CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)

If consulted, what would your legal advice be? latter vacate the premises and deliver the same to the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground
The warehouse which is a construction adhered to the soil is that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June
an immovable by nature under Art. 415 (1) and the proper 1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and
venue of any case to recover ownership of the same, which is that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not
what the purpose of the complaint to annul the amended extinguish the usufruct. Whose contention should be
Deed of Sale amounts to, should be the place where the accepted?
property is located, or the RTC of Bulacan. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS: Petronila's contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the
1. Buildings are always immovable property, and even in the Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse
instances where the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for
it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise the number of years specified even if the third person should
does it change its character as immovable property. A building is die unless there is an express stipulation in the contract that
an immovable even if not erected by the owner of the land. The states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no express
only criterion is union or incorporation with the soil. (Ladera vs. stipulation that the consideration for the usufruct is the
Hodges (CA) 48 existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general rule and not
O.G. 4374) (Reyes and Puno, Outline of Philippine Civil Law, the exception should apply in this case.
Vol. 2. p.7) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
This is a usufruct which is clearly intended for the benefit of
2. The warehouse built by Pedro on the mortgaged property Manuel until he reaches 30 yrs. of age with Petronila serving
is real property within the context of Article 415 of the New only as a conduit, holding the property in trust for his
Civil Code, although it was built by Pedro after the benefit. The death of Manuel at the age of 26 therefore,
foreclosure sale without the knowledge and consent of the terminated the usufruct.
new owner which makes him a builder in bad faith, this does
not alter the character of the warehouse as a real property by
incorporation. It is a structure which cannot be removed LAND TRANSFER &
without causing injury to the land. So, my advice to Pedro is
to file the case with the RTC of Bulacan, the situs of the DEEDS
property,
(Note: If the examinee does not mention that the structure was built Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship Requirement (2003)
by a builder in bad faith, it should be given full credit). In 1970, the spouses Juan and Juana de la Cruz, then
Filipinos, bought the parcel of unregistered land in the
Sower; Good Faith/ Bad Faith (2000) Philippines on which they built a house which became their
Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted it to sugar cane, residence. In 1986, they migrated to Canada and became
believing it to be his own. When the crop was eight months Canadian citizens. Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed
old, and harvestable after two more months, a resurvey of by the Republic, for the registration of the aforesaid land in
the land showed that it really belonged to Fred. What are the their names. Should the application of the spouses de la Cruz
options available to Fred? (2%) be granted over the Republic’s opposition? Why? 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good faith, Fred
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
has the option of allowing Felix to continue the cultivation Yes, the application should be granted. As a rule, the
and to harvest the crops, or to continue the cultivation and Constitution prohibits aliens from owning private lands in the
harvest the crops himself. In the latter option, however, Felix Philippines. This rule, however, does not apply to the spouses
shall have the right to a part of the expenses of cultivation Juan and Juana de la Cruz because at the time they acquired
and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the ownership over the land, albeit imperfect, they were still
time of possession. (Art. 545 NCC), Filipino citizens. The application for registration is a mere
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Since sugarcane is not a perennial crop. Felix is considered a confirmation of the imperfect title which the spouses have
sower in good faith. Being so, Art. 448 applies. The options already acquired before they became Canadian citizens.
available to Fred are: (a) to appropriate the crop after paying (Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 567 [1994]).
Felix the indemnity under Art. 546, or (b) to require Felix to
pay rent. Adverse Claims; Notice of Levy (1998)
Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, concerning
Usufruct (1997) adverse claims on registered land, provides a 30-day period of
On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted effectivity of an adverse claim, counted from the date of its
Petronila a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998 registration. Suppose a notice of adverse claim based upon a
when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his contract to sell was registered on March 1, 1997 at the
30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when instance of the BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the
he was only 26 years old. lapse of the 30-day period, a notice of levy on execution in
favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to
Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been enforce a final judgment for money against the registered
extinguished by the death of Manuel and demanded that the owner. Then, on June 15, 1997 there having been no formal
cancellation of his notice of adverse claim, the BUYER pays
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
to the seller-owner the agreed purchase price in full and residential, commercial, industrial, or similar productive
registers the corresponding deed of sale. Because the purposes, and only by lease when not needed by the
annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to the new title government for public service.
in his name, the BUYER brings an action against the
JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but (2) If the land is suited or actually used for fishpond or
the latter claims that his lien is superior because it was aquaculture purposes, it comes under the Jurisdiction of the
annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and can
facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit prosper? [5%] only be acquired by lease. (P.D. 705)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim duly annotated (3) Free Patent is a mode of concession under Section 41,
at the back of a title under Section 7O of P.D. 1529 is good Chapter VII of the Public Land Act, which is applicable only
only for 30 days, cancellation thereof is still necessary to for agricultural lands.
render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription thereof will
remain annotated as a lien on the property. While the life of (4) The certificate of the district forester that the land is
adverse claim is 3O days under P.D. 1529, it continuous to already "alienable and disposable" simply means that the land
be effective until it is canceled by formal petition filed with is no longer needed for forest purposes, but the Bureau of
the Register of Deeds. Lands could no longer dispose of it by free patent because it
is already covered by a lease contract between BFAR and
The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified under Regina. That contract must be respected.
Section 108 of P.D. 1529 considering that the levy on
execution can not be enforced against the buyer whose (5) The free patent of Jorge is highly irregular and void ab
adverse claim against the registered owner was recorded initio, not only because the Bureau has no statutory authority
ahead of the notice of levy on execution. to issue a free patent over a foreshore area, but also because
of the false statements made in his sworn application that he
Annotation of Lis Pendens; When Proper (2001) has occupied and cultivated the land since July 4, 1945, as
Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for P1 million required by the free patent law. Under Section 91 of the
payable in five (5) equal annual installments. The sale was Public Land Act, any patent concession or title obtained thru
registered and title was issued in Carmen's name. Carmen false representation is void ab initio. In cases of this nature, it
failed to pay the last three installments and Mario filed an. is the government that shall institute annulment proceedings
action for collection, damages and attorneys fees against her. considering that the suit carries with it a prayer for the
Upon filing of the complaint, he caused a notice of lis reversion of the land to the state. However, Regina is a party
pendens to be annotated on Carmen's title. Is the notice of lis in interest and the case will prosper because she has a lease
pendens proper or not? Why? (5%) contract for the same land with the government.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The notice of lis pendens is not proper for the reason that
the case filed by Mario against Carmen is only for collection, Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Holder in Bad Faith (2005)
damages, and attorney's fees. Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his vehicle an
envelope containing TCT No. 65432 over a lot registered in
Annotation of a lis pendens can only be done in cases Cesar's name. Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesar's signature
involving recovery of possession of real property, or to quiet on a Deed of Sale in Rod's favor. Rod registered the said
title or to remove cloud thereon, or for partition or any other document with the Register of Deeds, and obtained a new
proceeding affecting title to the land or the use or occupation title in his name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, a buyer
thereof. The action filed by Mario does not fall on anyone of in good faith and for value, who also registered the lot in his
these. name.
a) Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain. (2%)
Foreshore Lands (2000) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Regina has been leasing foreshore land from the Bureau of No, Rod did not acquire title to the land. The inscription in
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources for the past 15 years. the registry, to be effective, must be made in good faith. The
Recently, she learned that Jorge was able to obtain a free defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title does not extend
patent from the Bureau of Agriculture, covering the same to a transferee who takes the certificate of title with notice of
land, on the basis of a certification by the District Forester a flaw. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not
that the same is already "alienable and disposable". Moreover, entitled to the protection of the law, for the law cannot be
Jorge had already registered the patent with the Register of used as a shield for frauds. (Samonte v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Deeds of the province, and he was issued an Original No. 104223, July 12, 2001)
Certificate of Title for the same. Regina filed an action for
annulment of Jorge's title on the ground that it was obtained In the case at bar, Rod only forged Cesar's signature on the
fraudulently. Will the action prosper? (2%) -Deed of Sale. It is very apparent that there was bad faith on
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the part of Rod from the very beginning. As such, he is not
An action for the annulment of Jorge's Original Certificate of entitled to the protection of the Land Registration Act.
Title will prosper on the following grounds: b) Discuss the rights of Don, if any, over the property.
(1) Under Chapter IX of C .A, No. 141, otherwise known as (2%)
the Public Land Act, foreshore lands are disposable for SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
It is a well-known rule in this jurisdiction that persons
dealing with registered land have the legal right to rely on the The mortgage to Desiderio should be cancelled without
face of the Torrens Certificate of Title and to dispense with prejudice to his right to go after Catalino and/or the
the need to inquire further, except when the party concerned government for compensation from the assurance fund.
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry. Fraud; Procurement of Patent; Effect (2000)
(Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a Free Patent
128573, January 13, 2003) over a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 30 hectares,
located in General Santos City. He presented the Free Patent
In the given problem, the property was already registered in to the Register of Deeds, and he was issued a corresponding
the name of Rod when he bought the same from the latter. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 375, Subsequently,
Thus, Don could be considered as a buyer in good faith and Nestor sold the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was
for value. However, since Rod did not actually sell any submitted to the Register of Deeds and on the basis thereof,
property to him, Don has no right to retain ownership over OCT No, 375 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title
the property. He has only the right to recover the purchase (TCT) No. 4576 was issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986,
price plus damages. the Director of Lands filed a complaint for annulment of
