Land Titles: Case Doctrines
SECTIONS 1 TO 13
Moscoso v CA
National Grains Authority vs IAC
 "The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and
to stop forever any question as to its legality. "Once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of
waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting avoid the possibility of
losing his land." "An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title
is not allowed. The only exception to this rule is where a person
obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he
has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner.

Solid State Multi-Products v CA
 registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence of such title over a
particulate property
 registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership
Traders Royal Bank v CA
 The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts
of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by
giving the public the right to rely on the face of a Torrens certificate of
title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further
 Exception: banks and real estate companies can’t rely on the title itself


Aznar Brothers v Aying
In constructive implied trusts, prescription may supervene even if the
trustee does not repudiate the relationship. Necessarily, repudiation of
said trust is not a condition precedent to the running of the prescriptive
period
10-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of registatrion
of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, but if
the person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession, the right to
seek reconveayance which if effect seeks to quiet title, does not
prescribe – since the 3 heirs all testified that they had never occupied it,
it’s 10 years.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012

The rigid rule that the jurisdiction of the Land Registration Court being special and limited in character and proceedings, does not extend
to cases involving issues properly litigable in other independent suits,
has time and again been relaxed in special and exceptional
circumstances
The proceeding is an action in rem – no personal notice to all clamaints
of the res is necessary
Arceo v CA
PD1529 has eliminated the distinction between the general
jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction
conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a
cadastral court
RTC now has an authority to act not only on applications for
original registration but also over all petitions filed after original
registration of title
Personal notice to claimant of the land is not necessary because it
is a proceeding in rem
Evangelista vs Santiago
PD892 divests the Spanish title of any legal force and effect in
establishing ownership over real property – in the absence of an
allegation in petitioner’s complaint that petitioner’s predecessor in
interest complied with PD892, then in could be assumed that they
failed to do so
Deadline of the use of Spanish Title: August 16, 1976 (6months)
Intestate Estate vs. CA
Under PD 892, the system of registration under Spanish Mortgage
Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish Titles should cause their
lands to be registered under Land Registration Act within 6 months from
date of effectivity or until August 16, 1976.
Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, under PD 892, is inadmissible and
ineffective as evidence of private ownership in special proceedings case.
Since the Titulo was not registered under Land Registration Act, said Titulo
is inferior to the registered title of defendants Ocampo, Buhain and dela
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Cruz. Torrens title of the latter enjoys the conclusive presumption of
validity.
Noblejas vs. Teehankee
Any Bureau Director’s ruling is likewise appealable to the corresponding
department head.
And even if the resolution of the Commissioner is deemed judicial (quasijudicial is the proper term since it is an admin agency), the same provision
will show that these are merely incidental to the nature of his
administrative functions.
LABURADA vs. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
Balbin v Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur
1. Instances when the RD may refuse to register Title:
2. When you fail to show all the copies of the title
3. Invalid on its face
4. When there is a pending case in the court where the validity of
conveyance and character of the land is in question
5. Document presented is merely a private instrument, not notarized
Toledo-Banaga v CA

As part of the execution process, it is a ministerial function of the
Register of Deeds to comply with the decision of the court to issue a
title and register a property in the name of a certain person, especially
when the decision had attained finality
Issuance of a Decree Is Not a Ministerial Act
Chvez vs PEA
The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of
courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be compelled through
mandamus. The issuance of the final decree can hardly be considered a
ministerial act for the reason that said Chief of the General Land
Registration Office acts not as an administrative officer but as an officer of
the court and so the issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not
an administrative one.
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is
rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands
and waters of the public domain.
Registration does not vest a better right to the possession you
already have
The fact that you registered a property of public domain, it is not
converted to private lands
Indeed, it is well-settled that the issuance of such decree is not compellable
by mandamus because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of
discretion.
Republic v CA
OCT in Register of Deeds supports the authenticity of title on
ownership in property
Baranda v Gustilo
 The function of Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of
deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature
SECTIONS 14 TO 34
Ong vs Republic
Sec. 14 provides that applicants for registration of title must prove:
1. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable
lands under the public domain
2. That they have been in OCEN possession and occupation of the
same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or
earlier
Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of public
domain because the law requires possession and occupation.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Cureg vs IAC
a decree of registration cars all claims and rights which arose or
may have existed prior to the decree of registration. By the
issuance of the decree, the land is bound and title thereto quited
De Buyser vs Director of Lands
alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain
and, therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse possession by
private persons. It is outside the commerce of men, unless
otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of
the government.
Republic vs Naguit
Section 14 merely requires the property sought to be registered as
already alienable and disposable at the time the application for
registration of title is filed
Need not be alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier
International Hardwood and Veneer Co., of the Philippines vs UP
when RA No. 3990 was enacted, it ceded and transferred full
ownership to UP. Hence, it removed such lands from public
domain, and divested, relinquished and conveyed its rights and title
to UP. It made UP the absolute owner, subject only to the existing
concession.
