Ltd Review Outline 2013

8/12/2019 Ltd Review Outline 2013

1/54

UPDATES IN PROPERTY REGISTRATION, MORTGAGES,CONDOMINIUMS AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS

(June 2013)

(Base !n A"#a!$%$, Property Registration Decree and Related Laws(Land Titles and Deeds) , 2011 e &, an ' Reviewer in Property Registration

(With Sample M !s and S"ggested #nswers) 1

Jus $#e Os a% ! D& A"#a!$%$2

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of whatever classification and other naturalresources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to

belong to the State which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. 3

Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienableagricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of theinalienable public domain. 4 Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce ofman and not susceptible of private appropriation and ac uisitive prescription. !ccupationthereof in the concept of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and beregistered as a title. "

# Published by Re$ %oo& Store. See also' ( Law on Natural Resources ,) and ( Reviewer in Property Registration and Related Laws (with MCQs and Suggested Answers).* +ustice !swaldo . Agcaoili finished law at the University of Sto. -omas. e obtained a degree in/anagement at the Asian 0nstitute of /anagement. A former 1hief of 2egislative and Research Section,

%ureau of 2ands, he was appointed Solicitor in the !ffice of the Solicitor eneral in # 5", and AssistantSolicitor eneral in # 64. 0n # ", he was appointed Associate +ustice of the 1ourt of Appeals. e was1hairman of the #3 th ivision upon his retirement from the 1ourt. 1ourt. +ustice Agcaoili is a full7timeProfessor of the Philippine +udicial Academy 8P 02+A9 and Professorial 2ecturer of the UP 0nstitute forthe Administration of +ustice 8UP70A+9 and other /12: providers. e is a duly accredited Appellate 1ourt/ediator 8A1/9. A delegate;participant in several international conferences, he wrote a paper entitled

!nviron"ental Protection# $he Convergence o% Law and Policy& which he read during the *< th %iennial1onference on the 2aw of the =orld held in ublin, 0reland in !ctober *oreword by +ustic Adolfo S. A?cuna, 1hancellor of thePhilippine +udicial Academy, and ( Reviewer in Property Registration and Related Proceedings .) 8-el.'

**7


2/54

-he # 65 1onstitution, li&e the # 3" and # 53 1onstitutions, @ embodies the principle of State ownership of lands and all other natural resources as provided inSection *, Art. F00, to wit'

(All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, andother mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,wildlife, flora and fauna and other natural resources are owned by the State.=ith the e$ception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not bealienated.)

ANCESTRAL DOMAINS ANDANCESTRAL LANDS

0n Cru v. Secretary o% !nviron"ent and Natural Resources ,5 petitionerschallenged the constitutionality of RA Co. 635#, otherwise &nown as the 0ndigenousPeoples Rights Act of # 5 80PRA9, on the ground that it amounts to an unlawfuldeprivation of the StateGs ownership over lands of the public domain and all other naturalresources therein, by recogni?ing the right of ownership of 0ndigenous 1ultural1ommunities or 0ndigenous Peoples 8011s;0Ps9 to their ancestral domains and ancestrallands on the basis of native title. After due deliberation on the petition, the Supreme1ourt voted as follows' seven 859 +ustices voted to dismiss the petition while seven 859others voted to grant the petition. As the votes were e ually divided 85 to 59 and thenecessary maHority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. owever, afterredeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5, Rule "@of the Rules of 1ourt, the petition was dismissed, and the validity of the law, deemedupheld.

+ustice Iapunan, voting to dismiss the petition, stated that the Regalian theorydoes not negate native title to lands held in private ownership since time immemorial,adverting to the landmar& case of Cari*o v. +nsular ,overn"ent- where the UnitedStates Supreme 1ourt, through +ustice olmes, declared'

(0t might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far bac& astestimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of

private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from beforethe Spanish con uest, and never to have been public land.)

-he rights of 011s;0Ps may be ac uired in two modes' 8a9 by native title over bothancestral lands and domains or 8b9 by -orrens title under the Public 2and Act andProperty Registration ecree with respect to ancestral lands only.

