No. 2. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP) vs.

COURT OF APPEALS 331 SCRA 267, April 28, 2000 FACTS: The land in dispute, 19.4 has., was owned by Ulpiano Mumar since 1917. He sold it to respondent Cajes in 1950 for which tax declarations wereissued in 1950, 1961, and 1974. In 1969, unknown to Cajes, Jose Alvarez obtained registration of a parcel of land with an area of 1,512,468 sq. m. in his name, on June 16, 1969, which included the 19.4 has. Occupied by Cajes. In 1972, Alvarez sold the land to Sps. Beduya who, like Alvarez, were never in possession of the property. Sps. Beduya then obtained a loan from petitioner DBP (Development Bank of the Philippines) for P 526,000.00 and mortgaged the land. In 1978, another mortgage over the land was executed by SAAD Investment Corp. represented by G. Beduya and Sps. Beduya in favour of DBP for P 1.43 million. In 1985, mortgage on the property was foreclosed. In the foreclosure sale, DBP was the highest bidder. It appears that respondent Cajes had also applied for a loan from DBP in 1978, offering his 19.4 has. as security for the loan which was approved. However, after the release of the loan, DBP found out that the land mortgaged by Cajes was included in the land mortgaged by the Sps. Beduya. Petitioner DBP cancelled the loan & demanded payment from Cajes. Sometime in April of 1986, more than a year after the foreclosure sale, a re-appraisal of the property covered by TCT No. 10101 was conducted by petitioners representatives. It was then discovered that private respondent Cajes was occupying a portion of said land. Private respondent Cajes was informed that petitioner had become the owner of the land he was occupying, & he was asked to vacate the property. As private respondent refused to do so, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against him, invoking that it was an innocent purchaser for value. The Regional Trial Court-Tagbilaran City rendered a decision declaring Page 24 petitioner DBP the lawful owner of the entire land on the ground that the decree of registration was binding upon the land. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. Hence, this petition. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not petitioner bank is a mortgagee in good faith? 2. Whether or not petitioner bank can can be considered an innocent purchaser for value? HELD :

No. At the time of the constitution of the mortgagee, the mortgageebank failed to conduct an ocular inspection. While an innocent mortgagee is not expected to conduct an exhaustive investigation on the history of the mortgagors title, in the case of banking institutions, a mortgagee must exercise due diligence before entering into said contract. Judicial notice is taken of the standard practice for banks, before approving a loan, to send representatives to the premises of the land offered as collateral & to investigate who are the legal owners thereof. Banks, having been impressed with public interest, are expected to exercise more care & prudence than private individuals in their dealings, even those involving registered lands. Petitioner was already aware that a person other than the registered owner was in actual possession of the land when it bought the same at the foreclosure sale. A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact which would create a suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man is not an innocent purchaser for value. It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, & then claim that he acted in goof faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. Judgment AFFIRMED in toto. 5. TURQUESA vs. VALERA 322 SCRA 573 FACTS: More than half a century ago, private respondent applied for the registration of two parcels of land locate d in Abra. Rosario Valera, private respondent, presented documents showing that when she was still single, she bought lot 1 from Cristeta Trangued and heirs of Juan Valera Rufino who were allegedly in possession thereof since the Spanish in the concept of owners and who declared it in their name for taxation purposes. From 1929, she continued possession of said land in concept of owner and continued to pay tax thereon in her name. The Director of Lands, together with petitioners and other persons opposed the application of private respondent. In the course of the hearing, the oppositors (except the director of lands) averred that their lands were included in lot 1 which private respondent sought to register in her name. Oppositors moved for an ocular inspection in order to determine the correct boundary limits of the lands they respectively claim, but the same was denied. On 23 April 1956, the trial court ruled that applicant has a registrable title. Oppositors appealed. On 15 March 1966, the CA set aside the appealed decision and remanded it to the lower court. In accordance with the CA directive, three (3) commissioners were

