LTD Reviewer Part5 6
LTD Reviewer Part5 6
CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS
1. Citizenship Requirement
2. Individuals
3. Filipino Citizens
4. Former Natural-Born Filipino Citizens
Sec. 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands,
and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law
according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands
of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve
hectares thereof by purchase, homestead or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the
requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the
public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.
Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution (the JVA was signed in 1977), provided:
"Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain."
32.1 This provision is the same as Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
32.2 Under the Public Land Act, corporations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain are
corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipino citizen
[A]liens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes.
Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a
lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they desire to remain here forever and
share our fortunes and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
But if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which
the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this to last for 50 years, then it
becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests
himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land (jus possidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi and jus
abutendi) but also of the right to dispose of it (jus disponendi) — rights the sum total of which make up
ownership. It is just as if today the possession is transferred, tomorrow, the use, the next day, the
disposition, and so on, until ultimately all the rights of which ownership
6.Corporations; limitations
JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124293. Jan. 31, 2005
The prohibition in the Constitution applies only to ownership of land.48 It does not extend to immovable
or real property as defined under Article 415 of the Civil Code.
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.
RD of Rizal v. Ung Siu Temple, G.R. No. L-6776. May 21, 1955
The Register of Deeds for the province of Rizal refused to accept for record a deed of
donation executed by Jesus Dy, a Filipino citizen, conveying a parcel of residential land
in favor of the unregistered religious organization "Ung Siu Si Temple", operating
through three trustees all of Chinese nationality.
The purpose of the sixty per centum requirement is obviously to ensure that
corporations or associations allowed to acquire agricultural land or to exploit natural
resources shall be controlled by Filipinos; and the spirit of the Constitution demands that
in the absence of capital stock, the controlling membership should be composed of
Filipino citizens.
Republic v. T.A.N. Properties Inc., G.R. NO. 154953. June 26, 2008
The 1973 Constitution limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to
individuals who were citizens of the Philippines. Under the 1973 Constitution,
private corporations, even if wholly owned by Filipino citizens, were no
longer allowed to acquire alienable lands of the public domain.
In applying for land registration, a private corporation cannot have any right
higher than its predecessor-in-interest from whom it derived its right. This
assumes, of course, that the corporation acquired the land, not exceeding 12
hectares, when the land had already become private land by operation of
law.
In the present case, respondent has failed to prove that any portion of the
land was already private land when respondent acquired it from Porting in
1997.
Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao v. Land Registration Commission, G.R. No. L-
8451. December 20, 1957
Filipino citizen sold parcel of land in favor of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator
of Davao Inc., s corporation organized by a Canadian citizen. When the deed of sale
was presented to Register of Deeds of Davao for registration, the latter required said
corporation sole to submit a similar affidavit declaring that 60 per cent of the members
thereof were Filipino citizens.
(1) That the capacity of religious corporations sole to acquire agricultural land depends upon 60 per
cent Filipino membership of the group or body exercising control of the corporation; lawphi1 .net
(2) That if control of any such corporation should be vested in a single person, then such person
must be a Filipino citizen;
1awphi1.net
(3) That in the absence of evidence on these points, the order appealed from, denying registration of
the conveyance, should be affirmed.
7. Condominiums
Section 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or store or other space
therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the undivided interests in the common areas or,
in a proper case, the membership or shareholdings in the condominium
corporation: Provided, however, That where the common areas in the condominium project are
owned by the owners of separate units as co-owners thereof, no condominium unit therein shall be
conveyed or transferred to persons other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at least sixty percent
of the capital stock of which belong to Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession.
Where the common areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer or
conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the appurtenant membership or
stockholding in the corporation will cause the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits
imposed by existing laws.
(1) No lease contract shall be for a period exceeding fifty (50) years,
renewable once for a period of not more than twenty- five (25) years;
chan robles virtual law library
(2) The leased area shall be used solely for the purpose of the investment
upon the mutual agreement of the parties;
(3) The leased premises shall comprise such area as may reasonably be
required for the purpose of the investment subject however to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and the Local Government Code.
The leasehold right acquired under long-term lease contracts entered into
pursuant to this Act may be sold, transferred, or assigned: Provided, That
when the buyer, transferee, or assignee is a foreigner or a foreign-owned
enterprise, the conditions and limitations in respect to the use of the
leased property as provided for under this Act shall continue to apply.
1. Possession
A. APPLICATIONS
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision
of existing laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the
original registration of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire
during the pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in
the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the
proceedings.
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any land held in trust by him,
unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when
prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all
the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under
the provisions of this chapter.
2. Prescription
The two modes of prescription through immovable may be acquired is by ordinary acquisitive
prescription which requires possession in good faith and with just title and the other is completed
through possession of ten years.
It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that their father has acquired
ownership over the property in question and that they own the property for the period required by the
law. Therefore, the petition is denied.
3. Non-Registrable Property
As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which was lifted from Act
No. 2874, the classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department of
the government and not of the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room
for doubt that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public
domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of the Government,
through the Office of the President. Hence, it was grave error and/or abuse of discretion
for the respondent court to ignore the uncontroverted facts that (1) the disputed area is
within a timberland block and (2) as certified to by the then Director of Forestry, the area
is needed for forest purposes..
Lands which are part of the public domain cannot be acquired by prescription, unless
the law expressly permits it.
Under Section 14(1)[14] thereof, a petition may be granted upon compliance with the following
requisites: (a) that the... property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
(b) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and (c) that such possession is under
a... bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself
and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must
prove his title and should not rely on the absence... or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors.
[23] Furthermore, the court has the bounden duty, even in the absence of any opposition, to require
the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of evidence and by positive and absolute proof, so far as
possible,... that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands which he is attempting to register.[24]
Since petitioner failed to meet the quantum of proof required by law, the CA was correct in reversing
the trial court and dismissing his application for judicial... confirmation of title.
Republic v. Southside Homeowners Assoc., G.R. No. 156951. Sept. 22, 2006
The Republic has, since the filing of its underlying complaint, invoked Proclamation No. 423. In
the process, it has invariably invited attention to the proclamation’s specific area coverage to
prove the nullity of TCT No. 15084, inasmuch as the title embraced a reserved area considered
inalienable, and hence, beyond the commerce of man. The October 30, 1991 Deed of Sale
purportedly executed by Palad, assuming its authenticity, could not plausibly be the
requisite classifying medium converting the JUSMAG area into a disposable parcel. And
private respondent SHAI’s unyielding stance that would have the Republic in estoppel to
question the transfer to it by the LMB Director of the JUSMAG area is unavailing. It should
have realized that the Republic is not usually estopped by the mistake or error on the part
of its officials or agents.
Since the parcels of land in question allegedly sold to the private respondent are, or at least
at the time of the supposed transaction were, still part of the FBMR, the purported sale is
necessarily void ab initio. Moreover, Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution forbids
private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, except
through lease for a limited period. The interplay of compelling circumstances and
inferences deducible from the case, also cast doubt on the authenticity of such deed, if not
support a conclusion that the deed is spurious.
Martinez filed an application for registration of title under Act 496 of one (1) parcel of land. Republic
of the Philippines filed an opposition to the application stating that the parcel of land applied for is a
portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic, not subject to private appropriation.
It was declared public land by the decision of the Cadastral Court. The lower court is
without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the application for voluntary registration
under Act 496. The lands in question can no longer be subject to registration by
voluntary proceedings, for they have already been subjected to compulsory registration
proceedings under the Cadastral Act.
Applicants, therefore, have failed to submit convincing proof actual, peaceful and
adverse possession in the concept of owners of the entire area in question during the
period required by law.
