Patricia Cachero & Heirs of Tomas Cachero vs. Bernardino Marzan, et al.

Facts:1. Petitioners – spouses who filed a suit for recovery of

possession & ownership w/ the CFI of La Union for 2 adjoining parcels of land w/ an area of 15 hectares however only 9 hectares were declared to be their ownership

2. After 7 yrs, petitioners instituted proceedings for the registration under the Torrens Act of Lots 6859 & 6860 located at La Union & several oppositions were filed by Atty. Agaton Yaranon:

a. Bernardino Marzan – 10K sq. m. (6860)b. Cirpriano Pulido – 50,412 sq.m. (6859)c. Hilario Marzan – 39,480 sq. m. (6860)d. Magno Marzan – 30K sq. m. (6860)e. Guillermo Hipol – eastern portion of Lot 6860

3. Bernardino & Cirpriano are also oppositors of the 1st case instituted & decided 7 yrs ago

4. Aside from the 5 oppositors & the Bureau of Lands, a special entry of default is declared against the whole world

5. CFI – found out that the petitioners & predecessors-in-interest had been in continuous & notorious possession of the Lots for more than 60 yrs in concept of owner & w/ the exclusion of others

6. Atty. Yaranon filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the lands having been earlier subject of cadastral proceedings in w/c as shown by the records, neither petitioners nor their predecessors-in-interest had ever entered a claim for the said lots

7. Petitioners – argue as the motion is filed out of time & the decisions had become final

8. After 7 months --- another set of oppositors filed a petition for review of the judgement or decree represented by the same Atty

a. Paulina Nodob. Sps. Gelix Genova & Adelina Pulido Genova

9. New Oppositors:

a. They purchased the same sometime in 1929 & having been in continuous possession since then

b. Petitioners fraudulently omitted to them notice of their application for registration

c. Based on the Cadastral Survey, Lots are public

Issue:W/N the CFI can acquire jurisdiction over the voluntary land registration proceedings covering Lots that are subject to a pending cadastral proceeding instituted by the Dir. Of Lands?

Held: YES!

1. Cadastral Proceedings under Act 2259 cannot be invoked & set up as a bar for the registration proceedings under Act 496 (Torrens) initiated more than 20 yrs later by the petitioners --- indeed when the petitioners filed an application, the cadastral proceedings had long been discontinued & abandoned & all intents & purposes had ceased to exist --- there having no final adjudication, there is no occasion whatever to refer to the familiar doctrine of res judicata

2. Civil Case that was 1st instituted by the petitioners was decided in their favor & these pronouncements should not set aside except for the gravest & most compelling causes ((non was presented by the oppositors)

3. In Rem – Genova’s are undoubtedly bound by the order of default issued in the land registration case as it binds the whole world

4. They could & should have taken in the case to assert & prove their rights over the property subject thereof

5. Issue of fraud: not substantiated --- does not explain why they should not be bound by the published notices of petitioners’ application w/c are accomplished in accordance with law & by the direction of the Registration Court.

Gabriel Lasam vs. Dir. Of Lands & Jose Chan Hong Hin, et al.

1. Petitioner – filed an application for the registration of 152 parcels of land located at the province of Cagayan w/ the CFI w/c includes lot 9 w.c is involved in this case

2. Accdg to the Lower Court --- Lot 9 were delimited & marked on its plan at the time of survey (w/c was duly attached to the record)

3. Oppositors:a. Respondent Dir. Of Lands opposed the application on

the ground that it is not supported by any title fit for registration & that the land sought to be registered is a public land

b. Other respondents = also filed opposition claiming to be owners of the land as homesteaders

c. Fiscal = representing the Dept of Forestry – public forest

d. Others = portion of their lots were occupied by the lots being registered

4. After protracted hearing = lower court declared applicant Lasam the owner of lot 9 7 decreed the registration of the said parcel of land

5. The oppositors filed a motion for new trial but was denied & the case was brought before this court by bill of exceptions

Issue: W/N Lasam is entitled to register the whole parcels of land despite the oppositions made in accordance w/ the survey plan w/c delimited his land?

