G.R. No. L-58822 April 8, 1988 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ANGEL G.

SANGALANG, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Baguio and Banquet, Branch I; SPS MARIANO KIANG, and MIRANDA SOBLE; Sps. WAGNIL KIANG and DALIN OSTEG; BEN KIANG; OLMAN KIANG, Sps. BENIGNO LAGASCA and CANDIDA A. LAGASCA; Sps. BIENVENIDO L. GARCIA and DOLORES C. GARCIA; Sps. EUSEBIO LITILIT and JOVITA LITILIT Sps. HIPOLITO DELLA and FILOMENA DELLA; Sps. VILLAMOR A. NAVORRA and REBECCA B. NAVORRA; Sps. RENATO DEMAIJA and ANITA DEMAIJA REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY; and LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSIONER, respondents. YAP, J.: Facts: The subject property was inherited by the private respondents Kiangs from their father, known as old man Kiang (one name) who in turn inherited the same from his parents Quebec and Cawane, who were in continuous possession of the land since the Spanish times. For the purpose of securing title over the property in question, the old man Kiang had it surveyed by the Bureau of Lands on October 11, 1916, and filed an application for registration, docketed as Case No. 30, G.L.R.O. Record No. 12073. The said application was instituted by old man Kiang during the pendency of the land registration proceedings in Civil Reservation Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Record No. 211, filed on April 12, 1912 with the Court of First Instance of Banquet, Mountain Province for the compulsory registration of all lands, buildings and interests within the limits of the Baguio Townsite Reservation in accordance with Section 62 of Act No. 926 (Public Land Act), in relation to Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Act No. 627 (an act to bring immediately under the operation of the Land Registration Act all land lying within military reservations). The said petition (Civil Reservation Case No. 1) involved the establishment of the Baguio Townsite Reservation, which included the lands of old man Kiang. On November 13, 1922, the Court of First Instance of Benquet, Mountain Province, rendered a decision in Civil Reservation Case No. L- declaring as public lands all lands within the limits of the Baguio Townsite Reservation, with the exception of lands reserved for specific public purposes and those claimed and adjudicated private property. Among those declared public lands were the lands applied for by old man Kiang under Case No. 30, G.L.R.O. Record No. 12073, which was dismissed by the court in said decision. Issue: Whether or not the court which awarded title to the Kiangs in Land Registration Case No. N-30 had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Held: It is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived and can be raised at any time. Jurisdiction of the subject matter is conferred by law and does not depend on the consent or objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or any one of them. The subject matter of Land Registration Case No. N-30 was property already declared public land and part of the Baguio Townsite Reservation by virtue of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Banquet, Mountain Province, dated November 13, 1922, in Civil Reservation Case No. L-G.L.R.O. Record No. 12073. The latter case involved the compulsory registration of land within the Baguio Townsite Reservation pursuant to Section 62 of Act No. 926, in relation to Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Act No. 627.

G.R. No. 151910

October 15, 2007

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. LUDOLFO V. MUOZ, Respondent. AZCUNA, J.: Facts: On June 14, 1996, respondent filed an Application for Registration of Title of a parcel of residential land before the RTC of Ligao, Albay containing an area of 1,986 square meters situated, bounded, and described as follows: A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot No. 2276 of the Cadastral Survey of Ligao) with the building and improvements thereon, situated in the Barrio of Bagonbayan, Municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay. Bounded on the S., along line 1-2, by Lot No. 2277, Ligao Cadastre; on the W., along Line 2-3, by Mabini Street; on the N., and E., along lines 3-4-5-6-4-7, by Lot 2284; and on the S., along line 7-8, by Lot 2281; and along line 8-1, by Lot 2278 all of Ligao Cadastre, containing an area of ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX (1,986) square meters.3 In his application for registration, respondent averred that no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind affects his property and that no other person has an interest, legal or equitable, on the subject lot. Respondent further declared that the property was acquired by donation inter vivos, executed by the spouses Apolonio R. Muoz and Anastacia Vitero on November 18, 1956, and that the spouses and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession thereof since time immemorial for more than 70 years but the Republic opposed it. Issue: PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PROVEN BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Held: As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government; and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law. 31 To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.32 The applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the land applied for is alienable and disposable.33 In the present case, respondent failed to submit a certification from the proper government agency to prove that the land subject for registration is indeed alienable and disposable. A CENRO certificate, which respondent failed to secure, could have evidenced the alienability of the land involved.

G.R. No. 169336

March 18, 2010

SPOUSES MELCHOR and SATURNINA ALDE, Petitioners, vs. RONALD B. BERNAL, OLYMPIA B. BERNAL, JUANITO B. BERNAL, and MYRNA D. BERNAL, Respondents. CARPIO, J.: Facts: Sometime in 1957, Adriano Bernal (Adriano), father of respondents Ronald, Olympia, Juanito and Myrna, all surnamed Bernal (respondents), entered upon, occupied and cultivated a parcel of land situated in San Antonio West, Don Carlos, Bukidnon. After a survey in 1992, the property was designated as Cadastral Lot No. 1123, Cad 1119-D, Case 8 with an area of 8.5043 hectares. In January 1994, Adriano secured a loan of P5,000 from petitioners and turned over physical possession, occupation and cultivation of 1.5 hectares of the property. In June 1994, Adriano secured another loan ofP10,000 from petitioners and used another 1.5 hectares as security for its payment. Petitioners then took possession and cultivated another 1.5 hectares of the property. In September 1994, Adriano informed petitioners that he could no longer pay the loan obligation and that he was selling the whole property to petitioners for P80,000. The sale was evidenced by a "Kasabotan sa Palit sa Yuta"6dated 22 September 1994, signed by Adriano as owner of the land, Leona Bernal as Adrianos wife, with respondent Ronald Bernal (Ronald), among others, as witness. Petitioners took possession of the whole property and continued the cultivation of the land. Issue: WON respondent had a right over the subject land. Held: By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented by that document [the Original Certificate of Title or the Transfer Certificate of Title]. Petitioner apparently confuses certificate with title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a piece of land. Besides, the certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. 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 subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. To repeat, registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best evidence thereof. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are interchangeable. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, respondents cannot claim ownership over the disputed portions of the property absent any showing of how they acquired title over the same. Accordingly, the property must be reconveyed in favor of petitioners, the true and actual owners of the property. 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.