The first claimant is the Sps. Vilbar who bought said lots under contracts to sell with the
subdivision develo0per Dulos Realty and Development Corporation sometime in July 1979.
- Sps. Vilbar took possession of lot 20(B) in the concept of owners and exercised acts of
ownership with the permission of dulos Realty after making an advance payment
-
thereon.
In 1981, Sps. Vilbar also took possession of lot 21 and obtained tax declarations
thereon in their name and paid its realty taxes. Subsequently, they mortgaged lot 21 to
a bank and used the proceeds of the loan to pay in full the purchase price of lot 20.
Upon full payment of the purchase price for lot 20, Dulos Realty executed a duly notarized
Deed of Absolute Sale in favour of the spouses and delivered to them the owners
duplicate copy of the TCT. However, they were not able to register and transfer the title in
their name because the developer allegedly failed to have the lot formally subdivided
despite its commitment to do so, until its President Juan Dulos died without the subdivision
being accomplished. But eventually, they were able to obtain title although she only
Foreclosure Sale.
When Sps. Vilbar learned about such titles, they filed a complaint in the RTC against
opinion claiming the latter is a buyer in bad faith because Gorospes titles from which
Opinion derived the titles were acquired in bad faith.
- The spouses pointed out that as an officer of Dulos Realty, Gorospe should have known
Deed of Absolute Sale over lot 20 was never annotated in the TCT.
TCTs in the hands of respondent were the ones which cancelled the titles of Dulos
Realty over the lots and not the TCT presented by sps. Vilbar.
Issuance of the TCT respecting lot 21 was questionable because there was no proof
that the purchase price was already paid since only the Contract to sell was
available.
Registry of Deeds in Pasay itself certified that the TCT respecting lot 21 is presumed not
to be validly issued.
Herein petitioners only had an inchoate right over the property, said the RTC. This
decision was affirmed by the CA.
(2)
their claim.
Furthermore, it is an established rule that registration is the operative act
(3)
which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
Any buyer or mortgagee of realty covered by Torrens certificate of title is
charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on
the title. Failing to annotate the deed for the eventual transfer of title over
lot 20 in their names, the Sps. Vilbar cannot claim a greater right over
Opinion, who acquired the property with clean title in good faith and
registered the same in his name by going through the legally required
procedure.
Remman Enterprises (respondent) filed an application with the RTC for the Judicial
cultivated and planted different kinds of crops in the said lots since 1943.
That Jaime sold said parcels of land to Salvador and Mijares who continued to cultivate
disposable lands of the public domain as evidenced by certifications issued by the DENR.
On the other hand, LLDA alleged that respondents application should be denied since the
subject parcels of land are not part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain pursuant to section 41(11) of RA 4850 which provides that, lands surrounding the
Laguna de Bay, located at and below the reglementary elevation of 12.50 meters are
public lands which form part of the bed of the said lake.
RP also alleged that respondent failed to prove that they have been in OCEN possession of
an aerial survey was indeed conducted for purposes of gathe5ring data for the
ISSUE: whether or not the Ca erred in affirming the RTC Decision which granted the application
for registration filed by the Respondent.
HELD:
SC denied the application for Registration of the Respondent for lack of merit.
Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 provides that, applicants for registration of title must
sufficiently establish the following: First, that the subject land forms part of the disposable and
alienable lands of the public domain, second, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest
have been in OCEN possession and occupation of the same, and third, that it is under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The first requirement was not satisfied in this case. The certifications presented by the
respondent are insufficient to prove that the subject properties are alienable and disposable. In
Republic of the Philippines vs. TAN Properties Inc., the court clarified that, in addition to the
certification issued by the proper government agency that a parcel of land is alienable and
disposable, applicants must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land certification
and released the land of public domain as alienable and disposable.
Anent the second and third requirements, the court finds that respondent failed to present
sufficient evidence to prove that it and its predecessors-in-interest have been in OCEN
possession and occupation of the subject properties since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The
testimonies
given
by
the
witnesses
presented
by
the
respondent
were
unsubstantiated and self-serving assertions of the possession and occupation of the subject
properties by the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest; they do not constitute the wellnigh incontrovertible evidence of possession and occupation of the subject properties required by
Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: Proof of specific acts of ownership must be presented to
substantiate the claim of OCEN possession and occupation of land subject of the application.
Applicants for land registration cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions
of law rather than factual evidence of possession.
The supposed planting of crops in the subject properties may only have amounted to mere
casual cultivation and a mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not
constitute possession under claim of ownership.
Furthermore, the tax declarations over the subject properties presented by the respondent were
only for the year 2002.
Sps. Encinas (respondent) are the registered owners of lot situated in Sorsogon which has
ISSUE: Who has the better right over the possession of the property?
Whether or not a land covered by a Torrens title can be acquired by third person by
prescription.
HELD:
SC ruled in favor of the respondents. Between the petitioners unsubstantiated self-serving
claim that their father inherited the contested lot and the respondents Torrens title, the latter
must prevail. A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title
to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein and the person who has
Torrens title over a land is entitled to the possession thereof.
In the case of Soriente vs. Estate of the late Arsenio Concepcion, it ruled that the
possession of the property for whatever length of time cannot prevail over a Torrens title, the
validity of which is presumed and immune to any collateral attack.
In the case of Bishop vs. CA, the court ruled that a registered owner of a lot has the right
to eject any person illegally occupying his property. Such right is imprescriptible and is never
barred by laches.