OCT No, 375 and TCT No. 4576 on the ground that Nestor
Forgery; Innocent Purchaser; Mirror Principle (1991) obtained the Free Patent through fraud. Eddie filed a motion
Bruce is the registered owner, of a parcel of land with a to dismiss on the ground that he was an innocent purchaser
building thereon and is in peaceful possession thereof. He for value and in good faith and as such, he has acquired a title
pays the real estate taxes and collects the rentals therefrom. to the property which is valid, unassailable and indefeasible.
Later, Catalino, the only brother of Bruce, filed a petition Decide the motion. (5%)
where he, misrepresenting to be the attorney-in-fact of Bruce SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and falsely alleging that the certificate of title was lost, The motion of Nestor to dismiss the complaint for annulment
succeeded in obtaining a second owner's duplicate copy of of O.C.T. No. 375 and T.C.T. No. 4576 should be denied for
the title and then had the same transferred in his name the following reasons: 1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an
through a simulated deed of sale in his favor. Catalino then innocent
mortgaged the property to Desiderio who had the mortgage purchaser for value nor can he interpose the defense of
annotated on the title. Upon learning of the fraudulent indefeasibility of his title, because his TCT is rooted on a
transaction, Bruce filed a complaint against Catalino and void title. Under Section 91 of CA No. 141, as amended,
Desiderio to have the title of Catalino and the mortgage in otherwise known as the Public Land Act, statements of
favor of Desiderio declared null and void. Will the complaint material facts in the applications for public land must be
prosper, or will the title of Catalino and the mortgage to under oath. Section 91 of the same act provides that such
Desiderio be sustained? statements shall be considered as essential conditions and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: parts of the concession, title, or permit issued, any false
The complaint for the annulment of Catalino's Title will statement therein, or omission of facts shall ipso facto
prosper. In the first place, the second owner's copy of the produce the cancellation of the concession. The patent
title secured by him from the Land Registration Court is void issued to Nestor in this case is void ab initio not only
ab initio, the owner's copy thereof having never been lost, let because it was obtained by fraud but also because it
alone the fact that said second owner's copy of the title was covers 30 hectares which is far beyond the maximum of
fraudulently procured and improvidently issued by the Court. 24 hectares provided by the free patent law.
In the second place, the Transfer Certificate of Title procured
by Catalino is equally null and void, it having been issued on 2) The government can seek annulment of the original
the basis of a simulated or forged Deed of Sale. A forged and transfer certificates of title and the reversion of the land
deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. The mortgage to the state. Eddie's defense is untenable. The protection
in favor of Desiderio is likewise null and void because the afforded by the Torrens System to an innocent purchaser for
mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property. While value can be availed of only if the land has been titled thru
it may be true that under the "Mirror Principle" of the Torrens judicial proceedings where the issue of fraud becomes
System of Land Registration, a buyer or mortgagee has the academic after the lapse of one (1) year from the issuance of
right to rely on what appears on the Certificate of Title, and the decree of registration. In public land grants, the action of
in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, is under no the government to annul a title fraudulently obtained does
obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the not prescribe such action and will not be barred by the
mortgagor's title, this rule does not find application in the transfer of the title to an innocent purchaser for value.
case at hand because here. Catalino's title suffers from two
fatal infirmities, namely: a) The fact that it emanated from a
forged deed of a Homestead Patents; Void Sale (1999)
In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homestead patent to
simulated sale; b) The fact that it was derived from a A. Three years later, A sold the homestead to B. A died in
fraudulently 1990, and his heirs filed an action to recover the homestead
procured or improvidently issued second owner's copy, from B on the ground that its sale by their father to the latter
the real owner's copy being still intact and in the is void under Section 118 of the Public Land Law. B
possession of the true owner, Bruce. contends, however, that the heirs of A cannot recover the
Page 71 of 119
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
homestead from him anymore because their action has Cesar bought a residential condominium unit from High
prescribed and that furthermore, A was in pari delicto. Rise Co. and paid the price in full. He moved into the unit, but
Decide. (5%) somehow he was not given the Condominium Certificate of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Title covering the property. Unknown to him, High Rise Co.
The sale of the land by A to B 3 years after issuance of the subsequently mortgaged the entire condominium building to
homestead patent, being in violation of Section 118 of the Metrobank as security for a loan of P500 million. High Rise
Public Land Act, is void from its inception. Co. failed to pay the loan and the bank foreclosed the
mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, the bank acquired the
The action filed by the heirs of B to declare the nullity or building, being the highest bidder. When Cesar learned about
inexistence of the contract and to recover the land should be this, he filed an action to annul the foreclosure sale insofar as
given due course. his unit was concerned. The bank put up the defense that it
relied on the condominium certificates of title presented by
B's defense of prescription is untenable because an action High Rise Co., which were clean. Hence, it was a mortgagee
which seeks to declare the nullity or inexistence of A contract and buyer in good faith. Is this defense tenable or not? Why?
does not prescribe. (Article 1410; Banaga vs. Soler, 2 8CRA (5%.)
765) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Metrobank's defense is untenable. As a rule, an innocent
On the other hand, B's defense of pari delicto is equally purchaser for value acquires a good and a clean title to the
untenable. While as a rule, parties who are in pari delicto have property. However, it is settled that one who closes his eyes
no recourse against each other on the principle that a to facts that should put a reasonable man on guard is not an
transgressor cannot profit from his own wrongdoing, such innocent purchaser for value. In the present problem the
rule does not apply to violations of Section 118 of the Public bank is expected, as a matter of standard operating procedure,
Land Act because of the underlying public policy in the said to have conducted an ocular inspection, of the promises
Act "to conserve the land which a homesteader has acquired by gratuitous before granting any loan. Apparently, Metrobank did not
grant from the government for himself and his family". In keeping with follow this procedure. Otherwise, it should have discovered
this policy, it has been held that one who purchases a that the condominium unit in question was occupied by Cesar
homestead within the five-year prohibitory period can only and that fact should have led it to make further inquiry.
recover the price which he has paid by filing a claim against Under the circumstances, Metrobank cannot be considered a
the estate of the deceased seller (Labrador vs. Delos Santos 66 mortgagee and buyer in good faith.
Phil. 579) under the principle that no one shall enrich himself
at the expense of another. Applying the pari delicto rule to Mirror Principle (1990)
violation of Section 118 of the Public Land Act, the Court of In 1950's, the Government acquired a big landed estate in
Appeals has ruled that "the homesteader suffers the loss of Central Luzon from the registered owner for subdivision into
the fruits realized by the vendee who in turn forfeits the small farms and redistribution of bonafide occupants, F was
improvement that he has introduced into the land." (Obot vs. a former lessee of a parcel of land, five hectares in area. After
SandadiUas, 69 OG, April 35, 1966} completion of the resurvey and subdivision, F applied to buy
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the said land in accordance with the guidelines of the
The action to declare the nullity of the sale did not prescribe implementing agency. Upon full payment of the price in
(Art. 1410}, such sale being one expressly prohibited and 1957, the corresponding deed of absolute sale was executed
declared void by the Public Lands Act [Art. 1409, par. (7)]. in his favor and was registered, and in 1961, a new title was
The prohibition of the law is clearly for the protection of the issued in his name. In 1963, F sold the said land to X; and in
heirs of A such that their recovering the property would 1965 X sold it to Y, new titles were successively issued in the
enhance the public policy regarding ownership of lands names of the said purchasers.
acquired by homestead patent (Art. 1416). The defense of
pari delicto is not applicable either, since the law itself allows In 1977, C filed an action to annul the deeds of sale to F, X
the homesteader to reacquire the land even if it has been sold. and Y and their titles, on the ground that he (C) had been in
actual physical possession of the land, and that the sale to F
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
and the subsequent sales should be set aside on the ground of
Prescription does not arise with respect to actions to declare a
fraud. Upon motion of defendants, the trial court dismissed
void contract a nullity (Article 1410). Neither is the doctrine
the complaint, upholding their defenses of their being
of pari delicto applicable because of public policy. The law is
innocent purchasers for value, prescription and laches.
designed for the protection of the plaintiff so as to enhance
Plaintiff appealed.
the public policy of the Public Land Act to give land to the (a) Is the said appeal meritorious? Explain your
landless. (b) Suppose the government agency concerned joined C in
answer
filing the said action against the defendants, would that
If the heirs are not allowed to recover, it could be on the
change the result of the litigation? Explain.
ground of laches inasmuch as 40 years had elapsed and the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
owner had not brought any action against B especially if the (a) The appeal is not meritorious. The trial court ruled
latter had improved the land. It would be detrimental to B if correctly in granting defendant's motion to dismiss for the
the plaintiff is allowed to recover. following reasons:
1. While there is the possibility that F, a former lessee of the
Innocent Purchaser for Value (2001) land was aware of the fact that C was the bona fide
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
occupant thereof and for this reason his transfer certificate required to explore beyond what the record in the registry
of title may be vulnerable, the transfer of the same land and indicates on its face in quest for any hidden defect or
the issuance of new TCTs to X and Y who are innocent inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his right
purchasers for value render the latter's titles indefeasible. A thereto. This is the "mirror principle' of the Torrens system
person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the which makes it possible for a forged deed to be the root of a
correctness of the certificate of title and the law will not in good title.
any way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine
the condition of the property in search for any hidden defect Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are guilty of
or inchoate right which may later invalidate or diminish the contributory negligence when they delivered this OCT to the
right to the land. This is the mirror principle of the Torrens mortgagee without annotating the mortgage thereon.
System of land registration. Between them and the innocent purchaser for value, they
should bear the loss.
1. The action to annul the sale was instituted in 1977 or more ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
than (10) years from the date of execution thereof in 1957, If the buyer B, who relied on the teller A's title, was not
hence, it has long prescribed. aware of the adverse possession of the land by the spouses X
2. Under Sec 45 of Act 496, ―the entry of a certificate of title and Y, then the latter cannot recover the property from
shall be regarded as an agreement running with the land, and B. B has in his favor the presumption of good faith which
binding upon the applicant and all his successors in title that can only be overthrown by adequate proof of bad faith.
the land shall be and always remain registered land. A title However, nobody buys land without seeing the property,
under Act 496 is indefeasible and to preserve that character, the hence, B could not have been unaware of such adverse
title is cleansed anew with every transfer for value (De Jesus v possession. If after learning of such possession, B simply
City of Manila; 29 Phil. 73; Laperal v City of Manila, 62 Phil 313;closed his eyes and did nothing about it, then the suit for
Penullar v PNB 120 S 111). reconveyance will prosper as the buyer's bad faith will have
become evident.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Notice of Lis Pendens (1995)

