SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE RECOLETOS DE MANILACollege of Law Land Titles and Deeds Compilation of 2009 Case Digests Bernardino, Victoria Calceta, Centener Cortes, Carl Jayson De Guzman, Ma. Xenia Amor Dullas, Emman Lou Hadji Omar, MUBARAK Santos, Shannon Alyssa G.R. No. 175788 June 30, 2009 Petitioners: ENRIQUITA ANGAT and the LEGAL HEIRS OF FEDERICO ANGAT Respondent: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Ponente: Justice CHICO-NAZARIO Doctrine: It does not mandated under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26 that notice be specifically sent to adjoining property owners; it only necessitated publication and posting of the notice of the Petition for Reconstitution in accordance with Section 9 of the Republic Act No. 26. Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26, requiring notice to adjoining property owners, are actually irrelevant to the Petition for Reconstitution filed by Federico and Enriquita considering that these provisions apply particularly to petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated under Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of Republic Act No. 26. However, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is already final and executory, and absolutely binds this Court, despite any errors therein. And even if it were otherwise, the error committed by the appellate court as regards the notice requirement would not necessarily result in a judgment favorable to petitioners. The failure of Federico and Enriquita to immediately seek the reconstitution of TCT No. T-4399, and their procrastination for four decades before actually filing their Petition, had allowed laches to attach. Facts: In February 1999, Federico and Enriquita (sister of Federico) filed before the RTC a verified Petition5 for the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. T-4399 covering a 3,033,846-square meter parcel of land located in Sapang, Ternate, Cavite (subject property), presenting the owners’ duplicate copy of said TCT in their possession. Federico and Enriquita claimed that the subject property has been registered with the Registry of Deeds of Cavite in their names, as the true and absolute owners thereof, under TCT No. T-4399, covered by a certain plan PSU-91002. In 1959, the old Provincial Capitol Building housing the former office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite was burned to ashes, totally destroying all the titles and documents kept inside the office, including the original copy of TCT No. T-4399. According to Federico and Enriquita, the owners’ duplicate copy of TCT No. T -4399 was intact and has been in their possession since the time of its issuance and up to the present. The owners’ duplicate copy of TCT No. T-4399 has not been delivered to any other person or entity to secure payment or performance of any obligation nor was any transaction or agreement relative to said TCT presented or pending before the Registry of Deeds of Cavite when its former office was burned. No other lien or encumbrance affecting TCT No. T-4399 exists, except the right of Federico and Enriquita therein. heirs of Mariano Angat: deceased. registered in the names of Federico A. and the Certification dated 25 March 1998 of the Register of Deeds of Cavite. Angat and Enriquita A. there being no oppositor nor written opposition. Publication. and the Office of the Provincial Governor. T-4399.084 square meters. Based on the fact that all records and titles were burned during the fire which razed to the ground the Old Capitol Building of Cavite City housing the Office of the Register of Deeds we could not now find OCT No. T-4399. It claimed that a portion of the subject property covered by TCT No. 3. 1331 on 10 June 1999 at 8:30 in the morning.033.783. RTC proceeded to rule on the merits of the Petition for Reconstitution and granted the Petition and ordered that Register of Deeds of Cavite Province to reconstitute the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4399. no such name. The RTC declared that the reconstitution proceedings in LRC Case No. the technical description of the subject property. Finding the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance. representing Palikpikan Creek: refused to receive. T-4399 as . the tracing cloth plan with two blueprint copies thereof. It concluded that a separate civil action must be instituted to assail the validity of or seek the annulment of the certificate of title since the same cannot be done in the reconstitution proceedings where the issuance of the reconstituted title is ministerial on the part of the court after a factual finding that the original was indeed existing but was lost or destroyed. questioning the authenticity and genuineness of TCT No. is owned by and already registered in the name of TDC under TCT No. On motion of the counsel of Federico and Enriquita. however. are not existing and does not form part of their records. all the notices to the adjoining owners were returned unserved for the following reasons: Ambrocio Arca: unlocated. and mailing requirements are complied with. nor a remedy to confirm or adjudicate ownership.846. The petitioners submitted to the LRA the survey plan of the subject property. no such name. PSU-91002. Federico and Enriquita opposed the Motion for Leave to Intervene of TDC. T-4399 in the reconstitution proceedings since it would constitute a collateral attack on the title of Federico and Enriquita. posting. After trial and consideration of the oral and documentary evidence submitted by Federico and Enriquita. 