Aug.

03, 2012 Land Titles And Deeds

Notorious it should be known to the public. Which means you hold yourself out to the public as owner of the land. Remember that possession here should not mean mere constructive possession. There can be actual and constructive possession. Constructive means that you dont actually possess it. You may own rights over the land but you are not the one who is really in possession of the property. And therefore, the court held in the case of Mistica Vs. Republic of the Philippines (September 11, 2009):
possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction "and," the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the allencompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property. what are examples of actual possession? 1) cultivation refer to the case of Ramos Vs. Director of Lands 2) introduction of improvements

Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. In Republic Vs. Manimtim, the court listed the requisites: The applicants for the registration of land must sufficiently establish by no less than clear, positive, and convincing evidence: 1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; The rule is: by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, you establish those requisites. The burden is with respect to the applicant to prove it because it is in derogation of the regalian doctrine. The presumption is that all lands, which are clearly not of private ownership, belong to the state. Also, the applicant must prove that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain. So even if it is registered, and it is not alienable and disposable, the registration is void. How is this requisite satisfied? This can be satisfied, according to the case of republic vs. rizaldo that certification and report from the DENRCENRO stating that the land is alienable and disposable. This is also in the case of Victoria Vs. Republic of the Philippines. 2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; So the possession here means that it is open, which means that the owner did not secretly possess the land Continuous not interrupted. it cannot be that A owns the land now, and then sold his rights to another person, and then he bought it again. Thats no longer continous. Exclusive the possession means the exclusion of all other people.

3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Bona fide only means good faith. This means that the applicant is a genuine and honest claimant. You dont have to prove this because it is a presumption. One more matter in republic vs. Rizaldo would be a document which manifests a persons good faith. It may come in the form of a tax declaration. A person who is in his right mind would not pay for these. (in sirs own words: ang Pilipino ba, ganahan mubayad? Walay tao ganahan maghatag ug kwarta. Ang tao, ganahan magdawat.) so the supreme court here is talking about a person who is religiously paying his tax declarations. Even if there was no title, he paid his taxes. According to the SC, tax declarations are not adequate to show ownership because anybody can declare it for tax declaration purposes. But it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. The voluntary declaration of property for taxation purposes not only manifests ones sincere and honest desire to pay title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the state and other interested parties with an intention to contradict the needed revenues paid to the government for

corruption purposes. Such an act strengthens ones bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. Proof of payment of land taxes is not enough to acquire ownership but payment of land taxes coupled with possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 is a ground for registration. This is because when one pays land taxes, his concept of possession is one of ownership. It can prove requisite number 3, but not number 2. Take note of the date: June 12, 1945 Why is it relevant? In which is a very important case heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. 179987, April 29, 2009), The SC also does not know its relevance. It appears that it was arbitrarily chosen. There is no historical significance. (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws. Example: Eirich filed an application for registration of title to land. She avers that she has been in possession of the land since June 12, 1946. She filed her application on June 15 1976. Assuming the requisites have been complied with, she can apply for a registration of title by virtue of prescription and not for ownership since June 12, 1945. If you cant apply under paragraph one, for as long as the other requisites are present, you can apply under paragraph two or issuance of a certificate of title by virtue of prescription. So it doesnt mean that after june 12, 1945, you cannot apply for registration anymore. Prescription in obligations and contracts, It is one of the modes of acquiring ownership. Sale is a title, it is not a mode. So in sale, it is like the key to the door, but its not the door. The mode in sale is delivery because it is what transfers ownership. There are two types of prescription: acquisitive and extinctive. This provision covers acquisitive prescription. There is a consistent jurisprudential rule that properties classified as alienable and disposable land may be converted into private property by reason of open continuous exclusive and notorious possession of at least 30 years. With such conversion, such property will fall into the contemplation of private lands under section 14 paragraph 2 and therefore succeptible to registration by ownership acquired through prescription. By the phraseology of paragraph 2, it includes only private lands. For as long as it is private land, meaning that it is alienable and disposable. So example you have stayed in the property for 50 years, for sure, it is converted into private land. all you have to do is confirm your ownership by filing an application for the issuance of a title.

Q: how many years is required for a person to occupy a private land for him to acquire ownership? A: it depends. If it is in good faith, 10 years. But otherwise, not necessarily saying in bad faith, 30 years. Under article 1134, ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of 10 years. So here, the possession must be in good faith and with just title. The good faith of the possessor consists in the person reasonably believing that the person whom he received it from was the owner thereof and could transmit his ownership. It can also be mere possession for the requisite period. Example: youre the one who discovered a property. And apparently, its alienable and disposable, and youve stayed there for 10 years, you can apply for titling. Also remember that the conditions of good faith required for possession under book II title 5 chapter 1 of the civil code are also necessary to determine good faith. Thus he is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. Mistake upon the doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. Thats article 526 of the civil code. What is meant by the term, just title? A: for purposes of registration, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition or ownership or real rights but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. (Art. 1129) According to Tolentino, just title is an act which has for its purpose the transmission of ownership and which would have actually transferred ownership if the grantor had been the owner. This vice or defect is the one cured by prescription. The grantor referred to in 1129 is not the state. The grantor is the one person invoking ordinary acquisitive prescription, the right title, whether by sale, exchange, donation, succession, or any of the mode of the modes of acquisition of ownership or other real rights. Example: A is the father, B is the son. A acquired a property before he died. But he did not know that the seller did not own the property. When he died, by virtue of succession, his son acquired the property and he stayed there for 20 years. So now, he applied for titling. He found out that the person who sold the property to his father was not the owner. Is there just title? A: yes, there is just title because the act that should have transmitted ownership and which would have actually transferred ownership would have been effective had the grantor been the owner.

