Quieting of title
is served on a possessor or one having interest in the
Caero v. university of the Philippines
The rule is that material facts or questions which were in
issue in a former action and wee there admitted or
judicially determined are conclusively settled by a
judgment rendered therein and that such facts or
questions become res judicata and may not again be
litigated in a subsequent action between the same
parties or their privies, regardless of the form the issue
may take in the subsequent action, whether the
subsequent action involves the same or different form of
proceedings or a different form of proceedings, or
whether the second action is upon the same or different
cause of action, subject matter, claim or demand, as the
earlier action.
In such cases, it is also immaterial that the 2 actions are
based on different grounds, or tried on different
theories, or instituted for different purposes, and seeks
different reliefs.
By the same token, whatever is once irrevocably
established as the controlling legal principle or decision
continues to be the law if the case between the same
parties in the same case, whether correct on general
principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the
case before the court.
If no notice and date of hearing of a reconstitution case
property involved, he is deprived of his day in court and
the order of reconstitution is null and void.
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded
to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or
declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is
sought to be given to it. It, accordingly, leaves the parties
litigants in the same position they were in, before the
trial.
Quieting of title
Faja v. court of appeals
It is an established rule that an action to quiet title to
property in the possession of a plaintiff is
imprescriptible.
There is settled jurisprudence that one who is in actual
possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner
thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his
title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right,
the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed
possession gives him the right to seek the aid of a court
of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own
title which right can be claimed only by one who is in
possession.
The right to quiet title to property and annul any
certificate covering it accrues only from the time the one
in actual possession was made aware if a claim adverse
to his own, and only then may the prescriptive period
commence to run against the actual possessor.
Quieting of title
Realty sales enterprise v. intermediate
court of appeals
Jurisdiction over all application for registration of land
titles is conferred upon the Regional Trial Court of the
province where the land is situated and is acquired upon
the filing of the application and is retained up to the end
of the litigation.
Act 3110 was enacted to aid and benefit litigants so that
when records are lost at any stage of judicial
proceedings, they may reconstitute lost records and
continue the case at the stage where the records were
destroyed.
In successive registrations where more than one
certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or
interest in land, the person claiming under the prior
certificate is entitled to the estate or interest.
Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem nor in
personam but characterized as quasi-in-rem and is
conclusive only between parties.
Torrens certificate of title
Tolentin et al. v. court of appeals
Note:
If the party fails to appear at the pre-trial is the plaintiff,
then his case shall be dismissed. If it is the defendant
who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to
present his evidence ex-parte and the court shall render
judgment on the basis thereof.
It is a rule that a certificate of title cannot be the subject
of collateral attack; To permit a collateral attack on the
title would reduce the vaunted legal indefeasibility of a
Torrens Title to meaningless verbiage.
All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands
of the public domain or improvement thereon shall be
instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in
his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines.
It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the
certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible
and inconvertible title to the property in favour of the
person whose name appears therein.
Torrens certificate of title
Alfonso v. pasay city
Registered property cannot be lost by prescription
To determine due compensation for lands appropriated
by the Government, the basis should be the price or the
value at the time it was taken from the owner and
appropriated by the Government.
Torrens certificate of title
Reyes v. raval reyes
Where the respondent has presented a counterclaim for
partition of the lots of which he claims to be a part
owner, and he may further protect his claims by the
presentation of a notice of lis pendens, there is no valid
and plausible reason for his withholding from the
registered owners the custody and possession of the
owners duplicates of the certificates of the title for the
said lots. The owner of the land, in whose favour and in
whose name said land is registered and inscribed in the
certificate of title, has a preferential right to the
possession of the owners duplicate than one whose
name does not appear in the certificate and has yet to
establish his right to the possession thereto.
Torrens certificate of title
National grains authority v.
intermediate court of appeals
It is axiomatic, the while the registration of the
conditional sale with right of repurchase may be binding
on third persons, it is by provision of law understood to
be without prejudice to third party who has better right
Proceeding for registration of title to land under the
Torrens System is an action in rem, hence, personal
notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary in
order that the Court may have jurisdiction.
Under Section 44 of P.D. 1529, every registered owner
receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of
registration, and every subsequent purchaser of
registered and taking a certificate of title for value and
in good faith, shall hold the same free from all
encumbrances except those noted on the certificate and
any of the encumbrances which may be subsisting, and
enumerated in the law.
Under the said provision, claims and liens of whatever
character, except those mentioned by the law as existing,
against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of
title, are cut off by such certificate if not noted thereon,
and the certificate so issued binds the whole world,
including the government.
An indirect or collateral attack on the title is not
allowed.
The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains
a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and
he has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He
is then considered as guilty of fraud and he may be
compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner
so long as the property has not passed to the hands of
an innocent purchaser for value.
Principle that a petition for review will not prosper even
if filed within one year from the entry of the decree if
the title has passed into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value.
Torrens certificate of title
Cajayon v. spouses batuyong
- Good faith consists in the belief of the builder
that the land he is building on his and his
ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. In the
instant case, when the verification survey report
came to petitioners knowledge their good faith
ceased. The survey report is a professionals field
confirmation of petitioners encroachment of
respondents titled property. It is doctrinal in land
registration law that possession of title property
adverse to the registered owner is necessarily
tainted with bad faith. Thus, proceeding with the
construction works on the disputed lot despite
knowledge of respondents ownership put
petitioners in bad faith.
- There is a presumption that official duty is
regularly performed, i.e., government official who
perform them are clothed with the presumption
of regularity, as the Courts below pointed out. In
this case, the verification survey was conducted
with the agreement of both parties and in their
presence. That was the finding made by the
courts below and affirmed by the appellate court
without any wrinkle.
Torrens certificate of title
Spouses Valenzuela v. spouses mano
Settled is the rule that a person, whose certificate of title
included by mistake or oversight owned by another,
does not become the owner of such land by virtue of the
certificate alone. The Torrens System is intended to
guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the
certificate of registration but is not intended to
perpetrate fraud against the real owner of the land. The
certificate of title cannot be used to protect usurper
from the true owner.
When a person committed fraud in obtaining title to a
disputed property he should be liable for both moral
and exemplary damages.
Subsequent registration- voluntary
Spouses chu v. benelda estate
development corporation
In land title cases, this Court has time and again held
that a person dealing with registered land may safely
Subsequent registration- voluntary
Dbp v. acting regional director of nueva
ecija
Subsequent registration- voluntary
Dela merced v. gsis

Subsequent registration- voluntary

Egao v. court of appelas

Subsequent registration- voluntary

Fule v. legare

Subsequent registration- voluntary

Power commercial and
Industrial Corporation v. ca

Subsequent registration- voulntary

Subsequent registration- invoulntary
Subsequent registration- invoulntary
Subsequent registration- invoulntary
Subsequent registration- invoulntary