Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Requirement (2003)
The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim duly
In 1970, the spouses Juan and Juana de la Cruz, annotated at the back of a title under Section 7O of
then Filipinos, bought the parcel of unregistered P.D. 1529 is good only for 30 days, cancellation
land in the Philippines on which they built a thereof is still necessary to render it ineffective,
house which became their residence. In 1986, they otherwise, the inscription thereof will remain
migrated to Canada and became Canadian citizens. annotated as a lien on the property. While the life of
adverse claim is 3O days under P.D. 1529, it
Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed by the Re continuous to be effective until it is canceled by formal
public, for the registration of the aforesaid land in petition filed with the Register of Deeds.
their names. Should the application of the spouses de
la Cruz be granted over the Republic’s opposition? The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified under
Why? Section 108 of P.D. 1529 considering that the levy on
execution can not be enforced against the buyer
SUGGESTED ANSWER: whose adverse claim against the registered owner was
recorded ahead of the notice of levy on execution.
Yes, the application should be granted. As a rule, the
Constitution prohibits aliens from owning private Annotation of Lis Pendens; When
lands in the Philippines. This rule, however, does not Proper (2001)
apply to the spouses Juan and Juana de la Cruz
because at the time they Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for P1 million
acquired ownership over the land, albeit imperfec payable in five (5) equal annual installments. The sale
t, they were still Filipino citizens. The application for was registered and title was issued in Carmen’s name.
registration is Carmen failed to pay the last three installments and
a mere confirmation of the imperfect title which Mario filed an. action for collection, damages and
the spouses have already acquired before they became attorneys fees against her. Upon filing of the
Canadian complaint, he caused a notice of lis pendens to be
citizens. (Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 [1994]) annotated on Carmen’s title. Is the notice of lis
. pendens proper or not? Why?

Adverse Claims; Notice of Levy (1998) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, conce The notice of lis pendens is not proper for the reason
rning adverse claims on registered land, provides a that the case filed by Mario against Carmen is only for
30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim, collection, damages, and attorney’s fees.
counted from the date of its registration. Suppose a
notice of adverse claim based upon a contract to sell Annotation of a lis pendens can only be done in cases
was registered on March 1, 1997 at the instance of the involving recovery of possession of real property,
BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of the or to quiet title or to remove cloud thereon, or for
30-day period, a notice of levy on execution in favor partition or any other proceeding affecting title to the
of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to land or the use or occupation thereof. The action filed
enforce a final judgment for money against the by Mario does not fall on anyone of these.
registered owner. Then, on June 15, 1997 there having
been no formal cancellation of his notice of adverse Foreshore Lands (2000)
claim, the BUYER pays to the seller-owner the agreed
purchase price in full and Regina has been leasing foreshore land from
registers the corresponding deed of sale. Because the Bureau of
the annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the past 15 y
the new title in his name, the BUYER brings an action ears. Recently, she learned that Jorge was able
against the JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel to obtain a free patent from the Bureau of
such annotation, but Agriculture, covering the same land, on the basis of a
the latter claims that his lien is superior certification by the District Forester
because it was annotated after the adverse claim of that the same is already “alienable and dispos
the BUYER had ipso facto ceased to be effective. Will able”. Moreover, Jorge had already registered the
the suit prosper? patent with the Register of Deeds of the province, and
he was issued an Original Certificate of Title for the
same. Regina filed an action for annulment of Jorge’s Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his vehic
title on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently. le an envelope containing TCT No. 65432 over a lot
Will the action prosper? registered in Cesar’s name. Posing as Cesar, Rod
forged Cesar’s signature on a Deed of Sale in Rod’s
SUGGESTED ANSWER: favor. Rod registered the said document with
the Register of Deeds, and obtained a new title in his
An action for the annulment of Jorge’s Original name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, a buyer in
Certificate of Title will prosper on the following good faith and for value, who also registered the lot in
grounds: his name.

(1) Under Chapter IX of C .A, No. 141, otherwise kno a) Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain.
wn as the Public Land Act, foreshore lands are
disposable for residential, commercial, industrial, or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
similar productive purposes, and only by lease when
not needed by the government for public service. No, Rod did not acquire title to the land. The
inscription in the registry, to be effective, must be
(2) If the land is suited or actually used for fishpond made in good faith. The defense of indefeasibility of a
or aquaculture purposes, it comes under the Torrens Title does not extend to a transferee who
Jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic takes the certificate of title with notice of a flaw. A
Resources (BFAR) and can only be acquired by lease holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled
(P.D. 705). to the protection of the law, for the law cannot be used
as a shield for
(3) Free Patent is a mode of concession under Section frauds. (Samonte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
41, Chapter VII of the Public Land Act, which is 104223, July 12, 2001)
applicable only for agricultural lands.
In the case at bar, Rod only forged Cesar’s signature
(4) The certificate of the district forester that the land on
is already “alienable and disposable” simply means the Deed of Sale. It is very apparent that there was ba
that the land is no longer needed for forest purposes, d faith on the part of Rod from the very beginning. As
but such, he is not entitled to the protection of the Land
the Bureau of Lands could no longer dispose of it Registration Act.
by free patent because it is already covered by a lease
contract between BFAR and Regina. That contract b) Discuss the rights of Don, if any, over the proper
must be respected. ty.

(5) The free patent of Jorge is highly irregular and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
void ab
initio, not only because the Bureau has no statut It is a well-
ory authority to issue a free patent over a foreshore known rule in this jurisdiction that persons
area, but also because of the false statements made in dealing with registered land have the legal right to rely
his sworn application that he has occupied and on the face of the Torrens Certificate of Title and to
cultivated the land since July 4, 1945, as required by dispense with the need to inquire further, except
the free patent law. Under Section 91 of the Public when the party concerned has actual knowledge of
Land Act, any patent concession or title obtained thru facts and circumstances that would impel a
false representation is void ab initio. In cases of this reasonably cautious man to make such
nature, it is the government that shall inquiry (Naawan Community Rural Bank v.
institute annulmentproceedings considering that the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128573, January 13,
suit carries with 2003).
it a prayer for the reversion of the land to the st
ate. However, Regina is a party in interest and the In the given problem, the property was already
case will prosper because she has a lease contract for registered in the name of Rod when he bought the
the same land with the government. same from the latter. Thus, Don could be considered
as a buyer in good faith and for value. However, since
Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Holder in Bad Rod did not actually sell any property to him, Don has
Faith (2005) no right to retain ownership over the property. He has
only the right to recover the purchase price plus
damages.
Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Mirror b) The fact that it was derived from a fraudulen
Principle (1991) tly procured or improvidently issued second owner’s
copy, the real owner’s copy being still intact and in the
Bruce is the registered owner, of a parcel of land with possession of the true owner, Bruce.
a building thereon and is in peaceful possession
thereof. He pays the real estate taxes and collects the The mortgage to Desiderio should be cancelled
rentals therefrom. Later, Catalino, the only brother of without prejudice to his right to go after Catalino
Bruce, filed a petition and/or the government for compensation from the
where he, misrepresenting to be the attorney-in- assurance fund.
fact of Bruce and falsely alleging that the certificate of
title was lost, succeeded in obtaining a second owner’s Fraud; Procurement of Patent; Effect (2000)
duplicate copy of the title and then had the same
transferred in his name through a simulated deed of In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a Free P
sale in his favor. Catalino then mortgaged the atent over a parcel of agricultural land with an area of
property to Desiderio who had the mortgage 30 hectares,
annotated on the title. Upon learning of the located in General Santos City. He presented the
fraudulent transaction, Bruce filed a complaint Free
against Catalino and Desiderio to have the title of Patent to the Register of Deeds, and he was issu
Catalino and the mortgage in favor of Desiderio ed a corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
declared null and void. No. 375, Subsequently, Nestor sold the land to Eddie.
The deed of sale was submitted to the Register of
Will the complaint prosper, or will the title of Catalin Deeds and on the basis thereof, OCT No, 375 was
o and the mortgage to Desiderio be sustained? cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
4576 was issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986, the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Director of Lands filed a complaint for annulment of
OCT No, 375 and TCT No. 4576 on the ground that
The complaint for the annulment of Catalino’s Title Nestor obtained the Free Patent through fraud. Eddie
will prosper. In the first place, the second owner’s filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that he was an
copy of the title secured by him from the Land innocent purchaser for value and in good faith and as
Registration Court is void ab initio, the owner’s copy such, he has acquired a title to the property which is
thereof having never been lost, let alone the fact that valid, unassailable and indefeasible. Decide the
said second owner’s copy of the title was fraudulently motion.
procured and improvidently issued by the Court. In
the second place, the Transfer Certificate of Title SUGGESTED ANSWER:
procured by Catalino is equally null and void, it
having been issued on the basis of a simulated or The motion of Nestor to dismiss the complaint for
forged Deed of Sale. A forged deed is an absolute annulment of O.C.T. No. 375 and T.C.T. No. 4576
nullity and conveys no title. should be denied for the following reasons:

The mortgage in favor of Desiderio is likewise null an 1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an innoc
d void because the mortgagor is not the owner of the ent purchaser for value nor can he interpose the
mortgaged defense of indefeasibility of his title, because his TCT
property. While it may be true that under the “ is rooted on a void title. Under Section 91 of CA No.
Mirror Principle” of the Torrens System of Land 141, as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land
Registration, a buyer or mortgagee has the right to Act,
rely on what appears on the Certificate of Title, and in statements of material facts in the applications for
the absence of anything to excite suspicion, is under public land must be under oath. Section 91 of the
no obligation to look beyond the same act provides that such statements shall be
certificate and investigate the mortgagor’s title, th considered as essential conditions and parts of the
is rule does not find application in the case at hand concession, title,
because here. Catalino’s title suffers from two fatal or permit issued, any false statement therein, or
infirmities, namely: omission of facts shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession. The patent issued to
a) The fact that it emanated from a forged deed of a Nestor in this case is void ab initio not only because it
simulated sale; was obtained by fraud but also because it covers 30
hectares which is far beyond the maximum of 24
hectares provided by the free patent law.
2) The government can seek annulment of the origi recover the price which he has paid by filing a claim
nal and transfer certificates of title and the reversion against the estate of the deceased
of the land to seller (Labrador vs. Delos Santos 66 Phil. 579)
the state. Eddie’s defense is untenable. The under the principle that no one shall enrich himself at
protection afforded by the Torrens System to an the expense of another. Applying
innocent purchaser for value can be availed of only if the pari delicto ruleto violation of Section 118 of the
the land has been titled thru judicial proceedings Public Land Act, the Court of Appeals has ruled that
where the issue of fraud becomes academic after the “the homesteader suffers the loss of the fruits realized
lapse of one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of by the vendee who in turn forfeits the improvement
registration. In public land grants, the action of the that he has introduced into the land.”
government to annul a title fraudulently obtained (Obot vs. Sandadi Uas, 69 OG,April 35,1966}
does not prescribe such action and will not be barred
by the transfer of the title to an innocent purchaser for FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
value.
The action to declare the nullity of the sale did not
Homestead Patents; Void Sale (1999) prescribe (Art. 1410}, such sale being one expressly
prohibited and declared void by the Public Lands Act
In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homestead pa [Art. 1409, par. (7)]. The prohibition of the law is
tent to A. Three years later, A sold the homestead to clearly for the protection of the heirs of A such that
B. A died in 1990, and his heirs filed an action to their recovering the property would enhance the
recover the homestead from B on the ground that its public policy regarding ownership of lands acquired
sale by their father to the latter is void under Section by homestead patent (Art. 1416). The defense of
118 of the Public Land Law. B contends, however, that pari delicto is not applicable either, since the law
the heirs of A cannot recover the homestead from him itself allows the homesteader to reacquire the land
anymore because their action has prescribed and that even if it has been sold.
furthermore, A was in pari delicto. Decide.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prescription does not arise with respect to actions to
The sale of the land by A to B 3 years after issuance of declare
the homestead patent, being in violation of Section a void contract a nullity (Article 1410). Neither is
118 of the Public Land Act, is void from its inception. the doctrine of pari delicto applicable because of
public policy. The law is designed for the protection of
The action filed by the heirs of B to declare the nullity the plaintiff so as to enhance the public policy of the
or inexistence of the contract and to recover the land Public Land Act to give land to the landless.
should be given due course.
If the heirs are not allowed to recover, it could be on
B’s defense of prescription is untenable because an the ground of laches inasmuch as 40 years had
action elapsed and the owner had not brought any action
which seeks to declare the nullity or inexistence against B especially if the latter had improved the
of A contract does not land. It would be detrimental to B if the plaintiff is
prescribe. (Article 1410; Banaga vs. Soler, 28 allowed to recover.
SCRA 765)
Innocent Purchaser for Value (2001)
On the other hand, B’s defense of pari delicto is
equally untenable. While as a rule, parties who are in Cesar bought a residential condominium unit from
pari delicto have no recourse against each other on the High Rise Co. and paid the price in full. He moved into
principle that a transgressor cannot profit from his the unit,
own wrongdoing, such but somehow he was not given the Condomin
rule does not apply to violations of Section 118 o ium Certificate of Title covering the property.
f the Public Land Act because of the underlying public Unknown to him, High Rise Co. subsequently
policy in the said Act mortgaged the entire condominium building to
“to conserve the land which a homesteader has Metrobank as security for a loan of P500 million.
acquired by gratuitous grant from the government for High Rise Co. failed to pay the loan and the bank
himself and his family”. In keeping with this policy, it foreclosed the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, the
has been held that one who purchases a homestead bank acquired the building, being the highest bidder.
within the five-year prohibitory period can only When Cesar learned about this, he filed an action to
annul the foreclosure sale insofar as his unit was (b) Suppose the government agency concerned joined
concerned. The bank put up the defense that it relied C in filing the said action against the defendants,
on the condominium certificates of title presented by would that change the result of the litigation? Explain.
High Rise Co., which were clean. Hence, it was a
mortgagee and buyer in good faith. Is this defense SUGGESTED ANSWER:
tenable or not? Why?
(a) The appeal is not meritorious. The trial court ruled
SUGGESTED ANSWER: correctly in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss
for the following reasons:
Metrobank’s defense is untenable. As a rule, an
innocent purchaser for value acquires a good and a 1. While there is the possibility that F, a former lessee
clean title to the property. However, it is settled that of the
one who closes his eyes to facts that should put a land was aware of the fact that C was the bona
reasonable man on guard is not an innocent fide occupant thereof and for this reason his transfer
purchaser for value. In the present problem the bank certificate of title may be vulnerable, the transfer of
is expected, as a matter of standard operating the same land and the issuance of new TCTs to X and
procedure, to have conducted an ocular inspection, of Y who are innocent purchasers for value render the
the promises before granting any loan. Apparently, latter’s titles indefeasible. A person dealing with
Metrobank did not follow this procedure. Otherwise, registered land may safely rely on the correctness of
it should have discovered that the condominium unit the certificate of title and the law will not in any way
in question was occupied by Cesar and that fact oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine
should have led it to make further inquiry. Under the the condition of the property in search for any h
circumstances, Metrobank cannot be considered a idden defect or inchoate right which may later
mortgagee and buyer in good faith. invalidate or diminish the right to the land. This is the
mirror principle of the Torrens System of land
Mirror Principle (1990) registration.