REMEMBER: Art. 1130: the title for prescription must be true and valid. 1131: for the purposes of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never presumed. Extraordinary prescription this is under Art. 1137. The law does not say, if bad faith, 30 years. The law says if good faith, 10 years. Otherwise, without need for titling, 30 years. What may be the objects of prescription? Article 1113. In other words, if it is property of public dominion, you cannot apply 10 years 30 years whether in good faith or otherwise. This is because the property is of public dominion, and therefore, outside the commerce of man. So if it is patrimonial already, not property of public dominion, prescription can apply. Under Article 422: It is clearly provided in the civil code that where lands of public domain are patrimonial in character, they are susceptible to acquisitive prescription. On the other hand, among the public domain land, the lands not susceptible of acquisitive prescription are timber lands and mineral lands. The constitution itself proscribes private ownership of timber or mineral lands. Q: it is clear in 14 paragraph 2 that you can acquire property by prescription. It does not say ordinary or extraordinary. Where did we get this concept? A: its in the civil code. Its not from PD 1529. Q: which one is applicable in 14 paragraph 2? A: actually, its both. This is because there is really nothing in the civil code that bars a person from acquiring a property of the state through ordinary acquisitive prescription. Nor is there any apparent reason to impose such a rule. At the same time, these are indispensible requisites such as just title and good faith. In the case of Malabanan, the court took the time to remind practitioners that acquisitive prescription doesnt have to be 30 years. If it is in good faith, 10 years is enough. Whether under ordinary prescription or extraordinary prescription, preceding the classification of public lands as patrimonial, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing prescription. Ex: so youve been occupying the property since 1950. Lets say it came from your father. Thats what you call

tacking of possession. You are allowed to tack your possession with that of your immediate transferee for the purposes of complying with for example paragraph 1. Lets say your father took possession of the property in june 12 1945, and he died 1950. The law recognizes that human beings die. Thats why there is tacking. You can add the years that your precedents have occupied the property with the years you have also occupied the property. Q: following the example above, your father occupied the land and then now you occupy it until 2012. Then sometime in the year 2000, the president included your property and considered it as patrimonial property. Can you now apply for titling? A: it depends if you are in good faith or bad faith or otherwise. This is because you are not allowed to count for the purposes of prescription those years when the property was not yet alienable and disposable. So you have to start from zero regardless of how long youve been in actual possession of the property. So in this example, you start counting from the year 2000. This is one of the more important differences between paragraph 1 and 2. After the property has been classified as patrimonial, that is the only time prescription begins to run in favor of the possessor. Before that, even if youve occupied the land for 120 years, it will not matter. So once the period has been completed, 2 legal events occur: 1) 2) the patrimonial property is ipso jure converted into private land; the person in possession for the periods prescribed under the civil code acquires ownership of the property by operation of the civil code.

Once the possessor automatically becomes the owner of the converted patrimonial property, the ideal next step is the registration of the property under the Torrens system. How do you distinguish Paragraph 1 and 2? Paragraph 1 Possession PD 1529 Paragraph 2 prescription Civil code provisions on prescription Property registration decree and the civil code

Basis of registration What law do you apply? What laws would allow application for titling for possession OCENPO since June 12 1945

Both the property registration decree and public land act (CA 141) The possessor is entitled to secure

If it is only now declared as

judicial confirmation of his title as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable

Does not require that the property is alienable and disposable for the entire period of possession

alienable and disposable, regardless of how many years it has been possessed by the person, the computation of the period begins at zero. It is required that the property is alienable and disposable

reckoning period is when the land was declared as alienable. As held in Heirs of Malabanan v Republic, because public domain lands become patrimonial property not only in the date of declaration that these are alienable and disposable, there must also be an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer within for public service. Under the Civil Code, only when the property becomes patrimonial can the acquisitive prescription period begins to run.

Ex: youve been in the property since june 1935, and then this time, in 2012, the government has declared the property as alienable and disposable. Automatically, youre the owner. All you have to do is confirm that youre the owner by securing a certificate of title. It does not even matter if for the entire period of your possession is the possession of something which is beyond the commerce of man. When the government came out with the classification that it is now alienable and disposable, youre automatically the owner. But in Paragraph 2, the rules are different. Let us suppose that youve been in possession of the property for 50 years and it is only now that the government is saying that it is alienable and disposable. You cannot apply. Q: youve been in that property for 50 years, its alienable and disposable but to the extent that somebody else has a title. Can you seek titling for the property? A: no. its already covered by the Torrens title. Prescription does not run against a Torrens title because it is indefeasible and imprescriptible. Prescription does not also apply in the case of coownership. There cannot be any prescription unless there is a repudiation of co-ownership.

Distinctions between Sec14(1) and par 2

Sec 14 (1) Sec 14 (2) Mandates registration Mandates registration on the basis of on the basis of possession prescription Is applied without reference to the civil code Registration is extended under the property registration of Public Land Act Explicitly refers to prescription which is found in civil code Registration made available by both Public Land Act and Civil Code

Prescription cannot be applied in 3 instances: 1. When property is covered by Torrens title 2. Land is inalienable 3. In case of co-ownership, so long as the co-owner expressly or impliedly recognize the co-ownership. For prescription to apply, the co-owner must have repudiated the co-ownership and the co-owners are aware. *Read Heirs Malabanan v Republic

Land Titles
August 14, 2012 Transcribed by Pearl Canada

A multiple choice exercise:

Remember in Par.1 of section 14 of PD 1529, the reckoning point is made from the date of commencement of possession, under paragraph 2 the

Suppose Bougart is a registered owner of land adjoining Marikina river in 1970, in 1980 he built a dam

that trapped sediment leading to an increase to his land area and it is now year 2005. What is the correct legal conclusion?:

a. Bougart is entitled to have the increase in area included in his certificate of title by way of accretion. b. Bougart is only entitled to the increase in 2010 by way of prescription. c. The increase in Bougarts land is part of the public domain owned by the state d. Bougart is ipso facto entitled to the increase by way of prescription.

on the requisites. Most of the time what the SC adds as spiller would be that there is something that the riparian owner did which may or may not have contributed to the increase in his land area, and that is for as long as there is something that contributed to the increase in the land area which is a work of man rather than work of nature, you have no choice but to answer, it is not accretion.

