100%(1)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
279 tayangan7 halaman
This document summarizes 5 cases related to property law:
1) Balbuena v. Sabay - A purchaser at an auction sale who buys land from a non-registered owner is not considered a purchaser in good faith.
2) Lim v. Republic - An applicant was not entitled to registration of land because they failed to prove predecessors occupied the land since 1945, and the land only became alienable in 1982.
3) Rural Bank of Pangasinan v. Manila Mission - A duly annotated attachment is superior to an unregistered prior sale, unless the attaching creditor had knowledge of the prior sale.
4) Tanenglian v Lorenzo - A
This document summarizes 5 cases related to property law:
1) Balbuena v. Sabay - A purchaser at an auction sale who buys land from a non-registered owner is not considered a purchaser in good faith.
2) Lim v. Republic - An applicant was not entitled to registration of land because they failed to prove predecessors occupied the land since 1945, and the land only became alienable in 1982.
3) Rural Bank of Pangasinan v. Manila Mission - A duly annotated attachment is superior to an unregistered prior sale, unless the attaching creditor had knowledge of the prior sale.
4) Tanenglian v Lorenzo - A
This document summarizes 5 cases related to property law:
1) Balbuena v. Sabay - A purchaser at an auction sale who buys land from a non-registered owner is not considered a purchaser in good faith.
2) Lim v. Republic - An applicant was not entitled to registration of land because they failed to prove predecessors occupied the land since 1945, and the land only became alienable in 1982.
3) Rural Bank of Pangasinan v. Manila Mission - A duly annotated attachment is superior to an unregistered prior sale, unless the attaching creditor had knowledge of the prior sale.
4) Tanenglian v Lorenzo - A
1. Balbuena v. Sabay (Not purchaser in good faith IF land bought from
non-registered owner)
Balbuena filed a complaint for recovery of possession of three parcels of land against Sabay o He alleges that these lands are covered by tax declarations and that he acquired it from an execution sale (in a case where Leoncia lost) Sabay, on the other hand, alleges that Leoncia sold one of the lots to him (prior to the execution sale) o One of the three lands was covered by a Torrens title RTC: Found Balbuena to have a better right because he acquired it in good faith (there was nothing in the title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, so the purchaser is not required to look beyond the Torrens title) CA: Reversed the RTC because the Torrens title was not in the name of Leoncia, the judgment debtor, but instead in the names of other people o The court further said that the purchase should have been put on guard when she purchased the lands from a non-registered owner (in this case, the judgment debtor)
Issue: Is Balbuena in good faith?
No. A judgment creditor only acquires at an execution sale the identical interest possessed by the judgment debtor o If it turns out that the judgment debtor has NO interest in the property, the purchaser at an auction sale acquires no interest therein In this case, Leoncias sale to Sabay was not disputed, therefore Sabay had a better right than Balbuena o In other words, a prior unregistered sale is more preferred than a purchaser at auction sale More weight is given to Leoncias undisputed sale to Sabay As compared to Balbuena buying it at an auction sale when in fact, the land was already sold beforehand DOCTRINE: Further, Balbuena indeed failed to inquire when he should have BECAUSE he bought land from someone who was NOT a registered owner. He loses.
2. Lim v. Republic
In 1998, Lim filed an application for registration over a certain parcel of land o She declared that she purchased both lots on 1997 as evidenced by a deed of sale o Other evidences: tracing cloth, technical description, CENRO certification: stating that the land is alienable and disposable land as of 1982 o Her predecessors as per a witness: occupied the land since 1941 RTC: granted the petition (opposed by the Government) CA: reversed, saying that Lims predecessors were only in possession since 1967 therefore it could not be used as basis for the 30 year period BECAUSE the land only became alienable and disposable as of 1982 (therefore she was 15 years short because the reckoning period was 67-82: land was not alienable/disposable!)
Issue: Is Lim entitled to registration?