Lopez vs De Castro
Where a party files an application for registration of a parcel of
land which is already the subject of registration proceedings, the
second court could no longer entertain the same
Director of Lands vs Reyes
Was the execution pending appeal applicable in a land registration
proceeding?
No. The execution had dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may
be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment
which may be reversed on appeal. A Torrens title issued on the basis of a
judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit
provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and
executory. The lower court acted without jurisdiction in ordering the
issuance of a decree of registration despite the timely appeal.
Republic vs Munoz
Best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the
original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands but blueprint
copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification.
*the blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the lot’s technical
description duly certified as to their correctness by the Bureau of Lands are
adequate to identify the land applied for registration. Also, if the survey
plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been
overcome by clear, strong, convincing evidence, the presentation of the
tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with.
Benin vs Tuason
Amendment to Application Need Not Be Published if it Excludes
Portions of Lands
A publication of a new amendment to an application for registration is to
give notice to all persons about the said amendment. If the amendment
INCLUDES an area of land not previously included in the original
application, as published, a new publication of the amended application
must be made. Without new publication, the CLR cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the parcel of land added to the original application. But if
the amendment EXCLUDES an area of land, a new publication is not
necessary, and non-publication will not affect the jurisdiction of the
Court.
Since the amendment in Parcel No. 2 did not include new portions of land,
but in fact excluded 292,791 sqm from the original application, then no new
publication is necessary. And even if the amendment in Parcel No. 1
increased the portion of land (by 27.10 sqm), the added area is too
minimal to be of the decisive factor in the validity of OCT 735.
[EXCEPTION]
Mendoza vs CA
Under Section 29 of the Land Registration Act, the law does not require that
the application for registration be amended by substituting the "buyer" or
the person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the applicant.
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property
has been conveyed" be a party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to
the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1)
that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together
with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application;
and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar
facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements
have been complied with.
How to Prove if the land is alienable or disposable?
1. Presidential proclamation
2. Executive order
3. Law or statute
Lopez vs Enriquez
Motion to lift order of general default prior to the entry of a final judgment
becoming final and executor; after that, you can’t lift order of general
default (Sec. 26 of PD 1529)
A movant, unlike an oppositor, don’t need to file to life the order of general
default
Republic vs CA
The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land
and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain. By
such act, the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even
the government, without need of any further act such as the purchase of the
land or the obtention of a patent over it. As the land had become the private
property of the locators, they had the right to transfer the same, as they did,
to Benguet and Atok.
the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half
agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the
land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the
instant case, as already observed, the land which was originally classified as
forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and completely mineral
— once the mining claims were perfected. As long as mining operations
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
were being undertaken thereon, or underneath, it did not cease to be so and
become agricultural, even if only partly so, because it was enclosed with a
fence and was cultivated by those who were unlawfully occupying the
surface.
CA 137 - once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever the use to
which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be discontinued by the
State to enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of its
sovereign prerogative. The land is thus converted to mineral land and may
not be used by any private party, including the registered owner thereof, for
any other purpose that will impede the mining operations to be undertaken
therein, For the loss sustained by such owner, he is of course entitled to just
compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation
proceedings.
Director vs CA
The law used the term “shall” in prescribing the work to be done by the
Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latter’s receipt of the court
order setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an
imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute.
It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation
should be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by
publication in the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of
which have already been complied with in the case at hand. The reason is
due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read
and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation,
such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested parties
on time, if at all.
Republic vs Marasigan
OG is sufficient in complying with the publication requirements, but it is
still mandatory to comply with mailing and posting
De Castro vs Marcos
Only the Solicitor General can file an opposition, not a private person
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Fernandez vs Abrotique
Registered land under the Torrens System cannot be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. Under the Land Registration Act, “no
title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.”
A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title. Furthermore, the claim here is
only noted on the survey plan, and such annotation cannot prevail over the
actual decree of registration as reproduced in the certificate. All claims of
third persons to the property must be asserted in the registration
proceedings.
Director vs CA
Notwithstanding absence of opposition from the government, the petitioner
in land registration cases is not relieved of the burden of proving the
imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed
6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to
have interests in the property by the sheriff;
7. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the
notice or not;
8. Hearing of the case by the Court;
9. Promulgation of judgment by the Court;
10. Issuance of the decree by the Court declaring the decision final and
instructing the Land Registration Commission to issue a decree of
confirmation and registration;
11. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Commission;
12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding
Register of Deeds, and
Republic vs Abrille
For an applicant to have his imperfect or incomplete title or claim to a land
to be originally registered under Act 496, the following requisites should all
be satisfied:
13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and
the issuance of the owner's duplicate original certificate of title to the
applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed fees.