Held: NO!1. An applicant for registration of land, if he relies on a

document evidencing his title thereto, must prove not only the genuineness of his title but the identity of the land referred to. The document in such a case is either a basis of his claim for registration or not at all. If he only claims a portion of what is included in his title, he must clearly prove that the property sought to be registered is included in the title.

2. The surveyor relied on the informacion testifical w/c cannot be accorded w/ legal affect & even if so, would not serve as a basis for the registration of the lots

3. Petitioner is not entitled to the land --- the fact that he is only claiming a portion of the land to be included in his title, the discrepancies in the boundaries, his tax declarations &

the existence of numerous homesteaders & claimants are significant tend to show that his possession over the entire portion of the land sought to be registered is not such as to appraise the community & the world that the entire land was for his enjoyment

Ruling: *application is dismissed w/o prejudice --- Lasam to to re-apply for registration for the parcels of land w/c he actually occupies*Portions of Lot 9 as indicated in the plan are declared public landsMariano Turquesa, et al. vs. Rosario Valera & CA

1. Respondent applied for registration of 2 parcels of land in Laguyan, Abra for more than a century ago

a. Documents showing that she was still singleb. She bought Lot 1 during the years 1929-1932 from

Trangued & heirs of Juan Valera Rufino who allegedly in possession since the Spanish Regime & declared it for tax purposes

c. Notice was published in the official Gazette2. Dir. Of Lands & petitioners opposed who avers that they are the

real owners of Lot 1 & that the land contained in the application is not the same lot that she bought &&& they moved for an ocular inspection in order to prove the allegations --- while the dir. Of lands opposition was denied for failure to substantiate its claim

3. The petitioners oppositions are likewise denied together with the request for ocular inspection

4. Lower Court --- in favor of the applicants on the ground that she has a registrable title over the land

5. CA – reversed & remanded the case to the lower court for further hearing & ordered the conduct of an ocular inspection

6. 3 Commissioners were appointed for the ocular inspection a. 1st inspection --- the claims were properly sketched on the

plan however, petitioners still opposed the reportb. 2nd inspection --- same findings == respondents are

entitled to the land w/ an area of 210,767 sq. m. 7. Order became final & executor8. Respondents filed w/ the trial court a motion for the issuance of

writ of possession over the 2 lots tenanted by Donato’s & claimed by Partolan, the latter not an oppositor in the previous case

Issue: W/N Partolan can validly assail the validity of the judgement of the Court & W/N respondent is entitled to the writ of possessiom?

Held: NO!1. In Rem – Partolan is charged w/ knowledge of the application of

private respondent since the notice was published in accordance w/ the law

2. However --- respondent is not entitled to the WOP as no evidence was shown that private respondent had a rightful claim whether possessory or proprietary w/ respect to those areas

a. Applicant must still prove that she has a registrable rights over the land w/c must be grounded on incontrovertible evidence & based on positive & absolute proof

b. The declarations of the applicant does not constitute the well-nigh incontrovertible & conclusive evidence required in the Land Registration

c. Payment of taxes are not sufficient to prove ownershipd. If an applicant does not have any rightful claim over real

property, the Torrens System of Registration can confirm or record nothing.

e. She should prove not only the genuineness of her title but also the identity of the land therein referred to

Republic of the Phils vs CA & Santos del RioAurora Bautista et. al. vs. CA & Santos del Rio

Facts:1. Santos de Rio – applied for the registration of land w/ an

area of 17,311 sq. m. situated near the Laguna de Bay about 20 m from Barrio Pinagbayanan, Pila, Laguna w/c is submerged to water 4-5 months a year

a. Purchased by Benedicto del Rio from Angel Pili on April 19,1909

b. Deed of Sale is duly registered w/ the RD of Sta. Cruz, Laguna

c. Declared for taxation in 1918d. Realty taxes were paid since 1948e. Benedicto dies --- heirs extrajudicially partitioned his

estate & the subject parcel of land was passed on to his son, Santos del Rio

2. Application was opposed by the petitioner 3. Before 1966 --- petitioners on the 2nd consolidated case asks

permission from Santos to construct duck houses on the land in question w/c was permitted by Santos w/out definite commitment as to rentals (some made voluntary payments)

4. In violation of the agreement, Aurora et al. also constructed their residential houses on the land w/c prompted Santos to file an ejectment suit against them in 1966

5. Meanwhile, 1965 --- Aurora et al simultaneously filed w/ the Bureau of Lands respective sales application for registration & in 1966 they opposed Santos’ application

6. CFI dismissed the application but was reversed by the CA

Issue: W/N Santos has registrable title to the land?

Held: YES!1. Dir of Lands: since it is submerged in water 4-5 months, it

forms part of the lake bed of Laguna de Bay or is at least a foreshore land w/c is w/in the meaning of Art. 502 of the Civil Code

a. However --- Art 74 of the Law on Waters --- “the natural bed or basin of lakes, ponds or pools, is the ground covered by their waters when at their highest ordinary depth” ---- w/c

means the depth in the natural, common & regular of the dry season --- land was not really part of the Laguna de Bay

b. Foreshore --- part of the land that lies between the high & low water mark & that is alternately wet & dry accdg to the flow of the tide --- however, the land in question submerge in only because of the rain falling directly or flowing in the Laguna De Bay from different sources

c. **therefore, land is not a public domain2. Evidence presented:

a. Public instrument of sale --- the root of his titleb. Tax Declarations --- since 1918c. Tax Receipts --- since 1948

3. Although tax decs are not controvertible proof of evidence of ownership however they become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof or actual possession of the property

4. CA correctly found applicant & his father to be in open, continuous, public, peaceful, exclusive & adverse possession

for more than 30 yrs from 1909 when the land was purchashed by a 3rd person

5. Even if it was declared as land of public domain it would still be entitled to a judicial confirmation of his imperfect title since he has also satisfied the requirements of the Public Land Act (at least 30 yrs)

6. Contention of Aurora et al:a. They reclaimed the land --- only gov’t can do it or w/

the permission at least by the Govt w/c is not true in this case

b. Reclaiming does not automatically transfer ownership to the private person w/o an express grant from the govt

c. They only entered the land by mere toleration & permission by Santos

Republic vs. Zenaida Guinto-Aldana et al.

1. Respondents filed an application for registration of title of 2 parcels of land in Las Pinas w/ RTC of Las Pinas

a. Co-owners of these lots, having acquired them by succession from their predecessors Sergio & Lucia Guinto (zenaida’s parents)

b. Parents – acquired it under a 1969 document donominated as “Kasulatan sa Paghahati ng Lupa na Labas sa Hukuman na may Pagpaparaya at Bilihan” --- acquired by the parents for a consideration of the respective shares of Pastor Guinto et al

c. They are in actual, open, peaceful, adverse, exclusive & continuous possession of the lots in the concept of an owner & that they had consistently declared the property in their name for purposes of taxation

d. Evidence submitted:i. Blue print of the planii. Certification of the geodetic engineeriii. Tex declarationsiv. Receipts of payment of the taxes

v. Original tracing cloth --- however submitted to the RTC of Las Pinas in connection to a previous registration case involving the subject property

2. RTC – found the application to be sufficient in form & substance & gave due course thereto & ordered compliance w/ publication & notification requirements of the law

3. Petitioner opposed the application through the office of the city prosecutor of Las Pinas stating that the land was inalienable being part of the public domain &&& that the muniment of title & tax declaration submitted to the court did not constitute competent & sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition or of prior possession in the concept of an owner

4. During the marking of evidence --- the blue print in the possession of the LRA & the technical description of the land were marked as evidence w/o opposition from the oppositors

5. RTC – denied the application because of the respondent’s failure to submit to the court the original tracing cloth as mandated by PD 1529

6. CA – reversed

Issue: W/N the non-submission of the original tracing cloth mandated by PD 1529 a valid ground for the denial of the application of the respondent?

Held: NO!1. Although in the Del Rosario case, the court decided against

the application of the land due non-submission of the original tracing cloth & failure of the plaintiff to retrieve the tracing cloth from the LRA & present it in court --- but this was due to the determination of the exact metes & bounds of the property ---- w/c in this case is not needed as the applicant properly established the metes & bounds of the land subject of the registration & the only contention of the oppositor is its being public in character & not the exact boundaries/ area of the land.

2. Respondents have substantially complied w/ the requirement of evidence as the tracing cloth is merely to provide a convenient & necessary means to afford certainty as to the exact identity of the property applied for

registration & to ensure that the same does not overlap w/ boundaries of the adjoining lots, there stands to be no reason why a registration application must be denied for failure to present the original tracing cloth plan, especially where it is accompanied by pieces of evidence w/c may likewise substantially & with as much certainty prove the limits & extent of the property sought to be registered

3. Oppositors did not raise any objections to the identification, marking & offered the evidence during the proceedings

4. Issue of possession: petitioner contends that respondents were not able to identify the lots applied for & that the respondents were not actually occupying & possessing the land for at least 30 yrs

a. The law speaks of possession & occupation ---- ANDi. Possession – broader as it includes

constructive possessionii. Occupation – seeks to delimit the all-

encompassing effect of constructive possession

b. Actual possession of the land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property

Republic vs. Metro Index Realty & Dev’t Corp

Facts:1. Respondent – filed w/ the RTC of Cavite an application for

judicial confirmation of title over 3 parcels of land located at Brgy. Mataas na Lupa, Indang Cavite

a. During the hearing it presented 2 witnessesi. Dimayuga – Project Documentation Officer

who testified that respondent bought the property from Herminia, Melinda & Hernando Sicap & that it was declared for taxation in the respondents name in 2006 &&& the

property is alienable & disposable land evidenced by the certification issued by DENR

ii. Herminia – testified that she & her siblings inherited the land from their parents who had been in possession of the land since 1956 as shown by the tax dec & at the time they inherited the property, they had been religiously paying taxes thereon & planted coconut, banana, santol, palay & corn

2. RTC – granted the application w/ CA affirmed ruling that the number of trees found in the land is not the determination of ownership of the land (even only few trees are there, does not mean that they did NOT own the land) & constructive possession

3. SC reversed the CA decision for failure to comply w/ the requirements of sec 14, PD 1529 (1st & 2nd par)

Issue: W/N respondent had proven that he is entitled to the benefits of PD 1529 on confirmation of imperfect titles?

Held: NO!

1. Although respondents might be in open & continuous possession of the land, still it is part of the public dominion

a. Public lands become only patrimonial not only w/ a declaration that these are alienable & disposable lands but there must be an express govt manifestation that the property is already

patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the devt of the national wealth &&& only so will prescription run against it

2. The classification of the land to be public or alienable should have 1st been addressed to but was regrettably neglected

3. Public Land Act – requires more than constructive possession & casual cultivation ---- a mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under a claim of ownership

a. In this case lot 1 = 2k coconuts = 119 hectaresb. Lot 2 = 1k coconuts = 19 hectares c. Reality = 1 hectare = 114 coconuts w/c means that

only 25 hectares out of 138 hectares being applied for was in fact cleared, cultivated & planted w/ coconut w/c need not be tendered or watched

d. This only showed that casual or occasional cultivation of portions of the land in question. In short, possession is not exclusive nor notorious, much less continuous, so as to give rise to a presumptive grant from the govt