Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 1 12PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1529 AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTYAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WHEREAS, there is a need to update the Land Registration Act and to codify thevariouslawsrelativetoregistrationofproperty,inordertofacilitate effective implementation of said laws; WHEREAS,tostrengthentheTorrenssystem,itisdeemednecessaryto adoptsafeguardstopreventanomaloustitlingofrealproperty,andto streamlineandsimplifyregistrationproceedingsandtheissuanceof certificates of title; WHEREAS,thedecreespromulgatedrelativetotheregistrationof certificatesoflandtransferandemancipationpatentsissuedpursuantto PresidentialDecreeNo.27tohastentheimplementationofthelandreform program of the country form an integral part of the property registration laws; NOW,THEREFORE,I,FERDINANDE.MARCOS,Presidentofthe RepublicofthePhilippines,byvirtueofthepowersvestedinmebythe Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following: CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section1.TitleofDecree.ThisDecreeshallbeknownasthePROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE. Section2.Natureofregistrationproceedings;jurisdictionofcourts.Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system. Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnishtheLandRegistrationCommissionwithtwocertifiedcopiesofall pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed orissuedinapplicationsorpetitionsforlandregistration,withtheexception of stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance thereof. Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Lawisherebydiscontinuedandalllandsrecordedundersaidsystemwhich are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands. Hereafter,allinstrumentsaffectinglandsoriginallyregisteredunderthe SpanishMortgageLawmayberecordedunderSection113ofthisDecree, untilthelandshallhavebeenbroughtundertheoperationoftheTorrens system. ThebooksofregistrationforunregisteredlandsprovidedunderSection194 oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode,asamendedbyActNo.3344,shall continuetoremaininforce;provided,thatallinstrumentsdealingwith unregisteredlandsshallhenceforthberegisteredunderSection113ofthis Decree. CHAPTER XIII DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LANDS Section113.Recordingofinstrumentsrelatingtounregisteredlands.No deed,conveyance,mortgage,lease,orothervoluntaryinstrumentaffecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as between thepartiesthereto,unlesssuchinstrumentshallhavebeenrecordedinthe mannerhereinprescribedintheofficeoftheRegisterofDeedsforthe province or city where the land lies. (a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary EntryBookshallcontain,amongotherparticulars,theentrynumber,the names of the parties, the nature of the document, the date, hour and minute it was presented and received. The recording of the deed and other instruments relatingtounregisteredlandsshallbeeffectedbyanyofannotationonthe spaceprovidedthereforintheRegistrationBook,afterthesameshallhave been entered in the Primary Entry Book. (b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in law, the RegisterofDeedsshallforthwithrecordtheinstrumentinthemanner providedherein.IncasetheRegisterofDeedsrefusesitsadministrationto record, said official shall advise the party in interest in writing of the ground orgroundsforhisrefusal,andthelattermayappealthemattertothe Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 2 12CommissionerofLandRegistrationinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof Section117ofthisDecree.Itshallbeunderstoodthatanyrecordingmade underthissectionshallbewithoutprejudicetoathirdpartywithabetter right. (c) AfterrecordingontheRecordBook,theRegisterofDeedsshallendorse amongotherthings,upontheoriginaloftherecordedinstruments,thefile number and the date as well as the hour and minute when the document was received for recordingasshowninthePrimaryEntryBook,returningtotheregistrantor person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the provincial or city assessor as required by existing law. (d)Taxsale,attachmentandlevy,noticeoflispendens,adverseclaimand other instruments in the nature of involuntary dealingswithrespecttounregisteredlands,ifmadeintheformsufficientin law, shall likewise be admissible to record under this section. (e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under this section, he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed for similar services for the registration of deeds or instruments concerning registered lands. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 892February 16, 1976 DISCONTINUANCE OF THE SPANISH MORTGAGE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION AND OF THE USE OF SPANISH TITLES AS EVIDENCE IN LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS Section1.ThesystemofregistrationundertheSpanishMortgageLawis discontinued,andalllandsrecordedundersaidsystemwhicharenotyet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands. AllholdersofSpanishtitlesorgrantsshouldapplyforregistrationoftheir landsunderActNo.496,otherwiseknownastheLandRegistrationAct, withinsix(6)monthsfromtheeffectivityofthisdecree. Thereafter,Spanish titlescannotbeusedasevidenceoflandownershipinanyregistration proceedings under the Torrens system. Hereafter,allinstrumentsaffectinglandsoriginallyregisteredunderthe SpanishMortgageLawmayberecordedunderSection194oftheRevised Administrative Code, as amended by Act 3344; Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 3 12Republicv. Court of Appeals (135 SCRA 156)REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PRUDENCIO MAXINO and TARCIANA MORALES, PEDRO GONZALES,ROGELIO AQUINO, Minor represented by his father, Manuel Aquino, and ALEJANDRO, SOCORRO,MERCEDES, CONCHITA, REMEDIOS and FLORA, all surnamed CONSOLACION, respondents.G.R. No. L-56077; February 28, 1985

Facts:In1961,theCFIofQuezonrenderedadecision,orderingthe registrationof885 hectaresofpublicforestlandinfavoroftheMaxinos. Thedecisionbecamefinaland executorysoadecreeofregistrationand anOCTwereissued.Eight(8)yearsafterthedecision was rendered, the RepublicofthePhilippinesfiledwiththesameCFIanamendedpetitionto annul the decision, decree, and title on the ground that they are void because the land in question was still a part of the unclassified public forest. The Maxinos opposed the petition. The CFI judge denied the petition and when appealed, the same was dismissed on the ground that the orderhadallegedlylongbecomefinalandunappealablesothe Government was estopped thru the registration made by its agents.Issue/s:WhetherornottheGovernmentwasestoppedinappealingthe registration order.Ruling:No.TheGovernmentsufficientlyprovedthattheparcelofland involvedinthepresentcaseisapartofaforestland,thusnon-registerable.AstotherulingofCAthatthe governmentwasestopped toappealbecausethelandwaserroneouslyregisteredbyits own agency, theCourtruledotherwisebasingonitsdecisioninGov't.oftheU.S.vs. Judge of1stInst.ofPampanga,(50Phil.975,980),whereitheldthat theGovernmentshouldnotbeestoppedbythemistakesorerrorsofits agents.

REPUBLIC V. CA 135 SCRA 156 (1985) FACTS:In1961,CFIQuezonupheldtheregistrationofaparceloflandin the names of Prudencio Maxino and Tarciana Moreles.1. Subsequently,OCTwasissuedcoveringthesame.In1969,the Republic filed a petition to annul said decision citing that the land in questionarepartofunclassifiedpublicforestandthepossessory informationtitlereliedupontheMaxinospousescoveredonly29 hectares and not 885 hectares.2. CAdismissedthepetitionontheaccountthatthedecisionhad become final and unappealable. ISSUE: WON the certificate of title issued to spouses Maxino is valid HELD: It is incontestable that the subject property registered by the Maxinos, iswithinthepublicforestandassuch,notalienableanddisposablenor susceptibleofprivateappropriation.Itsinclusioninthepublicforestwas certified by the Director of Forestry in July 1940. The basis of the claim of the Maxinos that is a Spanish title is untenable. First, thecompositiontitleisspuriousbasedonthefactsaloneasitappearsthe allegeddeedofabsolutesaleisbutaquit-claim.Also,itisaxiomaticthat public forestral lands is not subject to registration. Its inclusion in a title, whetherthetitlebeissuedduringtheSpanishregimeorunderthe Torrenssystem,nullifiesthetitle. Assuch,possessionofpublicforesrtal lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership.

Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 4 12UMBAY V. ALECHA 135 SCRA 427 (1985) FACTS:NatalioEnanoriaownedaparcelofland(Lotno.5280)withOCT 10933 issued in 1922.1. Hediedin1924.In1963,theheirsofEnanoriaaskedasurveyorto relocate the lot; they discovered that the said property was occupied byPlacido Alecha,theowneroftheadjoininglot.Despitedemands to vacate the subject property, spouses Alecha refused to do so. 2. Asaresult,theheirsofEnanoriafiledacomplaintagainst Alecha, alleging that the latter had usurped their property.3. The trial court held in favor of the Enannorias however upon appeal, CAreversedthedecisionanddismissionthecomplaintofthe Enanoria heirs. ISSUE: Is the complaint of the heirs of Enanoria barred by prescription ? HELD:TheSCheldthatEnanoriascomplaintdoesnotprescribenorisit barredbylaches.Sec46oftheLandRegistrationLaw(nowSec47ofthe Property Registration Decree PD 1529 effective June 11, 1978) provides that notitletoregisteredlandinderogationtothatoftheregisteredownershall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Prescriptionisunavailingnotonlyagainsttheregisteredownerbutalsohis hereditarysuccessorsbecausethelattermerelystepintotheshoesofthe decedentbyoperationoflawandaremerelythecontinuationofthe personality of their predecessor-in-interest. The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop foreveranyquestionastoitslegality.Onceatitleisregistered,the owner may rest secure, and avoid the possibility of losing his land. TitletolandcannolongerbeacquiredbyprescriptionafteraTorrens titlehasbeenissuedforit. Therighttorecoverpossessionofregistered landsisimprescriptiblebecausepossessionismerelyaconsequenceof ownership. Inthepresentcase,thepetitionersactiontorecoverthesubjectproperty cannotbebarredbytheequitabledefenseoflachesordelaybecausethey became aware of the encroachment only after they hired a surveyor in 1963 to ascertain the true boundaries of the subject property.Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 5 12PNB V. CA 153 SCRA 435 (1987) FACTS: During his lifetime, Clodualdo Vitug married twice: Gervacia Flores with whom he had 3 children: Victor, Lucina and Julio. Victor is survived by 5 children: Leonardo, Juan, Candida Francisco and Donaciano.1. Juan is survived by his only daughter Florencia. Donata Montemayor was the 2nd wife with whom he had 8 children: Pragmacio, Maximo, Jesus,Salvador,Prudencia,Anunciacion,EnriqueandFrancisco. Francisco is survived by 11 children. 2. ClodualdodiedintestateinMay1929andaspecialproceeding named Donata Montemayor as the administratrix.3. InNovember1952,DonataMontemayor,throughherson,Salvador Vitug,mortgagedseveralparcelsoflandcoveredbyTCT2289in favorofPNBtoguaranteealoangrantedbythebanktoSalvador Jaramilla and Pedro Bacani in the amount of P40,900. 4. Donataalsomortgagedotherproperties(TCT2887-88)infavorof thesamebanktoguaranteethepaymentofaloanhersonmadein theamountofP35,200. AllTCTsofthesubjectpropertieswerein the name of Donata Montemayor, of legal age, Filipino, widow and a residentofLubaoPampangaandwerefreefromallliensand encumbrances. 5. SalvadorVitugfailedtopayhisloansothebankforeclosedthe mortgaged properties and were sold at a public auction in May 1968 toPNBwhowasthehighestbidder.Thetitlestheretowere consolidatedinthenameofPNB.Likewise,JaramillaandBacani failedtosettletheirloanswiththebanksothelatterforeclosedthe mortgagedpropertieswhichweresoldatapublicaction.PNBwas thehighestbidder.In August1968,anewtitlewasissuedinPNBs name. 6. In1969,PNBsoldtheproperties(TCT2887-88)toJesusVitug, AnunciaciondeGuzman,PrudenciaFajardo,SalvadorVitugand Aurora Guttierez. 