(b) Even if the government joins C, this will not alter the Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land
outcome of the case so much because of estoppel as an in Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, the legitimate owner
express provision in Sec 45 of Act 496 and Sec 31 of PD of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by
1529 that a decree of registration and the certificate of title Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for
issued in pursuance thereof ―shall be conclusive upon and reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis
against all persons, including the national government and all pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel
branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that
application or not.‖ one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks
the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens. May the court
Mirror Principle; Forgery; Innocent Purchaser (1999) cancel the notice of lis pendens even before final judgment is
The spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of registered land to rendered? Explain.
A, delivering as well the OCT to the latter, but they
continued to possess and cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
each harvest to A in partial payment of their loan to the A Notice of Lis Pendens may be canceled even before final
latter, A, however, without the knowledge of X and Y, forged Judgment upon proper showing that the notice is for the
a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in favor of himself, got a purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse party or that
TCT in his name, and then sold the land to B, who bought the notice of lis pendens is not necessary to protect the right
the land relying on A's title, and who thereafter also got a of the party who caused it to be registered. (Section 77,
TCT in his name. It was only then that the spouses X and Y P.D. No. 1529)
learned that their land had been titled in B's name. May said
spouses file an action for reconveyance of the land in In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the legitimate owner of
question against b? Reason. (5%) the land in question. It can be said, therefore, that when she
SUGGESTED ANSWER: filed her notice of lis pendens her purpose was to protect her
The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance of the interest in the land and not just to molest Rommel. It is
land will not prosper because B has acquired a clean title to necessary to record the Lis pendens to protect her interest
the property being an innocent purchaser for value. because if she did not do it, there is a possibility that the land
will fall into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value and
A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. The in that event, the court loses control over the land making
fact that the forged deed was registered and a certificate of any favorable judgment thereon moot and academic. For
title was issued in his name, did not operate to vest upon an these reasons, the notice of lis pendens may not be canceled.
ownership over the property of X and Y. The registration of
the forged deed will not cure the infirmity. However, once the
title to the land is registered in the name of the forger and title Notice of Lis Pendens; Transferee Pendente Lite (2002)
to the land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a parcel of land.
purchaser for value, the latter acquires a clean title thereto. A Sancho sold the property to Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and
buyer of a registered land is not Bart for annulment of the sale and reconveyance of the
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
property based on the fact that the sale included his one- the obligation. However, the action was brought within the
half pro-indiviso share. Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens ten-year prescriptive period provided by law wherein actions
annotated on the title covering the property and ordered the based on written contracts can be instituted. a) Will the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis defense prosper? Reason. (3%) b) What are the essential
pendens could not be cancelled immediately because the title elements of laches? (2%)
over the property was with a bank to which the property had SUGGESTED ANSWER:
been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico appealed the case. While No, the defense will not prosper. The problem did not give
the appeal was pending and with the notice of lis pendens still facts from which laches may be inferred. Mere delay in filing
uncancelled, Bart sold the property to Carlos, who an action, standing alone, does not constitute laches (Agra v.
immediately caused the cancellation of the notice of lis PNB. 309 SCRA 509).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
pendens, as well as the issuance of a new title in his name. Is
b) The four basic elements of laches are; (1) conduct on the
Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) a transferee
part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving
pendente lite? If your answer is (a), how can the right of
rise to the situation of which complainant seeks a remedy; (2)
Pacifico as co-owner be protected? Explain. (5%)
delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant
SUGGESTED ANSWER: having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct
A. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of lis pendens and having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit; (3)
was still annotated at the back of the title at the time he lack of knowledge on the part of the defendant that the
bought the land from Bart. The uncancelled notice of lis complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit;
pendens operates as constructive notice of its contents as and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief
well as interests, legal or equitable, included therein. All is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be
persons are charged with the knowledge of what it contains. barred.
In an earlier case, it was held that a notice of an adverse claim
remains effective and binding notwithstanding the lapse of Prescription & Laches; Indefeasibility Rule of Torrens Title
the 30 days from its inscription in the registry. This ruling is (2002)
even more applicable in a lis pendens. Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of Verde
Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10-hectare property belonging
Carlos is a transferee pendente lite insofar as Sancho’s share to their conjugal partnership. The sale was made without
in the co-ownership in the land is concerned because the land Winda’s knowledge, much less consent. In 1950, Winda
was transferred to him during the pendency of the appeal. learned of the sale, when she discovered the deed of sale
among the documents in her husband’s vault after his demise.
B. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by pursuing Soon after, she noticed that the construction of the sports
his appeal; asking the Court of Appeals to order the complex had started. Upon completion of the construction in
re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title of Carlos; and by 1952, she tried but failed to get free membership privileges in
invoking his right of redemption of Bart’s share under Verde.
Articles 1620 of the New Civil Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Winda now files a suit against Verde for the annulment of the
A. Carlos is a purchaser in good faith. A possessor in good sale on the ground that she did not consent to the sale. In
faith has been defined as ―one who is unaware that there answer, Verde contends that, in accordance with the Spanish
exists a flaw which invalidates his acquisition of the thing‖ Civil Code which was then in force, the sale in 1948 of the
(Art. 526, NCC). Good faith consists in the possessor’s belief property did not need her concurrence. Verde contends that
that the person from whom he received the thing was the in any case the action has prescribed or is barred by laches.
owner of the same and could convey his title. In the case [at Winda rejoins that her Torrens title covering the property is
bar], in question, while Carlos bought the subject property indefeasible, and imprescriptible.
from Bart while a notice of lis pendens was still annotated A. Define or explain the term ―laches‖. (2%)
thereon, there was also an existing court order canceling the B. Decide the case, stating your reasons for your decision.
same. Hence, Carlos cannot be considered as being ―aware of (3%)
a flaw which invalidates [their] the acquisition of the thing‖ SUGGESTED ANSWER:
since the alleged flaw, the notice of lis pendens, was already A. LACHES means failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
being ordered cancelled at the time of the purchase. On this unexplained length of time, to do what, by exercising due
ground alone, Carlos can already be considered a buyer in diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is
good faith. (Po Lam v. Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA 86, negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
[2000]). time. (De Vera v. CA, 305 SCRA 624 [1999])

