TAGUINOD vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
Then Pres. Marcos promulgated PD 27. Pursuant to this, DAR launched Operation Land
Transfer (OLT) to implement the laws provisos of transferring ownership to qualified tenantfarmers or farmer-beneficiaries of the rice or corn land they are cultivating under a system of
sharecrop or lease-tenancy, with the landowner having retention of not more than 7 hectares
of agricultural land. When OLT was launched, Salud Aguila was the registered owner of the
disputed lots. Subsequently, 1 lot was transferred to and registered in the name of petitioner
Vic Aguila, who was then 14 years old while the other was transferred to petitioner Josephine
Taguinod. Both disputed lots were placed under the coverage of the OLT pursuant to PD 27.
Shortly after the transfer of the subject lot to Vic Aguila, Salud Aguila, on behalf of then
minor petitioner Aguila, filed a notarized application for retention.
When he was already of age, Vic Aguila filed a letter-protest for exclusion or exemption from
the OLT of his landholding. Taguinod sought exemption from the OLT of her landholding.
The petition was granted and was affirmed by the OP. Private respondents assailed the
decision of the OP before the CA through a Petition for Review under Rule 43. The CA
granted the petition. Petitioners interposed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was rejected
by the CA. Thus, this petition.
Issues:
Whether landowner Salud Aguila is entitled to retention under PD 27?
Held:
NO. LOI No. 474 mandates the DAR Secretary to "undertake to place under the Land
Transfer Program of the Government pursuant to PD 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with
areas of seven (7) hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands
of more than seven (7) hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial,
industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support
themselves and their families." Considering Salud Aguilas other eleven (11) landholdings
and the application of LOI No. 474, the court agree with the DAR Secretary and CAs holding
that Salud Aguila is not entitled to retention over the subject lots. Premised on said grounds,
the issue on petitioners right to retention over the subject lots is answered in the negative as
they are not the owners, and consequently are not small landowners who are accorded the
right of retention.

INGUSAN v. HEIRS OF AURELIANO I. REYES

This case involves a residential land originally owned by Leocadio Ingusan who was
unmarried and childless when he died in 1932. The petitioner is the grandnephew of Leocadio
and Aureliano, Sr. was the latter's nephew. After the death of Leocadio, Aureliano, Sr. was
designated by the heirs as administrator of the land. He applied for and was granted a free
patent over the land. Petitioner filed an accion reivindicatoria against Aureliano, Sr. and
sought recovery of Lot 120-A which was part of the land at issue here.
Aureliano, Sr. executed a SPA in favor of his son Artemio authorizing him to mortgage the
land in question to any bank. Using that SPA, Artemio mortgaged the land to secure a loan
of from the PNB. In 1983, Aureliano, Sr. died intestate. Petitioner paid the PNB loan. The
mortgage over the land was released and the owners duplicate copy of OCT No. P-6176 was
given to him. The RTC declared OCT No. P-6176 as well as the subsequent certificates of
title as null and void. On appeal, the CA contended that only OCT No. P-6176, remained
valid because it had already become indefeasible and could no longer be attacked collaterally.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether OCT No. P-6176 was valid?
HELD:
Yes. A certificate of title cannot be attacked collaterally. OCT No. P-6176 which was
registered under the Torrens System on the basis of a free patent became indefeasible and
incontrovertible after the lapse of one year as provided in Sec. 32 of PD 152. 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 person responsible for the fraud.

JUSTALERO vs. GONZALES

Facts:
Respondents Noemi San Agustin and Zenaida San Agustin Gonzales, together with their
siblings, executed a document denominated as "Subdivision Agreement" wherein they
agreed, in accordance with a previously executed Extra-Judicial Partitions of the estate of
their deceased parents and a subdivision plan which they caused to be made, to allot Lot 8
and Lot 9 to Noemi and Zenaida, respectively.
Noemi and Zenaida were issued their respective TCTs. Petitioners, Gil Justalero and the heirs
of his now deceased brother Jesus Justalero filed the complaint subject of the present petition
against respondents Zenaida and Noemi, for quieting of title and reconveyance with damages,
with the RTC of Iloilo. The trial court dismissed petitioners complaint. On petitioners
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that of the trial court. Hence, the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Lot No.8 which is claimed by plaintiffs Gil Justalero, et al., is embraced in the
titles of defendants?
Held:
Almost two years before the filing of petitioners complaint, the Bureau of Lands, Iloilo City
rendered a decision in the Free Patent application by Jesus Justalero, declaring that the
subject lot, Cadastral Lot No. 2596, is identical to Lot 8, which is now titled in the name of
Noemi. It is clear therefore that Lot 2596 became private property as early as May 1930, by
virtue of which the Bureau of Lands has lost jurisdiction over the land.
There is no showing that Jesus Justalero as Free Patent applicant availed himself of any legal
remedy to assail the said decision which was adverse to him. Hence, petitioners are bound by
the decision.

