Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Republic Vs. Umali - Sec. 39 of the Land Registration Act .

Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the same free of all encumbrance except those noted on said certificate.

Even if proven to have procured the patent and the original certificate of title by means of fraud, the land would not revert back to the State," precisely because it has become private land

A certificate of title fraudulently secured is not null and void ab initio, unless the fraud consisted in misrepresenting that the land is part of the public domain, although it is not.

Republic vs IAC Spanish Title can no longer be used ase vidence of land ownership.Under the same decree, lands not under the Torrens System shall be considered as unregistered land

PD 892 Discontinuance of Spanish Mortgage system of registration of land and use of Spanish Titles as evidence in Land Proceedings

Ligon Vs CA

Sec. 107, Chapter 10,PD 1529 The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if for any reason the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new, certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.

Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529 "Property Registration Decree" RTC shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of titles to lands, including improvements and interest therein and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.

CRUZ VS DENR

Indeginous People Righst Act -ancestral domains including public lands, bodies of water and natural resources found in the public domain are private ( somehow against the regalian doctrine)

Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.cralaw

The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain

PHIL CONSTI ARTICLE 12

Section 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.

NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES

-public service; public use -forest land -mangrove swaps -mineral lands -military reservations -civil reservations ex. medical center site -foreshore and reclaimed lands -lakes,Navigable Rivers and creeks -Grazing lands -watersheds -previously titled land -alluvial deposits along rivers when man-made (must be gradual and caused by Nature to be Registrable)

REGALIAN DOCTRINE:

All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[1] All lands not otherwise clearly appearing to be privately-owned are presumed to belong to the State.

Laurel Vs Garcia

It is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial.

As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated.The purpose is not to serve the State as the juridical person but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.

Director of Forestry vs Villareal

Mangrove swamps or manglares should be understood as comprised within the public forests of the Philippines as defined in Section 1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917. As such, they are not alienable under the Constitution and may not be the subject of private ownership until and unless they are first released as forest land and classified as alienable agricultural land.

CHAVEZ vs PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of the public domain, waters and other natural resources and consequently owned by the State. As such, foreshore and submerged areas shall not be alienable unless they are classified as agricultural lands of the public domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesnt convert these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public use.

CHAVES VS NHA

RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states that a contractor can be paid a portion as percentage of the reclaimed land subject to the constitutional requirement that only Filipino citizens or corporation with at least 60% Filipino equity can acquire the same. In addition, when the lands were transferred to the

NHA, these were considered Patrimonial lands of the state, by which it has the power to sell the same to any qualified person.

REPUBLIC VS IAC

Void ab initio land titles issued cannot ripen into private ownership

REPUBLIC VS NAGUIAT

Respondent never presented the required certification from the proper government agency or official proclamation reclassifying the land applied for as alienable and disposable. The documents are not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain.

Declassification of forest and mineral lands, as the case may be, and their conversion into alienable and disposable lands need an express and positive act from the government.

The issue of whether or not respondent and her predecessor-in-interest have been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of the parcels of land in question is now of little moment. For, unclassified land, as here, cannot be acquired by adverse occupation or possession; occupation thereof in the concept of owner, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered as title.

MERALCO VS CASTRO-BARTOLOME (no longer binding)

According to Sec. 48b of the Public Lands Act, the Meralco, as ajuridical person, is disqualified from applying for the judicial confirmationof imperfect title. Article XIV Sec. 14of the 1973 Constitution prohibits private corporations from hold alienable

lands of the public domain except by lease, not to exceed 1000hectares in area. In fine, only natural persons and citizens of thePhilippines are allowed to apply for confirmation under the Public Lands Act.

DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS MERALCO

Possessors shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title

If the land was already private at the time Meralco bought it from Natividad, then the prohibition in the 1973 Constitution against corporations holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease (1973 Const., Art. XIV, See. 11) does not apply.

ALMEDA V CA

Possession of the land while it was still inalienable forest land, or before it was declared alienable and disposable land of the public domai12:02 AM 01/17/2013, could not ripen into private ownership, and should be excluded from the computation of the 30-year open and continuous possession in concept of owner required under Section 48(b) of Com. Act 141.

JM TUASON Vs. CA

There being a presumptive knowledge of the Torrens titles issued to Tuason & Co. and its predecessors-in-interest since 1914, the buyer from the Deudors (or from their transferees) can not, in good conscience, say now that she believed her vendor had rights of ownership over the lot purchased.

Had he investigated before buying and before building his house on the questioned lot, he would have been informed that the land is registered under the Torrens system in the name of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., If he failed to make the necessary inquiry, appellant is now bound conclusively by appellee's Torrens title

HALILI VS CIR Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree provides:SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. -A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen