LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty.

Gimarino

Land Titles Midterms Reviewer

SY 2017 — Atty. Gimarino By: SUAN, Christia Sandee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITION OF TERMS ⁍ Land Registration — is a judicial or administrative proceeding whereby a person’s claim of
ownership over a particular land is determined and confirmed or recognized so that such land and the ownership thereof may be
recorded in a public registry.
Note: Registration does not vest title. It is merely evidence of
such title over a particular property.
⁍ Registration of Title or Original Registration — takes place when the title to land is made of public record for the first time in
the name of its lawful owner. It refers to the registration procedure from the filing of the application to the issuance of the
original certificate of title based on the decree of registration, patent, award or grant.
• As to it its nature, original registration is further classified into:
i. Judicial, which may either be voluntary (ordinary) or
compulsory (cadastral) ii. Administrative
⁍ Registration of Deeds and Other Instruments or Subsequent Registration — takes place when a deed or instrument affecting
land is made of public record after the date of its original registration. Thus, the registration of sale, mortgage, lease, attachment,
notice of levy or other encumbrances falls within the purview of subsequent registration.
• The dealings pertaining to lands may refer to either voluntary or
involuntary instruments.
i. Voluntary transactions — are the contracts or agreements willfully executed by the landowner or his duly authorized
representatives such as sales, leases, mortgages, donations, exchanges, trusts, or variations thereof affecting real estate.
ii. Involuntary Transactions — refer to those executed against
Registration of Land Titles and Deeds
Registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem. 2 RTC has plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over land registration
cases 2
the will or without the consent of the landowner contrary to his interest or will affect him adversely such as attachment, levy on
execution, adverse claim, lis pendens and other liens. Concept: Regalian Doctrine
The Regalian doctrine declares that all lands and all other natural resources are owned by the State. 2 Section 2 of Article XII on
“National Economy and Patrimony” 2 Purpose and Meaning of the Torrens System of Registration Land Registration
Commission and its Registries of Deeds
1. The Land Registration Authority 5 2. Office of the Register of Deeds; General Functions 5 Original Registration
1. Application 7 2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles 7
⁍ Land Titles — is the evidence of the owner’s right or extent of interest, by which he can maintain control and as a rule assert
right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of property ⁍ Deed — is the instrument in writing by 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.
⁍ Torrens System — is a system for registration of land under which, upon the landowner’s application, the court may, after
appropriate proceedings, direct the issuance of a certificate of title. 3. Registration under the Indigenous People’s Rights Act 4.
Forms and Contents (Section 15-19) 5. Publication, Opposition of and Default (Sec. 23) 6. Classification of Public Lands 7. Non-
Registrable Properties 8. Remedies 12 13 14 17 19 20
⁍ Torrens Title — is a certificate issued under the Torrens System, through the Register of Deeds, naming and declaring the
owner of the real property describe therein, free from all lends and encumbrances except such as may be expressly noted there or
otherwise reserved by law. Remedies under the Property Registration Decree, in cases of fraudulent registration Key Concepts of
the Torrens System
Decree Binds The Land (Sec. 31, PD 1529) 21

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND 29

DEEDS Owner’s Duplicate Certification (Sec. 41) 29 Statement of Personal Circumstance (Sec. 45) Registered Land Not Subject
to Prescription (Sec. 47) 31 32
FUNCTIONS OF REGISTRATION Certificate of Title
Not Subject to Collateral Attack (Sec. 48) 32
Three major functions of registration are:
1. Publicity — serves to give notice to all persons from time to time of such registering, filing and entering that certain party has
or has acquired certain rights or interests in the property 2. Priority — serves to fix and determine the relative rights of parties
whether superior or subordinate, in relation to time, following the maxim “priore tempore, priore jure” (first in time, first in law).
Article 709 of the New Civil Code provides that the titles of ownership or other rights over immovable property which are not
duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons. 3. Security — serves to provide
registrants an archive for muniments of title, rights and interests in land recorded in the registry where the property is located.
MODES OF REGISTRATION Registration may be by:
1. Transcriptions — is the entering in the registration book by the register of deeds of the original certificate of title duly
numbered, dated, signed and sealed issued pursuant to a decree of registration, patent, award or grant. 2. Inscription — is the
recording on the certificate of title a memorandum or an abstract of the instrument sought to be registered
GOVERNING LAWS P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), approved on June 11, 1978, codified and incorporated the
following laws related to property registration:
1. Act 496, The Land Registration Act (Feb. 1, 1903) 2. C.A. 14, The Public Land Act (Nov. 7, 1936) 3. Act 2259, The Cadastral
Act (Feb. 11, 1913) 4. Act 3344, System of Registration for Unregistered Lands (Dec. 8,
1926)
(SandeeSuan)
Page 1 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
5. Act 1508 as amended, The Chattel Mortgage Law (July 2, 1906) 6. R.A. No. 26, Reconstitution of Original Certificates of
Title (Sept.
25, 1946) (Amended by RA 6732, July 17, 1989) 7. P.D. No. 27, Emancipation Patents, Land Reform Law (Oct. 21,
1972) 8. P.D. 957, Subdivision and Condominium Protective Buyers’
Decree (July 12, 1976) 9. R.A. No. 4726, Condominium Act (June 18, 1966)
Legal Basis and Nature of Land Registrations CHAPTER 1 (SEC. 2, P.D. 1529) Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings;
jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be
based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system. Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over
all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications
or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all
pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of
stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.
Registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem. 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 an inconsistent interest.
A land registration is a proceeding in rem and jurisdiction in rem cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the
land through publication and service of notice. However, personal notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary to give the
court jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res, and neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree
or title issued in a registration proceeding, for the State, as sovereign over the land situated within it, may provide for the
adjudication of title in a proceeding in rem or in the nature of a proceeding in rem, which shall be binding upon all persons,
known or unknown.
RTC has plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over land registration cases Under Section 2, RTC shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over:
a. All applications for original registration of titles to lands,
including improvements and interest therein and; b. All petitions filed after original registration of title.
RTC also has the power to hear and determine all questions arising
upon such applications and petitions.

CONCEPT: REGALIAN DOCTRINE

⁍ Regalian Doctrine — A time‐honored constitutional precept that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and that the
State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land, and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
⁍ Jura Regalia — private title to land must be traced to some grant,
express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Incontrovertible
evidence must be shown that the land is alienable or disposable in order to overcome such presumption.

The Regalian natural doctrine resources declares are owned that all by lands the State.
and all other
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of whatever classification and other natural resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership belong to the State, being the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. Hence, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land
or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the alienable public domain.
Section 2 of Article XII on “National Economy and Patrimony” SEC. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years,
and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The present Constitution provides that, except for agricultural lands of the public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or
timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and
utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into co-production, joint venture
or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance
for large-scale exploration, development and utilization.
Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR GR No. 135385. Dec. 6, 2000 Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA No. 8371,
otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), on the ground that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation
of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain and all other natural re- sources therein, by recognizing the right of
ownership of Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands
on the basis of native title. After due deliberation on the petition, the Supreme Court voted as follows: seven (7) Justices voted to
dismiss the petition while seven (7) others voted to grant the petition. As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the
necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the
same. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, the petition was dismissed, and the validity of the law,
deemed upheld.
Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion: he stated that all Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution,
and that no one is exempt from its all-encompassing provisions. Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality:
1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public Domains. That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of
the Constitution that only agricultural lands of the public domain can be considered as alienable and disposable lands. 2. No land
area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s natural resources and 1/3 of the country’s land will be concentrated to 12
Million IPs, and while 60 million other Filipinos will share the remaining. These figures violates the constitutional principle of a
“more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth” among Filipinos. 3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full
Control and Supervision of
Natural Resources 4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State and
Cannot be Alienated or Ceded
(SandeeSuan)
Page 2 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Doctrine: The Regalian doctrine does not negate native title. Native title to land, or private 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 –
“It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far back 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.”
The IPRA categorically declares ancestral lands and domains held by native title as never to have been public land. Domains and
lands held under native title are, therefore, indisputably presumed to have never been public lands and are private. The concept of
native title in the IPRA was taken from the 1909 case of Cariño v. Insular Government, which firmly established a concept of
private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State.

What is a Native Title?

