Heirs of Labanon v.docx

7/25/2019 Heirs of Labanon v.docx

1/30

Heirs of Labanon v. Heirs of Labanon | GR 160711 | August14,2004 | J. Velaso, Jr.!A"#$

: Constancio Labanon settled upon a piece of alienable anddisposablepublic agricultural land situated in Kidapawan, Cotabato.Hecultivated the said lot and introduced permanent improvements.Constancio asked his brother, Maximo, who was better educated to filea public landapplication under the express agreement that the willdivide the said lot assoon as i t would be feasible for them to do so.!uring the time of theapplication it was Constancio who continued tocultivate the said lot. "heHomestead #pplication was approved and an$riginal Certificate of "itle over said lot was issued in favor ofMaximoLabanon. Maximo Labanon executed a document denominated as%#ssignmentof &ights and $wnership' to safeguard the ownership and interestof his brother Constancio Labanon. Later on, Maximo executed a swornstatement reiterating his desire that his elder brother Constancio, hisheirs andassigns shall own the eastern portion of the Lot.. #fter the death of Constancio, his heirsexecuted an (e)xtra*+udicial settlement of estate with simultaneous sale over theaforesaid easternportion of the lot in favor of #lberto Makilang, the husband ofisitacion Labanon, one of the children of Constancio. -ubseuentl, the parcelof land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of #lberto. "he defendantsheirs of Maximo caused to be cancelled from the recordsof the defendant /rov inc ia l #ssessor o f Cotabato th e a foresa i d taxdeclaration and the latter, without first verifing the legalit ofthebasis for said cancellation, cancelled the same. "he heirs of Constanciodemanded the owner0s cop of the certificate of title covering theaforesaid Lot to be surrendered to the &egister of !eeds.

%$$&'$:1. 234 the $C" issued the name of M#56M$ L#7#4$4 benow consideredindefeasible and conclusive8 and 9. 234 the "rust #greement allegedl madeb ConstancioLabanon and Maximo Labanon prescribed


2/30

H'L()1.4o. -ection 9 of /! 1;9< does not totall deprive a part of anremed to recover the propert fraudulentl registered in the name of another. 6tmerel precludes the reopening of the registration proceedings for titles coveredb the "orrens -stem, but does not foreclose other remedies for thereconveance of the propert to itsrightful owner. 2hile it is true that -ection 9of /! 1;9< provides that the decree of registra tionbecomes incontrover tible after a ear, it does not altogether deprive anaggrieved part of a remed in law. "he acceptabilit of the "orrens -stemwould be impaired, if it is utili=ed to perpetuate fraud against the real owners. "heactionfor &ecover of $wnership before the &"C is indeed the

appropriateremed.9.4o. Maximo Labanon maintained the tit le over thepropert >while acknowledging the true ownership of Constancio Labanon overthe eastern portion of the land. "he existence of an express trust cannotbe doubted nor disputed. 6n the case at bar, Maximo never repudiated the expresstrust instituted between him and Constancio .#nd after Maximo0s death, the trust couldno longer be renounced8 thus, respondents0 righ t to enforcethe trust agreement cannolonger be restricted nor pre+udiced b prescription. 6n addition,petitioners can no longer uest ion the va l id i t o f the pos i t ivedeclaration of Maximo Labanon in the

#ssignment of &ights and$ w n e r s h i p i n f a v o r o f t h e l a t e C o n s t

a n c i o L a b a n o n , a s t h e agreement was not impugned during the former0slifetime and there cognition of his brother0s rights over the eastern portion of thelotwas fur ther af f i rmed and conf i rmed in the subseuent -worn-tatement.


