LTD case digest for midterms

NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, petitioner vs. EULALIA BRACEWELL ET AL., respondentsFACTS:Petitioner Nicomedes Lozada filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-129514, which was granted by the RTC-Makati City, acting as a land registration court. The Land Registration Authority (LRA) consequently issued a Decree in the name of petitioner, who later obtained Original Certificate of Titlecovering said parcel of land. Subsequently, respondent James Bracewell filed a petition for review of the decree ofregistration under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the“Property Registration Decree” before the RTC-Las Pinas City, claiming that a portion of the aforementioned Plan of which he is the absolute owner and possessor, is fraudulently included in the earlier mentioned Decree. The RTC-Las Pinas City rendered a Decision finding that petitioner obtained the Decree in bad faith. Accordingly, it directed the LRA to set aside said Decree and ordered petitioner to cause the amendment of the said Plan. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated his case on appeal before the CA arguing mainly that the RTC-Las Pinas City had no jurisdiction over a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of PD 1529, which should be filed in the same branch of the court that rendered the decision and ordered the issuance of the decree. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC-LasPinas, finding that respondents were able to substantiate their claim of actual fraud in the procurement of said Decree,which is the only ground that may be invoked in a petition for review of a decree of registration under Section 32 of PDNo. 1529. It likewise held that, since the petition for review was filed within one (1) year from the issuance of thequestioned decree and considering that the subject lot is located in Las Pinas City, the RTC of said city had jurisdictionover the case. With

the motion for reconsideration denied, petitioner thus sought relief via the instant petition for review challenging primarily the jurisdiction of the RTC-Las Pinas City.ISSUE:Whether the RTC of Las Pinas City has jurisdiction over the petition for review of the Decree.RULING:Yes, the RTC of Las Pinas City has jurisdiction over the petition for review of the Decree.Under Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act, as amended, which was the governing law at the time of thecommencement by both parties of their respective registration proceedings, jurisdiction over all applications forregistration of title was conferred upon the RTCs of their respective provinces in which the land sought to be registered issituated. The land registration laws were updated and codified under PD NO. 1529 and under Section 17 thereof, jurisdiction over an application for land registration is still vested on the RTC of the province or city where the land issituated. Basically, Section 32 of PD No. 1529 provides that any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud may file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration. As the land subject of this case is clearly situated in Las Pinas City, the application for its original registration should have been filed before the RTC-Las Pinas City.

REPUBLIC vs. ZURBARAN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G.R. No. 164408,March 24, 2014JULY 8, 2014 / ARDYESGUERRA Facts:Zurbaran Realty and Development Corporation filed with RTC an application for original registration ofland. Director of Lands opposed it arguing that applicant and its predecessor in interest had not been inopen, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation

of land since June 12, 1945.RTC and CA ruled in favor of Zurbaran.On appeal to SC, the Republic appealed arguing that Zurbaran failed to establish the time when the landbecame alienable and disposable, which is crucial in determining whether Zuburan acquired the land byprescription.ISSUE:What are the substantive elements in filing an application for original registration of land?RULING:The requirements depend on what basis the application was filed..The following are the bases for application:1. On the basis of possession, wherein you need to show the following:a. The land is alienable and disposable property of the public domain b. the applicant and its predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership; and c. the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have possessed and occupied the land since June 12,1945, or earlierNote: Land need not be declared alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 or earlier. It is sufficientthat property is alienable and disposable at the time of application(Malaban vs. Republic) 2. On the basis of prescription, wherein you need to prove the following:a. Land is alienable and disposable, and patrimonial propertyb. continuous possession of land for at least 10 years in good faith and with just title OR 30 yearsregardless of good faith or bad faith.c. Land is converted or declared as patrimonial property of the State at the beginning of 10-year or 30-year period of possession.Only patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by prescription (Article 1113 of Civil Code).Property of public dominion, if not longer intended for public use or service, shall form part of patrimonialproperty of State. (Article 422 of Civil Code)Here, there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longerintended for public use, service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has

beenconverted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienableor disposable, remains property of the public dominion, Such declaration shall be in the form of a law dulyenacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized bylaw.In the case at bar, the application did not state when their possession and occupation commenced (noallegation that they have been in possession since June 12, 1945) and the duration. So the application isbased on prescription. Here, there is no evidence showing that the land in question was within an areaexpressly declared by law either to be the patrimonial property of the State, or to be no longer intendedfor public service or the development of the national wealth.

MINDA S. GAERLAN, petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondentFACTS:Petitioner Minda S. Gaerlan filed an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land situated in Cagayan DeOro City, alleging that she acquired said property from a certain Mamerta Tan by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale ofUnregistered Land and accordingly had the property declared for taxation under her name. The trial court, finding saidapplication sufficient in form, set the case for initial hearing. Subsequently, the Republic, through the Office of the SolicitorGeneral (OSG) filed an Opposition to said application for registration on the ground, among others, that neither petitionernor her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation ofthe subject Land since June 12, 1945or earlier and that the tax declarations do not constitute competent and sufficientevidence of a bona fide acquisition of the subject land.The trial court granted petitioner’s application for registration of title. The OSG appealed from said decision asserting thatthe trial court erred in ruling that the subject parcel of land is available for private appropriation. The CA reversed the trial

court’s Decision and dismissed the application for registration of title, finding that petitioner failed to present any proof toestablish that the subject land is alienable and disposable. The CA enunciated, among others that the petitioner mustprove that the DENR Secretary has approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain asalienable and disposable and that the land subject of the application falls within the approved area per verification throughthe survey of the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources (PENRO) or Community Environment and NaturalResources (CENRO).Hence, this petition.ISSUE:Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s application for registration of title.RULING:No, the CA did not err in dismissing petitioner’s application based on the insufficiency of the evidence presented and theincomplete requirements.PD No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree in relation to Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.141, as amendedby Section 4 of PD No. 1073 specifies those who are qualified to apply for registration of land i.e., those who bythemselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in an open, continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownershipsince June 12, 1945 or earlier. Moreover, under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State.The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership is on the person applying for registration who mustprove that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable. To prove that the land is alienable, an applicantmust establish the existence of positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order,an administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Land Investigators, and a legislative act or statute. Theapplicant may secure a certification from

the government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable but saidcertification must likewise show that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the same asalienable and disposable, and that the same must fall within the approved area per verification of the PENRO or CENRO.