Llaban vs.

CA, 204 SCRA 887 (1991) decision dated September 13, 1916 were affected
Author: Delgado thereof.
c) That it is imperative that the tracing cloth or print
Facts: copy be submitted to this Commission prior to the
i. In a decision rendered in September 1916, CFI Cebu issuance of the decree of registration
awarded Lot No. 6017 to the petitioners. d) The said plan and its technical descriptions should
ii. Upon motions of the spouses Filemon Sotto and Carmen be approved by the Court and the same should be
Rallos, who claimed to have purchased the shares of some of in conformity with the decision dated September
the adjudicatees of the lot or their heirs, the cadastral court, on 13, 1916 and Order dated March 1, 1932.
1 March 1932, issued an Auto. vii. Various claimants soon began to lay their claim on the said
iii. No party appealed from the September 1916 decision as lot. Private respondents claim that the predecessors-in-interest
modified by the above Auto of March 1932. Neither was any of the petitioners had sold the lot in question to the spouses
decree issued pursuant to it. Filemon Sotto and Carmen Rallos, now both deceased;
iv. After 42 years, claimants (respondents) filed a petition for petitioners have nothing then to inherit; and that they cannot
the issuance of a decree of registration over the lot. now re-open the cadastral proceeding because the Order of
v. Acting on the petition, CFI Cebu issued an Order directing March 1932 constitutes res judicata.
the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue a decree in viii. CFI Cebu ruled that the order of March 1932 superseded
favor of the adjudicatees based on the dispositive portions of and/or amended the decision of September 1916 as reinstated
the decision of 13 September 1916 and the Auto of 1 March in the order of March, 1925. As a decree of registration has not
1932. been issued registration proceedings is still pending for the
vi. Commissioner submitted a report which quoted the purposes of pre-Commonwealth Act 3110, and, when lost or
dispositive portions adverted to and contained the following destroyed, must be reconstituted in conformity with said act.
pertinent observations: vix. They now allege that the Order of March 1932 was
a) civil status of the adjudicatees was inadvertently isosued without any notice to them; they were never given a
omitted which is necessary in the preparation of chance to be heard and that they did not receive a copy of
the final decree of registration of Lot No. 6017 as said order; they came to know about it only in the middle part
provided for under Section 40 of Act 496 of 1980; and granting that it was in fact issued, such was done
b) The Commission entertains a doubt which portions in excess of and/or without jurisdiction.
said lot were adjudicated to spouses Carmen
Rallos de Sotto and Filemon Sotto and which Issue: Lack of jurisdiction of the lower court, sitting as a
share of the adjudicatees mentioned in the cadastral court, to rule and decide on the controversy, or to
pass upon the validity of the claim, sale or transfer in favor of
the private respondents, alleging that such matters could only ii. Sections 38 and 41 of the Land Registration Act tell us when
be ventilated in an ordinary civil action. decisions become final. Even if they are erroneous, but such
errors are not jurisdictional, correction could only be done by a
Held: Petition granted. Lower court has no jurisdiction to grant regular appeal within the reglementary period, the failure of
such relief and Judge Ramolete of CFI Cebu clearly acted which could lead to the decisions' becoming final. Decisions,
without any jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in erroneous or not, become final after the period fixed by law;
giving due course to the petition by approving the Subdivision litigations would be endless; no questions would be finally
Plan Psd-17733, the technical descriptions of Lots Nos. 6017- settled; and titles to property would become precarious if the
A to 6017-H, inclusive, and directing the Land Registration losing party were allowed to reopen them at any time in the
Commissioner to issue the final decree of registration of the future.
subdivision lots in favor of each of the claimants named in the iii. The failure to issue a final decree does not prevent the
14 May 1979 petition. Aggravating such action is his obvious decision from attaining finality. Precisely, the final decree can
disregard for due process. only issue after the decision shall have become final. The final
decree must state the name of the party adjudged in the
Ratio: decision to be owner of a cadastral lot.
i. The lower court, sitting as a cadastral court, had no iv. In the instant case, in view of the finality of the decision of
jurisdiction to amend or modify the September 1916 decision 13 September 1916, as amended by the Auto of March 1932,
and that Judge Ramolete of CFI Cebu acted without the final decree which can be validly issued is one which must
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the be in full conformity with said decision, as amended.
Order of 16 February 1981. v. Except for the spouses Filemon Sotto and Carmen Rallos,
ii. The September 1916 decision, as amended by the Auto of the alleged claimants in whose favor the subdivided lots are to
March 1932, had long become final as there is no showing at be adjudicated are not the adjudicatees in the September
all that any affected party appealed therefrom within the 1916 decision, as amended by the March 1932 Auto. And
reglementary period of 30 days prescribed by the then there is no indication whatsoever of the relationships of the
governing law on procedure, Act No. 190. Section 11 of the claimants with the original adjudicatees that could serve as
Cadastral Act expressly provides that trials in cadastral cases basis for their claims. In reality then, the petition is not just for
shall be conducted in the same manner as ordinary trial, and the issuance of a final decree, but for the amendment or
proceedings in the Court of First Instance shall be governed by modification of the final decision.
the same rules and that all provisions of the Land Registration vi. In the absence of proof that they received a copy of the
Act as amended, except as otherwise provided in the former, Order, no conclusion may be drawn that it has become final as
shall be applicable to proceedings in cadastral cases. against them. Besides, the order has no valid basis. It failed to
consider the Auto of March 1932 which amended the original
decision of September 1916. Hence, no valid decree can be CA: ruled in favor of Pagayons and sustained the right of the
issued exclusively on the basis of the latter. vendee who did purchase registered land, thereafter securing the
Melgar vs. Pagayon, 21 SCRA 841 (1967) issuance of the corresponding title in his name.
Author: MONZON
Issue: Who has the better right over the property? Pagayons
Respondents (Pagayons) predecessors in interest, Salvador
Pagayon, acquired the land by purchase from Basilia Paccial, the Ruling:
registered owner. Petitioner emanated from Eladio Palomillo, who
claims to have acquired the land by virtue of Basilia's failure to Neither the vendee a retro nor his transferee, petitioner, could still
repurchase the same within the stipulated period of three years. compel vendor Paccial to execute an absolute deed of sale, the
action being barred by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The subject land was owned by Paccial who sold it to one
Palomillo subject to a right of repurchase within a period of three Cited Cabanos v. Register of Deeds, a 1920 decision: "the
years.The period expired without such a right being exercised. consolidation of title could not take place, because the vendor
Petitioner acquired whatever rights, interests and participation in has obtained a certificate of title which has become indefeasible
the aforesaid. However, CFI Iloilo rendered judgment in Cadastral and absolutely binding against the whole world and could no
Case No. 31 decreeing the registration of the lot in favor of longer be reviewed by reason of the expiration of the period for
vendor Basilia Paccial, it being noted that it was encumbered to review, nevertheless, the decree of registration has not annulled
Palomillo. OCT was issued in the name of Paccial. the contract of pacto de retro sale which still subsists without any
alteration and still remains valid and binding against the vendor,
AThe situation in this case is that of a vendee relying on a the latter's certificate of title not having rescinded nor destroyed
Torrens title as against another vendee allegedly having in his the validity of the sale a retro." "the incontestable and absolute
favor a sale with pacto de retro executed before the registration of character of the Torrens title."
the property.
Land registration proceedings under Act 496 are in rem and that
According to the brief, the sale pacto de retro to Palomino does such proceedings, as well as the title issued , are binding and
not appear in the Original Certificate of Title of the land in conclusive upon the whole world. Upon the expiration of one
question because, Basilia Paccial had concealed this fact in her year, said decree and the title issuedbecome incontrovertible
Answer in the Cadastral Case or in the hearing thereof when she (Section 38, Act 496), and the same may no longer be changed,
obtained judgment. But this did not destroy the fact that Eladio altered or modified, much less set aside.This has to be the rule,
Palomillo was already the owner of the disputed land for if even after the ownership of a property has been decreed by
a land registration court in favor of a particular person and title
issued may still be annulled, alleged, changed, altered or
modified after the lapse of the one year period fixed by the legal and son) inherited the lots. When Teodoro died, Luis executed
provision mentioned above, the object of the Torrens system, a Quitclaim in favor of the Gomezes.
namely, to guarantee the indefeasibility of the title to the property,
would be defeated. In this case the above doctrine should apply Aug 5 1981 - After notice and publication and there being no
with more reason, considering the fact that the property has opposition, the trial court adjudicated the lots in favour of
passed from the hands of the original registered owner into those petitioner
of clearly innocent third parties."
Oct 6 1981 - Trial court issued an order stating the Aug 5
Chief Justice Bengzon in another case: He alleged ownership
decision became final and excretory and directed the Chief of
thru failure of the vendor a retro to repurchase in time. He had to
General Land Registration Office to issue the corresponding
prove such allegation. The defendants had a right to reply on the
decrees of registration over the lots
Torrens title issued in their name. If such repurchase was an
essential step for the registration and confirmation of their
ownership, the issuance of the certificate of title in their names
July 11 1984 - Respondent Silverio G. Perez, Chief of Division
gives rise to the presumption that it has been duly taken. . . . The of Original Registration Land Registration Commission (now
result of the foregoing observations is that the precedents known as the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
claimed by petitioner as practically foursquare with this, do not Administration), submitted a report to the trial court stating that
control the situation. Therefore he failed to establish any right lots 15, 16, 34 and 41 of Ipd-92 were already covered by
superior to the conclusive title of defendants under the Torrens homestead patents issued in 1928 and 1929 and are
system." registered under the Land Registration Act, he then
recommended that the Aug 5 and Oct 6 decision be set aside

March 25 1985 - trial court rendered a decision setting aside

Gomez vs. CA, 168 SCRA 503 (1988) its Aug 5 and Oct 6 decision, hence petitioner filed MR which
Author: GOJAR was denied

Atty. Gomez et al applied for registration of several lots (Lots CA: Dismissed the petition stating that when the respondent
1-12) before RTC Judge amended his decision after the report of the respondent
officials of the Land Registration office had shown that
Prior to the application for registration, said lots were involved homestead patents had already been issued on some of the
in Government vs Abran case where SC declared Consolacion lots, respondents cannot be faulted because land already
Gomez as the owner. Teodoro and Luis (Consolacions father granted by homestead patent can no longer be the subject of
another registration
 after its finality but not beyond the lapse of one (1) year
ISSUE: Would finality of the decision adjudicating the land to from the entry of the decree.
the Gomezes bar the RTC from setting it aside? NO. If the SC would sustain petitioners contention, it would
be pressuring respondent land registration officials to
HELD: submit a report or study even if haphazardly prepared
Petitioners contentions: just to beat the reglementary deadline for the finality of
the court decision.
1. The judgment became final and executory, hence the Decrees of registration must be stated in convenient
decree of registration be issued in a matter of course and form for transcription upon the certificate of title and
when the judge set aside the Aug and Oct decision, he acted must contain an accurate technical description of the
without jurisdiction. land. This requires technical men. Moreover, it
frequently occurs that only portions of a parcel of land
This contention is NOT CORRECT. Unlike ordinary included in an application are ordered registered and
civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or that the limits of such portions can only be roughly
land registration proceeding does not become final, in indicated in the decision of the court. In such cases
the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration amendments of the plans and sometimes additional
of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of surveys become necessary before the final decree can
registration. As long as a final decree has not been be entered. That can hardly be done by the court itself;
entered by the Land Registration Commission (now the law very wisely charges the Chief Surveyor of the
NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not General Land Registration Office with such duties
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 3. Petitioners insist that the duty of the respondent land
control and sound discretion of the court rendering it registration officials to issue the decree is purely ministerial

It is ministerial in the sense that they act under the

2. Respondent Perez should have submitted the report before orders of the court and the decree must be in
the decision of the trial court became final and executory conformity with the decision of the court and with the
data found in the record, and they have no discretion in
The duty of respondent land registration officials to the matter.
render reports is not limited to the period before the HOWEVER, if they are in doubt upon any point in
courts decision becomes final, but may extend even relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree,
 it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act, action for cancellation of titles and reconveyance in a
in this respect, as officials of the court and not as court of ordinary civil jurisdiction.
administrative officials, and their act is the act of the The true owner may bring an action to have the
court. They are specifically called upon to extend ownership or title to land judicially settled, and if the
assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land allegations of the plaintiff that he is the true owner of
registration proceedings. the parcel of land granted as free patent and described
in the Torrens title and that the defendant and his
4. The law of the case is found in the Gov. of the Phil. vs. predecessor-in-interest were never in possession of
Abran where the SC decided that the lands of Consolacion the parcel of land and knew that the plaintiff and his
Gomez were not public lands predecessor-in-interest have been in possession
thereof be established, then the court in the exercise of
It is now the law of the case. The report of respondent its equity jurisdiction, without ordering the cancellation
land registration officials states that the holders of the of the Torrens title issued upon the patent, may direct
homestead patents registered the lots in question in the defendant, the registered owner, to reconvey the
the years 1928 and 1929. The decision in Government parcel of land to the plaintiff who has been found to be
of the Philippine Islands vs. Abran was promulgated on the true owner thereof.
31 December 1931. Hence, the subject lots are
specifically excluded from those adjudicated by the
aforesaid decision to Consolacion M. Gomez. Ramos vs. Rodriguez, 244 SCRA 418 (1995)
It is a settled rule that a homestead patent, once Author: Monje
registered under the Land Registration Act, becomes
indefeasible and incontrovertible as a Torrens title, and Facts:
may no longer be the subject of an investigation for Feliciano Ramos applied for the registration of a parcel of land
determination or judgment in cadastral proceeding. in San Jose, Rodriguez, Montalban, Rizal, identified as Lot
125-B of subdivision plan Psd-760 with a total area of 156,485
square meters. Upon his death on April 6, 1982 and during the
5.Petitioners claim that the homestead title holders may still pendency of said application, Feliciano was substituted by his
vindicate their rights by filing separate civil action heirs, petitioners herein.
Trial Court:
BUT the same recourse may be resorted by petitioners In 1988, the court a quo issued an Order for
themselves. The petitioners may file a separate civil Administrator of National Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Administration (NLTDRA) to prepare the
 decree and certificate of registration in compliance with as a matter of course the order of the court directing it to issue
Section 39 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 . said decree.- As a general rule YES but there is an
Instead of issuing the said decree, NLTDRA exceptional circumstance that we can answer NO
Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio submitted a report 3. W/N respondent judge committed grave abuse of
which was earlier required by the court, recommending discretion in setting aside the July 28, 1988, decision and the
that the July 28, 1988 decision be set aside after due order for issuance of decree dated September 12, 1988, upon
hearing because the subject lot was part of Lot 125, the mere motion for reconsideration filed by the LRA, not by
Psu-32606 which is already covered by Transfer the Solicitor General- NO
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8816 issued on in 1924 in
the name of the Payatas Estate Improvement Ratio:
Company which was also assigned Decree No. 1131 1. This is because unlike ordinary civil actions, the
on January 31, 1905. adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration
Petitioners later claimed that TCT No. 8816 was proceeding does not become final, in the sense of
fraudulent but they failed to present any evidence in incontrovertibility(,) until after the expiration of one (1) year
support of such allegation. after (sic) the entry of the final decree of registration. As long
Court opined "that it cannot set aside its (July 28, as a final decree has not been entered by the Land
1988) decision on the basis of the report dated Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of
September 26, 1988, which was received by this Court one (1) year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such
on October 10, 1988, after the finality of its decision." decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in
Court added that the proper remedy of the the registration proceeding continues to be under the control
government was an action for annulment of judgment. and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
Bonifacio filed on March 9, 1990, through the Chief
Legal Officer of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), 2. It is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders
a motion for reconsideration of the February 2, 1990, of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the
order. decision of the court and with the data found in the record, and
Court- granted MR and set aside its former they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in
decision doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and
issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the
Issues/Held: court. They act, in this respect as officials of the court and not
1. W/n the first judgment of the Court could be nullified- YES as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court.
2. W/n the issuance of the decree of registration and the They are specifically called upon to "extend assistance to
certificate of title by the LRA is a ministerial duty which follows courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings."
 - Administrator Bonifacio filed his report as an - Nevertheless, even granting that procedural
officer of the court precisely to inform the latter that the lapses have been committed in the proceedings below,
NLTDRA cannot comply with the order to issue a these may be ignored by the Court in the interest of
decree because the subject lot sought to be registered substantive justice. This is especially true when, as in
was discovered to have been already decreed and this case, a strict adherence to the rules would result in
titled in the name of the Payatas Estate. Under these a situation where the LRA would be compelled to issue
circumstances, the LRA is not legally obligated to a decree of registration over land which has already
follow the court's order. been decreed to and titled in the name of another.
- The court's Order for Issuance of Decree is TCT No. 8816, however, having been issued under the
NOT the reckoning point in determining the timeliness Torrens system, enjoys the conclusive presumption of
of a petition to re-open or review the decree of validity.
registration in view of the ministerial nature of the
LRA's duty. MOREOVER, COURT NOTES THAT THE CONTROVERSIES
- Also, the one-year period stated in section 32 of IN THE CASE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF:
P.D. 1529 within which a petition to re-open and review 1. If the proper procedure in land registration cases been
the decree of registration clearly refers to the decree of observed by both the trial court, acting as a land registration
registration described in Section 31 of the said P.D., court and by the LRA, acting as an agent of the court.
which decree is prepared and issued by the - The court should have rendered its decision
Commissioner of Land Registration. only "after considering the evidence and the reports of
the commissioner of Land Registration and the Director
3. The court a quo could not have committed grave abuse of of Lands," as mandated by Section 29 of P.D. 1529,
discretion because it was merely following the earlier instead of precipitately adjudicating the land in question
recommendation of the LRA which was then acting as an to the applicant and directing the Commissioner to
agent of the court. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the issue a decree of registration and certificate of title
Solicitor General is bound to "[r]epresent the Government in all when the report of the LRA was still forthcoming.
land registration and related proceedings." Add to this the fact
that P.D. 1529 itself, specifically Section 6 thereof which 2. If the Solicitor General is more vigilant in handling cases
enumerates the functions of the Commissioner of Land which his office should, under the law, properly represent.
Registration, is bereft of any grant of power to the LRA or to
the Commissioner to make the same representation as the
Office of the Solicitor General in behalf of the government in
land registration proceedings.
 Phil. Trust Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 150318, November 22, A separate petition for issuance of owners duplicate copy was
2010 also filed by Ma. Teresa in Cad. Case No. A-124-280 and as
Author: CD a result, TCT No. 10896 was cancelled and TCT No. 82760/T-
Facts: 414 was issued in the name of Ma. Teresa Limcauco
Property was owned by Forfom Development Corp (Forfom)
under TCT 10896 and 64884. Sometime in 1989, plaintiff On September 23, 1987, a Deed of Absolute Sale was
discovered that the subject properties had already been executed by Ellenora Vda. De Limcauco in favor of defendant
transferred in the names of said Ma. Teresa Limcauco and Raul P. Claveria whereby the property covered by TCT No.
Ellenora Limcauco who were never known to plaintiff or its 64884 was supposedly sold to said defendant for the sum of
employees. Forfom sought help from the NBI and it was P5,139,126.00. On September 24, 1987, TCT No. 75436/T-
discovered to transfer the lots, the signature of former 378 was cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT No.
President Felix Limcauco was forged in the Deed of Sale and 75533 was issued in the name of defendant Raul P. Claveria.
a certification to the effect that plaintiffs Board of Directors had On October 21, 1987, defendant spouses Raul and Elea
duly approved the sale. Claveria mortgaged the property with the defendant Philippine
Trust Company to guarantee a loan in the amount of
A petition for issuance of owners duplicate copy was filed with P8,000,000.00, which mortgage was duly registered and
the RTC of Angeles City by Ellenora Limcauco who allegedly annotated as Entry No. 2858 in TCT No. 75533.
lost said owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 64884 docketed as
Cad. Case No. A-124-160. Court granted but Judge Guinto Issue:
denied before the NBI authorities having signed such order or
having conducted hearing on said case. The copy submitted to 1. Whether a bank, as a mortgagee, is required to look beyond
the Register of Deeds was merely stamped Original Signed. the certificate of title
Another document certifying that the Order granting the
petition in Cad. Case No. A-124-160 had become final and 2. Whether Philtrust is a mortgagee in good or bad faith.
executory was also submitted to the Register of Deeds in
connection with the cancellation of TCT No. 64884. However, Held:
then Branch Clerk of Court Benedicto A. Pineda testified that
he did not sign said certification and neither had he been 1. As a general rule, no but in granting a mortgage contract (ie
aware of the proceedings in Cad. Case No. A-124-160. Atty. documents that support the contract and following SOP of
Pinedas signature on said certification appears to have been Banks in determining credit) they must exercise extraordinary
falsified by one Lorenzo San Andres. diligence
2. Philtrust is in bad faith The protection that a party may rely solely on the title is
applicable for those in good faith. But it is settled that
Ratio: banks, their business being impressed with public interest,
are expected to exercise more care and prudence than
private individuals in their dealings, even those involving
1. A bank is not required, before accepting a mortgage, to registered lands. The rule that persons dealing with
make an investigation of the title of the property being registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title
given as security. This is a consequence of the rule that a does not apply to banks. Consequently, Philtrust should
person dealing with registered land has a right to rely prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence required of
upon the face of the Torrens certificate of title and to it in approving the mortgage contract in favor of the
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when spouses Claveria.
the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious
man to make such inquiry.

A forged deed may be the root of a valid title when an

innocent purchaser for value intervenes. A purchaser in
good faith and for value is one who buys the property of
another without notice that some other person has a right
to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price
for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he
has notice of the claims or interest of some other person
in the property. It has been held that where a mortgagee
bank accepted the mortgage in good faith, the land
involved being registered land, it is not bound to go
[beyond] the certificate of title to look for flaws in the
mortgagors title, the doctrine of innocent purchaser for
value being applicable to an innocent mortgagee for we find that the Court of Appeals did not even err in finding
value. A mortgagee in good faith and for value is entitled that Philtrust was in bad faith in the execution of the mortgage
to protection. contract with the spouses Claveria.
2. Evidence which show that Philtrust knew of the scheme
They did not investigate the collateral being offered by the 1. Rodolfo pajo caused the notarization on March 27,
spouses (they have a property in Ayala Alabang but a newly 1974 by Atty. Naraval of a SPA executed by him and
bought property outside Metro Manila was offered and purportedly by his 4 siblings: Nena, Godofredo, Tito
accepted). They did not visit the property. and Isaias. The SPA authorized Rodolfo to sell a parcel
When asked why they granted the loan without security, they of land with an area of 8,060 sq m, situated in Davao
mere answered that the spouses passed the standards of the City.
bank. 2. The day after, Rodolfo sold the property to Ligaya
SC: The mere fact that Philtrust accepted the subject property Bajado who thereafter caused the cancellation of the
as security most certainly does not prove that it followed the title and issuance of a new title in her name.
standard operating procedure in doing so. 3. 2 days after he notarized the SPA, Atty. Naraval
Evid (not important) observed that all the signatures, except that of Rodolfo,
Philtrust adds that it stated in the Answer to Interrogatories were forged. He then wrote a letter to Rodolfos co-
that it followed the standard operating procedures in accepting owners, cancelling the SPA from his notarial register.
the property as security. Since said Answer to Interrogatories 4. After Ligaya passed away, the property was
is a notarized document, Philtrust claims that it is a public bequeathed to her son, Augusto. Ligayas title was
document which is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its cancelled and a new title was issued in the name of
contents. Augusto.
SC: it is not a public document that is conclusive to the 5. Augusto divided the property into two: one containing
truthfulness of the content. It falls under (b) Documents 7,420 sq m, which was sold to Camper Realty Corp
acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and (title was still in Augustos name), and the other, 640 sq
testaments; The presumption that official duty has been m he retained.
regularly performed therefore applies only to the Jurat, 6. After 19 years, Nena filed a complaint against Augusto
wherein the notary public (public officer authorized to take and Rodolfo and Godofredo for declaration of nullity
oath) merely attests that the affidavit was subscribed and and cancellation of title before the RTC of Davao City.
sworn to before him or her, on the date mentioned thereon Upon learning of Augustos sale to Camper Realty
Corp, Nena impleaded the latter as necessary party.
7. Nena contended that no right could have been
Camper Realty Corp. vs. Maria Nena Pajo-Reyes, G.R. No. transmitted to Ligaya and the subsequent transferees,
179543 October 6, 2010 the SPA being a forged document.
Author: Adrian 8. RTC: Dismissed the case. Nena is guilty of laches.
FACTS: Titles to the property were already under the name of
 the transferors at the time of transfer. The court cannot 4. There was no duty on petitioners part to go beyond the
declare the nullity of the succeeding contracts. face of Augustos title and conduct inquiries on its
9. CA: Reversed the RTC ruling. There was no valid veracity. Nena did not present any proof of any
transfer to Ligaya and, accordingly, to her son Augusto. circumstance that could serve as caveat for petitioner
He did not acquire any right over the subject lot since to undertake a searching investigation respecting the
an heir merely steps into the shoes of the decedent title. Moreover, the property was registered in Ligayas
and is merely the continuation of the personality of his name in 1974 yet, Augustos in 1986, and no
predecessor-in-interest. Contract of sale entered with encumbrance or lien was annotated either on Ligayas
Camper was invalid. or Augustos title. For 18 years, there was no
ISSUE: controversy or dispute hounding the property to caution
WON Camper Realty Corp is entitled to the subject lot petitioner about Augustos title.

HELD: Heirs of Saves vs. Saves, G.R. No. 152866, October 6,

YES, Camper is a purchaser in good faith 2010
Author: LIN
RATIO:
1. Augusto acquired the property as his share in his FACTS:
mother Ligayas estate. As compulsory heir, he merely 1. Sometime on January 1921, several persons filed their respective
stepped into the shoes of Ligaya. Since Ligayas title claims before the then, CFI of of Oriental Negros for the titling of the
was derived from Rodolfos sale to her on the basis of respective lots they occupy, among them were Severo Chaves and
a forged SPA, Augustos title must be cancelled. Nemo Benedicta Chaves, who filed their claim for Lot No. 382, to be titled
dat quod non habet. in their names, together with 5 OTHER Saves, in Cadastral Case
2. Notwithstanding the nullity of Augustos title, Camper No. 15.
Realty Corp is a purchaser in good faith. 2. On April 22, 1921, a Decision was rendered by the court,
3. A forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title adjudicating several parcels of land to different claimants, among
when an innocent purchaser for value intervenes. For a the lots adjudicated, also Decree No. 177831 was issued by the
prospective buyer of a property registered under the USA for CFI of the Province of Negros ordering the registration of
Torrens system need not go beyond the title, especially Lot No. 382 in the names of Benedicta Saves, Escolastica Saves,
when he has no notice of any badge of fraud or defect the sons of Romana Saves, deceased, Rafaela Saves, Januaria
that would place him on guard. His rights are entitled to Saves, and the sons of Maximo Saves, deceased. Thereafter,
full protection, for the law considers him an innocent Severo Saves died intestate, leaving his wife, Teresa Ramirez, his 4
purchaser.
 surviving children, and the heirs of his two children who grandchild Abella. The complaint was amended twice by plaintiffs
predeceased him. considering that the original plaintiffs and defendants were all
3. On June 21, 1941, Adelaida S. Martinez and Felicidad S. Martinez, deceased.
who were the heirs of Januaria Saves, who predeceased them, sold 9. The parties failed to arrive to an amicable settlement during the pre-
their 1/6 share in Lot No. 382 to a certain Gaudencia Valencia trial stage, but have agreed to exclude Lot 386 in the litigation and
evidenced by a public instrument, per allegation in a Motion for the limited the issues as to the ownership of lots 382 and 383.
Issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title, filed by Valencia. 10. RTC rendered decision in favor of petitioners, declaring deed of sale
4. On June 30, 1941, a Deed of Sale was executed by the 5 heirs of as null and void, and ordering defendant Abella to convey and
Romana Saves, with last names of Alimayda; the sole heir of deliver unto the plaintiffs their shares of Lot No. 382. CA reversed
Rafaela Saves, Pablo Saves Dizon; and the sole heir of Escolastico RTC ruling, and held that Abellas TCT was valid.
Saves, Teodoro Saves, their respective 1/6 share in Lot No. 382, or
3/6 of the property, to Valencia. ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals can consider evidence
5. On June 6, 1947, Benedicta Saves and Marcela Saves, the sole not formally offered in the trial court as basis for the herein
heir of Maximo Saves, sold their respective 1/6 share in Lot No. assailed Court of Appeals ruling?
382, also to Valencia, or 2/6 of the property, as embodied in a Deed
of Absolute Sale. Considering that all the 1/6 share, rights, and HELD: Yes, since exception requirements were followed.
participation of each co-owner in Lot No. 382 were already sold to PETITION DENIED.
Valencia, she initiated the titling of the said property under her name1. GR: It is a basic procedural rule that the court shall consider no
in a Motion for Issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title before CFI, evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
TCT No. 148 was issued by the Register of Deeds for Negros which the evidence is offered must be specified. A formal offer is
Oriental in the name of Valencia. necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of
6. Sometime in 1961, Valencia sold the entire property to her facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence
grandchild Enriqueta Chavez Abella, and TCT No. 110 was issued offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial
in the name of Enriqueta Chavez, who was married to Abella. judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is
7. In 1979, Meleriana Saves, who was then residing in Cebu, wrote her presenting the evidence. This allows opposing parties to examine
relatives in Negros Oriental, the herein appellees, asking them to the evidence and object to its admissibility. It facilitates review as
verify from the Register of Deeds information pertaining to Lot 382, the appellate court will not be required to review documents not
as they were among the heirs entitled to said property. previously scrutinized by the trial court.
8. On March 17, 1981, a case for Reconveyance, Partition, and2. XPN: However, in People v. Napat-a, citing People v. Mate,
Damages was filed before the RTC of Negros Oriental by plaintiffs- relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally
appellees, alleging, inter alia, that Lot No. 382 was fraudulently offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided
acquired by Valencia, and that she fictitiously sold the lot to her the following requirements are present, viz: first, the same must
 have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, very start, nor did they have any idea that they were entitled to
second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the fruits of the property not until co-petitioner Meleriana Saves
the case. In the case at bar, the records would show that the wrote her relatives, co-petitioners, about the possibility of having
above requisites have been satisfactorily complied with respect to a claim to the property.
Exhibit 7 which is a document entitled Motion for the Issuance of 5. Neither does the plaintiffs insistence that the deeds of sale
TCT filed by Valencia in the same trial court that led to the executed in favor of Valencia were void support their theory that
issuance of TCT No. 148, the records would show that it is the Abella is a purchaser in bad faith, as it hardly suffice to deem the
same document that petitioners witness Fruto Rosario identified said contracts as null and void. Abella had no participation in its
in his March 5, 1984 testimony and marked as petitioners Exhibit execution which were signed by the parties thereto when she
I, he testified that Maximo had 2 children, Maximo died ahead of was very young. Like any stranger to the said transactions, it was
Severa, Severa died ahead of Marcela. reasonable for Abella to assume that these public documents
3. It is a well-settled doctrine that one who deals with property were what they purport to be on their face in the absence of any
registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the circumstance to lead her to believe otherwise. Petitioners and
same, but only has to rely on the certificates of title. He is predecessors never interposed any challenge to Valencias
charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are continued possession under title of ownership over Lot No. 382
annotated on the certificates. In the case at bar, TCT No. 110, ever since the entire property was sold to her in 1947 it was not
which represented proof of respondent Abellas ownership of Lot only until 1981, or 34 years from Valencias acquisition of the
No. 382, did not contain any encumbrance or annotation that was entire lot and 20 years from the transfer of ownership over the
transferred from its title of origin - TCT No. 148. To be sure, the same to respondent Abella, that petitioners decided to assert
burden to prove that Abella had notice of any defect in the title of their alleged rights over the property in a proper action in court.
her predecessor lies with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs failed to
substantiate their contention. Court of Appeals vs. Veloso, G.R. No. 102737, August 21, 1996,
4. There is no cogent reason or legal compulsion for respondent 260 SCRA 593
Abella to inquire beyond Valencias title over the property at issue Author: Isabel
since the latter had been in possession of Lot No. 382 prior to the
sale. Settled is the rule that a buyer of real property in possession Facts:
of persons other than the seller must be wary and should Veloso was the registered owner of a parcel of land located
investigate the rights of those in possession, for without such in Tondo, Manila. It had an area of 177 sqm and it was
inquiry the buyer can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith covered by TCT 49138. He acquired it from the Philippine
and cannot have any right over the property. Valencia had been Building Corporation in 1957. He found out his copy was
occupying the property prior to its sale to respondent Abella. missing when his wife (Irma) left for abroad.
Petitioners were never in possession of the property from the
 He filed an action for annulment of documents, reconveyance The assailed GPA was valid and regular on its face. It was
of property w/ damages and preliminary injunction and/or notarized and it carried the presumption of due execution.
restraining order against Escario, who obtained another TCT Hence, Irma had authority.
for the same land. The said transfer was supported by a SPA to sell the subject property was already included in the
General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Deed of Absolute Sale GPA which states to buy or sell, hire or lease, mortgage or
executed by Escario and Irma, who acted as his atty-in-fact. otherwise hypothecate lands more specifically TCT No.
He alleged that: He never authorized anyone to sell the 49138 What matters is the extent of the powers
property; He never executed the GPA; His signature was contemplated. If the power to sell is specific and not merely
falsified; Hes never seen the two witnesses to the GPA; Hes implied or couched in general terms, the atty in fact may
never met Escario; He married Irma only in 1962 so the execute a valid sale.
property wasnt part of their conjugal partnership; He likewise Mere variance of signatures is not conclusive proof as to
presented Allied Bank checks to show his genuine signature. forgery. It must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The notary Public, Atty. Tubig, likewise denied having Whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. It
notarized the documents. was necessary to determine the cause of the variation
Escario contends that she relied on the general power of atty (whether it be due to a different personality or an expected
of Irma and so, she was a buyer in good faith. Velosos real variation by the same writer) and the resemblance (imitation
cause of action is against his wife. or habitual natural resemblance from writing.)
TC adjudged Escario as the lawful owner as she was an Even assuming there was forgery and the docs were void,
innocent purchaser for value. The general power of atty was Escarios TCT cannot be revoked. She had no participation in
valid and theres no need for a special power of atty (SPA) the execution of GPA and was an innocent purchaser for
since the former already included the authority to sell. Veloso value. It was reasonable to believe in Irmas authority as
also failed to substantiate his claim of fraud. Considering his Velosos wife and having with her the TCT.
admission that he was the only person with access to the Purchaser in good faith is one who buys and pays for
title, Irmas possession was deemed conclusive authority. property without notice or knowledge that another person has
Under equitable estoppel, he must bear the loss. a right/interest in the same at the time of such purchase.
CA affirmed. Equitable Estoppel:Where innocent persons must suffer a
loss, he who by his conduct made the loss possible must
Issue: W/N there was a valid sale - YES bear it. Veloso was the only person who had access to the
TCT. As such, Irmas possession of the TCT was deemed
Held: conclusive authority from Veloso.
 Spouses Aggabao vs. Sps. Dionisio, G.R. No. 165803, TCT 63377, the bank (Los Banos Rural Bank) related
Sept. 1, 2010. (chinismis lang) to them that the bank had asked for a court
Author: Garcia order authorizing Elena to mortgage the lot covered by TCT
63377. When the mortgage was satisfied, the bank then
Doctrine: released TCT 633777, which was later cancelled, and a new
Alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property during the one was issued in the name of the BUYERS.
effectivity of the FC is void if without authority of the court or
the written consent of the other spouse. (Art. 124, FC) As for TCT 63376, Elena could not deliver it to the BUYERS
because it was then in the possession of the Dionisios
To be considered buyers in good faith, the buyer must show brother, Atty. Jeremy Parulan, who was in possession of an
that he has inquired into 1) the sellers title and 2) the sellers authentic SPA executed by Dionisio authorizing him to sell
capacity to sell. herein lands.