In 1950’s, the Government acquired a big landed 2. The action to annul the sale was instituted in 1977
estate in Central Luzon from the registered owner for or more than (10) years from the date of execution
subdivision into small farms and redistribution of thereof in 1957, hence, it has long prescribed.
bonafide occupants, F was a former lessee of a parcel
of land, five hectares in area. After completion of the 3. Under Sec 45 of Act 496, “the entry of a certificate
resurvey and subdivision, F applied to buy the said of title shall be regarded as an agreement running
land in accordance with the guidelines of the with the land, and binding upon the applicant and all
implementing agency. Upon full payment of the price his successors in title that the land shall be and always
in 1957, the corresponding deed of absolute sale was remain registered land. A title under Act 496 is
executed in his favor and was registered, and in 1961, indefeasible and to preserve that character, the title is
a new title was issued in his name. In 1963, F sold the cleansed anew with every transfer for value
said land to X; and in 1965 X sold it to Y, new titles (De Jesus v. City of Manila; 29 Phil. 73;
were successively issued in the names of the said Laperal v. City of Manila, 62 Phil. 313;
purchasers. Penullar v. PNB, 120 SCRA 111).

In 1977, C filed an action to annul the deeds of sale to SUGGESTED ANSWER:

F, X and Y and their titles, on the ground that he (C)
had been in actual physical possession of the land, (b) Even if the government joins C, this will not alter
and that the sale to F and the subsequent sales should the outcome of the case so much because of estoppel
be set aside on the ground of fraud. Upon motion of as an express provision in Sec 45 of Act 496 and Sec
defendants, the trial court dismissed the complaint, 31 of PD 1529 that a decree of registration and the
upholding their defenses of their certificate of title issued in pursuance thereof “shall be
being innocent purchasers for value, prescription conclusive upon and against all persons, including the
and laches. Plaintiff appealed. national government and all branches thereof,
whether mentioned by name in the application or
(a) Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain your ans not.”
wer
Mirror Principle; Forgery; Innocent
Purchaser (1999)
The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land without seeing the property, hence, B could not
land to A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but have been unaware of such adverse possession. If
they continued to possess and cultivate the land, after learning of such possession, B simply closed his
giving 1/2 of each harvest to A in partial payment of eyes and did nothing about it, then the suit for
their loan to the reconveyance will prosper as the buyer’s bad faith will
latter, A, however, without the knowledge of X a have become evident.
nd Y,
forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in fav Notice of Lis Pendens (1995)
or of himself, got a TCT in his name, and then sold
the land to B, who bought the land relying on A’s title, Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel
and who thereafter of land in Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, t
also got a TCT in his name. It was only then th he legitimate owner of the land, discovered the
at the spouses X and Y learned that their land had fraudulent registration obtained by Rommel. She
been titled in B’s name. May said spouses file an filed a complaint against Rommel for reconveyance
action for reconveyance of the land in question and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens
against b? Reason. on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel
now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that one year has already elapsed from its issuance.
He also seeks the cancellation of the notice of Lis
The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance of pendens.
the land will not prosper because B has acquired a
clean title to the property being an innocent purchaser May the court cancel the notice of lis pendens even b
for value. efore final judgment is rendered? Explain.

A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no SUGGESTED ANSWER:

title. The fact that the forged deed was registered and
a certificate of title was issued in his name, did not A Notice of Lis Pendens may be cancelled even before
operate to vest upon final judgment upon proper showing that the notice is
an ownership over the property of X and Y. for the purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse
The registration of the forged deed will not cure the party or that the notice of lis pendens is not necessary
infirmity. However, once the title to the land is to protect the right of the party who caused it to be
registered in the name of the forger and title to the registered. (Section 77, P.D. No. 1529)
land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, the latter acquires a clean title In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the legitimate
thereto. A buyer of a registered land is not required to owner of the land in question. It can be said,
explore beyond what the record in the registry therefore, that when
indicates on its face in quest for any hidden defect or she filed her notice of lis pendens her purpose w
inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his as to protect her interest in the land and not just to
right molest
thereto. This is the “mirror principle‘ of the T Rommel. It is necessary to record the Lis penden
orrens system which makes it possible for a forged s to protect her interest because if she did not do it,
deed to be the root of a good title. there is a
possibility that the land will fall into the hands o
Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are guilty of f an innocent purchaser for value and in that event,
contributory negligence when they delivered this OCT the court loses control over the land making any
to the mortgagee without annotating the favorable judgment thereon moot and academic. For
mortgage thereon. Between them and the innocent these reasons, the notice of lis pendens may not be
purchaser for value, they should bear the loss. canceled.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Notice of Lis Pendens; Transferee Pendente

Lite (2002)
If the buyer B, who relied on the teller A’s title, was
not aware of the adverse possession of the land by the Sancho and Pacifico are co-
spouses X and Y, then the latter cannot recover the owners of a parcel of land. Sancho sold the
property from B. B has in his favor the presumption property to Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and Bart for
of good faith which can only be overthrown by annulment of the sale and reconveyance of
adequate proof of bad faith. However, nobody buys the property based on the fact that the sale included
his one- half pro-indiviso share. Pacifico had a notice annotated thereon, there was also an existing court
of lis pendens annotated on the title covering the order canceling the same. Hence, Carlos cannot be
property and ordered the cancellation of the notice of considered as being “aware of a flaw which invali
lis pendens. The notice of lis pendens could not be dates [their] the acquisition of the thing” since the
cancelled immediately because the alleged flaw,
title over the property was with a bank to which the notice of lis pendens, was already being orde
the property had been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico red cancelled at the time of the purchase. On this
appealed the case. While the appeal was pending and ground alone, Carlos can already be considered a
with the notice of buyer in good
lis pendens still uncancelled, Bart sold the proper faith. (PoLam v. Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA 8
ty to 6, [2000]).
Carlos, who immediately caused the cancellation
of the notice of lis pendens, as well as the issuance of B. To protect his right over the subject property,
a new title in his name. Pacifico should have timely filed an action for
reconveyance and reinstated the notice of lis pendens.
Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) a transf
eree pendente lite? If your answer is (a), how can the Prescription &Laches; Elements of
right of Pacifico as co-owner be protected? Explain. Laches (2000)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In an action brought to collect a sum of money based

on a surety agreement, the defense of laches was
A. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of lis raised as the claim was filed more than seven years
pendens was still annotated at the back of the title at from the maturity of the obligation. However, the
the time he bought the land from Bart. The action was brought within the ten-year prescriptive
uncancelled notice of lis pendens operates as period provided by law wherein actions based on
constructive notice of its contents as well as interests, written contracts can be instituted.
legal or equitable, included therein. All persons are
charged with the knowledge of what it contains. In an a) Will the defense prosper? Reason.
earlier case, it was held that a notice of an adverse
claim remains effective and binding notwithstanding b) What are the essential elements of laches?
the lapse of the 30 days from its inscription in the
registry. This ruling is even more applicable in a lis SUGGESTED ANSWER:
pendens.
No, the defense will not prosper. The problem did not
Carlos is a transferee pendente lite insofar as Sancho’s give facts from which laches may be inferred. Mere
share in the co-ownership in the land is concerned delay in filing an action, standing alone, does not
because the land was transferred to him during the constitute laches (Agra v. PNB, 309 SCRA 509).
pendency of the appeal.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by
pursuing his appeal; asking the Court of Appeals to b) The four basic elements of laches are; (1) conduct
order the re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he
of Carlos; and by invoking his right of redemption of claims, giving rise to the situation of which
Bart’s share under Articles 1620 of the New Civil complainant seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the
Code. complainant’s rights, the complainant having had
knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit;
(3) lack of knowledge on the part of the defendant that
A. Carlos is a purchaser in good faith. A possessor in the complainant would assert the right on which he
good faith has been defined as “one who is unaware bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the
that there exists a flaw which invalidates his defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
acquisition of the thing” (Art. 526, NCC). Good faith complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
consists in the possessor’s belief that the person from
whom he received the thing was the owner of the same Prescription & Laches; Indefeasibility Rule of
and could convey his title. In the case [at bar], in Torrens Title (2002)
question, while Carlos bought the subject property
from Bart while a notice of lis pendens was still
Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of an innocent purchaser for value, the title becomes
Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10- incontestable and incontrovertible.
hectare property belonging to their conjugal
partnership. The sale was made without Winda’s IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY, on the other hand, means
knowledge, much less consent. In 1950, Winda that no title to the land in derogation of that of the
learned of the sale, when she discovered the deed of registered owner may be acquired by adverse
sale among the documents in her husband’s vault possession or acquisitive prescription or that the
after his demise. Soon after, she noticed that the registered owner does not lose by extinctive
construction of the sports complex had started. Upon prescription his right to recover ownership and
completion of the construction in 1952, she tried but possession of the land.
failed to get free membership privileges in Verde.
The action in this case is for annulment of the sale
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the executed
annulment of the sale on the ground that she did not by the husband over a conjugal partnership prop
consent to the sale. In answer, Verde contends that, in erty covered by a Torrens
accordance with the Spanish Civil Code which was Title. Action on contracts are subject to prescription.
then in force, the sale in 1948 of the property did not
need her concurrence. Verde contends that in any Prescription (1990)
case the action has prescribed or is barred by laches.
Winda rejoins that her Torrens title covering the In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgage
property is indefeasible, and imprescriptible. d by owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a
loan. O acted through his attorney-in-fact, son S, who
A. Define or explain the term “laches”. was duly authorized by way of a special power of
attorney, wherein O declared that he was the absolute
B. Decide the case, stating your reasons for your deci owner of the land, that the tax declarations/receipts
sion. were all issued in his name, and
that he has been in open, continuous and ad
SUGGESTED ANSWER: verse possession in the concept of owner.