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:
Ulpiano Mumar sold the subject land to Carlos Cajes who occupied and cultivated the said
land. In 1969, unknown to Cajes, Jose Alvarez succeeded in obtaining the registration of a
parcel of land in his name. The parcel of land included the portion occupied by Cajes.
Alvarez never occupied nor introduced improvements on said land. Alvarez sold the land to
the spouses Gaudencio and Rosario Beduya who mortgaged the subject land to DBP as
security for a loan. The mortgage on the property was foreclosed for failure of the spouses to
pay. In the resulting foreclosure sale, petitioner was the highest bidder. As the spouses
Beduya failed to redeem the property, petitioner consolidated its ownership.
Later, it was discovered that Cajes was occupying a portion of said land. He was informed
that petitioner had become the owner of the land he was occupying, and he was asked to
vacate the property. He refused so the petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession
with damages against him. The trial court declared petitioner the lawful owner of the entire
land on the ground that the decree of registration was binding upon the land. On appeal, the
CA reversed and gave judgment for Cajes. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was
denied. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the possession by Cajes and his predecessor-in-interest of the subject land for more
than 30 years can overcome the decree of registration issued in favor of Jose Alvarez?
HELD:
YES. It was established that private respondent, Cajes, having been in possession of the land
since 1950, was the owner of the property when it was registered by Jose Alvarez in 1969, his
possession tacked to that of his predecessor-in-interest, Ulpiano Mumar, which dates back to
1917. Clearly, more than 30 years had elapsed before a decree of registration was issued in
favor of Jose Alvarez. The court held that ownership of the 19.4 hectares of land presently
occupied by private respondent was already vested in him and that its inclusion in OCT No.
546 and, subsequently, in TCT No. 10101, was erroneous. Accordingly, the land in question
must be reconveyed in favor of private respondent, the true and actual owner thereof,
reconveyance being clearly the proper remedy in this case.

MACABABBAD vs. MASIRAG

FACTS:
The respondents filed an action for quieting of title, nullity of titles, reconveyance and
damages against Macababad, Chua and Say. Respondents alleged that the petitioners falsified
a document entitled Extra-judicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale of Portion of
Registered Land (Lot 4144) so that the respondents were deprived of their shares in Lot No.
4144. The document ostensibly conveyed the subject property to Macababbad. However,
despite the supposed sale to Macababbad, his name did not appear on the face of TCT No.
13408. Despite his exclusion from TCT No. 13408, his Petition for another owners
duplicate copy of TCT No. 13408, filed in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, was
granted.
Subsequently, Macababbad registered portions of Lot No. 4144 in his name and sold other
portions to third parties. Chua filed a petition for the cancellation of TCT No. T-13408 and
the issuance of a title evidencing his ownership over a subdivided portion of Lot No. 4144
which was issued in his name. Macababbad filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
while Chua and Say filed an Appearance with Motion to Dismiss. The RTC denied the
motion to dismiss. The respondents appealed the RTCs order to the CA who reversed and set
aside the RTCs dismissal of the complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether the issuance of the certificates of titles converts the action to one of reconveyance of
titled land which prescribes in ten (10) years?
HELD:
NO. Consequently, respondents could not have acquired ownership over the land to the extent
of the shares of petitioners. The issuance of a certificate of title in their favor could not
vest upon them ownership of the entire property; neither could it validate the purchase
thereof which is null and void. Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence
of such title. Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what
he actually has. Being null and void, the sale to respondents of the petitioners' shares
produced no legal effects whatsoever.
In actions for reconveyance of the property predicated on the fact that the conveyance
complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim of prescription of action would be
unavailing. "The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract
does not prescribe." In an action for reconveyance, all the owners of the property sought to
be recovered are indispensable parties. Thus, if reconveyance were the only relief prayed for,
impleading petitioners Macababbad and the spouses Chua and Say would suffice. In sum, the
CA correctly reversed the RTCs dismissal of the respondents complaint.

HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA, SR. vs. LUMOCSO

FACTS:
Petitioners claim to be the rightful owners of the subject lots all situated in Dipolog City.
Respondent siblings are the patent holders and registered owners of the subject lots. Valeriano
Sr. and his children filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of Title with
Damages against "Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and Bienvenida Guya." They sought to annul
the free patent and the corresponding OCT issued in the name of Gregorio Lumocso.
Two separate complaints for Reconveyance with Damages were filed by petitioners, this time
against "Cristita Lomocso Vda. de Daan" for a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6196-A and
"Spouses Jacinto and Balbina Lomocso" for a one-hectare portion of Lot Nos. 6196-B and
7529-A. Petitioners opposed, contending that the instant cases involve actions the subject
matters of which are incapable of pecuniary estimation which fall within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTCs.
ISSUE:
Whether the case falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC?
HELD:
NO. It is undisputed that the subject lots are situated in Dipolog City and their assessed
values are less than P20,000.00. Hence, the MTC clearly has jurisdiction over the instant
cases. It is true that the recovery of the value of the trees cut from the subject properties may
be included in the term "any interest therein." However, the law is emphatic that in
determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed value of the realty involved
that should be computed. In this case, the assessed values of the subject properties are less
than P20,000.00. Clearly, jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs not to the RTC but to the
MTC.

