Ltd review session 2
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes131 views
1. Accretion is the process by which soil is gradually deposited along river banks, increasing the land area. For accretion to occur, the deposit must be gradual and imperceptible and caused by the river current. The owner of the adjacent land gains ownership of the accreted land. 2. Avulsion is the sudden removal of land by water. If the detached land remains identifiable, ownership is not changed. The owner must remove the land within 2 years. 3. Under the Torrens system, titles are presumed valid and indefeasible against claims not annotated on the title. However, ownership can still be disputed and registration does not necessarily prove ownership.
Ltd review session 2
- 1. J U R I S P R U D E N T I A L D O C T R I N E S 2 7 A U G U S T 2 0 2 0 A T T Y . A H M A D R A I S T . U N D U G Land Titles and Deeds Review Session 2 of 2
- 2. Accretion Accretion – the process by which soil is deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and gradually received as an effect of the current of the waters Alluvium – the soil deposited through the process of accretion
- 3. Requisites of Accretion Deposit should be gradual and imperceptible Cause is the current of the river Cannot be done artificially or through man-made causes Land where accretion occurs is adjacent to the bank of the river Owner of adjacent lot will own the increase
- 4. Accretion Accretion on a sea bank/coast – still belongs to the public domain Alluvial deposit is not automatically registered under the Torrens system Alluvial deposit may still be lost through acquisitive prescription Source of ownership is always the law
- 5. Avulsion Removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or annexation to the land of another, suddenly, and by perceptible action of the water
- 6. Avulsion Requisites of Avulsion: Sudden and violent Land is identifiable and known Owner of the land whose portion was detached retains ownership – however, detached land must be removed within a period of 2 years
- 7. Spouses Dalion v. CA (1990) Embodiment in a public instrument is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land The provision of Art 1358 of the Civil Code regarding necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity and/or enforceability
- 8. Lee Tek Sheng v. CA Registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best evidence thereof. What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed.
- 9. Republic v. CA Reconstituted titles are void when there are existing titles that were neither damaged nor lost in the first place Even after being granted, reconstituted titles can still be assailed if it can be shown that there are titles that existed prior to and subsist even after reconstitution
- 10. Roxas v. Enriquez The proceedings for the registration of land, under Act No. 496, are in rem and not in personam. By the description in the notice "To all whom it may concern," all the world are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default and order.
- 11. Legarda v. Saleeby The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. Once a title is registered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the “mirador de su casa,” to avoid the possibility of losing his land.
- 12. Tiburcio v. PHHC Upon the expiration of the one-year period within which to review the decree of registration, the decree as well as the title issued in pursuance thereof becomes incontrovertible (Section 38, Act No. 496). A person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the property. He is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of title. To require him to do more is to defeat one of the primary objects of the Torrens system.
- 13. Traders Royal Bank v. CA A Torrens title is presumed to be valid which purpose is to avoid conflicts of title to real properties. Every person dealing with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged to interpret what is beyond the face of the registered title.
- 14. Lacbayan v. Samoy What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title.
- 15. Lu v. Manipon Registration is not the equivalent of a title, it only gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. It was not established as a means of acquiring title to private land because it merely confirms but does not confer ownership. Preferential right of the first registrant of real property in case of double sale is always qualified by good faith under Art 1544 of the Civil Code. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the law, for it cannot be used as shield for fraud.
- 16. Republic v. Guerrero While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands but merely a system of registration of titles to lands, justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the State’s agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The integrity of the Torrens system relies heavily upon the competence and efficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties.
- 17. Baranda v. Gustilo The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. The statute concerning the function of the Register of Deeds to register instruments in a Torrens certificate of title is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.
- 18. Almirol v. ROD of Agusan Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the register of deeds to determine; this function belongs properly to a court of competent jurisdiction.
- 19. Nobleza v. Nuega An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt of any notice of claims or interest of some other person in the property. It is the party who claims to be an innocent purchaser for value who has the burden of proving such assertion, and it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith.
- 20. Nobleza v. Nuega (cont.) To successfully invoke and be considered as a buyer in good faith, the presumption is that first and foremost, the “buyer in good faith” must have shown prudence and due diligence in the exercise of his/her rights. A buyer in good faith does his homework and verifies that the particulars are in order such as the title, the parties, the mode of transfer and the provisions in the deed/contract of sale, to name a few.
- 21. Republic v. Sayo Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. All applicants in land registration proceedings have the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land thus sought to be registered forms part of the public domain.
- 22. Republic v. IAC, Mendoza, and Pasahol A mere proposal cannot take the place of a formal act declaring forest land released for disposition as public agricultural land. Possession of unclassified land, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership.
- 23. Carino v. Insular Gov’t of the PH Filipino natives were recognized by Spanish laws to own some lands, irrespective of any royal grant. The principle of prescription was admitted: that even if natives are not able to produce title/deeds, it is sufficient if they show ancient possession – such is equivalent to valid title by prescription.
- 24. Lee Hong Kok v. David No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government. Imperium v. Dominium Imperium - government authority possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in the concept of sovereignty Dominium - capacity to own or acquire property. The use of this term is appropriate with reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation and use of lands and other natural resources, including their disposition, except as limited by the Constitution.
- 25. Heirs of Amunategui v. Dir. of Forestry A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. The possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership.
- 26. Cruz v. Sec. of Env’t Native title is an exception to the Regalian Doctrine IPRA is constitutional
- 27. Republic v. CA and Tabangao Realty An applicant seeking to establish ownership over land must conclusively show that he is the owner thereof in fee simple. All lands are presumed to belong to the public domain of the State, unless acquired from the government either by purchase or by grant. Exception: lands possessed by an occupant and his predecessors since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish conquest.
- 28. Republic v. CA and Tabangao Realty (cont.) The applicant must present specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession. Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property. Facts constituting possession must be duly established by competent evidence.
- 29. Republic v. de la Paz, et al To overcome the presumption that a parcel of land belongs to the State, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable. A survey plan from a geodetic engineer is not sufficient to prove this.
- 30. Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro v. CA All holders of Spanish titles or grants should cause their lands covered thereby to be registered under the Land Registration Act within 6 months from the date of effectivity of said law. Failure to do so renders any such Titulo null and void under the Torrens system of registration.
- 31. New Regent Services v. Tanjuatco Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 of the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the following requisites: that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers. It is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of accretion must show by preponderant evidence that he has met all the conditions provided by law.
- 32. Manila Electric v. Judge Bartolome According to Sec. 48b of the Public Lands Act, Meralco, as a juridical person, is disqualified from applying for the judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Article XIV Sec. 14 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits private corporations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, not to exceed 1000 hectares in area. In other words, only natural persons and citizens of the Philippines are allowed to apply for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title under the PLA.
- 33. Virginia Ong de Ocsio v. RVM Corporations sole (as juridical persons) may obtain judicial confirmation of an imperfect title. Open, continuous and exclusive possession of alienable public land for at least thirty (30) years in accordance with the Public Land Act ipso jure converts the land to private property, and a juridical person who thereafter acquires the same may have title thereto confirmed in its name.
- 34. Palomo v. CA Forest lands cannot be owned by private persons. It is not registrable and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable.
- 35. Republic v. CA (1987) Forest lands cannot be the subject of acquisitive prescription. Section 48b of the Public Lands Act applies exclusively to public agricultural land, not to forest land.
- 36. Republic v. de Guzman Acquisitive prescription under the Public Lands Act starts to run only after the conversion of forest land to agricultural land. Any period of time during which one exercises “adverse possession” of forest land, however lengthy, can never ripen into ownership.
- 37. Republic v. Matimtim Declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. Declaration for taxation purposes of a parcel of land in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.
- 38. Republic v. Rizalvo Requisites for the registration of a title: Under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree, applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish: first, that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; second, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and third, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
- 39. Dir. of Lands v. Tesalona Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
- 40. Victoria v. Republic To prove that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation, an executive order, or an administrative action.
- 41. Ching v. CA A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they are valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any "information possessoria" or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the title.
- 42. Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez A usufruct in favor of a foreign citizen, although a real right, is valid because it does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary. It is the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is prohibited by the Constitution.
- 43. Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui She A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid, and so is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship. However, if the option given to the alien to buy real property includes a condition that the Filipino cannot dispose of his property for a period of 50 years, as in this case, this is invalid.
- 44. Phil. Banking Corp. v. Liu She (cont.) Jus disponendi is one of the necessary rights of ownership. Ownership cannot be given up in part or in whole to an alien without violating the Constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of real estate.
- 45. Republic v. Quasha While US Citizens enjoy certain rights regarding land ownership and utilization under the Parity Amendment, such rights of non-Filipinos exist only during the existence of the Commonwealth and before the establishment of the Republic of the Philippines.
- 46. Hulst v. PR Builders Sec. 7, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibits aliens from owning lands in the Philippines. However, void contracts such as the one in the present case are subject to exceptions, as provided in Article 1414 of the Civil Code. Such exception allows a party to recover whatever he lost provided that the illegal purpose of the void contract has not yet been accomplished.
- 47. Filomena Gerona de Castro v. Joaquin Teng Even if a buyer is an alien at the time of sale, such defect is considered corrected if the buyer becomes a naturalized citizen, who are constitutionally qualified to own land.
- 48. Lee and Yu Lee v. Republic If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
- 49. Republic v. CA and Spouses Lapina The law provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of 1,000 sq.m., if urban, or one (1) hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence (BP 185).
- 50. Matthews v. Taylor An alien spouse has no right to nullify the Agreement of Lease between his/her Filipino spouse and a third party on the ground that the property in question is conjugal in nature. An alien, even when he/she is married to a Filipino, is absolutely prohibited from acquiring private and public lands in the Philippines, whether through direct purchase or through designation of the property as conjugal.
- 51. Republic v. IAC and Gonzalves Conveyance of residential land to an alien prior to his acquisition of Filipino citizenship by naturalization is valid .
- 52. Vasquez v. Li Seng Giap If the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands is to preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization.
- 53. Frenzel v. Catito (Also Muller v. Muller) When an alien buys property using the name of a Filipino citizen in an attempt to skirt the constitutional prohibition against alien ownership of real estate, such alien cannot go to court to assert or claim a right on said property. He who seeks equity must do equity. Courts cannot countenance a plea for equity when it resulted from an intent to circumvent a legal prohibition.
- 54. JG Summit v. CA No law disqualifies a person from purchasing shares in a landholding corporation even if the latter will exceed the allowed foreign equity. What the law disqualifies is the corporation from owning land.
- 55. ROD of Rizal v. Ung Sui Si Temple A deed of donation of a parcel of land executed in favor of a religious organization whose founder, trustees and administrator are aliens cannot be registered. The Constitution makes no exception in favor of religious associations.
- 56. Roman Catholic Administrator of Davao v. LRC Corporation soles cannot be considered aliens because they have no nationality at all. In determining, whether the constitutional provision requiring 60% Filipino capital is applicable to corporations sole, the nationality of the constituents of the diocese, and not the nationality of the actual incumbent of the parish, must be taken into consideration.
- 57. United Church Board for World Ministries v. Judge Sebastian Same as Vasquez v. Li Seng Giap, only this refers to corporations Where a Filipino citizen sold land to an alien corporation who later sold it to a Filipino corporation, the invalidity of the initial transfer to the alien corporation was corrected by the subsequent transfer of the property to a citizen.
- 58. Atty. Jose Gomez v. CA and Judge Aducayen The duty of land registration officials is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court.
- 59. Spouses Laburada v. LRA The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be compelled through mandamus.
- 60. Heirs of Roxas v. CA Adjudication of land in a registration (or cadastral) case does not become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree. Before such time, the decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after hearing, may set aside the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to another party.
- 61. Tiongco v. de la Merced A decree of registration secured through fraud is valid, although annullable, upon petition filed within one (1) year after entry of the decree, in the absence of an innocent purchaser for value, whereas a decision rendered without notice to the parties of record is void for lack of due process.
- 62. Esconde v. Delfin An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him. An ordinary civil action for reconveyance does not seek to set aside the decree but respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.
- 63. Marquez v. CA An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the isuance of the Torrens title over the property.
- 64. People v. Cainglet The conclusiveness of judgment in the registration of lands is not absolute, and admits of exceptions. Public policy also dictates that those unjustly deprived of their rights over real property by reason of the operation of our registration laws be afforded remedies. The aggrieved party may file: a suit for reconveyance of property a personal action for recovery of damages against the party who registered his property through fraud; or in case of insolvency of the party who procured the registration through fraud, an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines for recovery of damages from the Assurance Fund.
- 65. Fule and Aragon v. Legare and CA A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other persons has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. Good faith consists in an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another.
- 66. Cruz v. CA, Suzara, and Vizconde Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. Even if a decree in a registration proceeding is infected with nullity, still an innocent purchaser for value relying on a Torrens title issued in pursuance thereof is protected.
- 67. Spouses Mathay v. CA & Atangan, et al Although it is a well-settled principle that the person dealing on a registered land need not go beyond the certificate of title, there are still circumstances which would put party on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being sold to him. It is expected from the purchaser of a valued price of a land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants, in concept of owner. Failure of a prospective buyer to take such precautionary steps would mean negligence on his part and would thereby preclude him from claiming or invoking the rights of a “purchaser in good faith.”
- 68. Col. de la Merced v. GSIS A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the said property.
- 69. Home Bankers v. CA Judicial notice can be taken of the uniform practice of banks to investigate, examine and assess the real estate offered as security for the application of a loan. A bank cannot barefacedly argue that simply because the title or titles offered as security are clean of any encumbrances or lien, that it is thereby relieved of taking any other step to verify the over-reaching implications should the property be auctioned on foreclosure.
- 70. Martinez v. Garcia and Brua The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property, where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act No. 496 (now P.D. No.1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right than that of the registered owner thereof.
- 71. Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered thereby ceases to be part of public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of such issuance. However, a title emanating from a free patent which was secured through fraud does not become indefeasible, precisely because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no effect whatsoever.
- 72. Straits Times v. CA The reconstitution of a title is simply the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Possession of a lost certificate is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it.
- 73. MWSS v. Hon. Sison A proceeding for judicial reconstitution of lost certificate of title partakes of the nature of a land registration and cadastral proceeding, where publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette is required.
- 74. Bureau of Forestry v. CA and Gallo The classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral, or forest lands is a prerogative of the Executive Department and not of the courts.
- 75. Republic v. Vera A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under claim of ownership. The possession of public land, however long the period thereof may have extended, never confers title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land does not operate against the State, unless the occupant can prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from the State.
- 76. Republic v. Southside Homeowners Until a given parcel of land is released from its classification as part of a military reservation zone and reclassified by law or by presidential proclamation as disposable and alienable, its status as part of a military reservation remains, even if incidentally it is devoted for a purpose other than as a military camp or for defense.
- 77. J U R I S P R U D E N T I A L D O C T R I N E S 2 7 A U G U S T 2 0 2 0 A T T Y . A H M A D R A I S T . U N D U G Land Titles and Deeds Review Session 2 of 2