1

LANDTITLES MIDTERM REVIEWER gratuitous composition title, or adjustment title.

 This composition title GREATLY erred in stating the
Atty. Padilla boundaries (it put the boundaries at 29 hectares when
the actual area was 371 hectares)
WEEK 1  The unreliability and dubiousness of the composition
title is evident from the sale executed by the heirs of
CASES: Prudencio Maxino in favor of his heirs
 Upon the death of their father, these two heirs sold
1 Republic v CA (1985) (Aquino)
the land to their mother, wife of applicant.
FACTS:
 THAT CURIOUS DOCUMENT IS NOT A SALE AT ALL; IT IS
 1961- CFI judge of Gumaca Quezon, Judge Vincente
A QUIT CLAIM. (“in consideration of P200, the Tesolona
del Rosario, orders the registration of the land, lot 1
sisters release and forever quitclaim unto said vendee)
to:
 In fact, the Tesonola vendors WERE NOT CERTAIN
i. spouses Prudencio Maxino and Tarciana Morales
THAT THEIR TITLE WAS GOOD; express stipulation that
(total lot – 200 hectares)
the vendor had “NO OBLIGATION OF WARRANTY”
ii. Heirs of Lorenzo Consolacion (200 hectares of lot 1)
 This gratuitous title granted him possessory rights over
 This decision was final and executory
PASTURE LAND WITH AN AREA OF 29 HECTARES BUT
 1969- RP wanted to annul the decision on the ground
NO OWNERSHIP OVER 970 HECTARES OF GRAZING
that the land was still part of the UNCLASSIFIED PUBLIC
LAND
FOREST. Plus, the info in the Maximo spouses only
 PUBLIC FORESTRAL LAND IS NOT REGISTERABLE
covered 29 hectares of land, not 885 hectares
 POSSESSION OF PUBLIC FORESTRAL LANDS, HOWEVER
 The Maximo spouses opposed the decision.
LONG, CANNOT RIPEN INTO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
 1970 – Judge Agana denied petition.
 SPANISH TITLES ARE NOT INDEFEASIBLE; PD No 892
 1980 – Justices Asuncion, Porfilio, Sison, and Sundian
(effective Feb 16, 1976) DISCONTINUED THE USE OF
dismissed the petition because the 1970 order is final
SPANISH TITLES AS EVIDENCE IN LAND REGISTRATION
and unappeasable
PROCEEDINGS
ISSUE: W/N the registration is void because public forestall
2 Ching v Malaya (1987) (Cruz)
land was registered
FACTS:
HELD: It is void
 Petitioners allege that private respondents had forced
 The lot held by the Maxinos is within the public forest,
their way into the disputed premises without any right
NOT ALIENABLE and DISPOSABLE nor SUSCEPTIBLE of
and refused to leave despite demand (demand based
private appropriation. It’s inclusion into the public
on petitioners being the owner of the land due to a
forest was certified by Director of Forestry.
sale)
 The basis of the claim of Maxinos is a Spanish title, a
 Respondents challenged the sale, arguing that the