3/30


4/30

Javier v ConcepcionFacts:

Lim Chua, Tan Tian On and Tan Sick Tan filed for the reconveyance of a parcel of land(Lot 12) against r!ano "avier and Leonila #l!iela$ Lot 12 is allegedly a portion of a !ig

parcel of land (Lot %) located in &ue'on$ t as alleged that Lot 12 as ordered e*cludedfrom Lot % !y Chua et$ al$ They said that Lot 12 can never !e a part of Lot % !ecause the

+uhit iver serves as a natural !oundary !eteen the Lot 12 (hich as located in

-olores, &ue'on) and Lot % (located in Candelaria, &ue'on)$

#s a defense, "avier alleged that they ac.uired Lot 12 !y part/purchase and part/inheritance0 that they have a Spanish title to the lot0 that the lot as adudicated to their

predecessors/in/interest in Land egistration Cases, that they have declared the land for

ta* purposes0 that they planted the land ith numerous fruits o interference from Chuaet$ al0 and that Chua et$ al, ere never oners of Lot 12 as they have ac.uired their title

through fraud and deceit$


5/30

The court a .uo rendered udgment in favor of Chua et$ al$ t held that Lot 12 as part ofLot % as evidenced !y the records of the Chief Surveyor of the Land egistration Office$

"avier kne of this fact$ 3is contention that the Commissioner4s report and the plotted

area should not !e admitted has no merit !ecause of the manifestation of the Chief

Surveyor$The C# affirmed the decision thus the certiorari$

Issue:

1$ 5hether or not there as fraud in the registration of Lot 12$2$ 5hether or not Chua et$ al4s$ cause of action has not !een !arred !y prescriptionlaches$

Held:

1$ 6o$ 7raud as a legal !asis for revie of a decree means actualpositive fraud as

distinguished from constructivelegal fraud$ #ctual fraud is a .uestion of fact$ Lot 12

as found to !e part of Lot % under TCT 1%819 issued in the name of Chua$

7urthermore, the decree of registration has long !ecome final$ nder sec :8 of Landegistration #ct; the person allegedly deprived of the land !y a decree of registration

under fraud should file in the C7 a petition for revie in 1 yr$ after the entry of the

decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has ac.uired an interest$ +ranting thatthere as no actual positive fraud in securing the title, "avier is !arred from .uestioning

it$

2$ 5ithout merit$ The rule is one cannot ac.uire title to a registered land !y prescription oradverse possession$ There are no intervening rights of : rdpersons c may !e affected !y

a decision directing the return of Lot 12 to Chua et$ al$ The defense of laches ill notapply in this case$


6/30

Halili v CIR (136 SCRA 112)

Facts:"he cases involve disputes regarding claims for overtime of more than five hundredbus drivers andconductors of Halili "ransit. "he disputes were eventuall settled when thecontending parties reached an #greement where the #dministratrix would transfer tothe emploees the title to a tract of land in Caloocan,&i=al. "he parcel of land waseventuall registered in the name of the ?nion."he ?nion, through #tt. /ineda, filed an urgentmotion with the Ministr of Labor and @mploment AM$L@Breuesting for authorit to sell anddispose of the propert. #tt. @spinas, Athe original counselB established the award of


7/30

moral character as to render him unworth of publicconfidence.6n the case, the expeditious

manner b which #rbiter alen=uela granted #tt. /inedaEs motion for suchauthorit to sell thepropert makes the entire transaction dubious and irregular.-ignificantl #tt. /inedaEs act offiling a motion praing for authorit to sell was b itself an admission on hispart that he did notpossess the authorit to sell the propert. He could not and did not even wait for validauthoritbut instead previousl obtained the same from the labor arbiter whom he knew was notempoweredto so authori=e.

Atty. Pineda is found guilty of indirect contempt of court for which he

is sentenced to imprisonment anddirected to show cause why he should not

be disbarred

_---------------------------------------------------

Carbonilla v Abiera (Right of Possession Arising from Title)

Facts

Petitioner led a complaint for ejectment against respondents allegingthat he is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Maasin City !ealso alleged that he owns the "#ilding standing on said land "y $irt#eof a %eed of &'traj#dicial settlement of &state with ai$erand #itclaim of *wnership e'ec#ted "y the +arcianos !emaintained that the "#ilding was "eing occ#pied "y respondents "ymere tolerance of the

pre$io#s owners Petitioner asserted that he sent a demand letter torespondents as,ing them to lea$e the premises within . days fromreceipt of the letter/ "#t they failed and ref#sed to do so The MTCCr#led that Car"onilla is the lawf#l owner of the s#"ject land !owe$er itheld that the defendants to ha$e the "etter rights of (material)possession to the assailed "#ilding and deemed as possessors in goodfaith and are legally entitled to its possession and occ#pancy


8/30

The RTC a0rmed the decision of the MTCC with respect to the land/howe$er it r#led that petitioner/ as owner of the land/ wo#ld ha$ee$ery right to e$ict respondents from theland The CA re$ersed the RTCdecision and ordered the dismissal of petitioner1s complaint for fail#reof the plainti2 (herein respondent) to pro$e that the case at "ar is for#nlawf#l detainer or forci"le entry

Issue

on petitioner has s#0ciently esta"lished his ownership of the s#"jectproperties and has the right to reco$er possession thereof

Held.

3o hile petitioner may ha$e pro$en his ownership of the land/ asthere can "e no other piece of e$idence more worthy of credence thana Torrens certicate of title/ he failed to present any e$idence tos#"stantiate his claim of ownership or right to the possession of the"#ilding The %eed of &'traj#dicial 4ettlement of &state (Residential5#ilding) with ai$er and #itclaim of *wnership e'ec#ted "y the

+arcianos as proof that petitioner ac6#ired ownership of the "#ildingcannot "e accepted "y the co#rt There is no showing that the+arcianos were the owners of the "#ilding or that they had anyproprietary right o$er it Ranged against respondents1 proof ofpossession of the "#ilding since 788/ petitioner1s e$idence pales incomparison and lea$es the co#rt totally #ncon$inced

itho#t a do#"t/ the registered owner of real property is entitled to its

possession !owe$er/ the owner cannotsimply wrest possession

thereof from whoe$er is in act#al occ#pation of the property To reco$er

possession/he m#st resort to the proper j#dicial remedy and/ once he

chooses what action to le/ he is re6#ired to satisfy the conditionsnecessary for s#ch action to prosper 9n the present case/ petitioner

opted to le an ejectment case against respondents &jectment cases-

forci"le entry and #nlawf#l detainer-are s#mmary proceedings

designed to pro$ide e'peditio#s means to protect act#al possession or

the right to possession of the property in$ol$edcalaw The only

6#estion that the co#rts resol$e in ejectment proceedings is: who is


9/30

entitled to thephysical possession of the premises/ that is/ to the

possession de facto and not to the possession de j#re

9t doesnot e$en matter if a party1s title to the property is 6#estiona"le

;or this reason/ an ejectment case will not necessarily "e decided in

fa$or of one who has presented proof of ownership of the s#"ject

property


10/30

P'( $Public 'states (uthority% was created by President !arcos under P&

1)*+, tased with developing and leasing reclaimed lands& -hese lands were

transerred to the care o P'( under P& 1)*. as part o the !anila Cavite /oad

and /eclamation Pro0ect $!C//P%& C#CP and P'( entered into an agreement

that all uture pro0ects under the !C//P would be unded and owned by P'(&

"y 19**, President (uino issued 2pecial Patent o& 3.17 transerring lands to

P'(& It was ollowed by the transer o three -itles $73)9, 7311 and 7314% by the

/egister o #eeds o Paranaue to P'( covering the three reclaimed islands

nown as the 5/''#6! I2(#2&

2ubsuently, P'( entered into a 0oint venture agreement $J8(% with (!(/I, a

-haiPhilippine corporation to develop the 5reedom Islands& (long with another4.) hectares, P'( and (!(/I entered the J8( which would later transer said

lands to (!(/I& -his caused a stir especially when 2en& !aceda assailed the

agreement, claiming that such lands were part o public domain $amously nown

as the :mother o all scams;%&

Peitioner 5ran J& Chave< iled case as a ta=payer praying or mandamus, a writ

o preliminary in0unction and a -/6 against the sale o reclaimed lands by P'(

to (!(/I and rom implementing the J8(& 5ollowing these events, under

President 'strada>s admin, P'( and (!(/I entered into an (mended J8( and

!r& Chaves claim that the contract is null and void&

Issue:

w?n@ the transer to (!(/I lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed as part o the

stipulations in the $(mended% J8( between (!(/I and P'( violate 2ec& 3 (rt&

AII o the 19*7 Constitution


11/30

Held:

6n the issue o (mended J8( as violating the constitution@

1& -he 1.7&*+ hectares o reclaimed lands comprising the 5reedom Islands, now

covered by certiicates o title in the name o P'(, are alienable lands o the

public domain& P'( may lease these lands to private corporations but may not

sell or transer ownership o these lands to private corporations& P'( may only

sell these lands to Philippine citi


12/30

lands o the public domain to (!(/I will be void in view o 2ection 3, (rticle AII

o the 19*7Constitution which prohibits private corporations rom acuiring any

ind o alienable land o the public domain&

REPUBLIC VS. CA AND NAGUIT

FACTS:Cora=on 3ag#it led a pet i t ion for registrat ion of t i t le which see,s j#dicialconrmation of her imperfect title o$er a parcel ofland in 3a"as/ A,lan 9t was allegedthat 3ag#it and her predecessors-in-interest ha$e occ#pied the land openly and in theconcept of ownerwitho#t any o"jection from any pri$ate person or e$en the go$ernment#ntil sheled her application for registration The MCTC rendered a decisionconrmingthe title in the name of 3ag#it #pon fail#re of R#stico Angeles toappear d#ring trial after ling his formal opposition to the petitionThe 4olicitor+eneral/ representing the Rep#"lic of the Philippines/ led a motionforreconsideration on the gro#nds that the property which is in open/

contin#o#s ande'cl#si$e possession m#st rst "e aliena"le 3ag#itco#ld not ha$e maintained abonaideclaim of ownership since the s#"ject land was declared as aliena"le anddisposa"leonly on *cto"er ./ 7>? The aliena"le and disposa"lecharacter of the land sho#ldha$e already "een esta"lished since @#ne /7B. or earlier


13/30

ISSUE:

hether or not it is necessary #nder 4ection B () of the PropertyRegistration%ecree that the s#"ject land "e rst classied as aliena"le and

disposa"le "eforethe applicants possession #nder abona ideclaim of ownership co#ld e$en start

RULING:

4ection B () merely re6#ires that the property so#ght to "e registered asalready aliena"le and disposa"le at thetime the application for registration of t itle is led There arethree re6#irements for registration of title/ () that the s#"jectpropertyis aliena"le and disposa"leD () that the applicants and

their predecessor-in-interestha$e "een in open/ contin#o#s/and e'cl#si$e possession and occ#pation/ andD (E) thatthe possession is#nder a "ona de claim of ownership since @#ne / 7B.There m#st "e apositi$e act of the go$ernment thro#gh a stat#te or proclamationstating theintention of the 4tate to a"dicate its e'cl#si$e prerogati$e o$er theproperty/th#s/ declaring the land as aliena"le and disposa"le!owe$er/ if there has "een none/it is pres#med that the go$ernment isstill reser$ing the right to #tili=e the property and

the possession of the land no matter how long wo#ld not ripen intoownership thro#gh ac6#isiti$e prescription To follow the 4olicitor+enerals arg#ment in the constr#ction of 4ection B ()wo#ld render theparagraph of the said pro$ision inoperati$e for it wo#ld mean that alllands ofp#"lic domain which were not declared as aliena"le and

disposa"le "efore@#ne / 7B. wo#ld not "e s#scepti"le to originalregistration/ no matter the length of #nchallenged possession "y theocc#pant 9n e2ect/ it precl#des the go$ernmentf r o men fo r c i n g th e s a i d p r o $ i s i o n a s i t d ec i d es t o r ec lassify lands as aliena"le anddisposa"leThe land in 6#estionwas fo#nd to "e cocal in nat#re/ it ha$ing "een planted with cocon#ttrees now o$er fty years old The inherent nat#re of the land "#tconrms its certi cation in 7>? as aliena"le/ hence agric#lt#ral


14/30

There is no impediment to the application of 4ection B () of theProperty Registration %ecree 3ag#it had the right to apply for registrationowing to the contin#o#s possession "y her and her predecessors-in-interest of the land since 7B.

Heirs of Lacamen v Heirs of Laruan

%= SC# %>=

7acts; Laruan e*ecuted a deed of sale in favor of Lacamen hich as duly notari'ed$

mmediately after the sale, Laruan delivered the certificate of title to Lacamen$

Thereupon, Lacamen entered in possession and occupancy of the land, introducedimprovements therein, ithout securing the corresponding certificate of title$ The

document as also not approved !y the -irector of the ?ureau of 6on/Christian Tri!es

hose approval is necessary in order for the -eed to !e valid$ This rule !ounds the

contracting parties considering that they !elong to the illiterate non/Christians$ Later on,after the death of Laruan, his heirs discovered that Laruan4s heirs ere a!le to o!tain a

ne oner4s certificate of title$ 3ence, they sued Laruan4s heirs for reconveyance$ The

Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the heirs of Laruan hose decision asaffirmed !y the C#$

ssue; 5O6 estoppel !y laches applies$

3eld; Laruan4s sale of the su!ect lot to Lacamen could have !een valid ere it not for

the sole fact that it lacked the approval of the ?ureau of 6on/Christian Tri!es considering

that there as impressed upon its face full faith and credit after it as notari'ed$3oever, notithstanding the invalidity of the sale, the fact that hen the Lacamens

succeeded to the estate of their father, the Laruans kept silent, never claiming that the lot


15/30

is their on$ @ven granting that no prescription lies against their father4s record title, their

inaction for almost :> years commands the imposition of laches$ 3ence, the Lacamens

ere declared as the oners of the land$

BINALAY VS. MANALO

A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is not the alluvial process

contemplated in Art. 457. The accumulation of the soil deposits must be slow and

hardly imperceptible in order for the riparian owner to acquire ownership thereof.

Also, the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the

rivers (or the sea coast).

FACTS

Manalo acquired 2 lots which were originally owned by Judge Taccad from 2

different people (the latters daughter and from an earlier purchaser). These lots

were later consolidated into Lot 307, a total of 10.45 hectares. The lot was beside

the Cagayan River, which, due to flooding, would place a portion of the land

underwater during the rainy season (September to December). On sunny days,

however, the land would be dried up for the entire dry season (January to

August). When a survey of the land was conducted on a rainy month, a portion ofthe land that Manalo bought was then underwater and was thus left unsurveyed

and excluded from Lot 307.


16/30

The big picture is this: Cagayan River running from south to north, forks at a

certain point to form two braches (western and eastern) and then unites at the

other end, further north, to form a narrower strip of land. The eastern branch ofthe river cuts through Lot 307, and is flooded during the rainy season. The

unsurveyed portion, on the other hand, is the bed of the eastern branch. Note

that the fork exists only during the rainy season while the island/elongated strip

of land formed in the middle of the forks becomes dry and perfect for cultivation

when the Cagayan river is at its ordinary depth. The strip of land in the middle of

the fork totaled 22.7 hectares and was labeled Lot 821-822. Lot 821 is directly

opposite Lot 307 and is separated by the eastern branch of the rivers fork.

Manalo claims that Lot 821 belongs to him by way of accretion to the submerged

portion of the land to which it is adjacent. Petitioners (Binalay, et al) who possess

the Lot 821, on the other hand, insist that they own it. They occupy the other

edges of the lot along the river bank (i.e. the fertile portions on which they plant

tobacco and other agricultural products) and also cultivate the western strip

during the summer.

Manalo filed 2 cases for forcible entry which were both dismissed. Later on, he

filed a complaint for quieting of title, possession, and damages against petitioner.