- It refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far as memory, reaches have been held under a claim of private
ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public land and are thus indisputable presumed to have been held that way since before
the Spanish conquest.

What is a time immemorial?

- refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People
(ICCs/IPs) are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a define territory devolved to them by
operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and traditions

Native Title is an EXCEPTION to the Regalian doctrine

- The recognition of the 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 if jura
regalia.

May - an ancestral Yes. Under land be titled? How?

the IPRA law, the ancestral may be titled. The two methods of obtaining a certificate of title may be made under
Public Land Act or ordinary registration proceedings under Sec. 14 of PD 1529.
Secretary of DENR vs Yap GR No. 167707. Oct. 8, 2008 Facts: On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No.
1801 declaring Boracay Island as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an
application for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants filed a
petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
opposed the petition countering that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass of
lands classified as “public forest,” which was not available for disposition pursuant to section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised
Forestry Code. Issue: Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically
deemed agricultural land, therefore making these lands alienable Ruling: No. To prove that the land subject of an application
for registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigative reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a
legislative act or statute. A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption of
state ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official
proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted
right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government,
either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to
determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is
possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as
under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what
otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership.
Doctrine: There must be a positive act from the government classifying lands as alienable and disposable before registration.
Under the Regalian Doctrine, lands of the public domain belong to the State. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership and all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to
the State as part of the inalienable public domain; and before these inalienable lands of public domain becomes alienable and
disposable, there must be a positive act from the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public
land into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
REGALIAN DOCTRINE ❖ General Rule: All lands are owned by the state

Proof of Private Ownership (2 requisites)

1. Applicant is in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession (OCENP) over the land within a time prescribed by law
or since June 12, 1945 or earlier 2. There must be a POSITIVE ACT of government declaring the land
as alienable and disposable
What are positive acts of government?
- Presidential Proclamations - Executive orders - Administrative acts - Investigative reports of Bureau of Lands - Certification
from the DENR - Legislative acts

What does PD 705 say in so far as land classification is concerned?

- PD 705 Sec. 3 categorized all unclassified lands of the public domain as public forest hence it was not available for disposition.
Republic vs CA, et. al (Spouses Carag) GR No. 155450. Aug. 6, 2008 This was the first time that land classification was made as
a requirement prior to disposition, This is under Act 2874 approved as law in year 1919. Prior to that, the law in effect was Act
126, the presumption is that it is agricultural lands unless it is shown as timber or mineral. In 1919 it is already a requirement that
the land should be classified as agricultural first. The law in effect when the decree was issued is already Act 2874. But the law
provides for an exception Sec. 8 of Act 2874 provides that where the land is already a private land under existing law, then it is
excepted from the classification requirement. Hence, it need not be classified as agricultural land for it to be registered if the
subject property is already considered as private land under existing law.
Act 2874, Section 8 provides that lands which are already private lands, as well as lands on which a private claim may be made
under any law, are not covered by the classification requirement in Section 8 for purposes of disposition. This exclusion in
Section 8 recognizes that during the Spanish regime, Crown lands were per se alienable unless falling under timber or mineral
zones, or otherwise reserved for some public purpose in accordance with law.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 3 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino

PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

What is Torrens Title? Those systems of registration of transaction with interest in land whose
declared object is, under governmental authority;
- To establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and
indefeasible title to realty - To simplify its transfer
Torrens System upholds indefeasible and imprescriptible title. The Torrens system requires that the government shall issue an
official certificate of title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property described therein, subject to such
liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves. The certificate of title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of said certificate. This system highly facilitates
land conveyance and negotiation. It is a conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein, and
other matters which can be litigated and decided in land registration proceedings.
Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or
vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely a procedure to establish evidence of title over realty. It is a means
of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large. A certificate of title is not a source of right. It merely
confirms or records a title already existing and vested.
Real Purpose of the Torrens System of registration The real purpose 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. While the proceeding is
judicial, it involves more in its consequences than does an ordinary action.
• All the world are parties, including the government. After the registration is complete and final and there exists no fraud, there
are no innocent third parties who may claim an interest. The rights of all the world are foreclosed by the decree of registration.
• The certificate of registration accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee held by
its owner. The certificate, in the absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its owner.
• The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or
diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by law.
Legarda vs Saleeby GR No. 8936. Oct. 8, 2008 Facts: A stonewall stands between the adjoining lots 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 Legards, 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. Doctrine:
Where two certificates purport to include the same registered land, the holder of the earlier one continues to hold title and will
prevail. 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.
A land already registered to a person under the Torrens System cannot anymore be subsequently registered by another person
even if the prior registrant did not present an opposition thereto.

How do you understand in rem?

- The land registration proceeding binds the whole world when it becomes final, without contest, except for cases of fraud, it
becomes final and executor. All the rights of everyone is foreclosed by the act of registration.
Bishop vs CA & Salang Facts: Certain parcels of land in Subic was in the possession of the Petitions
(Bishop, et al). Entire parcel of land is registered to respondents Salang. In 1985, Salang sued petitioners for Recover of
Possession and invoked
their right as registered owners of the land. Petitioners claimed: lots were part of public domain and could not be registered
under Torrens System; alleged long and continuous possession; produced tax declarations; acquired lots by sale and inheritance.
RTC — favored Salang. Invoked Art. 428. Right to enjoy, dispose, etc. Plaintiffs, registered owner, has the right to the recovery
and possession of the land. Defendants had no right even if they are in physical occupancy of the land. The certification from the
Bureau of Forestry are without basis. The moment land was titled in the name of Salang, it is no longer part of
public domain and became his private property. Tax declarations are NOT evidence of title, which is already in the name of
the plaintiff. Prescription will NOT ripen into ownership because the land is covered by a Torrens title. Acquisitive prescription
will not be available to land under Art. 496. Issues: (1) Land is part of public domain; (2) Acquired the title by laches;
(3) builders in good faith Ruling: (1) Respondent’s title is traceable to an OCT issued in 1910. Certification is now
inconvertible and conclusive against the world. Land was private in nature and registrable under Torrens. To annul torrens
certificate, it must show that:
a. registration court had not acquired jurisdiction, and b. there was actual fraud in securing title Petitioners were not able to
establish such requirement. No government opposed the registration. To indicate certificate of title prescribes after 1 year from
decree of registration. Non-presentation of Tax Dec is no indication that they never acquired ownership of the land. (2) As
registered owners, respondents has the right to eject any person illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible
and never barred by laches. Even if they were aware of the occupation and merely tolerated such occupation, they still have right
to demand the return of their property. The owner of a land registered under the torrens system cannot lose it by prescription. (3)
A builder in good faith — unaware of any flaw in his title to the land at the time he builds on it. This cannot apply because they
knew they had no right to occupy the subject lands. Petitioners did not check the registration of lands. No right to occupy the land
and build on it, They are called “squatters” for entered without permission on the land that did not belong to them.
NGA vs IAC & Magcamit Facts: In 1971, Supposes Vivas and Lizardo sold a parcel of land to Respondent
Magcamit, evidenced by sale with right to repurchase for Php 30k and was registered in the office of Register of Deeds. Sale was
then made absolute for Php 90k. Respondents remained in possession. In 1974, OCT was issued to Spouses without knowledge to
respondent and mortgaged the property to NGA.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 4 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
NGA foreclosed the mortgage for unpaid indebtedness and was able to purchase it on public auction. In July 1974, respondents
found out the property has been mortgaged and offered to pay balance which the petitioners denied. Respondents made a formal
demand to the spouses to comply with their obligation. NGA said they are the owners of the land and no plans of disposing it and
invoked they were purchasers in good faith and action has already prescribed. TC — favored NGA IAC — favored Magcamit
Issue: WON violation of terms of Vivas and Lizardo with respondent
would constitute breach of trust sufficient to defeat the title of NGA Ruling: Sec. 194 of Admin Code — while the registration
of the conditional sale with right to repurchase be binding upon third persons, it is by provision “understood to be without
prejudice to third party who has better right” NGA, registered owner under Torrens, has the better right. Proceeding for the
registration of title to land under Torrens System is
action in rem, binding to all persons. Respondents right over property was barred by res judicator when the decree of
registration was issued — does not matter of they had some right of ownership before the grant of the Torrens title. Sec. 44 of PD
1529 — every registered owner receiving a certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall hold the same free from all
encumbrances except those noted on the certificate. Claims of liens of whatever character, PRIOER to the issuance of certificate
of title, are cut off by such certification if not noted. Respondents claim does not fall under any of the exception. The only
exception is guilty of fraud. Rule — all persons dealing with the property covered under the Torrens Certificate of the Title are
NOT required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title.