B. To protect his right over the subject property, Pacifico B. While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code did not
should have timely filed an action for reconveyance and require the consent of the wife for the validity of the sale, an
reinstated the notice of lis pendens. alienation by the husband in fraud of the wife is void as held
in Uy Coque v. Navas, 45 Phil. 430 (1923). Assuming that the
Prescription & Laches; Elements of Laches (2000) alienation in 1948 was in fraud of Winda and, therefore,
In an action brought to collect a sum of money based on a makes the sale to Verde void, the action to set aside the sale,
surety agreement, the defense of laches was raised as the nonetheless, is already barred by
claim was filed more than seven years from the maturity of
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
prescription and laches. More than 52 years have already (a) The mortgage contract executed by O, if at all, is only a
elapsed from her discovery of the sale in 1950. voidable contract since it involves a conjugal partnership
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: property. The action to annul the same instituted in 1977, or
B. Winda’s claim that her Torrens Title covering the property eleven years after the execution of the sheriff's final sale, has
is indefeasible and imprescriptible [does not hold water] is not obviously prescribed because: 1) An action to annul a
tenable. The rule of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title contract on the ground of fraud
means that after one year from the date of issue of the decree must be brought within four (4) years from the date of
of registration or if the land has fallen into the hands of an discovery of the fraud. Since this is in essence an action
innocent purchaser for value, the title becomes incontestable to recover ownership, it must be reckoned from the
and incontrovertible. date of execution of the contract or from the registration
of the alleged fraudulent document with the assessor's
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY, on the other hand, means that no office for the purpose of transferring the tax declaration,
title to the land in derogation of that of the registered owner this being unregistered land, (Bael u. Intermediate
may be acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive Appellate Court G. R. L-74423 Jan.30, 1989 169 SCRA 617).
prescription or that the registered owner does not lose by
extinctive prescription his right to recover ownership and 2) If the action is to be treated as an action to recover
possession of the land. ownership of land, it would have prescribed just the same
because more than 10 years have already elapsed since the
The action in this case is for annulment of the sale executed by date of the execution of the sale.
the husband over a conjugal partnership property covered by a SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Torrens Title. Action on contracts are subject to (a) The action to recover has been barred by acquisitive
prescription. prescription in favor of M considering that M has possessed
the land under a claim of ownership for ten (10) years with a
Prescription (1990) just title.
In 1960, an unregistered parcel of land was mortgaged by
owner O to M, a family friend, as collateral for a loan. O acted (b) If M had secured a Torrens Title to the land, all the more
through his attorney-in-fact, son S, who was duly authorized S and P could not recover because if at all their remedies
by way of a special power of attorney, wherein O declared would be:
that he was the absolute owner of the land, that the tax
declarations/receipts were all issued in his name, and that he 1. A Petition to Review the Decree of Registration. This can
has been in open, continuous and adverse possession in the be availed of within one (1) year from-the entry thereof, but
concept of owner. only upon the basis of "actual fraud." There is no showing
that M committed actual fraud in securing his title to the
As O was unable to pay back the loan plus interest for the land; or
past five [5) years, M had to foreclose the mortgage. At the 2. An action in personam against M for the reconveyance of
foreclosure sale, M was the highest bidder. Upon issuance of the title in their favor. Again, this remedy is available within
the sheriff’s final deed of sale and registration in January, four years from the date of the discovery of the fraud but not
1966, the mortgage property was turned over to M's later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of the
possession and control M has since then developed the said title in the name of M.
property. In 1967, O died, survived by sons S and P.
Prescription; Real Rights (1992)
In 1977, after the tenth (10th) death anniversary of his father A owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the Tarlac
O. son P filed a suit to annul the mortgage deed and side of the boundary between Tarlac and Pangasinan. His
subsequent sale of the property, etc., on the ground of fraud. brother B owned the adjoining parcel of unregistered land on
He asserted that the property in question was conjugal in the Pangasinan side.
nature actually belonging, at the time of the mortgage, to O
and his wife, W, whose conjugal share went to their sons (S A sold the Tarlac parcel to X in a deed of sale executed as a
and P) and to O. public instrument by A and X. After X paid in full the, price
(a) Is the suit filed by P barred by prescription? Explain your of the sale, X took possession of the Pangasinan parcel in the
answer. belief that it was the Tarlac parcel covered by the deed of
(b) After the issuance of the sheriff's final deed of sale in sale executed by A and X.
1966 in this case, assuming that M applied for registration
under the Torrens System and was issued a Torrens Title to After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose between B and X
the said property in question, would that added fact have any on the issue of the ownership of the Pangasinan parcel, B
significant effect on your conclusion? State your reason. claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel
SUGGESTED ANSWER: because B never sold that parcel to X or to anyone else.
(a) Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the action is barred by
prescription because the wife had only ten (10) years from
the transaction and during the marriage to file a suit for the On the other hand, X claims a vested right of ownership over
annulment of the mortgage deed. Alternative Answers to (a) the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription, because X
first Alternative Answer: possessed this parcel for over ten (10] years under claim of
ownership.
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
Decide on these claims, giving your reasons. The right to recover possession of registered land likewise
SUGGESTED ANSWER: does not prescribe because possession is just a necessary
At this point in time, X cannot claim the right of vested incident of ownership.
ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive
prescription. In addition to the requisites common to ordinary SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and extraordinary acquisitive prescription consisting of b) Mikaelo's defense of laches, however, appears to be more
uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual possession sustainable. Renren bought the land and had the sale
in the concept of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription for registered way back in 1965. From the facts, it appears that it
ten (10) years requires (1) possession in good faith and (2) just was only in 1998 or after an inexplicable delay of 33 years that
title. "Just title" means that the adverse claimant came into he took the first step asserting his right to the land. It was not
possession of the property through one of the modes even an action to recover ownership but only possession of
recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership but the the land. By ordinary standards, 33 years of neglect or
grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right (Art. inaction is too long and maybe considered unreasonable. As
1129. Civil Code). In this case, there is no "just title" and no often held by the Supreme Court, the principle of
"mode" that can be invoked by X for the acquisition of the imprescriptibility sometimes has to yield to the equitable
Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive delivery of the principle of laches which can convert even a registered land
Pangasinan parcel because it was not the subject-matter of the owner's claim into a stale demand.
deed of sale. Hence, B retains ownership of the Pangasinan
parcel of land. Mikaelo's claim of laches, however, is weak insofar as the
element of equity is concerned, there being no showing in
the facts how he entered into the ownership and possession
Primary Entry Book; Acquisitive Prescription; Laches (1998) of the land.

In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of registered Reclamation of Foreshore Lands; Limitations (2000)
land evidenced by a duly executed deed of sale. The owner Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and chartered
presented the deed of sale and the owner's certificate of title cities to reclaim foreshore lands bordering them and to
to the Register of Deeds. The entry was made in the daybook construct thereon adequate docking and harbor facilities.
and corresponding fees were paid as evidenced by official Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered into an agreement
receipt. However, no transfer of certificate of title was issued with the Fil-Estate Realty Company, authorizing the latter to
to Renren because the original certificate of title in Robyn's reclaim 300 hectares of land from the sea bordering the city,
name was temporarily misplaced after fire partly gutted the with 30% of the land to be reclaimed to be owned by
Office of the Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the land had Fil-Estate as compensation for its services. The Solicitor
been possessed by Robyn's distant cousin, Mikaelo, openly, General questioned the validity of the agreement on the
adversely and continuously in the concept of owner since ground that it will mean reclaiming land under the sea which
1960. It was only in April 1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to is beyond the commerce of man. The City replies that this is
recover possession. Mikaelo invoked a) acquisitive authorized by RA. 1899 because it authorizes the construction
prescription and b) laches, asking that he be declared owner of docks and harbors. Who is correct? (3%)
of the land. Decide the case by evaluating these defenses,
[5%] SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the City of
a) Renren's action to recover possession of the land will Cavite under RA 1899 to reclaim land is limited to foreshore
prosper. In 1965, after buying the land from Robyn, he lands. The Act did not authorize it to reclaim land from the
submitted the Deed of Sale to the Registry of Deeds for sea. "The reclamation being unauthorized, the City of Cavite
registration together with the owner's duplicate copy of the did not acquire ownership over the reclaimed land. Not being
title, and paid the corresponding registration fees. Under the owner, it could not have conveyed any portion thereof to
Section 56 of PD No. 1529, the Deed of Sale to Renren is the contractor.
considered registered from the time the sale was entered in ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the Day Book (now called the Primary Entry Book). It depends. If the reclamation of the land from the sea is
necessary in the construction of the docks and the harbors,
For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is considered the the City of Cavite is correct. Otherwise, it is not. Since RA
registered owner of the land. After all, it was not his fault that 1899 authorized the city to construct docks and harbors, all
the Registry of Deeds could not issue the corresponding works that are necessary for such construction are deemed
transfer certificate of title. authorized. Including the reclamation of land from the sea.
The reclamation being authorized, the city is the owner of
Mikaelo's defense of prescription can not be sustained. A the reclaimed land and it may convey a portion thereof as
Torrens title is imprescriptible. No title to registered land in payment for the services of the contractor.
derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
acquired by prescription or adverse possession. (Section 47, On the assumption that the reclamation contract was entered
P.D. No, 1529) into before RA 1899 was repealed by PD 3-A, the City of
Cavite is correct. Lands under the sea are "beyond the
commerce of man" in the sense that they are not susceptible of
private appropriation, ownership or
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
alienation. The contract in question merely calls for the answer or show up on the date of initial hearing, does not
reclamation of 300 hectares of land within the coastal waters guarantee the success of the application. It is still incumbent upon
of the city. Per se, it does not vest, alienate or transfer the applicant to prove with well nigh incontrovertible evidence that
he has acquired a title to the land that is fit for registration. Absent
ownership of land under the sea. The city merely engaged the such registrable title, it is the clear duty of the Land Registration
services of Fil-Estate to reclaim the land for the city. Court to dismiss the application and declare the land as public
land.