7. In May 1970, Pragmacio and Maximo file an action for partition and reconveyance before CFI Pampanga against Marcelo Mendiola as the specialadministratoroftheintestateestateofDonata,theirsiblings, theheirsofFrancisco,andPNB.Bothclaimthatthesubject properties were conjugal properties of spouses Donata and Clodualdo ofwhichtheyclaimashareof2/11of!thereof. Theyassailedthe mortgage to PNB and public auction of said properties were null and void.Lowercourtdismissedthecomplaint.CAreversedthelower courtsdecisionandheldinfavorofbrothersPragmacioand Maximo. ISSUE:Doesthepresumptionofconjugalityofpropertiesacquiredbythe spousesduringcovertureprovidedforinart160NCCapplytoproperty covered by a Torrens certificate of title in the name of the widow? HELD: In processing the loan applications of Donata Montemayor, the PNB hadtherighttorelyonwhatappearsinthecertificatesoftitleandnomore. OnitsfacethepropertiesareownedbyDonataMontemayor,awidow.The PNBhadnoreasontodoubtnorquestionthestatusofsaidregisteredowner andherownershipthereof.Indeed,therearenoliensandencumbrances covering the same.Thewell-knownruleinthisjurisdictionisthatapersondealingwitha registeredlandhasarighttorelyuponthefaceoftheTorrenscertificateof title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man make such inquiry. A Torrenstitleconcludesallcontroversyoverownershipofthelandcovered by a final degree of registration. Once the title is registered the owner may rest assured without the necessity of stepping into the portals of the court or sitting in the mirador de su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land. The presumption stipulated in Art. 160 does not apply in this case because it appearsonthefaceofthetitlethatthepropertieswereacquiredbyDonata when she was already a widow. When the property is registered in the name of aspouseonlyandthereisnoshowingastowhenthepropertywasacquired bysaidspouse,thisisanindicationthatthepropertybelongsexclusivelyto said spouse.PNBhadareasontorelyonwhatappearsonthecertificatesoftitleofthe properties mortgaged. For all legal purposes, the PNB is a mortgagee in good faithforatthetimethemortgagescoveringsaidpropertieswereconstituted the PNB was not aware to any flaw of the title of the mortgagor. Indeed, if the PNBknewoftheconjugalnatureofsaidpropertiesitwouldnothave approvedthemortgageapplicationscoveringsaidpropertiesofDonata Montemayor without requiring the consent of all the other heirs or co-owners thereof. Moreover, when said properties were sold at public auction, the PNB was a purchaser for value in good faith.Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. CunaAtty. Cuna Pageof 6 12BORNALES V. IAC 166 SCRA 519 (1988) FACTS:In1927,SixtoDumulongandhislegalwifeIsabelMarquez-DumulongwereawardedaparceloflandinCapiz(OCT6161).Sixtoand Isabel had no children and lived separately since 1920.1. Subsequently,SixtocohabitedwithPlacida,whoevenusedSixtos surname, and had several children. 2. InMarch1978,PlacidaandherchildrenexecutedaDeedof ExtrajudicialAdjudicationandSaleofRealPropertyinvolvingthe subject property. Said property was sold in favor of spouses Bernardo Decrepito and Loreta Dumolong.3. TheywereabletoacquirethesupposedthumbmarkofIsabel.But apparently, Isabel never affixed her thumbmark and that the same was not within her knowledge. 4. InNovember1978,PlacidaregisteredtheDeedandaTorrenstitle wasissuedintheirname.Threemonthsthereafter,Placidaandher children sold the land to Bornales. Isabel assailed the sale.5. Isabel argued that the acquisition of the Torrens title by Placida et al wasthroughfraud.Bornalescounteredhewasnotawareofthe fraudulentnatureofthepriortransactions,butsinceaTorrenswas issuedheshouldbeconsideredasabuyeringoodfaith,hence entitled to some right. ISSUE: May Bornales invoke the indefeasibility of a Torrens title? HELD: No. Having bought the land registered under the Torrens system from Placida who procured title thereto by means of fraud, Bornales cannot invoke theindefeasibilityofacertificateoftitleagainstIsabeltotheextentofher interest therein. Torrens system of land registration should not be used as a meanstoperpetratefraudagainsttherightfulownerofrealproperty. Registration,tobeeffective,mustbemadeingoodfaith.Itisasettled rulethatthedefenseofindefeasibilityofacertificateoftitledoesnot extendtoatransferee(Bornales)whotakesitwithnoticeoftheflawsin his transferor's (Placidas) title. Also, Bornales had been a tenant of the Dumulongs. He is aware that Placida wasnotSixtoslegalspouseandthatitwasIsabelwhohasarightfulclaim overtheland.HeshouldhavenotboughtthelandfromPlacida,considering his knowledge of the fact that Placida could not have own any portion of the land since she was not a legal wife. Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 7 12PNB V. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, 199 SCRA 508 (1991) FACTS:PetitionerPNBfiledwithRTC Alaminos,Pangasinanapetitionfor thecancellationofamemorandumofencumbranceannotateduponits16 TCTS 1. PetitionerallegedthatspousesBalingitexecutedarealestate mortgage in favor of PNB to secure a loan the spouses obtained from PNB 2. Annotatedsubsequenttothememorandaofthemortgagelienof PNBisanoticeoflevyreCivilCaseContinentalBankv.Spouses Balingit) for a total sum of P96,636.1 at the back of the TCTs 3. Since the spouses defaulted on their loan with PNB, the bank extra-judiciallyforeclosedthe16parcelsofland.Thesheriffscertificate of sale was registered on April 3, 1972 4. Upontheexpirationoftheone-yearlegalredemptionperiod,PNB consolidated in its name the ownership of the subject properties and a new TCT was issued in its name. however, the notice of levy in favor of Continental Bank (now ICB) was carried over and now appears as the sole encumbrance in the new titles of PNB 5. Subsequently,ICB,assuccessorininterestofContinentalBank, filedanoppositionallegingthatsinceitwasnotawareofthe extrajudicialforeclosure,thenewandconsolidatedtitlesinfavorof PNB are null and void 6. RTC Alaminos denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction7. Petitioner appealed to CA averring that RTC erred in ruling (1) there isanadverseclaimorseriousobjectiononthepartoftheoppositor renderthecasecontroversialandassuch,shouldbethreshedoutin an ordinary case; and (2) it has no jurisdiction over the case ISSUE:WONRTChasjurisdictionoverpetitionsfiledunderSec108of Property Registration ActHELD:Yes.UnderSec2PD1529,RTCsactingaslandregistrationcourts nowhaveexclusivejurisdictionnotonlyoverapplicationsfororiginal registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, but also over petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.Sec2ofPD1529removedthedistinctionbetweenthegeneraljurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law (Act 496) when acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at avoidingmultiplicityofsuits,thechangehassimplifiedregistration proceedings for original registration but also over all petitioners filed after originalregistrationoftitle,withpowertohearanddetermineallquestions arisinguponsuchapplicationsorpetitions.Clearly,therefore,thatthelower court had ample jurisdiction to decide the instant case filed by PNB. Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 8 12VIAJAR V. CA 168 SCRA 405 (1988) FACTS:ThespousesRicardoandLeonorLadridoweretheownersofLot 7511oftheCadastralSurveyofPototansituatedinbarangayCawayan, Pototan,Iloilo(154,267sqm.,TCTT-21940oftheRegisterofDeedsof Iloilo).SpousesRosendoandAnaTewerealsotheregisteredownersofa parceloflanddescribedintheirtitleasLot7340oftheCadastralSurveyof Pototan.1. On 6 September 1973, Rosendo Te, with the conformity of his wife, soldthislotto AngelicaF.ViajarandCelsoF.ViajarforP5,000. A Torrens title was later issued in Viajars name.2. Later, Angelica Viajar had Lot 7340 relocated and found out that thepropertywasinthepossessionofRicardoY.Ladrido. Consequently,shedemandeditsreturnbutLadridorefused.The pieceofrealpropertywhichusedtobeLot7340oftheCadastral SurveyofPototanwaslocatedinbarangayGuibuanogan,Pototan, Iloilo;thatitconsistedof20,089sqm.;thatatthetimeofthe cadastral survey in 1926, Lot 7511 and Lot 7340 were separated bytheSuagueRiver;thattheareaof11,819sq.msofwhatwas Lot7340hasbeeninthepossessionofLadrido;thattheareaof 14,036sq.ms.,whichwasformerlytheriverbedoftheSuague Riverpercadastralsurveyof1926,hasalsobeeninthe possessionofLadrido;andthattheViajarshaveneverbeenin actual physical possession of Lot 7340. 3. On15February1974,AngelicaandCelsoViajarinstitutedacivil actionforrecoveryofpossessionanddamagesagainstRicardoY. Ladrido(CivilCase9660)withtheCFIIloilo.Summonedtoplead, Ladrido filed his answer with a counterclaim. The Viajars filed their reply to the answer.4. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to implead Rosendo Te as anotherdefendant.The Viajarssoughttheannulmentofthedeed ofsaleandtherestitutionofthepurchasepricewithinterestin theeventthepossessionofdefendantLadridoissustained.Te filed his answer to the amended complaint and he counterclaimed for damages. The Viajars answered the counterclaim.5. Duringthependencyofthecase,CelsoViajarsoldhisrightsover Lot7340tohismotherandco-plaintiff, AngelicaF.Viajar.Forthis reason, Angelica F. Viajar appears to be the sole registered owner of the lot.6. On25May1978,RicardoLadridodied.Hewassubstitutedinthe civilactionbyhiswife,LeonorP.Ladrido,andchildren,namely: Lourdes Ladrido-Ignacio, Eugenio P. Ladrido and Manuel P. Ladrido, as parties defendants.7. Aftertrialonthemerits,asecondamendedcomplaintwhich includeddamageswasadmitted.On10December1981,thetrial courtrendereditsdecisioninfavorofLadrido,dismissingthe complaintof AngelicaandCelso Viajarwithcostsagainstthem, declaring Leonor P. Ladrido, Lourdes Ladrido-Ignacio, Eugenio P. Ladrido and Manuel P. Ladrido as owner of the parcel of land indicatedasLots AandBinthesketchplansituatedinbarangays CawayanandGuibuanogan,Pototan,Iloilo,andcontaininganarea of25,855sq.ms.,andpronouncingthatasownersoftheland,the Ladridos are entitled to the possession thereof. ISSUE: WON the change in the Suague river was gradual HELD:Thepresumptionisthatthechangeinthecourseoftheriverwas gradualandcausedbyaccretionanderosion(MartinezCaasvs.Tuason,5 Phil.668;PayatasEstateImprovementCo.vs.Tuason,53Phil.55;C.H. Hodgesvs.Garcia,109Phil.133).Inthepresentcase,thelowercourt correctlyfoundthattheevidenceintroducedbytheViajarstoshowthatthe changeinthecourseoftheSuagueRiverwassuddenorthatitoccurred throughavulsionisnotclearandconvincing. TheLadridoshavesufficiently establishedthatformanyyearsafter1926agradualaccretionontheeastern sideofLot7511tookplacebyactionofthecurrentoftheSuagueRiverso thatin1979analluvialdepositof29,912sq.ms.(2.9912hectares),moreor less, had been added to Lot 7511 (Lot A: 14,036 sq.ms., Lot B, 11,819 sq.ms. andLotC,whichisnotinlitigation,4,057sq.ms).Theestablishedfacts indicate that the eastern boundary of Lot 7511 was the Suague River based on thecadastralplan.Foraperiodofmorethan40years(before1940to1980) theSuagueRiveroverfloweditsbanksyearlyandthepropertyofthe defendant gradually received deposits of soil from the effects of the current of theriver. TheconsequentincreaseintheareaofLot7511duetoalluvionor accretion was possessed by the defendants whose tenants plowed and planted thesamewithcornandtobacco.Thequondamriverbedhadbeenfilledby accretionthroughtheyears.Thelandisalreadyplainandthereisno indicationonthegroundofanyabandonedriverbed.Underthelaw, accretionwhichthebanksorriversmaygraduallyreceivefromthe effects of the current of the waters becomes the property of the owners ofJanavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. Cuna Atty. Cuna Pageof 9 12thelandsadjoiningthebanks.(Art.366,OldCivilCode;Art.457,New Civil Code which took effect on 30 August 1950 [Lara v. Del Rosario, 94 Phil. 778]. Therefore, the accretion to Lot 7511 which consists of Lots A and B belong to the Ladridos. Section 45 of Act 496 provides that the obtaining of a decree of registration and the entry of a certificate of title shall be regarded as an agreement running withtheland,andbindingupontheapplicantandallsuccessorsintitlethat thelandshallbeandalwaysremainregisteredland,andsubjecttothe provisionsofthisActandallActsamendatorythereof."Section46ofthe same act provides that No title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession." The rule that registration under the Torrens System does not protect the riparianowneragainstthediminutionoftheareaofhisregisteredland throughgradualchangesinthecourseofanadjoiningstreamiswell settled.InPayatasEstateImprovementCo.vs.Tuason(53Phil.55),itwas ruledthat Article366oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatanyaccretionswhich thebanksofriversmaygraduallyreceivefromtheeffectsofthecurrent belongtotheownersoftheestatesborderingthereon.Accretionsofthat character are natural incidents to land bordering on running streams and are not affected by the registration laws. It follows that registration does not protect the riparian owner against diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream. Similarly inC.N.Hodgesvs.Garcia(109Phil.133),itwasruledthatifthelandin question has become part of ones estate as a result of accretion, it follows that saidlandnowbelongstohim. Thefactthattheaccretiontohislandusedto pertaintoanother'sestate,whichiscoveredbya TorrensCertificateof Title, cannotprecludetheformerfrombeingtheownerthereof.Registrationdoes notprotecttheriparianowneragainstthediminutionoftheareaofhisland throughgradualchangesinthecourseoftheadjoiningstream.Accretions which the banks of rivers may gradually receive from the effect of the current becomethepropertyoftheownersofthebanks(Art.366oftheOldCivil Code;Art.457oftheNew).Suchaccretionsarenaturalincidentstoland borderingonrunningstreamsandtheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeinthat respect are not affected by the Registration Act. Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. CunaAtty. Cuna Pageof 10 12CORONEL V. CA,173 SCRA 26 (1987) FACTS:PetitionerCoronelfiledacomplaintforrecoverofpossessionofa parcel of land registered in his name. The complaint was filed against private respondents Merlan et al 1. Coronel alleged that when he purchased the subject property, private respondentswerealreadyoccupyingaportionthereofastenantsat all and the latter refused the vacate the premises despite demands 2. Private respondents, on the other hand, averred that the portion they occupiedformed1/3undividedsharewhichtheyhadinheritedand that they never sold their 1/3 share 3. Third-partydefendantsNoveloetal,deniedthattheyhadsoldthe entireproperty,theyclaimedthattheyonlysoldtheir2/3undivided share in the property4. It appears that the subject property was part of a bigger estate which wasinheritedbyLontoc.WhenLontocdied,thepropertywas inheritedby:childrenofEnriqueMerlan(BernardinoMerlan), childrenofGabrielMerlan(JoseMerlan)andthechildrenof Francisca Merlan (Anuat) 5. In 1950, Bernardino and the Anuats sold their 2/3 undivided share to spouses Manalo 6. Spouses Manalo, in turn, sold their share to Mariano Manalo. A new TCT was then issued in the name of Mariano. The TCT covered the wholepropertywithoutanymentionofthe1/3shareoftheprivate respondents which was not sold to them 7. RelyingontheTCTofMarianoManalo,petitionerCoronel purchasedthesubjectpropertyforP27,000andanewTCTwas issued in his name ISSUE: WON Coronel is the owner of the subject property HELD:No.Coronelsownershiponlypertainstothe2/3undividedshare which he purchased from Mariano Manalo. Thewell-knownruleinthisjurisdictionisthatapersondealingwitha registeredlandhasarighttorelyuponthefaceoftheTorrenscertificateof titleandtodispensewiththeneedofinquiringfurther.Thereis,however,a countervailingdoctrine,thatmitigatestheiron-cladapplicationofthe principle attaching full faith and credit to a Torrens title. It is inspired by the highest concept of what is fair and what is equitable.The simple possession of a certificate of title, under the Torrens system, does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein.Ifapersonobtainsatitle,undertheTorrenssystem,whichincludes bymistakeoroversight,landwhichcannotberegisteredundertheTorrens system, he does not, by virtue of said certificate aloe, become the owner of the lands included. Thepetitionerisboundtorecognizethelieninfavoroftheprivate respondents which was mistakenly excluded and therefore not inscribed in the Torrens title of the subject property. Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. CunaAtty. Cuna Pageof 11 12GOLLOY V. CA 173 SCRA 26 (1989) FACTS:PetitionerGolloyhasbeen,formorethan20years,theregistered ownerandinpossessionofaparceloflandcoveredbyTCT45764.The southwest boundary is owned by private respondents covered by certificate of title8565.Sometimein1966,privaterespondentssubdividedtheirland amongthemselvesandinthecourseofdoingso,privaterespondentshad placed2monumentsinthesouthwestportionofthepetitionersland.Asa result, petitioner Golloy filed an action to quiet title (claim ownership over a real property) before the CFI Tarlac. Privaterespondentsfiledamotiontodismisswithcounterclaim,denying Golloysallegationandmaintainedthattheymerelysubdividedtheirown property and as such, Golloy had no cause of action. During the pre-trial both parties agreed that the question of the boundaries of theirrespectivepropertiescouldberesolvedbyappointingasurveyorto relocate the disputed area. In May 1968, Jovino Dauz, the surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, reported the following: 1. Petitioners land is Lot A of the subdivision plan, Psd-1413, being a portionofthelanddescribedinOCT126inthenameof