T*E TORRENS SYSTEMO+ REGISTRATION

@ Saad Agro70ndustries, 0nc. v. Republic, R Co. #"*"5


3/54

-he overnment has adopted the -orrens system due to its being the mosteffective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect theirindefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recogni?ed. 0f a person

purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the sellerJs title thereto is valid, he shouldnot run the ris& of being told later that his ac uisition was ineffectual after all, which will

not only be unfair to him as the purchaser, but will also erode public confidence in thesystem and will force land transactions to be attended by complicated and not necessarilyconclusive investigations and proof of ownership. -he further conse uence will be thatland conflicts can be even more abrasive, if not even violent. -he overnment,recogni?ing the worthy purposes of the -orrens system, should be the first to accept thevalidity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are satisfied.

-he overnment is re uired under the -orrens system of registration to issue anofficial certificate of title to attest to the fact that the person named in the certificate is theowner of the property therein described, subHect to such liens and encumbrances asthereon noted or what the law warrants or reserves. #< -he obHective is to obviate possible

conflicts of title by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of the -orrenscertificate and to dispense, as a rule, with the necessity of in uiring further. -he -orrenssystem gives the registered owner complete peace of mind, in order that he will besecured in his ownership as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of any right over thecovered land. ##

PURPOSE O+ REGISTRATION

-he real purpose of the -orrens system of registration, as e$pressed in Legarda v.Salee/y ,#*

a # #" decision, is to uiet title to land to put a stop forever to any uestion of

the legality of the title, e$cept claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the

certificate, or which may arise subse uent thereto. -he -orrens system aims to decreeland titles that shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable, #3

and to relieve the land of the

burden of &nown as well as un&nown claims .#4

owever, the -orrens system does not furnish a shield for fraud, #" nor permit oneto enrich himself at the e$pense of others ,#@ otherwise its acceptability is impaired. #5

1asimiro evelopment 1orporation v. /ateo, R Co. #5"46", +uly *5, *


4/54

REGISTRATION NOT A MODEO+ AC UIRING O-NERS*IP

Registration is not a mode of ac uiring ownership but is merely a procedure toestablish evidence of title over realty. #6 0t is a means of confirming the fact of its

e$istence with notice to the world at large. A certificate of title is not a source of right. 0tmerely confirms or records a title already e$isting and vested. # -he mere possessionthereof does not ma&e one the true owner of the property. *orest and mineral lands are public lands not subHect to private ownership.Subse uent release of forest lands as A and lands does not validate the grant. 4<

33 1ity of Pasig v. Republic, R Co. #6"


8/54

(A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose suchclassification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or planted tocrops by 'aingin cultivators or other farmers. L>orest landsG do not have to be onmountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa

palms, and other trees growing in brac&ish or sea water may also be classified as forestland. -he classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to bedescriptive of what the land actually loo&s li&e. Unless and until the land classified asLforestG is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of thedisposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfecttitle do not apply.) 4#

/inerals found in public or even private land belong to the State. =2 0n a resolutiondated ecember #, *%/R, or a part thereof is not open to private appropriationor disposition and, therefore, not registrable, unless it is in the meantime reclassified anddeclared as disposable and alienable public land. And until a given parcel of land isreleased from its classification as part of the military reservation ?one and reclassified bylaw or by presidential proclamation as disposable and alienable, its status as part of amilitary reservation remains, even if incidentally it is devoted for a purpose other than asa military camp or for defense.

4# Amunategui v. irector of >orestry, R Co. 27*5653, Cov. * , # 63, #*@ S1RA @ .4* Republic v. 1ourt of Appeals and ela Rosa, #@< S1RA **6.43 R Co. #*566*, ec. #, *


9/54

Cavigable rivers cannot be appropriated and registered, 45 and so are la&es, 46

watersheds 4 and mangrove swamps. "<

-*O MAY APPLY +OR REGISTRATION

Under Section #4, P Co. #"* , the following may apply for registration'

8#9 -hose who by themselves or their predecessors7in7interest have been inopen, continuous, e$clusive and notorious possession and occupation ofalienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a /ona %ideclaim of ownership since +une #*, # 4", or earlier.

8*9 -hose who have ac uired ownership of private lands by prescription underthe provisions of e$isting laws.

839 -hose who have ac uired ownership of private lands or abandoned river

beds by right of accession or ac uired under e$isting laws849 -hose who have ac uired ownership of land in any other manner provided

for by law.

Under Section 468b9 of 1A Co. #4# 8Public 2and Act9, it is provided as follows'

-hose who by themselves or through their predecessors7in7interest have been inthe open, continuous, e$clusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable anddisposable land of the public domain, under a /ona %ide claim of ac uisition ofownership, since +une #*, # 4" or prior thereto may apply for the confirmation ofimperfect or incomplete title.

NO SUBSTANTIAL DI++ERENCE BET-EENSEC& 1=(1), PD N!& 1 24 an SEC& =>(9), CA NO& 1=1

-here is no substantial difference between Sec. #48#9 of P Co. #"* and Sec.468b9 of 1A Co. #4#. 0n both, the applicant must show that 8#9 the land is alienable anddisposable 8A and 9 public agricultural land and 8*9 he has been in open, continuouse$clusive and notorious possession thereof under a /ona %ide claim of ownership since+une #*, # 4", or prior thereto. "# %oth refer to original registration proceedings, areagainst the whole world, and the decree of registration for both is conclusive and final.

RE UIREMENTS +OR REGISTRATION45 Republic v. Sioson, S1RA "33.46 Pelbel /anufacturing 1orporation v. 1ourt of Appeals, R Co. #4#3*", +uly 3#, *


10/54

UNDER SEC& 1=(1), PRD IN RELATIONTO SEC& =>(B), PLA&

Section #4 8#9 of the Property Registration ecree has three re uisites forregistration of title' 8a9 that the property in uestion is alienable and disposable land of

the public domain 8b9 that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors7in7interest have been in open, continuous, e$clusive and notorious possession andoccupation and 8c9 that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since+une #*, # 4" or earlier. "*

Possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterruptedand adverse. Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and notclandestine. 0t is continuous when uninterrupted, unbro&en and not intermittent oroccasional e5clusive when the adverse possessor can show e$clusive dominion over theland and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit and notorious when it is soconspicuous that it is generally &nown and tal&ed of by the public or the people in the

neighborhood."3

0n Mala/anan v. Court o% Appeals,"4 the 1ourt en /anc reiterated the rule in

Repu/lic v. Court o% Appeals and Naguit "" that (since Section 468b9 8in relation toSection #4M#N9 merely re uires possession since #* +une # 4" and does not re uire thatthe lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of

possession, the possessor is entitled to secure Hudicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared aliena/le and disposa/le , subHect to the timeframe imposed bySection 45 of the Public 2and Act.) "@

!riginally, Section 468b9 of 1A Co. #4# provided for the possession andoccupation of lands of the public domain since +uly *@, # 64. -his was superseded byRA Co. # 4* which provided for a simple 3


11/54

of an agricultural land of the public domain, under a /ona %ide claim of ownership, for atleast 67 years , or at least since 8an. 9:- ;


12/54

re uirements of registration prior to the purchase, can validly register his title to the landeven if at the time of the filing of his application he was already an alien. @3 e alreadyhad a vested right to the land.

AC UISITION O+ PRI ATE LAND

BY PRESCRIPTION

0n Repu/lic v. !ast Silverlane Realty evelop"ent Corporation ,@4 Section #48*9must be considered in relation to the rule on prescription under the 1ivil 1ode as a modeof ac uiring ownership of patrimonial property. Possession and occupation of analienable and disposable public land for the periods provided under the 1ivil 1ode do notautomatically convert said property into private property or release it from the publicdomain. $here "ust /e an e5press declaration that the property is no longer intended %or

pu/lic service or develop"ent o% national wealth. =ithout such e$press declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the State, andthus, may not be ac uired by prescription. And only when the property has become

patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the ac uisition of property of the publicdominion begin to run. @" Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by1ongress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authori?ed

by law. @@ -he period of possession preceding the classification of the property as patrimonial cannot be considered in determining the completion of the prescriptive period. @5

Under ordinary ac uisitive prescription, a person ac uires ownership of a patri"onial property through possession for at least ten 8#


13/54

interruption of possession. 0n the case of 4eirs o% 1ienvenido and Araceli $anyag v.,a/riel , 5* which also cited the Ra*on Case- the 1ourt stated that the acts of declaringagain the property for ta$ purposes and obtaining a -orrens certificate of title in oneJsname cannot defeat anotherJs right of ownership ac uired through ac uisitive

prescription. 0n the same vein, a protest filed before an administrative agency and even

the decision resulting from it cannot effectively toll the running of the period ofac uisitive prescription. !nly in cases filed before the courts may Hudicial summons beissued and, thus, interrupt possession. 539

AC UISITION O+ PRI ATE LANDBY RIG*T O+ ACCESSION ORACCRETION

Under Article 4*


14/54

receives such accretion is covered by a -orrens title. -here must be a separate action forthe registration thereof. 6*

Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and is not opento ac uisition by adverse possession, unless subse uently declared as no longer needed

for coast guard service, for public use or for special industries.63

PRI ATE CORPORATIONS DIS UALI+IED+ROM AC UIRING PUBLIC LANDS

A private corporation may not hold alienable lands of the public domain e$cept by lease not to e$ceed #,


15/54

0f amendment of the application is made to include additional area, a new publication of the amended application must be made, but not when the amendmentconsists in the e$clusion of a portion form the area originally applied for. 3

OPPOSITION

Any person, whether named in the notice or not, may appear and file andopposition, based on right of dominion or some other real right, to the application forregistration. 4 -he absence of opposition does not Hustify outright registration. Since the

presumption is that all lands belong to the State, the applicant has the burden of provinghis imperfect right or fee simple title to the land applied for. " -he failure of thegovernment to file an opposition, despite receipt of notice, does not deprive it of its rightto appeal a decision adHudicating the land as private property. @

PROO+ AS TO T*E

IDENTITY O+ T*E LAND

As re uired by Section #5 of P Co. #"* , the application for registration must be accompanied by a survey plan of the land duly approved by the irector of 2ands8now Regional -echnical irector, 2ands /anagement %ureau9, together with theapplicantGs muniments of title. Co plan or survey may be admitted in land registration

proceedings until approved by the irector of 2ands.

0n irector o% Lands v. Reyes , 5 the Supreme 1ourt declared that the submission

of the tracing cloth plan is a statutory re uirement of "andatory character. %ut in irector o% Lands v. Court o% Appeals and +glesia ni Cristo , 6

the 1ourt considered the

submission of a white print copy of the plan as sufficient to identify the land. -he 1ourtwas more categorical in irector o% Lands v. +nter"ediate Appellate Court and

!spartine when it stated that (the presentation of the tracing cloth plan re uired $ $ $

"ay now /e dispensed with where there is a survey plan the correctness of which had not been overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence.)

PROO+ O+ CLASSI+ICATIONO+ LAND AS 'A AND D.

-he following may be considered sufficient to establish the classification of landas alienable and disposable land for purposes of original registration'

#. 1ertification of the %ureau of >orest evelopment that the land has been

3 %enin v. -uason, "5 S1RA "3#.4 Sec. *5 P Co. #"* ." irector of 2ands v. Agustin, 4* Phil. **5.@ Regalado v. Republic, R Co. #@6#"", >eb. #", *


16/54

released as alienable and disposable land.

*. 2and 1lassification /ap showing that the land lies within the alienableand disposable portion of the public domain.

3. :$ecutive proclamation withdrawing from a reservation a specific areaand declaring the same open for entry, sale or other mode of disposition.

4. 2egislative act or e$ecutive proclamation reserving a portion of the publicdomain for public or uasi7public use, which amounts to a transfer of ownership to thegrantee.

". -he report of a land inspector of the %ureau of 2ands that the subHect landwas found inside an (agricultural ?one) and is suitable for rice cultivation (is binding onthe courts inasmuch as it is the e$clusive prerogative of the :$ecutive epartment of the

overnment to classify public lands. -he classification is descriptive of its legal nature or

status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually loo&s li&e.)#urisdiction ) of the 1:CR! where the area is below


17/54

0n Llanes v. Repu/lic ,#


18/54

Possession must be open, continuous, e$clusive and notorious under a /ona %ideclaim of ownership since +une #*, # 4" or earlier. ##* Acts of a possessory character byvirtue of a license or mere tolerance on the part of the real owner are not sufficient. ##3

/ere casual cultivation of land, the raising of cattle or gra?ing of livestoc& withoutsubstantial enclosures or other permanent improvements do not constitute e$clusive and

notorious possession under claim of ownership##4

ESTED RIG*TS

A vested right is some right or interest in property that has become fi$ed andestablished, and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. Rights are vested when theright to enHoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some person as

present interest.