1331 was not the proper forum to resolve the issue of authenticity/genuineness of title sought to be reconstituted. (T-97541) RT-19915 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite.Federico and Enriquita attached to their Petition for Reconstitution a photocopy of their owners’ duplicate certificate of TCT No. However. a Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Cavite stating that Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4399. They also appended to the Petition. T-4399 or any trace thereof and their supporting papers for its issuance including the Entry Book on which the pertinent documents were inscribed. Angat. setting the initial hearing in LRC Case No. However. the RTC issued an Order dated 16 February 1999. Santiago de Guia: unlocated. The RTC denied the Motion for Leave to Intervene of TDC reasoning that TDC could not challenge the validity of TCT No. more or less. 391 and TCT No. Ternate Development Corporation (TDC) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and a Complaint-in-Intervention. the RTC declared a general default against the public and proceeded with the ex parte hearing. with an area of 1. Lucia Realty and Development. in relation to Section 9. Petitioners cite Puzon v. Likewise. however. The Court of Appeals also found that Federico and Enriquita failed to prove that at the time the original copy of TCT No. 26. It should be recalled that notices to the adjoining property owners were returned unserved for various reasons. The names of the owners of the adjoining properties were taken from the survey plan made in 1930. and failure to do the same prevents the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the Petition for Reconstitution and voids the whole reconstitution proceedings. the RTC gravely erred when it assumed jurisdiction over the Petition for Reconstitution despite failure by Federico and Enriquita to comply with the notice requirements under Section 13 of Republic Act No. and it was not surprising that by the time the notices were sent in 1999. T-4399 filed by Federico and Enriquita complied with all the legal requirements therefor. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.shown on plan Psu-91002 in the name of Federico A. Federico and Enriquita file a Motion for Reconsideration. The OSG is adamant in its stance that nothing but strict compliance with the requirements of the law will do. subject to existing liens and encumbrances with annotation at the back thereof and that said title was reconstituted and issued in lieu of the lost one which is hereby declared null and void for all legal intents and purposes. 69 years later. The Court of Appeals issued a Decision granting the appeal of the Republic and reversing the RTC because RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the Petition for Reconstitution because the notices of the hearing sent to the owners of the adjoining properties via registered mail were returned without having been served on them. only that the notices they sent to the adjoining property owners were returned unserved. of Republic Act No.R. and (b) failure of Federico and Enriquita to prove their valid interest in the subject property covered by TCT No. Angat and Enriquita A. in which the Court ruled that notice to adjoining property owners is not necessary where the basis for reconstitution is the owner’s duplicate. T-4399. 72740. CV No. According to the OSG. They claim that the Court of Appeals committed serious error in requiring notice to adjoining property owners. these persons could no longer be located. Assuming arguendo that such notice is mandatory. T-4399. claiming that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the reconstitution proceedings on the following grounds: (a) no showing that the owners of the adjacent properties were duly notified according to Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. Sta. the OSG maintains that Federico and Enriquita were not able to show that they were the only owners of the subject property at the time of the loss of TCT No.. following Section 10. The Republic appealed the RTC Order to the Court of Appeals. Angat. 26. the OSG asserts that the Petition at bar deserves outright dismissal considering that the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals had already become final and executory. The Court of Appeals declared the Decision final and executory for the reason that no motion for reconsideration thereof had been filed. 26. Petitioners insist that the Petition for Reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. Finally. petitioners contend that they were able to substantially comply with the same. they were the only lawful owners of the subject property. CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration decision become final and executory. T-4399 was lost. Inc. . Ltd. (d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent. The same Republic Act No. entitled "An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed. Section 2 and 3 enumerates the sources for reconstitution of OCTs and TCTs. in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction occurred. previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof. or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered. 26 laid down procedures which must be strictly followed in view of the danger that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of title proceedings. (b) The co-owner’s. 26 identify the sources for reconstitution of title. Thus. Velasco. Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. on file in the registry of deeds. is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one. pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued." denotes a restoration of the instrument. or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of title. The Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the Petition for Reconstitution of Federico and Enriquita was because of the lack of notice to the adjoining property owners. (e) A document. As we held in Ortigas & Co. after proper proceedings.Issue: Whether or not the respondent court of appeals also erred in requiring the petitioners to notify the adjoining owners. which supposedly deprived the RTC of jurisdiction over the said Petition. . although the petitioners also substantially complied with the additional requirements imposed by the trial court Ruling: We find that there is no merit in the present Petition. respectively: Section 2. in its original form and condition. 