CHAPTER 2 (SEC. 4 TO 13, P.D. 1529) LAND REGISTRATION ITS REGISTRIES

COMMISSION OF DEEDS
AND
1. The Land Registration Authority Section 4. Land Registration Commission — In order to have a more efficient
execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands, geared to the massive and accelerated land reform and social justice
program of the government, there is created a commission to be known as the Land Registration Commission under the executive
supervision of the Department of Justice. Section 5: Officials and employees of the Commission - The Land Registration
Commission shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be known, respectively, as the Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner of Land Registration who shall be appointed by the President. The Commissioner shall be duly qualified member
of the Philippine Bar with at least ten years of practice in the legal profession, and shall have the same rank, compensation and
privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The Deputy Commissioner, who shall possess the same qualifications
as those required of the Commissioner, shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand pesos per annum less than that
of the Commissioner. He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during the absence or disability of the Commissioner
and when there is a vacancy in the position until another person shall have been designated or appointed in accordance with law.
The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions as the Commissioner may assign to him. They shall be
assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be necessary in the interest of the functioning of the Commission, by a Special
Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief Geodetic Engineer who shall each receive compensation at the rate of three
thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. All other officials and employees of the
Land Registration Commission including those of the Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein provided, shall receive
salaries corresponding to the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget Circular
No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, notwithstanding the maximum salary allowed for their respective civil
service eligibilities The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be without prejudice to such benefits and
adjustments as may from time to time be granted by the President or by the legislature to government employees.
All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon
recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration.
• To have a more efficient execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands, geared to the massive and accelerated land
reform and social justice program of the government
• Headed by an Administrator, who shall be assisted by 2 Deputy
Administrators
• All of whom shall be appointed by the President through the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice
 • All other officials except the Register of Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the
Administrator
2. Office of the Register of Deeds; General Functions SEC. 6. General Functions. — (1) The Commissioner of Land
Registration shall have the ff functions:
(a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts in land registration proceedings and cause the issuance
by the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of title; (b)Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of
Deeds and other
personnel of the Commission; (c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of,
Registers of Deeds; (d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of the Courts of First Instance
throughout the Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and functions in relation to the registration of lands; (e)
Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to the registration of lands and issue, subject to the approval of
the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor; (f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and
consolidation- subdivision survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No. 957. (2) The
Land Registration Commission shall have the following functions:
(a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the
implementation of the land reform program of the government; (b)Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land
registration
proceedings; (c) Be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled under the Torrens system,
including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled lands. Section 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. — The office
of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and
chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated. It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to
immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all the
requisites for registration. He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper documentary and science stamps and that the
same are properly canceled. If the instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the
presentor of such denial in writing, stating the ground or reason therefor, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in
accordance with Section 117 of this Decree.
FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR (a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts in
land Deeds registration of the corresponding proceedings certificates and cause of title;
the issuance by the Registers of
Once you file a petition in court for ordinary registration proceedings or judicial confirmation of title under the Public Land Act,
once the decision becomes final, the land registration court issues an Order of Issuance of a Decree. Once the decision becomes
final, the land registration court (RTC), will issue an order directing the administrator to issue a Decree of Registration. A decree
of registration is exactly the same as the original certificate of title. The decision itself that has become final will become the
basis in the preparation of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT). In the OCT, which is exactly the same as
(SandeeSuan)
Page 5 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
the Decree of Registration, the name of the Administrator is indicated there. This is important because on the date that he
approves the land registration, 1 year thereafter, the title becomes incontrovertible. The administrator in turn will transmit this
OCT to the office of the Register of Deeds(RD) for transcription. That is the time that the title will take effect, it is the date of
transcription by the Register of Deeds.
(b) personnel Exercise of supervision the Commission;
and control over all Registers of Deeds and other
(c) Registers Resolve of cases Deeds;
elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of,
Consulta happens in two ways: (1) When the RD is in doubt of a particular transaction (complicated, too many issues and he is in
doubt as to how to go about it), the remedy is to elevate the matter en consulta to the administrator. He elevates it for guidance on
how to go about the transaction. Once the administrator issues his ruling, the decision is binding to the RD. The RD has no right
to appeal. The decision of the Administrator is binding to all RD’s. On the other hand, if a registrant will go to the office of the
RD and presents an instrument and the RD finds it not to be registrable, he can deny registration. Now the registrant may now
appeal by way of consulta.
(d) Courts Exercise of executive First Instance supervision throughout over all the clerks Philippines of court and with personnel
respect to of the the discharge of their duties and functions in relation to the registration of lands;
The Administrator can issue Circulars and other Issuances directed to
the Clerk of Courts to have a uniform procedure.
(e) registration Justice, Implement all needful of all lands orders, rules and decisions, and issue, regulations subject and decrees
therefor;
to the approval promulgated of the relative Secretary to the of
(f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-
subdivision covered by P.D. survey No. 957.
plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except those
Before the LRA and DENR through the Bureau of Lands had a concurrent authority to approve original survey plans but due to
the case of Noblejas v. Teehankee, the authority given to the Administrator was abused by Noblejas during his time. President
Marcos withdrew the authority to approve original survey plans. The Administrator can now only approve subdivision plans. He
has concurrent authority with DENR.
Now the authority of the Administrator is only limited to a subdivision that does not involve a subdivision project as defined
under PD 957. Only the DENR can approve a subdivision project as defined as “lands that are subdivided for residential,
industrial and commercial purposes”. LRA is only limited to simple subdivision for example you have a land and you want to
subdivide it for future heirs.
Duty of the Register of Deeds to Register is Ministerial. Registration is a mere ministerial act by which a deed, contract or
instrument is sought to be inscribed in the records of the office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the
certificate of the title covering the land subject of the deed, contract or instrument. Whether the document is invalid, frivolous or
intended to harass, is not the duty of a Register of Deeds to decide, but is for a court of competent jurisdiction to determine.

Instances where Register of Deeds may deny or refuse

registration a. Where there are several copies of the title (co-owner’s duplicate) but
only one is presented with the instrument to be registered. b. Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument
of conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse. c. Where there is a pending case in court where the character of the
land and validity of the conveyance are in issue. d. Where required certificates or documents are not submitted
Baranda vs Gustilo A notice of lis pendens, when the title is involved in a civil case, the plaintiff will file
the notice of lis pendens to the RD and this is usually annotated on the title. The effect of the notice of lis pendens is that it is a
notice to everyone, that when you buy a property with this notice, you take the risk to the result of the case. You are bound by the
outcome of the case such that when the outcome of the case is against the seller, then you are bound by it. A parcel of lot was
sought to be registered before the Register of Deeds. The latter denied registration on the ground of lis pendens annotation at the
back of the title. Subsequently, RTC issued an order directing him to cancel the lis pendens annotation. RD did not yield to such
order and filed a motion for renconsideration before the court
Doctrine: The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like
is ministerial in nature. In case of doubt with the proper step to be taken, he shall elevate the matter en consulta to the LRA for
resolution. The respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of the
respondent Judge's Order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of the petitioners
over the subject parcel of land. In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other instrument
presented to him, he should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the Administrator of the
National Land Title and Deeds Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
(Section 10 & Section 117 of PD1529)
Balbin vs Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur Under Section 41 of PD 429, when there are several owners with a parcel of
land, the owners may request for 1 title for all of them. But the co- owners may also request for a co-owners title but whenever
there is a voluntary transaction, all titles should be surrendered, otherwise the RD can deny. Petitioner sought for the annotation
of a deed of donation in his favor at the back of the OCT which he brought before the Register of Deeds. It turned out that at the
back of the OCT, there is an annotation that the property is co-owned and that there are other 3 co-owners’ copies existing which
were apparently not presented by petitioner. RD denied the annotation of the deed of donation.
Doctrine: Where several co-owner’s duplicate of certificates of titles are issued, a voluntary instrument cannot be registered
without surrendering all the copies to the Register of Deeds so that every copy of thereof would contain identical entries of the
transactions affecting the land covered. While a Register of Deeds has a ministerial function, he may refuse registration if the
OCT bears on its face an infirmity.
The register of deeds may deny the annotation of a deed of donation of a portion of a co-owned property when the applicant fails
to present all of the copies of the title from the co-owners. In justifying such denial, the Court said that there being several copies
of the same title in existence, it is easy to see how their integrity may be adversely affected if an encumbrance, or an outright
conveyance, is annotated on one copy and not on the others
Almirol vs Register of Deeds of Agusan Doctrine: Where several co-owner’s duplicate of certificates of titles are
issued, a voluntary instrument cannot be registered without surrendering all the copies to the Register of Deeds so that
every copy of thereof would contain identical entries of the transactions affecting the land covered. While a Register of
Deeds has a ministerial function, he may refuse registration if the OCT bears on its face an infirmity.
CHAPTER 3 (SEC. 14 TO 38, P.D. 1529) ORIGINAL REGISTRATION LEGAL BASIS: Section 14(1) of PD1529
and Section 48(b) of CA141
(SandeeSuan)
Page 6 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
1. Application WHO MAY APPLY: Section 14 of P.D. 1529 (OPRA)
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. (2) Those who have
acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the
provision of existing laws. (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by
right of accession or accretion under the existing laws. (4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
provided for
by law. Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application
jointly. Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the original registration
of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings
and ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue
the proceedings. A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any land
held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.
On the basis of their capacity to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain, who may acquire private lands?
1. Filipino citizens 2. Filipino corporations and associations as defined in Section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution; and by exception: 3. Aliens, but only by hereditary succession; and 4. A natural-born citizen
of the Philippines who has lost his
citizenship under the terms of Section 8.
BONAFIDE OWNERSHIP SINCE JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER Section 14. (1) Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in- interest and domain occupation have under been a (OCENPO) bona in fide open, claim of continuous, alienable
of ownership and exclusive disposable since and June notorious 12, lands 1945, of possession the or earlier. public