A. LACHES means failure or neglect, for an As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do the past five [5) years, M had to foreclose the
what, by exercising due diligence, could or should mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, M was the highest
have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to bidder. Upon issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of
assert a right within a reasonable sale and registration in January, 1966, the mortgage
time. (De Vera v. CA, 305 SCRA 624 [1999]) property was turned over to M’s possession and
control M has since then developed the said property.
B. While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code did In 1967, O died, survived by sons S and P.
not require the consent of the wife for the validity of
the sale, an alienation by the husband in fraud of the In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary
wife is void as held in Uy Coque v. Navas, 45 Phil. of his father O. son P filed a suit to annul the
430 (1923). Assuming that the alienation in 1948 mortgage deed and
was in fraud of Winda and, therefore, makes the sale subsequent sale of the property, etc., on the grou
to Verde void, the action to nd of
set aside the sale, nonetheless, is already barr fraud. He asserted that the property in question
ed by prescription and laches. More than 52 years was conjugal in nature actually belonging, at the time
have already elapsed from her discovery of the sale in of the mortgage, to O and his wife, W, whose conjugal
1950. share went to their sons (S and P) and to O.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (a) Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Expl

ain your answer.
B. Winda’s claim that her Torrens Title covering
the property is indefeasible and imprescriptible [does (b) After the issuance of the sheriff’s final deed of sal
not hold water] is not tenable. The e in 1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for
rule of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title means that registration under the Torrens System and was issued
after one year from the date of issue of the decree of a Torrens Title to the said property in question, would
registration or if the land has fallen into the hands of that added fact have any significant effect on your
conclusion? State your reason.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: years from the date of registration of the title in the
name of M.
(a) Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the action is
barred by prescription because the wife had only ten Prescription; Real Rights (1992)
(10) years from the transaction and during the
marriage to file a suit for the annulment of the A owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the
mortgage deed. Tarlac side of the boundary between Tarlac and
Pangasinan. His brother B owned the adjoining parcel
Alternative Answers to (a) first Alternative of unregistered land on the Pangasinan side.
Answer:
A sold the Tarlac parcel to X in a deed of sale executed
(a) The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is as a public instrument by A and X. After X paid in full
only a voidable contract since it involves a conjugal the, price of the sale, X took possession of the
partnership property. The action to annul the same Pangasinan parcel in the belief that it was the Tarlac
instituted in 1977, or eleven years after the execution parcel covered by the deed of sale executed by A and
of the sheriff’s final sale, has obviously prescribed X.
because:
After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose between B
1) An action to annul a contract on the ground of and X on the issue of the ownership of the Pangasinan
fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the parcel, B
date of discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence claims a vested right of ownership over the Pang
an action to recover ownership, it must be reckoned asinan parcel because B never sold that parcel to X or
from the to anyone else.
date of execution of the contract or from the
registration of the alleged fraudulent document with On the other hand, X claims a vested right of
the assessor’s office for the purpose of transferring the ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive
tax declaration, this being unregistered land, (Baelu prescription,
v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. L- because X possessed this parcel for over ten (10]
74423, Jan. 30, 1989, 169 SCRA 617). years under claim of ownership.

