1

LANDTITLES MIDTERM REVIEWER gratuitous composition title, or adjustment title.

 This composition title GREATLY erred in stating the
Atty. Padilla boundaries (it put the boundaries at 29 hectares when
the actual area was 371 hectares)
WEEK 1  The unreliability and dubiousness of the composition
title is evident from the sale executed by the heirs of
CASES: Prudencio Maxino in favor of his heirs
 Upon the death of their father, these two heirs sold
1 Republic v CA (1985) (Aquino)
the land to their mother, wife of applicant.
FACTS:
 THAT CURIOUS DOCUMENT IS NOT A SALE AT ALL; IT IS
 1961- CFI judge of Gumaca Quezon, Judge Vincente
A QUIT CLAIM. (“in consideration of P200, the Tesolona
del Rosario, orders the registration of the land, lot 1
sisters release and forever quitclaim unto said vendee)
to:
 In fact, the Tesonola vendors WERE NOT CERTAIN
i. spouses Prudencio Maxino and Tarciana Morales
THAT THEIR TITLE WAS GOOD; express stipulation that
(total lot – 200 hectares)
the vendor had “NO OBLIGATION OF WARRANTY”
ii. Heirs of Lorenzo Consolacion (200 hectares of lot 1)
 This gratuitous title granted him possessory rights over
 This decision was final and executory
PASTURE LAND WITH AN AREA OF 29 HECTARES BUT
 1969- RP wanted to annul the decision on the ground
NO OWNERSHIP OVER 970 HECTARES OF GRAZING
that the land was still part of the UNCLASSIFIED PUBLIC
LAND
FOREST. Plus, the info in the Maximo spouses only
 PUBLIC FORESTRAL LAND IS NOT REGISTERABLE
covered 29 hectares of land, not 885 hectares
 POSSESSION OF PUBLIC FORESTRAL LANDS, HOWEVER
 The Maximo spouses opposed the decision.
LONG, CANNOT RIPEN INTO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
 1970 – Judge Agana denied petition.
 SPANISH TITLES ARE NOT INDEFEASIBLE; PD No 892
 1980 – Justices Asuncion, Porfilio, Sison, and Sundian
(effective Feb 16, 1976) DISCONTINUED THE USE OF
dismissed the petition because the 1970 order is final
SPANISH TITLES AS EVIDENCE IN LAND REGISTRATION
and unappeasable
PROCEEDINGS
ISSUE: W/N the registration is void because public forestall
2 Ching v Malaya (1987) (Cruz)
land was registered
FACTS:
HELD: It is void
 Petitioners allege that private respondents had forced
 The lot held by the Maxinos is within the public forest,
their way into the disputed premises without any right
NOT ALIENABLE and DISPOSABLE nor SUSCEPTIBLE of
and refused to leave despite demand (demand based
private appropriation. It’s inclusion into the public
on petitioners being the owner of the land due to a
forest was certified by Director of Forestry.
sale)
 The basis of the claim of Maxinos is a Spanish title, a
 Respondents challenged the sale, arguing that the