The trial court and the CA ruled in favor of Manalo, saying that Lot 821 and Lot

307 cannot be considered separate and distinct from each other. They reasoned

that when the land dries up for the most part of the year, the two are connected.

[Note: The CA applied the ruling in Govt of the Phil Islands vs. Colegio de San

Jose, which was actually inappropriate because the subject matter in this case

was a lake so that the definition of a bed was different.]

ISSUE:

Whether or not Manalo owns Lot 821 by way of accretion


17/30

RULING: No.

The disputed property is not an accretion. It is the action of the heavy rains that

cause the highest ordinary level of waters of the Cagayan River during the rainy

season. The depressed portion is a river bed and is thus considered property of

public domain.

The SC observed the following:

a) The pictures identified by Manalo during his direct examination depict the

depressed portion as a river bed. The dried up portion had dike-like slopes

(around 8m) on both sides connecting it to Lot 307 and Lot 821 that are vertical

and very prominent.

b) The eastern bed already existed even before Manalo bought the land. It was

called Rio Muerte de Cagayan.

c) Manalo could not have acquire ownership of the land because article 420 of

the civil code states that rivers are property of public dominion. The word riverincludes the running waters, the bed, and the banks. [The seller never actually

owned that part of the land since it was public property]

d) The submerged area (22.72 ha) is twice the area of the land he actually

bought. It is difficult to suppose that such a sizable area could have been brought

about by accretion.


18/30

More importantly, the requisites of accretion in article 457 were not satisfied.

These are: 1) that the deposition of the soil or sediment be gradual and

imperceptible; 2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or

sea); and 3) the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks ofthe rivers (or the sea coast). The accretion shouldve been attached to Lot 307 for

Manalo to acquire its ownership. BUT, the claimed accretion lies on the bank of

the river; not adjacent to Lot 307 but directly opposite it across the river. Aside

from that, the dike-like slopes which were very steep may only be formed by a

sudden and forceful action like flooding. The steep slopes could not have been

formed by the river in a slow and gradual manner.

&epublic vs. Court of #ppeals

REPUBLIC v. COURT OF APPEALS

G& 4os. 19, 1;9DI 4ovember 9;, 1


19/30

&epublic uestioned the agreement. 6t contended, among others, that theagreement between &&@C and the Cit of /asa was void for the ob+ect of thecontract is outside the commerce of man, it being a foreshore land.

/asa Cit and &&@C countered that the ob+ect in uestion is within the

commerce of man because 1


20/30

####################################################

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs IAC !"#$%

FACTS: #cme Alyood B eneer Co$, nc$, a corp$ represented !y Dr$ odolfo

6a'ario, ac.uired from Dariano and #cer nfiel, mem!ers of the -umagat tri!e

= parcels of land

possession of the nfiels over the landdates !ack !efore the Ahilippines

as discovered !y Dagellan

land sought to !e registered is a private land pursuant to # :892 granting

a!solute onership to mem!ers of the non/Christian Tri!es on land occupied !y them

or their ancestral lands, hether ith the aliena!le or disposa!le pu!lic land or ithin

the pu!lic domain

#cme Alyood B eneer Co$ nc$, has introduced more than AE=D orth

of improvements

ownership and possession of the land so#ght to "e

registered was d#ly recogni=ed "y the go$ernment when the

M#nicipal *0cials of Maconacon/ 9sa"ela

donated part of the land as the tonsite of Daconacon sa!ela

#C affirmed C7; in favor of #cme Alyood B eneer Co$, nc

ISSUES:


21/30

1. 56 the land is already a private land / F@S

9. 56 the constitutional prohi!ition against their ac.uisition !y private

corporations or associations applies/ 6O

HELD:

1. F@S

already ac.uired, !y operation of la not only a right to a grant, !ut a grant of the