Registration; Deed of Mortgage (1994)

How do you register now a deed of mortgage of a parcel of An application for land registration is a proceeding in rem. Its
land originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law? main objective is to establish the status of the res whether it is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: still part of our public domain as presumed under the
a) After the Spanish Mortgage Law was abrogated by P.D. Regalian doctrine or has acquired the character of a private
892 on February 16, 1976, all lands covered by Spanish titles property. It is the duty of the applicant to overcome that
that were not brought under the Torrens system within six presumption with sufficient evidence.
16] months from the date thereof have been considered as
"unregistered private lands." Remedies; Judicial Reconstitution of Title (1996)
In 1989, the heirs of Gavino, who died on August 10, 1987,
Thus, a deed of mortgage affecting land originally registered filed a petition for reconstitution of his lost or destroyed
under the Spanish Mortgage Law is now governed by the Torrens Title to a parcel of land in Ermita, Manila. This was
system of registration of transactions or instruments affecting opposed by Marilou who claimed ownership of the said land
unregistered land under Section 194 of the Revised by a series of sales. She claimed that Gavino had sold the
Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3344. Under this property to Bernardo way back in 1941 and as evidence
law, the instrument or transaction affecting unregistered land thereof, she presented a Tax Declaration in 1948 in the name
is entered in a book provided for the purpose but the of Bernardo, which cancelled the previous Tax Declaration in
registration thereof is purely voluntary and does not adversely the name of Gavino. Then she presented two deeds of sale
affect third persons who have a better right. duly registered with the Register of Deeds, the first one
executed by Bernardo in 1954 selling the same property to
b) By recording and registering with the Register of Deeds of Carlos, and the second one executed by Carlos in 1963, selling
the place where the land is located, in accordance with Act the same property to her. She also claimed that she and her
3344. However, P.D. 892 required holders of Spanish title to predecessors in interest have been in possession of the
bring the same under the Torrens System within 6 months property since 1948. If you were the judge, how will you
from its effectivity on February 16, 1976. decide the petition? Explain.
Remedies; Judicial Confirmation; Imperfect Title (1993)
On June 30, 1986, A filed in the RTC of Abra an application SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for registration of title to a parcel of land under If I were the judge, I will give due course to the petition of
P. D. No. 1529, claiming that since June 12, 1945, he has been the heirs of Gavino despite the opposition of Marilou for the
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and following reasons: a) Judicial reconstitution of a certificate of
occupation of said parcel of land of the public domain which title under RA.
was alienable and disposable, under a bona fide claim of No. 26 partakes of a land registration proceeding and is
ownership. After issuance of the notice of initial hearing and perforce a proceeding in rem. It denotes restoration of
publication, as required by law, the petition was heard on July an existing instrument which has been lost or destroyed
29, 1987. On the day of the hearing nobody but the applicant in its original form and condition. The purpose of
appeared. Neither was there anyone who opposed the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the
application. Thereupon, on motion of the applicant, the RTC same reproduced, after proceedings. In the same form
issued an order of general default and allowed the applicant to they were when the loss or destruction occurred.
present his evidence. That he did. On September 30, 1989, the b) If the Court goes beyond that purpose, it acts
RTC dismissed A's application for lack of sufficient evidence. without or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, where the Torrens
A appealed to the Court of Appeals. Title sought to be reconstituted is in the name of Gavino, the
court cannot receive evidence proving that Marilou is the
owner of the land. Marilou's dominical claim to the land
The appellant urged that the RTC erred in dismissing his should be ventilated in a separate civil action before the
application for registration and in not ordering registration of Regional Trial Court in its capacity as a court of general
his title to the parcel of land in question despite the fact that jurisdiction.
there was no opposition filed by anybody to his application. REFERENCES: Heirs of Pedro Pinate vs. Dulay. 187 SCRA 12-20
Did the RTC commit the error attributed to it? (1990); Bunagan vs. CF1 Cebu Branch VI. 97 SCRA 72 (1980);
Republic vs. IAC. 157 SCRA 62,66 (1988); Margolles vs. CA, 230
SCRA 709; Republic us, Feliciano, 148 SCRA 924.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the RTC did not commit the error attributed to it. In an
application for Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title Remedies; Procedure; Consulta (1994)
to public agricultural land under Section 48 of the Public Land Act, What is the procedure of consulta when an instrument is
the lack of opposition and the consequent order of default against denied registration?
those who did not SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
1) The Register of Deeds shall notify the interested (a) An action for reconveyance against Huey is not the proper
party in writing, setting forth the defects of the instrument or remedy, because Huey is an innocent purchaser for value. The
the legal ground relied upon for denying the registration, and proper recourse is for Louie to go after Dewey for damages
advising that if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, by reason of the fraudulent registration and subsequent sale
without withdrawing the documents from the Registry, elevate of the land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim
the matter by Consulta to the Administrator of the Land against the Assurance Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De
Registration Authority (LRA). Castro 324 SCRA 591 [2000] citing Sps.
Eduarte v. CA, 323 Phil. 462, 467 [1996]).
2) Within five {5) days from receipt of notice of
denial, the party-in-interest shall file his Consulta with the (b) Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action prescribes
Register of Deeds concerned and pay the consulta fee. in ten (10) years, not within one (1) year when a petition for
3) After receipt of the Consulta and payment of the the reopening of the registration decree may be filed. The
corresponding fee the Register of Deeds makes an annotation action for reconveyance is distinct from the petition to
of the pending consulta at the back of the certificate of title. reopen the decree of registration (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17
Phil. 49 [1910}). There is no need to reopen the registration
4) The Register of Deeds then elevates the case to the proceedings, but the property should just be reconveyed to
LRA Administrator with certified records thereof and a the real owner.
summary of the facts and issues involved.
5) The LRA Administrator then conducts hearings The action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive
after due notice or may just require parties to submit their trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of issuance
memoranda. of the original certificate of title. This rule assumes that the
6) After hearing, the LRA Administrator issues an defendant is in possession of the land. Where it is the plaintiff
order prescribing the step to be taken or the memorandum to who is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance
be made. His resolution in consulta shall be conclusive and would be in the nature of a suit for quieting for the title which
binding upon all Registers of Deeds unless reversed on appeal action is imprescriptible (David
by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court. (Section v. Malay, 318 SCRA 711 [1999]).
117, P.D. 1529).
Remedies; Reconveyance; Elements (1995)
• The procedure of consulta is a mode of appeal from denial Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land
by the Register of Deeds of the registration of the instrument to thein Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, the legitimate owner
Commissioner of Land Registration. of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by
• Within five days from receipt of the notice of denial, the Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for
interested party may elevate the matter by consulta to the reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis
Commissioner of Land Registration who shall enter an order pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that
Resolution in consulta shall be binding upon all Registers of Deedsone year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks
provided that the party in interest may appeal to the Court of the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens. Will Rachelle's
Appeals within the period prescribed (Sec. 117, P.D. 1529). suit for reconveyance prosper? Explain.

Remedies; Reconveyance vs. Reopening of a Decree;

Prescriptive Period (2003)
Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a
five-star hotel in New York, U.S.A., entrusted to his
first-degree cousin Dewey an application for registration,
under the Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located in
Bacolod City. A year later, Louie returned to the Philippines
and discovered that Dewey registered the land and obtained
an Original Certificate of Title over the property in his
Dewey’s name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the
land to Huey, an innocent purchaser for value. Louie
promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel of
land against Huey.
(a) Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy?
(b) Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will
the action prosper if the case was filed beyond one year, but
within ten years, from the entry of the decree of registration?
5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Rachelle's suit will prosper because all elements for an
action for reconveyance are present, namely: a) Rachelle is
claiming dominical rights over the same
land. b) Rommel procured his title to the land by fraud. c)
The action was brought within the statutory period of

four (4) years from discovery of the fraud and not later
than ten (10} years from the date of registration of
Rommel's title. d) Title to the land has not passed into the
hands of an
innocent purchaser for value.

Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if Rachelle

had filed a petition to reopen or review the decree of
registration. But Rachelle instead filed an ordinary action in
personam for reconveyance. In the latter action, indefeasibility
is not a valid defense because, in filing such action, Rachelle is
not seeking to nullify nor to impugn the indefeasibility of
Rommel's title. She is only asking the court to compel Rommel
to reconvey the title to her as the legitimate owner of the land.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
Yes. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust This action does not prescribe. With respect to Percival's
for the real owner by the person in whose name it is action for reconveyance, it would have prescribed, having been filed more
registered. The Torrens system was not designed to shield than ten (10) years after registration and issuance of an O.C.T. in the
one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus name of Melvin, were it not for the inherent infirmity of the latter's title.
holds the title in bad faith. (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr., (G .R 38387, Under the facts, the statute of limitations will not apply to Percival
29 Jan. 1990) as cited in Martinez, D., Summary of SC because Melvin knew that a part of the land covered by his title actually
Decisions, January to June, 1990, p. 359], belonged to Percival. So, instead of nullifying in toto the title of Melvin,
the court, in the exercise of equity and jurisdiction, may grant prayer for
Remedies; Reconveyance; Prescriptive Period (1997) the reconveyance of Lot B to Percival who has actually possessed the land
On 10 September 1965, Melvin applied for a free patent under a claim of ownership since 1947. After all, if Melvin's title is
covering two lots - Lot A and Lot B - situated in Santiago, declared void ab initio and the land is reverted to the public domain,
Isabela. Upon certification by the Public Land Inspector that Percival would just the same be entitled to preference right to acquire the
Melvin had been in actual, continuous, open, notorious, land from the government. Besides, well settled is the rule that once
exclusive and adverse possession of the lots since 1925, the public land has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
Director of Land approved Melvin's application on 04 June possession under a bonafide claim of acquisition of ownership for the
1967. On 26 December 1967, Original Certificate of Title period prescribed by Section 48 of the Public Land Act, the same ipso
(OCT) No. P-2277 was issued in the name of Melvln. jure ceases to be public and in contemplation of law acquired the
character of private land. Thus, reconveyance of the land from Melvin to
On 7 September 1971, Percival filed a protest alleging that Percival would be the better procedure, (Vitale vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 855;
Lot B which he had been occupying and cultivating since Pena, Land Titles and Deeds, 1982, Page 427)
1947 was included in the Free Patent issued in the name of
Melvin. The Director of Lands ordered the investigation of
Percival's protest. The Special Investigator who conducted
the investigation found that Percival had been in actual
cultivation of Lot B since 1947. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The action of the Solicitor General should prosper,
On 28 November 1986, the Solicitor General filed in behalf considering that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title does not
of the Republic of the Philippines a complaint for cancellation apply to free patent secured through fraud. A certificate of
of the free patent and the OCT issued in the name of Melvin title cannot be used as shield to perpetuate fraud. The State is
and the reversion of the land to public domain on the ground not bound by the period of prescription stated in Sec. 38 of
of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the free patent. Act 496. (Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358)
On the same date, Percival sued Martin for the reconveyance
of Lot B.
The action for reconveyance filed by Percival may still prosper
Melvin filed his answers interposing the sole defense in both provided that the property has not passed to an innocent third party
cases that the Certificate of Title issued in his name became for value (Dablo us. Court of Appeals. 226 SCRA 618), and provided
incontrovertible and indefeasible upon the lapse of one year that the action is filed within the prescriptive period of ten years
from the issuance of the free patent. (Tale vs. Court of Appeals. 208 SCRA 266). Since the action was filed
by Percival 19 years after the issuance of Melvin's title, it is submitted
Given the circumstances, can the action of the Solicitor that the same is already barred by prescription. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
General and the case for reconveyance filed by Percival (to second part of question) The action for reconveyance filed by
possibly prosper? Percival will prosper, because the land has ceased to be public land
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and has become private land by open, continuous, public, exclusive
"If fraud be discovered in the application which led to the possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for more than thirty
issuance of the patent and Certificate of Title, this Title years, and Percival is still in possession of the property at present. His
becomes ipso facto null and void. Thus, in a case where a action for reconveyance can be considered as an action to quiet title,
person who obtained a free patent, knowingly made a false which does not prescribe if the plaintiff is in possession of the
statement of material and essential facts in his application for property.
the same, by stating therein that the lot in question was part of
the public domain not occupied or claimed by any other
person, his title becomes ipso facto canceled and consequently (Olviga v. CA. GR 1048013. October 21, 1993)
rendered null and void." "It is to the public interest that one
who succeeds In fraudulently acquiring title to public land Remedies; Reopening of a Decree; Elements (1992)
should not be allowed to benefit therefrom and the State, What are the essential requisites or elements for the allowance
through the Solicitor General, may file the corresponding of the reopening or review of a decree of registration?
action for annulment of the patent and the reversion of the
land involved to the public domain" (Dinero us. Director of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lands; Kayaban vs. Republic L-33307,8-20-73; Director of The essential elements are: (1) that the petitioner has a real or
dominical right; (2) that he has been deprived thereof through
Lands us. Hon. Pedro Samson Animas, L-37682, 3-29-74.) fraud; (3) that the petition is filed within one (1) year from the
issuance of the decree; and (4) that the property has not yet
been transferred to an innocent
CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
purchaser {Rublico vs. Orellana 30 SCRA 511; Ubudan vs. Gil Administrative Code of 1987 which prohibits officers and
45 SCRA 17). employees of the government from purchasing directly or indirectly
OPTIONAL EXTENDED ANSWER: any property sold by the government for nonpayment of any tax,
Petition for review of the Decree of Registration. A remedy fee or other public charge.
expressly provided in Section 32 of P. D. No. 1529 (formerly (a) Is the sale to Juan valid? If so, what is the effect of the
Section 38. Act 496), this remedy has the following elements: Issuance of the Certificate of Title to Maria?
a) The petition must be filed by a person claiming (b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P10,000.00? If
not, why not?
dominical or other real rights to the land registered in (c) If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operate to divert
the name of respondent. Maria of her ownership? If it did, who then is the owner of
b) The registration of the land in the name of the property?
respondent was procured by means of actual, (not just SUGGESTED ANSWER:
constructive) fraud, which must be extrinsic. Fraud is actual A. The sale of the land to Juan is not valid, being contrary to
if the registration was made through deceit or any other law. Therefore, no transfer of ownership of the land was
intentional act of downright dishonesty to enrich oneself at the effected from the delinquent taxpayer to him. The original
expense of another. It is extrinsic when it is something that certificates of title obtained by Maria thru a free patent grant
was not raised, litigated and passed upon in the main from the Bureau of Lands under Chapter VII, CA 141 is
proceedings. valid but in view of her delinquency, the said title is subject to
c) The petition must be filed within one (1) year from the right of the City Government to sell the land at public
the date of the issuance of the decree. auction. The issuance of the OCT did not exempt the land
d) Title to the land has not passed to an Innocent from the tax sales. Section 44 of P.O. No. 1529 provides that
purchaser for value (Libudan vs. Gil, 45_ SCRA 27, 1972), every registered owner receiving a Certificate of Title shall
Rublico vs. Orrelana. 30 SCRA 511, 1969); RP vs. CA, 57 G. hold the same free from an encumbrances, subject to certain
R No. 40402. March 16, 1987). exemptions.

Torrens System vs. Recording of Evidence of Title (1994) B. Juan may recover because he was not a party to the
Distinguish the Torrens system of land registration from the violation of the law.
system of recording of evidence of title.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C. No, the sale did not divest Maria of her title precisely
a) The TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION is a because the sale is void. It is as good as if no sale ever took
system for the registration of title to the land. Thus, under this place. In tax sales, the owner is divested of his land initially
system what is entered in the Registry of Deeds, is a record of upon award and issuance of a Certificate of Sale, and finally
the owner's estate or interest in the land, unlike the system under after the lapse of the 1 year period from date of registration,
the Spanish Mortgage Law or the system under Section 194 of to redeem, upon execution by the treasurer of an instrument
the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Act 3344 where sufficient in form and effects to convey the property. Maria
only the evidence of such title is recorded. In the latter system, remained owner of the land until another tax sale is to be
what is recorded is the deed of conveyance from hence the performed in favor of a qualified buyer.
owner's title emanated—and not the title itself.

CONTRACTS
b) Torrens system of land registration is that which is
prescribed in Act 496 (now PD 1529), which is either Judicial Consensual vs. Real Contracts; Kinds of Real Contracts
or quasi-judicial. System or recording of evidence of title is (1998)
merely the registration of evidence of acquisitions of land Distinguish consensual from real contracts and name at least
with the Register of Deeds, who annotates the same on the four (4) kinds of real contracts under the present law. [3%]
existing title, cancels the old one and issues a new title based
on the document presented for registration. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CONSENSUAL CONTRACTS are those which are perfected
Unregistered Land (1991) by mere consent (Art. 1315. Civil Code). REAL
Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty taxes on her unregistered CONTRACTS are those which are perfected by the delivery of
agricultural land located in Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to the object of the obligation. (Art. 1316, Civil Code) Examples
satisfy the taxes due, the City sold it at public auction to Juan of real contracts are deposit, pledge, commodatum and simple
Miranda, an employee at the Treasurer's Office of said City, loan (mutuum).
whose bid at P10,000.00 was the highest. In due time, a final bill
of sale was executed in his favor. Maria refused to turn-over the Consideration; Validity (2000)
possession of the property to Juan alleging that (1) she had been, Lolita was employed in a finance company. Because she could
in the meantime, granted a free patent and on the basis thereof an not account for the funds entrusted to her, she was charged
Original Certificate of Title was issued to her, and (2) the sale in with estafa and ordered arrested. In order to secure her release
favor of Juan is void from the beginning in view of the provision in from jail, her parents executed a promissory note to pay the
the finance company the amount allegedly misappropriated by
their daughter. The finance company
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

the object." Both the equipment and the The trees, plants and flowers planted in
living quarters are permanently attached the garden area of the platform are
to the platform which is also an immovable property under Art. 415 (2)
immovable. The equipment can also be NCC which classifies as an immovable
classified as an immovable property property "trees, plants and growing
under Art. 415 (5) NCC because such fruits, while they are attached to the
equipment are "machinery, receptacles, land or form an integral part of an
instruments or implements intended by immovable, the petroleum operation
the owner of the tenement for an facility.
industry or works which may be carried
on in a building or on a piece of land and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

which tend directly to meet the needs of

The trees, plants and flowers planted in
the industry or works." It is logically
the garden area of the platform are
assumed that the petroleum industry
movable property because they are not
may be carried on in a building or on a
permanently attached t the land and do
piece of land and the platform is
not form an integral part of an
analogous to a building.
immovable. The platform is not an

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: immovable property for the same reason

already given in the Alternative Answer
The equipment and living quarters of the to Item (a) above.
crew are movable properties since they
are attached to a platform which is also Land Titles and Deeds
a movable property, because it is simply
attached to a vessel is likewise a Acquisition of Lands; Sale of Real
movable property since it was merely Property to an Alien (2009)
anchored on the seabed only shows that
it is not intended to remain at a fixed No.XIX. In 1972, Luciano de la Cruz sold to

place; hence, it remains a movable Chua Chung Chun, a Chinese citizen, a

property. parcel of land in Binondo. Chua died in

1990, leaving behind his wife and three
(C). Are the trees, plants and flowers children, one of whom, Julian, is a
immovable or movable property? naturalized Filipino citizen. Six years after
Chua’s death, the heirs executed an
SUGGESTED ANSWER: extrajudicial settlement of estate, and the
parcel of land was allocated to Julian. In

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 79 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

