LTD Niotes
LTD Niotes
LTD Niotes
CA
Trial court issued a decree in favor of dimson, bec in the mind of the court that there is a valid ground to
issue decree because there was a deed of sale executed between the spouses and dimson, howver no
decree was issued in that sale..
Assuming even that the lot in question was adjudicated in a cadastral proceeding in favor of the spouses
Mariano Batungbakal and Hilaria Vergara before World War II, this is not and could not have had the
effect of a valid conveyance for it appears that no title or decree was ever issued for the property. The
decision of the trial court in a land registration case, ordering the issuance of a decree, is not in itself a
decree of registration within the meaning of section 38 of the Land Registration Law. 8 It is expressly
required by law that all patents or certificates for lands of the public domain that may be granted be
registered in accordance with Section 122 of the Land Registration Act. Actual conveyance of such land
is to be effective only upon registration which shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land. 9
Section 122 of the Land Registration Act provides that the deed, grant or instrument of conveyance from
the government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate
only as contract between the government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the clerk of
register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration is the operative act which conveys and
affects the land. The existence of a decision rendered by a court in a cadastral case does not settle once
and for all the ownership of the property for the issuance of a decree is still necessary and such decree is
still subject to review within one year from the date of its issuance. Thus, Rufino Dimson never acquired
title to the property by virtue of the "Compromiso de Venta" as his alleged vendors, the Batungbakal
spouses, themselves did not acquire title to the lot.
The decision in Cadastral Case No. 41 does not constitute a bar to the application of respondent
Manuela Pastor; because a decision in a cadastral proceeding declaring a lot public land is not
the final decree contemplated in Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act.
A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude even the same applicant
from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land, provided he
thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended, and as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable (now sections 3 and 4,
PD No. 1073.
Parties caliming ownership over the land must provide a clear and concing eveidence, that the
land is form part of public land and is alienable and disposable
Cayanan vs. delos santso
Lot was registerd and Issued in the name of delos santso though fraud.
Trial court denied the petition to cancel the title, because even the petition was filed within 1 yr,
and xferred to camaya, can be considered inoocent purchaser.
Sc said said that such sale was fictitious and camaya considered nnot innocent purchaser.
Within this period of one year the decree may be reopened on the ground of fraud and the decree may
be set aside and the land adjudicated to another party. As long as the final decree is not issued and the
period of one year within which it may be reviewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under the
control and sound discretion of the court rendering it."itc-alf
FOR DAMAGES:
A close look at SPOUSES' petition to re-open the cadastral proceedings of 1940 would show that their cause of action is premised on Rep.
Act No. 931