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
 2

property belonged to them BY RIGHT OF INHERITANCE  Enonaria owned a lot in Cebu. He died in 1924. In 1963,
 MTC rendered judgement ordering the respondents to his heirs asked a surveyor to relocate the lot
vacate the premises and pay petitioners back a rental  However, they discovered that respondent was
P1k a month until actual surrender of property occupying the lot
 On appeal, respondent judge (Mayala) set aside the  Respondent refused to leave. The heirs sued
decision of the MTC as, “The question being one of respondent.
OWNERSHIP, and not MERE POSSESSION, the  Another relocation made by surveyor from the Bureau
municipal court HAS NO JURISDICTION and should of lands confirmed the usurpation of 500 square
DISMISS the complaint” meters
ISSUE: W/N the MTC had authority to try and decide the case  The TC ordered respondents to vacate
in the first instance  CA reversed TC decision
HELD: It did ISSUES : Can the action to recover of the heirs of Enanoria
 The original complaint should be examined under RA prescribe and be barred by laches?
296, which was the law then at force HELD: It cannot
 Sec 88, RA 296 = In forcible entry and detainer  Respondent cannot acquire the land by prescription
proceedings, the justice of the peace or the judge of because it is covered by a torrens title
the municipal court shall have ORIGINAL jurisdiction.  Section 46 of the Land Registration Law (now Section
 The present case, being one for forcible entry, should 47 of PD 1529, effective June 11, 1987) NO TITLE TO
be in the municipal court before which it was filed REGISTERED LAND IN DEROGATION TO THAT OF THE
 HOWEVER, there is a complication of OWNERSHIP, REGISTERED OWNER SHALL BE ACQUIRED BY
which removed the case from the municipal court PRESCRIPTION OR ADVERSE POSSESSION
 GENERAL RULE: IT IS SETTLED THAT MERE ASSERTION  PRESCRIPTION IS UNAVAILING ALS AGAINST
OF OWNERSHIP BY THE DEFENDANT IN AN EJECTMENT HEREDITARY SUCCESSORS AS THE LATTER MERELY
CASE WILL NOT OUST THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF its STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE DECEDENT BY
SUMMARY JURISDICTION. OPERATION OF LAW
EXCEPTION: WHERE IT APPEARS DURING THE TRIAL  Purpose of Torrens Title: TO QUIET TITLE TO LAND
THAT, BY THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED,  Registered land NOT SUBJECT TO PRESCTIPTION
THE ISSUE OF POSSESSION CANNOT BE DECIDED  ADVERSE, NOTORIOUS, AND CONTINUOUS
WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP- in this POSSESSION UNDER A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE
case, the jurisdiction of the municipal court is lost PERIOD FIXED BY LAW IS INEFFECTIVE AGAINST A
 Court finds that this case does not come under the TORRENS TITLE
exception to the rule  THE RIGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF A REGISTERED
3 Umbay v Alecha (1985) (Aquino) LAND IS IMPRESCRIPTABLE BECAUSE POSSESSION IS A
FACTS: MERE CONSEQUENCE OF OWNERSHIP

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
 3

 Laches presuppose waiver; no waiver 1. They should be cancelled

4 Philippine National Bank v International Corporate Bank (1991) Respondent is a subsequent lien holder whose rights over the
(Regaldo) mortgaged property are inferior to that of petitioner as a
FACTS: mortgagee. Being a subsequent lien holder, private respondent
 Spouses Balingit and Suntay executed to petitioner real acquires only the right of redemption vested in the mortgagor,
estate mortgages and his rights are strictly subordinate to the superior lien of the
 Annotated subsequent to the foregoing memoranda of anterior mortgagee.
the mortgage lien “Notice of Levy, Continental Bank v The rule is that upon a proper foreclosure of a prior mortgage,
Balingit and Suntay” all liens subordinate to the mortgage are likewise foreclosed,
 Because the spouses did not settle their loans with and the purchaser at public auction held pursuant thereto
petitioner, the latter extra judicially foreclosed under acquires the title free from liens.
Act 3135 sixteen parcels of land covered by the real 2.The RTC does
estate mortgage  Section 2 of PD 1529 = REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
 Upon the expiration of the one year legal redemption ACTING AS LAND REGISTRATION COURTS NOW HAVE
period, petitioner consolidated in its name the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION NOT ONLY OVER
ownership of ALL the foregoing mortgaged properties APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE
 HOWEVER, the annotation in the notice of levy in favor TO LANDS, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS AND
of private respondent was carried over to and now INTERESTS THEREIN, BUT ALSO OVER PETITIONS FILED
appears as the sole annotated encumbrance in the AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE, WITH
new title of the petitioner POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS
 International Corporate Bank (successor of Continental ARISING UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS OR PETITIONS
Bank) contends that since it was not informed of the (can now address all questions before original
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, the new and registration and after)
consolidated titles in favor of petitioner are void  Act 496 (old registration act) Sec 110 = THE CFI sitting
 Lower court denied ICB’s petition, stating that it has no as a land registration court has the authority to
jurisdiction due to the fact that an adverse claim could conduct a hearing, receive evidence, and decide
only be cancelled where the issue is not controversial; controversial matters with a view to determine
and in this case, the issue is controversial whether or not the filed notice of adverse claim is valid
 Court of Appeals affirmed lower court  Section 2 PD 1529 = Nature of land registration
ISSUES: 1. W/N the adverse claim of private respondent should proceedings are IN REM
be cancelled or allowed to remain as annotations on the
certificate of title 5 PNB v CA (1987) (Sison)
2. Does the RTC have jurisdiction to entertain the petition? FACTS:
HELD:  Cldulo Vitug was twice married; first to Gervacia Flores