The survey plans submitted by petitioners were not approved by the Director of Lands
but by the Land Registration Commission
The Land Registration Commission has no authority to approve original survey plans in
this particular case.
Section 34-A of R.A. No. 6389 applies only to lands subject of tenancy relation which
are expropriated and sub-divided in favor of new amortizing-owner-beneficiaries.
Sec. 12, IPRA or RA No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997)
SECTION 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title Under Commonwealth Act 141,
as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. — Individual members of cultural
communities, with respect to their individually-owned ancestral lands who, by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous
possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owner since time immemorial
or for a period of not less than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the approval of
this Act and uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall have the option to
secure title to their ancestral lands under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as
amended, or the Land Registration Act 496.
For this purpose, said individually-owned ancestral lands, which are agricultural in
character and actually used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming
purposes, including those with a slope of eighteen percent (18%) or more, are hereby
classified as alienable and disposable agricultural lands.
The option granted under this section shall be exercised within twenty (20) years from
the approval of this Act.
The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has furnished
the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.
Section 18. Application covering two or more parcels. An application may include two or more
parcels of land belonging to the applicant/s provided they are situated within the same province or
city. The court may at any time order an application to be amended by striking out one or more of the
parcels or by a severance of the application.
6. Jurisdiction
7. Evidence
The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A is that
only original cadastral or land registration cases are covered. The jurisdiction
of the First Level Courts, being merely delegated, should be limited to what
is expressly mentioned in the delegation.
1. There are limits to the delegation, i.e., either the subject matter is
an uncontested lot or if contested the value of the lot should not
exceed One hundred thousand [P100,000.00] Pesos. There will be
difficulty in the determination of these limits if and when the First
Level Courts are required to exercise delegated jurisdiction over
petitions subsequent to original registration.
2. A First Level Court should not be placed in a situation where, in
disposing of a matter subsequent to registration, it will have to consult
the records of another Court, which granted the original registration.
Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed
with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The
applicant shall file together with the application all original muniments of titles or copies
thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands.
The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant
has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.
The law30 provides that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the
registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Nonetheless, while it is true that a Torrens Title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the
possession of his registered property by reason of laches. 31
Laches has been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in
conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse
party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which
works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the
condition or relations of the property or parties.
Unless there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced
by a decision directing the return of the lot to petitioners, the equitable defense of
laches will not apply as against the registered owners. 57 In the case at bar, there being
no intervening third persons whose rights will be affected or prejudiced if possession of
the subject lot is restored to the petitioners, the return of the same is in order.
Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 shall be followed requiring a publication once both in the
Official Gazette and newspaper of general circulation. The Land Registration Case is an in
Rem proceeding, meaning the applicant must prove his title over the land against all
persons concerned, who might have interest to right in the property and should effectively
be invited in the court to prove why the title should not be granted.
Grazing lands and timber lands are riot alienable under section 1, Article XIII of the 1935
Constitution and sections 8, 10 and 11 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Section 10
distinguishes strictly agricultural lands (disposable) from grazing lands (inalienable).
Lands within the forest zone or timber reservation cannot be the object of private ownership.
WELL-ENTRENCHED IS THE RULE THAT ONCE A CASE IS FILED WITH THE COURT,
ANY DISPOSITION OF IT RESTS ON THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT. IN THUS
RESOLVING A MOTION TO DISMISS A CASE OR TO WITHDRAW AN INFORMATION, THE
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT RELY SOLELY AND MERELY ON THE FINDINGS OF THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE.
It is the court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this
assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. While the
recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not
binding on courts. By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the
resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to
perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The said Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of
discretion and violated the complainant’s right to due process. They were void, had no legal
standing, and produced no effect whatsoever. This Court must therefore remand the case to the
RTC, so that the latter can rule on the merits of the case to determine if a prima facie case
exists and consequently resolve the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information
anew. (JOSEPH C. CEREZO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 185230, JUNE 1,
2011, NACHURA, J.)