No. First, Lim cant register under Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 because she failed to prove that her predecessors-in-interest were in O, C, E, N and O of the land since June 12, 1945 or earlier o The witness merely recounted Lims version of the chain of ownership of the lots and merely had general statements and no specifics Basically, witness failed to even mention a single act of dominion over the lots on June 12, 1945 or earlier o Additionally, while a property classified as alienable/disposable public land may be converted into private property by reason of OCENO of at least 30 years, public dominion lands become patrimonial property with both a DECLARATION and an EXPRESS GOVERNMENT MANIFESTATION that the property is already patrimonial Only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run o In this case, even if it was declared to be a/d, it was not stated that they are no longer intended for public use, therefore, Lim cannot acquire by prescription DOCTRINES: o Sec 14(1): denied because no proof of OCENO of predecessors in interest since 6/12/45 Remember, though, that registration under this ground, at the time of application, its enough that the land has already been declared a/d o Ca 141 Sec 48: denied because prescription is counted from the date the public property becomes patrimonial through a DECLARATION and EXPRESS MANIFESTATION by the Govt
3. Rural Bank of Pangasinan v. Manila Mission
Spouses Soliven were the registered owners of a parcel of land (covered by TCT) o They sold it to Manila Mission on 1992 but the spouses TCT was only cancelled (and a new one issued to the bank) on April 1994 On 1993, the Rural Bank filed a collection case and prayed for a writ of attachment against the spouses and this was granted o This writ was annotated on the TCT on 1993 During this time, Manila Mission, upon advice by the sheriff, filed a motion to release the property from attachment: this was allowed by the court Rural bank filed a case, alleging that it has a better right
Issue: Who has a better right? Previous unregistered sale (Soliven to Manila Mission) or a duly annotated attachment (Rural Bank against Soliven)
The general rule is that a duly annotated attachment is superior to an unregistered prior sale o HOWEVER where the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at that time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that sale is equivalent to registration as to him In the case at bar, though, there was no special relationship between the bank and the spouses to charge the bank with an implied knowledge of the state of By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 2
Missions claim/ownership: an attaching creditor is not expected to inspect the property being attached, as it is the sheriff who does the actual act of attaching DOCTRINE: Duly registered levy on attachment takes preference over a prior unregistered sale IF the attaching creditor has no constructive/actual knowledge of the prior unregistered sale.
4. Tanenglian v Lorenzo (Collateral Attack)
The case revolves around 2 TCTs issued in the name of Tanenglian o Lorenzo and others want to redeem the said properties and the TCTs to be declared null and void because they are ancestral land Adjudicator ruled in favor of Lorenzo Ruled that: Lands are ancestral lands TCTs are null and void because the titles of Tanenglians predecessors in interest were secured by fraud Decision was affirmed by DARAB and then the CA thus Tanenglians appeal to the SC o He argues that the DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the controversy and furthermore, that the declaration of the land as ancestral land was done with GADLEJ
Issue: Was Tanenglian wrongfully deprived of his land?
Yes. Ra 8371, or the IPRA specifically provides a more thorough definition of ancestral lands and it designates the NCIP (Natl Commission on Indigenous Peoples) as the primary govt agency responsible o The DARAB was w/o jurisdiction when it declared that the properties are ancestral land More importantly, the regional adjudicator was w/o jurisdiction in entertaining a collateral attack on Tanenglians TCTs o In an earlier case for quieting of title, Tanenglians title to the properties was already affirmed with finality o A suit for quieting of title is an action quasi in rem: conclusive to the parties to the suit Nevertheless, Lorenzo cannot pray for the RA to declare the TCTs null and void for it would constitute a collateral attack on his titles which is NOT allowed o Doctrine: A collateral attack is made when in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an INCIDENT to said action This is compared to a direct attack, whose main object is to annul a judgment In this case, Tanenglians titles have acquired the character of indefeasibility so it CANNOT be collaterally questioned
5. Republic v. de la Raga (Reconstitution)
De la Raga is the granddaughter of Ignacio and Languit o Her grandparents died and she possessed a large parcel of land covered by an OCT o She wanted to obtain a copy of the OCT and when she went to the RD She found out there was a registration decree, declaring the property in the name of Ignacio, Languit and the spouses Serafica She filed for reconstitution and her main basis was the registration decree (that was the basis of the OCT) RTC: granted the petition CA: affirmed o Republic (oppositor): alleges that the RD failed to certify that the original OCT was valid and subsisting at the time it was lost
Issue: Is the certification of the RD indispensable to reconstitution?