Answer: C. Because under section 14(3), who can be allowed to register land by way of accretion.

What is Accretion? Under Art 457 of Civil Code The owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers below the accretion which they gradually received from the effects of the current of the waters. Requisites for Accretion:

An accretion does not automatically become a registered land, it is not necessarily mean that the increase is already yours. No, as such it must be place under the operation of the Torrens system. So you file petition for registration for accretion which is in effect a confirmation of title already vested to a riparian owner by the law. Because Article 457 declares that to the owners of the land below the accretion which they gradually received from the effects of waters. Its just that for you to have the land registered you need to file petition for registration, again it is in effect a confirmation of your title which the law already vest upon you.

1. Deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible, it is not something that is violently added to your land because in that case that is already avulsion. 2. That it can be the result of the actions of waters of the river 3. That the land takes place is adjacent to the banks of the river. The person claiming the land must show in preponderance of evidence that he has met all the requirements provided by law. Accretion must be exclusive work of nature and not caused by any human intervention.

Must be noted however that an accretion from the sea is part of the public domain and generally outside the commerce of man. Take note of the difference, accretion from the river and accretion from sea.

Take note also of Art 461 of NCC which states that riverbeds which are abandoned through the natural change and course of waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course of the proportion of the area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.

How is Accretion asked in Bar? The formula is always the same, you have to identify whether the accretion is one that is valid based

Katong tag-iya sa yuta kung asa naga agi ang sapa, mudako na iyang area because there is no more water there but because it changed course it is possible that

another land owner may have been affected and his landholding may have been increased.

There are certain conditions before you can be awarded of these types of patents that must be complied with by an individual: Example, when the law requires that a certain individual must have possession for such amount of time, that must be complied with otherwise, pwede mawala sa imoha ang preferential title over the said land.

The landowner affected by the change of the course of the river, thereby diminishing his estate is the one who owns what was left for the old course of the river. So its possible that in one track of land there are 2 owners which is not favored by the law thats why the law allows the owner of the land adjoining the bed to acquire by paying.

Under section 11, you need to remember that the subject of titling here is only agricultural lands.

So important provisions to remember Article 257-461. Read also the case of New Regents Sources v Tanjuatco GR 160800, April 16, 2009.

Who may apply for Homestead Patent

Public Land Act (CA 141)

When it was promulgated by legislative was some sort of revolutionary legislation. Inasmuch as it recognize certain modes of acquisition of land titles which in a way derogates upon the regalian doctrine, meaning all lands belong to the state. And lands which are not clearly of private ownership are presumed to belong to the state. That is the effect of CA 141 at that time, and it provide means for people who desire to own lands.

1. Any citizen of the Philippines over the age of 18 years. (the law does not distinguish between natural-born, naturalized or dual-citizen) 2. If you are head of a family, you are entitled to apply(below 18 yrs who are head can also acquire, since CA 141 was promulgated where legal age was below 18, but now, you have to be in proper age to be entitled.) who does not own more than 24 hectares of land or who does not have been subject of gratuitous grant more than 24 hectares of land since the occupation of Philippines by US.

Right now you have to remember due to the enactment of CARP, you are only entitled up to 5 hectares of land if you are alone, but if you have children, each can own 5 ha.

Under section 11 of this Act, agricultural lands can be disposed of only as follows and not otherwise: a. b. c. d. homestead settlement sale lease confirmation of incomplete titles which can be judicial or administrative proceedings Procedure for Homestead Patent

First is entry, upon the filing of application for homestead the applicant may be authorized to take possession of the land upon the payment of entry fee.

What is issued in homestead settlement? Homestead patent, same with sale, and lease patents. In confirmation of titles, you are given a free patent.

Second, commencement of cultivation which is 6 months counted from the approval of the application

the applicant shall begin to work on the land otherwise the applicant will lose his prior right to the land. (When your application is granted, you are given priority over the land). No land shall be granted unless at least 1/5 of the land is cultivated within not less than 1 or more than 5 years from the date of application. So, when the application for homestead is approved you have to commence your cultivation within 6 months from that date and then within 1-5 years you must be able to already improved or cultivate 1/5 of the land. (thats why a lot of homesteaders lose their homestead because before what is 1/5 of 24 ha? Around 4 ha, needs a lot of resources to cultivate within 4 years)

Note, he law does not require continuous absence for 6 months.

*Remember that only one homestead is allowed for every person.

Why minimum of 1 and maximum of 5 years? Because the law wants prior cultivation, you can only commence cultivation at the time the application for homestead has been approved. bawal ang prior cultivation.

After the approval of the application and before the patent is issued, if the qualified applicant cannot continue with his homestead and there is a bona fide purchaser for the rights and improvements of the applicant, and the conveyance is not made for the purposes of speculation (meaning, so that you can resell it, that is speculation) he may, with the previous approval of Director of Lands must transfer the land and any improvements thereon to the person legally qualified to apply for homestead.

Third, the applicant must be resident for at least 1 year continuously in the municipality where land is situated and has cultivated 1/5 of the land continuously and shall make an affidavit that no part of the said land has been alienated or encumbered and that he has to comply with the requirements of CA 141.

Any person who must so transfer his rights may not again apply for new homestead. Every transfer made, without previous approval by DOL shall be null and void.

Sales Patent

Fourth, upon payment of final fee shall be entitled already of the issuance of homestead patent.