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A

property belonged to them BY RIGHT OF INHERITANCE
 MTC rendered judgement ordering the respondents to
vacate the premises and pay petitioners back a rental
P1k a month until actual surrender of property
 On appeal, respondent judge (Mayala) set aside the
decision of the MTC as, “The question being one of
OWNERSHIP, and not MERE POSSESSION, the
municipal court HAS NO JURISDICTION and should
DISMISS the complaint”
ISSUE: W/N the MTC had authority to try and decide the case
in the first instance
HELD: It did
 The original complaint should be examined under RA
296, which was the law then at force
 Sec 88, RA 296 = In forcible entry and detainer
proceedings, the justice of the peace or the judge of
the municipal court shall have ORIGINAL jurisdiction.
 The present case, being one for forcible entry, should
be in the municipal court before which it was filed
 HOWEVER, there is a complication of OWNERSHIP,
which removed the case from the municipal court
 GENERAL RULE: IT IS SETTLED THAT MERE ASSERTION
OF OWNERSHIP BY THE DEFENDANT IN AN EJECTMENT
CASE WILL NOT OUST THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF its
SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
EXCEPTION: WHERE IT APPEARS DURING THE TRIAL
THAT, BY THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED,
THE ISSUE OF POSSESSION CANNOT BE DECIDED
WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP- in this
case, the jurisdiction of the municipal court is lost
 Court finds that this case does not come under the
exception to the rule
3 Umbay v Alecha (1985) (Aquino)
FACTS:
I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
2
 Enonaria owned a lot in Cebu. He died in 1924. In 1963,
his heirs asked a surveyor to relocate the lot
 However, they discovered that respondent was
occupying the lot
 Respondent refused to leave. The heirs sued
respondent.
 Another relocation made by surveyor from the Bureau
of lands confirmed the usurpation of 500 square
meters
 The TC ordered respondents to vacate
 CA reversed TC decision
ISSUES : Can the action to recover of the heirs of Enanoria
prescribe and be barred by laches?
HELD: It cannot
 Respondent cannot acquire the land by prescription
because it is covered by a torrens title
 Section 46 of the Land Registration Law (now Section
47 of PD 1529, effective June 11, 1987) NO TITLE TO
REGISTERED LAND IN DEROGATION TO THAT OF THE
REGISTERED OWNER SHALL BE ACQUIRED BY
PRESCRIPTION OR ADVERSE POSSESSION
 PRESCRIPTION IS UNAVAILING ALS AGAINST
HEREDITARY SUCCESSORS AS THE LATTER MERELY
STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE DECEDENT BY
OPERATION OF LAW
 Purpose of Torrens Title: TO QUIET TITLE TO LAND
 Registered land NOT SUBJECT TO PRESCTIPTION
 ADVERSE, NOTORIOUS, AND CONTINUOUS
POSSESSION UNDER A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE
PERIOD FIXED BY LAW IS INEFFECTIVE AGAINST A
TORRENS TITLE
 THE RIGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF A REGISTERED
LAND IS IMPRESCRIPTABLE BECAUSE POSSESSION IS A
MERE CONSEQUENCE OF OWNERSHIP

 Laches presuppose waiver; no waiver
4 Philippine National Bank v International Corporate Bank (1991)
(Regaldo)
FACTS:
 Spouses Balingit and Suntay executed to petitioner real
estate mortgages
 Annotated subsequent to the foregoing memoranda of
the mortgage lien “Notice of Levy, Continental Bank v
Balingit and Suntay”
 Because the spouses did not settle their loans with
petitioner, the latter extra judicially foreclosed under
Act 3135 sixteen parcels of land covered by the real
estate mortgage
 Upon the expiration of the one year legal redemption
period, petitioner consolidated in its name the
ownership of ALL the foregoing mortgaged properties
 HOWEVER, the annotation in the notice of levy in favor
of private respondent was carried over to and now
appears as the sole annotated encumbrance in the
new title of the petitioner
 International Corporate Bank (successor of Continental
Bank) contends that since it was not informed of the
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, the new and
consolidated titles in favor of petitioner are void
 Lower court denied ICB’s petition, stating that it has no
jurisdiction due to the fact that an adverse claim could
only be cancelled where the issue is not controversial;
and in this case, the issue is controversial
 Court of Appeals affirmed lower court
ISSUES: 1. W/N the adverse claim of private respondent should
be cancelled or allowed to remain as annotations on the
certificate of title
2. Does the RTC have jurisdiction to entertain the petition?
HELD:
I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
3
1. They should be cancelled
Respondent is a subsequent lien holder whose rights over the
mortgaged property are inferior to that of petitioner as a
mortgagee. Being a subsequent lien holder, private respondent
acquires only the right of redemption vested in the mortgagor,
and his rights are strictly subordinate to the superior lien of the
anterior mortgagee.
The rule is that upon a proper foreclosure of a prior mortgage,
all liens subordinate to the mortgage are likewise foreclosed,
and the purchaser at public auction held pursuant thereto
acquires the title free from liens.
2.The RTC does
 Section 2 of PD 1529 = REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
ACTING AS LAND REGISTRATION COURTS NOW HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION NOT ONLY OVER
APPLICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE
TO LANDS, INCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS AND
INTERESTS THEREIN, BUT ALSO OVER PETITIONS FILED
AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE, WITH
POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS
ARISING UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS OR PETITIONS
(can now address all questions before original
registration and after)
 Act 496 (old registration act) Sec 110 = THE CFI sitting
as a land registration court has the authority to
conduct a hearing, receive evidence, and decide
controversial matters with a view to determine
whether or not the filed notice of adverse claim is valid
 Section 2 PD 1529 = Nature of land registration
proceedings are IN REM
5 PNB v CA (1987) (Sison)
FACTS:
 Cldulo Vitug was twice married; first to Gervacia Flores