26. Republic Act No. leased or encumbered. in the following order: (a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title. the description of which is given in said document. and (f) Any other document which. by which the property. Partnership v. The purpose of such an action is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced. The nature of the action for reconstitution of a certificate of title under Republic Act No. Original Certificates of Title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available. in the judgment of the court. as the case may be. failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and void. is mortgaged. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title. which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed. (c) A certified copy of the certificate of title. mortgagee’s. x x x Thereupon. mortgagee's. in the judgment of the court. and (f) Any other document which. the number of the certificate of title. 3. and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided. in the following order: (a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title. Section 10 provides: Sec. 26. T-4399 based on the owner’s duplicate of said TCT. That certificates of title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in section seven of this Act In relation to the foregoing. or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title. the provision of Section 9 on the publication of the notice of the Petition for Reconstitution reads: Section 9. That the Court shall cause a notice of the petition. at the expense of the petitioner. on file in the registry of deeds. or an authenticated copy thereof. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available. (d) The deed of transfer or other document. is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (c) A certified copy of the certificate of title. and after hearing. the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title. (b) The co-owner's. leased or encumbered. and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies. twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette. 3(a).10. the description of which is given in said document.Sec. by which the property. the name of the registered owner. containing the description of the property. a source named under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. however. previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof. (e) A document. to be published in the manner stated in section nine hereof: and. showing that its original had been registered. . posting and notice requirements for such a petition are governed by Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of Republic Act No. and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have. the location of the property. and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued. before hearing and granting the same. The notice shall specify. provided. further. The publication. shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published. It is worth stressing that Federico and Enriquita sought the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 3(b). Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in section five of this Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance. among other things. at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. x x x. based on sources enumerated in Sections 2(a). on file in the registry of deeds. is mortgaged. 26. or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered. 2(b). their participation in the reconstitution proceedings is not indispensable and notice to them is not jurisdictional. and their procrastination for four decades before actually filing their Petition. are actually irrelevant to the Petition for Reconstitution filed by Federico and Enriquita considering that these provisions apply particularly to petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated under Sections 2(c). and absolutely binds this Court. the error committed by the appellate court as regards the notice requirement would not necessarily result in a judgment favorable to petitioners. The adjoining owners or actual occupants of the property covered by the TCT are hardly in a position to determine the genuineness of the certificate. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is already final and executory. Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED. T-4399. 26. 3(c). 2(e). Angat. T-4399. In Puzon. 72740 dismissing the Petition for Reconstitution of TCT No.R. 3(d). 2(f). warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. the main concern is the authenticity and genuineness of the certificate. Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. 26. the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. CV No. filed by Federico A. The Decision dated 5 December 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. it only necessitated publication and posting of the notice of the Petition for Reconstitution in accordance with Section 9 of the same Act. hence. 26. despite any errors therein. we explained that when the reconstitution is based on an extant owner’s duplicate TCT. that it does not mandate that notice be specifically sent to adjoining property owners. is hereby AFFIRMED. which could best be determined or contested by the government agencies or offices concerned. 2(d). had allowed laches to attach. premises considered. WHEREFORE.It is evident from a perusal of Section 10 of Republic Act No. And even if it were otherwise. as quoted above. 3(e) and/or 3(f) of Republic Act No. requiring notice to adjoining property owners. Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. The failure of Federico and Enriquita to immediately seek the reconstitution of TCT No. . Angat and Enriquita A. However. During the pendency of the case. During the marriage of Adoracion and Angel. ANGELITO BURGOS. ALFREDO RUFLOE and RODRIGO RUFLOE. Said decision had become final and executory. No. respondents maintained that they bought the property in good faith after they were shown a genuine copy of the title of the disputed property by Delos Reyes. The trial court ruled that Delos Reyes did not acquire ownership over the subject property. On the basis of the said deed of sale. AMY BURGOS. respondent Elvira Delos Reyes forged the signatures of Adoracion and Angel in a Deed of Sale dated to make it appear that the disputed property was sold to her by the spouses Rufloe. which was four (4) years before the alleged sale in favor of Delos Reyes. ISSUE: (1) Whether the sale of the subject property by Delos Reyes to the Burgos siblings and the subsequent sale by the siblings to Leonarda were valid and binding. Angelina. IThe Rufloes filed a complaint for damages against Delos Reyes alleging that Angel Rufloe died in 1974. TUBIG. The subject property remained in the name of the Burgos siblings who also continued paying the real estate taxes thereon. 143573 January 30. In their appeal. vs. Petitioners. while copetitioners Alfredo and Rodrigo are their children. ELVIRA DELOS REYES and JULIAN C. The Burgos siblings. declaring in the process that respondents were purchasers in good faith and for value. 2009 ADORACION ROSALES RUFLOE. Respondents. in turn. Thus. sold the same property to their aunt. The CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the trial court. Muntinlupa. ANITA BURGOS. no title was issued in her name.G. Angelito and Amy (Burgos siblings).R. now deceased. Respondents interposed an appeal to the CA. which is the subject of the present controversy. LEONARDA BURGOS. They also insisted that they were innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. Delos Reyes sold the subject property to respondent siblings Anita. Delos Reyes succeeded in obtaining a title in her name. and (2) Whether respondents were innocent purchasers in good faith and for value despite the forged deed of sale of their transferor Delos Reyes. The trial court rendered its decision declaring that the Deed of Sale in favor of Delos Reyes was falsified as the signatures of the spouses Rufloe had been forged. RULING: . the sale in favor of Leonarda was not registered. A new title was then issued in their names. Sometime in 1978. Leonarda Burgos. FACTS: Petitioner Adoracion Rufloe is the wife of Angel Rufloe. they acquired a 371-square meter parcel of land located at Barangay Bagbagan. However. Leonarda. without such inquiry. Moreover. Equally significant is the fact that Delos Reyes was not in possession of the subject property when she sold the same to the Burgos siblings. Although it is a recognized principle that a person dealing with registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title. as in this case. the buyer can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith. this rule admits of an unchallenged exception: The circumstances surrounding this case point to the absolute lack of good faith on the part of respondents. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the law. This circumstance should have alerted the Burgos siblings as to the validity of Delos Reyes’ title and her authority and legal right to sell the property. nemo dat quod non habet. and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally. As a general rule. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have. There was no showing that Amado or any of the Burgos siblings exerted any effort to personally verify with the Register of Deeds if Delos Reyes’ certificate of title was clean and authentic. for the law cannot be used as a shield for fraud. filed by the Rufloes against Delos Reyes. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell.It is undisputed that the forged deed of sale was null and void and conveyed no title. Delos Reyes acquired no right over the subject property which she could convey to the Burgos siblings. may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. the defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not extend to a transferee who takes it with notice of a flaw in the title of his transferor. including the sale made by the Burgos siblings to their aunt. it is also a firmly established rule that where circumstances exist which would put a purchaser on guard and prompt him to investigate further. The evidence shows that the Rufloes caused a notice of adverse claim to be annotated on the title of Delos Reyes and a action for damages and criminal case for estafa. the inscription in the registry must have been made in good faith. were both pending before the court. every person dealing with registered land. . All the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the spouses Rufloe and Delos Reyes are likewise void. Due to the forged deed of sale. To be effective. praying that Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. and NORMA CABUYO. PADILLA. JR. Respondents maintaining that all in their names in the tile were all genuine. Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree provides that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can only be altered. de Gualberto v. 614. Go. petitioners' complaint is unfounded and the RTC acted properly in dismissing the same for petitioners' failure to establish the factual basis for it. RTC dismissed the petition for quieting of title. be declared null and void. as they were not parties to said case. SPOUSES MARCELINO B. Petitioners' main prayer is for the nullification of respondents' TCTs. AMY ROSE FISMA. which has been declared null and void in a Partial Decision rendered in Civil Case No. Issue: was dismissal of the complaint for quieting of title despite the lack of trial on the merits. and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint against respondents for Quieting of Title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The gist of their claim in the action for quieting of title is that the Decision in the ejectment case against them should not be implemented. allegedly depriving petitioners of the opportunity to prove their allegations that respondents' aforementioned TCTs were null and void Held: petitioners admit that they are mere possessors of the parcels of land in question and have been ordered to vacate the same. 59726 and 59727.SOTERO ROY LEONERO. . Q-35672. FORONDO. Branch 216. They further argued that the Partial Decision could not possibly have any effect on them. an action for annulment of title is the more appropriate remedy to seek the cancellation of a certificate of title Clearly. represented by IMELDA N.. BARBA and FORTUNA MARCOS-BARBA. the Court held that the validity of a certificate of title cannot be assailed in an action for quieting of title. hence. because respondents' TCTs are spurious. Petitioner appealed to the CA and the decision of the RTC was affirmed. Petitioners alleged that this had been declared void in a Partial Decision. having emanated from OCT No. In Vda. modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. 59721. ISIDORO A. 59725. RODOLFO LIM. vs. Only actual and extrinsic fraud had been accepted and is contemplated by the law as a ground to review or reopen a decree of registration. Thus. Mere allegations of fraud are not enough. contrary to the evident purpose of the law. Thus. No. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land. relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in land where the fraud consists in a deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested when in fact they are. 1529 mandates the registration of patents. More importantly. RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. acquire rights over the property. [G. or in some manner. 177181 July 7. Petitioner vs. fraud is never presumed. and the petitioner in this case failed to discharge the burden. every person dealing with the registered land may . Respondent. where innocent third persons. The effect of such outright cancellation will be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title. The Supreme Court also reiterated the rule that. the petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit. Petitioner did not show that the Homestead Patent issued to Charles Soguilon is indeed spurious. and such registration is the operative act to convey the land to the patentee. a Homestead Patent. Moreover.R. relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued.D. No. The intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right. becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens Title. otherwise. everyone dealing with the property registered under the system will have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly or irregularly issued. The burden of proof rests on petitioner. Section 103 of P. petitioner failed to prove that respondent took part in the alleged fraud which dated back as early as 1966. the Court cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate. patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. grant. SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM. injure him must be specifically alleged and proved.WHEREFORE. 2009] AFP RETIREMENT AND The Supreme Court ruled that in our jurisdiction. once registered under the Land Registration Act. The sanctity of the Torrens system must be preserved. The deed. a Free Patent was issued in the name of Jose Castromero. 1982. JMC failed to pay. Petitioner alleged that it was the lawful owner and possessor of the subject property. and that it had been in continuous possession of the subject property since November 1989. T-51382 in its name. Respondent Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) is a government corporation. respondent claimed that its title over the subject property was protected by the Torrens system. the RTC held that Charles's . Bongabon. Respondent contended that from the time it was issued a title. and the law will. being the highest bidder. 1966. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's title emanated from a title older than that of the respondent. the RTC held that there were substantial and numerous infirmities in the Homestead Patent of Charles. and an OCT covering the subject property was issued in the name of the latter. Thus. Moreover. which was then issued TCT No. The RTC found that there was no record in the Bureau of Lands that Charles was a homestead applicant or a grantee of the Homestead Patent. in no way.000. Spouses Veloso. way ahead of petitioner's alleged possession in February 1997. Respondent stated that on April 30. In its Answer. an OCT was issued in Charles's name. the Free Patent was registered. which manages the pension fund of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). JMC obtained a loan from respondent in the amount of P7. T-88513 covering the subject property located at Barangay Conrazon. and on June 1.safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor. FACTS: Petitioner Rabaja Ranch Development Corporation is a domestic corporation and a holder of TCT No. 18529.116. respondent. sold the subject property to petitioner for the sum of P634.000. after extra-judicial foreclosure and public sale. T-51382 covering the same subject property. hence. Oriental Mindoro. Jose sold the subject property to Spouses Sigfriedo and Josephine Veloso and TCT No.00 and TCT No. 1997. Charles sold the subject property to JMC Farm Incorporated. On September 1. with real estate mortgage over several parcels of land including the subject property. it took possession of the subject property until petitioner disturbed respondent's possession thereof sometime in 1997. a Homestead Patent was issued in the name of Charles Soguilon. and upon registration. On January 17.00. covering the same property. 1998. On October 18. 1982. in turn. 1955. T-88513 was issued in petitioner’s name. On August 30. as it was a buyer in good faith and for value. petitioner filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Removal of Cloud from Title before the RTC. oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. and a holder of TCT No. Sometime in 1982. 1985. acquired the subject property and was issued TCT No. It averred that on September 6. T-17104 was issued in favor of the spouses. a foreclosure sale was conducted and respondent emerged as the highest bidder. The Supreme Court held that respondent is an innocent purchaser in good faith and for value. as far as respondent is concerned. significantly. or in some manner. Likewise. 18529. has a better right over the subject property? RULINGS: a. everyone dealing with the property registered under the system will have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly or irregularly issued. TCT No. The sanctity of the Torrens system must be preserved. Therefore. and the petitioner in this case failed to discharge the burden. Whether or not respondent's title which originated from a fake and spurious homestead patent. was free from any flaw or defect that could give rise to any iota of doubt that it was fake and spurious. Who. the Court cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate. injure him must be specifically alleged and proved. otherwise. and thus. On appeal. The CA held that Jose slept on his rights. b. acquire rights over the property. petitioner failed to prove that respondent took part in the alleged fraud which dated back as early as 1966. The intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right. respondent had a better right over the subject property. Where innocent third persons. Petitioner did not show that the Homestead Patent issued to Charles Soguilon is indeed spurious. contrary to the evident purpose of the law. The effect of such outright cancellation will be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title. Every person dealing with the registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued . Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied. and respondent could not invoke the protection of the Torrens system. It held that Charles's Homestead Patent was earlier registered than Jose's Free Patent. Mere allegations of fraud are not enough. shown to it by JMC. because the system does not protect one who committed fraud or misrepresentation and holds title in bad faith. the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ruling of the lower court. More importantly. The Supreme Court ruled that in our jurisdiction. ISSUES: a.Homestead Patent was fraudulent and spurious. b. or that it was derived from a fake or spurious Homestead Patent. fraud is never presumed. relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued. between the petitioner and respondent. the petition was denied. Thus. The burden of proof rests on petitioner. is superior to petitioner's title which originated from a valid and existing free patent. respondent was not under any obligation to make an inquiry beyond the TCT itself when. grant. and such registration is the operative act to convey the land to the patentee. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land. Section 103 of P. The deed. patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. . becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens Title.D. No.therefor. a Homestead Patent. 1529 mandates the registration of patents. oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. once registered under the Land Registration Act. in no way. and the law will. Moreover. received a copy of the Decision on June 22. Bacolod Cadastre. Antonio A. AP-06-005774. the Republic through the OSG. DAALCO claimed that its predecessor-in-interest. Island of Negros. Antonio Lizares. REPUBLIC G. 1524. 1939. Subsequently. 168848 HEIRS OF THE LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA vs. Inc. No. 1999. [De] Luzuriaga. pursuant to Decree No. Sr. Among the evidence petitioners adduced during the hearings was a copy of Decree No. the trial court ratified its order of general default and judicially confirmed the incomplete title of the late De Luzuriaga. sought the annulment thereof via an unverified Petition for . 1999. Pursuant to the above decision the Bacolod Registry issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-58 in the name of De Luzuriaga. In it. the subject lot was specifically identified as Lot No. over Lot No. 1524 pursuant to Decree No. On November 24. the RTC issued an Order of general default except as against respondent Republic of the Philippines. Meanwhile.R. in September 1999.HEIRS OF THE LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA vs. issued by the General Land Registration Office (GLRO) pursuant to the decision in the cadastral case confirming and granting unto the late Jose R. 1999.. 22752[8] dated October 7.Petitioners filed an Application for the Registration of Title before the RTC. however. (DAALCO) filed a Complaint against petitioners before the RTC for Quieting of Title. The application was amended to stating that the parcel of land in question be ordered registered and that an original Certificate of Title be issued in the name of the late Jose R. in turn. but opted not to file an appeal. 1524 of Bacolod Cadastre.The OSG. Lizares. 169019 June 30.R. 39. Co. By Decision dated May 24. which entered its due appearance through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which. 22752 covering Lot No. Sr. No. for the Republic. Iloilo City. RO-58 with prayer for injunctive relief and damages. The survey plan duly approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Regional Office. Annulment and Cancellation of [OCT] No. Dr. 1524. and absolute owner of Lot No. REPUBLIC G. was the registered. 1916. 1524 of the Bacolod Cadastre. De Luzuriaga full ownership of Lot No. Sr. 22752. 