Facts: Despite what they heard from the bank, the BUYERS did not
Spouses Elena and Dionisio Parulan were under de facto ask Elena for a court order authorizing her to sell the lands,
separation. Their conjugal property consisted of, among nor did they confirm the authority of the Notary Public (NP)
others, 2 parcels of land located at No. 49 Miguel Cuaderno who notarized the SPA. It turned out that in 1991, the NP was
Street, Executive Village, BF Homes, Paraaque City and not authorized to act as NP in Manila.
registered under TCT No. 63376 and TCT No. 63377 in the
name of Spouses Maria Elena A. Parulan (Elena) and As a result, the Husband sought the nullification of the
Dionisio Z. Parulan, Jr. (Dionisio). absolute sale and the cancellation of the new TCT issued to
the BUYERS. The BUYERS claimed to be buyers in good
On March 18, 1991, Elena sold the lands to Spouses Aggabao faith.
(BUYERS) and showed them a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) purportedly executed by her husband to authorize her to RTC declared the Deed of Absolute Sale as void. CA affirmed
sell them. But the SPA was a forgery, the husband being out RTC.
of the country at the time of its execution, as evidenced by the
entries in his passport. Issues:
Can a spouse sell a conjugal property without the consent of
Elena and the BUYERS agreed that the BUYERS would pay the other spouse?No, by express provision of the Family
the existing mortgage on the land covered by TCT 63377. Code, i.e., Art. 124.
When the BUYERS were paying the mortgage annotated on
Can herein buyers be considered buyers in good faith?No sale happened on March 18, 1991, or after the effectivity of the
FCAugust 3, 1988and without the consent of the other
Held: spouse or court order authorizing the sale. Thus, the Deed of
With respect to the first issue: Absolute Sale was declared void.
Article 124 of the Family Code provides:
Note: In the absence of the other spouses consent, the
Article 124. The administration and enjoyment of the transaction should be construed as a continuing offer on the
conjugal partnership property shall belong to both part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may
spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the
husbands decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to other spouse or upon authorization by the court before the
the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.
availed of within five years from the date of the contract
implementing such decision. With respect to the second issue: (For summary, see last
paragraph)
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of
otherwise unable to participate in the administration of another, without notice that some other person has a right to,
the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume or interest in, such property, and pays the full and fair price for
sole powers of administration. These powers do not it at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the
include disposition or encumbrance without authority of claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He
the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he
the absence of such authority or consent, the receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to the
disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the property. He cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a
transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good
the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, faith. The status of a buyer in good faith is never presumed but
and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the must be proven by the person invoking it.
acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the
court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both Article 124 of the Family Code categorically requires the
offerors. consent of both spouses before the conjugal property may be
disposed of by sale, mortgage, or other modes of disposition.
In short, alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property during In Bautista v. Silva, the Court erected a standard to determine
the effectivity of the FC is void if without authority of the court the good faith of the buyers dealing with a seller who had title
or the written consent of the other spouse. In this case, the to and possession of the land but whose capacity to sell was
restricted, in that the consent of the other spouse was required other things towards the same end, like attempting to locate
before the conveyance, declaring that in order to prove good the notary public who had notarized the SPA, or checked with
faith in such a situation, the buyers must show that they the RTC in Manila to confirm the authority of Notary Public
inquired not only into the title of the seller but also into the Atty. Datingaling. It turned out that Atty. Datingaling was not
sellers capacity to sell. Thus, the buyers of conjugal property authorized to act as a Notary Public for Manila during the
must observe two kinds of requisite diligence, namely: (a) the period 1990-1991, which was a fact that they could easily
diligence in verifying the validity of the title covering the discover with a modicum of zeal. In fact, they fully paid the
property; and (b) the diligence in inquiring into the authority of price even without the owners duplicate copy of the TCT No.
the transacting spouse to sell conjugal property in behalf of the 63376 being handed to them by Elena, which indicated a
other spouse. revealing lack of precaution on the part of the petitioners.

It is true that a buyer of registered land needs only to show In sum, to be considered buyers in good faith, the buyer must
that he has relied on the face of the certificate of title to the show that he has inquired into 1) the sellers title and 2) the
property, for he is not required to explore beyond what the sellers capacity to sell. In this case, although the BUYERS
certificate indicates on its face. In this respect, the petitioners checked the authenticity of the TCTs with the Office of the
sufficiently proved that they had checked on the authenticity of Register of Deeds, they failed to inquire the sellers capacity to
TCT No. 63376 and TCT No. 63377 with the Office of the sell. They just accepted the SPA for what it represented on its
Register of Deeds in Pasay City as the custodian of the land face.
records; and that they had also gone to the bank to inquire
about the mortgage annotated on TCT No. 63377. Thereby, Ponce de Leon vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., 36 SCRA
the petitioners observed the requisite diligence in examining 289 (1976)
the validity of the TCTs concerned. Author: LARS