*If it shall be proven that the land under the law cannot be subject of homestead grant, the patent can be cancelled.

Q: Are you entitled to a patent if you changed your residence? A: No. The patent entry may be cancelled so, residence is a continuing requirement. Also, if you have voluntarily abandon the land for a period of 6 months at any time during the years of residence and occupation.

Under section 22, Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines, and any such citizen not of lawful age who is a head of a family, and any corporation or association of which at least sixty per centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said capital stock belongs wholly to citizens of the Philippines, and which is organized and constituted under the laws of Philippines, and corporate bodies organized in the Philippines authorized under their charters to do so; may purchase any tract of public agricultural land disposable under this Act, not to exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares in the case of an individual and one thousand and twenty-four hectares in that of a corporation or association, by proceeding as prescribed in this chapter: Provided, That partnerships shall be entitled to purchase not to exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares for each member thereof. But the total area so purchased shall in no case

exceed the one thousand and twenty-four hectares authorized in this section for associations and corporations.

municipalities, it should not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square meters; and in all other municipalities, it should not exceed one thousand (1,000) square meters; Provided, further, That the land applied for is not needed for public service and/or public use.

Lease Patent Kini ang mas kinihanglan sa mga tao. Under Sec. 33. Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines, and any corporation or association of which at least sixty per centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said capital stock belongs wholly to citizens of the Philippines, and which is organized and constituted under the laws of the Philippines, may lease any tract of agricultural public land available for lease.

LANDTITLES August 28, 2012 Pearl Canada

Your contract with the government is the lease patent that the government issues.

Mystery Movie of Sir: I guess it was Eyes Wide Shut movie

Application shall be in writing, signed by the applicant or the person duly authorized in his behalf and sworn to before any legal officer authorized to administer oath in the province or city where the application was actually signed.

The application shall contain the following particulars:

Free Patent
1.description of the land applied for together with the improvements thereon if any.

Under section 11, remember that only agricultural lands can be subject of issuance of free patent.

2. Citizenship and civil status of the applicant; whether single or married, the name of the husband or the wife. If the marriage has been legally dissolved when and how the marriage relation terminated.

Take Note of this law, RA 10023, AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENTS TO RESIDENTAL LANDS. This is actually a novel proposition.

3. Assessed value improvements.

of

the

land,

building

and

other

(This is important for jurisdictional reasons)

Under this law, Section 1 in qualifications. - Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a residential land may apply for a Free Patent Title under this Act: Provided; That in highly urbanized cities, the land should not exceed two hundred (200) square meters; in other cities, it should not exceed five hundred (500) square meters; in first class and second class

4. Any mortgages or encumbrances on the land, or the names of other persons who may have a legal or equitable interest therein. (this is also important for the simple reason that these people must be given notice)

5. Manner by which the applicant has acquired the land.

6. Full names and addresses of all the occupants and those of adjoining owners if known, and if not known shall state the extent of search made to find them, (because occupation is more or less similar to possession and sometimes an incident of ownership, adjoining owners must be identified because of the possibility of over-lapping of boundaries)

Muniments of title are instruments or written evidences which applicant hold or possess to enable him to substantiate claim to his estate.

4. 4 copies of certificate from city or provincial treasurer of the assessed value of the land.

7. When the land applied for borders on road. It shall whether or not the applicant claims any and what portion of the land within the limits of the way or road, and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way or road determined. (Sec.20)

5. In case of non-resident applicant, he shall file with his application an instrument in due form appointing an agent or representative residing in the Philippines.

Instances when the court can dismiss application for original registration: 8. The court may require facts to be stated in the application in addition to those prescribed by this decree not inconsistent therewith and may require the filing of any additional papers. It may also conduct an ocular inspection, if necessary. (Sec.21) a. In the case of a non-resident application where it is prosecuted in a representative capacity, in the event that the agent or representative dies or leaves the Philippines, the applicant must make another appointment for the substitute and if he fails to do so, the courts may dismiss the application. If the application is filed in the wrong court or venue (difference between jurisdiction and venue: J is governed by substantive law while V is procedural)

*Remember the difference between ordinary civil procedure and procedure in land registration. In civil proceedings there are only 7 pleadings that are required: complaint, answer, counterclaim, cross-claim, reply, third-party complaint and complaint-in-intervention. However in the land registration you have the application and there can be the opposition as to what other pleading to present it could be under the discretion of the court, for any other additional papers. The court may require the parties sometimes to submit a position paper, state your legal arguments and convince the court with respect to your position why you should be given the privilege of owning this land under the Torrens system.

b.

c.

If the land is not per se, registrable

d.

If the land has been previously subjected to the operation of the Torrens system. Simply put: land has already been registered.

e. What should accompany the application for registration?

If the applicant is not qualified under the Constitution

Difference between Dismissal and Denial of application: 1.Application for registration must be accompanied by tracing cloth plan duly approved by Director of lands Dismiss means thats the end of the case. If you want to file again you have to pay all the required fees all over again. If application is denied, there is still hope. It is only denied for the moment. You can always rectify the error and have the court still take cognizance of the case.

2. 3 copies of technical descriptions

What are the causes? 3. 3 copies of surveyor certificate or original muniments of title a. If the applicant has not furnished the Director of lands a copy of the application and all required attachments, in that case the clerk of court will not accept the application. It will only be denied. Failure to make oath before duly authorized person. (Now, law is not clear in the event that the application is not verified, in my submission would be to apply procedure in civil cases where there is no immediate dismissal of the case

b. What is muniment of title?

whenever there is defect in the verification, it must only be denied.)

Importance of verification is to maintain truthfulness in the application because, in the event of false declarations in the application, one can be criminally held for Perjury.