2) If the action is to be treated as an action to recov Decide on these claims, giving your reasons.
er ownership of land, it would have prescribed just the
same because more than 10 years have already SUGGESTED ANSWER:
elapsed since the date of the execution of the sale.
At this point in time, X cannot claim the right of
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: vested ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by
acquisitive prescription. In addition to the requisites
(a) The action to recover has been barred by common to
acquisitive prescription in favor of M considering that ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription
M has possessed the land under a claim of ownership consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse
for ten (10) years with a just title. and actual possession in the concept of owner,
ordinary acquisitive prescription for ten (10) years
(b) If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all requires (1) possession in good faith and (2) just title.
the more S and P could not recover because if at all “Just title” means that the adverse claimant came into
their remedies would be: possession of the property through one of the modes
recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership but
1. A Petition to Review the Decree of Registration. the grantor was not the
This can be availed of within one (1) year from-the owner or could not transmit any right (Art. 1129.
entry thereof, but only upon the basis of “actual Civil Code). In this case, there is no “just title” and no
fraud.” There is no showing that M committed actual “mode” that can be invoked by X for the acquisition of
fraud in securing his title to the land; or the Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive
delivery of the Pangasinan parcel because it was not
2. An action in personam against M for the the subject-matter of the deed of sale. Hence, B
reconveyance of the title in their favor. Again, this retains ownership of the Pangasinan parcel of land.
remedy is available within four years from the date of
the discovery of the fraud but not later than ten (10) Primary Entry Book; Acquisitive Prescrip
tion; Laches (1998)
In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of regist inaction is too long and maybe considered
ered land evidenced by a duly executed deed of sale. unreasonable. As often held by the Supreme Court,
The owner presented the deed of sale and the owner’s the principle of imprescriptibility sometimes has to
certificate of title yield to the equitable principle of laches which can
to the Register of Deeds. The entry was made in convert even a registered land owner’s claim into a
the daybook and corresponding fees were paid as stale demand.
evidenced by official receipt. However, no transfer of
certificate of title was issued to Renren because the Mikaelo’s claim of laches, however, is weak insofar as
original certificate of title in Robyn’s name was the element of equity is concerned, there being no
temporarily misplaced after fire partly gutted the showing in the facts how he entered into the
Office of the Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the ownership and possession of the land.
land had been possessed by Robyn’s distant c
ousin, Mikaelo, openly, adversely and continuously in Reclamation of Foreshore Lands;
the concept of owner since 1960. It was only in April Limitations (2000)
1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to recover possession.
Mikaelo invoked a) acquisitive prescription and b) Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and
laches, asking that he be declared owner of the land. chartered
Decide the case by evaluating these defenses. cities to reclaim foreshore lands bordering them
and to construct thereon adequate docking and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: harbor facilities.
Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered into
a) Renren’s action to recover possession of the land an agreement with the Fil-Estate Realty Company,
will prosper. In 1965, after buying the land from authorizing
Robyn, he submitted the Deed of Sale to the Registry the latter to reclaim 300 hectares of land from t
of Deeds for registration together with the owner’s he sea bordering the city, with 30% of the land to be
duplicate copy of the title, and paid the corresponding reclaimed to be owned by Fil-Estate as compensation
registration fees. Under Section 56 of PD No. 1529, for its services.
the Deed of Sale to Renren is considered registered The Solicitor General questioned the validity o
from the time the sale was entered in the Day Book f the agreement on the ground that it will mean
(now called the Primary Entry Book). reclaiming land under the sea which is beyond the
commerce of man. The City replies that this is
For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is authorized by RA. 1899 because it authorizes the
considered the registered owner of the land. After all, construction of docks and harbors. Who is correct?
it was not his fault
that the Registry of Deeds could not issue the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
corresponding transfer certificate of title.
The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the
Mikaelo’s defense of prescription can not be City of
sustained. A Torrens title is imprescriptible. No title Cavite under RA 1899 to reclaim land is limited
to registered land in derogation of the title of the to foreshore lands. The Act did not authorize it to
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or reclaim land from the sea. “The reclamation being
adverse possession. (Section 47, P.D. No, 1529) unauthorized, the City
of Cavite did not acquire ownership over the recl
The right to recover possession of registered land aimed land. Not being the owner, it could not have
likewise does not prescribe because possession is just conveyed any portion thereof to the contractor.
a necessary incident of ownership.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends. If the reclamation of the land from the sea
b) Mikaelo’s defense of laches, however, appears to is necessary in the construction of the docks and the
be more sustainable. Renren bought the land and had harbors, the City of Cavite is correct. Otherwise, it is
the sale registered way back in 1965. From the facts, it not. Since RA 1899 authorized the city to construct
appears that it was only in 1998 or after an docks and harbors, all works that are necessary for
inexplicable delay of 33 years that he took the first such construction are deemed authorized. Including
step asserting his right to the land. It was not even an the reclamation of land from the sea. The reclamation
action to recover ownership but only possession of the being authorized, the city is the owner of the
land. By ordinary standards, 33 years of neglect or
reclaimed land and it may convey a portion thereof as On June 30, 1986, A filed in the RTC of Abra a
payment for the services of the contractor. n application for registration of title to a parcel of land
under P. D. No. 1529, claiming that since June 12,
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 1945, he has
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notori
On the assumption that the reclamation contract ous possession and occupation of said parcel of land
was entered into before RA 1899 was repealed by PD of the public domain which was alienable and
3-A, the City of Cavite is correct. Lands under the sea disposable, under a bona fide claim of ownership.
are “beyond the commerce of man” in the sense that After issuance of the notice of initial hearing and
they are not publication, as required by law, the petition was heard
susceptible of private appropriation, ownershi on July 29, 1987. On the day of the hearing nobody
p or alienation. The contract in question merely calls but the applicant appeared. Neither was there anyone
for the who opposed the application. Thereupon, on motion
reclamation of 300 hectares of land within the c of the applicant, the RTC issued an order of general
oastal default and allowed the applicant to present his
waters of the city. Per se, it does not vest, aliena evidence. That he did. On September 30, 1989, the
te or transfer ownership of land under the sea. The RTC dismissed A’s application for lack of sufficient
city merely engaged the services of Fil-Estate to evidence. A appealed to the Court of Appeals.
reclaim the land for the city.
The appellant urged that the RTC erred in dismissing
Registration; Deed of Mortgage (1994) his application for registration and in not ordering
registration of his title to the parcel of land in question
How do you register now a deed of mortgage of a par despite the fact that there was no opposition filed by
cel of land originally registered under the Spanish anybody to his application.
Mortgage Law?
Did the RTC commit the error attributed to it?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) After the Spanish Mortgage Law was abrogated by
P.D. 892 on February 16, 1976, all lands covered by S No, the RTC did not commit the error attributed to it.
panish titles that were not brought under the Torrens In an application for Judicial confirmation of
system within six (6) imperfect or incomplete title to public agricultural
months from the date thereof have been considered a land under Section 48 of the Public Land Act, the lack
s “unregistered private lands.” of opposition and the
consequent order of default against those who di
Thus, a deed of mortgage affecting land originally d not answer or show up on the date of initial hearing,
registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law is now does not guarantee the success of the application. It is
governed by the still incumbent upon the applicant to prove with well
system of registration of transactions or instru nigh incontrovertible evidence that he has acquired a
ments affecting unregistered land under Section 194 title to the land that is fit for registration. Absent such
of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by registrable title, it is the clear duty of the Land
Act No. 3344. Under this law, the instrument or Registration Court to dismiss the application and
transaction affecting unregistered land is entered in a declare the land as public land.
book provided for the purpose but the
registration thereof is purely voluntary and does An application for land registration is a proceeding in
not adversely affect third persons who have a better rem.
right. Its main objective is to establish the status of th
e res whether it is still part of our public domain as
b) By recording and registering with the Register of presumed under the Regalian doctrine or has
Deeds of the place where the land is located, in acquired the character of
accordance with Act 3344. However, P.D. 892 a private property. It is the duty of the applicant
required holders of Spanish title to bring the same to overcome that presumption with sufficient
under the Torrens System within 6 months from its evidence.
effectivity on February 16, 1976.
Remedies; Judicial Reconstitution of
Remedies; Judicial Confirmation; Imperfect Title (1996)
Title (1993)
In 1989, the heirs of Gavino, who died on August 10, What is the procedure of consult
1987, filed a petition for reconstitution of his lost or a when an instrument is denied registration?
destroyed Torrens Title to a parcel of land in Ermita,
Manila. This was opposed by Marilou who claimed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ownership of the said land by a series of sales. She
claimed that Gavino had sold the property to 1) The Register of Deeds shall notify the interested
Bernardo way back in 1941 and as evidence thereof, party in writing, setting forth the defects of the
she presented a Tax Declaration in 1948 in the name instrument or
of Bernardo, which cancelled the previous Tax the legal ground relied upon for denying the
Declaration in the name of Gavino. Then she registration, and advising that if he is not agreeable to
presented two deeds of sale duly registered with the such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the
Register of Deeds, the first one executed by Bernardo documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by
in 1954 selling the same property to Carlos, and the Consulta to the Administrator of the Land
second one executed by Carlos in 1963, selling the Registration Authority (LRA).
same property to her. She also claimed that she and
her predecessors in interest have been in possession 2) Within five {5) days from receipt of notice of den
of the property since 1948. ial, the party-in-
interest shall file his Consulta with the Register of
If you were the judge, how will you decide the Deeds concerned and pay the consulta fee.
petition? Explain.
3) After receipt of the Consulta and payment of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: corresponding fee the Register of Deeds makes an
annotation of the pending consulta at the back of the
If I were the judge, I will give due course to the certificate of title.
petition of the heirs of Gavino despite the opposition
of Marilou for the following reasons: 4) The Register of Deeds then elevates the case to
the LRA Administrator with certified records thereof
a) Judicial reconstitution of a certificate of title and a summary of the facts and issues involved.
under
RA. No. 26 partakes of a land registration proceeding 5) The LRA Administrator then conducts hearings
and is perforce a proceeding in rem. It denotes after due notice or may just require parties to submit
restoration of an existing instrument which has been their memoranda.
lost or destroyed in its original form and condition.
The purpose of reconstitution of title or any document 6) After hearing, the LRA Administrator issues an
is to have the same reproduced, after proceedings. In order prescribing the step to be taken or the
the same form they were when the loss or destruction memorandum to be made. His resolution in consulta
occurred. shall be conclusive
and binding upon all Registers of Deeds unless
b) If the Court goes beyond that purpose, it acts reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeals or by the
without or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, where the Supreme Court. (Section 117, P.D. 1529).
Torrens Title sought to be reconstituted is in the name
of Gavino, the court cannot receive evidence proving • The procedure of consulta is a mode of appeal
that Marilou is the owner of the land. Marilou’s from denial by the Register of Deeds of the
dominical claim to the land should be ventilated in a registration of the instrument to the Commissioner of
separate civil action before the Regional Trial Court in Land Registration.
its capacity as a court of general jurisdiction.
• Within five days from receipt of the notice of
REFERENCES: Heirs of Pedro Pinate vs. Dula denial, the interested party may elevate the matter by
y, 187 SCRA 12- consulta to the Commissioner of Land Registration
20 (1990); Bunagan vs. CF1 Cebu Branch VI, who shall enter an order prescribing the step to be
97 SCRA 72 (1980); Republic vs. IAC, 157 SCRA taken or memorandum to be made. Resolution in
62, 66 (1988); Margolles vs. CA, 230 SCRA consulta shall be binding upon all Registers of Deeds
709; Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 924. provided that the party in interest may appeal to the
Court of Appeals within the period prescribed (Sec.
Remedies; Procedure; Consulta (1994) 117, P.D. 1529).
Remedies; Reconveyance vs. Reopening of title. This rule assumes that the defendant is in
a Decree; Prescriptive Period (2003) possession of the land. Where it is the plaintiff who is
in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance
Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in would be in the nature of a suit for quieting for the
a five- star hotel in New York, U.S.A., entrusted to his title which action is
first-degree cousin Dewey an application for imprescriptible (David v. Malay, 318 SCRA 711 [
registration, under the 1999]).
Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located
in Bacolod City. A year later, Louie returned to the Remedies; Reconveyance; Elements (1995)
Philippines and discovered that Dewey registered the
land and obtained an Original Certificate of Title over Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel
the property in his Dewey’s name. Compounding the of land in Quezon City. One year later, Rachelle, the
matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an innocent legitimate owner of the land, discovered the
purchaser for value. Louie promptly filed an action for fraudulent registration obtained by Rommel. She
reconveyance of the parcel of land against Huey. filed a complaint against Rommel for reconveyance
and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens
(a) Is the action pursued by Louie the proper re on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel
medy? now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering
that one year has already elapsed from its issuance.
(b) Assuming that reconveyance is the proper He also seeks the cancellation of the notice of Lis
remedy, will the action prosper if the case was filed pendens.
beyond one year, but within ten years, from the entry
of the decree of registration? Will Rachelle’s suit for reconveyance prosper?
Explain.
 Deed of sale
 Filipino SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Legal Rights
 Bar Yes, Rachelle’s suit will prosper because all elements
 Agricultural Grants for an action for reconveyance are present, namely:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Rachelle is claiming dominical rights over the

