G.R. NO. 176043, JANUARY 15, 2014SPS. BERNADETTE AND RODOLFO VILBAR vs. ANGELITO L. OPINION

FACTS:This is the case of conflicting claims over two parcels of land in a subdivision more particularly designated as Lots 20 and 21. 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 presented the contract to sell. But it turned out that said lots were among those levied upon by a certain Gorospe Sr., the former Board Chairman and CEO of Dulos Realty by virtue of a court judgment he obtained for recovery benefits, privileges and various allowances that said developer failed to pay him as Chairman. These lots were sold at a public auction with Gorospe emerging as highest bidder. Subsequently, he mortgaged said lots to herein respondent Opinion, and when Gorospe defaulted in the payment, the said lots were awarded to him in an Extra-Judicial 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 that the subject lots were already sold to them. On the other hand, respondent Opinion alleged that he is a buyer in good faith because before entering into the mortgage agreeeme3nt with Gorospe, he had verified with the Registry of Deeds that there were no annotations or encumbrances registered in the titles of lots 20 and 21. Furthermore, he was assured by Gorospe that the spouses were merely tenants of the lots and not the owners. RTC ruled in favour of Opinion declaring him to have better right over lots 20 and 21. 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.

ISSUE: Were the RTC and CA correct?

HELD:YES. The evidence proves that respondent Opinion lawfully acquired his title over the lots. Gorospe cannot be considered to be in bad faith because he was not the one who executed and signed the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioners. Bad faith cannot be presumed and there was no clear and convincing proof that Gorospe had knowledge of such transaction.

For some unknown reasons, sps. Vilbar did not cause the transfer of the certificate title in their name, or at the very least, annotate or register such sale in the original title in the name of Dulos Realty.

Time and time again, this Court has ruled that:(1) A certificate of title serves as an evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Having no certificate of title issued in their names, sps. Vilbar have no indefeasible and incontrovertible title over lot 20 to support their claim.(2) Furthermore, it is an established rule that registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.(3) 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.

G.R. NO. 199310, FEBRUARY 19, 2014REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REMMAN ENTERPRISES INC.

FACTS: Remman Enterprises (respondent) filed an application with the RTC for the Judicial confirmation of title over 2 parcels of land situated in Taguig, Metro Manila. Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) and the Republic of the Philippines (RP) filed their opposition for the application for registration. Respondent presented 4 witnesses who gave the following testimonies to prove that the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest have been in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious (OCEN) possession of the subject lot: That respondent purchased the subject lots from Salvador and Mijares in 1989. That the subject properties were originally owned and possessed by Jaime, who 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 the land until purchased by the respondents. Respondent also alleged thath the subject properties are within the alienable and 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 the subject parcels of land sin June 12, 1945. RTC granted Respondents application for registration of the subject property. RTC pointed out that LLDAs claim is hearsay since the same was merely based on the topographic map that was prepared using an aerial survey and that nobody was presented to prove that an aerial survey was indeed conducted for purposes of gathe5ring data for the preparation of the topographic map. CA affirmed RTCs decision. Hence, this petition.

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 well-nigh 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.

G.R. NO. 182716, JUNE 20, 2012HEIRS OF JOSE MALIGOSO, SR. vs. SPS. ENCINAS

FACTS: Sps. Encinas (respondent) are the registered owners of lot situated in Sorsogon which has an area of 2,867 square meters and covered by a TCT. The said lot was previously covered by OCT No. 543 which was issued to petitioners aunt and subsequently sold to one named Virginia. 3 years later, Virginia sold it to the respondents. Approximately 30 years from the time respondents purchased the lot, they issued 2 demand letters to the Heirs of Maligoso (petitioners), asking them to vacate the contested area within 30 days from notice. Petitioners refused to leave claiming that the subject area was the share of their father in their grandparents estate. Respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners alleging that their occupation is by mere tolerance and had become illegal following their refusal to vacate the property despite being demanded to do so twice. The petitioners in their defense contended that their aunt fraudulently registered the lot, including the disputed area and that the laches had already set in view of the respondents failure to assail their possession for more than 30 years. MTC dismissed respondents complaint. MTC gave more weight to the petitioners possession of the contested area rather than the respondents title as the former is founded on their fathers successional rights. MTC also held that the respondents are barred by laches from pursuing their cause of action against petitioners given their inaction for more than 30 years despite of being fully aware of the petitioners adverse possession and claim over the subject property. RTC affirmed MTCs decision. In a petition for review file before the CA, the latter reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC.

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.