NO. The sufficiency of the RD report is NOT an indispensable requirement in reconstitution cases. o The rules, in fact, require the clerk of court/RD to write a report of his/her findings after verifying the status of the title and both these reports are to be submitted to the reconstitution court o These reports, however, are NOT required The court, in this case, found sufficient factual evidence to support the petition and there was compliance with jurisdictional requirements When a court, after hearing of a petition for reconstitution, finds that the evidence presented is sufficient and proper to grant the same, it becomes the duty of the court to issue the order of reconstitution. This duty is mandatory. o DOCTRINE: The law does not give the court discretion to deny the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with.
6. Phil Cotton Corporation v. Gagoomal (RD cant just re-annotate attachments if it wasnt annotated in the reconstituted title)
Pacific Mills owned 5 parcels of land covered by TCTs. o These lands were sold on installment basis to respondents Gagoomal and Ang Petitioner PCC then filed a collection case against Pacific mills for failure to pay a loan o The trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment on said parcels of land (annotated on the TCTs) During the pendency of the collection case in the SC, the QC hall was razed by fire destroying the RD and the TCTs of Pacific Mills PCC won this case and court ordered PM to pay Pacific then filed for an administrative reconstitution of title over said lands pursuant to RA 6732 o The attachment in favor of PCC were not incorporated in the new TCT (in favor of Gagoomal and Ang) However, the sale between respondents and pacific mills was annotated. o TCTs were then subsequently cancelled and clean TCTs were issued to respondents. PCC then requested the RD to annotate the notice of levy and the favorable decision of the SC on 2 of the new TCTs issued to respondents. o RD informed respondents that the request had been entered in the primary entry book of the RD and asked them to surrender the 2 duplicate TCTs By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 3
Respondents then filed a case for cancellation of such annotations o RTC: ruled in favor of respondents and deleted said annotations and for the RD to stop the request to respondents of surrendering their TCTs for purposes of annotation. It held that because the TCTs were not anymore in the name of Pacific Mills and no evidence was submitted to indicate that PCC had interest in the property, PCC cannot levy on it anymore. PCC alleges o it is the ministerial duty of the RD to annotate (Based on sec 10 and 71 of PD 152) o that the issuance to respondents is fraudulent (Based on Sec 69 and 71 of PD 1529)
Issue: Can the RD validly re-annotate the levy and decision of SC pursuant to its ministerial functions? NO its the courts duty to determine with regard to reconstituted titles.
