THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS [G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997]

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

[G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (10 Sept 2015)

Topic: Notice of Initial Hearing – Publication, Opposition of and Default (Section 23)

FACTS:

On December 8, 1986, Private Respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529. 

The land registration court in its decision dated June 13, 1989 dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. 

Consequently, the Court is of the well considered view that it has not legally acquired jurisdiction over the instant application for want of compliance with the mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation."

The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely procedural and that the failure to cause such publication did not deprive the trial court of its authority to grant the application.

Unsatisfied, private respondents appealed to Respondent Court of Appeals which, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the registration of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado.

The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in the challenged CA Resolution dated November 19, 1991.

The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General thus elevated this recourse to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that a newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case mandatory or directory?

HELD:

YES. The petition was granted.

Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. -- The court shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order.

The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.

It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem.  Being in rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. This being so, the process must strictly be complied with. 

The Supreme Court has no authority to dispense with such mandatory requirement. The law is unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again, this Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation; there is room only for application.  There is no alternative. Thus, the application for land registration filed by private respondents must be dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all the legal requisites shall have been duly complied with.

SPOUSES CARPO v. AYALA LAND, INCORPORATED [G.R. No. 166577 February 3, 2010]

SPOUSES CARPO v. AYALA LAND, INCORPORATED

[G.R. No. 166577 February 3, 2010]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (11 Sept 2015)

Topic: Survey of the Land – Forms and Contents (Section 15-19)

FACTS:

On February 16, 1995, petitioner spouses Morris and Socorro Carpo (Carpos) filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title  with the RTC of Makati City against Ayala Corporation, Ayala Property Ventures Corporation (APVC), and the Register of Deeds of Las Pias. 

In their Complaint, the Carpos claimed to be the owners of a 171,209-square meter parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 296463 issued in their names.  They further alleged that Ayala Corporation was claiming to have titles (specifically, TCT Nos. 125945, T-4366, T-4367 and T-4368) over the property covered by the Carpos TCT No. 296463 and that Ayala Corporation had made such property its equity contribution in APVC to be developed into a residential subdivision.

According to the complaint, TCT Nos. 125945, T-4366, T-4367 and T-4368 and their derivatives appear to have been issued in the name of Ayala and purport to cover and embrace the Carpos property or portion thereof duly covered registered under the already indefeasible and incontrovertible TCT [No.] 296463 are inherently invalid and enforceable (sic) for not being the duly issued derivatives of the Carpos title.  The Carpos additionally applied for a restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Ayala Corporation and APVC from doing construction and development works on the properties in purported violation of the Carpos rights. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not, THE TITLE OF RESPONDENT IS VALID EVEN WITHOUT THE REQUISITE SURVEY PLAN APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS.

HELD:

NO. Petitioners clearly misunderstood or deliberately misread the CAs ruling on this point. It is the CAs view that the trial courts pronouncement that OCT No. 242 was issued without an approved survey plan was unwarranted in view of the presumption of regularity that said title enjoys.

It is admitted that a survey plan is one of the requirements for the issuance of decrees of registration, but upon the issuance of such decree, it can most certainly be assumed that said requirement was complied with by ALIs original predecessor-in-interest at the time the latter sought original registration of the subject property. Moreover, the land registration court must be assumed to have carefully ascertained the propriety of issuing a decree in favor of ALIs predecessor-in-interest, under the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by public officers. The court upon which the law has conferred jurisdiction, is deemed to have all the necessary powers to exercise such jurisdiction, and to have exercised it effectively. This is as it should be, because once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system, and the time has passed within which that decree may be questioned the title is perfect and cannot later on be questioned. There would be no end to litigation if every litigant could, by repeated actions, compel a court to review a decree previously issued by another court forty-five (45) years ago. The very purpose of the Torrens system would be destroyed if the same land may be subsequently brought under a second action for registration, as what the court a quo did when it faulted ALIs failure to allege that its predecessor-in-interest submitted a survey plan approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands in the original land registration case.

The Court need not emphasize that it is not for ALI to allege in its pleadings, much less prove, that its predecessor-in-interest complied with the requirements for the original registration of the subject property. A party dealing with a registered land need not go beyond the Certificate of Title to determine the true owner thereof so as to guard or protect his or her interest. Hence, ALI was not required to go beyond what appeared in the transfer certificate of title in the name of its immediate transferor. It may rely solely, as it did, on the correctness of the certificate of title issued for the subject property and the law will in no way oblige it to go behind the certificate of title to determine the condition of the property. This is the fundamental nature of the Torrens System of land registration, to give the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SARMIENTO [G.R. No. 169397. March 13, 2007]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SARMIENTO

[G.R. No. 169397. March 13, 2007]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (21 Sept 2015)

Topic: Survey of the Land – Form & Contents Sections 15-19

FACTS:

Restituto Sarmiento (respondent) through his brother-attorney-in-fact Magdaleno Sarmiento (Magdaleno) filed on November 29, 2000 with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig, Metro Manila an application for registration1 of a parcel of land, delineated as Lot 535-D under Approved Survey Plan Swo-13-000465 with a total land area of 2,664 square meters and located at Barangay Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila (the lot).

Respondent claimed to have acquired the lot through donation under a Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob dated July 16, 1988 executed by his father, Placido Sarmiento (Placido), which lot formed part of Lot 535 that was allegedly inherited by Placido from Florentina Sarmiento (Florentina). 

Respondent further claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse, and public possession of the lot in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years.

To discharge the onus, respondent relies on the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry."

By Decision of May 20, 2005, the appellate court held that as the lot was sufficiently identified by the blue print copy of the plan and the technical description, the presentation of the original tracing cloth ceased to become indispensable for the grant of the application. 

The appellate court thus affirmed the decision of the MeTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution28 of August 19, 2005, petitioner now comes before this Court on a petition for review on certiorari.

On January 17, 2001, the Solicitor General, through the Prosecutor of Taguig who was deputized to assist in the case, filed, as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), an Opposition to respondent’s application for registration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, certified by the Bureau of Forestry." is a sufficient proof that the land in question has been declared alienable.

HELD:

NO. The application for registration filed by respondent is DENIED.

To prove that the land in question formed part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, petitioners relied on the printed words which read: "This survey plan is inside Alienable and Disposable Land Area, Project No. 27-B as per L.C. Map No. 2623, certified by the Bureau of Forestry on January 3, 1968," appearing on Exhibit "E" (Survey Plan No. Swo-13-000227).

This proof is not sufficient. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, provides: "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. . . ."

In the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer's notation in Exhibit "E" indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor's assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable.

DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BASES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [G.R. No. 192896. July 24, 2013]

DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.

v. BASES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

[G.R. No. 192896. July 24, 2013]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (21 Sept 2015)

Topic: Survey of the Land – Form & Contents Sections 15-19

FACTS:

Petitioner Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Dream Village) claims to represent more than 2,000 families who have been occupying a 78,466-square meter lot in Western Bicutan, Taguig City since 1985 "in the concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously."

On October 16, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172 amending Proclamation No. 2476 by limiting to Lots 1 and 2 of the survey Swo-13-000298 the areas in Western Bicutan open for disposition.

Now charging the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) of wrongfully asserting title to Dream Village and unlawfully subjecting its members to summary demolition, resulting in unrest and tensions among the residents, on November 22, 1999, the latter filed a letter-complaint with the COSLAP to seek its assistance in the verification survey of the subject 78,466-sq m property, which they claimed is within Lot 1 of Swo-13-000298 and thus is covered by Proclamation No. 172. They claim that they have been occupying the area for thirty (30) years "in the concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously for several years," and have built their houses of sturdy materials thereon and introduced paved roads, drainage and recreational and religious facilities. Dream Village, thus, asserts that the lot is not among those transferred to the BCDA under R.A. No. 7227, and therefore patent applications by the occupants should be processed by the Land Management Bureau (LMB).

On April 1, 2004, the COSLAP received the final report of the verification survey and a blueprint copy of the survey plan from Atty. Rizaldy Barcelo, Regional Technical Director for Lands of DENR. Specifically, Item No. 3 of the DENR report states:

3. Lot-1, Swo-000298 is inside Proclamation 172. Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. is outside Lot-1, Swo-13-000298 and inside Lot-10, 11 & Portion of Lot 13, Swo-00-0001302 with an actual area of 78,466 square meters. Likewise, the area actually is outside Swo-00-0001302 of BCDA.

On the basis of the DENR’s verification survey report, the COSLAP resolved that Dream Village lies outside of BCDA, and particularly, outside of Swo-00-0001302, and thus directed the LMB of the DENR to process the applications of Dream Village’s members for sales patent, noting that in view of the length of time that they "have been openly, continuously and notoriously occupying the subject property in the concept of an owner, x x x they are qualified to apply for sales patent on their respective occupied lots pursuant to R.A. Nos. 274 and 730 in relation to the provisions of the Public Land Act."

The CA in its Decision dated September 10, 2009 ruled that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the complaint because the question of whether Dream Village is within the areas declared as available for disposition in Proclamation No. 172 is beyond its competence to determine, even as the land in dispute has been under a private title since 1906, and presently its title is held by a government agency, the BCDA, in contrast to the case of Bañaga relied upon by Dream Village, where the disputed land was part of the public domain and the disputants were applicants for sales patent thereto.

Dream Village’s motion for reconsideration was denied in the appellate court’s Order of July 13, 2010, thus the petition for Review in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the area occupied by Dream Village, on the basis of the DENR’s verification survey report, that sits on the abandoned C-5 Road, which lies outside the area of BCDA, declared in Proclamation Nos. 2476 and 172 as alienable and disposable.

HELD:

NO. The petition is DENIED.

The mere fact that the original plan for C-5 Road to cross Swo-00-0001302 was abandoned by deviating it northward to traverse the southern part of Libingan ng mga Bayani does not signify abandonment by the government of the bypassed lots, nor that these lots would then become alienable and disposable. They remain under the title of the BCDA, even as it is significant that under Section 8(d) of R.A. No. 7227, a relocation site of 30.5 has. was to be reserved for families affected by the construction of C-5 Road. It is nowhere claimed that Lots 10, 11 and 13 of Swo-00-0001302 are part of the said relocation site. These lots border C-5 Road in the south, making them commercially valuable to BCDA, a farther argument against a claim that the government has abandoned them to Dream Village.

Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that "property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription."

Thus, under Article 422 of the Civil Code, public domain lands become patrimonial property only if there is a declaration that these are alienable or disposable, together with an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth. Only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.