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
 4

and second to Donato Montemayor. When he died, his  In processing loan applications, the PNB had the right
estate was settled and distributed, with Donata as his to rely on what appears in the certificates of title and
administratrix. no more. On it’s face, the properties are owned by a
 Donata, through one of her sons, Salvador Vitug, widow
mortgaged to PNB several lands covered by a TCT to  GENERAL RULE: THE WELL KNOWN RULE IN THIS
guarantee a loan granted by PNB to Jaramilla and JURISDICTION IS THAT A PERSON DEALING WITH A
Bacani. REGISTERED LAND HAS A RIGHT TO RELY UPON THE
 Montemayor also mortgaged certain properties FACE OF THE TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE AND TO
covered by a TCT to guarantee payment of the loan DISPENSE WITH THE NEED OF INQUIRING FURTHER.
account of her son Vitug. The mortgage was registered EXCEPTION: WHEN THE PARTY CONERNED HAS
in the Register of deeds ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS AND
 All of the above mentioned TCT’s were in CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD MAKE A REASONABLE
Montemayor’s name CAUTIONS MAN TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRY
 Salvador Vitug did not pay, so the bank foreclosed the  A torrens title concludes all controversy over
mortgaged properties and these were sold at a public ownership of the land covered by a final degree of
auction to PNB registration.
 Same with Jaramilla and Bacani’s property (they also  Art 160 = all property of marriage is PRESUMED to
did not pay) belong to the conjugal property…
 A certificate of sale was issued by the Register of deeds  At any rate, although actions for recovery are real
in favor of PNB. actions, they are actions in personam that bind only
 PNB sold the properties to Jesus Vitug (another of the particular individuals who are parties thereto.
Donata’s son) and some other people in whose names 6 Bornales v Intermediate Appellate Court (1988) (Cortes)
the corresponding titles were issued. FACTS:
 Donata executed a lease in favor of her children  Sixto and Isabel were married but lived separately.
Pragmacio and Maximo Sixto had an extra-marital affair with Placida and had a
 Pragmacio and Maximo filed an action for partition and son with her called Renito.
reconveyance with damages against their brother Jesus  A parcel of land in Capiz was in the name of Sixto and
and some other people, claiming that they have a Isabela
share in the land, which is the conjugal property of the  Placida filed with the CFI a petition for reconstitution of
spouses Donata and Clodauldo. title over the aforementioned land, which was granted
 They assailed the mortgage and public auction of PNB  The said lot was then sold to other people and a deed
as void was registered and TCT was issued to the other people.
ISSUE: W/N the certificate of title is conclusive  These other people sold the land to petitioner
HELD: It is Bornales.