Sec 10 and 71 (Surrender of Certificate of Involuntary Dealings: When an attachment on registered land is registered, and the duplicate certificate is NOT presented at the time of registration, the RD can compel the registered owner to produce his duplicate and if he does not, the RD will tell the court and the court will order the registered owner) of PD 1529 is not applicable o Sec 10 relates to the general functions of an RD: RD cannot record a right that was NOT duly noted in the reconstituted title o Sec 71 applies only to an attachment or lien in which the duplicate was not presented at the time of the registration of the said lien or attachment. What applies is special law Act no. 26 o Sec 4 sources of which lien can be reconstituted as may be available: C) any other document which, in judgment of the courts, is sufficient and proper basis o Doctrine: Sec 8 and 11 provides that the procedure for the annotation of an interest that did not appear in the reconstituted certificate of title, mandates a petition to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction. The courts intervention in the amendment of the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon is categorically stated the property registration decree (sec 108: ) o Hence it is the duty of the courts and not the RD to validly re-annotate the liens of the reconstituted TCTs
7. Erasusta v. CA
4 lots in sampaloc manila formed part of the Prieto Estate (Lots A, B, C and D for brevity) o On 4 separate occasions, De Los Reyes bought said Lots. De Los Reyes then sold Lot C to Fortunato Amorin Subsequently, De Los Reyes was then swindled by Valenzuela into entrusting him with the documents of the remaining lots (of A, B and D) o Valenzuela was then able to secure TCTs (from the Prieto Estate) in his own name He then mortgaged these lots to Pacific Bank as collateral for a loan. Upon failure to pay, the Bank foreclosed on the 3 lots and the won all 3 at the public auction The Bank now sends a letter to Amorin, who thought he was occupying Lot C but in reality, it was Lot A, to vacate the premises since they were the owners. o Amorin upon checking with the LRC, confirms that he was indeed occupying Lot A (This was due to the mix-up in the street addresses) Amorin files an action for recovery of ownership + damages against De Los Reyes. Meanwhile De Los Reyed files a cross-claim with the bank to declare void the REM and Sale over the lots. o RTC: cancel all titles of bank for having obtained from a fraudulent source and correct the technical description of Amorins title (From Lot A to Lot C) o CA: The banks titles are valid and subsisting because it was a mortgagee in GF
Issue: Who has the valid title? De Los Reyes (bank is not in good faith so cannot avail of fraud becoming the root of valid title doctrine)
Although, generally one can acquire a valid title from a forged or fraudulent document if the property has already been transferred from the owner to the forger and subsequently, the buyer acted in good faith (innocent purchaser for value + chain of title theory) However, the bank was in gross negligence which amounted to bad faith because banks are obliged to carefully examine the title of the applicant and conduct an ocular inspection Further, the fact that the mortgagor was NOT in possession of the land should have put the bank on inquiry Can the title be collaterally attacked? Only the certificate (the document) cannot be collaterally attacked, while title (which vests ownership) can collaterally be attacked. What cannot be collaterally attacked as provided in sec 48 of PD 1529 is the Certificate of title evidencing ownership on the land (The PIECE OF PAPER) A certificate is NOT conclusive evidence of title: Registration DOES NOT vest title, it is merely an evidence of such title
8. Eagle Realty v. Republic
Spouses de Leon filed an application for registration of certain lots with CFI, which was granted. o However, another decision similar to the de Leon decision but adjudicating the property to a certain Medina was inserted in the records of the LRC. Thus, pursuant to this, the Register of Deeds issued an OCT in the name of Medina, who subsequently transferred the said property to Reyes who sold it to petitioner Eagle Realty, to whom a new TCT was issued. Knowing of the issuance of the OCT to Medina, spouses de Leon demanded for an investigation from the LRC, which recommended the nullification of the By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 4
OCT and the TCT issued in the names of Medina and Eagle Realty (Fake decision!) o Republic of the Philippines acted in behalf of the LRC which filed a complaint for the annulment of Judgment and Cancellation of the Decree and Titles against Medina and Eagle Realty alleging that LRC received a copy of the De Leon decision but was wrongfully substituted with the Medina decision in the LRC records. On the other hand, Eagle Realty alleged that the case should be dismissed on grounds that: o That the Republic is not an interested party as the property involved is a private property; o That the one-year prescriptive period within which to seek a review of a decree of registration has already lapsed o and that it is a purchaser in good faith and for value.