Answer: B. so, if the lot is contested the value is limited to 100,00 but if it not contested there is no limit to the value. But remember it is not automatic, the SC must assign the MTC to hear cadastral cases.

Value of the lot means? Fair-market or assessed value? -It is always assessed value for jurisdiction to apply. Application shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the city or municipality where the land is situated. Sec.2 of Property Registration Decree, the court used the Court of First Instance, now RTC shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original application of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein and over all petitions filed after all petition for original title. So, the jurisdiction refers to both the original application and subsequent dealings in the property. An example is the reconstitution of loss title, this is filed in RTC. Note: Appeal cases in MTC as delegated court by SC shall be filed in CA not RTC.

Q of Fact or Q of Law? It has something to do with the remedy. If it is Q of fact you have to appeal in CA not in SC bec it is not trier of facts. If mixed Q of Facts and Law, still CA.

Such courts (RTCs) shall have the power to determine and hear cases arising from such application or petitions. The Court, through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission certified copies, pleadings, orders and decisions filed or issued for land registration with exception of stenographic notes within 5 days from the issuance thereof.

LAND TITLES-ALBERT REMOLLO Sept 4, 2012 I think the last topic we discussed before we were interrupted by earthquake is whether or not there can be default in a land registration case? of course the answer would be YES! From the motion of the applicant, if the person here is absent within the time allowed, the court would order a default and will be recorded and will require the applicant to present evidence. Now what if you are a claimant over the same property which is the subject of the original registration case, can you restore or can you ask the court to restore your standing? Meaning you can now file a position despite the fact that you did not appear during the date of initial hearing and then you did not submit any opposition? The answer is YES! because a defaulted interested claimant may gain standing by filing a verified motion to set aside the order of default under rule 5 section 3 of the rules of court which applies suppletory in a land registration case. Can you file a motion to dismiss? YES! again because of suppletory application of the rules in

Here, the jurisdiction of RTC is exclusive and original. RTCs no longer have limited jurisdiction in original registrations for land title. Case: Aberia v Caguia 146 SCRA 459

Is this jurisdiction of RTC really exclusive? No. because under sec 34 of BP 129 as amended by RA 7691 Allows MTCs to hear cadastral land registration. Sec.34 provides, MTCs may be assigned by SC to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition or contested lots, the value of which does not exceed 100,000 pesos.

Which of the following land cases may be heard by MTC in cities:

a. b.

Application for land title of a lot contested by 2 claimants, the assessed value being 50,000 pesos. Application of original registration of an uncontested lot, assessed value being 120,000

land registration cases provided in section 34 of PD 1529. Ok! After the filing of the answer or opposition of the application, of course the RTC will now proceed to hear the application for land registration and during this hearing by the RTC the applicant must of course present evidence like in any other case, like, what would be the specific evidence that would be required of the applicant? First, Of course you need to present that the land is alienable or disposable, that it had been withdrawn from public use and therefore registrable public land, and that would usually come in a form of declaration from the executive branch of the government declaring that such land is withdrawn from public use and it is already alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Second of course as the applicant you have to present proof as well as to the identity of the land and therefore you have to prove before the court the specific meets and bounds of the properties, sa ato pa you need to present unsa na ka dako nang property na imong gina applayan, what would be the specific description of the property or how many square meters, you will need to present that too. Finally the proof of acquisition of ownership of such land under section 14 of PD 1529, whether you have acquired it by prescription, or by virtue of paragraph 1, or you are applying such property as a result of accretion and so on and so forth. Ok so after hearing of course, whether there is an opposition or not the court will indeed promulgate this judgment under section 28 there can be partial judgment. This happens when only a portion of land is contested, the court may render partial judgment provided that a subdivision plan showing the contested or the uncontested portion is approved by the director of lands previously submitted by the parties and of course in relation to what we have discussed earlier that when there is controversy as to the boundaries of the properties, the parties may be required to submit a subdivision plan. So this is the application this time. So that para dili kaayo dugay, the court can render

partial judgment and pending resolution of the controversy in the mean time, such controversy is subject to the issuance of certificate of title. All conflicting claims of ownership in the interested lands subject of the application shall be determined by the court and the court after considering the evidences and the reports of the commissioner of land registration and the director of lands finds that the applicant or the oppositor have a sufficient title proper for registration, judgment shall be rendered confirming the title of the applicant or the oppositor to the land or portion thereof. So it foresee a situation where you are the one whos filing an application for original registration of property not covered by a torrens title and the reason for the opposition, that it was the oppositor who was able to prove by quantum of evidence required by law, he is now entitled to the property, as if the oppositor filed the application. So how can you prove that the applicant is not entitled to the same? you also present the same thing, you have to present of how you have acquired the property, if you are the oppositor and also the specific meets and bounds of the property so as if the judgment would cover all conflicting claims over the land. Then after promulgation of judgment by the court then it will issue its judgment or it will issue its decision, the judgment rendered by a land registration proceeding becomes final upon the expiration of 30 days to be counted from the day of receipt of notice of the judgment. After the judgment has become final and executory, it shall be the duty upon the court to report with issues directing the commissioner of land registration authority to issue the decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged and entitled to the registration. So take note of the period here, 30 days to be counted from the day of receipt of notice of judgment. What would happen after the expiration of the period? The judgment becomes final and executory. And after the judgment has become final the court will issue an order, the order will direct the commissioner or the land registration authority to issue the so called decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of