1524 as evidenced by a Transfer Certificate of Title issued by the Register of Deeds (RD) of Bacolod City on February 8. situated in the City of Bacolod. designated Bacolod Assistant City Prosecutor Abraham Bayona to represent the OSG at the trial. Cad. 2009 FACTS: Subject of the instant controversy is Lot No. lawful. and the technical description of the subject lot were submitted to the RTC. or six months after the RTC rendered its Decision. 97-583 due to non-publication of the amended application for registration is tenable. Whether or not the contention of the OSG that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Cadastral Case No. the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. over Lot 1524 will result in a double titling of the subject lot. who thereafter . The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners’ contention that a petition for relief from judgment and the special civil action for quieting of title cannot proceed separately is without solid basis. the Republic elevated the case before the CA. Sr. The appellate court rendered the assailed decision granting certiorari and ordered the remand of the instant case to the trial court for reception of evidence to determine whether the RTC’s Decision confirming the title of the late Luzuriaga.The Republic later filed a Supplement (To Motion for Reconsideration) reiterating the merits of its case. Thus. ISSUES: 1. they can proceed independently. Case No. 2765 in the name of Lizares. while the Republic’s petition assails the grant of ownership to De Luzuriaga. Cad. The Republic moved for reconsideration of the above denial order arguing that its procedural lapses are not fatal to its case. Sr. Moreover. Finally. The cause of action of the Republic’s petition for relief from judgment of “double titling” of the subject lot is different from DAALCO’s quest for quieting of title. DAALCO basically seeks to nullify the issuance of OCT No. the OSG alleged that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Cadastral Case No. 2005 Resolution. RO-58 in the name of the De Luzuriaga heirs. 99-10924 each involves different concerns and can proceed independently. Yes. The RTC denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration. 97-583 inasmuch as the corresponding amended application for registration dated May 5. 97-583 and the suit for quieting of title in Civil Case No. the Republic raised anew the argument on the unavailability of Decree No.? RULING: 1. 22752 as basis for the application of land registration in view of the implementation of Sec. Whether or not a cadastral case and Quieting of Title case can proceed independently? 2. From another perspective.Relief from Judgment filed before the RTC. these petitions. 39 of PD 1529. Hence. The RTC denied the petition for relief from judgment because it is not sufficient in form and substance and filed out of time. Through the equally assailed May 25. over a parcel of land duly registered under OCT No. 1998 was not published and a copy of which the Republic was not served. 1524. The petitioners in that case appeared to have complied with the essential jurisdictional requirement of publication. like ordinary administrative registration. both actions may proceed independently. In fine. its identity and area. he would have duly protested and assailed the same. Case No. And any additional territory or change in the area of the claim cannot be included by amendment of the plan or application without new publication. 7 of Act No. 2. Besides. 2259. and original tracing cloth have been duly presented and submitted as evidence. procedure. there is no dispute that due publication was made for Lot No. no new publication is required. a new publication is not needed. No. the Republic could not plausibly argue that it was deprived of its day in court. and evidence. As it were. Prosecutor Bayona obviously found the cadastral proceedings to have been in order. The Court cannot see its way clear to the jurisdictional challenge posed by the Republic. otherwise the cadastral court does not acquire jurisdiction over the additional or amended claim. else. In the case at bar. 97-583 represented by prosecutor Bayona. provide for the publication of the application for registration and the schedule of the initial hearing. Thus. and Sec. the Republic entered its appearance in Cad. drawing attention to the nonpublication of the amended application for registration during the trial of Cad. But where the identity and area of the claimed property are not the subjects of amendment but other collateral matters. after participating in the proceedings below. are in rem. Case No. 93-857. technical description. As the Supreme Court held that the Republic. This is so since judicial cadastral proceedings. has raised the issue of jurisdiction. Due publication is required to give notice to all interested parties of the claim and identity of the property that will be surveyed. otherwise known as the Cadastral Act. We hardly can subscribe to the Republic’s argument that the publication of the amendment in petitioners’ application is a condition sine qua non for the RTC. the Republic. Sec. albeit a consolidation of both cases would be ideal to obviate multiplicity of suits. The required survey plan.transferred the title to his heirs or assigns. Consequently. to acquire jurisdiction. acting as cadastral court. otherwise known as the Land Registration Decree. . 35 of PD 1529. has been duly notified of such amendment. and are governed by the usual rules of practice. through Prosecutor Bayona. The amendment in petitioners’ application in the relief portion neither altered the area and identity of the subject lot nor added any territory. Tolentino is spurious. Thereafter Spouses Villamil instituted a complaint for annulment for annulment of title. A forged or fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title if the property has already been transferred from the name of the owner to name of the forger. and that spouses Tolentino and Villarosa are both buyers in bad faith. VS. that Paterno is a fictitious person.R NO. That they visited the said lot and found that a residential house was being constructed by a certain Villarosa. ETC. 2009 Facts: Petitioner-spouses Villamil alleged that they were the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. and on the basis of the said document. 