Requirements for Registration under Section 14(1) – Original

Registration Proceedings a. The land applied for is an agricultural public land already classified as alienable and disposable
land at the times of the filing of the application for registration. b. The applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-
interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land, under a bona fide claim of
ownership. c. Such possession and occupation must have commenced since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Ong vs Republic Possession & Occupation Petitioners filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land. The petitioners,
however, admitted that upon buying the lot from their predecessors- in-interest, they left abroad and have not been actually
occupying the land. Te petitioners paid for the realty taxes though.
Doctrine: Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires
possession and occupation. The law speaks of 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 encompassing 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 a 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.
The presentation of a tax declaration issued in 1971 falls short of the required possession from June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Moreover, possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires
possession and occupation.
Cañete vs Genuine Ice Company Inapplicability of Sec. 14(1) to Friar Lands Petitioners sought to cancel respondent’s OCT to a
parcel of land. Respondent said they were in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of land so were their
predecessors-in-interest. Petitioners respond that their title was spurious, fictitious and issued under mysterious circumstances
and that even assuming possession and occupation, their title is inconsistent with the intent of the Friar Lands Act.
Doctrine: Under the Friar Lands Act, only "actual settlers and occupants at the time said lands are acquired by the Government"
were given preference to lease, purchase, or acquire their holdings, in disregard of the settlement and occupation of persons
before the government acquired the lands. One who acquires land under the Friar Lands Act, as well as his successors-in-interest,
may not claim successional rights to purchase by reason of occupation from time immemorial, as this contravenes the historical
fact that friar lands were bought by the Government of the Philippine Islands, pursuant to an Act of Congress of the United
States, approved on July 1, 1902, not from individual persons but from certain companies, a society and a religious order. Unlike
alienable lands of the public domain, a friar land is patrimonial property of the State. It does not follow rules on open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession, as what you find in Section 14(1) because these are already private lands. OCT 614 did
legally exist and was previously issued in the name of the Philippine Government in 1910 under the provisions of Act 496. The
Piedad Estate has been placed under the Torrens system of land registration, which means that all lots therein are titled. The
petitioners’ claimed actual, adverse, peaceful and continuous possession of the subject property is really of no moment unless it is
shown that their predecessors-in-interest were actual settlers and occupants at the time said lands were acquired by the
Government, and whose rights were not disregarded even though they were in occupation of the same before the government
acquired the land; yet, no period of time in relation to adverse possession is alleged.

2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles SEC. 48 (B) OF THE PUBLIC LAND
ACT, CA 141
SECTION 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any
such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance
of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under
the Land Registration Act, to wit:
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at
least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or
force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and
shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

History Requirement
of CA 141 Section 48(b) as to Period of Possession
1. Act 926 — open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural public lands for a period of 10
years next preceding the effectivity of this Act. (Effective on October 7, 1903)
2. Act 2874 — open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain
since July 26, 1894 for Filipino and American citizens. (Effective on November 29, 1919)
(SandeeSuan)
Page 7 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
3. CA 141 (unamended) — possession and occupation of lands of the public domain since July 26, 1894 but only to Filipinos.
(Effective on November 7, 1936)
4. RA 1942 — possession and occupation for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title. (Effective on June 22, 1957)
5. PD 1073 — open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain since June 12, 1945. (Effective on January 25, 1977)
If given a problem, check the date of the filing of application for
registration and apply the existing law at that time.
Did PD 1529 and PD 1073 (which removed the 30 yr requirement for OCENPO) preclude application for registration of alienable
lands of public domain commenced only after June 12, 1945? No, considering Section 14(2) still allows acquisition of alienable
lands of public domain through prescription. In civil law, prescription is one of the wars of acquiring public land. So even if the
possession was commenced later than June 12, 1945, you may still qualify under Section 14(2).
Republic vs CA & Naguit Doctrine: Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree merely requires the
property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. The
more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable
and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has not
yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving
the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this
case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
The requirement that the property sought to be registered is alienable and disposable means that it is so at the time when the
application for registration of title is filed and not on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
What does it mean when the land is alienable and disposable? The moment the land is classified as A&D, it is equivalent to an
application of the state’s intention to use the land using its prerogative, SC said as long as AT THE TIME OF THE
APPLICATION, the land was already alienable and disposable.
What did the SC say about the rule on prescription? Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil
Code. There is a rule that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private property by reason of open,
continuous and exclusive possession of at least thirty (30) years. Thus, even if possession of the alienable public land commenced
on a date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession being been open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor can invoke
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. In 2005, the principle then or the leading case was Republic v Doldol, in that
case, the SC made it clear that the land must also be declared A&D since June 12, 1945, so when the Naguit case was ruled after,
it was very enlightening. Unfortunately, 4 months later, the case of Republic v Herbieto was also decided by the SC.
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
Republic vs Herbieto Act 926
(1st PLA)
and occupation of agricultural public lands for a period of 10 years next preceding the effectivity of
Oct 7, 1903 this Act
Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, now requires adverse possession of the land since 12 June 1945 or earlier. In the
present petition, the subject lots became alienable and disposable only on 25 June 1963. So the SC said that whatever period of
possession before Act 2874 (2nd PLA)
the land was classified was A&D was inconsequential. Doctrine: Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act requires possession and
occupation since June 12, 1945. Applicants could not acquire land through adverse possession since the land was only classified
as alienable in 1963 and their possession only started in 1950. (Also, Under the PRD, there already exists a title which is
confirmed by the Court; while under the PLA, the presumption always is that the land applied for pertains to the State, and that
the occupants and possessors only a claim an interest in the same by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open and
notorious possession [since June 12, 1945 or earlier.)
The requirement that the property sought to be registered is alienable and disposable means that it is so on June 12, 1945 or
earlier. This is a wrong decision. The decision in Republic v. CA and Naguit is controlling.
Regarding publication, what did the SC say? Sec. 23 of the Property Registration Decree requires that the public be given Notice
of Initial Hearing for land registration by means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting. The respondents in this case
failed to comply with the publication requirement which did not confer jurisdiction to the MTC. So, it is as if there was no
publication at all,
What did the SC say about the rule on prescription in this case? Respondents failed to comply with the required period of
possession of the subject lots for the judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title. The said lots are public
lands classified as alienable and disposable only on June 25, 1963 and the respondents were seeking for a confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title through judicial legalization. Under Sec.48 of the Public Land Act, which is the ruling law in this
case, respondents were not able to prove their continuous ownership of the land since June 12, 1945 or earlier, because said lands
were only classified as alienable and disposable only on June 25, 1963.
There seem to be an apparent conflict between the case of Naguit and Herbieto cases in the sense that in the Naguit case, it states
that it is enough that at the time of the filing, the land must already be A&D. In Herbieto, it negates the ruling that it should start
from June 12, 1945.

ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE LANDS BY

PRESCRIPTION Section prescription 14. (2) under Those the provision who have of acquired existing ownership laws.
of private lands by
This does not including alienable and disposable lands. Must be
PATRIMONIAL or PRIVATE LANDS. open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain since July 26, 1894 for Filipino and American citizens
Nov 29, 1919
CA 141
possession and occupation of lands of the public
domain since July 26, 1894 but only to Filipinos
Nov 7, 1936
RA 1942
possession and occupation for at least 30 years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title
Jun 22, 1957
PD 1073
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain since June 12, 1945
Jan 25, 1977
(SandeeSuan)
Page 8 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Because of Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529, those who are in possession of alienable and disposable land, and whose possession has
been characterized as open, continuous and exclusive for 30 years or more, may have the right to register their title to such land
despite the fact that their possession of the land commenced only after 12 June 1945.
NOTE: Sec. 14(2) speaks of PRIVATE LANDS For one to invoke the provisions of Sec. 14(2) and set up acquisitive prescription
against the State, it is primordial that the status of the property as patrimonial be fist established (either enactment of law by
Congress or proclamation by the President declaring the land as no longer intended for public service or for the development of
national wealth). But the period of possession preceding the classification as patrimonial cannot be considered in determining the
completion of the prescriptive period.
Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic Doctrine: Applicants under 14(1) of PD 1529 in relation to sec 48(b) of CA 141
acquire ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession. It is sufficient that
the land be declared alienable and disposable at the time of the filing for the application for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title and the land need not be alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession. Facts: In 1998, Mario Malabanan
led an application for land registration covering a parcel of land located in Silang Cavity. Malabanan claimed that he purchased
the land from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in OCENPO of the land for more than 30
years. Aristedes Velazco, Malabanan’s witness, testified before the court that the property originally belonged to a 22-hectare
property owned by Lino Velazco, her great-grandfather. Lino had 4 sons – Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban. Esteban is
Aristedes’ grandfather. The property was divided among the 4 of them. In 1996, Magdalena, Esteban’s wife, became the
administrator of all the properties of the Velazco sons. After Esteban and Magdalena died, their son Virgilio succeeded them in
administering the properties, including the subject land, which is owned by his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. Eduardo sold this to
Malabanan. Also, a certificate issued by CENRO, DENR dated JUNE 1, 2001 was presented verifying the said land as A and D.
RTC ruled in favor of Malabanan. Republic appealed, now represented by the OSG, CA reversed the decision of the RTC.
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND, IN ORDER TO BE REGISTRABLE UNDER SECTION 14 (1) OF
PD 1529, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A&D AS OF JUNE 12, 1945. Ruling: The OSG contends that all lands
certified as A&D after June 12, 1945 cannot be registered either under Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act.
The SC said such interpretation renders the mentioned provision virtually inoperative and even precludes the government form
giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as A&D. Such unreasonableness is aggravated of the fact
the before June 12, 1945, Philippines was not yet even considered an independent state. The SC cited the case of Naguit. Such
decision provides that the Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 only requires the property sought to be registered as already A&D at the time
the application for registration of title is led. If the State has not yet released the land as A&D at the time of the application, it is
presumed that the State is still reserving its right to utilize the property. But in this case, the property was already classi ed as
A&D, this shows an intention of the State to abdicate its authority over the land.
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT A LAND CLASSIFIED AS A&D BE DEEMED PRIVATE LAND AND
THEREFORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION. In this case, the petitioners primarily based
their registration bid on Sec.
14 (2) of PD 1529 or prescription. Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that “All things which are within the commerce of
men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in
character shall not be the object of prescription.”
SC said, unlike Sec 14(1), Sec 14 (2) explicitly refers to the principles on prescription under existing laws. The SC also said that
the rules on prescription under the Civil Code is applicable in Sec 14 (2). Article 1113 of the Civil Code says that only the
patrimonial property of the state can be subject to prescription. Also it is clear that land which is part of public dominion cannot
be alienated even if it is declared A&D. There must be a declaration of the State that the public dominion property is no longer
intended for the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial for the period of
prescription to run. Without these, the property remains to be of public dominion. Section 14 (1) mandates registration on the
basis of possession while
Sec. 14 (2) entitles registration on the basis of prescription. Registration under Section 14 (1) is extended under the aegis of the
Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act, while registration under Section 14 (2) is made available both by the
Property Registration Decree and the Civil Code.
Also, Registration under Sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act is based on
possession, Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 is founded on extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code. The rules on prescription
under the Civil Code do not apply to Sec 14 (1) since there is no such intent manifested by the legislature and that PD 1529 is
neither superior nor inferior than Civil Code, legislature is not bound to adhere on Civil Code framework.
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT MALABANAN IS ENTITLED TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY BASED ON
SECTION 14 (1) OR SECTION 14(2) OF PD 1529 OR BOTH. The SC said that the evidence presented is insu cient to establish
that Malabanan thas acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act. There is no
substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since
June, 12, 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, as evidenced a tax declaration, is to the year
1848. Therefore, they cannot register the land under Sec. 14 (1). Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14 (2) as basis
for registration. While the subject property was declared A&D in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended
for public use, public service, or for the development of the national wealth. The classi cation of the subject property as A&D
land of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by
prescription
To acquire a land through acquisitive prescription, the land must first be classified as alienable and disposable before the period
required will be counted. Otherwise, the applicant’s possession cannot be tacked or counted. NOTE: It is required that the land be
patrimonial or private in order for prescription to run not merely alienable and disposable. See Dream Village v. BCDA
How did the SC resolve these issues? Naguit is still the controlling doctrine because it is mentioned in the Herbieto case that the
MTC did not acquire jurisdiction because of lack of publication.
How about the issue on prescription in this case? Most imp’t part The land in question was already declared patrimonial on
March 15, 1982 which was only a few years from the Malabanan’s date of application for registration so that would mean that, by
virtue of prescription, he cannot qualify to acquire as owner.

Why? patrimonial What property are the of rules the state?

on prescription with respect to
If it is patrimonial property, there must be an express declaration or a positive act (Act of Congress or Presidential Declaration)
that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public use, public service or the development of national wealth.

What is the distinction between Sec. 14(1) in so far as the length or duration is concerned and the prescription
under Sec. 14(2)? Sec. 14(1) — is settled under the ruling in Naguit wherein, AT THE
TIME OF FILING, the land must be alienable and disposable
(SandeeSuan)
Page 9 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Sec. 14(2) — it is not enough that the land is alienable and disposable but there must be a positive act by the government or
express declaration that the land in question is already patrimonial property and not needed for public use, public service, etc.
It is stated in the Naguit that if you cannot prove possession prior to
June 12, 1945, then you can invoke Sec. 14(2).

2 types of prescription:
1. Ordinary prescription – 10 years (good faith) 2. Extraordinary prescription – 30 years (bad faith)
Where property is A&D and you assumed possession since June 12, 1945, you can invoke Sec. 14(2) but it is qualified that it is
not enough that it is A&D, there should be an express declaration that the land is already patrimonial property of the State. Once
there is an express declaration that the land is a patrimonial property, that’s the time the rules of prescription run. It does not
necessarily follow that once the land is declared as A&D, that the government loses its control over it. Until such time that it is
given, awarded or granted to an individual, State still retains ownership over the land that is declared as A&D as part of the
public domain.
Bar Question: (Prescription) Anthony bought a piece of untitled agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn, over the
acquired property. the property Carlo had by been forging in Carlo’s possession signature of the in property a deed of for
sale 8 years, the property. declared Anthony it for tax is purposes, not aware and of the religiously defect in paid Bert’s
all title, taxes but due has on
not bought been it in from actual Bert, physical who had possession never been of the in property possession. from
Anthony the time has he
since then been in possession of the property for one year. Can Anthony acquire ownership of the property by
acquisitive
prescription? ownership?
How many more years does he have to possess it to acquire
Yes, prescription. Anthony In can the acquire present case, ownership Anthony of is the a buyer/possessor property thru in
acquisitive good faith because acquire open, continuous ownership he was not possession and aware other of the real of defect
ten rights years. on over Bert’s Anthony immovable title. As needs such, property nine Anthony years through can
of possession in addition to his one year of possession in good
faith.

OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE LANDS BY RIGHT OF ACCESSION Section abandoned laws.

14. river (3) Those beds by who right have of accession acquired ownership or accretion of under private the lands existing or
ACCESSION ⁍ Accession — refers to the right of an owner of a thing to its products as well as whatever is inseparably attached
thereto as an accessory. The accessory follows the principal

Basis in the Civil Code — Art. 440, NCC

Art 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is
incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.
Requisites of Accession (applies to lakes, creeks, and streams):
1. That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; 2. That it be made through the effects of the current of the water; 3. That the
land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the
banks of the river.

ACCRETION & ALLUVION

Sec. 14 (1) Sec. 14 (2)
⁍ Accretion — defined as the addition of portions of soil, by gradual deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that
already
 settled under the ruling in Naguit wherein, AT THE TIME OF FILING, the land must be alienable and disposable
not only alienable and disposable but
there must be a positive act by the government or express declaration that
in the possession of the owner. (Black’s Law) ⁍ Alluvion — It refers to the accretion made by ow of rivers. A form of
accession natura, which is provided for in Articles 457 and 461. the land in question is already patrimonial property and not
needed
Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the for public use,
public service, etc
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
registration on the basis of possession registration on the basis of prescription
Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the
owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to 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.

Requisites of Accretion or Alluvion:

1. The change must be sudden; 2. The changing of the course must be more or less permanent, and
not temporary over flooding of another’s land; 3. The change of the river must be a natural one, not by artificial
means; 4. There must be definite abandonment by the government; 5. The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not
completely dry
up or disappear.
Rationale of the law on accretion: It is primarily anchored on the principle or right of accession in Art. 457. Also, to compensate
the owner for the danger of loss that he suffers because of the location of his lands.
Republic vs. Abrille The trial court rendered judgment cancelling TCTs and directing the Register of
Deeds to issue new certificates of title in lieu thereof after the portions consisting of 82,127 square meters, the land involved,
shall have been segregated therefrom in accordance with law. On appeal, CA certified the case to the SC. Lower Court is upheld.
The step taken by defendant-appellant in petitioning the court for the approval of their Subdivision Plan with the increased area is
unwarranted and irregular. The land in question is so big as to give allowance for a mere mistake in area. Proceedings in
registrations of land title should have been filed instead of an ordinary approval of subdivision plan. The recourse under Section
44 of Act 496 is good only insofar as it covers previously registered lands. In the instant case, the area of 82,127 sq.m, has not yet
been brought under the operation of the Torrens System. Worse, the approval of Subdivision Plans was without notice, more
particularly the Director of Lands. For an applicant to have his imperfect or incomplete title or claim to a land to be originally
registered under Act 496, the following requisites should all be satisfied:
1. Survey by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor; 2. Filing of application for registration; 3. Setting of the
date for initial hearing of the application by the Court; 4. Transmittal of the application with all the documents attached
thereto by the Clerk of Court to the LRC; 5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application and date and
place of the hearing in the Official Gazette; 6. Service of notice upon owners, occupants and those known to
have interests in the property by the sheriff; 7. Filing of answer to the application by any person; 8. Hearing of the case by
the Court; 9. Judgment by the Court;
(SandeeSuan)
Page 10 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
10.Declaration by the Court and instruct- ing the LRC to issue a
decree of confirmation and registration; 11.Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration
Commission; 12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding
Register of Deeds, and 13. Transcription of the decree in the registration book and the issuance of the owner's duplicate
OCT to the applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed fees.
Bar Question: (Accretion) The of Marikina properties River. of Jessica At certain and Jenny, times who of the are year,
neighbors, the river lie would along the swell banks and as Jessica’s the water and recedes, Jenny’s soil, properties. rocks
and This other pattern materials of the are river deposited swelling, on
receding neighbor’s and properties depositing have soil and gone other on materials for many being years. deposited
Knowing on this the
pattern, property Jessica line and constructed extending a towards concrete the barrier river, about so that 2 meters
when the from water her
recedes, several years, soil and the other area materials between Jessica’s are trapped property within line this to barrier.
the concrete After
barrier property was by completely 2 meters. filled Jenny’s with property, soil, effectively where increasing no barrier
Jessica’s was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of the river. If Jessica’s and Jenny’s properties are
registered, will the benefit of such
registration extend to the increased of their properties? If the properties of Jessica and Jenny are registered, the benefit of such
registration Accretion does does not not automatically extend to become the increased registered area land of because their
properties. there is a specific separate technical application description for registration of the lot of in the its Torrens alluvial title.
deposits There under must be the a
Torrens system. (Grande vs. CA, G.R. L-17652)
Section manner 14. provided (4) Those for by who law.
have acquired ownership of land in any other
i. By law (Art. 712 NCC) ii. Titles by escheat under Rule 91, Rules of Court iii. Donation iv. Succession v. Voluntary Alienation

SEC. 48 (B) OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT, CA 141

SECTION 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any
such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance
of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under
the Land Registration Act , to wit:
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at
least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or
force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and
shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
Susi vs Razon Compliance with requirements for government grant Where there is compliance with all the requirements, i.e.,
possession in the manner and for the period required by law, for a government grant,
the land ipso jure ceases to be public land and becomes private property Doctrine: Open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion
of the requisite period, ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land and becomes private
land. When Razon applied for the purchase of the land, Susi had already been in possession thereof personally for more than 30
years. Given that, Susi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it
is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application
therefor being sufficient.
The moment all the requisites for the acquisition of land based on any grounds under Sec. 14 of PD 1529 are existing, the land
will automatically become a private property of such grantee by operation of law despite the fact that an OCT is not yet issued to
the grantee. In such a case, the Republic cannot anymore sell the land to another
person because the land is already private.
NOTE: Act 2874 In favor of Susi was the presumption juris et de jure established in Sec. 45(b) of Act. No. 2874. Under the law
then in effect, actual and physical possession of agricultural land of the public domain since July 26, 1894 entitles one to a right
to a certificate of title of said land. Compliance with the possession for the nature and length of time required gives rise to not just
an entitlement to a grant, but a grant from the Government without the necessity of the issuance of a title.
NOTE: Authority of Director of Lands Once the land has ceased to form part of the public domain, and has become private
property, the Director of Lands no longer has authority to sell such parcel of land. The sale of such parcel of land is null and void.