Thursday, April 24, 2014
BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES:
Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that “burden of proof is the
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.” It is then up for
the plaintiff to establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense.
Therefore, if the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the
negligent acts of the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence. It is
even presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum of proof
required is preponderance of evidence. (Dr. Genevieve L. Huang vs. Philippine
Hoteliers, Inc., G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012, Perez, J.)
Possession, when coupled with a tax declaration, is a weighty evidence of ownership. 39 It certainly is
more weighty and preponderant than a tax declaration alone.
A party seeking to recover real property must rely on the strength of her case rather than on the
weakness of the defense.41 The burden of proof rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue. For he who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove that fact. Having
failed to discharge her burden to prove her affirmative allegations, we find that the trial court rightfully
dismissed respondent’s complaint.
South City Homes v. Republic, G.R. No. 76564. May 25, 1990
8. Survey
9. Application
Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The system of registration under the
Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which are
not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands.
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may
be recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been brought under the
operation of the Torrens system.
The books of registration for unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall continue to remain in force; provided, that
all instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under Section 113 of
this Decree.
If the opposition or the adverse claim of any person covers only a portion of the lot and said portion
is not properly delimited on the plan attached to the application, or in case of undivided co-
ownership, conflicting claims of ownership or possession, or overlapping of boundaries, the court
may require the parties to submit a subdivision plan duly approved by the Director of Lands.
Where an appearance has been entered and an answer filed, a default order shall be entered
against persons who did not appear and answer.
Yabut Lee vs. Punzalan, G.R. No. L-50236 August 29, 1980
PNB v. Intl. Corporate Bank, G.R. No. 86679. July 23, 1991
Republic v. CA, G.R. No. L-40402. March 16, 1987
10. Remedies
a. Motion for Reconsideration / New Trial
b. Petition for Relief from Judgment
c. Appeal
d. Petition for Review of the Decree of Registration
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title
issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any
case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons
responsible for the fraud.
Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-55935 July 30, 1986
Rementizo v Heirs of Vda. De Madarieta, G.R. No. 170318. January 15, 2009
h. Quieting of Title
Realty Sales Enterprise v. IAC, G.R. No. L-67451. Sept. 28, 1987
Heirs of Luzuriaga vs. Republic, G.R. No. 168848. June 30, 2009
Republic v. Vera, G.R. No. L-35778 January 27, 1983
Sps. Veranga vs. Republic, G.R. No. 149114. July 21, 2006
2. Jurisdiction
3. When Filed?
(a) When in the opinion of the President of the Philippines public interest so requires that title
to any unregistered lands be settled and adjudicated, he may to this end direct and order the
Director of Lands to cause to be made a cadastral survey of the lands involved and the plans
and technical description thereof prepared in due form.
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by a plan thereof, and
may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full notice to the occupants of the lands and to
all persons who may claim any right or interest therein.
Where the land consists of two or more parcels held or occupied by different persons, the plan shall
indicate the boundaries or limits of the various parcels as accurately as possible. The parcels shall
be known as "lots" and shall on the plan filed in the case be given separate numbers by the Director
of Lands, which numbers shall be known as "cadastral lot numbers". The lots situated within each
municipality shall, as far as practicable, be numbered consecutively beginning with number "one",
and only one series of numbers shall be used for that purpose in each municipality. However in cities
or townsites, a designation of the landholdings by blocks and lot numbers may be employed instead
of the designation by cadastral lot numbers.
The cadastral number of a lot shall not be changed after final decision has been entered decreasing
the registration thereof, except by order of court. Future subdivisions of any lot shall be designated
by a letter or letters of the alphabet added to the cadastral number of the lot to which the respective
subdivisions pertain. The letter with which a subdivision is designated shall be known as its
"cadastral letter": Provided, however, that the subdivisions of cities or townsites may be designated
by blocks and lot numbers.