An open, continuous, adverse and public possession of a land of the publicdomain from time immemorial by a private individual personally o through his

predecessors confers an effective title on said possessor, whereby the land cease to be public, and becomes private property. 1ompliance with all re uirements for agovernment grant ipso >ure converts land to private property. -he land ceases to be of the

public domain and is beyond the authority of the :CR to dispose of it under any of themodes of disposition under the Public 2and Act. ##"

TA@ DECLARATIONS ANDTA@ RECEIPTS

-a$ declarations and payment of ta$es are not conclusive proof of ownership buthave strong probative value when accompanied by proof of actual possession orsupported by other effective proof. ##@ eclaring land for ta$ation purposes and visiting itevery once in a while do not constitutes acts of possession. ##5 -a$ declarations are notevidence of the right of possession unless supported by the other effective proof. %utthey constitute proof that the holder has claim of the title over the property. ##6

Payment of ta$es is on an annual basis. elayed declaration of property for ta$ purposes negates a claim of continuous, e$clusive, and uninterrupted possession in theconcept of owner. ## ence, payment in one a lump sum to cover all past ta$es is(irregular) and affects the validity of the applicantGs claim of ownership. #*< %ut mere

##* Sec. #48#9, P Co. #"* Sec. 468b9, 1A Co. #4#, as amended -an v. Republic, R Co. #555 5, ec.

4, *


19/54

failure of the owner to pay ta$es does not warrant a conclusion that there wasabandonment of the property. #*#

SPANIS* TITLES NO LONGERALID PROO+ O+ O-NERS*IP

Spanish titles are no longer admissible as proof of ownership. -he so7called$itulo de Propriedad No. :;6@ is ine$istent. #** 0n a case, -1- Co. 4"#4*37A was traced

bac& to $itulo de Propriedad No. :;6@ , which, in the +ntestate !state o% the late on Mariano San Pedro y !ste/an v. Court o% Appeals- was already declared null and void,and from which, the 1ourt declared, no rights could therefore be derived. #*3

JUDGMENT DECREE O+ REGISTRATION

=ithin #" days from entry of Hudgment, the court shall issue an order directing the2and Registration Authority 82RA9 to issue a decree of registration and certificate of

title.#*4

-here is no period within which to issue the decree.#*"

=hile the Hudgment becomes final #" days from receipt of notice of the Hudgment8as to the government, period of appeal shall be rec&oned from receipt of the decision bythe Solicitor eneral who represents the government in all registration proceedings9, #*@

the court nevertheless retains Hurisdiction over the case until after the e$piration of oneyear from the issuance of the decree of registration #*5 hence, the case may still bereopened and the decision set aside when granted. #*6

:$ecution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding andthe certificate of title thereby issued is null and void. A -orrens title issued on the basis ofa Hudgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the e$plicit provisions of theProperty Registration ecree which re uires that a decree shall be issued only after thedecision adHudicating the title becomes final and e$ecutory, and it is on the basis of saiddecree that the Register of eeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title. #*

A land registration court has no Hurisdiction to order the registration of landalready decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case. A seconddecree for the same land would be null and void. #3< #*# Reyes v. Sierra, 3 S1RA 45*.#** P Co. 6 *, dated Aug. #@, # 5@ Santiago v. S%/A, R Co. #"@666, Cov. *


20/54

0n irector o% Lands v. Court o% Appeals ,#3# the 1ourt held that a Hudicialdeclaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude even the same applicant fromsubse uently see&ing a Hudicial confirmation of his title to the same land, provided hethereafter complies with the provisions of Section 46 #3* of 1ommonwealth Act Co. #4#,

as amended, and as long as said public lands remain alienable and disposable.#33

-RIT O+ POSSESSION

-he writ may be issued not only against the person defeated in the registrationcase but also against any one adversely occupying the land during the proceedings up tothe issuance of the decree. #34 -he writ does not lie against a person who entered the landafter the issuance of the decree and who was not a party in the case. e can only be

proceeded against in a separate action for eHectment or reivindicatory action. #3" -he writis imprescriptible. A writ of demolition is but a compliment of the writ of possession #3@

and may be issued by a special order of the court. /andamus is a proper remedy to

compel the issuance of a writ of possession .#35

JURISDICTION REAL ACTIONS

Section #, #4 Rule #4 of the # 5 Rules of 1ivil Procedure provides that actionsaffecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein 8real actions9 shall becommenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial Hurisdiction over the areawhere the real property or any part thereof is situated.