Augustin Golloy.ThelandunderOCT126wassurveyedonMar1918and subsequently titled in 1919 2. PrivaterespondentslandisLotno.1,11-8218inthenameof DomingoBalanga,whichwassurveyedonMar1913andoriginally titled and registered on Mar 1918 3. Thereisoverlappingontheboundarieswhichwasduetothedefect inthesurveyonpetitionerssinceitdidnotdulyconformwiththe previously approved of survey of Lot 1, 11-3218 under OCT 8565 4. Privaterespondentsland, TCT8565,prevailsoverpetitionersland since the former was surveyed and titled ahead. Trial court held in favor of private respondents. CA affirmed the same. ISSUE: Between the two title holders, who is entitled to the land in question? HELD:PetitionerGolloyisentitledtothedisputedportionofland.Itis undisputedthatthatBalangaspropertywassurveyedandtitledearlierthan Golloys.Havingbeensurveyedandthereafterregistered,monumentswere placedthereintoindicatetheirrespectiveboundaries.Itishardlypersuasive thattheprivaterespondentspredecessorBalanga,believingthatshehasa rightful claim to the overlapped portions, did not make any move to question theplacementofthemonuments.Shecouldhaveeasilyobjectedtothe placementandpointoutthattheplacementsofthemonumentsexcludedthe overlappedportionsfromherproperty.However,nosuchobjectionswere made. As such, it may be construed that Balanga never believed that she has a right and legal claim to the overlapped portion.Consideringthatthepetitionerandhispredecessorshaveincontinuous possession in the concept of an owner, for almost 50 years (from 1919 when it was registered to 1966 when the dispute ensued), the private respondents are guilty of laches.MerepossessionofcertificateoftitleunderTorrensSystemisnot conclusive as to the holders true ownership of all the property described therein for he does by virtue of saidc certificate alone become the owner of the land illegally included. Janavi Z. Salamanca Land Titles and Deeds (Day 1)Atty. CunaAtty. Cuna Pageof 12 12REPUBLIC V. CA, 83 SCRA 453 (1978) FACTS:BothRepublicandrespondentsdeOcampoandAngloclaim ownership of the subject parcel of land. 1. RepublicclaimsthatsaidpropertieswerebequeathedtotheBureau ofEducation(nowBureauofPublicSchools)bythelateEsteban Jalandonithroughhiswill.Saidpropertieswerealreadyregistered undertheTorrenssysteminthenameofMeerkamp&Copriorto being acquired by Jalandoni 2. RespondentdeOcampobasedhisclaimonanapplicationfor registration of the same. He claimed the lots were unregistered lands belonging to and possessed by him, by virtue of a donation from one Luis Mosquera 3. Respondent Anglo allegedly purchased the same from De Ocampo in 1966 ISSUE:WONthetrialcourthadjurisdictiontoentertaintheapplicationfor landregistrationofDeOcampoonthegroundthatsaidpropertieswere already registered under the Torrens system before 1919 HELD:No.Authoritiesareinagreementthatalandregistrationcourtis without jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already registered in an earlier registration case, and that the second decree entered for the same landisnullandvoid.Ifthereisnovalidandfinaljudgmentbytheland registrationtospeakof,thenthefilingofanadmittedlylateappearfromthe decisiondenyingtheAmendedPetitionwouldbeimmaterialandofno momentinsofarastheseproceedingsareconcernedinviewofthe congenitally fatal infirmity that attaches to the main decision decreeing for the second time, the registration of the same lots in favor of De Ocampo, despite anearlierregistrationinthenameofMeerkamp&Co.Jurisprudenceholds thatthattheappellantsfailuretoperfectanappealontime,although ordinarilydecisive,carriesnopersuasiveforce,andmaybecompletely disregarded if the trial court acted without jurisdiction.AsheldinReyesv.Borbon:Whentheattentionofthecourtofland registrationiscalledtothefactthatthesamelandhasbeenregisteredinthe nameoftwodifferentpersons,itisthedutyofthesaidcourttoorderand investigationofthatfactandshouldbedoneevenwithoutrequiringthe partiestoshowthatafraudhasbeencommittedduringthedouble registration.Whenitisestablishedthatthesamehasbeenregisteredinthe nameoftwodifferentpersons,thetitleshouldremaininthenameofthe person securing the first registration.The very purpose of the Torrens system wouldbedestroyedfithesamelandmaybesubsequentlybroughtundera second action for registration.