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
 5

 Petitioners secured TCT in their names. was refused

 Isabel alleges forgery of the Deed of Extrajudicial  A case was filed
Adjudication and Sale of Real Property.  During the pendency of the case, Viajar sold his rights
 Lower Court ruled in favor of Isabel. Petitioners held over the lot to his mother and co-plaintiff.
buyers in bad faith  Co-plaintiff now appears to be the sole registered
 Court of Appeals affirmed owner of the lot
ISSUE: W/N respondents own the land  Trial Court held Ladrido as owners of the land
HELD: They do not  Court of Appeals confirmed trial court
The reason being that they are buyers in bad faith. The fact - Art 457 of Civil Code = accretion
alone that they purchased the property with full knowledge of - Defendants proved that a gradual accretion took
the flaws and defects in the title is proof enough of bad faith. place
 THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION ISSUE: W/N the course of the Suage River was gradual
SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A MEANS TO PERPETRATE HELD: It was gradual
FRAUD AGAINST THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE  Article 457 of the CC states that “To the owners of the
PROPERTY. lands adjoining the banks of the rivers belong the
 REFISTRATION, TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST BE MADE IN accretion which they gradually receive from the effects
GOOD FAITH of the current of the waters.”
 THUS, IT IS A SETTLED RULE THAT THE DEFENSE OF  Petitioners contend that this article must be read
INDEFEASIBILITY OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE DOES NOT together with Sec 45 and 46 of Act 496:
EXTEND TO A TRANSFEREE WHO TAKES IT WITH - Sec 45: The obtaining of a decree of registration
NOTICE OF THEFLAWS IN HIS TRANSFEROR’S TITLE. IF and the entry of a certificate of title shall be
AT ALL, THE PETITIONERS ONLY ACQUIRE THE RIGHT regarded as an agreement running with the land
WHICH THEIR VENDORS THEN HAD. and binding upon the applicant and all successors
7 Viajar v Court of Appeals (1988) (Medialdea) in title that the land shall be and always remain
FACTS: registered land, and subject to the provisions of
 Spouses Ladrido owned a lot in Iloilo, where 154 this Act and all Acts amendatory thereof.
square meters were registered in their name under a - Sec 46: No title to registered land in derogation to
TCT that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
 Spouses Te were also registered owners of a land in prescription or adverse possession
the Cadastral survey of Pototan  Petitioners argue that these sections must be
 Spouses Te sold the land to Viajar. A TCT was issued to construed to limit the accretion mentioned as
Viajar accretion of unregistered land to the riparian owner,
 Later, Viajar discovered that the land was in the and should not extend to registered land
possession of Ladrido. Viajar demanded returned, but  THE RULE THAT REGISTRATION UNDER THE TORRENS

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
 6

SYSTEM DOES NOT PROTECT THE RIPARIAN OWNER EARLIER; IT IS NEFGLIGENE OR OMMISSION TO ASSERT
AGAINST THE DIMINUTON OF THE AREA OF HIS A RGHT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, WARRANTING A
REGISTERED LAND THROUGH GRADUAL CHANGES IN PRESUMPTION THAT THE PARTY ENTITLED TO ASSERT
THE COURSE OF ANADJOINING STREAM IS WELL IT HAS EITHER ABANDONED OR DECLINED TO ASSERT
SETTLED IT.
8 Coronel v Intermediate Appellate Court (1987) (Gutierrez)  The facts of the case show that private respondents
FACTS: have always been in peaceful possession of the 1/3
 Coronel alleges in his complaint that at the time he portion
purchased the subject parcel of land, the defendants 9 Golloy v Court of Appeals (1984) (Gopengco)
(private respondents) were already occupying a FACTS:
portion as ‘tenants at will’ and despite demands, they  Petitioner has been the registered owner and in
refused to vacate. possession of a parcel of land covered by a TCT
 Defendant denies that Coronel is the owner of the  The SW portion of the land is bounded by respondent’s
whole parcel of land and alleged that the lots occupied land
by them form part of a 1/3 undivided share of brothers  Respondent caused to be placed two monuments
Brigido Merlan and Jose Merlan which they inherited inside the portion of petitioner’s land
from their father  The trial court ordered the Director of Lands to appoint
 Lower court ruled in favor of defendants an impartial public land surveyor to conduct the
ISSUE: W/N the claim of private respondents had been barred relocation survey
by the state of limitation or by estoppel by laches ISSUE: Who is entitled to the land?
HELD: HELD: Petitioners
 Under the facts, it was evident that the private  Private respondents and their predecessors never
respondent never sold their 1/3 share over the lot, and possessed, much less claimed the overlapped portions
what was sold was only a 2/3 share, which was sold to  Petitioner has always been in possession of the same,
Coronel. This means that a wrong TCT was issued upon in the concept of an owner, and such possession was
the selling disturbed by private respondents
 Also, private respondents were in open, peaceful, and  BESIDES, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN
adverse possession of their 1/3 share POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER FOR
 THUS, THERE IS NO BAR ON LACHES TO ASSERT THEIR ALMOST FIFTY YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS, IF THEY
RIGHT OVER 1/3 OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY HAVE ANY RIGHT AT ALL TO THE OVERLAPPED
 LACHES HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THE FAILURE OR PORTION, ARE GUILTY OF LACHES
NEGLECT FOR AN UNREASONALBE AND UNEXPLAINED 10 Republic v Court of Appeals(1978) (Santos)
LENGTH OF TIMETO DO THAT WHICH BY EXERCISING Facts:
DUE DILLIGENCE COULD OR SHOUD HAVE BEEN DONE  Both Republic and respondents claim ownership over

