G.

Action for Compensation from the Assurance Fund

Section 93. Contribution to Assurance Fund. Upon the entry of a certificate
of title in the name of the registered owner, and also upon the original
registration on the certificate of title of a building or other improvements on
the land covered by said certificate, as well as upon the entry of a
certificate pursuant to any subsequent transfer of registered land, there
shall be paid to the Register of Deeds one-fourth of one per cent of the
assessed value of the real estate on the basis of the last assessment for
taxation purposes, as contribution to the Assurance Fund. Where the land
involved has not yet been assessed for taxation, its value for purposes of
this decree shall be determined by the sworn declaration of two
disinterested persons to the effect that the value fixed by them is to their
knowledge, a fair valuation.
Nothing in this section shall in any way preclude the court from increasing
the valuation of the property should it appear during the hearing that the
value stated is too small.
Section 94. Custody and investment of fund. All money received by the
Register of Deeds under the preceding section shall be paid to the
National Treasurer. He shall keep this money in an Assurance Fund which
may be invested in the manner and form authorized by law, and shall
report annually to the Commissioner of the Budget the condition and
income thereof.
The income of the Assurance Fund shall be added to the principal until
said fund amounts to five hundred thousand pesos, in which event the
excess income from investments as well as from the collections of such
fund shall be paid into the National Treasury to the account of the
Assurance Fund.
Who may file?
Section 95. Action for compensation from funds. A person who, without
negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or
any estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land
under the operation of the Torrens system of arising after original
registration of land, through fraud or in consequence of any error,
omission, mistake or misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry
or memorandum in the registration book, and who by the provisions of this
Decree is barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of any law
from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or the estate or
interest therein, may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction
for the recovery of damages to be paid out of the Assurance Fund.
Requisites:
a. a person who sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land;
b. such loss, damage or deprivation is on account of the bringing of land under the
Torrens System;

c. the loss, damage or deprivation was due to fraud or in consequence of any error,
omission, mistake or misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or
memorandum in the registration book;
d. there was no negligence on his part;
e. he is barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an
action for the recovery of such land or the estate or interest therein.
I. Reversion
Who Institutes; And Grounds For Reversion:
Chapter XII, EO 292
SECTION 35. Powers and Functions.The Office of the Solicitor General shall
represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the
services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned,
it shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the
Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall
discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer.
................. (5) Represent the Government in all land registration and related
proceedings. Institute actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public
domain and improvements thereon as well as lands held in violation of the Constitution.
FACTS:
The subject property is a 65 sq.m. lot located in the San Pedro Tunasan Homesite. This
Homesite was acquired by the Republic of the Philippines in 1931. Apolinario Hermosilla
(Apolinario) was occupying a lot in such home site until his death in 1964. He
caused the subdivision of the lots into two, Lot 12 and Lot 19, with the same area of
341 sq. m. The 65sq.m. subject of this controversy forms part of Lot 19.In 1962,
Apolinario made a deed of assignment transferring possession of Lot 19in favor of his
grandson, Jaime Remoquillo. The Land Tenure Administration later found that Lot 19 is
still available for qualified applicants. Jaime, being its occupant filed an applicationin
1963.On that same year, Apolinario conveyed Lot 12 to his son Salvador. He filed for an
application to purchase the said lot, which the LTA granted in 1971.I n 1 9 7 2 , J a i m e
and Salvador made a
Kasunduan whereby Jaime transferred o wn ersh ip of the 65 sq.m . in Lot 19 in
fa vo r of Sal va do r. In 1986 , the NHA (th en LTA) awarded Lot 19 to Jaime, for
which he and his wife were issued a title. The petitioners filed for the annulment of the
title on the ground of fraud because by the virtue of the Kasunduan, the 65 sq.m. in Lot
19 were already conveyed to Salvador. The trial court held that the petitioners
were co-owners of the subject property and allo we d fo r the acti on fo r
speci fi c perfo rmance. The CA re verse d the tria l courts decision, rendering
the Kasunduan void because at the time of its execution (1972), the lot was still owned
by the Republic of the Philippines. Hence, no right was transferred to Jaime, w h o w a s
awarded the lot in 1986 and no right was transferred by Salvador
t o t h e petitioners. Also, the CA held that the action had prescribed, it having
been filed in 1992,more than four years from the issuance of the title to the spouses
Remoquillo. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
(1)
Whether or not the property was acquired by the spouses Remoquillo through fraud
which by force of law, considered them trustees of an implied trusts
(2)Whether or not the prescriptive period to recover the property obtained by
fraud is applicable in the case at bar
HELD:
(1)
NO. The property was previously a public land, petitioners have no personality to impute
fraud or misrepresentation against the State or violation of the law. If the title was in fact
fraudulently obtained, it is the State which should file the suit to reco ver the prope rt y
through th e Office of th e Sol ici to r Gene ral . The title originated from a
grant by the government, hence, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor
and the grantee. At all e ven ts, fo r an a ction for re con ve yan ce based on
fra ud to prosp er, the petitioners must prove by clear and convincing evidence not
only his title to the property but also the fact of fraud. Fraud is never presumed.
Intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner injure
him must be spe cificall y all eged an d p ro ve d b y th e pe ti ti one rs b y cl ear and
con vi nci ng evidence. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden, however.
(2)
NO. From the allegations of the Complaint, petitioners seek the reconveyance of the
property based on implied trust. The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of
fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the
issuance of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession, but
imprescriptible if he is in possession of the property. It is undisputed that petitioners
houses occupy the questioned property and that respondents have not been in
possession thereof. Since there was no actual need to reconvey the property as
petitioners remained in possession thereof, the action took the nature of a suit for
quieting of title, it having been filed to enforce an alleged implied trust after Jaime
refused to segregate title over Lot 19.One who is in actual possession of a piece of land
claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is
attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. From the body of the complaint,
this type of action denotes imprescriptibility.
IMPROPERLY FILED REVERSION SUIT:
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513) Action for reversion
which seeks to cancel a judgment of the RTC awarding lot to an applicant should be
filed before Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
While CA No. 141 did not specify whether judicial confirmation of titles by a land
registration court can be subject of a reversion suit, the government availed of such
remedy by filing actions with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel titles and decrees
granted in land registration applications, but the situation changed on 14 August 1981
upon the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which gave the Intermediate Appellate
Court the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of

Regional Trial Courts. When the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure became effective on 1
July 1997, it incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or final orders and
resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts. Effective 1 July 1997, any action for reversion
of public land instituted by the Government was already covered by Rule 47 and the
same should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial Court.
Reversion suits were originally utilized to annul titles/patents administratively issued by
the Director of the Lands Management Bureau or the Secretary of the DENR.
J.
CANCELLATION SUITS

K.
ANNULMENT OF JUDGEMENT
(RULE 74, RULES OF COURT)
WHEN BROUGHT:
Sec. 1
This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no
longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
Sec. 2
The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed
of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
Sec.
3.
Period
for
filing
action
If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its
discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
GALICIA VS MANLIQUEZ
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each
case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.
L.
QUIETING OF TITLE:
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by
reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or

unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove
such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real
property or any interest therein.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property
which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when
the contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or
has been barred by extinctive prescription.
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received
from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiff's
benefit.
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted
insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.
Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a cloud therefrom shall
be governed by such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgated.

M.
CRIMINAL ACTION:
Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. Any
person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take
possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to
another, in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him,
shall be punished by a fine from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have
obtained, but not less than 75 pesos.
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be
imposed.
Art. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. Any person who shall alter the boundary
marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 100 pesos, or both.