appointed by the Trial Court to conduct ocular inspection. The observations and findings were the following: (1) the claims of petitioners as shown in the sketch plan are not shown in the original survey. (2) the claims of other petitioners appeared in the original survey although three of these claims bear different identifying names. (3) the Calle para Collago maintained by the oppositors to be the extent or boundary of the property of the applicant on the south side is existing and still is the existing boundary on the south and on the southeast side as shown in the sketch plan. Page 16 However, the court just reiterated its former decision ordering the registration of the lot in the name of applicant Rosario Valera. ISSUE: ______________________________________________________________________ _______ _ Does Rosario Valera have a rightful claim over the lot in question? HELD: No. She doesnt have a rightful claim over the land. The burden of proof in land registration cases is incumbent on the applicant who must show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for. On him also rests the burden to overcome the presumption that land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Even if petitioner/s (Partolan) was excluded by the order of general default and (Baltar) did not appeal from the trial courts decision of April 23, 1956. The applicant must still prove and establish that she has registrable rights over the land, which must be grounded on incontrovertible evidence and based on positive and absolute proof. The declaration of the applicant that the land applied for has been in the possession of herpredecessor-ininterest for a certain period, does not constitute the WELL-NIGH INCONTROVERTIBLE and CONCLUSIVE evidence required in land registration. If an applicant does not have any rightful claim over real property, the Torrens System of registration can confirm or record nothing. It must be borne in mind that what defines a piece of land is not the size or area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. The Damasens were declared to have a rightful claim over the specific portions of Lot.

No. 7. THE DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU vs. COURT OF APPEALS & AQUILINO CARINO 324 SCRA 757, February 7, 2002 FACTS: On May 15, 1975, private respondent A. Carino filed for the registration of some 43,614 sq. m. lot located at Cabuyao, Laguna. According to respondent, the subject land was originally owned by his mother Teresa Lauchengco who died in 1911, and later administered by him in behalf of his five sisters and brothers after the death of their father in 1934. Private respondents statements were confirmed by the report of the Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands. It further stated that the land was agricultural in nature and improvements thereon were sugarcane, bamboo clumps, etc.; That the land subject for registration was outside any civil or military reservation, etc. and that the same land was free from claim and conflict; That Carino had been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the land who acquired the same thru inheritance from his deceased mother. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of Court of Appeals which affirmed the RTCs decision ordering the registration of Lot No. 6 in the name of Respondent Carino was valid? HELD: No. The petition for land registration at bar is under the Land Registration Act which requires that he who alleges in his petition or application, ownership in fee simple, must present muniments of title since the Spanish times, such as Titulo Real, or royal grant, a Concession Especial or special grant, a Composicion Con Al Estado or adjustment title, or a titulo de compra, or title through purchase; informacion possessoria or adjustment title, which would become a titulo gratuito or a gratuitous title. No. 8. REPUBLIC vs. DOLDOL 295 SCRA 359, September 10, 1998 FACTS: Sometime in 1959, respondent Nicanor Doldol occupied a portion of land in Opol, Misamis Oriental. On 1963, he filed an application for saltwork purposes for the said area but the Director of Forestry rejected the same. Sometime in 1965, the Provincial Board of Misamis Oriental passed a resolution reserving a certain lot as a school site. This lot unfortunately included the lot of Doldol. Sometime in 1970, the Opol High School filed a complaint for accion possessoria with the RTC, the court ruled on schools power.

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of teh court ruling that Doldol was entitledto the portion he occupied, he having possessed the same for 32 years (19591991). ISSUE: Whether or not Doldol has the better right to possess the land in dispute? HELD: No. The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove (a) that the land is alienable public land and (b) that his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same must either be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act. When the conditions set by law are complied with the possessor of the land, by operation of law, acquires a right to grant, a government grant, without the necessity of title/certificate of tile being issued. The evidence presented shows that the land in dispute is alienable and disposable in accordance with the District Foresters Certification. Doldol thus meets the first requirement. Consequently, Doldol could not have acquired an imperfect title to the disputed land since his occupation of the same started only in 1955, much later than June 12, 1945. Not having complied with the conditions set forth by law, Doldol cannot be said to have acquired a right to the land or a right to assert a right superior to the school given that then Pres. Aquino had reserved the lot for Opol National School. The privilege occupying public lands with a view of pre-empting confers no contractual or vested right in the land occupied and the authority of the President to withdraw such lands for sale or acquisition by the public, or to reserve them for public use, prior to divesting by the government of title thereof stands eventhough this may defeat the imperfect right of settler. Lands covered by reservation are not subject to entry, and no lawful settlement on them can be acquired (Solicitor General) In sum, Opol National Schoolhas the better right of possession over the land in dispute.