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
 7

the same lots moment, in so far as these proceedings are concerned

 Republic= said lots were bequeathed to the Bureau of in view of the congenitally fatal infirmity that attached
Education by Estaban Jalandoni through his will. Said to the main decision.
lands were already registered under the Torrens  Appelants failure to perfect an appeal on time,
system in a cadastral case in whose favor the TCT was “although decisive, carries no persuasive force” and
issued may be completely disregarded if the trial court acted
 Respondent Ocampo = a degree of registration over without jurisdiction.
said lots, followed by the issuance in his name of OCT.  Lack of jurisdiction is fatal and may be raised at any
The lots are unregistered lands belonging to and stage of the proceeding
possessed by him, by virutre of a donation form Luis 2.
Mosquera  There is an element of willful intent to deny the
 1958 = The Bureau of public schools initiated a forcible Republic of it’s JUST RIGHTS, which constitutes the
entry case against Ocampo essential characteristics of ACTUAL fraud which
 1960 = Ocampo filed for registration of the land. distinguishes it from LEGAL fraud.
Republic filed opposition in due time  If the appeal is dismissed, the appealed decision will
 CFI = awarded lots to Ocampo become final and executory
 Trial court ruled for Republic  IF THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT OF LAND
 CA dismissed REGISTRATION IS CALLED TO THE FACT THAT THE
ISSUES: 1. W/N a land jurisdiction court is without jurisdiction SAME LAND HAS BEENREGISTERED IN THE NAME OF
to decree again the registration of the land already registered TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, IT IS THE DUTY OF SAID
in a land registration case COURT TO ORDER AN INVESTIGATION.
2. W/N Ocampo used fraudulent misrepresentations and  WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN
machinations REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF TWO DIFFERENT
HELD: 1. It is without jurisdiction PERSONS THE TITLE SHOULD REMAIN IN THE NAME OF
 AUTHORITIES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT A LAND HE PERSON SECURING THE FIRST REGISTRATION.
REGISTRATION COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO Note: This case merely set aside the Court of Appeals dismissal
DECREE AGAIN THE REGISTRATION OF LAND ALREADY of respondent’s appeal
REGISTERED IN AN EARLIER REGISTRATION CASE AND 11 Tongson v Director of Forestry (1977) (Fernando)
THAT THE SECOD DECREE ENTERED TO THE SAME FACTS:
LAND IS NULL AND VOID  As early as 1905, the parcel of land of the cadastral
 If there is no valid and final judgement by the land survey of Pilar was under the EXCLUSIVE possession of
registration court to speak of, then the filing of an Borja who cut trees for firewood
admittedly late appeal from the decision denying th  After his death, his son continued to cut trees for
Amended Petition would be immaterial and of no firewood (lol why would anyone need firewood in the

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
 8

Philippines)
 Borja sold the land to Gayaco.
 Gayaco sold five parcels of land to Bermejo
 During the cadastral survey of the land, Bermejo
claimed ownership of lot 855
 Bermejo wanted to construct fishpond (really? How
random) but due to lack of funds, fishpond was never
completed (poor fishies)
 Bermejo leased land to Somes, who at present is in
actual possession of the land
ISSUE: W/N a land which was originally a mangrove but then
was converted into a fishpond may still be considered part of
the timbre domain which is not disposable
HELD: It depends on how it actually appears
 After the admin code of 1917, Mangrove swamps are
part of the public forest
 Forest lands are not registerable in character
 Agricultural lands: those lands acquired from Spain
which are not timber or mineral lands
12 Ampoloquio v Court of Appeals (1994) (Vitug)
FACTS
 Respondent Salvador Zartiga claimed ownership over 9
lots
 He averred that he was the absolute owner of said
parcels of land
 Petitioners deny his contention, stating that the land is
public land
 The Director of Lands intervened, asserting the
property to be “public agricultural lands” owned by gov
of the Phil.

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A