Casimiro Development Corporation vs. Renato L.

Mateo
G.R. No. 175485, July 17, 2011

FACTS:

In 1988, petitioner purchased from China Bank the land in question which was previously sold by the
mother of Mateo to Rodolfo Pe who in turn constituted a mortgage on the property in favor of China Bank
as security for a loan. China Bank foreclosed the mortgage and consolidated its ownership of the property
after Rodolfo failed to redeem. A TCT was issued in the name of China Bank. In 1991, CDC brought an
action for unlawful detainer against the respondent’s siblings. Respondent counters that CDC acquired
the property from China Bank in bad faith because it had actual knowledge of the possession of the
property by the respondent and his siblings.

ISSUES:

WON CDC was an innocent purchaser for value.

WON the TCT issued in the name of CDC was valid

RULING:

One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the certificate of
title, but only has to rely on the certificate of title. He is charged with notice only of such burdens and
claims as are annotated on the title. China Bank’s TCT’s was a clean title, that is, it was free from any lien
or encumbrance, CDC had the right to rely, when it purchased the property, solely upon the face of the
certificate of title in the name of China Bank. The respondent’s siblings’ possession did not translate to an
adverse claim of ownership. They even characterized their possession only as that of mere agricultural
tenants. Under no law was possession grounded on tenancy a status that might create a defect or inflict
a law in the title of the owner. CDC having paid the full and fair price of the land, was an innocent
purchaser for value. The TCT in the name of CDC was declared valid and subsisting.

Yes, there is no doubt that the land in question has already been placed under the Torrens system. The
Government has adopted the Torrens system due to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect
their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized.

However, registration under the Torrens system, not being a mode of acquiring ownership, does not
create or vest title. The Torrens certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title in the
particular property described therein. In that sense, the issuance of the certificate of title to a particular
person does not preclude the possibility that persons not named in the certificate may be co-owners of
the real property.

Nonetheless, title registered under the Torrens system becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible.
 FRANCISCO MADRID AND EDGARDO BERNARDO VS SPOUSES MARTINEZ
August 14, 2009 G.R. No. 150887

FACTS:
 Herein respondents are the absolute owners of two parcels of land located in Sampaloc, Manila
to which the properties have a combined area of two-hundred seventy (270) square meters.
 Subsequently, the respondents-plaintiffs sought to recover possession of the properties through
an accion publiciana filed with the RTC of Manila against Gregorio Miranda and his family
(Mirandas) and herein petitioners. The Mirandas are no longer parties to the present case; they
did not appeal the lower court decision to the CA.
 The respondents-plaintiffs alleged that they acquired the properties from the spouses Procopio
and Encarnacion Castelo under a Deed of Absolute Sale. Initially, the petitioners-defendants
continued occupancy and possession was tolerated until demands to vacate the properties were
made. Despite the several demands, the petitioners-defendants continued to occupy and
unlawfully withhold possession of the properties.
 The Mirandas countered that Gregorio Miranda owned the properties by virtue of an oral sale
made in his favor by the original owner, Vivencio Antonio (Antonio), same goes with Bernardo
 RTC: ruled in favor of Respondents, it found no merit in the petitioners-defendants claims of
ownership via an oral sale given the absence of any public instrument or at least a note or
memorandum supporting their claims. Mirandas did not join appeal in CA
 Court of Appeals: affirmed RTC decision.

ISSUE: WON the respondents acquired the properties through fraud

RULING:
 NO.
 Accion publiciana, is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of
realty independently of title. It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year
from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the
realty. It is to recover possession only, not ownership
 In the present case, both the petitioners-defendants and the respondents-plaintiffs raised the
issue of ownership. The petitioners-defendants claim ownership based on the oral sale to and
occupation by Gregorio Miranda. On the other hand, the respondents-plaintiffs claim that they
are the owners, and their ownership is evidenced by the TCTs in their names. Resolution of these
conflicting claims will depend on the weight of the parties' respective evidence.
 In the present case, both the RTC and the CA gave more weight to the certificate of title the
respondents-plaintiffs presented, and likewise found that the petitioners-defendants' possession
of the properties was merely upon the respondents-plaintiffs tolerance. We see no reason to
doubt or question the validity of these findings and thus recognize their finality
 As a matter of law, a Torrens Certificate of Title is evidence of indefeasible title of property in
favor of the person in whose name the title appears. The title holder is entitled to all the attributes
of ownership of the property, including possession, subject only to limits imposed by law. In the
present case, the respondents-plaintiffs are indisputably the holders of a certificate of title against
which the petitioners-defendants claim of oral sale cannot prevail.
 The petitioners-defendants attack on the validity of respondents-plaintiffs title, by claiming that
fraud attended its acquisition, is a collateral attack on the title. It is an attack incidental to their
 quest to defend their possession of the properties in an "accion publiciana," not in a direct action
whose main objective is to impugn the validity of the judgment granting the title
 Therefore, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Javier vs. Concepcion

GR No. L36566 dated November 7, 1979

FACTS:

Private respondents filed against Javier for the reconveyance of parcel of land known as lot 12. The
respondents alleged that lot 12 is a portion of a big parcel of land designated as lot 6 and covered by TCT
issued by register of deeds. Javier claimed they acquired the land by prescription. RTC, CA ruled in favor
of private respondents.

ISSUE: WON the subject land may be acquired by prescription.

RULING:

The defense of prescription of the cause of action for recovery of possession by the registered owner is
without merit. The established rule is that one cannot acquire title to a registered land by prescription or
adverse possession. Laches is likewise not available because there are no intervening rights of third
persons which may be affected or prejudiced by a decision ordering the return of the lots. Hence, the
equitable defense of laches will not apply against the registered owners.

REPUBLIC VS BENJAMIN GUERRERO

G.R. No. 133168, March 28, 2006

FACTS:
 December 1964: Benjamin Guerrerro filed with the Bureau of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales
Application covering a parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin, Quezon City. This application was
approved and Miscellaneous Sales Patent was issued subsequent thereto.
 Angelina Bustamante later filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands claiming that Guerrero
obtained the sales patent through fraud, false statement of facts and/or omission of material
facts. This was however dismissed by the Director of lands and further affirmed by then Minister
of Natural Resources.
 Through a MFR, an ocular investigation and relocation survey found out that 83 sq. m. of the titled
property of Guerrero is under actual physical possession of Marcelo Bustamante, husband of
Angeluna. Thus, upon the directive of the Office of The President, the Director of Lands instituted
a petition for the amendment of plan and technical description.
 Guerrero opposed said motion through a motion to dismiss but however was dismissed
thereafter. However, the RTC ruled in favor of Guerrero stating that the Republic failed to prove
its allegation that Guerrero obtained the sales patent and certificate of title through fraud and
misrepresentation. RTC also ruled that the original certificate of title in the name of Guerrero
acquired the characteristics of indefeasibility after the expiration of 1 year from the entry of the
decree of registration. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court.
ISSUES:

1. WON the Republic has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Guerrero procured
Miscellaneous Sales Patent and OCT through fraud and misrepresentation.
2. Guerrero’s title acquired the characteristic of indefeasibility.

HELD:
1. NO, the property in question, while once part of the lands of the public domain and disposed of
via a miscellaneous sales arrangement, is now covered by a Torrens certificate. Grants of public
land were brought under the operation of the Torrens system by Act No. 496, or the Land
Registration Act of 1903. Under the Torrens system of registration, the government is required to
issue an official certificate of title to attest to the fact that the person named is the owner of the
property described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or what the
law warrants or reserves.

Upon its registration, the land falls under the operation of Act No. 496 and becomes registered
land. Time and again, we have said that a Torrens certificate is evidence of an indefeasible title to
property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon

However, Section 38 of Act No. 496 recognizes the right of a person deprived of land to institute
an action to reopen or revise a decree of registration obtained by actual fraud. However, the
Republic in this case failed to prove that there is actual and extrinsic fraud to justify a review of
the decree. It has not adduced adequate evidence that would show that respondent employed
actual and extrinsic fraud in procuring the patent and the corresponding certificate of title.
Petitioner miserably failed to prove that it was prevented from asserting its right over the lot in
question and from properly presenting its case by reason of such fraud.

2. YES. Guerrero’s title, having been registered under the Torrens system, was vested with the
garment of indefeasibility.

NB: The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most
effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once
the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the
assurance that the seller’s title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that
his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that
if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions
would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof
of ownership. The further consequence would be that land conflicts could be even more abrasive,
if not even violent. The government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system,
should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down
by the law are satisfied.

While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands but merely a system of
registration of titles to lands, justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not be made
to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the State’s agents, in the absence
of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of
the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to the legality
 of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of the registration or that
may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall forever be
sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily
presumed to have regularly performed their duties.

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MANUEL DUMYUNG

GR Nos. L-31666-68, April 30, 1979

FACTS:

The Republic of the Philippines... represented by the Director of Lands... commenced City Civil Cases... on
the ground of misrepresentation and false data and information furnished by the defendants.

The lands embraced... situated in Benguet, Mountain Province.

Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, petitioner... filed motions for intervention... which were granted.

The complaints in intervention alleged that a portion of the titled lands in question is within the
intervenor's ordinary timber license... and another portion of said lands is... embraced in its mineral
claims.

The plaintiff, Republic... and the intervenor, filed separate motions for reconsideration of the order
dismissing Civil Cases.

Both motions for reconsideration were denied.

ISSUE:

WON the lands covered by the patents and certificates of title which pertain to timber lands and mineral
lands alienable.

RULING:

There is no evidence that the private respondents are members of the National Cultural Minorities; that
they have continuously occupied and cultivated either by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest the lands... in question... and that they are not the owner of any land secured or disposable under
the Public Land Act at the time they filed the free patent applications. These qualifications must be
established by evidence. Precisely, the intervenor, petitioner herein, claims that it was in possession of
the lands in question when the private respondents applied for free patents thereon.

It is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain classified as
forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of alleged
innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.
 HEIRS OF MAXIMO LABANON vs. HEIRS OF CONSTANCIO LABANON
G.R. No. 160711. August 14, 2007.

FACTS:

Constancio Labanon with the help of his more educated brother, cultivated and acquired a property
though a homestead patent prior the WW-II. Since Constancio do not know the formalities necessary in
the application of a homestead patent and subsequently a certificate of title, he asked the assistance of
his brother Maximo. In return, he offered to give half of the property to Maximo.

Upon the acquisition of the homestead patent in 1941 and subsequently the OCT, Maximo executed a
document transferring his rights over the eastern property to his brother. Upon Constancio’s death, the
eastern portion was sold to Alberto Magkilang, his son-in-law. The heirs of Maximo however intervened
in the said sale by causing the cancellation of the said sale. No reasons were given for refusal. Heirs of C
Labanon demanded the surrender the OCT. But heirs of M. Labanon refused to honor the prior agreement
of brothers Constancio and Maximo.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Original Certificate of Title No. 41320 issued on April 10, 1975 in the name of
MAXIMO LABANON be now considered indefeasible and conclusive; and
2. Whether or not the Trust Agreement allegedly made by Constancio Labanon and Maximo
Labanon prescribed

RULING:

First Issue:
Respondents are not precluded from challenging the validity of Original Certificate of Title No. P-41320

The principle of indefeasibility of a TCT is embodied in Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,
amending the Land Registration Act, which provides:
Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. — The decree of
registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of
any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments,
subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and
review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of
such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be
prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in
this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer
for value.

Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued
shall become incontrovertible. 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 persons responsible for the
fraud.
Contrary to petitioners' interpretation, the aforequoted legal provision does not totally deprive a party
of any remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered in the name of another. Section 32 of PD
1529 merely precludes the reopening of the registration proceedings for titles covered by the Torrens
System, but does not foreclose other remedies for the reconveyance of the property to its rightful
owner.

While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the decree of registration becomes
incontrovertible after a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy in law. The
acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if it is utilized to perpetuate fraud against the real
owners.

The mere possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens system does not necessarily make the
possessor a true owner of all the property described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate
alone become the owner of the land illegally included. It is evident from the records that the petitioner
owns the portion in question and therefore the area should be conveyed to her. The remedy of the land
owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is, after one year
from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible
and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for
damages.

Undeniably, respondents are not precluded from recovering the eastern portion of Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. P-14320, with an area subject of the "Assignment of Rights and Ownership" previously
owned by their father, Constancio Labanon. The action for Recovery of Ownership before the RTC is
indeed the appropriate remedy.

Second Issue:
The trust agreement between Maximo Labanon and Constancio Labanon may still be enforced.

In the instant case, such intention to institute an express trust between Maximo Labanon as trustee and
Constancio Labanon as trustor was contained in not just one but two written documents, the Assignment
of Rights and Ownership as well as Maximo Labanon's April 25, 1962 Sworn Statement. In both
documents, Maximo Labanon recognized Constancio Labanon's ownership and possession over the
eastern portion of the property covered by OCT No. P-14320, even as he recognized himself as the
applicant for the Homestead Patent over the land. Thus, Maximo Labanon maintained the title over the
property while acknowledging the true ownership of Constancio Labanon over the eastern portion of the
land. The existence of an express trust cannot be doubted nor disputed.

In relation to the issue of prescription, unrepudiated express trusts do not prescribe. In the case at bar,
Maximo Labanon never repudiated the express trust instituted between him and Constancio Labanon.
And after Maximo Labanon's death, the trust could no longer be renounced; thus, respondents' right to
enforce the trust agreement can no longer be restricted nor prejudiced by prescription.
 De Guzman vs. Agbagala
G.R. No. 163566 adted February 19, 2008

FACTS:

The spouses Elias P. Javier and Maria Sison died on May 8, 1942 and July 1936, they were survived by their
six children and one of them is Carmen Javier. When Carmen died, she was still single and without any
compulsory heir and survived only be her siblings Encarnacion, Praxide, Juana and Nicasio. One afternoon,
according to the daughter of Praxide, Milagros, a certain Rosing Cruz went to their house to borrow
P30,000 from her and Rosing offered as collateral a document which turned out to be a deed of donation
dated January 25, 1977 purportedly signed by Carmen in favor of her niece Madelene Javier Curz,
daughter of Juana and sister-in-law of Rosing. After that Milagros went to the Register of Dees in Lingaye,
to verify the existence of such donation. She found out that is was indeed duly registered.

The respondent filed a case against Madelene praying that the deed of donation be nullified as well as the
subsequent transfers to other parties of the properties covered by the spurious donation. Respondent
claimed that the deed of donation was fake and this was confirmed by the handwriting expert of the NBI.

Petitioners filed their answer Dated November 28, 1989, they claimed that they applied for a free patent
over the subject area on August 10, 1987 and on November 26, 1987, they were issued free patent no.
165790. On December 11, 1987, Original Certificate of Title No. P-30187 was registered in their name.

ISSUE:

WON the free patent that was issued in favor of the petitioners were valid.

RULING:

The land was private and since it is private in nature, the Director of Lands has no authority to grand a
free patent over it thus any title issued pursuant thereto is null and void.