Fortunato, Julienne

Wanason, Sandra
JD2

Land Titles and Deeds

2.
a.
YES. In Vallangca vs CA, the court ruled that the right to repurchase or redeem
can be exercised even if not stipulated in the deed of sale, such right is granted by
operation of law. Section 119 of the Public Land Act states that every conveyance of
land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be
subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow or legal heirs, for a period of 5 years
from the date of conveyance
b.
NO. In the case of Santos v. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap , it was ruled
that the right to repurchase or redeem cannot be waived since the law is designed to
distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for their home
and cultivation. In line with the primordial purpose to favor the grantee and his family,
the law provides that the sale be subject to the right of repurchase by him, his widow, or
heirs within 5 years from conveyance. The right to repurchase cannot be waived. It is
not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks
to preserve.

c.

Under Section 119 of the Public Land Act, the 5-year period for legal redemption
starts from the date of the execution of the deed of sale, and not from the date of
registration in the office of the Register of Deeds. This is true even if full payment of the
purchase price is not made on said date, unless there is a stipulation in the deed that
ownership shall not vest in the vendee until full payment of the price.
d.
In Enervida v. de la Torre, the Court ruled that, where the vendor is still living, it is
he alone who has the right of redemption.
e.
YES. The Court held in Ferrer v. Mangente that a land acquired by homestead
patent inures to the benefit, not only of the applicant, but of his family. The law grants
the vendor-grantees widow and heirs the right to repurchase because the purpose of
the law is to enable the family of the applicant or grantee to keep their homestead.

f.
In case of mortgaged lands, a homesteader, or his widow or heirs, may
repurchase or redeem a homestead sold at a public auction or foreclosure sale (under
Act No. 3135) within five years from the date of conveyance. The 5-year period of
redemption fixed in Section 119 of the Public Land Law of homestead sold at
extrajudicial foreclosure begins to run from the day after the expiration of the 1-year
period of repurchase allowed in an extrajudicial foreclosure.
The redemption period, for purposes of determining the time when a formal Deed
of Sale may be executed or issued and the ownership of the registered land
consolidated in the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale under Act 3135, should
be reckoned from the date of the registration of the Certificate of Sale in the Office of
the Register of Deeds concerned and not from the date of public auction (Belisario v.
IAC, GR No. L-73503, 30 August 1988).

g.
Yes. In the cases decided by the Court, it ruled that the filing of an action to
redeem within that period is equivalent to a formal offer to redeem. It is not even
necessary for the preservation of such right of redemption to make an offer to redeem
or tender of payment of purchase price within five years. There is not even a need for
consignation of the redemption price.

3.
The procedure of consulta when an instrument is denied registration:
1.

The Register of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the
defects of the instrument or the legal ground relied upon for denying the
registration, and advising that if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may,
without withdrawing the documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by
Consulta to the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA).

2.

Within five (5) days from receipt of notice of denial, the party-in-interest shall file
his Consulta with the Register of Deeds concerned and pay the consulta fee.

3.

After receipt of the Consulta and payment of the corresponding fee the Register
of Deeds makes an annotation of the pending consulta at the back of the
certificate of title.

4.

The Register of Deeds then elevates the case to the LRA Administrator with
certified records thereof and a summary of the facts and issues involved.

5.

The LRA Administrator then conducts hearings after due notice or may just
require parties to submit their memoranda.

6.

After hearing, the LRA Administrator issues an order prescribing the step to be
taken or the memorandum to be made. His resolution in consulta shall be
conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds unless reversed on appeal
by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court. (Section 117, P.D. 1529)

4.
Yes, Rachelle's suit will prosper because all elements for an action for
reconveyance are present, namely: a) Rachelle is claiming dominical rights over the
same land. b) Rommel procured his title to the land by fraud. c) The action was brought
within the statutory period of four (4) years from discovery of the fraud and not later than
ten (10} years from the date of registration of Rommel's title. d) Title to the land has not
passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.
Rommel can invoke the indefeasibility of his title if Rachelle had filed a petition to
reopen or review the decree of registration. But Rachelle instead filed an ordinary action
in personam for reconveyance. In the latter action, indefeasibility is not a valid defense
because, in filing such action, Rachelle is not seeking to nullify nor to impugn the

indefeasibility of Rommel's title. She is only asking the court to compel Rommel to
reconvey the title to her as the legitimate owner of the land.
5.
In the cases decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that if fraud is discovered in
the application which led to the issuance of the patent and Certificate of Title, this Title
becomes ipso facto null and void. Thus, in a case where a person who obtained a free
patent, knowingly made a false statement of material and essential facts in his
application for the same, by stating therein that the lot in question was part of the public
domain not occupied or claimed by any other person, his title becomes ipso facto
canceled and consequently rendered null and void." "It is to the public interest that one
who succeeds In fraudulently acquiring title to public land should not be allowed to
benefit therefrom and the State, through the Solicitor General, may file the
corresponding action for annulment of the patent and the reversion of the land involved
to the public domain"
The action for reconveyance filed by Percival may still prosper provided that the
property has not passed to an innocent third party for value and provided that the action
is filed within the prescriptive period of ten years. Since the action was filed by Percival
19 years after the issuance of Melvin's title, it is submitted that the same is already
barred by prescription.

Part II
True or False
1. TRUE
2. TRUE
3. TRUE
4. TRUE
5. TRUE
6. TRUE
7. TRUE
8. TRUE
9. FALSE
10. FALSE
11. FALSE
12. FALSE
13. FALSE
14. FALSE
15. TRUE

16. FALSE
17. TRUE
18. FALSE
19. FALSE
20. TRUE