copy of the judgment of the court adjudicating ownership without
any step having been taken to perfect an appeal. The prevailing
party may then have execution of the judgment as of right and is
entitled to the certificate of title issued by the Chief of the Land
Registration Office. The exception is the special provision providing
for fraud."

          Under the foregoing pronouncement, the title of ownership

on the land is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the
period to appeal from the decision or adjudication by the cadastral
court, without such an appeal having been perfected. The certificate
of title would then be necessary for purposes of effecting
registration of subsequent disposition the land where court
proceedings would no longer be necessary.

Is execution pending appeal allowed in registration proceedings? READ: Director of

Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177

In any event, We rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration
proceeding. It is fraught with dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may be misled into
purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal. A
Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the
explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall be issued only
after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and it is on the basis of said
decree that the Register of Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title.

If the decision in a land registration case was issued by the First Level Courts (MTCs,
METCs, etc.), where shall the appeal be filed? 

BP 129, SECTION 38: Such judgment shall be appealable to the RTCs in accordance
with the procedure now prescribed by law for appeals to the CFI, by the provisions of
this Act, any such rules as the SC may hereafter prescribe.
Petition for relief from judgment
What rule governs? READ: Rule 38, Revised Rules of Court
Grounds. READ: Section 2, Rules of Court
 When an judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party
thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented
from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case
praying that the appeal be given due course.
Reglementary period: 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or
proceeding to be set aside BUT not more than six months after ENTRY of the judgment,
final order or such proceeding taken. READ: Sections 1 & 2, Rule 38, Rules of Court
Form of the petition. READ: Section 3, Rules of Court
Who may avail of the remedy? READ: Rule 38, Rules of Court
Query: May a petition for relief from judgment be availed of in a case where the decision
was received by the aggrieved party more than seven months after it was issued by the
court? READ: Bernabe vs. CA, GR No. L-18278, 30 March 1967.

"relief", under Rule 38, may not be availed of except when the decision has become
final and executory, and only when a new trial is not available. 
Petition for reopening/review of
the decree of registration
Petition for reopening/review/ of the decree of registration. READ: Sec. 32, PD 1529

 Who may avail of the remedy? READ: Sec. 32, PD 1529

o Who is an aggrieved party? READ: Garcia vs. Mendoza, 203 SCRA 732 (1991)

any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of

registration obtained by fraud

o May a defaulted party avail of the remedy. Reasons. READ: Rublico vs. Orellano,
30 SCRA 511 (1969)

Yes, a petitioner for review under Section 38 of Act 496, as amended, need not
be an original claimant in a cadastral proceeding and need not secure the lifting
of the order of general default with respect to himself. The aim of the law in
giving aggrieved parties, victimized by registration proceedings of their estate in
land by means of fraud, the opportunity to review the decree would be defeated
if such parties would be limited to those who had filed their opposition to the
petition for registration or to first require them to procure the lifting of the order
of general default before they could file a petition for review.

o May a person who was deprived of an opportunity to be heard in the original

registration case file the petition? READ: Crisolo vs. CA, 68 SCRA 435 (1975)

Yes, The person(s) contemplated under Section 38 of Act 496, to be entitled to a review of a
decree of registration, are those who were fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be
heard in the original registration case. 

o May a homestead applicant avail of the remedy. READ: Cruz vs. Navarro, 54
SCRA 109 (1973)

Yes, once a homestead applicant has complied with all the conditions essential to
a Government grant, he acquires "not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the
Government." Thus: jgc:[Link]

". . . where all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are
 complied with through actual physical possession openly, continuously, and
publicly, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions of
Chapter VII of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926 (carried over as Chapter VIII
of Commonwealth Act No. 141), the possessor is deemed to have already
acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the
Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order
that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts

It is our view that the petitioners have amply alleged below such real, legally
protected interest over the parcels in question sufficient to clothe them with the
necessary personality to question, independently of the Director of Lands, the
validity of the grant of title over the said properties to the private respondents.

o May a person who does not claim the land to be his private property but admits
that such land is public  avail of the remedy. READ: Boniel vs. Reyes, 35 SCRA 218
(1970)

No, Accordingly, since petitioner and his co-petitioners make no claim of their
application for a free patent to the land having been approved nor of a patent in
their favor having been awarded, they had no valid cause of action to file an
action for annulment of Yap’s patent and for cancellation of the title issued to
Yap by virtue thereof.

 Where to file? READ: Baldoz vs. Papa, 14 SCRA 691 (1965)

 When to file? 1 year from issuance of decree by LRA. READ: Sec. 32, PD 1529
 What are the essential requisites of a petition to reopen/review the decree? READ:
Walstrom vs. Mapa Jr., 181 SCRA 431 (1990)

It is the teaching of the foregoing provisions that a decree of registration may be reopened or
reviewed by the proper Regional Trial Court upon the concurrence of five essential requisites, to wit:
(a) that the petitioner has a real and a dominical right; (b) that he has been deprived thereof;(c)
through fraud; (d) that the petition is filed within one year from the issuance of the decree; and (e)
that the property has not as yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.

o Define actual or extrinsic fraud; differentiate it from intrinsic fraud. READ:

Sterling Investment Corp. vs. Ruiz, 30 SCRA 318 (1969)

Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the successful party in a litigation
which is committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or his
agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is prevented from
presenting fully and fairly his side of the case. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud
 refers to acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged
instruments on perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the
case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case.

o What are the different kinds of fraud? What kind or fraud is allowed as a ground
to review or reopen a land registration decree? READ: Mendoza v. Valte, G.R. No.
172961, 7 September 2015.

[T]he fraud must consist in an intentional omission of facts required by law to be

stated in the application or a willful statement of a claim against the truth. It
must show some specific acts intended to deceive and deprive another of his [or
her] right. The fraud must be actual and extrinsic, not merely
constructive or intrinsic; the evidence thereof must be clear,
convincing[,] and more than merely preponderant, because the
proceedings which are assailed as having been fraudulent are judicial
proceedings which by law, are presumed to have been fair and regular.

Actual fraud "proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the

misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact." 126 Extrinsic fraud "is
employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from
asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant."

o Cite specific instances of actual or extrinsic fraud. READ: Ramirez vs. CA, 144
SCRA 292 (1986)

Thus, relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in land where the fraud consists in a
deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested when in fact they are, or in
applying for and obtaining adjudication and registration in the name of a co-owner of land
which he knows had not been alloted to him in the partition, or in intentionally concealing
facts, and conniving with the land inspector to include in the survey plan the bed of a
navigable stream, or in willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims, or in
deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice, or in inducing him not to oppose an
application, or in misrepresenting about the indentity of the lot to the true owner by the
applicant causing the former to withdraw his opposition. In all these examples the overriding
consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from
having his day in court or from presenting his case, The fraud, therefore, is one that affects
and goes into the jurisdiction of the court.

 Is a petition for reopening of the decree of registration different from an action for
reconveyance? Distinguish the two remedies from each other. READ: Heirs of Dolleton vs.
Fil-estate Management, GR No. 100750, 7 April 2009

Section 32 of the Property Registration Decree provides that a decree of registration

 may be reopened when a person is deprived of land or an interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation obtained by actual fraud. On the other hand, an action
for reconveyance respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks
the transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
other persons' names, to its rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to have
a better right. In both instances, the land of which a person was deprived should be
the same land which was fraudulently or erroneously registered in another person's
name, which is not the case herein, if the Court considers the allegations in
petitioners' Complaints.

Action for reconveyance

 State the legal basis of an action for reconveyance. READ: 3rd par., Sec. 53 & 96,
PD 1529
 What is the nature of an action for reconveyance? READ: Uy v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 173186. September 16, 2015; READ also: Esconde vs. Borlongay, 152
SCRA 603 (1987)

Uy v. Court of Appeals, - a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner
G.R. No. 173186. of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered
September 16, 2015 in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the
latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.

- the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible.

What is sought instead is the transfer of the property, which
has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
person's name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with
a better right.41 However, such recourse cannot be availed of
once the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for
value. For an action for reconveyance to prosper, the
property should not have passed into the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value.
Esconde vs. Barlongay, The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction does not bar a landowner whose
152 SCRA 603 (1987) property was wrongfully or erroneously registered under the Torrens
System from bringing an action, after one year from the issuance of
the decree, for the reconveyance of the property in question. Such an
action does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding
and set aside the decree of registration, but only to show that the
person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not
the real owner thereof
 o What is the purpose of an action for reconveyance?  READ: Alegria vs.
Dirlong, GR No. 161317, 16 July 2008, 558 SCRA 459 (2008); READ also:
Rodriguez vs. Torena, 79 SCRA 356 (1977)