Issue: Whether the case at bar should be dismissed on grounds alleged by Eagle Realty? NO
Although the case was entitled an Action for Annulment of Judgment and Cancellation of a Decree, it is evident from the facts alleged in the complaint that the action is mainly for the declaration of nullity of the certificates of title issued as a result of a fake court decision and not for the nullity of judgment. o Thus, the RTC and not the CA has jurisdiction over the case. The government must preserve the integrity of the Torrens System and protect the Assurance Fund. o The complaint filed by the Republic seeks the cancellation of erroneously issued titles to protect the Assurance Fund from being made liable by the spouses de Leon, the rightful owners, for damages in case they fail to recover the property. Doctrine: The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply where fraud attended the issuance of the title. As such, a title issued based on void documents may be annulled. Likewise, prescription does not run against the State and its subdivisions Lastly, he who alleges that he is a purchaser in good faith and for value has the burden of proving his claim. o The general rule is that a purchaser may rely on what appears on the face of a certificate of title. An exception to this is when there exists facts which create suspicion in a reasonable prudent man to go beyond the present title. In the case at bar, Eagle Realty is engaged in the real estate business and is thus expected to exercise higher standard of care and diligence in ascertaining the status and condition of the said property
Motion for Reconsideration filed by Eagle Realty
In the assailed decision, the Court held that "a corporation engaged in the buying and selling of real estate is expected to exercise a higher standard of care and diligence in ascertaining the status and condition of the property subject of its business transaction." The Court cited the case of Sunshine Finance vs. IAC where the Court ruled that, investment and financing corporations cannot simply rely on an examination of a Torrens certificate on its face.
The court in this MR expands the ruling in Sunshine Finance to cover realty corporations because the nature of their business expects them to exercise a higher standard of diligence in ascertaining the status of the property, not merely rely on what appears on the face of a certificate of title.
9. Spouses Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf
In a previous case, Fil-Estate Golf (FEGDI) was the developer of a golf course in Laguna along with La Paz (who provided the properties registered in its name) o Thereafter, Layos filed for injunction against FEGDI and alleged that he is the legal owner of the lands in question, and further alleged an intrusion on the part of FEGDI and La Paz o Note: Layos filed two different cases in two separate courts, praying for the same thing Complaint was dismissed for forum-shopping o Thereafter, only months after instituting the injunction cases, Layos filed a complaint for quieting of title against La Paz Layos alleges that La Paz grabbed his land and entered it without his consent His main proof was OCT 239, issued in his name La Paz argues that Layos never owned/possessed the land in question an in fact, it got the lands from the government and it was issued the assailed TCTs o Court ruled in favor of La Paz, declared their titles to be INDEAFISIBLE and found the OCT of Layos to be spurious Not wanting to give up, Layos filed an action to reconstitute his title and many others opposed o Court again denied this, reiterating that OCT 239 of Layos is forged
Issue: Was Layos entitled to any of the remedies he filed? (injunction, quieting of title and reconstitution)
As regards the injunction, Layos is not entitled to it because Layos did not have a valid title to the said property (because the RTC ruled it was FORGED) As regards reconstitution, here are the following elements: o The CT has been lost/destroyed o The petitioner is a registered owner/has an interst therein o CT is in force at the time it was lost Doctrine: Courts have no jurisdiction over petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the name of their duly registered owners o When the court relied on the previous judgment in the injunction cases that the OCT of Layos was forged, it did NOT entertain a collateral attack when it dismissed the reconstitution case
10. Amodia Vda de Melencion v. CA
The entire subject property was originally co-owned by the Amodia family who registered the land under the old Torrens system pre-PD 1529 (but the title was destroyed during the war) o In 1964, The Amodias allegedly partitioned the land and sold the same to Aznar brothers This sale was registered under Act 3344 (system for recording of unregistered real estate) o In 1989, 4 Amodias, in deed of sale, sold the land to Go Kim Chuan By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 5
The lost title was reconstituted (their OCT) and a corresponding TCT was issued in Go Kim Chuans name Aznar filed a case to annul the sale to Go Kim Chuan and filed an advers claim (alleging double sale) o RTC: dismissed Aznar, the deed of sale in favor of Aznar was found to be forged o CA: ruled in favor of Aznar, ruling under Art 1544 that the sale in favor of Aznar was registered first
Issue: Who wins? Aznar or Go Kim Chuan?
Go Kim Chuan wins, the second purchaser wins, for being the first to register in good faith o The registration contemplated in Art 1544 is registration under the Torrens system o In this case, even though Aznar knew it was already registered under the Torrens system before, Aznar still registered the sale in its favor under Act 3344 Doctrine: If the land is registered under the Torrens system and it is sold and the sale is registered under Act 3344, such is not considered registered and does not come within the ambit of Art 1544 In fact, what was registered in the Torrens system was the sale to Go Kim Chuan o Aznar should have availed of reconstitution instead of registering the sale under Act 3344 The adverse claim was ONLY annotated AFTER a TCT was issued in the name of Go Kim Chuan o It would be absurd to say that Go Kim Chuan should be bound by an adverse claim which was not previously annotated on the lost title or the new one
11. Manotok v. Barque
In 1988 a fire destroyed portions of Quezon City Hall and as a result, numerous certificate of titles on file were destroyed as well. Barque filed a petition for administrative reconstitution of the TCT, submitting a owners duplicate, tax receipts and taxdecs and a subdivision plan. o Manotok upon learning of Barques petition opposed claiming that the lot was already covered by their reconstituted title. Barques title involves 2 parcels of land with an aggregate 324k sq meters. Manotok concerns only 1 parcel with a similar area. LRA denied the petition of Barque at first but later reversed and found that there were anomalies in the title of the Manotok LRA stated that only RTC could cancel the title of Manotok. o LRAs order: granted reconstitution of Barques title and ordered a new one issued in Barques name AFTER a court cancels the Manotoks title Manotok appealed to the CA. o CA affirmed LRA: ordered the RD to cancel Manotoks title and thereafter reconstitute the title of Barque
Issues: W/N CA has the authority to reconstitute the title of Barque? W/N CA has the authority to cancel the title of Manotok? Who really owns the land?
PD 1529 provides that a title cannot be cancelled except in a direct attack. The proceeding in this case was a collateral attack. o The administrative proceeding for reconstitution, even if it produced evidenced that the title was fake, cannot be the basis for canceling such. Further the CA does not have original jurisdiction to annul torrens title. BP 129 grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the RTC
Case was brought to the CA via appeal from the LRA. o The LRA has no jurisdiction to cancel the torrens title. In PD 1529 the functions of the LRA are, issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments, supervision and control over all RDs, resolve cases en consulta, supervise all clerks of court in connection with land registration, implement all orders relative to the registration of lands, verify subdivision plans. Nowhere in PD 1529 is the LRA given the power to cancel titles.
The reconstitution of the title should not have been permitted, as the certificate of title was the subject of litigation, investigation administrative or judicial regarding its genuineness. Further in an administrative recon, if it appears that the property is already covered by a torrens title it should be dismissed, subject to judicial review: ADMIN RECONSTITUTION is ESSENTIALLY NON-ADVERSARIAL o In any case, since neither the LRA nor the CA could cancel the title, any claim of the Barques would be useless because of the existing title. Petitioners reliance on the Ortigas case, is misplaced. The facts are different. The case arose from a judicial reconstitution of title where the trial court denied the notices of appeal by the petitioner, had the notices of appeal been allowed the CA would have then reviewed the RTC decision on appeal and been able to annul the respondents title. It further appears that the barques own claims are exceedingly weak because of several inconsistencies in their subdivision plan and other documents submitted. o The land concerned is Friar land, and can only be disposed of by the Government. Thus Case remanded to the CA.
12. Mistica v. Republic
Mistica claims to be the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land in bulacan, stating that her predecessors have been in possession since time immemorial and that she was not aware of any lien or mortgage or enciumbrance affecting the land. Evidence attached were technical description, certification of lost surveyors certificate, tax dec and tax payments, blue print of subdivision plan. o The photocopy of the deed of sale (from vendor to her predecessor) presented was in Spanish, however no translation was offered. By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 6
RP through the OSG filed an opposition, stating that Mistica had not been open, continuous exclusive and notorious possession and that the documents of title did not appear to be genuine and did not constitute the competent sufficient evidence required. o Further that the claim of ownership in fee simple on the lot on the basis of a Spanish title could no longer be availed of as Mistica failed to file within 6 months of Jan 16 1976. o MTC found the land alienable and disposable and thus granted the registration. CA reversed.