ACOSTA vs. SALAZAR

FACTS:
Salazars filed a petition for the cancellation of the entries annotated at the back of OCT No.
40287 registered in the names of spouses Macaraeg, who died without issue. The Salazars
claim that two of the entries annotated at the back of the aforesaid title are void since no
consolidation of rights appear in the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac to support the entries. RTC
of Tarlac granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of Entry No. 20102. No respondent
was impleaded in the said petition.
The Salazars filed a complaint for quieting of title impleading herein petitioners as well as
other individuals who claim to have purchased the said property from the heirs of Juan
Soriano. The RTC of Tarlac dismissed the complaint for quieting of title. The trial court
faulted the Salazars for failure to present proof that they are heirs of the late Juan Soriano. It
also declared TCT No. 219121 issued in the name of the Salazars as null and void, and
affirmed TCT No. 9297 as well as all certificates of title derived therefrom. The Salazars
appealed to the CA, which ruled in their favor. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but
was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition would prosper?
HELD:
YES. Both parties in this case are dealing with property registered under the Torrens system.
To allow any individual, such as the Salazars in this case, to impugn the validity of a Torrens
certificate of title by the simple expediency of filing an ex parte petition for cancellation of
entries would inevitably erode the very reason why the Torrens system was adopted in this
country, which is to quiet title to land and to put a stop forever to any question on the legality
of the title, except claims that were noted, at the time of registration, in the certificate, or
which may arise subsequent thereto.
Finally, this Court also takes note of the fact that for more than 30 years from the time
Entry No. 20102 was annotated at the back of OCT No. 40287 on February 17, 1950 until the
time of the filing of the ex parte petition for cancellation of entries on the said certificate of
title on November 19, 1985 the Salazars remained deafeningly quiet and never made any
move to question the issue of ownership over the said land before the proper forum.
The petition is GRANTED.

BENIN vs. TUASON

FACTS:
Three sets of plaintiffs filed three separate complaints alleging that they were the owners and
possessors of various agricultural lands in Rizal through inheritance. They further alleged that
J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc. Thorugh their agents and representatives and with the aid of armed
men, by force and intimidation demolished and destroyed the dwellings and constructions of
plaintiffs lessees.
The plaintiffs, in the three cases, were allowed by the trial court to litigate as paupers. Only
defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. was actually served with summons. The other defendants
were ordered summoned by publication in accordance with Sections 16 and 17 of the Rules
of Court. Only defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. appeared. The other defendants were all
declared in default. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed a motion to dismiss in each of the three
cases. This motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed in
the three cases a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. A motion for new trial was
filed by defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court had correctly declared that OCT No. 735 is null and void ab
initio?
HELD:
NO. The lower court erred when it declared null and void OCT No. 735. The registration
proceedings that brought about the decree of registration upon which was based the issuance
of OCT No. 735 were in accordance with the provisions of Act 496. The Land Registration
Court that ordered the issuance of the decree of registration had jurisdiction to hear and
decide the application for registration.
It is the settled rule that a party seeking the reconveyance to him of his land that he claims
had been wrongly registered in the name of another person must recognize the validity of the
certificate of title of the latter. It is also the rule that a reconveyance may only take place if
the land that is claimed to be wrongly registered is still registered in the name of the person
who procured the wrongful registration. No action for reconveyance can take place as against
a third party who had acquired title over the registered property in good faith and for value.
And if no reconveyance can be made, the value of the property registered may be demanded
only from the person (or persons) who procured the wrongful registration in his name.
The lower court also erred when it declared the appellees the owners of the lands claimed by
them and in awarding damages to them, in these three cases.

HEIRS OF MIGUEL FRANCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Quintin died intestate. His brother, Miguel Franco, filed a petition for him to be
appointed as administrator of Quintins estate. This was opposed by Faustina Franco Vda. De
Cabading, the sister of the decedent. She prayed for her own appointment as administratrix.
The intestate court appointed Miguel as special administrator of the estate. However,
Faustina, then apparently joined by the other heirs of Quintin except Miguel, moved for the
latters removal as special administrator.
The intestate court issued an Order declaring inter alia that, based on the evidence,
Quintin was the absolute owner of the subject property. This finding was subsequently used
by the intestate court as one of the grounds for granting the motion to remove Miguel as
special administrator. Miguel filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Miguel had filed
a Petition in the CFI seeking the cancellation of OCT No. P-436. This Petition was granted.
Thus, Miguel was able to obtain Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) T-20203, covering
half of the subject property.
The other heirs asked the intestate court to cancel TCT No. T-20203 which was granted
by the intestate court. The CA reversed the Order. According to the appellate court, the
intestate court had no jurisdiction to settle questions of property ownership.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Under the Land Registration Act, title to the property covered by a Torrens title becomes
indefeasible after the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. The
decree is incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons whether or not they were
notified of, or participated in, the in rem registration process. OCT No. P-436, covering the
subject property in its entirety, was registered in the name of Quintin. A Torrens title is the
best evidence of ownership of registered land. Whatever claim of ownership Miguel had
raised should have been weighed against Quintins title. Unfortunately, the Dipolog RTC,
Branch 1 apparently ignored this fundamental principle when it issued the Order directing the
registration of half of the subject property in the name of Miguel.