However, issue was whether or not the BUYERS had diligently Facts:
inquired into the authority of Elena to convey the property. In 1. On August 14, 1945, plaintiff Jose L. Ponce de Leon
this case, they did not. An unquestioning reliance by the and Francisco Soriano, father of third-party plaintiffs
BUYERS on Elenas SPA without first taking precautions to obtained a loan for P10k from the PNB Manila,
verify its authenticity was not a prudent buyers move. They mortgaging a parcel of land situated at Barrio Ibayo,
should have done everything within their means and power to Municipality of Paraaque, Rizal, covered by OCT No.
ascertain whether the SPA had been genuine and authentic. If 8094 of the land records of Rizal Province in the name
they did not investigate on the relations of the respondents of Francisco Soriano, married to Tomasa Rodriguez,
Elena and Dionisio vis--vis each other, they could have done as security for the loan.
2. Jose L. Ponce de Leon filed with the Rehabilitation Bacolod City which were purchased by private
Finance Corporation (RFC for short) Manila, his loan individuals.
application for an industrial loan, for putting up a 5. The Sheriff sold the land covered by OCT No. 8094
sawmill, in the amount of P800k offering as security in the name of Francisco Soriano, married to
certain parcels of land, among which, was the parcel Tomasa Rodriguez, and the deed of sale was
which Ponce de Leon and Soriano mortgaged to the executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser
PNB. Jose Ponce De Leon, his wife Carmela and, the RFC, including all the other properties sold.
Francisco Soriano(father of third party plaintiff) filed for 6. Prior to the expiration of the one year period
a loan from the RFC for P495k. A deed of mortgage redemption period. Francisco Soriano(through his
was then executed in view of the loan, secured by a heirs) offered to repurchase the Paranaque lot for 14k
parcel of land owned by Soriano. At the time that but the bank(RFC) rejected the offer. RFC scheduled
Francisco Soriano signed the mortgage deed his the public sale of the lot.
spouse Tomasa Rodriguez was already dead 7. In 1956, Ponce filed the present action questioning the
leaving as her heirs, her children none of whom validity of the sherriffs foreclose sale, and requiring a
signed the said mortgage deed or the promissory writ of preliminary injunction to restrain RFC from
note. carrying out its scheduled sale.
3. It was stipulated that part of the proceeds of the 8. The Sorianos filed a 3rd party complaint contending that
mortgage loan shall be used to pay off obligations. In the mortgage in favor of the RFC and promissory note
view of these conditions, the RFC paid Ponce de signed by Francisco Soriano lacked the latter's consent
Leon's obligations to PNB, Cu Unjieng Bros and Arturo and was w/o consideration and hence void as to him
Colmenares. Various amounts were released to Ponce and his children; that the lot covered by OCT No. 8094
de Leon from December 1951 to July 1952. The in the name of Francisco Soriano belonged to the
checks covering these releases were issued to Jose L. conjugal partnership of the latter and his wife, Tomasa
Ponce de Leon in view of the authority given to him in Rodriguez, now deceased, and since the latter was
writing by Francisco Soriano and Carmelina Russell. already dead when the mortgage was executed and
4. Allegedly, the loan was not paid. Because of this, RFC her children who inherited her share have not signed
sought for extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged the mortgage contract and promissory note, at least,
properties (real estate+sawmill in Samar and the share of the lot belonging now to the Soriano
equipment). RFC was the purchaser of all the sisters and brothers, the third-party plaintiffs, have not
mortgaged properties in the ensuing sheriff's sales, been legally included in the mortgage to the RFC so
with the exception of two parcels of land situated in the latter had not acquired said one-half share in the
sheriff's sale.
 9. TC dismissed Ponces complaint and held that being ... All property of the marriage is presumed to
registered in the name of "Francisco Soriano, married belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved
to Tomasa Rodriguez," the property covered by OCT that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the
No. 8094(the Paraaque property) is presumed belong wife.
to the conjugal partnership of said spouses, and the 4. This provision must be construed in relation to Articles
RFC having failed to offset this presumption, the 153 to 159 of the same Code, enumerating the
mortgage on and the sale of the property by the sheriff properties "acquired ... during the marriage" that
are null and void as to one-half () thereof. constitute the conjugal partnership. We have held that
"the party who invokes this presumption must first
ISSUE: prove that the property in controversy was
Whether the TC erred erred in holding that the Paraaque acquired during the marriage. In other words, proof
property is presumed to belong to the conjugal of acquisition during coverture is a condition sine
partnership of Mr. and Mrs. Francisco Soriano? YES qua non for the operation of the presumption in
favor of conjugal partnership.
HELD: 5. The Sorianos have not succeeded in proving that the
1. It appears that the property was registered in the name Paraaque property was acquired "during the
of "Francisco Soriano, married to Tomasa Rodriguez," marriage" of their parents. What is more, there is
and based upon this fact alone without any proof substantial evidence to the contrary.
establishing satisfactorily that the property had been 6. Gregorio Soriano testified that his first cousin,
acquired during coverture, the lower court presumed Francisco Soriano, had acquired said property from
that it belongs to the conjugal partnership of said his parents, long before he got married. Said
spouses. prosecution does not necessarily warrant the
2. We should not overlook the fact that the title to said conclusion that Gregorio Soriano was impelled by an
property was not a transfer certificate of title, but "improper motive" in testifying as he did. After all, the
an original one, issued in accordance with a decree Sorianos are, likewise, nieces of Gregorio Soriano and
which, pursuant to law, merely confirms a pre- he was not the party allegedly accused by them.
existing title. Said original certificate of title does 7. This witness testified in a straightforward manner, and
not establish, therefore, the time of acquisition of disclosed a good number of details bearing the ear-
the Paraaque property by the registered owner marks of veracity. His testimony was corroborated, not
thereof. only by Felipe Cuaderno, Jr. and OCT No. 8094, but,
3. Lower Court applied said presumption in Article 160 of also, by the testimony of 3rd plaintiff Rosalina Soriano.
our Civil Code, which reads: Felipe Cuaderno, Jr., an assistant attorney and notary
 public of the RFC, before whom the deed of mortgage intervention as regards, at least, 1/2 of the Paraaque
was acknowledged, testified that Francisco Soriano property, which they now claim to be their mother's
assured him that the Paraaque property was "his own share in the conjugal partnership. Worse still, after the
separate property, having acquired it from his foreclosure sale in favor of the RFC, they tried to
deceased father by inheritance and that his children redeem the property for P14,000, and, when the RFC
have nothing to do with the property." This was, in did not agree thereto, they even sought the help of the
effect, confirmed by Rosalina Soriano, stated on cross- Office of the President to effect said redemption.
examination, that her father "was born and ... raised" in 10. Their failure to contest the legality of the mortgage for
said property, so that contrary to her testimony in chief over five (5) years and these attempts to redeem the
he could not have told her that he and his wife had property constitute further indicia that the same
bought it. belonged exclusively to Francisco Soriano, not to the
8. Needless to say, had the property been acquired by conjugal partnership with his deceased wife, Tomasa
them during coverture, it would have been registered, Rodriguez. Apart from the fact that said attempts to
in the name not of "Francisco Soriano, married to redeem the property constitute an implied admission of
Tomasa Rodriguez," but of the spouses "Francisco the validity of its sale and, hence, of its mortgage to the
Soriano and Tomasa Rodriguez." In Litam vs. Espiritu, RFC ,there are authorities to the effect that they bar the
the words 'married to Rafael Litam' written after the Sorianos from assailing the same.
name of Marcosa Rivera, in each of the above
mentioned titles are merely descriptive of the civil
status of Marcosa Rivera, the registered owner of the
properties covered by said titles.
9. It is difficult to believe also that Sorianos did not know
then of the mortgage constituted by Francisco Soriano, PNB vs. CA, 153 SCRA 435 (1987)
on October 8, 1951, in favor of the RFC. In fact, Author: Jackie
Rosalina Soriano testified that month, Francisco
Soriano and she conferred with the plaintiff, he stated FACTS:
that the Paraaque property was mortgaged to the 1. Clodualdo Vitug first marriage was with Gervacia
RFC, her father got angry at the plaintiff and said that Flores with whom he had 3 children. His second wife is
he had fooled him (Francisco Soriano). Being aware of Donata Montemayor with whom he had 8 children.
said mortgage since October 1951, the Sorianos did 2. Clodualdo Vitug died intestate on May 20,1929 so his
not question its validity until January 12, 1957, when estate was settled and distributed in Special
they filed in this cage their 3rd -party complaint in
 Proceeding wherein Donata Montemayor was the When the title of the PNB was consolidated a
Administratrix. new title was issued in its name
3. On November 28, 1952, Donata Montemayor, through On September 2,1969, the PNB sold the
her son, Salvador M. Vitug, mortgaged to the Philippine properties covered by TCT Nos. 2887 and
National Bank (PNB) several parcels of land covered 2888, Pampanga to Jesus M. Vitug,
by TCT No. 2289 (in the name of Montemayor) located Anunciacion V. de Guzman, Prudencia V.
in Pampanga to guarantee the loan granted by the Fajardo, Salvador Vitug and Aurora V.
PNB to Salvador Jaramiila and Pedro Bacani in the Gutierrez in those names the corresponding
amount of P40,900.00 which was duly registered in the titles were issued.
Office of the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. 5. Meanwhile, on May 12, 1958, Donata Montemayor
4. On December 1, 1963, Donata Montemayor also executed a contract of lease of Lot No. 24, which is
mortgaged in favor of PNB certain properties covered covered by TCT No. 2887-R in favor of her children
by TCT Nos. 2887 and 2888 (in the name of Pragmacio and Maximo both surnamed Vitug. This
Montemayor), Pampanga to guarantee the payment of lease was extended on August 31, 1963. By virtue of a
the loan account of her son Salvador Vitug in the general power of attorney executed by Donata
amount of P35,200.00, which mortgage was duly Montemayor on Sept. 19, 1966 in favor of Pragmacio
registered in the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. Vitug, the latter executed a contract of lease on Sept.
Salvador Vitug failed to pay his account so the 19, 1967 of the said lot in favor of Maximo Vitug.
bank foreclosed the mortgaged properties 6. On March 21, 1970 Pragmacio Vitug and Maximo Vitug
covered by TCT Nos. 2887 and 2888. At the filed an action for partition and reconveyance with
public auction, PNB was the highest bidder. damages in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga
The titles thereto were thereafter consolidated against Marcelo Mendiola, special administrator of the
in the name of PNB. intestate estate of Donata Montemayor et al, and PNB
Likewise, Salvador Jaramilla and Pedro Bacani The subject of the action is 30 parcels of land
failed to settle their accounts with the PNB so which they claim to be the conjugal property of
the latter foreclosed the properties covered by the spouses Donata Montemayor and
TCT No. 2889 which were sold at public auction Clodualdo Vitug of which they claim a share of
and likewise PNB was the buyer thereof. On 2/11 of 1/2 thereof. They assailed the mortgage
August 30, 1968, a certificate of sale was to the PNB and the public auction of the
issued by the Register of Deeds covering said properties as null and void. They invoked the
properties in favor of the PNB. case of Vitug vs. Montemayor, L5297 decided
by this Court on Oct. 20, 1953 which is an
 action for partition and liquidation of the said 30 question the status of said registered owner and her
parcels of land wherein the properties were ownership thereof. Indeed, there are no liens and
found to be conjugal in nature. encumbrances covering the same.
DISMISSED. APPEAL TO THE CA. CA b. The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE LC. dealing with a registered land has a right to rely upon
7. Hence this petition the face of the torrens certificate of title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except
ISSUE: Does the presumption of conjugality of properties when the party concerned has actual knowledge of
acquired by the spouses during coverture provided for in facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
Article 160 of the Civil Code apply to property covered by a cautious man to make such inquiry.
Torrens certificate of title in the name of the widow? c. A torrens title concludes all controversy over ownership
HELD: NO. When the subject properties were mortgaged to of the land covered by a final degree of registration.
the PNB they were registered in the name of Donata Once the title is registered the owner may rest assured
Montemayor, widow. Relying on the torrens certificate of title without the necessity of stepping into the portals of the
covering said properties the mortgage loan applications of court or sitting in the mirador de su casa to avoid the
Donata were granted by the PNB and the mortgages were possibility of losing his land.
duly constituted and registered in the office of the Register of d. "Art. 160, NCC. All property of the marriage is
Deeds. presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless
it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband
The PNB had a reason to rely on what appears on the or to the wife."
certificates of title of the properties mortgaged. For all legal The presumption applies to property acquired
purposes, the PNB is a mortgagee in good faith for at the time during the lifetime of the husband and wife. In
the mortgages covering said properties were constituted the this case, it appears on the face of the title that
PNB was not aware to any flaw of the title of the mortgagor. the properties were acquired by Donata
Montemayor when she was already a widow.
When the property is registered in the name of
RATIO: a spouse only and there is no showing as to
a. In processing the loan applications of Donata when the property was acquired by said
Montemayor, the PNB had the right to rely on what spouse, this is an indication that the property
appears in the certificates of title and no more. On its belongs exclusively to said spouse. And this
face the properties are owned by Donata Montemayor, presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code
a widow. The PNB had no reason to doubt nor cannot prevail when the title is in the name of
 only one spouse and the rights of innocent third title covering the same parcel of land; that by reason of
parties are involved. the said reconstitution and subsequent issuance of TCT
e. At any rate, although actions for recovery of real in favor of Virata, there now exists a cloud on the title of
property and for partition are real actions, however, pet
they are actions in personam that bind only the
According to the pets evidence
particular individuals who are parties thereto. The PNB
Pursuant to Act No. 32 [law on sale of Friar
not being a party in said cases is not bound by the said
decisions, Nor does it appear that the PNB was aware
Lands], Pearanda [predecessor-in-
of the said decisions when it extended the above interest] submitted with the Bureau of
described mortgage loans. Indeed, if the PNB knew of Lands an application to purchase a friar
the conjugal nature of said properties it would not have land. The application covers Lot No. 7449
approved the mortgage applications covering said containing an area of a little over 4
properties of Donata Montemayor without requiring the hectares. Said application was
consent of all the other heirs or coowners thereof. accompanied by a "SALAYSAY" signed and
Moreover, when said properties were sold at public sworn to by one Mabini Legaspi purporting
auction, the PNB was a purchaser for value in good to transfer to, and to waive in favor of,
faith so its right thereto is beyond question.
Pearanda, all the rights of executor to Lot
No. 7449
Solid State Multi-Products Corp. vs. CA, 196 SCRA 630
(1991) Chief of Land Management Division
Author: forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, the application of
Facts: Pearanda, recommending that Lot No.
1982 pet, a domestic corporation, filed an action for 7449 be sold to said applicant w/o public
quieting of title against the resp estate of Virata alleging auction for a sum of P1,198.00. The
that it is the registered owner of a parcel of land located application of Pearanda was returned by
at Imus, Cavite, with an area of 48,182 sq. meters, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
covered by a Certificate of Title No. which was issued in Resources, to the Director of Lands,
1976; that Virata, during his lifetime thru the use of fraud, approving that sale without auction, to
caused the issuance of a Certificate of Title in 1959 thru Pearanda, of lot No. 7449. Pursuant to this
an administrative reconstitution of a nonexistent original approval, the Director of Lands and Julian
 Pearanda executed, therefore, Sales May 5, 1943. On said date, Mabini Legaspi
Contract in 1969, for a consideration of [resps predecessor-in-interest] submitted a
P1,198.00, to be paid in 10 monthly winning bid of P290.00. The subsequent
installments, w/c was fully paid in Aug., installments were paid respectively
1969 evidenced by Official Receipts
The Undersecretary of Agriculture and The Register of Deeds of Cavite issued a
Natural Resources issued the final deed of TCT to Mabini Legaspi who held ownership
conveyance of lot No. 7449 in favor of of the property up to 1957 when he
Pearanda executed a Deed of Sale transferring it to
On the basis of said Deed of Conveyance, resp Virata. The deed was registered with
the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued in the Registry of Deeds in the same year and
Nov., 1969 in favor of Pearanda a TCT, on that same day, the Register of Deeds
and in 1976, the pet, by way of a Deed of issued TCT to resp Virata
Absolute Sale bought said Lot No. 7449 as However, in 1959, the Provincial Capitol
a consequence of which, TCT was issued building of Cavite which housed the
to the pet Registry of Deeds was burned, destroying
Pet enrolled Lot No. 7449 with the issuance land records and titles in the registry among
of Tax Declaration and continued to which were the records relating to Lot No.
religiously pay the realty taxes and the 7449
subject property is in its actual possession In September, 1959, the Registry of Deeds
since its acquisition from Pearanda up to administratively reconstituted the original of
the present. resps TCT
Accdg. to resps evidence The TCT issued in the name of pet in 1976
In 1943, the Director of Lands gave came to the knowledge of resp in 1978
authority to sell at public auction Lot No. when he received a subpoena from the NBI
7449 at the price of not less than P290.00. in connection with its investigation of the
In the same year, the Bureau of Friar Lands conflicting land titles on Lot No. 7449. Resp
Agent issued a Notice fixing the public presented Mabini Legaspi as his witness.
auction of Lot No. 7449, among others, on Mabini Legaspi in her sworn testimony
 declared, among others, that she did not cancellation thereof in case the price agreed upon is not
sell the land to Pearanda, nor waived her paid
right over the land in his favor Upon the payment of the final installment, the govt shall
Trial Court ruled in favor of resp; CA affirmed; hence, this then issue a final deed of conveyance in favor of the
pet purchaser. However, the sale of such friar lands shall be
Issue: who is the rightful/lawful owner of the parcel of valid only if approved by the Secretary of Interior as
land in question provided in Act No. 1120. Later laws, however, required
Held: Pet Solid State Multi-Products Corp.; TC & CA that the sale shall be approved by the Secretary of
rulings reversed Agriculture and Commerce. In short, the approval by the
Ratio: Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable
It is undisputed that the land involved in this case is a for the validity of the sale.
friar land and that the laws which are applicable are Act
No. 1120, [Friar Lands Act] providing for the Pets predecessor, Pearanda was the actual occupant
administration and temporary leasing and sale of certain of Lot 7449 when he filed his application to purchase the
haciendas and parcels of land, commonly known as friar said lot in 1968; the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
lands, and Commonwealth Act No. 32 as amended by Resources approved the sale of the lot w/o auction to
Commonwealth Act No. 316, which provided for the Pearanda; that a sales contract was executed between
subdivision and sale of all the portions of the friar lands the Director of Lands and Pearanda for a consideration
estate remaining undisposed of of P 1,198.00 payable in 10 monthly installments; that
From the pertinent provisions of the said laws, the upon the full payment of the price, the Undersecretary of
Bureau of Lands shall first issue a certificate stating Agriculture and Natural Resources issued the final deed
therein that the govt has agreed to sell the land to such of conveyance in favor of Pearanda. Subsequently, the
settler or occupant. The latter then shall accept the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued a TCT in the name of
certificate and agree to pay the purchase price and in the Pearanda, and when the latter sold the land to pet,
installments and at the interest specified in the certificate. formers TCT was cancelled and TCT was issued in favor
of the latter. Clearly, the purchase of the friar land made
The purchaser becomes the owner upon the issuance of by Pearanda was in compliance with law
the certificate of sale in his favor subject only to the
On the other hand, nowhere in the evidence for the resp the petitioner herein is in possession of the land in
would show that a certificate of sale was ever issued by dispute. Hence, its action to quiet title is imprescriptible.
the Bureau of Lands, which would vest ownership and Being null and void, the sale made to Mabini Legaspi and
title over the land in favor of Mabini Legaspi. The the subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto produced
acquisition of the lot by Legaspi was highly irregular and no legal effects whatsoever.
void, and not in compliance with the procedure mandated Even assuming that resp was a purchaser in good faith
by law for the sale of friar lands. For one thing, Mabini and for value, the law is, as b/w 2 persons both of whom
Legaspi allegedly purchased the land in a sale at public are in good faith and both innocent of any negligence, the
auction, which procedure is nowhere provided in the law must protect and prefer the lawful holder of
applicable laws. The laws expressly state that an actual registered title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of
occupant of the land shall purchase the lot occupied by any transmissible rights. Further if a person happened to
him at a private sale and not in a sale at public auction obtain property by mistake or to the prejudice of another
[Sec. 2, C.A. 32 as amended]. Further, neither was there with or without bad faith, the certificate of title w/c may
any deed of conveyance issued to Legaspi by the govt have been issued to him under the circumstances may
after the full payment of the installments on the disputed and should be cancelled or corrected.
lot.
There was neither allegation nor proof that the sale was
with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Villanueva vs. CA, 198 SCRA 472 (1991)
Commerce. The absence of such approval made the Author: Banico
Facts:
supposed sale null and void ab initio.
The present case assails the decision of the CA in
The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Mabini
reversing the decision of the RTC, which the latter court
Legaspi did not vest ownership upon her over the land dismissed the complaint for the annulment of the deed of sale.
nor did it validate the alleged purchase of the lot, which is The CA found that the signature of the vendor in the deed of
null and void. sale was forged.
Although a period of 1 year has already expired from the Catalina Sanchez (private respondent) claimed to be
time the certificate of title was issued to Mabini Legaspi the widow of Roberto Sanchez (vendor). Catalina then claimed
pursuant to the alleged sale from the govt, said title does that her husband is the owner of a 275 sq. meter parcel of land
not become incontrovertible but is null and void since the in Rosario Cavite, which was registered in the names of Sps.
acquisition of the property was in violation of law. Further, Villanueva (petitioners) without her knowledge and an alleged
deed of sale. On a report by the Philippine Constabulary (PC) lawful contract of marriage" and may also explain why Roberto
it was showed that the signature of Roberto was forged. She Sanchez could not marry the woman by whom he supposedly
now prays for the annulment of the deed of sale. On the part of had two illegitimate children. It was error on the part of the
the petitioners, Sps. Villanueva questions the personality of RTC to reject the evidence of a marriage contract and held the
the Catalina, contending that Roberto was never married, but validity of the Transfer Certificate Title describing Roberto to
had a common-law wife, which he had 2 illegitimate children. be single, disregarding the principle that the best evidence of
They also claim the Roberto signed over the deed to them in a marriage is the marriage contract.
1968 for the sum of P500 as partial payment of a judgment Going to the expert testimonies of both the PC and the
they obtained against him. NBI, it was significant that even though it was petitioners who
During the trial, the RTC then required that the requested the examination of the NBI, it was respondent who
document be investigated by the NBI, as requested by presented it as her own witness. It is clear that petitioners
petitioners. The NBI had the same findings, claiming that the thought that that the NBIs findings would refute the PCs
signature was not done by the same person. The RTC ruled in examination, however, the findings coincide with one another.
favor of the petitioner, rejecting the findings of both the PC and They did not conjure this conclusion out of thin air but
the NBI. It was reasoned that the difference in the signature supported it with knowledgeable testimony extensively given
may be caused by Roberto being "under serious emotional on direct and cross-examination on the various characteristics
stress and intensely angry" when he reluctantly signed the and differences of the signatures they had examined and
document after he had lost the case to them". It was also compared. The Court itself examined the signatures of
stated that Roberto did not do anything to annul the deed of Roberto in different instruments, and is also inclined to accept
sale, thus the action has already prescribed. However, the CA the findings of the experts. For the reason that the difference
reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled in favor of the was because Roberto was "under serious emotional stress
respondent. and intensely angry", petitioners were not able to establish for
such reason, and it was only conjecture on the part of the
Issue: WoN the CA erred in reversing the decision of the RTC RTC.
and annulling the deed of sale? Petitioners also were not able to properly explain why it
took them 13 years before they could have filed for the
Ruling: No, the CA did not commit reversible error. The SC registration of the deed of sale. They explain that they were
affirms the decision of the CA. mere peasants and did not appreciate the significance of the
Catalina Sanchez has proved that she is the widow of immediate transfer of the property in their names. However,
Roberto by submitting her marriage contract. It was rendered the evidence support that the petitioners understood the
unnecessary the presumption that "a man and a woman importance of the immediate registration since it was for the
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
purpose of using it as collateral in case they wanted to borrow Bahans free patent application was granted - hence
money. they are invoking indefeasibility of title because they
Also, for the claim of prescription, petitioner invoke that already had a valid registration, as evidence of
the CA erred in not declaring the action to have prescribed. ownership
The SC ruled that the applicable rule is not Art. 1391 but Art. Avila questions such whether or not registration is valid
1410 of the Civil Code. Art. 1410 provides that "the action or , because their title was erroneously included in
defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract Bahans free patent registration
does not prescribe. Court ruled in favor of Avila -The evidence shows that
Finally, petitioners invoke that Art. 1431 of the Civil Free Patent No. 552571 issued to the Bahans is
Code, contending that the respondent is estopped from erroneous as it embraced and comprised in portions
questioning the deed of sale. The conclusion of petitioner that thereof lands which belong to the Avilas.
private respondent had knowledge of the transaction, is not
supported by evidence on record. Also, the Court does not see Facts:
the connection of Art. 1431, which provides that "through
estoppel an admission or representation is rendered Acquisition
conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying thereon at the present In 1918, spouses Pedro Bahan and Dominga Exsaure
case. acquired a parcel of land situated at Tabangao, Victory,
Tubay, Agusan del Norte, which is more particularly
Avila vs. Tapucar, 201 SCRA 148 (1991) described as follows:
Author: TANG A parcel of coconut land containing an area of 1.8340
SUMMARY & READ KAHIT ETO LNG BASAHIN NIYO has. (now reduced to 1.3485 due to road) covered by
PORTION FOR EASY UNDERSTANDING Tax Dec. No. 270, bounded on the North by Anastacio
Bahan applied for a free patent registration on a certain Luyahan, on the East and South by Tabangao Creek
property and on the West by Tomas Colon, assessed in the
In the free patent application included another persons amount of P330.00
property - hence enlarging their own property through Inheritance
such erroneous inclusion. In 1965, said property was inherited by private
As such obviously (petitioner) Avilas got angry why respondents Julito Bahan, Cristina Bahan-Panis, Lucita
was their said property subject to another persons Carters, Boy Cartera and Candelaria Bahan-Mendoza
land registration (Bahans free patent application) as successors-in-interest.
Avilas purchase of Property
 On October 11, 1960, petitioner Magdalena Avila (then of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City,
Mrs. Magdalena R. Vda. de Leon) bought a parcel of Branch I docketed as Civil Case No. 1585 entitled
land situated at Tabangao, Victory, Tubay, Agusan del "Julito Bahan, Cristina Bahan-Panis, Lucita Carters,
Norte, containing an area of 4,371 square meters more Boy Carters, Candelaria Bahan-Mendoza, Alfreda Pol,
or less from Luis Cabalan and his wife under a Deed of in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children:
Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land and under Tax Carmencita, Oscar, Julia, Julita and Gervacio, Jr., all
Declaration No. 3055. surnamed Bahan versus Ludovico Avila (Mariano
Filing of free patent (Bahan Heirs) Avila) and Magdalena Avila" alleging that they were the
On November 3, 1971, the heirs of Pedro Bahan, successors-in-interest of "a parcel of coconut land
represented by Julito Bahan filed Free Patent containing an area of 1.8340 has. (now reduced to
Application No. (IX-2) 10144 for an area of 2.2400 1.3485 due to the road)" and that sometime in 1968, he
hectares of Lot No. 2383, Pls-736 which lot has a total discovered that the northwestern portion of said land
area of 6.9027 hectares in its entirety. Deputy Public containing an area of about 1/3 of a hectare was
Land Inspector Francisco C. Baylen in his report, dated already in the possession of the Avilas; and the latter
November 28, 1971 stated that the heirs of Pedro were harvesting the fruits of about 40 coconut trees
Bahan represented by Julito Bahan, have cultivated found therein. The Bahans prayed that the petitioners
only 2.2500 hectares of land applied for and Avilas be ordered to pay the Bahans the sum of not
consequently, he did not recommend the issuance of less than P1,800.00 a year from the time they took
the patent. Said report was erroneously forwarded to possession of the aforesaid property until the
the Bureau of Lands by then Acting Assistant District possession thereof is restored to them.
Land Officer of Butuan City dated December 23, 1971, Avilas defense of purchase of title and adverse
recommending the issuance of patent therefor. possession
Alleged farming of Bahan in Avilas said property In their answer, the petitioners Avilas raised the
In May 1973, private respondent Julito Bahan together defense that on October 11, 1960, Magdalena Avila
with ten persons who were alleged to be members of purchased a parcel of land situated at Tabangao,
the Free Farmers Federation, gathered coconuts from Victory, Tubay, Agusan del Norte, containing an area
the land purchased by petitioner Magdalena Avila but of 4,371 square meters more or less from Luis Cabalan
was intercepted by the Chief of Police of Tubay, and from then on has been in open, continuous, public,
Agusan del Norte. peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the same.
Bahans act of quieting the title Bahans application of a free patent was granted
On June 27, 1973, private respondents Bahans filed an In the meantime, private respondents Bahans'
action for quieting of title and damages with the Court application for free patent was approved for 6.9027
 hectares and Free Patent No. 552571 was issued on property. It does not give the holder any better right than what
December 6, 1973. Original certificate of title No. P- he actually has, especially if the registration was done in bad
8424 was issued in the name of the Heirs of Pedro faith. The effect is that it is as if no registration was made at all
Bahan, represented by Julito Bahan on the same date.
KAHIT ETO LNG BASAHIN NIYO Ratio:
On October 17, 1974, the Avilas filed an administrative Sa usapin sa lupa , kunin lng ang nararapat sayo,
protest against the Bahans before the Bureau of Lands wag kunin ang nakatakda sa ibang tao, kahit anong
docketed as B.L. Claim No. 872 (N) DLO Lot No. 2383 gawin mo , hindi mo yan makukuha.
Tabangao, Doa Rosario, Tubay, Agusan del Norte, It is axiomatic in this jurisdiction that "while land
entitled "Mariano P. Avila and Magdalena R. Avila, registration is a proceeding in rem and binds the whole
Claimants-Protestants versus F.P.A. No. (IX-2) 10144 world, the simple possession of a certificate of title
(Patent No. 552571) Heirs of Pedro Bahan, under the Torrens Systems does not necessarily make
represented by Julito Bahan, Applicant-Respondent" the holder a true owner of all the property described
for having erroneously included their land under the therein. If a person obtains a title under the Torrens
issued free patent and Original Certificate of Title, system, which includes by mistake or oversight land
which protest was filed 11 months after the issuance of which can no longer be registered under the system,
the patent and 7 months and 3 days after the he does not, by virtue of the said certificate alone,
registration of the Certificate of Title in the Registration become the owner of the lands illegally included
Book of the Register of Deeds, Agusan del Norte.
Judge Tapucar ruled in favor of Bahan - citing Foja Vs. Court of Appeals, 75 SCRA 441 (1977)
indefeasibility of title as a valid defense Author: John Briones
Facts:
Issue: W/N Bahans defense of having a valid decree of 1. Levin Frial filed with the Court of First Instance of Capiz
registration over the said free patent was valid (the one having Branch 3, situated in Mambusao, Capiz, a complaint for
an erroneous inclusion of Avilas property , hence enlarging Recovery of Possession and damages, for a parcel of land
Bahans own property) located in Barrio San Agustin, Dumalag, Capiz, w/ area of 235,
854 square meters more or less, ( OCT No. RO-1496), named
Held:NO- Bahans erroneous inclusion of Avilas title in under Indalecio Frial, father of Levine Frial;
the formers successful free patent application does not 2. Levine Frial came to know that Felipa Faja was
make the former the owner of the latters property occupying the property, Frial demanded its return, however,
Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring Faja declined;
ownership but is merely evidence of such title over a particular
3. Thus, Frial filed a complaint for recovery of possession 7. Responsive pleadings filed, pre-trial conference
of the land in question, and the unearned income from the land ensued, Judge Leonidas order parties to submit a
for a period of not less than 30 years, at around P150, 000.00; memoranda, whether or not SUMMARY JUDGMENT may be
4. Faja, in her answer, denied under oath the allegations issued on the basis of the pleadings, since there were only 2
in the complaint as to the ownership of Frial, in her defense, issues to be resolved;
Faja claimed she is the lawful owner and in actual possession a. can a registered owner who has acquired title thereto
of the property, which is identical to Lot No. 4010 of the for almost 35 years still recover possession from actual
Cadastral Survey of Dumalag, Capiz, which she inherited from occupants who claim long and continuous possession of same
her father, Marcelino Faja; and argues the ff: property but w/out title;
b. is reconveyance of titled property still legally possible
Faja argues that she and her predecessors in-interest considering that a period of more than 10 years had elapsed
have been in possession of the property publicly, since the issuance of the decree of registration;
peacefully, continuously and adversely, in the concept 8. Subsequently, Felipa Faja in her memorandum argued
of owners, for more than 60 years, with tax that summary judgment should be DENIED, as there was
declarations in the name of her father, Marcelino Faja genuine controversy between the partieswhich required a trial
and taxes have been paid ever since then; Faja further on the merits, and that the alleged prescription of her
explains that she herself lives on the land in question, counterclaim for reconveyance cannot be subject of a
and that the same is planted with coconut trees, summary judgment, notwithstanding the fact that her cause of
mangoes, bananas, santol, buri, while around 8 action for reconveyance to her of the property only arose from
hectares are for rice and corn; the moment she was served the copy of the compliant which
was 1975;
Faja also argues that Levin Frial and his father, 9. However, TRIAL COURT: Trial Judge ruled in favor of
Indalecio Frial, NEVER LIVED nor possessed the Levin Frial, and against Faja. Trial Court ruled that there was
said property, EVEN FOR A SINGLE MOMENT. Faja NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO MATERIAL FACT, except to
also argues that any Certificate of Title secured by amount of damages, SUMMARY JUDGMENT was declared
Indalicio Frial was obtained through FRAUD, DECEIT, in favor of Frial.
and MISREPRESENTATION. 10. MR was filed by Faja, denied, subsequently, Faja died,
her children now herein, all surnamed Gardose, substituted
her, and filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for Certiorari;
6. Frial, denied the fraud claim against his father; and 11. Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the summary judgment,
alleged that Fajas right to question the validity of the Title had NO GENUINE ISSUE as to any material fact, CA reasoned
PRESCRIBED; that the disputed property was covered by an OCT, and that
any action to annul that title on the ground of fraud prescribes 30 years and was suddenly confronted with a claim that her
after the lapse of 10 years; land which she was occupying and cultivating was titled to
someone else;
ISSUE: W/N the trial court and the Court of Appeals was
correct in their summary judgments 3. This Court rules that the right to seek reconveyance and
HELD: NO, summary judgments set aside, the presiding annul the certificate of title to the property, ACCRUED ONLY
judge of CFI Capiz, is directed to proceed with the trial on from the time the one in possession was made aware of the
the merits. adverse claim, the time of knowledge will be the reckoning
point that the statutory period of prescription will run against
RATIO: the possessor;
1. Counterclaim of Felipe Faja for reconveyance of the litigated
property has NOT PRESCRIBED. It is an established rule that 4. The existence of Certificate of Title in the name of Frials
an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff father is NOT CONCLUSIVE, because there are allegations of
is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE. Here, Faja was in possession of the fraud;
property since 1945-present, basically 30 years, her cause of
action for reconveyance, which seeks to quiet title to the 5. This Court regrets the summary dismissal, because there
property in dispute, FALLS WITHIN THE RULE. More exists MATERIAL FACTS, to be inquired, into and resolved on
importantly, the period of prescription began to run the basis of evidence adduced by the parties:
against Felipa Faja, only from the time she was served
with the copy of the complaint in 1975 giving her notice a) circumstances which led to the issuance of OCT in 1950 in
that property she was occupying was titled in the name of favor of Frial
Indalecio Frial; b) explanation, if any, of Frials INACTION, and his heirs, for a
period of 30 years to take possession of land in question
2. Settled jurisprudence provides that, one who is actual c) claim of ownership of Faja
possession of a land claiming to be owner, may wait until his
possession or his title be attacked, before taking steps to Ergo, all these matters cannot simply be summarily
vindicate his right, his undisturbed possession gives him a disposed of in favor Frial.
continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity, this
can only be claimed by one who is in possession. 5. This Court, desires to the encourage trial courts to take
advantage of and apply provisions of Rules of Court on
Here, THIS RULE OF EQUITY strongly applies to Felipa Faja , Summary Judgments for expeditious disposition of cases,
who was in possession of the litigated property for no less than however, as stated in the case of Constantino vs. Hon.
Estenzo, ordered cancelled on the ground that they had been issued
erroneously; that Datu Binasing had secured the said titles
the rule on summary judgment can only be entertained where
upon false representations in an affidavit wherein he alleged
there are no questions of fact in issue or where material
allegations of the pleadings, Are not disputed. xxx the that he had never, to his knowledge, secured titles for said
demands of a fair, impartial and wise administration of justice lands.
call for a faithful adherence to legal precepts on procedure
which ensure litigants the opportunity to present their evidence
and secure a ruling on all issues presented in the respective The Philippine National Bank opposed the petition because it
pleadings. SHORTCUTS IN JUDICIAL PROCESS ARE TO was the mortgagee of said lots which were later extrajudicially
BE AVOIDED, where they impede, rather than
foreclosed, with the PNB itself as the highest bidder at the
promote a judicious dispensation of justice.
foreclosure sale.

The facts are not disputed. Datu Binasing was the owner of
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring.
Respondent court failed to appreciate that these are vital the said four lots pursuant to which four original certificates of
genuine issues of fact which would materially affect the titles were issued in his name. On July 23, 1938, he sold said
outcome of the case and therefore gravely erred in ruling that lots to Soledad C. de Teruel. The deed of sale was registered
summary judgment is proper as there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact. in the office of the Register of Deeds and the corresponding
Transfer Certificates of Title were accordingly issued in her
name.

The Office of the said Register of Deeds was burned during

Register of Deeds vs. PNB, 13 SCRA 46 (1965) the Pacific War and the records, among them, the original
Author: certificates of title in the name of Datu Binasing covering said
Facts: four lots were destroyed.
This appeal originated from a petition filed by the Register of
In 1947, Datu Binasing secured certified copies of the
Deeds of Cotabato in Cadastral Case. He prayed that original
aforesaid decrees from the General Land Registration Office.
certificates of title in the name of Datu Sinarimbo Binasing, be
And on the strength of these copies and an affidavit stating
that he had not at anytime secured certificates of title for said committed by forgery) was protected. He cites other cases
fours lots, the said Register of Deeds on August 8, 1947, holding that the innocent purchaser for value may take good
issued in the name of Datu Binasing, original certificates of title, notwithstanding defects of the mortgagors title deeds.
title. Thereafter, said Datu obtained from the Philippine
Issue: Whether or not to give due weight to the mortgage
National Bank, a loan of P10,000.00, and he gave as security
executed by Datu in favor of PNB.
the said lots and some other properties. On March 20, 1954,
Held: No
the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed.
Ratio: Datu has other properties that the bank can use to
Soledad C. de Teruel, on the other hand, procured a
enforce its loan against Datu. On the other hand, the Supreme
reconstitution of her transfer certificates of title, in lieu thereof,
Court ruled that the Torrens issued to Datu in 1947 could not
Transfer Certificates of Title were issued in her name.
prevail over the Torrens issued to de Teruel in 1938. The
Having discovered this state of affair (two different certificates
theory of indefeasibility of titles under the Torrens System,
of title for each of said four lots, and in the name of two
states that the indefeasibility of title thereunder could be
different persons), the Register of Deeds filed the petition that
claimed only if a previous valid title to the same parcel of land
gave rise to this appeal.
does not exist. Where issuance of the title was attended by
Lower court: directed the said Register of Deeds to cancel fraud, the same cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal
original certificates of title issued in the name of Datu, and title to the land covered by it; and the person in whose name
declared valid and subsisting the Transfer Certificates of Title the title was issued cannot transmit the same, for he (Datu)
issued in the name of Soledad C. de Teruel. has no true title thereto. This ruling is a mere affirmation of the
recognized principle that a certificate is not conclusive
The Philippine National Bank appealed contending that being
evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had already
an innocent mortgagee for value, it is entitled to protection
been registered and that an earlier certificate for the same
under Sec. 55, Act 496 as amended; that in the case of
land is in existence.
Blondeau vs. Nano and Vallejo, a mortgagee (relying upon a
Torrens title in good faith and unaware that fraud had been
 8. The municipal officials of Lubao refused to recognize the
Martinez vs. CA, 56 SCRA 647 (1974) aforementioned decision because spouses Martinez also
Author: Corpuz instituted a civil case, before the CFI of Pampanga,
against Mayor Zagad who prevented them from
FACTS: constructing dikes. Mayor Zagad appealed the injunction
suit to SC. SC dismissed the petition so spouses Martinez
1. Spouses Martinez are the registered owners of Lot Nos. 1 proceeded to construct the dikes in the disputed parcel of
and 2 located in Lubao, Pampanga. Both parcels of land land.
are fishponds. The subject property is Lot No. 2. 9. 4 years later, while the civil case against Mayor Zagad was
2. It was originally owned by Paulino Montemayor. When he still pending, then Secretary of Public Works and
died, he passed it to his successors-in-interest, who in Communications ordered another investigation of the said
turn, sold both properties to a certain Potenciano Garcia. parcel of land, directing the spouses to remove the dikes
3. Garcia was prevented by then municipal president of they had constructed pursuant to the authority granted to
Lubao from restoring the dikes constructed on the him by RA 2056. Otherwise, the dikes would be
contested property, so he filed a civil case with the CFI. demolished within thirty (30) days.
4. CFI declared a permanent preliminary injunction, which 10. Spouses Martinez filed the present case, which was
was affirmed by SC. So since 1914, the dikes around the decided in their favor by the lower Court.
property remained closed until a portion thereof was again 11. CA, on appeal, reversed CFIs decision stating that Lot
opened just before the outbreak of the Pacific War. No. 2 is a public stream so the title should be cancelled
5. In 1925, Garcia applied for the registration of both parcels and the river covered reverted to public domain. Hence,
of land in his name, which was granted by CFI Pampanga. this petition.
Hence, an OCT was issued to Garcia and his wife.
6. These parcels of land were eventually acquired by herein ISSUE: WON CA erred in declaring Lot No. 2 as a public
spouses Martinez (7th purchaser). river and ordering the cancellation of its registration
7. They referred the issue on dikes to the Committee on because this constitutes a collateral attack on a Torrens
Rivers and Streams who appointed a Sub-Committee to Title in violation of the law.
investigate the case and to conduct an ocular inspection
of the contested property. The Sub-Committee submitted HELD: NO. The incontestable and indefeasible character of
its report stating that Parcel No. 2 was not a public river a Torrens certificate of title does not operate when the land
but a private fishpond owned by spouses Martinez. covered thereby is not capable of registration. CA affirmed.
Thereafter, the Committee on Rivers and Streams then
rendered its decision in favor of spouses Martinez. RATIO:
1. The technical description of both Lots Nos. 1 and 2 legality of the title of the registered owner, but may rely on
confirms the fact that Lot No. 2 is practically bounded by the registry to determine if there is no lien or
rivers on all sides. Lot No. 2 is a branch of the main river encumbrances over the same. However, it cannot be
that has been covered with water since time immemorial availed of as against the law and the accepted principle
and, therefore, part of the public domain that is NOT that rivers are parts of the public domain for public use
capable of private appropriation or acquisition by and not capable of private appropriation or acquisition by
prescription. prescription.
2. A person does not, by virtue of a certificate of title alone,
become the owner of the land illegally included, such as
those that cannot be registered under the Torrens system. Bornales vs. IAC, 166 SCRA 519 (1988)
(Ledesma v. Municipality of Iloilo) Author: Sarah Rosales
3. The right of reversion or reconveyance to the State of
such public properties does not prescribe. Facts:
4. Moreover, the Land Registration Court has no jurisdiction
over non-registerable properties and cannot validly 1. A parcel of land in Barrio Indayagan Pontevedra, Capiz, with
adjudge the registration of title in favor of a private an area of 774, 397 square maters was awarded to Sixto
applicant. Dumulong who is married to Isabel Marquez. An original
certificate of title was issued in his name.
5. When it comes to registered properties, the Secretary of
2. Sixto and Isabel did not have a child. Subsequently, Sixto
Public Works & Communications has jurisdiction to order
had an extramarital affair cohabited with Placida and they
the removal or obstruction to navigation along a public and begot children.
navigable creek or river included therein (R.A. 2056) 3. In March 1978 (by this time Sixto is already dead), a "Deed
6. Furthermore, appellants cannot be deemed purchasers for of Extrajudicial Adjudication and Sale of Real Property",
value and in good faith. They knew the condition of the which was purportedly a settlement of the conjugal estate of
land that they were buying and the restrictions that may be Sixto Dumolong and Isabel Marquez Dumolong and the sale
imposed by the government in connection with their of said lot for P6,000.00 to spouses Carlito Patanao and
project of converting Lot No. 2 into a fishpond. Minda Dumolong and to spouses Bernardo Decrepito and
Nevertheless, they willfully and voluntarily assumed the Loreta Dumolong, was executed by Renito Dumolong (Son
of Sixto and Placida) and by Isabel Marquez Dumolong
risks attendant to the sale of said lot. One who buys
whose supposed thumbmark appeared in the document.
something with knowledge of defect or lack of title in his
4. The deed was registered and a transfer certificate of title
vendor cannot claim that he acquired it in good faith. was issued in favor of the spouses. 3 months later, the
7. As a general rule, a purchaser of a registered property spouses sold the lot to Antonio and Florenda Bornales for
cannot go beyond the record to make inquiries as to the
 40,000 and they eventually secured a transfer certificate of The fact that petitioners have been the tenants/lessees of the land
title in their names. even during Sixto Dumolong's lifetime belies any alleged lack of
5. Isabel Marquez filed an action for reconveyance and knowledge. Having been the cultivators of the land, it is
damages against Placida Dumolong, Renito Dumolong, unimaginable that the petitioners would have been unaware of the
spouses Carlito Patanao and Minda Dumolong, spouses transactions affecting the land. It appears that petitioners were aware
Bernardo Decrepito and Loreto Dumolong, and spouses that the private respondent was the legal wife of Sixto Dumolong and
Antonio Bornales and Florenda Diaz for the alleged forgery was a rightful heir to the properties of the latter. In fact, the trial court
of the "Deed of Extrajudicial Adjudication and Sale of Real conclusively found that the petitioners themselves went to see the
Property. private respondent sometime in 1980 to secure her signature and
6. Bornales countered he was not aware of the fraudulent conformity to the Extra-Judicial Adjudication and Sale of Real
nature of the prior transactions, but since a Torrens was Property.
issued he should be considered as a buyer in good faith,
hence entitled to some right.

Issue: Whether or not Bornales may invoke the indefeasibility

of the torrens title
Held: No.
Ratio:
Having bought the land registered under the Torrens system from
Placida who procured title thereto by means of fraud, Bornales
cannot invoke the indefeasibility of a certificate of title against Isabel
to the extent of her interest therein. The Torrens system of land
registration should not be used as a means to perpetrate fraud Arguelles vs. Timbancaya, 72 SCRA 193 (1976)
against the rightful owner of real property. Registration, to be Author: Bianca Dador
effective, must be made in good faith. It is a settled rule that the
defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title does not extend to a The rule on the incontrovertible nature of a certificate of title
transferee (Bornales) who takes it with notice of the flaws in his applies when what is involved is the validity of the OCT, not
transferors (Placidas) title. Thus, it is a settled rule that the defense when it concerns that of the TCT. Also, public policy demands
of indefeasibility of a certificate of title does not extend to a
that a person guilty of fraud or at least, of breach of trust,
transferee who takes it with notice of the flaws in his transferor's title.
should not be allowed to use a Torrens title as a shield against
If at all, the petitioners only acquire the right which their vendors then
had. the consequences of his own wrong doing.

Facts:
Defendant Guillermo Timbancaya appeals directly and on W/N TCT had already become indefeasible, since almost four
purely questions of law the decision of Palawan CFI. The trial years have lapsed before action was filed
court ruled that the property, subject of plaintiffs action for
reconveyance and by virtue of a compromise agreement and Held:
judgment in Special Proceedings No. 211, was owned jointly
one-half thereof by Caridad Arguelles and the other half by No. The rule that a decree of registration once issued
Guillermo and Alberto Timbancaya. becomes final and incontrovertible 1 year after its issuance is
not relevant to the case at bar.
During the special proceedings for Intestate Estate of Jose
Arguelles, the court rendered a decision, in conformity with a Ratio:
compromise agreement, adjudicating one half of the land to
Arguelles and the other half to the Timbancayas. It also Arguelles does not question the validity of the OCT but instead
ordered both parties to pay for the coconut trees planted in seeks the annulment of the TCT, which was issued to
their respective portions of the land, which they relinquish in Timbancaya after the judgment by compromise and based on
favor of the other. his misrepresentation in the Register of Deeds. Timbancaya
had claimed that he and his brother are the exclusive owners
Contrary to the agreement and judgment in the special of the property as the only legitimate children and surviving
proceedings however, Timbancaya was able to have the heirs of (their) parents Jose Arguelles and Rufina de los
original certificate of title cancelled and have a new CT issued Reyesa representation contrary to his previous admissions
in his favor covering the whole land (June 5, 1961), despite that they are not the legitimate children of the deceased
Arguelles actual open and continuous possession of one half Spouses Jose Arguelles and Rufina de los Reyes, but the
of the property even before the filing of the special sons of Rufina de los Reyes with her first husband, Joaquin
proceedings. Timbancaya.

Upon knowing the issuance of the TCT, Arguelles filed the In this case, the action to annul the title or action for
instant case for reconveyance (April 30, 1965). Timbancaya, reconveyance has its basis in Section 55 of Act 496, which
for his part, alleges that Arguelles has no right to the property provides that in all cases of registration procured by fraud the
in question because she is not an heir of the estate of the late owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against
Jose Arguelles despite the decision in the special proceedings. the parties to such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the
rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title.
Issue: This remedy is distinct from that authorized by Section 38,
which has for its purpose the reopening of the decree of title, HELD: Yes. No prescription and laches. Neither can the
on the ground of fraud, within 1 year from its issuance. Alecha acquire the land through prescription because it is
Judgment appealed from affirmed. covered by Torrens Title.

Umbay vs. Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 (1985); but see Jimenez RATIO:
vs. Fernandez, 184 SCRA 190 (1990)
Author: PANGANIBAN Sec 47 (P.S. 1529): no title to registered land in derogation to
that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription
FACTS: or adverse possession
This case is about the right of the heirs of the registered owner Prescription is unavailing not only against the
of a parcel of land with an area of 2,265 square meters to registered owner but also against his hereditary
recover a portion thereof with an area of 500 square meters successors because the latter merely step into the
allegedly usurped by the adjoining owner. shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are
merely the continuation of the personality of their
1. Natalio Enanoria was the owner of Lot No. 5280 predecessor-in-interest
located in the mountain of Barrio Valencia, Carcar, the real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title
Cebu. His title is an OCT issued in 1922. He dided in to land and to stop forever any question as to its
1924. legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest
2. His heirs asked a surveyor to relocate the lot. They secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of
discovered that its 500-square-meter portion was the court, or sitting in the mirador de su casa, to avoid
occupied by Placido Alecha, the owner of the adjoining the possibility of losing his land."
Lot No. 5281 which is its southeastern boundary. Adverse, notorious and continuous possession under a
3. TC: ordered Alecha and his wife to vacate the said claim of ownership for the period fixed by law is
500-square-meter portion. ineffective against a Torrens title. Title to land can no
4. Appellate Court: reversed that decision and dismissed longer be acquired by prescription after a Torrens title
the complaint of the Enanoria heirs. has been issued for it.
The right to recover possession of registered land is
ISSUE: WON the Heirs of Enanoria has the right to recover imprescriptible because possession is a mere
the 500sqm portion of their lot? consequence of ownership

In this case, the petitioners action to recover the 500 square

meters cannot be barred by the equitable defense of laches or
delay because they because aware of the encroachment only 4. Carlos died. His illegitimate daughter Melecia
after they hired a surveyor in 1963 to ascertain the true area Jimenez took possession of the eastern portion of the
and boundaries of Lot No. 5280. property consisting of 436 sqm.
5. Melecia sold the 436 sqm to Edilberto Cagampan and
Laches presupposes waiver of ones right. There was no Teodora Grado (resp) w/ a contract (Exchange of Real
waiver in this case. The petitioners, poor, ignorant rustics, Properties).
never intended to renounce their right to the 500 square 6. Petitioner Sulpicia executed an affidavit adjudicating
meters. unto herself the other half of the property appertaining
to Carlos Jimenez, upon manifestation that she is the
SEE ALSO: only heir of her deceased uncle. TCT was issued in
Sulpicias name alone covering 2,932sqm.
JIMENEZ v FERNANDEZ 7. Sulpicia then instituted this action to recover the
Author: PANGANIBAN eastern portion of the property (436sqm).
8. TC: Grado (resp) is the absolute owner. Sulpicia
FACTS: appealed to CA, which affiremed the decision of TC;
MR denied.
The land in question is the Eastern portion with an area of
Four Hundred Thirty Six (436) square meters of that parcel of ISSUE: WON Sulipicia is entitled to recover the eastern
residential land situated in Barrio Dulig (now Magsaysay), portion of the parcel of land?
Municipality of Labrador, Pangasinan actually covered by TCT HELD: Yes. Sulpicia is not barred by laches.
issued in the name of Jimenez.
RATIO:
1. Fermin Jimenez (formerly owns the parcel of land w/
an area of 2, 932 sqm) has 2 sons Fortunato and [PRESCRIPTION and LACHES]
Carlos. CA relied on Arcuino case, concluded that respondents
2. Fortunato has one child Suplicia Jimenez (petitioner). had acquired the property under litigation by
After death of Fermin, entire parcel of land was prescription UNTENABLE.
registered under Act 496 in the name of Carlos and since 1933 petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez was a title
Suplicia in equal shares pro-indiviso. holder, the property then being registered in her and
3. OCT was issued in their name. her uncle Carlos Jimenez' name.
Melecia Cayabyab's possession or of her
predecessors-in-interest would be unavailing against
 the petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez who was the holder pro- as Melecia Jimenez, is not the daughter of Carlos
indiviso with Carlos Jimenez of the Torrens Certificate Jimenez and therefore, had no right over the property
of Title covering a tract of land which includes the in question. Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of
portion now in question argument that Melecia Cayabyab was the illegitimate
No possession by any person of any portion of the land daughter of Carlos Jimenez there can be no question
covered by said original certificate of titles, could defeat that Melecia Cayabyab had no right to succeed to the
the title of the registered owner of the land covered by estate of Carlos Jimenez and could not have validly
the certificate of title acquired, nor legally transferred to Edilberto
Sulpicia's ownership over her one-half of the land and Cagampan that portion of the property subject of this
which is the land in dispute was always covered by a petition.
Torrens title, and therefore, no amount of possession To be an heir under the rules of Civil Code of 1889
thereof by the respondents, could ever defeat her (which was the law in force when Carlos Jimenez died
proprietary rights thereon. It is apparent, that the right and which should be the governing law in so far as the
of plaintiff (now petitioner) to institute this action to right to inherit from his estate was concerned), a child
recover possession of the portion of the land in must be either a child legitimate, legitimated, or
question based on the Torrens Title of Sulpicia adopted, or else an acknowledged natural child for
Jimenez, is imprescriptible and not barred under the illegitimate not natural are disqualified to inherit.
doctrine of laches. Even assuming that Melecia Cayabyab was born out of
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches the common-law-relationship between her mother
or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined (Maria Cayabyab) and Carlos Jimenez, she could not
according to its particular circumstances. The question even be considered an acknowledged natural child
of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the because Carlos Jimenez was then legally married to
court and since laches is an equitable doctrine, its Susana Abalos and therefore not qualified to marry
application is controlled by equitable considerations. It Maria Cayabyab and consequently Melecia Cayabyab
cannot be worked to defeat justice or to perpetrate was an illegitimate spurious child and not entitled to
fraud and injustice. It would be rank injustice and any successional rights in so far as the estate of Carlos
patently inequitous to deprive the lawful heirs of their Jimenez was concerned.
rightful inheritance.

[MELECIA AS ILLEGITIMATE CHILD]

From the start the respondent court erred in not
declaring that Melecia Jimenez Cayabyab also known
 Since the properties were now in the name of Atty.
Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 154 (1978) Sotto, it was in danger of being passed to his
Author: Mark illegitimate children.
(Please try to see the original. Ang labo ng case. Baka CFI
mas maintindihan niyo sa original. Sana. Ewan. Basta, Hence, Concepcions heirs went to the CFI, suing
ang labo.) Marcelo Sotto (administrator of Atty. Sottos estate) for
recovery of possession and ownership of the 5 parcels
Facts: in Cebu.
(This suit involves the heirs of Concepcion Rallos and the Concepcions heirs claim that there was a trust
estate of Atty. Filemon Sotto.) relationship between Atty. Sotto and Maria, Carmen
This involves 5 parcels of land in Cebu City. and Concepcion
It originally belonged to the conjugal partnership of Thus, Atty. Sotto violated the trust by placing the
Florentino and Maria Rallos properties solely in his wifes Carmens name, and
They had 2 children, Carmen and Concepcion ultimately, to him.
When Florentino died, his properties were bequeathed Concepcions heirs say that the decree is null and void
to Maria, Carmen and Concepcion because it should have been issued not just in
Maria, Carmen and Concepcion entrusted the Carmens name, but also in Maria and Concepcions
settlement of the estate to Atty. Sotto. names as well.
The probate proceedings closed in 1913. Marcelo says that the decree adjudicating the lots in
It was agreed that the property would be preserved for the name of Carmen was pursuant to an express
the family, through a co-ownership agreement between Carmen and the other heirs that
Afterward, Atty. Sotto married Carmen such parcel be given to her
Maria then passed away CFI dismissed the complaint of Concepcions heirs.
Carmen died in 1945 without having any children No trust was established over the lots
However, Atty. Sotto has children out of wedlock. The transfer of the lots was done through actual and
Concepcion died, leaving behind many children. legitimate partition, wherein Carmen got the 5 lots.
When Atty. Sotto was already old and under Thus, Carmen was entitled to register them in her
guardianship, the heirs of Concepcion found out that name.
th
the 5 parcels in Cebu were in the name of Carmen CA 8 Division
only, then passed to Atty. Sotto Concepcions heirs appeal to the CA
All along, Concepcions heirs believed that the CA 8th Division affirms the CFI Decision
properties would be passed to them. Concepcions heirs file a MR
CA Special Division It is true that Torrens titles were issued in the name of
CA Special Division reverses the CA 8th Division Carmen Rallos, but the principle holds that a trustee
CA Special Division held that Atty. Sottos special who takes a Torrens title in his name cannot repudiate
relations with the family made him a constructive the trust by relying on the registration, which is one of
trustee of his wife Carmen and Maria and Concepcion. the well-known limitations upon the finality of a decree
Hence, as a trustee, he should not have put his of title.
interests above those of the family. Because of the very nature of a trust relation which
Also, Carmen did not acquire the lots, but was rather existed between Carmen Rallos and her co-owners,
entitled only to the usufruct thereof, as administratrix of she cannot obtain and secure a torrens title to the
the trust between her, Maria and Concepcion. properties in her name much less dispose of them by
Thus, Carmen could not have passed the property to testament to her husband, a constructive trustee, to the
her husband Atty. Sotto. prejudice and deprivation of the rights and interests of
CA Special Division thus declares Concepcions heirs said co-heirs.
as the rightful owners of the properties. A fiduciary relationship may exist even if the title to the
property subject to the trust appears in the name of the
Issue: trustee alone, because in cases of trusteeship, the
Can a trustee who registered the property in her/his name rely legal title usually appears in the name of the trustee,
on the registration as against the beneficiaries? while the equitable title remains with the cestui que
trust.
Held:
No. The SC affirms the decision of the CA Special Division.

Ratio:
Marcelo Sotto claims that Carmen already had the
property registered in her name, so she was well within
her right to transfer it to Atty. Sotto.
However, the SC says that Carmen could not have
done that because she held the property in trust for
Maria and Concepcion, and as such she could not
dispose of the property to the prejudice of the others.
The trust over the properties was present since 1913
 v. On October 5, 1990, another part of the parcelled Delta I
Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 102881, (Lot 1) covering an area of 55,236 square meters was
Dec. 7, 1992 purchased by Sun Valley from APT for the bid price of
Author: Delgado P124,349,767.00. Relying upon the title description of its
property and the surveys it had commissioned, Sun Valley
Facts: claimed that Toyota's perimeter fence overlaps Sun Valley's
i. This case is a boundary dispute between Toyota Motor Phil. property along corners 11 to 15 by 322 square meters and
Corporation and Sun Valley Manufacturing and Development corners 19 to 1 by 401 square meters for a total of 723 square
Corporation. Both are the registered owners of two adjoining meters.
parcels of land situated in La Huerta, Paraaque, Metro Manila vi. Negotiations between the corporations for a possible
which they purchased from the Asset Privatization Trust settlement of the dispute bogged down. Court battles ensued,
(APT). grounded on purely procedural issues. In pursuing the
ii. The properties in question formerly belonged to Delta resolution of the dispute, both Toyota and Sun Valley opted to
Motors Corporation (DMC). They were foreclosed by the file separate actions. Much of the complications that arose and
Philippine National Bank (PNB) and later transferred to the are now before us can be traced to the two separate cases
national government through the APT for disposition. pursued by both parties.
iii. APT then proceeded to classify the DMC properties vii. Toyota Case: Toyota filed an action for reformation before
according to the existing improvements, i.e., buildings, Judge Tensuan on September 11, 1991, before Judge
driveways, parking areas, perimeter fence, walls and gates Tensuan alleging that the true intentions of the parties were
and the land on which the improvements stood. The entire not expressed in the instrument (Art. 1359 Civil Code). The
DMC property is called GC III-Delta Motors Corporation, instrument sought to be reformed is the deed of sale executed
divided into Delta I, Delta II, and Delta III. Further subdivisions by APT in favor of Toyota. Toyota alleges that there was a
for the separate catalogues were made for each division e.g. mistake in the designation of the real properties subject matter
Delta I into Lots 1, 2 and 3. After this classification, APT of the contract. Sun Valley was impleaded in order to obtain
parcelled out and catalogued the properties for bidding and complete relief since it was the owner of the adjacent lot.
sale. viii. Sun Valley Case: Sun Valley filed an action for recovery of
iv. Part of the duly parcelled Delta I property (Lot 2) was sold possession before Judge Gorospe of the disputed 723 square
to Toyota through public bidding on May 12, 1988 for the meters boundary with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Makati.
amount of P95,385,000.00. After its purchase, Toyota On the same day, Judge Gorospe issued a TRO enjoining
constructed a concrete hollow block (CHB) perimeter fence Toyota from committing further acts of dispossession against
around its alleged property. Sun Valley. It argues that Toyotas complaint for reformation
states no cause of action against it since an action for
reformation is basically one strictly between the parties to the a) One member to be appointed by the VENDOR;
contract itself. Third persons who are not parties to the b) One member to be appointed by the VENDEE;
c) One member, who shall be a lawyer, to be appointed by
contract cannot and should not be involved. Thus, Sun Valley both of the aforesaid parties;
contends that it should not have been impleaded as a The members of the Arbitration Committee shall be appointed not
defendant. later than three (3) working days from receipt of a written notice
from either or both parties. The Arbitration Committee shall
convene not later than three (3) weeks after all its members have
Issue:
been appointed and proceed with the arbitration of the dispute
i. Who as between Judge Tensuan or Judge Gorospe has within three (3) calendar months counted therefrom. By written
jurisdiction of the case. mutual agreement by the parties hereto, such time limit for the
ii. Who as between the parties has the rightful possession of arbitration may be extended for another calendar month. The
the land. decision of the Arbitration Committee by majority vote of at least
two (2) members shall be final and binding upon both the VENDOR
and the VENDEE.
Held: iii. Contracts are respected as the law between the contracting
i. Sun Valley's action for recovery of possession filed before parties. As such, the parties are thereby expected to abide
Judge Gorospe now stands to be the proper forum where the with good faith in their contractual commitments. Toyota is
following dispute may be tried or heard. therefore bound to respect the provisions of the contract it
ii. Sun Valley has a better right. entered into with APT.
iv. The arbitration committee is therefore the proper and
Ratio: convenient forum to settle the matter as clearly provided in the
i. General rule: All persons to be affected by the proposed deed of sale. Having been apprised of the presence of the
reformation must be made parties. However, these principles arbitration clause in the motion to dismiss filed by APT, Judge
are not applicable under the particular circumstances of Tensuan should have at least suspended the proceedings and
this case. Under the facts of the present case, Toyota's directed the parties to settle their dispute by arbitration. Judge
action for reformation is dismissible as against Sun Tensuan should have not taken cognizance of the case.
Valley. v. The more apparent reason which warrants the dismissal of
ii. The contention that the arbitration clause has become the action as against Sun Valley is the fact that the complaint
disfunctional because of the presence of third parties is for reformation amounts to a collateral attack on Sun Valley's
untenable. The contract of sale executed between APT and title, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals' 11th
Toyota provides an arbitration clause which states that: Division. Sun Valley has a Torrens title registered in its
In case of disagreement or conflict arising out of this Contract, the
name by virtue of its purchase of the land from APT. Well-
parties hereby undertake to submit the matter for determination by
a committee of experts, acting as arbitrators, the composition of settled is the rule that a certificate of title can not be
which shall be as follows: altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law, thus an action for Morris Carpo filed a complaint with the CFI of Rizal referred to as
reformation is improper. Reformation may often be had to Vera Court for "declaration of nullity of Decree No. N-63394 and
correct mistakes in defining the boundary of lands conveyed TCT No. 20408." Named defendants were Realty Sales
so as to identify the lands, it may not be used to pass other Enterprise, Inc., Macondray Farms, Inc. and the Commissioner of
lands from those intended to be bought and sold, Land Registration. The complaint alleged is a nullity as the CFI of
notwithstanding a mistake in pointing out the lines, since Rizal referred to as the Reyes Court which issued the order
reformation under these circumstances would be inequitable directing the issuance of a decree of registration, was not sitting
as a land registration court, but as a court of ordinary jurisdiction.
and unjust.
It was further alleged that the original records the basis for the
vi. Existence of a "clear positive right" especially calling for
issuance of said order of were lost and/or destroyed during World
judicial protection has been shown by Sun Valley. Sun Valley
War II and were still pending reconstitution; hence, the Reyes
has TCT No. 49019 of the Registry of Deeds of Paraaque
Court had no authority to order the issuance of a certificate of
embracing the aforesaid property in its name, having been
title.
validly acquired also from APT by virtue of a Deed of Sale
executed in its favor on December 5, 1990. There is therefore Realty and Macondray alleged in their answer that the Reyes
sufficient and convincing proof that Sun Valley has a clear Court was acting as a court of land registration and in issuing the
legal right to possession in its favor to warrant the issuance of order, was actually performing a purely ministerial duty for the
a writ of preliminary/mandatory injunction. Sun Valley's TCT registration court which had rendered a decision adjudicating the
gives it that right to possession. On the other hand, Toyota has two (2) lots in question to Estanislao Mayuga. It was alleged that
not established its right over the said property except for the it is the title of Carpo which is null and void, having been issued
assertion that there was a mistake in an instrument which over a parcel of land previously registered under the Torrens
purportedly should have included the questioned strip of land. System in favor of another.

Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. vs. IAC, 154 SCRA 328 With leave of court, Realty and Macondray filed a third-party
(1987) complaint against the Quezon City Development and Financing
Author: Monzon Corporation. QCDFC asserted the validity of its own title alleging
that it is the title in the name of Realty which is null and void.
Facts: QCDFC also filed a fourth-party complaint alleging that it bought
Two adjacent parcels of land located in Almanza, Las Pias, said parcels of land from them. Fourth-party complaint was
Metro Manila situated in the vicinity of the Ayala Alabang Project dismissed for lack of interest.
and BF Homes Paraaque are covered by three distinct sets of
Torrens titles
Vera Court rendered judgment sustaining the title of Morris G. Re issue of jurisdiction: Under Act No. 496, Land Registration
Carpo to the two (2) lots in question and declaring the titles of Act, (1902) as amended by Act No. 2347 (1914), jurisdiction over
Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. and QCDFC null and void. all applications for registration of title to and was conferred upon
the Courts of First Instance of the respective provinces in which
Carpo filed a motion for reconsideration with the appellate court. the land sought to be registered is situated.
In the meantime, the Court of Appeals was reorganized into the
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). As a consequence, there was Jurisdiction over land registration cases, as in ordinary actions, is
a re-raffling of cases and the case was assigned to the Second acquired upon the filing in court of the application for registration,
Special Cases Division which returned the records of the case for and is retained up to the end of the litigation. The issuance of a
another re-raffling to the Civil Cases Divisions as it deemed itself decree of registration is but a step in the entire land registration
without authority to act on a civil case in view of the allocation of process; and as such, does not constitute a separate proceeding.
cases to the different divisions of the IAC under Section 8 of BP
129. The case was then assigned to the Third Civil Cases In the case at bar, it appears that it was Estanislao Mayuga,
Division. father of Dominador Mayuga, predecessor-in-interest of Realty,
On, December 29, 1982, the Court of Appeals set aside the who originally filed in the CFI of Rizal to confirm his title over
decision of the trial court and rendered a new one upholding the parcels of land described (Lots 2 and 3 the subject of the instant
validity of the title in the name of Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. and litigation among Carpo, RRealty and QCDFC.)
declaring null and void the titles in the name of Carpo and
QCDFC. On May 13, 1958 Dominador Mayuga, son of Estanislao, filed a
petition with the Reyes Court alleging that he was the only heir of
The IAC, through its Special Third Civil Cases Division granted the deceased Mayuga and praying for the issuance of a decree of
Carpo's motion for reconsideration, reversing and setting aside registration over the property adjudicated in favor of Estanislao. It
the decision of December 29, 1982, and affirming the decision of cannot be overemphasized that the petition filed by
the trial court. Dominador is NOT a distinct and separate proceeding from,
but a continuation of, the original land registration
proceedings initiated by Estanislao Mayuga, Florentino
Issue: W/N declaring the title in the name of Carpo was valid Baltazar and Eduardo Guico. In the same vein, the Reyes
- No Court, as Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
was continuing in the exercise of jurisdiction over the case,
Ruling: which jurisdiction was vested in the CFI-Rizal upon filing of the
original applications.
The Dec 29, 1982 decision of CA was affirmed.
Re records destroyed by fire/calamities: Section 29 of Act factual proof of his being an innocent purchaser for value. He
No. 3110 should be applied only where the records in the CFI as merely relies on the presumption of good faith under Article 527
well as in the appellate court were destroyed or lost and were not of the Civil Code.
reconstituted, but not where the records of the Court of First
Instance are intact and complete, and only the records in the It is settled that one is considered an innocent purchaser for value
appellate court were lost or destroyed, and were not only if, relying on the certificate of title, he bought the property
reconstituted. from the registered owner, "without notice that some other person
has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair
The whole theory of reconstitution is to reproduce or replace price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has
records lost or destroyed so that said records may be complete notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the
and court proceedings may continue from the point or stage property."
where said proceedings stopped due to the loss of the records.
Also, Since Realty is claiming under TCT No. 1609 which was
If the records up to a certain point or stage are lost and they are issued earlier than OCT No. 8931 from which QCDFC's title was
not reconstituted, the parties and the court should go back to the derived, Realty's title must prevail over that of QCDFC.
next preceding age where records are available, but not beyond
that; otherwise to ignore and go beyond the stage next preceding It must be emphasized that the action filed by Carpo against
would be voiding and unnecessarily ignoring proceedings which Realty is in the nature of an action to remove clouds from title to
are duly recorded and documented, to the great prejudice not real property. By asserting its own title to the property in question
only of the parties and their witnesses, but also of the court which and asking that Carpo's title be declared null and void instead,
must again perforce admit pleadings, rule upon them and then try and by filing the third-party complaint against QCDFC, Realty was
the case and decide it anew,-all of these, when the records up to similarly asking the court to remove clouds from its own title.
said point or stage are intact and complete, and uncontroverted. Actions of such nature are governed by Articles 476 to 481.
The parties thereto did not have to commence a new action
but only had to go back to the preceding stage where Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they,
records are available. The land registration case itself re. strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the person in
mained pending and the Court of First Instance of Rizal respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi
continued to have jurisdiction over it. in rem.The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only
between the parties.
Re innocent purchaser: Whether or not Carpo is an innocent
purchaser for value was never raised as an issue in the trial court.
A perusal of the records of the case reveals that no factual basis Albienda vs. CA, 135 SCRA 402 (1985)
exists to support such a conclusion. Even Carpo himself cites no Author: GOJAR
Private respondents Supposes Sumampao were applicants for Issue having been joined, respondents filed a motion for
a free patent over a land known as lot 1548 situated in San summary judgment and the documents and affidavits attached
Francisco Agusan del Sur. disclosed that:
They claimed that an 8-hectare portion was
erroneously included in the technical description of the On August 22, 1958 - Loida Beterbonia, respondents
certificate of title covering Lot 1550 which is the adjoing predecessor in-interest, wrote the Director of Lands requesting
lot belonging to petitioner Felda Albienda. They based for a recomputation of the respective areas of the adjoining
such claim from the technical description in the survey properties (Lot 1548 and Lot 1550),
return by the Bureau of Lands surveyors. Hence, the
respondents instituted an action against petitioner Dec 2, 1958 - the chief of survey party stationed in San
Albienda for correction of the latters certificate of title Francisco Agusan, to whom the letter was referred, issued an
and recovery of possession/reconveyance of said indorsement stating that it is believed that there has been a
portion of the land, with damages. mistake in the computation of the technical description of Lot
1550 because when the computation was done in Manila, the
Petitioner averred that Lot 1550 with an area of 196,848 sq.m plan was not yet available as it was still in Agusan office BUT
originally belonged to Enesaria Goma in whose name the no further action was taken from that letter
same was registered under the Torrens System on July 23.
1958 then Goma sold it to Senerpida who possessed it Trial court: granted the summary judgment and ordered the
continuously & peacefully until Nov 21, 1972 when petitioner gov. officials to make necessary corrections and conform to
Albienda acquired the lot for value in good faith and when the the survey by Bureau of Lands Cagayan and ordered Albiendo
deed of sale in favour of Albienda was registered, she was to vacate the overlapped area and turn over to spouses
issued a TCT covering Lot 1550 with an area of 196, 848 Sumamapo
sq.m. which is the same area stated in the certificates of title of CA: affirmed trial court decision
petitioners predecessors-in-interest
ISSUE: Whether or not the description of a parcel of land in
ALSO, petitioner alleged that assuming the technical the petitioners certificate of title may be corrected to conform
description was wrong, the action for correction and with the technical description appearing in the survey return
reconveyance is unavailable because more than 1 year on file in the Bureau of Lands, notwithstanding the lapse of
had elapsed since the issuance of the original more than one (1) year since the issuance of said certificate of
certificate of title in 1958 to petitioners predecessor-in- title? NO.
interest, Enesaria Goma.
HELD:
Section 38 of the Land Registration Act: Every decree of The instant action to correct the certificate of title in question
registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto x x x it was filed on July 13, 1977 or
shall be conclusive upon and against all persons x x x x about 19 years after the issuance of said certificate of title.
whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or Since the period allowed by law for setting aside the decree of
citations, or included in the general description To All Whom It registration of a certificate of title had long elapsed, the original
May Concern/ It is a settled doctrine that even when the certificate of title issued in the name of petitioners
decree of registration has been obtained by fraud, the party predecessor-in-interest had become indefeasible.
defrauded has only one year from entry of the decree to file a
petition for review before a competent court, and such petition The Transfer Certificate of Title derived therefrom is likewise
can prosper only if no innocent purchaser for value has unassailable, for under Section 39 of Act 496, every person
acquired an interest in the land. receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of
registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered
Said Section 38 categorically declares that upon the land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall
expiration of the said term of one [1] year every decree or hold the same be free of all encumbrance except those noted
certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall on said certificate.
be incontrovertible. Hence, A Torrens Title can no longer be
corrected as to area description after the lapse of one year Hence, every person dealing with registered land may rely on
from issuance of decree of registration and the land has the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the
already been sold to a purchaser in good faith even if area in law will in no way oblige them to go behind the certificate to
the title does not correspond to survey return or file with the determine the condition of the property.
Bureau of Lands.

In this case, the original certificate of title covering Lot 1550 Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 84966, Nov. 21, 1991
was issued on July 23, 1958 in favor of Enesaria Goma, the Author: Kat
petitioners predecessor-ininterest. The fact that sometime in
October 1958 Loida Baterbonia had written the Director of Facts:
Lands for a recomputation of the area set forth in the 1. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor
certificate of the said land is of no moment, for up until the sale General, filed on August 22, 1979, a complaint for
of Lot 1550 to petitioner in 1972, no action had been brought declaration of nullity of Decreto No. 6146, the owner's
before a court of competent jurisdiction to correct the error, if duplicate copy of TCT No. 2337 and all titles derived from
said decree; and the declaration of the parcel of land
indeed there was such error.
 covered by the decree as belonging to the state, except so 3,181.74 hectares and covered by Decreto No. 6145, issued
much thereof as had been validly disposed of to third on September 1, 1911 in the name of the heirs of
persons. Buenaventura Guido y Sta. Ana (Francisco and Hermogenes
2. The complaint was amended on October 12, 1979. The Guido); that on June 12, 1912, an Original Certificate of Title
complaint alleged that: " The alleged Decree No. 6146 issued on (OCT No. 633) was issued on the basis of Decreto No. 6145;
September 10, 1911 and the alleged owner's copy of Transfer that the original title was subsequently cancelled and in lieu
Certificate of Title No. 23377 issued on May 12, 1933, both in the thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23377 was issued on
name of Francisco and Hermogenes Guido, and which supposed May 12, 1933; that the heirs of Francisco and Hermogenes
owner's duplicate was made the basis of the administrative
Guido adjudicated among themselves the estate left by their
reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. (23377) on March
predecessors and transferred one-half portion thereof to
29, 1976, or about 43 years later, are false, spurious and fabricated
and were never issued by virtue of judicial proceedings for Jose Rojas sometime in 1942, as contained in an Extra-
registration of land, either under Act No. 496, as amended, judicial Settlement of Estate with Quitclaim dated December
otherwise known as the Land Registration Act 17, 1973.
3. Named defendants were: 5. The parties admit that on August 20, 1974, the heirs of
1) Antonina, Margarita, Feliza, Crisanta and Candida, nee Buenaventura Guido, represented by their lawyer, requested
Guido, who claim to be the heirs of Francisco Guido and LRA to issue the corresponding original certificate of title
whose spouses were joined as defendants; 2) Esperanza, based on Decreto 6145. The request was denied on January
Alfredo (who died during the pendency of this case and who 8, 1976.
was substituted by his heirs), Eufronia, Gliceria, Priscilla, 6. On March 29, 1976, Alfredo Guido, representing the other
Profetiza, Buenaventura, Buensuceso and Carlos, all heirs, filed a petition for reconstitution of TCT No. 23377 with
surnamed Guido, who claimed to be the heirs of the Registry of Deeds of Morong. The petition alleged that
Hermogenes Guido and whose respective spouses were the original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23377 could
joined as defendants; 3) Spouses Jose and Emiliana Rojas; not be located in the files of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal
4) Pacil Development Corporation; and 5) Interport after he and his co-heirs sought the registration of their
Resources Corporation. Extra- judicial Settlement with Quitclaim dated December 17,
4. The defendants, herein private respondents, denied that 1973. The petition was supported by the owner's duplicate
Decreto No. 6145 and TCT No. 23377 were false and copy of the title. The petition for administrative reconstitution
spurious. They consistently claimed (from the trial court up to of TCT No. 23377 was granted and a reconstituted
this Court) that the parcel of land covered by the questioned certificate of title was issued dated March 29, 1976.
document is a portion of the vast Hacienda de Angono 7. After the reconstitution, the heirs presented before the
owned by their predecessor-in-interest, Don Buenaventura Registry of Deeds of Morong the Extra-judicial Settlement of
Guido y Sta. Ana; that Don Buenaventura Guido left a Estate with Quitclaim which they executed on December 17,
portion of the hacienda to his heirs, Francisco and 1973 in favor of Jose Rojas and which they had earlier
Hermogenes Guido; that the subject matter of the petition is presented for registration. 21 lots subdivided into 21
only a portion of plano 11-827, consisting of an area of separate titles
 8. The named heirs and now spouses Jose and Emilia Rojas of ownership or with lengths of possession which had ripened to
sold the property to Pacil Management Corporation and new ownership. Having been found valid and genuine, Decreto No. 6145
titles were issued in favor of the buyer on June 25, 1976. therefore, possessed all the attributes of a decree of registration.
However, on August 26, 1976, Pacil Management having been found true and authentic also possessed all the
Corporation reconveyed all the twenty one lots to the former attributes of a torrens certificate of title. By express provision of
owners. Section 47 of P.D. 1529, no title to registered land in derogation to
9. On August 25, 1978, fourteen (14) of these twenty-one (21) that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
lots were exchanged with shares of stocks of Interport adverse possession. To declare that the decree and its derivative
Resources Corporation. On April 21, 1980, all the named titles is valid but only with respect to the extent of the area described
heirs renounced their rights over the property in favor of their in the decree not possessed by occupants with indefeasible
co-heir Alfredo Guido, Sr. in exchange for monetary registered titles or to possessors with such lengths of possession
considerations. It appears that the only parties with existing which had ripened to ownership is to undermine the people's faith in
interests in the property subject of this case are Interport the torrens title being conclusive as to all matters contained therein.
Resources Corporation, the Heirs of Alfredo Guido, Sr. and The certificate serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the
spouses Jose Rojas and Emilia Rojas. property in favor of the person whose names appear therein. After
10. After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment dismissing the the expiration of the one year period from the issuance of the decree
complaint and declaring Decree No. 6145 and TCT No. of registration upon which it is based, it becomes incontrovertible
23377, genuine and authentic.
11. The decision of the trial court was appealed by the Solicitor
General to the Court of Appeals which affirmed said decision
on July 12, 1988. On July 16, 1988, the Solicitor General
filed a MR of the decision of the CA. In the same motion, he
prayed for an alternative judgment declaring the decree and
its derivative titles authentic except with respect to such
portions of the property which were either: 1) possessed and
owned by bona fide occupants who had already acquired
indefeasible titles thereto; or 2) possessed and owned by
bona fide occupants and their families with lengths of
possession which amounted to ownership. MR denied
Issue: w/n it possessed all the attributes of a decree of registration
Held/Ratio: YES. IT POSSESSED ALL THE ATTRIBUTES OF
DECREE OF REGISTRATION.
No legal basis for the declaration of the questioned documents as
valid only with respect to such portions of the property not possessed
and owned by bonafide occupants with indefeasible registered titles