Gomez vs CA
1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private
surveyor;
2. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;
3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the Court;
4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with
all the documents or other evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court
to the Land Registration Commission;
5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application and date and place
of the hearing in the Official Gazette;
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does
not become final after the expiration of 1 year after the entry of the final
decree of registration. As long as a final decree has not been entered by the
Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1)
year has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally
adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be
under the control and sound discretion of the court.
a homestead patent, once registered, becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible as a Torrens title, and may no longer be the subject of an
investigation for determination or judgment in cadastral proceeding
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Boromeo vs Descallar
alienable and disposable. This is subject to the December 31, 2020 deadline
imposed by the Public Land Act, as amended by RA 9176
Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership
Because respondent is not a holder in good faith whose ownership is not
vested by the Torrens title, Borromeo is entitled to the absolute ownership.
This is an exception to the rule on the indefeasibility of a Torrens Title. The
property was acquired by an alien who could not legally own it, who
subsequently sold the same to Borromeo, a Filipino. Since the property is in
the hands of a Filipino, the defect is cured and public policy prevails.
Forest lands has to be classified by the government as alienable and
disposable
Requirements for prescription:
1. Classification as alienable and disposable
2. Express declaration that the property is no longer intended for
public service or for the development of national wealth =
patrimonial (NCC 420 par 2)
Evengelista vs Santiago
Action to declare the nullity of the Land Title is filed by a private individual
Action for reversion can only be filed by the State through the solicitor
general
In an action for reversion, if it is a part of public domain, then the reversion
is approved, it is reverted back to the state
Public domain lands become patrimonial property or private property of the
government only upon a declaration that these are alienable or disposable
lands, together with an express government manifestation that the property
is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the
development of national wealth.
Spanish title can still prove possession but not ownership exception for the
ground of prescription.
Only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period
for the acquisition of property of the public domain begin to run.
Patrimonial property may be acquired through ordinary acquisitive
prescription (possession for at least 10 years in good faith and with just
title) or extraordinary acquisitive prescription (uninterrupted, adverse
possession for at least 30 years regardless of good faith or just title). Under
the NCC, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership over
patrimonial property.
Republic vs Jacob
Vencilano vs Vano
Possession must not be a mere fiction
In order that there may be res judicata, the following requisites must be
present: (a) The former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the
parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be,
between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, of subject
matter, and of cause of action. (applies to all cases, including land and
cadastral proceedings)
In a quieting of title, petitioner should have equitable or legal title over the
land. A Spanish title was not accepted to remove or quiet title.
OCEN plus OCCUPATION
Malabanan vs Republic
The Public Land Act merely requires possession since June 12, 1945 and
does not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable
during the entire period of possession. The possessor is entitled to secure
judicial confirmation of title as soon as the land it covers is declared
2 Principles:
1.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
Can’t re-litigate by final judgment = the court with jurisdiction
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Pending the resolution of a case, the petition was not a bar to the issuance
of the writ of demolition
Republic vs Bacus
Who has the power to re-classify the land?
-
Exclusive prerogative of the EXECUTIVE, sometimes by the
Judiciary
A property that has not been declassified as forest land is not susceptible of
private ownership

the title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon
the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision or
adjudication by the cadastral court, without such an appeal having
been perfected. The certificate of title would then be necessary for
purposes of effecting registration of subsequent disposition of the
land where court proceedings would no longer be necessary.
Expiration of the appeal: 15 days from the decision of the RTC. After that
period, can no longer apply because barred by prescription.
Duran vs Olivia
a homestead patent once registered under the Land Registration Act can not
be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and that any title issued
thereon is null and void.
Republic vs CA
Boundaries prevail
SECTIONS 35 TO 38
Municipality of Santiago, Isabela vs CA
Rule: a cadastral proceeding is one IN REM and any decision rendered
therein by the cadastral court is binding against the whole world. Under
this doctrine, parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues
already determined by final judgment
Director vs Benitez
it is necessary that notice thereof be given to those persons who claim an
adverse interest in the land sought to be registered, as well as the general
public, by publishing such notice in two successive issues of the Official
Gazette which shall likewise be posted in a conspicuous place on the new
land to be surveyed, as well as in the municipality building
Merced vs CA
A homestead patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act,
becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title, and cannot thereafter be the
subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in a cadastral
case. Any new title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is null
and void and should be cancelled. All that the cadastral court may do is to
make correction of technical errors in the description of the property
contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by
two or more co-owners.
Cadastral Proceeding (Constructive Notice)
Remedy:
1. motion to dismiss
2. land registration case
Director vs CA
The defense of res adjudicata when not set up either in a motion to dismiss
or in an answer, is deemed waived.
a Cadastral Court proceeding declaring a land to be public is not the final
decree contemplated in the law1 that would bar subsequent application. As
When title to the land in a cadastral proceeding is vested?