2007, Luciano filed suit to recover the land Non-Registrable Properties (2007)
he sold to Chua, alleging that the sale was
void because it contravened the No.IV. (B). What properties are not

Constitution which prohibits the sale of registrable? (5%)

private lands to aliens. Julian moved to

Supply this information.
dismiss the suit on grounds of pari
delicto, laches and acquisitive prescription.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Decide the case with reasons. (4%)

The following properties are not

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
registrable:

The case must be dismissed. Julian, who

(1.) Properties of the Public dominion;
is a naturialized Filipino citizen and to
whom the property was allocated in a n (2.) Properties for public use or public
extra-judicial partition of the estate, is service;
now the owner of the property. The
defect in ownership of the property of (3.) Inalienable lands of the public
Julian’s alien father has already been domain;
cured by its transfer to Julian. It has
been validated by the transfer of the (4.) Military installations, civil and quasi-

property to a Filipino citizen. Hence, public lands; and

there is no more violation of the

(5.) All lands not classified as alienable
Constitution because the subject real
and disposable.
property is now owned by a Filipino
citizen (Halili v. CA, 287 SCRA 465,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
[1998]). Further, after the lapse of 35
year, laches has set in and the motion to (1). Properties of public dominium
dismiss may be granted, for the failure of intended for public use, like roads,
Luciano to question the ownership of canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
Chua before its transfer of ownership to constructed by the State, banks, shores,
Julian. roadsteads, and the like, are incapable of
private appropriation, much less
registration (Art. 420 NCC). This includes
public markets, public plazas, municipal
streets and public buildings

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 80 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

(Municipality of Antipolo v. Zapanta, 133 (7.) Lands reclaimed by the government

SCRA 820, 1986; Martinez v. CA, 56 from the sea, lakes, or other bodies of
SCRA 647, 1974; Navera v. Quicho, 5 water are disposed or acquisible only by
SCRA 454, 1962). lease and not otherwise, under the
Public Land Act.
(2.) Lands proclaimed or classified as
forest, timberlands, mineral lands and
national parks. Under Sec 2, Art XII,
Constitution of the Philippines, these Prescription; Acquisitive Prescription

lands are inalienable. (2008)

(3.) Lands that are reserved by law or No. VII. Anthony bought a piece of untitled

Presidential proclamation for military, agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn,

civic or quasi-public purpose, Under Sec acquired the property by forging carlo's

88, Chapter XII of the Public Land Act, signature in a deed of sale over the

such lands shall be inalienable and shall property. Carlo had been in possession of

not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, the property for 8 years, declared it for tax

lease or other disposition. purposes, and religiously paid all taxes due
on the property. Anthony is not aware of
(4.) In general, all lands of the public the defect in Bert's title, but has been in
domain that has not been classified as actual physical possession of the property
alienable and disposable under the Public from the time he bought it from Bert, who
Land Act. had never been in possession of the
property for one year.
(5.) Lands that form part of the seabed,
riverbed or lakebed. These lands are not (A). Can Anthony acquire ownership of the
susceptible to private appropriation. property by acquisitive prescription? How
many more years does he have possess it to
(6.) Foreshore lands is that strip of land acquire ownership? (2%)
that lies between the high and low water
marks and alternately wet and dry SUGGESTED ANSWER:
according to the flow of the tide belong
to the public domain, and can only be Yes, Anthony can acquire ownership of

acquired by lease if not needed by the the property through acquisitive

government for public or quasi-public prescription. In the present case,

purposes. Anthony is a buyer/possessor in good

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 81 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

faith because he was not aware of the shall have a right to a part of the
defect in Bert's title (Art. 526, Civil expenses of cultivation, and to a part of
Code). As such, Anthony can acquire the net harvest of the standing crops,
ownership and other real rights over both in proportion to the time of the
immovable property through open, possession (Art 545, Civil Code).
continuous possession of 10 years (Art.
1134, Civil Code). Anthony needs nine
(9) more years of possession, in addition
Prescription; Judicially Foreclosed Real
to his one (1) year of possession in good
Property Mortgage (2012)
faith.

No.IX.a) Does the right to request for the

(B).If Carlo is able to legally recover his
issuance of a writ of possession over a
property, can he require Anthony to
foreclosed real property prescribe in five (5)
account for all the fruits he has harvested
years? (5%)
from the property while in possession? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, it prescribes in five (5) years. If the

If Carlo is able to legally recover his
real property mortgaged is judicially
property, he cannot require Anthony to
foreclosed, the action for judicial
account for all the fruits harvested from
foreclosure should be filed within a
the property. Anthony is entitled to the
period of ten (10) years. The request for
fruits harvested in good faith before his
issuance of a writ of possession should
possession was legally interrupted (Art.
be filed upon motion of the winning
544, Civil Code).
bidder within five (5) years after the
judgment of foreclosure. The writ of
(C).If there are standing crops on the
possession is an order commanding the
property when Carlo recovers possession,
sheriff to place a person named therein
can Carlo appropriate them? (2%)
in possession of real property (BPI v.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Icot. G.R. No. 168081, Oct 12, 2009).

Yes, Carlos can appropriate only a

portion of the standing crops on the
property once he recovers possession.
Anthony being a possessor in good faith,

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 82 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

Purchaser in Good Faith; Mortgaged of Deeds under Act. 3344 and obtained a
Property (2008) tax declaration in its name.

No. XIX. Juliet offered to sell her house and (A). Was Dehlma a purchaser in good faith?
lot, together with all the furniture and (2%)
appliances therein to Dehlma. Before
agreeing to purchase the property, Dehlma SUGGESTED ANSWER:

went to the Register of Deeds to verify

Yes, Dehlma is a purchaser in good faith.
Juliet's title. She discovered that while the
In the present case, before Dehlma
property was registered in Juliet's name
bought the property, she went to the
under the Land Registration Act, as
Register of Deeds to verify Juliet's title.
amended by the Property Registration
When she discovered that the property
Decree, it property, Dehlma told Juliet to
was mortgaged to Elaine, she gave an
redeem the property from Elaine, and gave
advance payment so that Juliet could
her an advance payment to be used for
release the mortgage. It was only after
purposes of realesing the mortgage on the
the mortgage was released and free from
property. When the mortgage was released,
the claims of other persons that Dehlma
Juliet executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
bought the property. Thus, Dehlma is a
over the property which was duly registered
purchaser in good faith (Mathay v. CA,
with the Registry of Deeds, and a new TCT
G.R. No. 115788, 17 Sept, 1998).
was issued in Dehlma's name. Dehlma
immediately took possession over the house
(B). Who as between Dehlma and XYZ Bank
and lot and the movables therein.
has a better right to the house and lot? (2%)
Thereafter, Dehlma went to theAssessor's
Office to get a new tax declaration under SUGGESTED ANSWER:
her name. She was surprised to find out
that the property was already declared for Between Dehlma and XYZ Bank, Dehlma
tax purposes in the name of XYZ Bank has a better right to the house and lot.
which had foreclosed the mortgage on the After the release of the mortgage, the
property before it was sold to her. XYZ Deed of Absolute Sale was registered and
Bank was also the purchaser in the a new title was issued in Dehlma's name.
foreclosure sale of the property. At that Act 3344 is applicable exclusively to
time, the property was still unregistered but instruments resulting from agreement of
XYZ Bank registered the Sheriff's Deed of parties thereto and does not apply to
Conveyance in the day book of the Register deeds of a sheriff conveying to a

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 83 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

purchaser unregistered lands sold to him land registration and acquisition of title to
under execution (Williams v. Suñer, 49 land. The manual should include the
Phil. ,534). following items:

(C). Who owns the movables inside the (A). What is the governing law? (5%)
house? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The governing law is the Land
Dehlma owns the movables because Registration Act as amended by Property
when she acquired the house and lot Registration Decree (Act 496 as amended
from Juliet, all the furniture and by PD 1529).
appliances therein were included in the
sale. As owner of the real property, [Note: It is respectfully recommended

Dehlma also owns the movables found that full credit be given to examinees

therein (Art. 542, Civil Code). who did not give the exact title or
number of the law but merely stated a
description of the law.]

Registration; Governing Law (2007) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No.IV. Bedrock Land & Property In general, the governing law relating to
Development Corp. is a development registration and acquisition of title to
company engaged in developing and selling land is Act 496 of 1902 as amended by
subdivisions, condominium units and PD 1529, otherwise known as Property
industrial estates. In order to replenish its Registration Decree of June 11, 1978.
inventories, it embarked on an aggressive
land banking program. It employed "scouts" (1.) Chapter III-I governs original

who roam all over the Philippines to look for registration of land title under the

and conduct investigations on prospective Torrens System by voluntary ordinary

sites for acquisition and development, judicial proceedings.

whether developed, semi-developed or raw

(2.) Chapter II-II governs compulsory
land. The management of Bedrock asks you
registration of lands through cadastral
as the company counsel to prepare a
proceedings.
manual containing a summary of the
pertinent laws and regulations relating to

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 84 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

(3.) Section 103 governs registration of (c) Replacement of lost or destroyed

homestead, sales, free patent under CA owner's duplicate certificate of title.
No. 141, as amended, otherwise known
as the Public Land Act. (9.) R.A. No. 26 governs judicial
reconstitution of lost or destroyed
(4.) Section 104 governs registration of originals of the certificate of title.
certificates of land transfers,
emancipation patents and Certificates of (10.) R.A. No. 6732 governs

Land Ownership Award (CLOA) under administrative reconstitution of lost or

Comprehensive Land Reform Law. destroyed original certificates of title.