An action for reconveyance or to remove a cloud on oneJs title involves the titleto, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, hence, e$clusive original

Hurisdiction over such action pertains to the R-1, unless the assessed value of the property does not e$ceed P*


21/54

the /-1 having territorial Hurisdiction would have e$clusive original Hurisdiction.eterminative of which regular court had Hurisdiction would be the allegations of the

complaint 8on the assessed value of the property9 and the principal relief therebysought. #36

-he original and e$clusive Hurisdiction over a complaint for uieting of title andreconveyance involving friar land belongs to either the Regional -rial 1ourt 8R-19 or the/unicipal -rial 1ourt 8/-19. ence, the dismissal of such a complaint on the ground oflac& of Hurisdiction due to the land in litis being friar land under the e$clusive Hurisdictionof the 2and /anagement %ureau 82/%9 amounts to manifest grave abuse of discretionthat can be corrected through certiorari. #3

Actions for cancellation o% title and reversion belong to the class of cases thatinvolve the title to- or possession o%- real property , or any interest therein and where the

assessed value of the property e$ceeds P*


22/54

0n !land Philippines- +nc. v. ,arcia ,#4* the Supreme 1ourt, citing Agcaoili,Property Registration ecree and Related Laws (Land $itles and eeds)& , stressed that

courts may reopen proceedings already closed by final decision or decree when anapplication for review is filed by the party aggrieved within one year from the issuance of

the decree of registration. owever, the basis of the aggrieved party must be anchoredsolely on actual fraud.

0t has been ruled that the petition may be filed at any time after the rendition ofthe courtGs decision and before the e$piration of one year from the entry of the finaldecree of registration for, as noted in Rivera v. Moran ,#43 there can be no possible reasonfor re uiring the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before urginghis claim of fraud.

-he rule on the incontrovertibility and indefeasibility of a -orrens title after oneyear from entry of the decree of registration is e ually applicable to titles ac uired

through homestead or free patents.#44

0t has been held that the date of issuance of the patent corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases.

Under the -orrens system of registration, the -orrens becomes indefeasible andincontrovertible one year from the issuance of the final decree and is generally conclusiveevidence of the ownership. #4" -he rule on the inconvertibility and indefeasibility of a-orrens title after one year from entry of the decree of registration is e ually applicable totitle ac uired through homestead or free patents. #4@ !nly e$trinsic or collateral, asdistinguished form intrinsic, fraud is a ground for annulling a Hudgment.

-o avail of a petition for review, the following re uisites must be satisfied' 8a9 the

petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land 8b9 he must show actual fraud in the procurement of the decree of registration 8c9 the petition must be filed within one 8#9year from the issuance of the decree by the 2and Registration Authority and 8d9 the

property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value. #45

!5trinsic %raud refers to any fraudulent act of the successful party in a litigationwhich is committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or his agents,attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is prevented from presenting fullyand fairly his side of the case. !n the other hand, intrinsic %raud refers to acts of a partyin a litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged instruments or perHured testimony,which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and Hust

determination of the case.

Relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in land where the fraud consists#4* R Co. #53*6 , >eb. #5, *0 of Cueva :ciHa, R Co. 273"*53, +uly *", # 63, *


23/54

in the following acts'

8a9 eliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested when in fact theyare

8b9 Applying for and obtaining adHudication and registration in the name of a co7owner of land which he &nows had not been alloted to him in the partition

8c9 0ntentionally concealing facts, and conniving with the land inspector toinclude in the survey plan the bed of a navigable stream

8d9 =illfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims

8e9 eliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice

8f9 0nducing a claimant not to oppose the application for registration

8g9 /isrepresentation by the applicant about the identity of the lot to the trueowner causing the latter to withdraw his opposition. #46

8h9 >ailure of the applicant to disclose in her application for registration the vitalfacts that her husbandGs previous application for a revocable permit and to

purchase the lands in uestion from the %ureau of 2ands had been reHected, because the lands were already reserved as a site for school purposes

8i9 eliberate falsehood that the lands were allegedly inherited by the applicantfrom her parents, which misled the %ureau of 2ands into not filling the

opposition and thus effectively depriving the Republic of its day in court.#4

0n all these e$amples, the overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme ofthe prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court or from presentinghis case. -he fraud, therefore, is one that affects and goes into the Hurisdiction of thecourt.

0n Cru v. Navarro ,#"< it was held that the intentional omission by the respondentto properly inform the court a uo that there were persons 8the petitioners9 in actual

possession and cultivation of the parcels in uestion, with the result that the court as wellas the 2and Registration Authority were denied of their authority to re uire the sending

of specific individual notices of the pendency of the application in accordance withSections *3 and *4 of the Property Registration ecree, constitutes actual fraud.

