Pasio vs. Monterroyo G.R. No.

159494 July 31, 2008 FACTS: The Director of Land granted Laureano Pasinos application for homestead patent. The said land was divided by a creek, hence, two portionsLot A and Lot B. OCTs were issued by LMB covering the lands, respectively. Here comes the respondent alleging exclusive and notorious possession of Lot B. He contended that the OCT issued in favor of petitioners over the subject lot was null and void.

ISSUE: 1. Who is the rightful owner of the subject land? 2. What is the effect if the homestead patent granted in accordance with law (not so in this case) is registered? LTD proper. HELD: 1. Monterroyo. First, LMB has no jurisdiction to issue free patent titles. Secondly, the subject land has been converted into private land thru operation of the law by virtue of prescription, thus In Director of Lands v. IAC, the Court ruled: Alienable public land held by a possessor, continuously or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30 years under The Public Land Act, as amended) is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the period, ipso jure. The respondent to that effect has presented proof. 2. Once a homestead patent granted in accordance with law is registered, the certificate of title issued by virtue of the patent has the force and effect of a Torrens title issued under the land registration law. In this case, the issuance of a homestead patent in 1952 in favor of Laureano was not registered. Section 103 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 mandates the registration of patents, and registration is the operative act to convey the land to the patentee, thus: Sec. 103. x x x x. The deed, grant, patent 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 a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The fees for registration

shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree.

Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic G.R. No. 179987 April 29, 2009 FACTS: ISSUE: Whether the application of Malabanan be granted HELD: No. The possessed land must be inalienable land of public domain. If the land is not declared as inalienable land of public domain, even O-C-E-N possession, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership The law provides: 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. Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration covering a certain parcel of land Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years Malabanan had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public domain

Top Management Programs Corporation vs. Fajardo G.R. No. 150462 June 15, 2011 FACTS: ISSUE: Whether Fajardo is correct in filing a motion for issuance of a writ of execution HELD: No. Upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the winning party does not file a motion for execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a petition with the land registration court for the issuance of an order directing the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to the Register of Deeds for inscription in the registration book, and issuance of the original certificate of title. Gregorio applied for registration of certain parcels of land but it was adjudicated in favor of Velasquez Gregorio appealed CFI decision awarding Lots 1 to 4 in favor of Velasquez Sometime after this, he entered into an agreement with Tomas Trinidad and Luis Fajardo in which Fajardo would finance the cost of the litigation and in return he would be entitled to one-half of the subject property After the CA rendered a favorable ruling on Gregorios appeal, Fajardo and Trinidad filed Civil Case before CFI to enforce their agreement When the said agreement was granted, Fajardo filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution (to execute CAs decision) The writ was issued but it was remained unsatisfied