same land.
(a) An action for reconveyance against Huey is not
the proper remedy, because Huey is an innocent b) Rommel procured his title to the land by fraud.
purchaser
for value. The proper recourse is for Louie to go c) The action was brought within the statutory perio
after Dewey for damages by reason of the fraudulent d of four (4) years from discovery of the fraud and not
registration later than ten (10} years from the date of registration
and subsequent sale of the land. If Dewey is ins of Rommel’s title.
olvent, Louie may file a claim against the Assurance
Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De Castro 324 S d) Title to the land has not passed into the hands of
CRA 591 [2000] citing Sps. Eduarte v. CA, 323 an innocent purchaser for value.
Phil 462, 467 [1996]).
Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if
(b) Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action Rachelle had filed a petition to reopen or review the
prescribes in ten (10) years, not within one (1) year decree of registration. But Rachelle instead filed an
when a petition for the reopening of the registration ordinary action in personam for reconveyance. In the
decree may be filed. The action for reconveyance is latter action, indefeasibility is not a valid defense
distinct from the petition to reopen the decree of because, in filing such action, Rachelle is not seeking
registration (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. 49 to nullify nor to impugn the indefeasibility of
[1910}). There is no need to reopen the registration Rommel’s title. She is only asking the court to compel
proceedings, but the property should just be Rommel to reconvey the title to her as the legitimate
reconveyed to the real owner. owner of the land.

The action for reconveyance is based on implied or ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

constructive trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years
from the date of issuance of the original certificate of
Yes. The property registered is deemed to be held in made a false statement of material and essential facts
trust for the real owner by the person in whose name in his application for the same, by stating therein that
it is registered. The Torrens system was not designed the lot in question was part of the public domain not
to shield one who had committed fraud or occupied or claimed by any other person, his title
misrepresentation and thus holds the title in bad becomes ipso facto canceled and consequently
faith. (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr.,(G.R 38387, 29 J rendered null and void.”
an. 1990) as cited in Martinez, D., Summary of
SC Decisions, January to June,1990,p.359]. “It is to the public interest that one who succeeds In
fraudulently acquiring title to
Remedies; Reconveyance; Prescriptive public land should not be
Period (1997) allowed to benefit therefrom and
the State, through the Solicitor General, may file the
On 10 September 1965, Melvin applied for a free pate corresponding action for annulment of the patent and
nt covering two lots – Lot A and Lot B – situated in the reversion of the land involved to the public
Santiago, Isabela. Upon certification by the Public domain” (Dinero
Land Inspector that Melvin had been in actual, vs. Director of Lands; Kayaban vs. Republic L
continuous, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse -33307, 8-20-73; Director of Lands
possession of the lots since 1925, the Director of Land vs. Hon. Pedro Samson Animas, L-37682,3-
approved Melvin’s application on 04 29-74).
June 1967. On 26 December 1967, Original Certificat
e of Title (OCT) No. P-2277 was issued in the name of This action does not prescribe. With respect to
Melvln. Percival’s action for reconveyance, it would have
prescribed, having been filed more than ten (10) years
On 7 September 1971, Percival filed a protest alleging after registration and issuance of an O.C.T. in the
that Lot B which he had been occupying and cultivati name of Melvin, were it not for the inherent infirmity
ng since 1947 was included in the Free Patent issued of the latter’s title. Under the facts, the statute of
in the name of Melvin. The Director of Lands ordered limitations will not apply to Percival because Melvin
the investigation of Percival’s protest. The Special knew that a part of the land covered by his title
Investigator who conducted the investigation found actually belonged to Percival. So, instead of nullifying
that Percival had been in actual cultivation of Lot B in toto the title of Melvin, the court, in the exercise of
since 1947. equity and jurisdiction, may grant prayer for the
reconveyance of Lot B to Percival who has actually
On 28 November 1986, the Solicitor General filed in possessed the land under a claim of ownership since
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines a complaint 1947. After all, if Melvin’s title is declared void ab
for cancellation of the free patent and the OCT issued initio and the land is reverted to the public domain,
in the name of Melvin and the reversion of the land to Percival would just the same be entitled to preference
public domain on the ground of fraud and right to acquire the land from the government.
misrepresentation in obtaining the free patent. On the Besides, well settled is the rule that once public land
same date, Percival sued Martin for the reconveyance has
of Lot B. been in open, continuous, exclusive and notori
ous possession under a bonafide claim of acquisition
Melvin filed his answers interposing the sole defe of ownership for the period prescribed by Section 48
nse in both cases that the Certificate of Title issued in of the Public Land Act, the same ipso jure ceases to be
his name became incontrovertible and indefeasible public and in contemplation of law acquired the
upon the lapse of one year from the issuance of the character of private
free patent. land. Thus, reconveyance of the land from Melvi
n to Percival would be the better
Given the circumstances, can the action of the procedure (Vitale vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 855; Pena
Solicitor General and the case for reconveyance filed , Land Titles and Deeds, 1982, p. 427).
by Percival possibly prosper?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action of the Solicitor General should prosper,
“If fraud be discovered in the application which led to considering that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title
the issuance of the patent and Certificate of Title, this does not apply to free patent secured through fraud.
Title becomes ipso facto null and void. Thus, in a case A certificate of title cannot be used as shield to
where a person who obtained a free patent, knowingly perpetuate fraud. The State is not bound by the period
of prescription stated in a) The petition must be filed by a person claimi
Sec. 38 of Act 496. (Director of Lands vs. Aba ng dominical or other real rights to the land registered
nilla, 124 SCRA 358). in the name of respondent.

The action for reconveyance filed by Percival may still b) The registration of the land in the name of
prosper provided that the property has not passed to respondent
an innocent third party for value (Dablo was procured by means of actual, (not just
vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 618), and constructive) fraud, which must be extrinsic. Fraud
provided that the action is filed within is actual if the registration was made through deceit
the prescriptive period of ten years (Tale vs. Co or any other intentional act of downright dishonesty
urt of Appeals, 208 SCRA 266). Since the actio to enrich oneself at the expense of another. It is
n was filed by Percival 19 years after the issuance of extrinsic when it is something that was not raised,
Melvin’s title, it is submitted that the same is already litigated and passed upon in the main proceedings.
barred by prescription.
c) The petition must be filed within one (1) year from
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (to second part of the date of the issuance of the decree.
question)
d) Title to the land has not passed to an Innoc
The action for reconveyance filed by Percival will ent purchaser for value (Libudan vs. Gil, 45 SCRA
prosper, because the land has ceased to be public land 27, 1972), Rublico vs. Orrelana. 30 SCRA 511,
and has become private land by open, continuous, 1969);
public, exclusive possession under a bona fide claim RP vs. CA, 57 G. R No. 40402. March 16, 1987)
of ownership for more than thirty years, and Percival .
is still in possession of the property at present. His
action for reconveyance can be considered as an Torrens System vs.Recording of Evidence of
action to quiet title, which does not prescribe if the Title (1994)
plaintiff is in possession of the
property. (Olviga v.CA, G.R. Distinguish the Torrens system of land registration
No. 1048013, October 21,1993) from the system of recording of evidence of title.

Remedies; Reopening of a Decree; SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Elements (1992)
a) The TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND
What are the essential requisites or elements for REGISTRATION is a system for the registration of
the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree title to the land. Thus, under this system what is
of registration? entered in the
Registry of Deeds, is a record of the owner’s esta
SUGGESTED ANSWER: te or interest in the land, unlike the system under the
Spanish Mortgage Law or the system under Section
The essential elements are: (1) that the petitioner has 194 of the
a real or dominical right; (2) that he has been Revised Administrative Code as amended by Act
deprived thereof through fraud; (3) that the petition 3344 where only the evidence of such title is recorded.
is filed within one (1) year from the issuance of the In the latter system, what is recorded is the deed of
decree; and (4) that the conveyance from hence the owner’s title emanated—
property has not yet been transferred to an inno and not the title itself.
cent purchaser
(Rublico vs. Orellana 30 SCRA 511; Ubudan vs b) Torrens system of land registration is that which is
.Gil 45 SCRA 17). prescribed in Act 496 (now PD 1529), which is e
ither Judicial or quasi-judicial. System or recording of
OPTIONAL EXTENDED ANSWER: evidence of title is merely the registration of evidence
of acquisitions of land with the Register of Deeds, who
Petition for review of the Decree of Registration. A annotates the same on the existing title, cancels the
remedy old one and issues a new title based on the document
expressly provided in Section 32 of P. D. No. 15 presented for registration.
29
(formerly Section 38. Act 496), this remedy has t Unregistered Land (1991)
he following elements:
Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty taxes on treasurer of an instrument sufficient in form and
her unregistered agricultural land located in effects to convey the property. Maria remained owner
Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to satisfy the taxes of the land until another tax sale is to be performed in
due, the City sold it at public auction to Juan Miranda, favor of a qualified buyer.
an employee at the Treasurer’s Office of said City,
whose bid at P10,000.00 was the highest. In due time,
a final bill of sale was executed in his favor.

Maria refused to turn-

over the possession of the property to Juan alleging
that (1) she had been, in the meantime, granted a free
patent and on the basis thereof an Original Certificate
of Title was issued to her, and (2) the sale in favor of
Juan is void from the beginning in view of the
provision in the Administrative Code of 1987 which
prohibits officers and employees of the government
from purchasing directly or indirectly any property
sold by the government for nonpayment of any tax,
fee or other public charge.

(a) Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the effect

of the Issuance of the Certificate of Title to Maria?

(b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P10,000.

00? If not, why not?

(c) If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operat

e to divert Maria of her ownership? If it did, who then
is the owner of the property?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. The sale of the land to Juan is not valid, being

contrary to law. Therefore, no transfer of ownership
of the land was effected from the delinquent taxpayer
to him. The original certificates of title obtained by
Maria thru a free patent grant from the Bureau of
Lands under Chapter VII, CA 141 is valid but in view
of her delinquency, the said title is subject to the right
of the City Government to sell the land at public
auction. The issuance of the OCT did not exempt the
land from the tax sales. Section 44 of P.O. No. 1529
provides that every registered owner receiving a
Certificate of Title shall hold the same free from an
encumbrances, subject to certain exemptions.

B. Juan may recover because he was not a party to

the violation of the law.

C. No, the sale did not divest Maria of her title

precisely because the sale is void. It is as good as if no
sale ever took place.

In tax sales, the owner is divested of his land initially

upon award and issuance of a Certificate of Sale, and
finally after the lapse of the 1 year period from date of
registration, to redeem, upon execution by the