LTD Midterm Exams by Dickbrown and Co.

Definitions:

itself but to the manner in which it is

procured, so that there is no a fair
submission of the controversy

1. Mirror Doctrine: all persons dealing with

property covered by Torrens certificate of
title are not required to go beyond what
appears on the face of the title.

2. Deed: it is a written instrument executed in

accordance with the form prescribed by law
where a person grants or conveys land.

3. Regalian Doctrine: all lands of the public

domain belong to the State, which is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of
land. All lands not otherwise appearing to
be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the state. All lands
not otherwise clearly appearing to be
privately owned are presumed to belong to
the State.

4. Innocent purchaser in for value: one

who buys the property of another without
notice that some other person has right to,
or interest in, such property and pays a full
and fair price for the same, at the time of
such purchase and before he has notice of
the claim or interest of some other persons
in the property.
5. Land title: is an evidence of right of owner
or extent of his interest by which he can
maintain, control, and as a rule, assert right
to exclusive possession and enjoyment of
the property
6. Constructive trust: is an equitable remedy
resembling a trust (implied trust) imposed by a court
to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of
its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a
legal property right which they should not possess due
to unjust enrichment or interference.

7. Actual fraud: proceeds from an intentional

deception practices by means of the
misrepresentation or concealment of a
material fact.
8. Extrinsic fraud: one prevents a party from
having a trial or from presenting his entire
matters pertaining not to the judgement

Enumerate the chronological steps in

ordinary land registration proceedings:
1. Survey of the Land Management Bureau or
duly licensed private surveyor
2. Filing of application for registration by the
applicant; prepare the application and have
the client and lawyer sign the document
and have it verified (see sec 15)
3. Setting the date for the initial hearing of the
application of the court.
4. Transmittal of the publication and the date
of the initial hearing with all the documents
or other evidences attached thereto by the
Clerk of court to the administrator of the
LRA.
5. Publication of a notice of the initial hearing
and date and place of the hearing in the
OG.
6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners,
occupants and those known to have
interests in the propery by the sheriff.
7. Filing of answer to the application by any
person whether named in the court or not.
8. Hearing of the case by the Court.
9. Promulgation of judgement by the Court
10.
Issuance of the decree by the court
declaring decision final and instructing the
LRA to issue a decree of confirmation and
registration.
11.
Entry of the decree of registration in
the LRA.
12.
Sending the copy of the decree of
registration to the corresponding RoD.
13.
Transcription of the decree of
registration in the registration book and
issuance of the owners duplicate original
certificate to the applicant by the RoD,
upon payment of the prescribed fees.

3. What are the matters that should be

proved by the applicant in an action for
judicial confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete title?

Issue of ownership

Possession and occupation of the

land (OCENO)
Identity and description of the land
Land is alienable and disposable of
the public domain otherwise court
has no jurisdiction
Applicant has acquired the land
through any of the modes of
acquiring ownership

4. What are the 4 conditions required in

filing petition to reopen the decree of
registration:
1.
2.
3.
4.

opposition to the petition and an order of

general default was issued. After
presentation of evidence, judgement was
rendered in favor of A on July 3, 2003 and
nobody appealed the said decision.
Following the court order, the LRA
administrator entered the decree of
registration on September 1, 2003 and the
certificate of title was issued in the name of
A on September 15,2003. On Oct. 1, 2003, A
sold the subject property to B. P discovered
the sale of his land to B. P filed an action for
cancellation of sale and As title on Nov. 4 ,
2004. Will the said petition prosper or not?

Actual fraud
Extrinsic fraud
Lack of due process
Lack of jurisdiction of the court

5. After judgement in a land registration

case has been rendered, the court had
issued an order directing the Administrator
of the LRA to issue a decree of registration
in the name of the prevailing party. In what
instances may the Administrator legally
refuse compliance with the order of the
court? Explain your answer

When the judgement has not become

final and executory. Because it may
be set aside on appeal and may
adversely affect the stability of the
Torrens system of registration
because the land is already covered
by the Torrens system and yet the
court has not yet declared who the
real owner is. This would undermine
the Torrens system of registration.
The administrator may only be
compelled to issue the decree if the
judgement is final and executory.

6. P delivered all documents of ownership

over a piece of land to his friend for the
purpose of registering the same in his name.
However, A filed the application for
registration in his own name on March 1,
2002. The notice of initial hearing was
published in the OG in its march 23,2003
issue. No person filed an answer or

Yes. The action of P would prosper. Bs

certificate of title even after it had been
petitioned to be reopened or reviewed after
the lapse of 1 year. In the case of Dir. Of
land v. CA, the court had no jurisdiction
over the case, the court having only
published it in the OG, as publication in a
newspaper of general circulation once
remains an indispensable procedural
requirement. It is a component of
procedural due process and aimed at giving
as wide publicity as possible so that all
persons having adverse-interest in the land
subject of the registration proceedings may
be notified thereof. In the case at bar, P had
been deprived of procedural due process.

7. On Jan. 5 2004, S sold a parcel of land to

B, who immediately took possession of the
land. On Feb.14 2004, S sold the same
parcel of land to C who knew about the
previous sale to B. with the owners
duplicate certificate of title was issued in his
name on June 5, 2004. On July 10, 2005, B
filed an action for conveyance against A and
C. C filed his answer claiming that the
complaint should be dismissed against him
because he is presumed to be an innocent
purchaser for value and B must prove
otherwise. Is the contention of C correct or
not?

No. in the case of Mathay v. CA, it stated

the exceptions of the mirror doctrine. One
of the exceptions are when there are facts
and circumstances that would impel a
reasonable and prudent man to investigate
and inquire. When there is no inquiry, the
second buyer is deemed negligent and
cannot invoke the purchaser in good faith

for value and can only acquire what his

transferor had. In the case at bar, B
immediately took possession of the land
thereof and it would be negligent for C to
not inquire upon the true owner of the land.
N.B. Republic v. CA, the publication is also
defective where the OG containing said
notice, although for the month prior to the
scheduled hearing, was released for
publication only after said hear. Publication
must PRECEDE the date of initial hearing.
N.B. newspaper of general circulation in
the whole PH.

8. Jose had been in possession of a piece of

land since 1935. He died on August 11, 1977
and his son, Yancy occupied the land. On
April 3 1990, Fred filed an application for
registration covering the same parcel of
land in the possession of Yancy but he did
not include him in the petition as one of the
occupant of said land. On July 16, 1990, Fred
was able to secure a favorable judgement
and the decree of registration was entered
and issued on September 10, 1991. Fred
sold the said property to Nicanor who
obtained transfer certificate of title in his
name on Sept. 14, 1991. On October 20,

2001, Yancy filed an action for reconveyance

against Fred and Nicanor, who filed a motion
to dismiss the case based on prescription.
Resolve the motion and explain.

No. In the case at bar, there was actual

fraud committed by Fred as he did not
include Yancy in his application for
registration covering the sae parcel of land
in possession of Yancy. Consequently, Yancy
was denied procedural due process,
particularly, the right to participate in a
hearing. Yancy was deprived of notice and
right of hearing. Notwithstanding the lapse
of 1 year after the issuance and entry of the
decree of registration after 1 year, a
petition to reopen and review may be had
as the court who rendered judgement had
no jurisdiction. Furthermore, the ten year
period of prescription does not apply if the
plaintiff remains in possession of the
property as the prescriptive period does not
run against him