and second to Donato Montemayor. When he died, his
estate was settled and distributed, with Donata as his
administratrix.
 Donata, through one of her sons, Salvador Vitug,
mortgaged to PNB several lands covered by a TCT to
guarantee a loan granted by PNB to Jaramilla and
Bacani.
 Montemayor also mortgaged certain properties
covered by a TCT to guarantee payment of the loan
account of her son Vitug. The mortgage was registered
in the Register of deeds
 All of the above mentioned TCT’s were in
Montemayor’s name
 Salvador Vitug did not pay, so the bank foreclosed the
mortgaged properties and these were sold at a public
auction to PNB
 Same with Jaramilla and Bacani’s property (they also
did not pay)
 A certificate of sale was issued by the Register of deeds
in favor of PNB.
 PNB sold the properties to Jesus Vitug (another of
Donata’s son) and some other people in whose names
the corresponding titles were issued.
 Donata executed a lease in favor of her children
Pragmacio and Maximo
 Pragmacio and Maximo filed an action for partition and
reconveyance with damages against their brother Jesus
and some other people, claiming that they have a
share in the land, which is the conjugal property of the
spouses Donata and Clodauldo.
 They assailed the mortgage and public auction of PNB
as void
ISSUE: W/N the certificate of title is conclusive
HELD: It is
I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
4
 In processing loan applications, the PNB had the right
to rely on what appears in the certificates of title and
no more. On it’s face, the properties are owned by a
widow
 GENERAL RULE: THE WELL KNOWN RULE IN THIS
JURISDICTION IS THAT A PERSON DEALING WITH A
REGISTERED LAND HAS A RIGHT TO RELY UPON THE
FACE OF THE TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE AND TO
DISPENSE WITH THE NEED OF INQUIRING FURTHER.
EXCEPTION: WHEN THE PARTY CONERNED HAS
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD MAKE A REASONABLE
CAUTIONS MAN TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRY
 A torrens title concludes all controversy over
ownership of the land covered by a final degree of
registration.
 Art 160 = all property of marriage is PRESUMED to
belong to the conjugal property…
 At any rate, although actions for recovery are real
actions, they are actions in personam that bind only
the particular individuals who are parties thereto.
6 Bornales v Intermediate Appellate Court (1988) (Cortes)
FACTS:
 Sixto and Isabel were married but lived separately.
Sixto had an extra-marital affair with Placida and had a
son with her called Renito.
 A parcel of land in Capiz was in the name of Sixto and
Isabela
 Placida filed with the CFI a petition for reconstitution of
title over the aforementioned land, which was granted
 The said lot was then sold to other people and a deed
was registered and TCT was issued to the other people.
 These other people sold the land to petitioner
Bornales.

 Petitioners secured TCT in their names.
 Isabel alleges forgery of the Deed of Extrajudicial
Adjudication and Sale of Real Property.
 Lower Court ruled in favor of Isabel. Petitioners held
buyers in bad faith
 Court of Appeals affirmed
ISSUE: W/N respondents own the land
HELD: They do not
The reason being that they are buyers in bad faith. The fact
alone that they purchased the property with full knowledge of
the flaws and defects in the title is proof enough of bad faith.
 THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION
SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A MEANS TO PERPETRATE
FRAUD AGAINST THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY.
 REFISTRATION, TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST BE MADE IN
GOOD FAITH
 THUS, IT IS A SETTLED RULE THAT THE DEFENSE OF
INDEFEASIBILITY OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE DOES NOT
EXTEND TO A TRANSFEREE WHO TAKES IT WITH
NOTICE OF THEFLAWS IN HIS TRANSFEROR’S TITLE. IF
AT ALL, THE PETITIONERS ONLY ACQUIRE THE RIGHT
WHICH THEIR VENDORS THEN HAD.
7 Viajar v Court of Appeals (1988) (Medialdea)
FACTS:
 Spouses Ladrido owned a lot in Iloilo, where 154
square meters were registered in their name under a
TCT
 Spouses Te were also registered owners of a land in
the Cadastral survey of Pototan
 Spouses Te sold the land to Viajar. A TCT was issued to
Viajar
 Later, Viajar discovered that the land was in the
possession of Ladrido. Viajar demanded returned, but
I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
5
was refused
 A case was filed
 During the pendency of the case, Viajar sold his rights
over the lot to his mother and co-plaintiff.
 Co-plaintiff now appears to be the sole registered
owner of the lot
 Trial Court held Ladrido as owners of the land
 Court of Appeals confirmed trial court
- Art 457 of Civil Code = accretion
- Defendants proved that a gradual accretion took
place
ISSUE: W/N the course of the Suage River was gradual
HELD: It was gradual
 Article 457 of the CC states that “To the owners of the
lands adjoining the banks of the rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects
of the current of the waters.”
 Petitioners contend that this article must be read
together with Sec 45 and 46 of Act 496:
- Sec 45: The obtaining of a decree of registration
and the entry of a certificate of title shall be
regarded as an agreement running with the land
and binding upon the applicant and all successors
in title that the land shall be and always remain
registered land, and subject to the provisions of
this Act and all Acts amendatory thereof.
- Sec 46: No title to registered land in derogation to
that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession
 Petitioners argue that these sections must be
construed to limit the accretion mentioned as
accretion of unregistered land to the riparian owner,
and should not extend to registered land
 THE RULE THAT REGISTRATION UNDER THE TORRENS

SYSTEM DOES NOT PROTECT THE RIPARIAN OWNER
AGAINST THE DIMINUTON OF THE AREA OF HIS
REGISTERED LAND THROUGH GRADUAL CHANGES IN
THE COURSE OF ANADJOINING STREAM IS WELL
SETTLED
8 Coronel v Intermediate Appellate Court (1987) (Gutierrez)
FACTS:
 Coronel alleges in his complaint that at the time he
purchased the subject parcel of land, the defendants
(private respondents) were already occupying a
portion as ‘tenants at will’ and despite demands, they
refused to vacate.
 Defendant denies that Coronel is the owner of the
whole parcel of land and alleged that the lots occupied
by them form part of a 1/3 undivided share of brothers
Brigido Merlan and Jose Merlan which they inherited
from their father
 Lower court ruled in favor of defendants
ISSUE: W/N the claim of private respondents had been barred
by the state of limitation or by estoppel by laches
HELD:
 Under the facts, it was evident that the private
respondent never sold their 1/3 share over the lot, and
what was sold was only a 2/3 share, which was sold to
Coronel. This means that a wrong TCT was issued upon
the selling
 Also, private respondents were in open, peaceful, and
adverse possession of their 1/3 share
 THUS, THERE IS NO BAR ON LACHES TO ASSERT THEIR
RIGHT OVER 1/3 OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY
 LACHES HAS BEEN DEFINED AS THE FAILURE OR
NEGLECT FOR AN UNREASONALBE AND UNEXPLAINED
LENGTH OF TIMETO DO THAT WHICH BY EXERCISING
DUE DILLIGENCE COULD OR SHOUD HAVE BEEN DONE
I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
6
EARLIER; IT IS NEFGLIGENE OR OMMISSION TO ASSERT
A RGHT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, WARRANTING A
PRESUMPTION THAT THE PARTY ENTITLED TO ASSERT
IT HAS EITHER ABANDONED OR DECLINED TO ASSERT
IT.
 The facts of the case show that private respondents
have always been in peaceful possession of the 1/3
portion
9 Golloy v Court of Appeals (1984) (Gopengco)
FACTS:
 Petitioner has been the registered owner and in
possession of a parcel of land covered by a TCT
 The SW portion of the land is bounded by respondent’s
land
 Respondent caused to be placed two monuments
inside the portion of petitioner’s land
 The trial court ordered the Director of Lands to appoint
an impartial public land surveyor to conduct the
relocation survey
ISSUE: Who is entitled to the land?
HELD: Petitioners
 Private respondents and their predecessors never
possessed, much less claimed the overlapped portions
 Petitioner has always been in possession of the same,
in the concept of an owner, and such possession was
disturbed by private respondents
 BESIDES, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN
POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER FOR
ALMOST FIFTY YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS, IF THEY
HAVE ANY RIGHT AT ALL TO THE OVERLAPPED
PORTION, ARE GUILTY OF LACHES
10 Republic v Court of Appeals(1978) (Santos)
Facts:
 Both Republic and respondents claim ownership over

the same lots
 Republic= said lots were bequeathed to the Bureau of
Education by Estaban Jalandoni through his will. Said
lands were already registered under the Torrens
system in a cadastral case in whose favor the TCT was
issued
 Respondent Ocampo = a degree of registration over
said lots, followed by the issuance in his name of OCT.
The lots are unregistered lands belonging to and
possessed by him, by virutre of a donation form Luis
Mosquera
 1958 = The Bureau of public schools initiated a forcible
entry case against Ocampo
 1960 = Ocampo filed for registration of the land.
Republic filed opposition in due time
 CFI = awarded lots to Ocampo
 Trial court ruled for Republic
 CA dismissed
ISSUES: 1. W/N a land jurisdiction court is without jurisdiction
to decree again the registration of the land already registered
in a land registration case
2. W/N Ocampo used fraudulent misrepresentations and
machinations
HELD: 1. It is without jurisdiction
 AUTHORITIES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT A LAND
REGISTRATION COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
DECREE AGAIN THE REGISTRATION OF LAND ALREADY
REGISTERED IN AN EARLIER REGISTRATION CASE AND
THAT THE SECOD DECREE ENTERED TO THE SAME
LAND IS NULL AND VOID
 If there is no valid and final judgement by the land
registration court to speak of, then the filing of an
admittedly late appeal from the decision denying th
Amended Petition would be immaterial and of no
I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A
7
moment, in so far as these proceedings are concerned
in view of the congenitally fatal infirmity that attached
to the main decision.
 Appelants failure to perfect an appeal on time,
“although decisive, carries no persuasive force” and
may be completely disregarded if the trial court acted
without jurisdiction.
 Lack of jurisdiction is fatal and may be raised at any
stage of the proceeding
2.
 There is an element of willful intent to deny the
Republic of it’s JUST RIGHTS, which constitutes the
essential characteristics of ACTUAL fraud which
distinguishes it from LEGAL fraud.
 If the appeal is dismissed, the appealed decision will
become final and executory
 IF THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT OF LAND
REGISTRATION IS CALLED TO THE FACT THAT THE
SAME LAND HAS BEENREGISTERED IN THE NAME OF
TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS, IT IS THE DUTY OF SAID
COURT TO ORDER AN INVESTIGATION.
 WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN
REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF TWO DIFFERENT
PERSONS THE TITLE SHOULD REMAIN IN THE NAME OF
HE PERSON SECURING THE FIRST REGISTRATION.
Note: This case merely set aside the Court of Appeals dismissal
of respondent’s appeal
11 Tongson v Director of Forestry (1977) (Fernando)
FACTS:
 As early as 1905, the parcel of land of the cadastral
survey of Pilar was under the EXCLUSIVE possession of
Borja who cut trees for firewood
 After his death, his son continued to cut trees for
firewood (lol why would anyone need firewood in the
 8

Philippines)
 Borja sold the land to Gayaco.
 Gayaco sold five parcels of land to Bermejo
 During the cadastral survey of the land, Bermejo
claimed ownership of lot 855
 Bermejo wanted to construct fishpond (really? How
random) but due to lack of funds, fishpond was never
completed (poor fishies)
 Bermejo leased land to Somes, who at present is in
actual possession of the land
ISSUE: W/N a land which was originally a mangrove but then
was converted into a fishpond may still be considered part of
the timbre domain which is not disposable
HELD: It depends on how it actually appears
 After the admin code of 1917, Mangrove swamps are
part of the public forest
 Forest lands are not registerable in character
 Agricultural lands: those lands acquired from Spain
which are not timber or mineral lands
12 Ampoloquio v Court of Appeals (1994) (Vitug)
FACTS
 Respondent Salvador Zartiga claimed ownership over 9
lots
 He averred that he was the absolute owner of said
parcels of land
 Petitioners deny his contention, stating that the land is
public land
 The Director of Lands intervened, asserting the
property to be “public agricultural lands” owned by gov
of the Phil.

I can’t think of a creative name for this reviewer because I’m too stressed 2A