Alegria vs. Dirlong, GR No. a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be
161317, 16 July 2008, 558 erroneously titled in another’s name
SCRA 459 (2008)

Rodriguez vs. Torena, 79 the prevailing rule in this jurisdiction does not bar a
SCRA 356 (1977) landowner whose property was wrongfully or erroneously
registered under the Torrens system from bringing an
action, after one year from the issuance of the decree, for
the reconveyance of the property in question. 2 Such an
action does not aim or purport to re-open the registration
proceeding and set aside the decree of registration, but
only to show that the person who secured the registration
of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof.

 What is the essence of an action for reconveyance?  Is an action for

reconveyance available to recover lands covered by a free patent?  READ:
Daclag vs. Macahilig, GR No. 159578, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 137 (2008)

 notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the registered owner may still be
compelled to reconvey the registered property to its true owners.

 The essence of an action for reconveyance is that the free patent and certificate of title are
respected as incontrovertible. What is sought is the transfer of the property, which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful owner or to one
with a better right.

 In an action for reconveyance, the issue involved is one of ownership; and for this purpose,
evidence of title may be introduced.

o Does reconveyance seek to reopen the proceedings?  READ: Bautista-

Borja vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 136197, December 10, 2008

Thus, if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is void, then the action for the
declaration of the contract's nullity is imprescriptible. Indeed, the Court has held in a
number of cases that an action for reconveyance of property based on a void contract
does not prescribe. However, if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is merely
voidable, then the action would have already prescribed."
 Memorize the requisites of an action for reconveyance. (a) the action must be
brought in the name of the person claiming ownership or dominical right over the
land registered in the name of the defendant; (b) the registration of the land in the
name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal means; (c) the
property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value; (d) the action is filed
after the certificate has become final and incontrovertible but within 4 years from the
discovery of the fraud or not later than 10 years in the case of an implied trust.
READ: New Regents vs. Tanjuatco, GR No. 168800, 16 April 2009:

 Who institutes actions for reversion of public lands fraudulently awarded? In

whose name? READ: Section 101, Commonwealth Act No. 141

All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon
shall be instituted by the Solicitor-General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the
name of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

 When may an action for reconveyance be brought?  READ: New Regents vs.
Tanjuatco, GR No. 168800, 16 April 2009; READ ALSO: Municipality of Victorias vs.
CA, 149 SCRA 32 (1987)

New Regents vs. the action is filed after the certificate of title had already become
Tanjuatco, GR No. final and incontrovertible but within four years from the discovery of
the fraud, or not later than 10 years in the case of an implied trust
168800, 16 April 2009

Municipality of While an inherently defective Torrens title may not ordinarily be

Victorias vs. CA, 149 cancelled even after proof of its defect, the law nevertheless
safeguards the rightful party's interest in the titled land from fraud
SCRA 32 (1987) and improper use of technicalities by snowing such party, in
appropriate cases, to judicially seek reconveyance to him of
whatever he has been deprived of as long as the land has not been
transferred or conveyed to a purchaser in good faith.

o When shall the prescriptive period be counted? READ: Daclag vs.

Macahilig, GR No. 159578, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 137 (2008)

An action for reconveyance prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of
registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
 o In what instances is an action for reconveyance imprescriptible? READ:
Santos vs. Heirs of DomingaLustre, GR No. 151016, 6 August 2008, 561
SCRA120 (2008)

if plaintiff is in possession of the property, prescription does not commence to run against him.
Thus, when an action for reconveyance is nonetheless filed, it would be in the nature of a suit for
quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible

 What is the rule on the form of pleading required? READ: Cabrera vs. CA, 163
SCRA 214 (1988)

 Grounds:
o When may fraud be a ground for reconveyance? READ: Esconde vs.
Borlongay, 152 SCRA 603 (1987);

It is a settled doctrine that when a decree of registration has been obtained by fraud, the
party defrauded has only one year from entry of the decree to file a petition for review before
a competent court, provided that the land has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser
for value.

 Justify the return of the property if fraud is proven.  READ: Huang

vs. CA, G.R. No. 198525, 13 September 1994.

A constructive trust is imposed where a person holding title to property is subject to an

equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if
he were permitted to retain it. The duty to convey the property arises because it was
acquired through fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake, or through breach of a
fiduciary duty, or through the wrongful disposition of another's property. On the other
hand, a resulting trust arises where a person makes or causes to be made a disposition
of property under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that
the person taking or holding the property should have the beneficial interest in the
property.   It is founded on the presumed intention of the parties, and as a general rule,
23

it arises where, and only where such may be reasonably presumed to be the intention of
the parties, as determined from the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the
transaction out of which it is sought to be established
o When may an implied or constructive trust be a ground for reconveyance?
What are the possible defenses?  READ: Villagonzalo vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 535
(1988);

 The registration of the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds, so it opined, was
constructive notice to the whole world of defendant's adverse claim to the property,
thereby repudiating any fiduciary or trust relationship involved. It anchored its
conclusion on doctrinal holdings that an action for reconveyance based on an
implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years counted from the date when
adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property.

 The rule in this jurisdiction is that an action to enforce an implied trust may be barred
not only by prescription but also by laches, in which case repudiation is not even
required.   Whether the trust is resulting or constructive, its enforcement may be
12

barred by laches.

o When is prescription inapplicable as a ground? READ: Alzona vs.

Capunitan, 4 SCRA 450 (1962); Vda. De Jacinto vs. Vda. De Jacinto, 5 SCRA 371
(1962); Almarza vs. Arquelles, 156 SCRA 718 (1987)

Alzona vs. Capunitan, 4 SCRA 450 It is true "that no title to registered land in
(1962 derogation to that of the registered owner
shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession" but as correctly stated by the
trial court, "the prosecution given by the law
is in favor only of registered owners and
consequently, the plaintiffs cannot invoke
it in support of their cause of action as
they are not the registered owners of the
property in litigation"

Vda. De Jacinto vs. Vda. De Jacinto, 5 an action to enforce a trust is imprescriptible

SCRA 371 (1962);

Almarza vs. Arquelles, 156 SCRA 718  prescription cannot be invoked in an action
(1987) for reconveyance, which is, in effect, an
action to quiet title against the plaintiff therein
who is in possession of the land in question. 

o When may an express trust be a ground for reconveyance? READ: Tamayo

vs. Callejo, 46 SCRA 27 (1972)
 o Discuss the nature of a void contract to justify reconveyance. READ:
Castillo vs. Heirs of Madrigal, 198 SCRA 556 (1991)

a voidable contract is one tainted with fraud, mistake, undue

influence, violence or intimidation that can justify its nullification,
but with a contract that is null and void ab initio.

Action for damages

 

 What is the legal basis of an action for damages? READ: Sec. 32, PD 1529
 Against whom may an action for damages be filed? READ: Ching vs. CA, 181 SCRA 9

Action for compensation from the

Assurance Fund
 

 Legal basis? READ: Sections 93 & 94, PD 1529

 Who may file? READ: Sec. 95, PD 1529
 Requisites? READ: Sec. 95, PD 1529.

Reversion
 Who institutes an action for reversion? READ: Sec. 95, Chapter XII, EO No. 292.
 What are the grounds for reversion:
 o In all cases where lands of public domain are held in violation of the Constitution.
READ: Sec. 95, Chapter XII, EO No. 292.
o Where lands of the public domain are fraudulently obtained. How was it
exemplified in this case? READ: Hermosilla vs. Remoquillo, GR No. 167320, 30 January
2007
 Why was the reversion petition improperly filed in the RTC in this case? READ: Yujuico
vs. Republic, GR No. 168861, 26 October 2007

Cancellation Suits
Where two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in
whole or in part, which title must prevail and which title shall be cancelled? Reasons?
READ: Republic vs Hachero, GR No. 200973, 30 May 2016.

Annulment of Judgment
 What rule governs? READ: Rule 74, Rules of Court
 When brought? Which court? READ Rule 74, Rules of Court
o When do you count the prescriptive period?  READ: Sec. 3, Rule 74, Rules of
Court and Galicia vs. Manliquez, GR No. 155785, 13 April 2007

Quieting of title
Legal basis? READ: Articles 476 to 481, Civil Code of the Philippines.

Criminal action
What criminal actions may be brought by an aggrieved party?
READ:

  Article 312 (Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property);

  Article 313 (Altering boundaries or landmarks)
 Is a prosecution for perjury/falsification available as a remedy? READ: People vs Cainglet,
GR No. L-21493, 29 April 1966, 16 SCRA 748