+overnment, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title should !e issued in order

that said grant may !e sanctioned !y the courts, an application therefore is sufficient

it had already ceased to !e of the pu!lic domain and had !ecome private

property, at least !y presumption

The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of hich does not

affect the legal sufficiency of the title as ould !e evidenced !y the patent and the

Torrens title to !e issued upon the strength of said patent$

The effect of the proof, herever made, as not to confer title, !ut simply to

esta!lish it, as already conferred !y the decree, if not !y earlier la

2$ 6O

f it is accepted/as it must !e/that the land as already private land to hich the

nfiels had a legally sufficient and transfera!le title on Octo!er 2G, 1G%2 hen #cme

ac.uired it from said oners, it must also !e conceded that #cme had a perfect right

to make such ac.uisition

The only limitation then e*tant as that corporations could not ac.uire, hold or

lease pu!lic agricultural lands in e*cess of 1,>2E hectares


22/30

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY petitioners,vs.LILIA A. ABAIRO CELSO ABAIRO and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF ISABELA respondents.

Office of the olicitor !eneral for petitioner.

"ligio A. #abog for private respondents.

FULL TE&T 'u'u'u'u%

!A"ASIAR J.:

"his is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated -eptember 9D,1


23/30

"he facts of this case are undisputed. $n March 1, 1


24/30

Commissioner to receive the evidence in support of the petition forregistration. Ap. 1I, rec.B.

#fter the case was heard, respondent Court rendered a decision dated-eptember 9D, 1


25/30

inasmuch as it was filed on March 1, 1


26/30

any of said persons from acting under this chapter at any time priorto the period fi$ed by the 'residentAemphasis suppliedB.

#s amended b /residential !ecree 4o. 1D, promulgated on Januar 9;,

1


27/30

and anxiet, after the !irector of Lands withdrew his opposition, while the!irector of orestr interposed no opposition to private respondentEs application.

2H@&@$&@, "H@ !@C6-6$4 $ "H@ L$2@& C$?&" 6- H@&@7N

#6&M@! #4! "H@ /@"6"6$4 6- H@&@7N !6-M6--@!. 4$ C$-"-. AB

OH CHO vs Director o( Lands

7#CTS;

Oh Cho is appealing from the reection of his application !asedon dis.ualification as alien (Chinese) from ac.uiring lands of the pu!lic domain$

3e had open, continuous, e*clusive and notorious possession of the lot from 188>

to filing of the application for registration on "anuary 19, 1GE>

SS@; 56 Oh Cho entitled to decree or registration of the lot$


28/30

3@L-; 6O$

+; #ll lands that ere not ac.uired from the +overnment, either !y purchase or

!y grant !elo to the pu!lic domain

@*ception; in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest

since time immemorial, for such possession ould ustify the presumption that the

land had never !een part of the pu!lic domain or that it had !een a private property

even !efore the Spanish con.uest$ (CariHo v$ nsular +overnment) / not applica!le

since only from 188>

3is immediate possesor failed to comply ith the condition precedent to apply for

the registration of the land of hich they had !een in possession at least since "uly

2%, 18GE so hat as transferred to Oh Cho is merely possesory right hich cannot

ripen to onership !y prescription (aliens dis.ualified to on !y prescription)

REPUBLIC F THE PHILIPPI!ES vs" THE CURT F APPEALS A!D

SPUSES #ARI B"LAPI$A A!D FLR DE %E&A

7#CTS;On "une 19, 1G98, respondent spouses !ought Lots :E9 and :E8, Cad$ s:8/-, astheir residence ith atotal area of G1$99 s.$ m$ situated in San Aa!lo City, from one

Cristeta -a'o ?elen (ollo, p$ E1)$ #t thetime of the purchase, respondent spouses here

then natural/!orn 7ilipino citi'ens$On 7e!ruary =, 1G89,the spouses filed an applicationfor registration of title of the to (2) parcels of land !efore the egionalTrial Court of

San Aa!lo City, ?ranch III$ This time, hoever, they ere no longer 7ilipino

citi'ensand have opted to em!race Canadian citi'enship through naturali'ation$#nopposition as filed !y theepu!lic and after the parties have presented their respective

evidence, the courta .uo rendered adecision confirming private respondentsJ title to the

lots in .uestion$

.


29/30

On appeal, respondent court affirmedthe decision of the trial court !ased on the folloing

ratiocination; n the present case, it is undisputed that!oth applicants ere still 7ilipino

citi'ens hen they !ought the land in controversy from its formeroner$ 7or this reason,the prohi!ition against the ac.uisition of private lands !y aliens could not apply$n ustice

and e.uity, they are the rightful oners of the su!ect realty considering also that theyhad paidfor it .uite a large sum of money$

ssue; 5hether or not a foreign national can apply for registration of title over a parcel of

land hich heac.uired !y purchase hile still a citi'en of the Ahilippines, from a vendor

ho has complied ith there.uirements for registration under the Au!lic Land #ct(C# 1E1)$

3eld; The Court disagreed on the petition to seek to defeat respondentsJ application forregistration of titleon the ground of foreign nationality$

This Court, speaking through "ustice -avide, "r$, stated; #s could !egleaned from theevidence adduced, the private respondents do not rely on fee simple onership !ased on

a Spanish grant or possessory information title under Section 1G of the Land egistration

#ct0 the privaterespondents did not present any proof that they or their predecessors/in/interest derived title from an oldSpanish grant such as (a) the Ktitulo realK or royal grant

(!) the Kconcession especialK or especial grant0 (c)the Kcomposicion con el estadoK title or

adustment title0 (d) the Ktitulo de compraK or title !y purchase0and (e) the KinformacionposesoriaK or possessory information title, hich could !ecome a KtitulogratuitoK or a

gratuitous title (-irector of 7orestry v$ DuHo', 2: SC# 118: 1G%8M)$

The primary !asisof their claim is possession, !y themselves and their predecessors/in/

interest,since time immemorial$

$Aursuant thereto, ?atas Aam!ansa ?lg$ 18= as passed into la, the relevant provision ofhich provides;Sec$ 2$ #ny natural/!orn citi'en of the Ahilippines ho has lost his

Ahilippine citi'enship and ho has thelegal capacity to enter into a contract under

Ahilippine las may !e a transferee of a private land up to ama*imum area of one

thousand s.uare meters, in the case of ur!an land, or one hectare in the case of ruralland,to !e used !y him as his residence$ n the case of married couples, one of them may avail

of theprivilege herein granted0 Arovided, That if !oth shall avail of the same, the total


30/30

area ac.uired shall note*ceed the ma*imum herein fi*ed$n case the transferee already

ons ur!an or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still !e entitledto !e

a transferee of an additional ur!an or rural lands for residential purposes hich, henadded to thosealready oned !y him, shall not e*ceed the ma*imum areas herein

authori'ed$The Court is of the vie that the re.uirements in Sec$ % of ?A 18= do notapply in the instant case sincesaid re.uirements are primarily directed to the register ofdeeds !efore hom compliance thereith is to!e su!mitted$ 6ohere in the provision is

it stated, much less implied, that the re.uirements mustlikeise !e su!mitted !efore the

land registration court prior to the approval of an application forregistration of title$ #n

application for registration of title !efore a land registration court should not !econfusedith the issuance of a certificate of title !y the register of deeds$ t is only hen the

udgment of the land registration court approving the application for registration has

!ecome final that a decree of registration is issued$ #nd that is the time hen there.uirements of Sec$ %, ?A 18=, !efore the register of deeds should !e complied ith !y

the applicants$ This decree of registration is the one that is su!mitted tothe office of the

register of deeds for issuance of the certificate of title in favor of the applicant$ Arior totheissuance of the decree of registration, the register of deeds has no participation in the

approval of the application for registration of title as the decree of registration is yet to !e

issued$ The petition is -SDSS@- and the decision appealed from is here!y

#77D@-

Date post:	27-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	allen-villanueva-bautista
View:	250 times
Download:	0 times

Heirs of Labanon v.docx

Documents