Certificate of title best proof of land ownership

Certificate of title best proof of land ownership "My godmother is the only child of her deceased parents. She went back to her parents’ hometown because she wanted to restore the property, which she claims belong to her parents who bought it sometime in the 1970s. However, she was surprised to learn that the property was titled under another person’s name. Since the property is already fenced, she could not enter it. In fact, she was prohibited from entering after she asked assistance from the barangay (village) government. She has a copy of the contract relating to the sale between her parents and the person from whom it was bought. Does it have no value in proving that their family is the owner of the property?Jill Dear Jill,The contract relating to the sale of the subject property, which was executed between the parents of your godmother and the person from whom they bought it, can establish the specific commercial transaction that transpired between them. It can be used to determine the obligations between said parties. However, said contract is not a conclusive evidence of their ownership over the subject property. They should have registered the sale and applied for the issuance of the title of the property, if the same has not yet been titled. If there was already a title issued covering the subject property, they should have applied for the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a transfer certificate of title. Considering that your godmother only has the contract and another person appears to have a title over the subject property under his name, then the latter is considered the lawful owner. Accordingly, he has the right to prevent your godmother or any other person from entering the property or utilizing the same. This is pursuant to our New Civil Code, viz:“Article 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law. x x x“Article 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. “Article 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.”It was also explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Numerio Abobon vs Felicitas and Gelima Abobon (GR 155830, Aug. 15, 2012, Ponente: Associate Justice Justice Lucas Bersamin) that:“First of all, a fundamental principle in land registration under the Torrens system is that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The certificate of title thus becomes the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land hence, anyone who deals with property registered under the Torrens system may rely on the title and need not go beyond the title. This reliance on the certificate of title rests on the doctrine of indefeasibility of the land title, which has long been well-settled in this jurisdiction. It is only when the acquisition of the title is attended with fraud or bad faith that the doctrine of indefeasibility finds no application.“Accordingly, we rule for the respondents on the issue of the preferential right to the possession of the land in question. Their having preferential right conformed to the age-old rule that whoever held a Torrens title in his name is entitled to the possession of the land covered by the title. Indeed, possession, which is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right, was but an attribute of their registered ownership. “It is beyond question under the law that the owner has not only the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing without other limitations than those established by law, but also the right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. He may exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal of the thing, and, for this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.” (Emphasis supplied)We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net" - https://www.affordablecebu.com/