(5.) Chapter V governs the registration of (11.) Section 113 governs the

land dealings on registered land like registration of instruments affecting

conveyances, transfers, mortgages, unregistered private lands.

leases, powers of attorney, trusts and

(12.) Section 117 governs "consultas,"
similar contracts inter vivos.
where the Register of Deeds refuses to

(6.) Chapter V-II governs the registration register a deed or when he is in doubt as

of involuntary dealings on registered to what action to take on an instrument

land like attachments, adverse claims, presented for registration.

enforcement of liens on registered land,

notices of lis pendens. (7.) Chapter VI
governs the registration of judgments,
Registration; Party Who First took
orders and partitions, condemnation in
Possession (2013)
eminent domain proceedings, judicial
and extra-judicial settlement of estates. No.IX.Rica petitioned for the annulment of
her ten-year old marriage to Richard.
(8.) Sections 107, 108 and 109 govern
Richard hired Atty. Cruz to represent him
petitions and actions after original
in the proceedings. In payment for Atty.
registration like: (a).Compulsory
Cruz's acceptance and legal fees, Richard
surrender of withheld owner's duplicate
conveyed to Atty. Cruz a parcel of land in
certificate of title;
Taguig that he recently purchased with his
lotto winnings. The transfer documents
(b) Amendment and alteration of
were duly signed and Atty. Cruz
certificate of title;

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 85 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

immediately took possession by fencing off the liquidation of the absolute

the property's entire perimeter. community or conjugal partnership of
the spouses as the case may be (Art. 50
Desperately needing money to pay for his in relation to Art 43 of the Family Code).
mounting legal fees and his other needs Richard purchased the land with his
and despite the transfer to Atty. Cruz, lotto winnings during the pendency of
Richard offered the same parcel of land for the suit for annulment and on the
sale to the spouses Garcia. After inspection assumption that the parties are
of the land, the spouses considered it a governed by the regime of absolute
good investment and purchased it from community or conjugal partnership,
Richard. Immediately after the sale, the winnings from gambling or betting will
spouses Garcia commenced the form part thereof. Also, since the land is
construction of a three-story building over part of the absolute community or
the land, but they were prevented from conjugal partnership of Richard and
doing this by Atty. Cruz who claimed he Rica, it may not be sold or alienated
has a better right in light of the prior without the consent of the latter and
conveyance in his favor. any disposition or encumbrance of the
property of the community or the
Is Atty. Cruz's claim correct? (8%)
conjugal property without the consent of
the other spouse is void (Art 96 and Art
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
124, Family Code).

No. Atty. Cruz is not correct. At first

glance, it may appear that Atty. Cruz is
the one who has the better right because
Registration; Requisites; Proof (2013)
he first took possession of the property.
However, a lawyer is prohibited under No.X. Manuel was born on 12 March 1940
Art 1491 of the Civil Code from in a 1 000-square meter property where he
acquiring the property and rights which grew up helping his father, Michael,
may be the object of any litigation in cultivate the land. Michael has lived on the
which they may take part by virtue of property since the land was opened for
their profession. While the suit is for settlement at about the time of the
annulment of marriage and it may be Commonwealth government in 1935, but
urged that the land itself is not the for some reason never secured any title to
object of the litigation, the annulment of the property other than a tax declaration in
marriage, if granted, will carry with it his name. He has held the property through

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 86 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

the years in the concept of an owner and ownership since June 12, 1945, or
his stay was uncontested by others. He has earlier. However, it is only necessary
also conscientiously and continuously paid that the land is already declared A & D
the realty taxes on the land. land “at the time for application for
registration is filed” (Malabanan v.
Michael died in 2000 and Manuel - as Republic, G.R. No. 180067, June 30,
Michael’s only son and heir -now wants to 2009).
secure and register title to the land in his
own name. He consults you for legal advice Manuel could also invoke Sec 14 (2) of
as he wants to perfect his title to the land the same Decree, which allows
and secure its registration in his name. registration through ordinary acquisitive
prescription for thirty years, provided,
(A) What are the laws that you need to however, that the land is “patrimonial”
consider in advising Manuel on how he can in character, i.e. already declared by the
perfect his title and register the land in his government (a) as A & D, and (b) no
name? Explain the relevance of these laws longer needed for public use or public
to your projected course of action. (4%) service (Malabanan, supra).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Manuel could also file an application for

“confirmation of imperfect or
(Note: With all due respect, it is
incomplete title’ through “judicial
recommended that the examiner accept and
legalization” under Sec. 48 (b) of CA no.
give full credit to any of the answers given in
141, or the Public Land Act (PLA). But,
each of the following paragraphs.)
as held in Malabanan, there is no
substantial difference between this
I would advice Manuel to file an
provision and Sec 14 (1) of the PRD.
application for registration under Sec 14
Both refer to agricultural lands already
of Pres. Decree No. 1529, or the Property
classified as alienable and disposable at
Registration Decree (PRD), specifically
the time the application is filed, and
Sec14 (1) which requires (a) that the land
require possession and occupation since
applied for forms part of the alienable
June 12, 1945. The only difference is
and disposable (A & D) portion of the
that under the PRD, there already exists
public domain, and (b) that the applicant
a title which is to be confirmed, whereas
has been in open, continuous and
under the PLA, the presumption is that
notorious possession and occupation
land is still public land (Republic v.
thereof under bona fide claim of

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 87 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

Aquino, G.R. No. L-33983, January 27, Manuel has a the burden to overcome
1983). the presumption of State ownership by
“well-nigh incontrovertible” evidence
Manuel may also invoke “vested rights’ (Ong v. Republic, G.R. No. 175746,
acquired under Rep. Act. No. 1942, dated March 12, 2008). Accordingly, he must
June 2, 1957, which amended Sec. 48 (b) show that ht eland is already classified
of the PLA by providing for a prescriptive as A & D “at the time the application for
period of thirty years for judicial registration is filed” and that he has
confirmation of imperfect title. It must been in “possession and occupation
only be demonstrated that possession thereof” in the manner required by law
and occupation commenced on January since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
24, 1947 and the 30-year period was
completed prior to the effectivity of PD Manuel may tack his possession to that
No. 1073 on January 25, 1977. PD No. of his predecessor-in-interest (Michael)
1073 now requires possession and by the testimony of disinterested and
occupation since June 12, 1945 knowledgeable eyewitnesses. Overt acts
(Republic v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 171514, of possession may consist in introducing
July 18, 2012). valuable improvements like fencing the
land, constructing a residential house
Another alternative is for Manuel to thereon, cultivating the land and
secure title through administrative planting fruit bearing trees, declaring
proceedings under the homestead or free the land for taxation purposes and
patent provisions of the PLA. The title paying realty taxes, all of which are
issued has the same efficacy and validity corroborative proof of possession.
as a title issued through judicial
proceedings, but with the limitations To identify the land, he must submit the
that the land cannot be sold or disposed tracing cloth plan or a duly-certified
of within five years from the issuance of blueprint or whiteprint copy thereof
patent (Sec. 118, CA No. 141, as (Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-
amended). 27594, November 28, 1975; Director of
Lands v. CA and Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R.
(B) What do you have to prove to secure No. L-56613, March 14, 1988).
Manuel's objectives and what
documentation are necessary? (4%) To show the classification of the land as
A & D, the application must be
SUGGESTED ANSWER: accompanied by (1) a CENRO or PENRO

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 88 of 180
Civil Law Q&As (2007-2013) [email protected] [email protected]

certification; and (2) a certified true

copy of the original classification I will institute the following actions
approved by the DENR Secretary against Atty. Tan:
(Republic v. Bantigue, G.R.No. 162322,
March 14, 2012). A presidential or (a). A civil action for damage for the
legislative act may also be considered. fraudulent transfer of the title in his
name and to recover the value of the
property;

Remedies; Fraud; Rights of Innocent

(b). An action against the National
Purchaser (2009)
Treasurer for compensation from the
State Assurance Fund which is set aside
No.IX. Before migrating to Canada in 1992,
by law to pay those who lose their land
the spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted
suffer damages as a consequence of the
all their legal papers and documents to
operation of the Torrens system;
their nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage
of the situation, Atty. Tan forged a deed of
(c). A criminal action for forgery or
sale, making it appear that he had bought
falsification of public document;
the couple’s property in Quezon City. In
2000, he succeeded in obtaining a TCT over
(d). A complaint with the Supreme
the property in his name. Subsequently,
Court/Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Atty. Tan sold the same property to Luis,
to disbar or suspend him or other
who built an auto repair shop on the
disciplinary action for violation or the
property. In 2004, Luis registered the deed
Code of Professional Ethics.
of conveyance, and title over the property
was transferred in his name.
Any action against Luis will not prosper

In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita because he is an innocent purchaser for

came to the Philippines for a visit and value. The Title to the land he bought

discovered what had happened to their was already in the name of the person

property. They immediately hire you as who sold the property to him, and there

lawyer. What action or actions will you is nothing on the title which will make

institute in order to vindicate their rights? him suspect about the fraud committed

Explain fully. (4%) by Atty. Tan.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 89 of 180