1
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
long as Applicant: (1) complies with Section 48 of CA 141; and (2) as
long as public land is alienable and disposable, one can still apply.
-
RD to issue the certificate of title
SECTIONS 39 TO 50
Manotok Realty vs CLT Realty
MWSS vs CA, Heirs of Gonzaga vs CA, the 3 Manotok Cases
If the property is covered by 2 titles, the earlier title prevails
a.
it is only after the transcription of the decree by the register of deeds that the
certificate of title is to take effect.
Once a property is already registered, it cannot be the subject of a cadastral
proceedings
Limitation of Cadastral Court Jurisdiction:
1. necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the
lands, provided such corrections do not impair the substantial
rights of the registered owner, and that such jurisdiction cannot
operate to deprive a registered owner of his title
2. determination of “which one of the several conflicting registered
titles shall prevail”
3. What is prohibited in a cadastral proceeding is the registration of
land, already issued in the name of a person, in the name of
another, divesting the registered owner of the title already issued in
his favor, or the making of such changes in the title as to impair his
substantial rights. (unless it is upon the request of the owner)
b.
c.
Cadastral court can no longer acquire jurisdiction on property with
Torrens Title
Exceptions:
i.
Errors
ii.
One title is preferred over the other
iii.
Owner’s request
2 OCT – earlier title prevails
Burden of proof on plaintiff – incontrovertible evidence
IN Rem proceedings – cleanses the defect of the title from the very
beginning
Pasino vs Monterroyo
A Counterclaim is Not a Collateral Attack on the Title
- A counterclaim is considered an original complaint and the attack
on the title in a case originally for recovery of possession cannot be
considered as a collateral attack on the title
Sarmiento vs CA
Heirs of Luzuriaga vs Republic
Here the identity and area of the claimed property are not the subjects of
amendment but other collateral matters, a new publication is not needed.
The amendment in this case was not an amendment of the identity and area
of the disputed lot.
Veranga vs Republic
After trial, what are the additional steps:
Decision
Court to declare the final judgment (order LRA to issue
registration)
LRA to issue decree of registration and title
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
A third party complaint is in the nature of an original complaint because it
is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff’s
complaint.
The third party complaint for cancellation of TCT being in the nature of an
original complaint for cancellation of TCT, it constitutes a direct attack of
such TCT
Erasusta vs CA
Attack on a certificate of title is prohibited
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Gregorio Araneta vs RTC
Degollacion vs Register of Deeds of Cavite
An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the object of
the action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to
which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the
action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On
the other hand, it is indirect or collateral when, in an action or proceeding to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as
an incident thereof.
Where two certificates of title purport to include the same land, whether
wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from
which the certificates of title were derived.
Manotok vs Barque
The LRA is powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its
legal effect. Even assuming that the previously issued title is
obviously fraudulent or attended by flaws and as such cannot be
countenanced by the legal system, the corrective recourse lies with
the courts, and not with the LRA. If a petition for administrative
reconstitution is filed with the LRA, and it appears from the official
records that the subject property is already covered by an existing
Torrens title in the name of another person, there is nothing further
the LRA can do but to dismiss the petition.
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot
be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law
Cabrera vs CA
the title can be attacked directly, but NOT the certificate of title
Exceptions to indefeasibility of title:
1. Titled
2. Fraud or misrepresentation
3. Not capable of registration
4. Action for cancellation of TCT
Register vs PNB
The indefeasibility of titles under the Torrens System could be claimed only
if a previous valid title to the same parcel of land does not exist. Where
issuance of the title was attended by fraud, the same cannot vest in the titled
owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it; and the person in whose
name the title was issued cannot transmit the same, for he has no true title
thereto. This is a mere affirmation of the recognized principle that a
certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same
land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the same land
is in existence.
Republic vs CA
one of the exceptions of indefeasibility of title:
-
laches can apply
one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner
thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked
before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that
his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a
court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of
a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only
by one who is in possession.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012
If the land is incapable of registration even if it is in the hands of
an innocent purchaser in value
Bornales vs IAC
If title was obtained through fraud – indefeasibility cannot be invoked
Land Titles: Case Doctrines
Arguelles vs Timbancaya
The action to annul the title or the action for reconveyance has its basis in
Section 55 of Act 496, as amended which provides that "in all cases of
registration procured by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and
equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud, without prejudice,
however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of
title." This is a remedy which is available as long as the property has not
passed to an innocent third person for value. It is independent and distinct
from that authorized by Section .38 thereof, which has for its purpose the
reopening of the decree of title, on the ground of fraud, within one (1) year
from its issuance.
Kim Raisa O. Uy
Ateneo Law School 2012