[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
35 views1 page

Land Bank Vs Republic

The Land Bank filed a case against the Republic regarding a mortgage over land that was later found to belong to a forest zone. According to the facts, OCT was originally issued to Bugayong for the land in 1969, but the land was still classified as forest land at that time. Bugayong subdivided and sold the land, including to Lourdes Farms who then mortgaged it to Land Bank. It was later determined the land belonged to a forest zone. The court ruled the titles were void as the land was improperly removed from the forest zone. The issue was whether Land Bank's mortgage rights remained given the void titles. The court held they did not, as the land was never legally vested to L

Uploaded by

breeH20
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views1 page

Land Bank Vs Republic

The Land Bank filed a case against the Republic regarding a mortgage over land that was later found to belong to a forest zone. According to the facts, OCT was originally issued to Bugayong for the land in 1969, but the land was still classified as forest land at that time. Bugayong subdivided and sold the land, including to Lourdes Farms who then mortgaged it to Land Bank. It was later determined the land belonged to a forest zone. The court ruled the titles were void as the land was improperly removed from the forest zone. The issue was whether Land Bank's mortgage rights remained given the void titles. The court held they did not, as the land was never legally vested to L

Uploaded by

breeH20
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE:LandBankvsRepublic

FACTS:

Forestlandsareoutsidethecommerceofmanandareunsusceptibletoappropriation
inanyform
OCTwasissuedinfavorofAngelitoBugayongonSeptember1969.Thetitlecoversa
parceloflandinDavaoCitywithanareaof41,267squaremeters.
ThelandwassubdividedintofourlotsandanewOCTwasissuedstillunderBugayongs
name.
Bugayongthensoldthelotstodifferentpeopleandoneofthelotswassoldtospouses
Du.
Subsequently,theTCToftheDUspouseswascancelledandwastransferredtothename
ofLourdesFarms.ThelatterthenmortgagedthesaidlottoLandBankofthePhilippines
(LBP).
Therewasnoconflictwithregardstothelotsuntiltheresidenceoftheareaclaimedthat
thesaidlotsbelongedtoaforestzoneandthatitwascoveredwithseawaterduringhigh
tide.
TheRepublictheninstitutedacomplaintagainstBugayongandalltheownersofthelot
LBPthenclaimedthatitwasamortgageeingoodfaithandshouldthesalebeannulled,
LourdesFarmsshouldbeorderedtopayLBPtheirexistingdebt.
RTCruledthatthetitlesofthelandwerevoid,CAalsoaffirmedthedecision,

ISSUE:
WhetherornotLBPsmortgageerightwillstillsubsistdespitethetitlesbeingdeclaredasvoid
bythecourt?
HELD:(NOMERIT)
ItissettledthatwhenBugayongacquiredOCToftheland,thesaidlandwasstillpartof
theforestlandofthePhilippines.ItwasonlydeclaredasalienableonMarch25,1981
LBPclaimsthattheirrightasmortgageeshouldberespectedandthatsuchrightbindsthe
wholeworld.Italsoclaimedthatitisnotdutyboundtoinvestigatefurtherthetorrens
title
ItwasimpossibleforLBPtogainamortgageerightoverthepropertyconsideringthat
the property was never legally vested to Lourdes Farms in the first place. It was
impossibleforLourdesFarmstolegallygainpossession/ownershipofthelandbecause
itwasonlyon1981whenthelandwasclassifiedasalienable.
Lastly,thesaidconfiscationdonebythestateisnottantamounttoaviolationofthenon
impairmentclausebecausesaidactionisanexerciseofthepolicepowerofthestate.

You might also like