title in favor of the person adjudged and entitled to the registration. So the decree of registration is issued by the land registration authority rather than the court, so what will the court issue? The court will issue a judgment and not the decree. So for all intents and purposes the judgment of the court is more or less the same as the decree of registration and they are identical in all aspect. Since it is the commissioner or the land registration authority that will issue the decree of registration what duty is involved in such an issuance? It is a ministerial duty or a discretionary duty from the part of land registration authority. Now at this point the answer to the question is that first we need to know what a ministerial duty is and a discretionary duty is. Of course discretionary duty involves discretion. So you have to choose between two options so it involves discretion, thats choice. Ministerial duties on the other hand do not involve such discretion it has to be done, thats what a ministerial duty is. Kung a tribunal or an officer does not have to choose whether naay mudaog or mapilidi, that it has just to act to a certain matter that is a ministerial duty. Now when the commissioner or the land registration authority would issue a decree of registration is it exercising discretion? Is it simply following a superior body and would say in this case, the superior body is the court and in that sense it is ministerial in character because it has no discretion on the matter whatsoever. When the court decrees that Mr. A, the applicant is entitled to a titling to the property he is applying before the land registration authority, and the LRA abides with its order, the LRA would have no choice, the LRA has just to issue a decree of registration. Now in the case of GOMEZ VS CA DECEMBER 15, 1988 the Supreme Court said that the duty of the land registration officials to issue a decree of registration is purely ministerial. it is ministerial in a sense that they act under the orders of the court, and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court, and they have no discretion in that matter, very simple it is of course ministerial it has to be in conformity with the judgment of the

court and the available facts on record in a land registration case. Now what would be the effect s of the declaration that duties are ministerial? The availability of certain remedies, when something is need to be done by an officer or tribunal is one that would entail discretion and the tribunal refuses to act what would be the proper remedy? You can then couch that under the general terms grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and normally you can file a certiorari, that is your remedy, youre questioning discretion But when you question something that is not discretionary, what can you use or what is your remedy that you can avail of? You can avail of the remedy of mandamus. But lets not jump forward yet because I am not prepared to tell you that it being a purely ministerial function, the issuance of decree of registration can be compelable by mandamus? I am not prepared to tell you that yet but for one the effect of that the characterization, that it is ministerial in character, this duty to issue a decree of registration as ordered by the court by the land registration authority would be that you dont normally go to the motions of securing an execution, another difference of an ordinary civil case and a land registration case. In an ordinary case, Mr. A files a complaint against Mr. B and the court orders Mr. B either to vacate the property if it is an ejectment case, to pay damages or to do a certain thing, a judgment which compels the performance of an obligation, obligation to give, obligation to do and not to do, no matter how you look at it, it is always the content of a judgment, to compel the performance of an obligation. So let us suppose that in an ordinary civil case, pahawaon nimu ang defendant then to pay damages is it automatic when the court issues a judgment automatically that will be done? NO! you have to file what we call a motion for execution provided that the judgment has become final and executory . When does it become final and executory? Upon the expiration of the period to appeal if there is a further appeal allowed, but when we say the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court, wla

na jud tay mabuhat ana! You cannot appeal further so it immediately becomes executory. But there is a thought that you still have to wait because there is a remedy what we call as motion for reconsideration before the SC, in which the SC rarely grants. But there are a lot of cases when the SC made a complete turn around, in a case by reason of a motion for reconsideration, one of these cases if one that you will take up in labor law and in torts and damages, and that would be the case of RAMOS VS CA, I do not know if you are familiar to that but it is a labor standard case, it is one case where the SC decreed that the employeremployee relationship can be declared even if you know it is not part in the labor code, the SC will supply an employer-employee relationship. But upon motion for reconsideration the SC, it made a turn around to their previous decision and said NO! There is no employer-employee relationship. So the point I am making is that, upon the expiration of the period to appeal the decision becomes final and executor, so thats how it is, and in ordinary civil cases, and when it becomes final and executory there is an entry of judgment, if it will be finalize in court, the court will issue a finality of judgment then after that, you can already file a motion for execution because that would be the only time that you will be entitled to the fruits of the judgment. In an ordinary case, the court will direct the sheriff to compel satisfaction of the judgment in a land registration case, however the cause of its ministerial duty, you do not have to file a motion, so that the LRA will issue a decree of registration. Thats the first effect that the characterization of a duty to issue a decree of registration is ministerial in character no need to file a motion for execution and according to the SC in the case of REPUBLIC VS NILYAS JANUARY 23,2007, there is no need for the prevailing party to apply for writ of execution in order to obtain a title and to compel the LRA to issue a decree of execution. If upon a case it will become final and executory, ipso facto that is the effect. Now a very important question is that can a mandamus be availed of? Now there is already a judgment by the RTC declaring you to be entitled to a land in question, you are entitled to have a title issue in your name, now the thing is the LRA

does not want to issue a decree of registration, in other words what is the effect? You have judgment but the case in the meantime would not run, sa ato pa walay mahitabo, nganu wala may mahitabo? Because walay mu issue og decree of registration. Now remember without the decree of registration there is no title that can be issued, so you feel aggrieved why is it the LRA is taking too long issue a title in my name? because I want to obtain a loan and secure such title as a mortgaged kay kailangan nako og kwarta. Can you file a petition for mandamus to compel the LRA to issue a decree of registration? Of course upon the assumption from that GOMEZ case, that is not ministerial, while a ministerial function can be compelled by a mandamus, in this case in LABORADA VS LRA, that was precisely the contention of the applicant. Now, the LRA in issuing a decree of registration contends that there is a possibility that the title to be issued is erroneous on the ground that such property have been already subjected to a previous title, in other words that the land had been brought previously to the operation of the torrens system. Now the issue that confronted the Supreme Court is that, can mandamus be the proper remedy? According to the SC, mandamus cannot be a proper remedy for three reasons: 1. Judgment here is not yet executory. The judgment which seeks to enforce in this petition is not yet executory and incontrovertible under the land registration law because the contention of the petitioners in LABORADA is that 30 days have already passed, no avails have been made, therefore it shall be issued the decree of registration. But according to the SC NO! That is not the period. For a judgment to be final, executory and incontestable what is the period under the land registration law? What have you learned? It is 1 year from the date of issuance! so it is not yet final and executory and therefore no registration of title yet 2. The SC said a void judgment is possible. It is possible because of the findings of the LRA that the property has been subjected to the operation of the

