Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Land Titles and Deeds

Land Titles and Deeds


Land Title – evidence of right of owner or extent of his interest, by which means he can maintain control and as a rule assert right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of property

Deed – instrument in writing which any real estate or interest therein is created, alienated, mortgaged or assigned or by which title to any real estate may be affected in law or equity

1.    Grantor
2.    Grantee
3.    Words of grant
4.    Description of property
5.    Signature of grantor
6.    Witnesses

Types of estates:

1.    Freehold estate – indicates title of ownership
a.    Fee simple – absolute title; conferred without limitation, qualification or restriction
b.    Fee tail – pass title to grantee & his heirs
c.    Life state – held for duration of life of grantee

2.    Less than freehold estate – a right short of title
a.    Estate for years – lease for a period agreed upon, lessor retains ownership of land
b.    Tenancy from period to period – lease running from month to month or year to year with automatic renewal
c.    Tenancy at will – person is permitted to occupy land of another without stipulation as to period

3 Stages of Development of Legal System of Transferring Titles:

1.    Production & delivery of deed by grantor to grantee without registration
2.    Deed of conveyance is recorded to bind 3rd persons
3.    Registration of title

Registration – guarantees the title

Recording – does not guarantee the title; need to examine other docs

Purpose of Registration:

1.    Serve as constructive notice
2.    Prevent fraudulent claims

3.    Protect interest of strangers to transaction

Friday, May 9, 2014

Case on Contract of Agency

Civil Law: Contract of Agency, Contract to Sell Real Properties

Sally Yoshizaki, Petitioner, vs.  Joy Training Center of Aurora, Inc., Respondents
G.R. No. 174978; July 31, 2013

Facts:  Richard and Linda Johnson were members of Joy Training’s Board of Trustees who sold the real properties, a wrangler jeep, and other personal properties in favor of the spouses Sally and Yoshio Yoshizaki. Joy Training filed an action for cancellation of sales alleging that the spouses Johnson is without the requisite authority from the Board of Directors. The RTC ruled in favor of the spouses Yoshizaki. It found that Joy Training owned the real properties and it authorized he spouses Johnson to sell the real properties. It recognized that there were only five actual members of the board of trustees; consequently, a majority of the board of trustees validly authorized the sale. It also ruled that the sale of personal properties was valid because they were registered in the spouses Johnson’s name. The CA upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction over the case but reversed its ruling with respect to the sale of real properties. It also ruled that the resolution is void because it was not approved by a majority of the board of trustees.

Issue: Was there a contract of agency to sell the real properties between Joy Training and the spouses Johnson?

Ruling:  The SC ruled that there was no contract of agency between Joy Training and the spouses Johnson to sell the parcel of land with its improvements. Art. 1868 of the Civil Code defines a contract of agency as a contract whereby a person “binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.” It may be express, or implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority. In this case, the presented evidence did not convince the SC of the existence of the contract of agency to sell the real properties. The certification is a mere general power of attorney which comprises all of Joy training.  Art. 1877 of CC clearly states that an agency couched in general terms comprises only acts of administration, even if the principal should state that he withholds no power or that the agent may execute such acts as he may authorize as general and unlimited management.

Jurisprudence on Power of Eminent Domain

Civil Law: Eminent Domain, Easement, Right of Way

Spouses Jesus L. Cabahug and Coronacion M. Cabahug, Petitioners, vs.
National Power Corporation, Respondent
G.R. No. 186069; January 30, 2013

Facts:  Spouses Cabahug, being owners of two parcels of land which were subjected to expropriation proceedings by the National Power Corporation (NPC). NPC electrical cables would be installed in the portions of the province and would traverse the land owned by the petitioners.  Cabahug, in consideration of the easement fees, granted NPC a continuous easement right of way. Two years thereafter, Cabahug filed a complaint before RTC for payment of just compensation after having learned that the compensation given by NPC was very low compared to the appraisal made by the province of Leyte. RTC rendered decision in favor of Cabahug. However, at the Court of Appeals, it was ruled that vested right has already accrued in favour of NPC, and to allow spouses Cabahug to pursue the case would be a violation of the contract and an unjust enrichment in favour of Cabahug.

Issue:  Whether or not NPC may still be held liable to pay for the full market value of the affected property despite the fact transfer of title thereto was not required by the easement.

Ruling:              Yes. The power of Eminent Domain may be exercised although title is not transferred to the expropriator in easement of right of way. Just compensation which should be neither more nor less than the money equivalent of the property is, moreover, due where the nature and effect of the easement is to impose limitations against the use of the land for an indefinite period and deprive the landowner if ordinary use.