Issue: Does Mistica have claim over the land because of open continuous exclusive and notorious possession?
An applicant for the confirmation of an imperfect title, Mistica should prove that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and that she had been in open continuous and exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership from june 12 1945 or earlier. o The evidence provided by mistica, taken together did not suffice to prove that she had met the second requirement (open and continuous possession and occupation) The technical description, subdivision plan only prove the identity of the lot. The tax decs and receipts were only from 1998. No evidence was presented that her parents had tax decs over the property and that taxes had been paid prior to 1998. Further the alleged deed of sale was not translated to a language that the court could understand. Doctrine: The law requires possession and occupation. Possession is broader than occupation. By adding occupation the law highlights the fact that the possession must not be mere fiction. o Instead there must be actual possession in the manifestation of acts of dominion as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.
13. Unisource v. Chung
Unisource is the registered owner of a parcel of land and it contains a memorandum of a voluntary easement in favor of Hidalgo (Servient: Unisource, Dominant: Hidalgo) o On the other hand, Hidalgos property was eventually transferred to the Chungs Unisource then filed a petition to cancel the easement on the ground that the dominant estate already has adequate access to a public road Court granted the petition because the dominant estate has no more use since it has another adequate outlet to a public road o Chungs counter that the extinguishment of the easement would prejudice the public CA: ruled in favor of Chung, reversed RTC because the presence of an adequate outlet does not extinguish a voluntary easement o Unisource argues that the easement does not appear in the Chungs title
Issue: Was the CA correct in upholding the voluntary easement?
The CA was correct because first, a voluntary easement can only be extinguished by mutual agreement or by the renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate o Doctrine: Second, Registration of the dominant estate under the Torrens system without the annotation of the voluntary easement in its favor does NOT extinguish the easement In fact, it is the registration of the servient estate as free (w/o the annotation of the easement) which extinguishes the easement In this case, the title of Unisource (servient) always had the annotation of the voluntary easement in favor of Chungs estate (dominant)
14. Rabaja Ranch v. AFP-RSBS
Rabaja and AFP-RSBS both hold a TCT over the same parcel of land o Rabaja then filed a complaint for quieting of title o Rabaja traces its title from a free patent issued on 1955 and the land was eventually sold to it o Its possession began in 1997 AFP-RSBS traces its title from a homestead patent issued to Charles (and the land was eventually sold to it): Date of homestead: 1966 o RTC: ruled in favor of Rabaja because its title was older than that of AFP-RSBS and that the homestead patent was attended with fraud and misrepresentation because o CA: reversed RTC, stating that Charles homestead patent was registered earlier Rabaja argues that Charles homestead patent was void ab initio because it was attended with fraud: Not issued at all by the government Recap: o 1955: Free Patent to Jose: Rabaja: Registered 1982 (issued earlier, registered later) o 1966: Homestead to Charles: AFP-RSBS: Registered 1966 (issued later, registered earlier)
Issue: Who has a better right?
AFP-RSBS has a better right As regards the contention of fraud: o Court discussion on extrinsic fraud: For example, it consists in a deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are NOT contested when it fact they are and this goes into the jurisdiction of the court because a party is prevented from having his day in court In this case, no actual/extrinsic fraud existed o Fraud is not presumed and mere allegations of fraud are NOT enough because these must be proved No proof was shown that the Homestead patent issued to Charles was indeed fake By Butch, PDG and Sandy Page 7
Furthermore, AFP-RSBS is a buyer in good faith because as far as it was concerned, when it bought the property, there was no defect on the CT of the vendor or no sign that it was derived from a fake title o Doctrine: This case shows the rule that when an innocent purchaser for value buys land covered by a TCT which is derived from a void TCT, he is protected In any case, the TCTs root was not proven to be fraudulent anyway, and even if it was, it already acquired indefeasibility