223611. recovery of possession. Villamil in favor of Paterno is fake. Having made the necessary inquiries and having found that the title to be authentic. the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and declared void the title of the Spouses Tolentino and Paterno but upheld the validity of the title of Villarosa holding that the latter is a purchaser for value and in goodfaith. The trial court found that the deed of sale executed by sps. However. the Spouses Tolentino could not also transfer any right to Villarosa on account of the principle that no one can transfer a greater right to another than he himself. damages and injunction against the Spouses Tolentino and Villarosa. Petitioners verified their title with the office of the register of deeds and found out that the title in their names was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of Paterno by virtue of a deed of assignment purportedly executed by them in favor of Paterno. VILLAMIL. VILLAROSA G. He did not have to scrutinize each and every title and previous owners of the property preceding . reconveyance. A Deed of Assignment was likewise executed by Paterno in favor of Spouses Tolentiono. Issue: Whether or not Villarosa can be declared a purchases for value and goodfaith? Held: Yes. Spouses Villamil averred that since Paterno’s transfer to Sps. This doctrine serves to emphasize that a person who deals with registered property in good faith will acquire good title from a forger and be absolutely protected by a torrents title. which was then under the name of Spouses Tolentino. 177187 April 7. a new title was issued in favor of the latter. He examined the transferor’s title.SPOUSES. well settled is the rule that every person dealing with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Villarosa need not go beyond the certificate of title. . Villarosa was able to establish good faith when he bought the subject property. In sum. Therefore.Tolentino. the title issued in Villarosa’s name is valid. This was superseded by R. 1977. by reason of the claimant’s open. 1529. has already been amended by Presidential Decree No. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property for more than 30 years. In Republic v. approved on January 25. Doldol. Therefore. exclusive and notorious possession of alienable and disposable land of the public domain. It ruled that respondent need not prove that she and her predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the subject property since 12 June 1945 or earlier because Section 48(b) of CA 141 was already superseded by Republic Act No." . it must now be shown that possession and occupation of the piece of land by the applicant. (2) that the applicant by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest have been in open. exclusive and notorious possession of the subject property since 12 June 1945 or earlier. continuous. 2009. continuous.R.141 provided for possession and occupation of lands of the public domain since July 26. 1894. Lee Tsai G. the Court provided a summary of these amendments: "The original Section 48(b) of C. No.A. which provides for a simple 30 year prescriptive period of occupation by an applicant for judicial confirmation of title. She also declared that she and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open. however. since the effectivity of PD 1073 on 25 January 1977. a mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more is not sufficient. 1942 (RA 1942). 1073. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Note that respondent did not specify under what paragraph of Section 14 of PD 1529 she was filing the application. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation. started on 12 June 1945 or earlier. by himself or through his predecessors-in interest. No. June 22.A. The same. ISSUE: Whether or not it is required for respondent to prove her open. continuous. HELD: YES. FACTS: Respondent filed an application for the confirmation and registration of the subject property under Presidential Decree No. continuous. She (alleged that she is the owner of the subject property and the improvements thereon. The trial court granted respondent’s application for registration.Republic v. which provided for a simple thirty-year prescriptive period of occupation by an applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. But it appeared that respondent filed her application under Section 14(1) of PD 1529. The right to file the application for registration derives from a bona fide claim of ownership going back to 12 June 1945 or earlier. This provision is in total conformity with Section 14(1) of PD 1529. There are three requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title under Section 14(1) of PD 1529: (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. 168184. and (3) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June1945 or earlier. As the law now stands. No. 1942. There were various amendments to PD 1529. as required by both PD 1529 and CA 141. No. 179905.In this case. Respondent’s earliest evidence can be traced back to a tax declaration issued in the name of her predecessors-in-interest only in the year 1948.R. respondent’s application for confirmation and registration of the subject property under PD 1529 and CA 141 should be denied. 19 August 2009). Javier (G. respondent failed to comply with the period of possession and occupation of the subject property. The same ruling was reiterated in Republic v. . In view of the lack of sufficient showing that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject property under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.