torrens system, that there is a duplication of the titles that would be issued over the same parcel of land and in that case, thus, judgment declaring the present land to be subject to titling is of course void 3. And finally according to the SC the issuance of the decree of registration in this case is not ministerial in character So what happens to the ruling of the SC in the case of GOMEZ vs CA? let me tell you in the case of GOMEZ, its good law, it has not been abrogated, it is not even an aberrant decision of the SC saying that the issuance of the decree of registration by the LRA is a ministerial act but why is in this recent case in LABORADA, the SC is saying it is not a ministerial act it is well settled that the issuance of the decree of registration is not a ministerial act. Lets go first to what the SC said about it. The issuance of the decree of registration is part of the judicial function of the courts it is not merely a ministerial act and it may be compelled through mandamus. Moreover, after the rendition of a decision by a registration or cadastral court, there remain many things to be done before the final decree can be issued, such as the preparation of amended plans and amended descriptions, especially where the decision orders a subdivision of a lot, the segregation therefrom of a portion being adjudicated to another party, to fit the said decision. Furthermore, although the final decree is actually prepared by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, an administrative officer, the issuance of the final decree can hardly be considered a ministerial act for the reason that said Chief of the General Land Registration Office acts not as an administrative officer but as an officer of the court and so the issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not an administrative one. Two very conflicting decisions eh? But let me tell you that there is no conflict. Why do I say that? Go back to the general rule the

duty to issue a decree of registration can be considered ministerial, if there is doubt or dispute to the title, like for example there is an application for registration, the opposition says that NO the property is not registrable but the court still issues a judgment saying the applicant is entitled to the registration, now what would be the duty of the LRA? Nganu man in the first place kailangan tagaan og kopya ang LRA? So that the LRA can check, is the property registrable? Is this property already covered by any torrens title? Because if it is original registration cannot follow, now if the LRA finds that there is no really a controversy or dispute, now that is the time when the LRA has to follow strictly as stated in the petition and has issued a decree of registration, in that case that is ministerial if there is really no dispute but when the LRA thinks that there is a problem if they would issue a decree of registration and subsequently issue a original certificate of the land. What now is their duty? Not to sit quietly or wait for the parties to make their moves, NO! the LRA must refer the matters of fact to the court the issue of the judgment and it is possible that their judgment is vague because this property is not registrable or this property had been already subject under the torrens system in that case it is not compelable by mandamus because the court is still to decide on such matter. So no conflict whatsoever if there is no dispute whatsoever, it is of course ministerial once the court says judgment is rendered in favor of the applicant and then the LRA is mandated to issue a decree of registration and it has to but if there Is doubt at any point in relation to the preparation of the issuance of the decree notably where the land had been already decreed in another name and an earlier land registration case, then mandamus is proper. Because it is the duty of the LRA to refer the matter to the court they act in this respect as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court. They are specifically called

upon to "extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings. So para dili ta maglibog ingani lang ni ka simple if the LRA acts as purely administrative office meaning no controversy no dispute but duty to issue is ministerial it is compelable by mandamus. But if it acts as an officer of the court because there is dispute then it cannot be compelled by mandamus. So were done with that the decree of registration. So far what are the important documents that the applicant has really no part in the preparation thereof? Of course first, the applicant has to file this application and then judgment will be rendered if everything is to be found in order and he has proven of what is required to prove under the law. Now the important documents after that would be of course the judgment of the court which is already final and is the basis of the order directing the commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. Second, after the judgment of the court, there is still separate order from the court directed to the commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. Third you have decree of registration and, Finally you have the certificate of title which for all intents and purposes is the transcription of the land. Now in the land registration case specifically in original registration three documents must be totally in harmony to each other 1. Judgment of the court which is the basis of the decree of registration both of them must be in harmony 2. And then we have the certificate of title which merely recites the ultimate facts in

the petition, it also have to be in harmony with the judgment of the court and the decree of registration. Pareha ra na sila og contents, if along the way there is a change in this particular judgment, nag differ ang decree og ngdiffer ang certificate of title as issued, now there is something wrong there, which would render the title sufficient to be susceptible to attacks if it is not in conformity with the decree of registration. So after the issuance of the decree of registration, the decree of registration is entered in the land titles administration, then after that the copy of the decree is submitted to the registry of deed where the land is situated because our LRA is where?it is in Manila it is not here. Naa tay ROD pero ang central office nasa Manila. I do not know where, I have never been there. So magpadala sa decree and that would constitute the authority of the ROD to of course issue a title. Now this decree of registration is transcribed in the ROD in his/her registration book and finally there would be an issuance of the titles. Two titles would be issued in effect of its existence. One would be the owners duplicate certificate of title given to applicant by the LRA upon payment of the prescribe fees but there is another title, where is that title? It is kept in the custody of the ROD of the place where the land is situated, so that we can now apply our mirror principle, curtain principle, and so on and so forth, how so? Because you cannot transact dealings with regards to your property without your owners duplicate certificate. Or whatever annotation that will be placed in your own copy of the original certificate of title it must be reflected in the copy kept by the ROD kining duha dpat in harmony jud. They should mirror each other kung unsang annotation sa isa dapat mu appear sad sa isa . just simple as that .and they keep it, a lot of it, just imagined how many land title has been issued in davao cirty alone, not to mention TCTs from OCTs, not to mention patents which