Re#!n e an#e & (Se#& 4 PD N!& 1 24)

#462ibudan v. Palma il, R Co. 27*##@4, /ay #5, # 5*, 4" S1RA #5.#4 Republic v. 2o?ada, R Co. 27436"*, /ay 3#, # 5 , < S1RA "


24/54

An action for reconveyance is a legal and e uitable remedy granted to the rightfullandowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another,to compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land to him. #"#

An action for reconveyance is an action in persona" available to a person whose

property has been wrongfully registered under the -orrens system in anotherJs name. 0t isfiled as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of Hustice and not with the landregistration court. A notice of lis pendens may be annotated on the certificate of titleimmediately upon the institution of the action in court. #"*

As held in Medi a/el v. Apao ,#"3 the essence of an action for reconveyance is thatthe certificate of title is respected as incontrovertible. =hat is sought is the transfer of the

property, in this case its title, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered inanother personJs name, to its rightful owner or to one with a better right. -he mereissuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the

possibility that the real property may be under co7ownership with persons not named in

the certificate or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that other parties may haveac uired interest subse uent to the issuance of the certificate of title. #"4

Reconveyance does not aim to reopen proceedings but only to transfer orreconvey the land from registered owner to the rightful owner. #"" Reconveyance isavailable in case of registration of property procured by %raud thereby creating aconstructive trust between the parties .#"@

-o warrant a reconveyance of the land, the following re uisites must concur'

8a9 the action must be brought in the name of a person claiming ownership ordominical right over the land registered in the name of the defendant

8b9 the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procuredthrough fraud or other illegal means

8c9 the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value and

8d9 the action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final andincontrovertible but within four years from the discovery of the fraud, #"5 or

#"# 2eoveras v. Ealde?, R Co. #@ 6", +une #", *


25/54

not later than #< years in the case of an implied trust .#"6

A petition for review and action for reconveyance are no longer available if the property has already been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.

Article 434 of the 1ivil 1ode provides that to successfully maintain an action torecover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two 8*9 things' first, the identity of the land claimed and second, his title thereto. #"

-here is no special ground for an action for reconveyance, for it is enough that theaggrieved party asserts a legal claim in the property superior to the claim of the registeredowner, and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser forvalue. #@or purposes of their administration and disposition, lands of the public domainwhich are alienable or open to disposition may be further classified as' 8a9agricultural, 8b9 residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive

purposes, 8c9 educational, charitable, or other similar purposes, and 8d9reservations for townsites and for public and uasi7public uses.

MODES O+ DISPOSITION

#. >or homestead settlement

*. %y sale

3. %y lease

4. %y confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title

8a9 %y Hudicial legali?ation8b9 %y administrative legali?ation 8free patent9

*!:es ea 7 any citi?en of the Philippines over the age of eighteen years, or thehead of a family, may enter a homestead of not e$ceeding twelve hectares ofagricultural land of the public domain. -he applicant must have cultivated andimproved at least one7fifth of the land continuously since the approval of theapplication and resided for at least one year in the municipality in which the landis located.

43


44/54

=hen a homesteader has complied with all the terms and conditions whichentitle him to a patent for a tract of public land, he ac uires a vested interesttherein, and is to be regarded as the e uitable owner thereof.

-he e$ecution and delivery of the patent, after the right to a particular parcel of land has become complete, are the mere ministerial acts of theofficer charged with that duty.

+7ee 8a en 7 Any natural7born citi?en of the Philippines who is not the owner ofmore than #* hectares and who, for at least 3< years, has continuously occupiedand cultivated, by himself or through his predecessors7in7interest a tract ofagricultural public land, and who shall have paid the real estate ta$ thereon shall

be entitled to have a free patent issued to him for such tract of land not to e$ceedtwelve #* hectares.

RA N!& 10023, a e Ma7#; 4, 2010, au ;!7$Fes $ssuan#e !6 67ee 8a en $ %es! F!ne 7es$ en $a% %an s& Res$ en#e 7e u$7e:en 10 ea7s&

Re uirements'

Survey plan and technical description

Affidavit of two * persons who are residents of the barangay that theapplicant has actually resided on, and actually possessed and occupied, theland applied for, under a /ona %ide claim of ownership, for at least #

Documents

Ltd Review Outline 2013