A+ A A-

INITIATION OF ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE AND REVERSION

GOVERNMENT MAY INITIATE ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE AND REVERSION

> Section 101 of Public Land Act provides for a remedy whereby lands of the public domain fraudulently awarded to the applicant may be recovered or reverted back to its original owner, the government


> Office of Solicitor General shall represent the government in all land registration and related proceedings and institute actions for the reversion to the government of lands of the public domain and improvements thereon as well as lands held in violation of the Constitution


> It is improper for the government to file an action for reversion of land titled to defendant pursuant to a free patent where the alleged fraud consists in the fact that said land, at the time of issuance of the free patent was no longer a part of the public domain, having been adjudicated as private property of another person in a previous registration case


> An action for reversion on the ground that defendant obtained patent through fraud would also fail where the land had successively been sold by the heirs of the patentee to third parties who are holding Torrens titles and enjoying the presumption of good faith


> Private parties cannot challenge the validity of the patent and title when they are not registered owners thereof nor had they been declared the owners as owners in the cadastral proceedings— whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by the government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government.

PRIVATE PARTY CANNOT BRING ACTION FOR REVERSION

> If there has been any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the title, an action for reversion instituted by the Solicitor General would be the proper remedy


ACTION FOR REVERSION NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION

> Statute of limitations doesn’t run against the State


ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE

> Proper when a private party claims ownership of the land as private property by virtue of a long period of possession and hence, no longer deemed a part of the public domain which could be disposed of under the provisions of the Public Land Act, or when the land is already covered by a previously issued certificate of title


Related Philippine Law Resources:

INITIATION OF ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE AND REVERSION

GOVERNMENT MAY INITIATE ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE AND REVERSION

> Section 101 of Public Land Act provides for a remedy whereby lands of the public domain fraudulently awarded to the applicant may be recovered or reverted back to its original owner, the government


> Office of Solicitor General shall represent the government in all land registration and related proceedings and institute actions for the reversion to the government of lands of the public domain and improvements thereon as well as lands held in violation of the Constitution


> It is improper for the government to file an action for reversion of land titled to defendant pursuant to a free patent where the alleged fraud consists in the fact that said land, at the time of issuance of the free patent was no longer a part of the public domain, having been adjudicated as private property of another person in a previous registration case


> An action for reversion on the ground that defendant obtained patent through fraud would also fail where the land had successively been sold by the heirs of the patentee to third parties who are holding Torrens titles and enjoying the presumption of good faith


> Private parties cannot challenge the validity of the patent and title when they are not registered owners thereof nor had they been declared the owners as owners in the cadastral proceedings— whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by the government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government.

PRIVATE PARTY CANNOT BRING ACTION FOR REVERSION

> If there has been any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the title, an action for reversion instituted by the Solicitor General would be the proper remedy


ACTION FOR REVERSION NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION

> Statute of limitations doesn’t run against the State


ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE

> Proper when a private party claims ownership of the land as private property by virtue of a long period of possession and hence, no longer deemed a part of the public domain which could be disposed of under the provisions of the Public Land Act, or when the land is already covered by a previously issued certificate of title


Related Philippine Law Resources:

BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

DE GARCIA V. CA 37 …

DE GARCIA V. CA37 SCRA 160FACTS:Guevarra was the owner of a lady’s diamond ring with white gold mounting, solitaire 2-karat diamond as well as 4 brills. It was stolen from her house. On a relevant date, while she was talking to Garcia, an owner of a ...

Read more

AZNAR v. YAPDIANGCO…

AZNAR v. YAPDIANGCO- Stolen GoodsTrue owner has a better right than a buyer in good faith to possession of a stolen good.FACTS:Teodoro Santos advertised the sale of his FORD FAIRLANE 500 in a newspaper. On L. De Dios went to the house of Teodoro and ...

Read more

Slight Illegal Dete…

I. Concept: The crime committed by a private person who detains another without the attendance of any of the circumstances under Article 267. The penalty therefore is the same penalty imposed upon one who furnished the place of detention. II. Special...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook