7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 6

1/7

s , gA Forest land is a non-regi3trable land. Only thcoxecutive branch ofthe govrnment cen declassify a forest land into alienableagricultunl lrndr. Mrrc paymGnt of land taxaa la not sufficiont, itmust br couplad wlth po$e$lon ln th concapt of an ownsr.,PRocEsygnF"EHgnEFIlo,s-oJ1. Survay i:- results in suryey. phn to be slgned by a geodetic6ngln$r and.approved by th6 dirctor of Lands.2. flr appllqstlod fbr registration udth RTC where land isactually situated:

a. idontify basis of ownershipb. ldntry hndc. identifiadJacent.ownersd. tdentfy oaaxlpants/tenantr.e. ldanu,y sncumbrFnces .3. ..Seung of initlal hearlng,

otheMise

5.6.

Opposltor fileserqdfied opposition on ol.hahre hearingibtrerwtbc, oourt lsSuea Adar b, daoral dcfauJi OR if theoppositor atends the hearing but he doos not lile opposition,the court may grant .odensioni{but lf at that time, Etill nooppositlon, th6 court wil[ order a spacFldffault,gcuhr inspection - improvements, loB ownBrs, adjacent6wners. Then the ciiurt will prepara a repod.Hcarlng/Trtgl - the applicant must prove thrc. things:'., proof o, $Dlh.!on (JurEdlctlonrl mrtt 0b. proof olryFrrf;hlpc. proof of ld.ntity of land

Oppositors can introduce evidence to support opposition -rebuttal vidnce.9. Doclsion -ftnc cltuations:

a. court dccldes in favor of applicantb. coutt decides in favor of oppositor/s' c. court dlmisses ca$e because nobody provesowncahlE. 10. Court issue3 ordcr for a Decre.

11. lssuanc of a Decree.12. R6gistsr of OeBds issues Original Certificate of Titte.

EEITEOIE81. From an Ord6r of Oefault

tchion - file a @tion to lifl order of defaultground of ftau4, accident, rnbbke andf ftauq, accident, rnbbke and.llotl.tureqgliqqpceilt r dladofr'--pet tu for reliof on the grounds offraud, accident, mistake and negligence2. From a Deoillon

a. The losing party may ,ile a moton fq.f,I*lml8n''pn the ground that lhe decision isinrbil'i; tiw/eridence. lt must'b fihd wlhin 15dayg from receipt, olherwise, the decision becomesfinal.

b. Thc loting party may file a motion for, new trial ontha grounds of fraud, accidont, mistake atrducu..blo ncgligonoo or . ncwly dlacover.daviCCnoc. lt must be flled wlthin 15 day3,

7.

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 6

2/7

-. -s=s H U - r =c. The losing party'may qppqf$n th6 ground that thedecision ls contrary to lawcvldrnco. lt may be filedwlthin '15 days.

As a gBnaral rule, the party mult fllc clther a motion for.con3id.rafon or a ,notion for naw td8l (Omnibus motionrulc, put all grounds). lt-ihare ir nayly dircovered evidenceaficr ftling a rnotiori for reconsldsratlon and the party is notawara ot lt .at ths tlm6 of hdadne, .nd lf lt was doniod, theparty can lils a motlon for a new tlal. lf thc motion for a newtrial is Ceni.d, the party may still appcal.3. From a Flnal Judgment - declllon becomes final afrer the6pse of 15 days.

Whera s-d6crao0G not yet b6en issued, thc lo3lng party may fil6 a.faffgo{.r,ror rdLf under rule 38 of the Rula! of Court on the groundsof fraud, accidont, mbtaka and excusabL nogllganaE. lt must beverified and filodq'daW.from nouco but'no mol. than 6 monthsfrom enw of d6cEloft.

- Failure to intentional omission of applioant to disclose theactual physical pos3sssion of propcrty ln sppllcation for landreglstration, e3 a rBult of which such porson ls not givn notic ofproceedings, .mount! to actual fraud. {Exttlnslc fraud where itprevenE a party from having a trial.) (Roxag v, CA, 270 SCRA 209).Where a Decree has already been issued, he loslng parly may file apetition for r.gsw junder;S6c. 32, PD 4!!tr1 on tho ground ofdeprivagon of dominical .rights"orer the lead hrf aCud .nd sxtrinsicfraud" lt must b6 fil6d within 'l year from,lssuangs of th dEcreeprovidd there is no lnnocent purchaser for valuc (lPV). An IPV isone who buys the properly without knowlsdge of 8ny defect in thetitle AND pays Just price for the land.Howcvcr, lt*0ntht${nB,!P4lhe3 C.Drad, th. lorlng parly mavfile an llgoti- lor rloonvcyancq-bn th. ground thrt th prsoo lostdomhlcdl rlght! ov.r thc proplrty b.cau$ of .xtrlnslc fraud orbnach of trutt, provld.d thore 13 no lPV.

sogflffigg$:- whcrc a person is deprived of land because ofaclllal fraud or breach of trust, he may recover thetand: i. within 4 years from.discov6ry of fraud where. thre ls need to annul a fraudulent d6ed (i.e.lraud is thru document or contraot)ll. wlthin 't0 yearc from breadt ot an lmpliadlrust if aggrived party b not ln posssdon.of land (because if aggrivad pa.ty. in. poasession of laod, action ls to quiet titlewhich is imprescriptiblc, Cabrsra v. CA, 267scRA 339)lli. at any time if there is breach of an expresstrustb not trans$effed to an innocsnt pwchasir,for valus.

But if already sold to lPV, the only remedy for the losing Party is to,ile an acuon for daruaerfiegainst the perPtrator of fraud within 4ysa$. He will not grt tho land back, only the value of the land plusdamagos...Sdl[lh[E{re awlrded when tnere i9rnn*ut dePrivation of ldd,(!tro negligence ot tAc party deprived, @conveyance is not posslble,anSlon is lild wl$rin four years.

lf the prpo*sbr at rilrd'.ls .insolvsnt the losing party may file anacuon ,or damagaa agalnst the Aasuranc Fund withln O..).ears.,provided there is n*ncgllgence and breach ol trustNOTE:Iraooant purchcr.l lor wluc

no notlc! of flaw or claim of other pe6onpayt a full and fair pdce

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 6

3/7

r- - n r-- r r. must examine the selle/s dupllcato certificate df title(lslamlc Oirectorate v. CA, 272 SCRA 254)

As a gen.r.l rul., c llnaldcislon wlh.publlcellon blnd6 all parties inrem, thlrctora, blnda th. wholo world, hrDi. (oppo8ibrs andsquatter3) .ca0 ba cvlcted/ousted by a mrr(trilot port$tbn fromcourt lf a peBon cnteB befor the lgsu.nor of thg decree, theowner can eriict the person .thru a rfi:6fFiEidiliiir,l.Eut if a personenters atar"h l$uance of the decree, the owner must file anejoctIlent ruit.

. C.rtlllcrt of TlU. tiAn Orlginal Ccrdflcate of TiUa l$ 6videnco of Utlc, lhat lho land isregisterd undor the Torens System,i lt E bsuod ln two copies; oneorBinal uAich ls with the Register of DeoCs rnd onc duplicate for theregisteredormer.Conflitctlng cer ficatGs - prior UUe prBvails unlo!! def.ctive.1.Arffi&IittiAmendmenb can be donesummarity und+Ecc. 108 of P0 1529 if:- rcglrtered intorest termlnab! or there is 6rrorinc8rtiflcats- no serious dispute as to enpr or chang of status- doo3 not amount to reoPnlog. doer not lmpah, rights of innoor{ purchaserBut if there B a ,substantial. change in the OCL or the change isdisputed, the parly must go thru th6or'dn8ry*lsglsttalion proceding,E.g.L changa from 16 degrees to 'lE degrsca - cannot bechanged aummarily under Seo. t08 because tl.tis is aiuuJ&nuarCnanse.'Fiteanordinsryproc.oding.\,2. Upocnphlcal oror - chan96 from 'Jotquln B.arrnas' to"Joaquln Bam!..'

ohange from lSod Cande, married to Ana Santos' to'SedCande.' lf wlfia objects, sec. 108 is not spplicable. lt mustgo thru a full-blown hearing.

lf a dupllcatg OGT l3 lott, one may ,ile an action for rplacomEnt lfthe origlnal OCT l! lofl'.tone may file for an ection for tcaomtitufion.lf a titla has b6cn rcconstituted, anyone dealing with the title mustexercis extraordinery diligence to be deemed an lPV.Petiuon must nolify occupants, adjacent owners and adveEe

. clafnants by publhtthn, posting and Personal notic3. Otherwise,rconstituted titlc la vold.\Alhere brother.blrs( grgtends to be the rogistered owner of land,fibs for recondlttllon, obtains reconstitutd cortllicat andnrortgags to anEthat, mortgagee has no bettor right th8n mortgagorespechuy whera Eu. registered owner still has copy of his TCT(Torres v. Ca, 186 SCRA 167)3.Dat&h${lo irq|lAsale affect! thld pcGons only from date of registration. Under Art1544 of the Clvil Codr, ownership passes to buyer in good faith who.first records the Eala ln rogistry of proPerty.,t,Notica of advan. chlrtl is a measure designd to Prot6ct he interstof a peocon ovcr a place of land ald serues as a warning to thirdpersorl3 dsating wih ssid property, that someons b daiming atlinterest thsreon, (SeJonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79)' But notlco must,6tate how and undaf:rrhom the alleged right of clahant acguird.(Lozano v. Balle3t ro3, 195 SCRA 681): Adverse claim efiecti+e'qnp6 ntgred in dqy book even if ow,neds duplicat not 8urndered.'(Garcia v. CA, 95 SCRA 380).l*lnf,E[lBlT'E,ltTRATIOM (16., the land is already titled .ndyou deal with lt)

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 6

4/7

-- trtrrrnr r nrNotB: Thsrc lr rogiltratlon of voluntary tranracuonr (rale, mortgagE,etc.) oncr dcad antcrod ln day book AND raglrtrant surrendergownedr duplicrb ccrtificate and pays facr,

1. Mortg.g.A mortgago ls de6md registered ll th. mortgage is entered inthe day book 6ven if it b not annotstgd at tho ack of th titls.ThErfor, a buyer is bound by th6 mortgage. Latest SCdecision:6ntry of mortgage in day book r rcgistration

2, AdvEe Cl.lmr or Lls PondontAn'advers claim has a life of 30 dayr, o0iorwlg, it.lapses. An- affldavit ol adveire clalm must be entcrud !t gnca into the daybook so lhat tho subsequent buyer Ir con{rucuvely bound. lncase of doubl! rgle, th6 person c:nnot lnvoke rogistration ingood faith B monuoned ln Art 15i4 qf iho Civil Code of thePhllippirrei whcn there b a lb pendona'tnnoEtcd at th6 back ofth. tiuc. Filing of an actbn may Eke 0mcr'

CHAIN OF TITLEThis is an exceptlon to th6 civil law doctrlna lhat h6 stream cannotbe higtier than the source, i.e., even I thc tdler has no titlo, thebuyer can have tiue. So forged documnt can bo ths root of a validtitlE.The parties who forgad the deed and slmulatad the signaturBs ofother parties are in bad faith and the lorged dood is a nullity andcannot serve as a just title (Reyes v. CA, 258 SCRA 651).Exampl. # ITITLE

X - regirta,d owner ot TCT 12345VALID goer lo US, so gives title tofriend YY- onfurtod byXVOID torgGs X'r signature in deed of saleof Lnd ln Y's favor. Y gets TCT 12346from Rggister of Oeeds(Y ir r forger, therefore, Y has avoid tiue)IZ - Y ralb land to Z as IPVVALIO Z reghters land and gets TCT 12347Z ha! a vElid title

X returns and arkg Y for title and learns the sale of land to z. Xcannot recovr from Z because as bgtween two pe6ons, the onewho caused tha lo$ and who is deemed negligent must sufier.Remedy o, X Ir to lib an action against Y for damages. But if Zhas not yet obtained title, X can recover from Z.Example # 2

X - own! TCT 12345Y - mlsrspresents to Z that he is X and sells the land tozIIIZ- lf Z gets title, TCT 12347 ) title is VOID; Z isnegligent becausc hc has the duty to find out that the seller is thregistord owner, hcrcfora, X can recover the proporty from Z. Aboif th pric of th6 proporty is suspiciously low. Therd is no chain oftitle sincs Y did not gatiany title in his name, therefor, Z has no tiueslso.

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 6

5/7

ftllIffit--E---I--II-lrEE ;r*E-aExamplo # 3

Y forgca th. ded of sale but doa! not rgister it to get anew title. Y shows to Z. Z buys. Y makas dcad of title in favor of Z.X can recovr th property from Z becausa $crc ia no chain of titl.As betwren 2 pccons, the on6 who should rhouldor the loss is theone who ls nogllgrnt. ln thls oxample, Z l! nrgligont. Note that Xmust have a valld ljtle in the tirst placo, oha,r,vlso, thr6 can be NOchain of title. Nota further that lf there ls no chain of Utle but land ismortgaged, X can recovbr ftom Z but mu3t rospect tho mortgage.Grffion

.!,:1 Duran v. IAC '138 SCRA 489

Circa ow)ed two lots. ShE left for the U.S. Lator, a deed of sale wasmade in faVor of Circe's mother, which dsod wa! rcgistered. Circe'smother then mortgaged the lots. when Circo lcamed about this, shewrote th6 rglstar of deeds that she nsvcr rxacutad tho doed of saleto her mothr. ln the meantime, th mortgagge has foreclosed.When Circ!'s mother failed to redeem, fta riortgagee obtained titleln its nam.. Clrce clalmed her signature ln thc dced was a forgery.HELD: Whlb Aticlr'2oEs of th8 Civll Codo rlqulne own$ship bytba mortgagor of thg hod to make thr".fnotttga valid, lneofar as

an!ffifnailo rucA 4gototrnA,@,It h.t b..n con.lrt ntly h.ld thrt a forgrd docd orn lcaally bc the,oot of a vrlld Utla whcn !n lnnocont purchatar for valuc lntrrvrns.

tldd.padice ara conoorn4 .Orcal8,q)ensr. . lt b a gancral rule that here ls no dgly to look beyond thacrlificate of title. The mortgagee is ln good failh. lt aoquk6d titlc.ffi#r$,trY-,.i'tfrTfiliffi;; urrria pa'ty's bare allesation towhich on its faca onJoys the legal presumptionissuanc. (Alvarlco v. Sola, 383 SCRA 232).iree did not Ev6n lntervene ln the foroclGura rsle. She wasr!6Slrg.nt

A deed of salo 6xGcut6d by an impostor without the authority of theowner of the land told is a nullity, and registration will not validatewhat otheMiso b an invalid doqrment. However, where thecartiflcate of tltlc wtt alroady transfered from the nrmo of the trugownr to thc to8ar and, while it remained that way, the land wassubsequently sold to an innocent purchaser, ths vondee had theright lo rely upon u/hat eppeered in the certificate and in he absenceof anything to cxclto suspicion, was under no obligation to lookbeyond the cerllllcatc.

. lrl "suwivy of'Rrccnt:Gitoc on Land titlo and DredsNouce3 to owneo of adjoining lots and actual occupants of thesubject proprty erc not mandatory and jurisdictional ln petition forjudicial reconstitutlon of destroyed OCT when the source of suchreconstitution lr hc owne/s duplicate copy therBof (Republic v.Planes, 38'l SCRA 216).Registration is not equivalent of title. Under the Tonens System,rBgistrauon only elvct validity to the transfer or creat8 a lien uponthe land. A holder in bad faith of a certiflcate of title is not entiued totho protection of hw, for the law cannot be used as a shleld for fraucl.(Lee v. Manlpon, 30J SCRA 788).Any lin annohtcd on previous certificates of tiue should beincorporatod ln or oanicd over to the new certjficatg of Utl. SuchliBn ls inssparabla trcm the properly as it ls a right ln rm. (PadconCondo Corp. v, Or{grt Center, 382 SCRA 222).

defeat the OCTof regularity ofA private individual may not bring an action for reversion (ld.)Historlcally, landt racLimed by governmsnt are not Jvailable for saleto prlvatc partha unllka other alinable public land! - reclalm.dland3 rataln thclr lnharut potential as areas for public use or publicse,.lcs (Ch8vrr v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152).

6

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 6

6/7

ffifi t} n r - -- - - - -q- -- rJurisprudence holding that the grant of Patcnt ot issuance ofcertjficate of Utle the alienable land of hc public domainautomatlcslly bocomor private land csnnot apply to govsmmentunlts and cnttl.! llk. PEA. (ld.)Such lands must bs transfened to qualified prlvate parties orgovernment utilitios not tasked to dispose of Public lands beforethese lands can bcome private or pattimonlal lands' (ld.)A building in good faith i9 one who builds wlth the beliefs that theland h is building on is his. (Orquiola v. CA, 380 SCRA 301).An action to quit tiue may be brought whon thQre rxists a cloud onthe title to ral property or any interest thereon, (Gapacan v. Olnlpet,387SCM3E3)..

