PERFECTO MACABABBAD, Jr.,* deceased, substituted by his heirs Sophia Macababbad, Glenn M. Macababbad, Perfecto Vener M.

Macababbad III and Mary Grace Macababbad, and SPS. CHUA SENG LIN AND SAY UN AY, petitioners vs. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG, FAUSTINA G. MASIRAG, CORAZON G. MASIRAG, LEONOR G. MASIRAG, and LEONCIO M. GOYAGOY, G.R. No. 161237 January 14, 2009 Facts: Spouses Pedro Masirag (Pedro) and Pantaleona Tulauan (Pantaleona) were the original registered owners of Lot No. 4144 of the Cadastral Survey in Tuguegarao Pedro and Pantaleona had eight (8) children, namely, Valeriano, Domingo, Pablo, Victoria, Vicenta, Inicio, Maxima and Maria. Respondents Fernando, Faustina, Corazon and Leonor Masirag are the children of Valeriano and Alfora Goyagoy, while Leoncio is the son of Vicenta and Braulio Goyagoy. The respondents allegedly did not know of the demise of their respective parents; they only learned of the inheritance due from their parents in the first week of March 1999 when their relative, Pilar Quinto, informed respondent Fernando and his wife Barbara Balisi about it. They immediately hired a lawyer to investigate the matter. In the investigation they learned that spouses Chua falsified document which was the Extra-judicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale of Portion of Registered Land (Lot 4144). The document had the signature of the respondents. Because of this they were deprived of their respective shares. The document ostensibly conveyed the subject property to Macababbad. Despite the supposed sale to Macababbad, his name did not appear on the face of TCT. Macababbad then registered portions of Lot No. 4144 in his name and sold other portions to third parties. Chua then claimed that they owned the subdivided portion of Lot No. 4144. Issue: a. Whether or not the extrajudicial settlement with sale of the subject land was valid b. Whether or not the action had already prescribed Held: a. No. There was a mistake in titling the land in question in the name of the registered owner indicated therein, but in the allegations in the body of the allegations in the body of the instant complaint, it clearly appears that the nature of the cause of action of appellants, they wanted to get back their respective shares in the subject inheritance because they did not sell said shares to Macababbad as the signatures purported to be theirs which appeared in the Extrajudicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale of Portion of Registered Land (Lot 4144) were forged. As appellants represented 2 of the 8 children of the deceased original owners of the land in question who were Pedro Masirag and Pantaleona Talauan, the sale is perfectly valid with respect to the other 6 children, and void with respect to the appellants. b. No. Ruling on prescription necessarily requires an analysis of the plaintiffs cause of action based on the allegations of the complaint and the documents attached as its integral parts. A motion to dismiss based on prescription hypothetically admits the allegations relevant and material to the resolution of this issue, but not the other facts of the case. As the nullity of the

extrajudicial settlement of estate and sale has been raised and is the primary issue, the action to secure this result will not prescribe pursuant to Article 1410 of the Civil Code

Chang vs Republic G.R. No. 171726 February 23, 2011 Facts:, L. Yu Chang, petitioners father and the Municipality of Pili, Camarines Surexecuted an Agreement to Exchange Real Propertywherein the former assigned and transferred to the Municipality of Pili his 400-square-meter residential lot in Barrio San Roque, Pili, Camarines Sur, in exchange for a 400-square-meter piece of land located in San Juan, Pili. Thereafter, L. Yu Chang and his family took possession of the property thus obtained and erected a residential house and a gasoline station thereon. When L. Yu Chang died his wife, Donata Sta. Ana and his seven children inherited the property and succeeded in the possession of the property After the transfer, petitioners had the subject property surveyed and subdivided into two lots. Soledad and Vicente Yu Chang claimed that they were co-owners of the said lot for they and their predecessor-in-interest had been in actual, physical, material, exclusive, open, occupation and possession of the above described parcels of land for more than 100 years. However the Republic opposed the application for registration claiming the said parcels of land were part of public dominion being classified as public forest land and neither applicants nor their predecessor-in-interest had been occupying the said lots Issue: Whether or not the subject lot was part of public domain Held: Yes. Petitioners did not adduce any evidence to the effect that the lots subject of their application were alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Petitioners contend that the subject properties could no longer be considered and classified as forest land since there are building structures, residential houses and even government buildings existing and standing on the area. This, however, is hardly the proof required under the law. It is well settled that possession of forest land, prior to its classification as alienable and disposable land, is ineffective since such possession may not be considered as possession in the concept of owner. The adverse possession which can be the basis of a grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title cases cannot commence until after forest land has been declared and alienable.

SPS. TAN SING PAN and MAGDALENA S. VERANGA, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 149114 July 21, 2006 Facts: Director of Lands cadastral case pursuant to the government's initiative to place all lands under the Cadastral System whereby titles for all lands within a stated area are adjudicated regardless of whether or not people living within the area desire to have titles.

Spouses Tan Sing Pan and Magdalena S. Veranga filed their Answer asserting ownership over Lot No. 18009 at Barangay Rizal, Atimonan, Quezon. They argued that they acquired the lot in question pursuant to a deed of sale. They claimed that they have been in possession of the subject lot for almost 60 years now. Issue: Whether or not spouses Tan Sing Pang and Magdalena Veranga were the legal owners of the subject lot Held: No. Cadastral proceedings, like ordinary registration proceedings, are proceedings in rem, and are governed by the usual rules of practice, procedure and evidence. A cadastral decree and a certificate of title are issued only after the applicants prove all the requisite jurisdictional facts: that they are entitled to the claimed lot; that all parties are heard; and that evidence is considered. Publication is essential to establish jurisdiction in land registration and cadastral cases, without which the court cannot acquire jurisdiction thereon or obtain any authority to proceed therewith. Petitioners failed to present proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing. Their argument that the instant case is a mere continuation of the proceedings in Cadastral Case No. 67 whereat the Director of Lands must have caused the publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette was not meritorious.