are of course kept in the ROD, can you imagine pila kabuok titles ang naa, and davao city is just a small place, so you have there a very big vault, as of now our ROD still not yet in order, because of the transfer of hall of justice in ecoland to the present ROD here in magallanes. So everything is not yet in order. I have a case and I needed the original certificate of the title and I needed copies of whatever document that will tend to lead to the issuance of the title, so I have going there for almost a year and the records there is not yet in order and you cannot blame them because of the voluminous nature of the records. Thankfully right now everything is kept as PDFs, it can be easily access in the computer pwede na nimo na mkita masking wla ang title physically sa imoha iopen lng nila to mkakita ka kung naa bay annotations og problema sa title na ni and mind you the ROD is the most busiest offices in our bureaucracy for whatever reason again im telling you, you know gamay lang kaayo ang davao pero grabe ang transaction sa yuta sa davao, just imagined, so if you go there you do not know anybody maabtan kag ugma. Now we have now an overview of what happens from the time the applicant first sets his application, filed it before the court, proceedings before the court, he must proved his entitlement before the court, there is issuance of the judgment, issuance of decree of registration then you have issuance of title, that is more or less the basic procedure, it is not so difficult to remember or to understand it but it is only one in the cases in land registration. Now we will be dealing with remedies what do you do? Title has already been issued but you were not included when in fact you should be included or you should be the owner of the property subject to title. Now you will now defend on whether or not a decree of registration had already been issued? Now why is that the issuance of decree of registration is the reckoning point

for the purpose of identifying remedies. Why is a decree of registration issued? simply means that the case is already final and executory. So lets go to the remedies first prior to the issuance of the decree of registration which means that the case is not yet final 1. First is of course when you are aggrieved by a judgment, meaning napildi ka, what will you file? Well you can file a motion for reconsideration as the LRA will reconsider its judgment because there may have been some errors with regards to its finding of facts but also as to its findings of law 2. Or instead of a motion for reconsideration you file for a motion for new trial, in civil procedure you will learn more of this. But what is the concept of a motion of new trial? It is simple as this, for example, we have to re-try this case, I was not given my day in court because of fraud, I was compelled not to make my presence, or I was compelled not to file my opposition, and therefore If I was able to file my opposition the judgment of the land registration court will be different, so thats a motion for new trial, but let me tell you this kind of motion is rarely granted by courts, for example a motion for reconsideration, so you are asking the court that 1 + 1= 2 to reconsider its finding and you will say 1 + 1 = 3 something like that, in other words pa gang korte mo issue na og judgment what will be the likelihood that the court will change its mind? Murag ako gud ningingon nako na dili jud ko mutanaw og ANGELITO, ningingon nako na ingana tpos nkadungog mo, so whats the likelihood I will watch it? On the principle that dili ko gusto mapaulawan dili jud ko mutanaw, but on the other hand, kaye abad is there in my opinion is a quite fine woman, maxim issue no 2, yes yes

yes I remember that, issue no. 1 is angelica panganiban, but I dont like her, anyway the court will say that he is not liable, now that just because you filed a motion the court will now think that he will be not liable, courts rarely change its decision, panagsa ra kaayo na, that why in the RAMOS case I was so surprised, the supreme court by virtue of a motion for reconsideration made a complete turn around and said, you know what we may have been wrong, in such a short period of time, the SC said we may have been wrong, courts are of course different compared to judges, but without a judge the court cant really function that much, and a judge is a judge, so it is very unlikely. What about a motion for new trial? It is also something that the courts are implied to grant? NO! why? You know what no need to go through a motion, we already have received evidence, tulo ka tuig na ning kasoha ni tapos you want to start a new trial mubalik tag zero? Courts are very hesitant to those matters. So what do you do? The normal recourse would be to file an appeal the same manner as ordinary cases decided by the court is appeal. Which court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Land Registration court which for all intent and purposes is a regional trial court, file an appeal to the court of appeals, now there is an exception to that, that is of course whether it is a pure question of law you go directly to the SC but most probably what will the SC do? Because there is hierarchy of courts lets remand the case to the court of appeals and let the court of appeals handle this so that you will have one more remedy after the court of appeals which is the SC, or before the issuance of the decree of registration you can also file a petition for review under the rule 38 of the rules of court, this time there are specific grounds like fraud, accident, mistake and lastly

excusable negligence, we will discuss more of these when we will go to civil procedure, why? Because you will see the entire process, when a party has been defaulted, he wants to lift the order of the court and what are the grounds? That he was not able to file an answer because of fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence. Wala na lift ang order of default what do you do? File a motion for reconsideration or you can file a motion for new trial because of fraud and was not able to file your answer. Kuung dili pa jud sugtan ang motion for review under rule 38 on the same ground as of default like fraud, accident, mistake and excusable neglifgence. What do you do? Mas gwapo na sa idiscuss sa civil procedure because you will see the entire process which I doubt you will see right now, just a background. So that is just some remedies you can avail before the issuance of such decree. Now what are the remedies once the decree has been issued? Of course you have the petition for review under section 52 of PD 1529 so what is the difference between this petition for review and the petition for review under rule 38 of the rules of court, because those are two different animals, dili na pareha, and there are specific requisites that apply for section 32of PD 1529, 1. That the owner is deprived of his dominical right 2. The deprivation was due to intrinsic fault 3. You must file a petition within 1 year from the issuance of the decree 4. Provided that the property has not yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser But what will happen if it is already beyond the 1 year period from the issuance of the decree , and you are

deprived of your right and lets say there exist fraud in the issuance of the title? What do you file? You can file an action for reconveyance, this happens when the owner of the property is deprived of ownership of land due to actual fraud or breach. So next meeting we will discussing this remedy and all other remedies provided by law and we will talking about trust, if it is an implied trust that will be breached what is your remedy? If it is an express trust that is breached what will your remedies as well. So that will be the subject of our discussion next meeting.