Section 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. The trial of the case may occur at any convenient place
within the province in which the lands are situated and shall be conducted, and orders for default
and confessions entered, in the same manner as in ordinary land registration proceedings and shall
be governed by the same rules. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and
decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or to parts thereof and such decrees
shall be the basis for issuance of original certificates of title in favor of said persons and shall have
the same effect as certificates of title granted on application for registration of land under ordinary
land registration proceedings.
5. Subsequent Registration
Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An owner of registered land may
convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws.
He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient
in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to
convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate
only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons
are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.
Section 59. Carry over of encumbrances. If, at the time of any transfer, subsisting encumbrances or
annotations appear in the registration book, they shall be carried over and stated in the new
certificate or certificates; except so far as they may be simultaneously released or discharged.
Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument
shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented
with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the
court, for cause shown.
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented
for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to
enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such
instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and
upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.
Spouses Chu v. Benelda Estate Devt. Corp, G.R. No. 142313. March 1, 2001
DBP vs Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK No. 7671 June 23, 1988
Dela Merced vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 140398. September 11, 2001
Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 119745. June 20, 1997
A party who bought the property with a notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of
her title has NO better right over the party in whose favor the notice of lis pendens was
made.
… the filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with a notice of the particular
litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire on the
property is subject to the eventuality of the suit. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded
upon reason of public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject
matter of the litigation within the power of the Court until the judgment or decree shall
have been entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the litigation, its
judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution. … (Laroza
v. Guia, 134 SCRA 34 1)
Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Maulit, G.R. No. 136283. February 29, 2000
X. ATTACHMENTS
XII. FORECLOSURE
Section 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the
registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other
provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth
fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of the
certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the
land in which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant's residence, and a
place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as
an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty
days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may
be canceled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided, however, that
after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the
same claimant.
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the Court of First
Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall
grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render
judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration
thereof shall be ordered canceled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall find that
the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than
one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty
days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn
petition to that effect.
1. Non-Registrable Properties
a. Inalienable Lands of the Public Domain
b. Lands already registered under the Torrens System.
c. Innocent Purchaser For Value (IPV)
As mortgagee of a real property, [Petitioner] Abad neglected to make the necessary inquiries and
closed his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard as to the value of the property
being presented as collateral and of any flaw... in the title of the mortgagor and of the identity of
persons being introduced to him as the owners of the property being mortgaged. By merely relying
on his belief that there was no defect in the title of the property being presented as collateral and on
the identity of... the prospective mortgagors being introduced to him without undertaking further
investigation, [Petitioner] Abad cannot be considered a mortgagee in good faith and for value."... as a
rule, the purchaser is not... required to explore further than what the Certificate indicates on its face.
This rule, however, applies only to innocent purchasers for value and in good faith; it excludes a
purchaser who has knowledge of a defect in the title of the vendor, or of facts... sufficient to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the property.
Under Section 32 of PD 1529,[34] an innocent purchaser for value is deemed to include an
innocent mortgagee for value.
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumyung, G.R. Nos. L- 31666, L-31667 and L-31668 April
30, 1979
The lands covered by the patents and certificates of title are timber lands and mineral... lands and,
therefore, not alienable.
There is no evidence that the private respondents are members of the National Cultural Minorities;
that they have continuously occupied and cultivated either by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest the lands... in question... and that they are not the owner of any land secured
or disposable under the Public Land Act at the time they filed the free patent applications. These
qualifications must be... established by evidence. Precisely, the intervenor, petitioner herein, claims
that it was in possession of the lands in question when the private respondents applied for free patents
thereon.
It is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers... property of public domain classified
as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of
alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.
1. Fraudulent Registration
2. Forgery
Section 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court shall, within five days from filing of
the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be
earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land registration by means
of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
3. Loss
4. Double titles
Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G.R. No. 76265. April 22, 1992
De Santos v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69591. January 25, 1988
Mathay v. CA, G.R. No. 115788. September 17, 1998