CASES: Land Title and Deeds Krivenko vs Register of Deeds, GR No.

L-630, November 15, 1947; 79 Phil 461 (Land Titles and Deeds Aliens disqualified from acquiring public and private lands) Facts: An alien bought a residential lot and its registration was denied by the Register of Deeds on the ground that being an alien, he cannot acquire land in this jurisdiction. When the former brought the case to the CFI, the court rendered judgement sustaining the refusal of the Register of Deeds. Issue: WON an alien may own private lands in the Philippines. Held. No. Public agricultural lands mentioned in Sec. 1, Art. XIII of the 1935 Constitution, include residential, commercial and industrial lands, the Court stated: Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. Thus Section 5, Article XIII provides: Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural lands will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.

Ong Ching Po vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 341; GR No. 113472, December 20, 1994 (Land Titles and Deeds Aliens disqualified from acquiring public and private lands) Facts: Petitioner and respondent disputed over a parcel of land. Respondent contends that she bought the said land from a certain Ong Joi Jong, evidenced by a notarized deed of sale; and entrusted the administration of the same to petitioner, a Chinese citizen and the brother of respondents husband. Petitioner on the other hand claims that she bought the disputed land from the same vendor and the sale is evidenced by a photocopy of a deed of sale. Issue: WON an alien may acquire lands in the Philippines by virtue of a Deed of Sale. Held: No. Whether or not said deed of sale is genuine, the Constitution provides that aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring public lands, hence disqualified also in acquiring private lands. The capacity to acquire private land is made dependent upon the capacity to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Private land may be transferred or conveyed only to individuals or entities qualified to acquire lands of the public domain. Grey Alba vs Dela Cruz, 17 Phil 61; GR No. 5246, September 16, 1910 (Land Titles and Deeds Registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem) Facts: Petitioner heirs sought the registration of two parcels of agricultural land and the court entered a decree directing the registration in favor of the

petitioners, as co-owners subject to the usufructuary rights if the widower of the petitioners sister. Respondent tenant filed a motion for the revision of the case upon the ground that he is the absolute owner of the disputed lands, having inherited them from his father, who had a state grant for the same. Issue: WON modification of the decree as to exclude said land will prosper. Held: No, the main principle of registration is to make registered titles indefeasible. Upon the presentation in court if an application for the registration of the title to lands, the theory under the an inconsistent interest. Legarda vs Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590; GR No. 8936, October 2, 1915 (Land Titles and Deeds Purpose of the Torrens System of Registration) Facts: A stone wall stands between the adjoining lot of Legarda and Saleeby. The said wall and the strip of land where it stands is registered in the Torrens system under the name of Legarda in 1906. Six years after the decree of registration is released in favor of Legarda, Saleeby applied for registration of his lot under the Torrens system in 1912, and the decree issued in favor of the latter included the stone wall and the strip of land where it stands. Issue: Who should be the owner of a land and its improvement which has been registered under the name of two persons? Held: For the issue involved, The Land Registration Act (Act 496) affords no remedy. However, it can be construed that where two certificates purports to include the same registered land, the holder of the earlier one continues to hold title and will prevail.

Torrens system is that all occupants, adjoining owners, adverse claimants, and other interested persons are notified of the proceedings, and have a right to appear in opposition to such application. In other words, the proceeding is against the world. A proceeding is in rem when the object of the action is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strength of alleging facts which, if true, show

The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration, is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, once a title is registered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the mirador de su casa, to avoid the possibility of losing his land. The law guarantees the title of the registered owner once it has entered into the Torrens system. Cario vs Insular Government, 41 Phil 935 (Land Titles and Deeds Native Title) Facts: An Igorot applied for the registration of a certain land. He and his ancestors had held the land as owners for more than 50 years, which he inherited under Igorot customs. There was no document of title issued for the land when he applied for registration. The government contends that the land in

question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law, all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit private titles. Moreover, there is no prescription against the Crown. Issue: WON the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown under the Regalian Doctrine. Held: No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title to his land. The United States Supreme through Justice Holmes declared: Court,

Issue: W/N Oh Cho entitled to decree or registration of the lot. Held: NO. GR: All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant below to the public domain Exception: in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest. (Cario v. Insular Government) - not applicable since only from 1880 His immediate possesor failed to comply with the condition precedent to apply for the registration of the land of which they had been in possession at least since July 26, 1894 so what was transferred possesory to Oh Cho is merely ripen (aliens right which cannot prescription

It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. There is an existence of native title to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish Crown, as an exception to the theory of jura regalia. Oh Cho vs Director of Lands G.R. No. L-48321. August 31, 1946 FACTS: Oh Cho is appealing from the rejection of his application based on disqualification as alien (Chinese) from acquiring lands of the public domain. He had open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the lot from 1880 to filing of the application for registration on January 17, 1940

to ownership by

disqualified to own by prescription)