' Once a parcel of land ls included within a watershcd r$ervation dulyestablished by Executlve Proclamation, a Prerumpuon arisos that theland continues to be part of such reservatlon - rnd 13 inalienabls -until clear and convlncing evidence of sub3aqucnt declassification isshown. (Collado v. CA 390 SCRA 343)'The right of revorsion or reconveyanoo to ho State of publicproperties regbtered and which are not capable of privateappropriation doe8 not prescribe (ld,)PeBons dealing wlth proPerly covered by a Toncna certiflcate oftitle, as buyeB or mortgages, are not rqulrd to go beyond whatappears onthe face of the tiue. (De Leon v' Calalo, 391 SCRA 752).Mere adverso po$ession for a period provlded by law wouldautomatically eniitle thc possessor to the right to roglrter Public landin his nams- but h. has to esteblish tho disp6abb and alienablecharacter of he land by a positive aci of govomm3nt such 8s aoresidential groclamrtion, executivs order, !n admlnbtratvo sction,invcrtlgetlon rcPort ol th. Burcau of Land.-, laglslatlvc act orcerttficatlon of thc oENR (Rcpubllc v. cA, 392 SCRA 190).

The State prohibits th6 Bale or encumbrance of the homestead withinfive years after th6 grant of patent. (Republic v. Ale,aga, 393 SCRA361)Even after the lapla of one year, the Stat6 may bring action forreversion if public hnd has been fraudulently granted. (ld.)When a party has actuel knowledge of facts and circum3tances thatwould impel a reasonably cautious man to make inquiry, relying onthe face of the title b not enough. (Naawan Com. Rural Bank v. CA,395 SCRA43)Cancellation of titls case nnot be properly dismissed on theground of forum shopplng predicated on tiling and Pending of adamage case. (UP v, Su8i, 397 SCRA 365)A survy of land oubJcct of an apPlication for registration is anessential requisite. (Dolino v. CA, 401 SCRA 695)A certilication 'of titlc c.nnot be subject of collateral attack. (Anicetev. Balanon, 402 SCRA 5t4)Ownership is not tho sama as OCT. The latter is only the evidenceof ownership. (Erman v. Erman, 403 SCRA 193)An actlon i3 an rthck on a titl6 when the object of the action is tonulliff the titl6 .nd hul challenge the ,iudgment or proceedingpursuant to which tho tltlo was decreed. The attack 13 direct whenthe objsct of an ac{on is to annul of set aside such judgment orenjoin its enforcemcnt (ld.)A counter-claim can bo considered a direct attack on the title. (ld.)The one-year period does not apply when the pe6on seekingannulmeni of title or ne-conveyance is in possssion of the lot' (ld.)Absenca of opporltlon from government agencies i3 of no momentbecauso ths StatG clnnot be estopped by the omisslon' mistaks, orenor of lte officiala and agents. (Republic v. Lac,405 SCRA291)

7/28/2019 Civ - De Los Angeles - Ltd 6

7/7

lr rf tl t* rl-*-t* lt l[ ll ,u--{J---+ ll-& ta # TJDeclassification of forast land and conversion into alienable landrequires an expross gnd positive act from thc govommnt. 0d.)lf the own./t duplloatc crtlllcate of tltl. It not lort or destroyed,there is nothing to rcconsutute. Th rcondtuuon procEedings andsecond owne/g duplioato certificat3 of tlu. aro vold. (Pineda v' CA'409 SCRA 438)No valid TCT can issue from a void TQT unlcss an innocentpurchasor for valuc has intcNened. (ld.)But lhe nullity of thc cscond duplicate TCT dld not atfact tho validityof the sals bltween spouses Benitez and MoJlcE nor the validity of amortgag6 annotated thereon if th mottgago annotqted the mortgagein good faith. What la void b lhe reconstitut9d TCT' not tho title ofownership of MoJice or Gonzales. (ld.)The fact that the orlginal ovrner (Moiica) had knowledge of a firstunregistered mortgage did nbt constituh ac'tual notice to the scondmortiaoee (Gonzales), aBnt proof thct he lettor had actualxnorieige bf such 'unregistored mortgag., The subsequentannotation of lis P.ndcm do33 not dsfeat lhc rlghtt of the qrortgagee(Gonzal6) who' rrglltred hlS mortgagc whan the notlco of lisilendens vrras not yi snnotated or tho puftfi8lar et the auction salernho derives hig rlghB from the mortgag.o. Thc rule is that theauction sale retroaCts to the dat6 of the regiatrauon of the mortgage.(td.)Where clalm of po$ession of land startod ln 1962, such B not 'sufficient basis td apply for registratlon of sudl land whlch underPD1073 and 1529 gh6uld have started slnca Junc 12, 1945 otearlier. (Nadela v. City of Cebu, 411 SCRA 315)The orivato oartior are precluded from clalmlng ownership of theland 'ln dEDuta as the lssue of o,vnershlp by UP ha3 long beensettled in ;umerous decisions of lho Suprcm Court and havethereforc b.comc lnconto3table. (Pael v. CA, 416 SCRA 451)