SEC. 48 (C) OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT, CA 141

SECTION 48. (c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public domain suitable to
agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona P.D. 1529 C.A. 141
fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted
deals with registered lands deals with unregistered lands
in sub-section (b) hereof.
there already exists a title which the
the presumption is that the land applied for court need only confirm
still pertains to the State, and the occupants and possessors merely claim an interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect title or
open, continuous, and notorious possession
Republic vs IAC & ACME Plywood and Veneer Co Application for registration by private corporation Facts: In 1981, Acme
Plywood and Veneers Co. Inc. applied for a land registration of 5 parcels (481, 390 sqm) of land it allegedly acquired from
Mariano and Acer In el, both member of the Dumagat tribe. The Infiels substantiates their ownership saying that their ancestors
have possessed and occupied the land from generation to generation until it came into their possession. Acme contended in its
application that their adverse and continuous possession since 1962 and by tacking their possession to that of the possession of
the In els, they have already acquired title over it; that the ownership of lands by corporations is governed by the 1935
Constitution. Acme further proves that the subject land is a private land after it ownership was given to the non- Christian tribes
pursuant to RA 3872. That also, they have introduced more than 45 million pesos worth of improvements on the land. Also that
their ownership is recognized by Municipality of Isabela through the donation it made which was accepted by the former. The
Director of Lands opposed to nothing of the allegations except the applicability of the 1935 Constitution. DL contends that the
registration was commenced only in 1981 which was long after the 1973 Constitution took effect. Article 14 Section 11 of the
1973 Constitution prohibits private corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain, except by
lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares. This proscription is not found in the 1935 Constitution which was in force the time Acme
bought the land in question. Hence, it cannot be registered under Sec. 48 of CA 141. RTC and CA ruled in favor of the Director
of Lands.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 11 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Issue: WON the title Infiels transferred to Acme in 1962 could be confirmed in favor of Acme? And WON 1973 Constitution
should apply? Ruling: The land was already private land to which the In els had a legally sufficient transferable title in 1962
when Acme purchased it. Acme also had a perfect right to make such acquisition, there being nothing in the 1935 constitution
prohibiting Corporations from acquiring and owning private lands. Even if the land remained technically “public” land despite
immemorial possession of the In els and their ancestors, until title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate
proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no question to Acme’s right to acquire the same since there is no prohibition
for corporation to acquire incomplete or imperfect title. The only limitation was that corporations could not hold or lease public
agricultural lands in excess of 1,024. 1973 Constitution also cannot defeat a right already vested before the law came into effect,
or invalidate transaction then perfectly valid and proper.
Doctrine: Where at the time the corporation acquired the land, its predecessors-in-interest had been in possession and occupation
thereof in the manner and for the period prescribed by law as to entitle him to registration in his name, then the proscription
against corporations acquiring alienable lands of the public domain except through lease does not apply for the land was no
longer public land but private property. Alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his predecessors in
interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30 years) is converted to private property by
mere lapse or completion of said period. Following that rule, the subject land was already private property at the time it was
acquired from the Infiels. Acme thereby acquired a registerable title, there being at the time no prohibition against said
corporation’s holding or owning private land. (Comment: RA 1942 was the law existing at this time)
The moment all the requisites for the acquisition of land based on any grounds under Sec. 14 of PD 1529 are existing, the land
will automatically become a private property of such grantee by operation of law despite the fact that an OCT is not yet issued to
the grantee. Thus, a private corporation which bought a land from the grantee is not covered by the prohibition in the 1973
Constitution that private corporations or associations cannot hold alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease not to
exceed 1,000 hectares because the land was already private in character.
NOTE: ACME as prevailing jurisprudence ACME has evolved what is now the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter. ACME,
although a private corporation, was qualified to apply for the judicial confirmation of its title under Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land
Act, as amended, since the property at the time it was purchased by it on 29 October 1962 was already a private land to which
they had a legally sufficient and transferrable title.

Ownership by Corporations — History

Diaz vs Republic The ruling in the case of Director of Lands vs. Reyes is applicable in this case and thus
constitutes res judicata. The Supreme Court ruled that in registration cases filed under the provisions of the Public Land Act for
the judicial confirmation of an incomplete and imperfect title an order dismissing an application for registration and declaring the
land as part of the public domain constitutes res judicata not only against the adverse claimant but also against all persons. Before
the military reservation was established, the evidence is inconclusive as to possession for it is shown by the evidence that the land
involved is largely mountainous and forested. It is well-settled that forest land is incapable of registration and its inclusion in a
title whether such title be one issued using the Spanish sovereignty or under the present Torrens system of registration nullifies
the title. However, it is true that forest lands may be registered when they have been reclassified as alienable by the President in a
clear and categorical manner (upon the recommendation of the proper department head who has the authority to classify the lands
of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands) coupled with possession by the claimant as well as
that of her predecessors-in-interest.
In registration cases for the judicial confirmation of an incomplete and imperfect title, an order dismissing an application for
registration and declaring the land as part of the public domain constitutes res judicata, not only against the adverse claimant, but
also against all persons.
Sps. Fortuna vs Republic Even if they possessed the land within the 30 year period, just the same
they are not entitled to the registration of the land. The alienable status of the land was not established by the Spouses
Fortuna. You must present an original certification of classification. Period of possession: Sps. Fortuna were unable to prove
possession since May 8, 1947 because according to the SC, even assuming that the lot is alienable and disposable, the fact
remains that possession was insufficient. Doctrine: Land, being alienable and disposable, needs an incontrovertible evidence. A
mere certification of DENR is not sufficient government act to classify lands as alienable and disposable. The surveyor’s notation
is insufficient to prove conversion of land into A&D. In reality, the survey plan is done by the Bureau of Lands. DENR will go
over the cadastral map and if it sees that the land is already A&D, it will approve the survey plan.
The survey plan and the DENR-CENRO certification are not proof that the President or the DENR Secretary has reclassified and
released the public land as alienable and disposable. The offices that prepared these documents are not the official repositories or
legal custodian of the issuances of the President or the DENR Secretary declaring the public land as alienable and disposable.
NOTE: See Republic v. T.A.N. Properties for the documents considered
as proof that the land is alienable and disposable.

3. Registration under the Indigenous People’s Rights Act

1935 It allowed private juridical entities to acquire alienable lands of public
Read discussion in Cruz vs Sec. of DENR part.
domain, which shall only be less than 1,024 hectares.
1973 Section 11, Article 14 of the said constitution stated that no private corporation xxx may hold alienable lands except by
lease not to exceed 1000 hectares in area.
a. R.A. No. 8371 b. Constitutionality c. Cruz vs Secretary of DENR
1987 Section 3, Article 12 retained the 1973 Constitution’s limitations, but
added lease period not exceeding 25 years and renewable for
d. Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands e. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) not more than 25 years.
General Rule: Corporations are disqualified from owning alienable lands of public
domain except through lease. — Exception: Where at the time the Corporation acquired the land, its
predecessors-in-interest have complied with OCENPO as to entitle him registration in his name. The Constitutional prohibition
will no longer apply as the land, by virtue of prescription has become private. (Suzi vs. Razon)
Native Title It refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a
claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that
way since before the Spanish Conquest.
Ancestral Domain NCIP (National Commission for Indigenous People) may alienate and identify land to be known now to be
issued Certificate of Ancestral Title simply to identify, to apprised the public that this land has been
(SandeeSuan)
Page 12 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
identified as an ancestral domain and ancestral land. No Torrens title would be issued. An ancestral domain may not be titled.
This is a communally owned land of the indigenous people. On the other hand, an ancestral land has to be titled. For this purpose,
it has to be declared to be agricultural but it does not have to be declared as alienable and disposable. Neither is this covered
under PD 705(the Forestry Code). As presented by Agcaoili, 18% slope for the land this is not considered as registrable but for
ancestral lands, this does not apply to the latter.
4. Forms and Contents (Section 15-19) Section 15. Form and contents. The application for land registration shall be in
writing, signed by the application or the person duly authorized in his behalf, and sworn to before any officer authorized to
administer oaths for the province or city where the application was actually signed. If there is more than one applicant, the
application shall be signed and sworn to by and in behalf of each. The application shall contain a description of the land and shall
state the citizenship and civil status of the applicant, whether single or married, and, if married, the name of the wife or husband,
and, if the marriage has been legally dissolved, when and how the marriage relation terminated. It shall also state the full names
and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners, if known, and, if not known, it shall state the extent
of the search made to find them. Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed with the
Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file together with the application all
original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands. The clerk of court
shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the
application and all annexes.

A. WHAT TO FILE
• Application all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and
a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands

B. WHERE TO FILE
• Filed with the Court of First Instance (Regional Trial Court) of
province or city where land is situated
C. STEPS IN BRINGING A LAND UNDER TORRENS SYSTEM In order that land may be brought under the operation of the
Torrens
system, the following steps should be observed:
1. Survey of land by the Lands Management Bureau or a duly
licensed private surveyor. - The purpose of this is to identify precisely the land which is the subject matter of the registration. It
is only the DENR through the Regional Director who can approve the original survey plans (PD 239) - This used to be covered
by a tracing cloth plan. The submission of the original tracing cloth plan is a jurisdictional requirement which is mandatory in
character. Failure to submit this is a ground for denial of application. Lately, they used another kind of material(diastole polyester
film idk). Either are acceptable. The original of this normally would be submitted to the LRA since they are the official
repository of all documents and monuments of title pertaining to original registration. Although in a Circular way back in 2000,
the LRA issued that a blueprint/ whiteprint may be submitted since the original would be submitted to court. 2. Filing of
application for registration by the applicant
- To the RTC or lower courts 3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by
the court - The courts within 5 days of the receipt of application, they will set the case for initial hearing which would not be
earlier than 45 days or later than 90 days from the date of the order setting the case for initial hearing.
- Applicant will now have to comply with the jurisdictional requirement (posting, mailing and notices etc) ← During the Initial
Hearing
4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all the documents or other evidence attached
thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Authority. 5. Publication of the notice of the filing of the
application and date and place of the hearing in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation. 6. Service
by mailing of notice upon contiguous owners,
occupants and those known to have interests in the property. 7. Posting by the sherriff of the notice in a conspicuous
place on the land and in the bulletin board of the municipal building or city where the land is situated. 8. Filing of answer
to the application by any person whether
named in the notice or not. - Then if the Solicitor General would oppose, then the filing of the answer. During the hearing, the
OSG does not appear or actively take part in the proceeding. They are relying on the fact that the RP has this inherent power that
the applicant has to prove incontrovertibly that they are owners of the land. This is done usually on appeal, the SC will have to
decide if the applicant has satisfied the requirements.
9. Hearing of the case by the court. 10. Promulgation of judgment by the court. 11. Issuance of an order for the issuance
of a decree declaring the decision final and instructing the Land Registration Authority to issue the decree of
confirmation and registration. - When this becomes final, the Court issues a decree which is
addressed to the administrator.
12.Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration
Authority 13.Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the
corresponding Register of Deeds. 14. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the
issuance of the owner’s duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the
prescribed fees. - Which is an exact copy or the OCT itself will now be transmitted to the office of the Register of Deeds
whom transcribes it in his book of transcription. Then the title takes effect.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements will justify the court
to deny the application for registration.

D. AMENDMENTS OF BOUNDARIES OR AREA Section 19, P.D. 1529

Section 19. Amendments. Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be
allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms. Amendments which shall consist in a
substantial change in the boundaries or an increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion of an additional
land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and notice as in an original application.
Benin vs Tuazon Doctrine: Once the registration court had acquired jurisdiction over a certain parcel, or parcels, of land in the
registration proceedings in virtue of the publication of the application, that jurisdiction attaches to the land or lands mentioned
and described in the application. If it is later shown that the decree of registration had included land or lands not included in the
original application as published, then the registration proceedings and the decree of registration must be declared null and void
insofar – but only insofar – as the land not included in the publication is concerned. This is so, because the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the land not included in the publication the publication being the
(SandeeSuan)
Page 13 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
basis of the jurisdiction of the court. But the proceedings and the decree of registration, relating to the lands that were included in
the publication, are valid. Thus, if it is shown that a certificate of title had been issued covering lands where the registration court
had no jurisdiction, the certificate of title is null and void insofar as it concerns the land or lands over which the registration court
had not acquired jurisdiction. There was an excess land of 27 sq. meters. It was already res judicata. LESSON: registration Even
over if the there entire is an area. excess It will area, only be it will invalid not regarding affect the the decree excess of
area for there is no jurisdiction acquired.
Dream Village vs Bases Development Authority Even if the land is considered as alienable and disposable, there has to be
an expressed proclamation by the government (Executive department) stating that the land is not intended for public use. Even if
the land was considered A and D and even considered as patrimonial property of the state, just the same it is part of the Public
Domain since it was intended to the service of the development of the national wealth.
Under Article 422 of the Civil Code, public domain lands become patrimonial property only if there is a declaration that these are
alienable or disposable, together with an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer
retained for public service or the development of national wealth. Only when the property has become patrimonial can the
prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run. Also under Section 14(2) of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, it is provided that before acquisitive prescription can commence, the property sought to be registered
must not only be classified as alienable and disposable, it must also be expressly declared by the State that it is no longer intended
for public service or the development of the national wealth, or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Absent
such an express declaration by the State, the land remains to be property of public dominion. Purpose proceeds of of the the
BCDA sale will — be to used sell military as capital
camps to defray the expenses;
Property owned by BCDA is patrimonial but it is still part of public domain.

E. SURVEY OF THE LAND

Republic vs Sarmiento The Survey plan was not approved by the Director of Lands. The SC has ruled that
for the survey plan to be admissible for the registration, it isn’t enough to have the land classified as A and D but there must be a
positive act from the government. Notwithstanding the weakness of the oppositor, the applicant has the burden of proof to show
that the land is A and D and the possession has satisfied the number of years.
Sarmiento filed for an application for registration of land. To support his claim, he presented the notation of surveyor-geodetic
engineer which states that “this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area” to prove that the lot is alienable. The Court
ruled that the reliance on such notation of surveyor-geodetic engineer is insufficient and does not constitute incontrovertible
evidence to overcome the presumption that it remains part of the inalienable public domain.
Doctrine: It is required that the application for registration must be accompanied by a survey plan of the land duly approved by
the Director of Lands, together with the claimant’s muniments of title to prove ownership. No plan or survey may be admitted in
the land registration proceedings until approved by the Director of Lands.
Petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer's notation in Exhibit "E" indicating that the survey was inside alienable and
disposable land. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the classification of the land in
question. Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said
surveyor's assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable.
Carpo vs Ayala Land Carpo filed a complaint for the quieting of title against Ayala Land Incorporated.
Ayala pointed out that it traces back its original title in OCT No.242 issued in 1950 while Carpo's title was derived from OCT
No. 8575 issued only in 1970.CA ruled that Carpo's cause of action has been barred by prescription and laches. But the latter
alleged that Ayala's title is void for want of duly approved survey plan, thus their cause of action did not prescribe.
Doctrine: The submission of the plan is a statutory requirement of mandatory character and unless the plan and its technical
description are duly approved by the Director of Lands the same are not of much value. It is admitted that a survey plan is one of
the requirements for the issuance of decrees of registration; it can most certainly be assumed that said requirement was complied
with by Ayala's original predecessors-in-interest- at the time the latter sought original registration of the subject property.
In original land registration cases, it is mandatory that the application should be accompanied by a survey plan of the property
applied for registration, duly approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands. A survey plan without the approval of the Director
of the Bureau of Lands has the character of being of dubious origin and it is not therefore worthy of being accepted as evidence.
The property being claimed by the defendant ALI, allegedly registered under OCT No. 242, is shown to have been surveyed
under SWO and not bearing the approval of the Director of the Bureau of Lands. Any title issued emanating from a survey plan
without the approval of the Director of the Bureau of Lands is tainted with irregularity and therefore void. A survey plan is one of
the requirements for the issuance of decrees of registration, but upon the issuance of such decree, it can most certainly be
assumed that said requirement was complied with by ALI's original predecessor-in-interest at the time the latter sought original
registration of the subject property. Moreover, the land registration court must be assumed to have carefully ascertained the
propriety of issuing a decree in favor of ALI's predecessor-in- interest, under the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions by public officers. The court upon which the law has conferred jurisdiction, is deemed to have all the necessary
powers to exercise such jurisdiction, and to have exercised it effectively. This is as it should be, because once a decree of
registration is made under the Torrens system, and the time has passed within which that decree may be questioned the title is
perfect and cannot later on be questioned. In the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include the same land, the earlier in
date prevails. In successive registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in
land, the person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the
prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the
earliest certificate issued in respect thereof. SC: In all, we find that the CA committed no reversible error when it applied the
principle "Primus Tempore, Portior Jure" (First in Time, Stronger in Right) in this case and found that ALI's title was the valid
title having been derived from the earlier OCT.
5. Publication, Opposition of and Default (Sec. 23) Section 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court shall,
within five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be
earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order. The public shall be given notice of the initial
hearing of the application for land
registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
3 Modes of Giving Notice, Necessary. Section 23 directs that the court, within 5 days from the filing of the application, shall
issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days from
the date of the order. The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing by means of: (a) publication, (b) mailing, and (c)
posting. This requirement of giving notice by all 3 modes is mandatory.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 14 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino

A. NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING (1) Publication

The publicity which permeates the whole system established for the registration of real property requires that the application for
registration be accompanied by a plan of the land, together with its description, and that all the owners of the adjacent properties
and all other persons who may have an interest in the realty shall be notified, which notification with a description of the property
concerned in the application, shall be published in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation. Publication in
the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court. However, absent any publication of the notice
of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court cannot validly confirm and register the title of
the applicants. The rationale behind the newspaper publication is due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as
widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation.

(2) Mailing
In addition to publication, mailing is also an indispensable and
mandatory requirement for notice of initial hearing. Within 7 days from publication in the Official Gazette, LRA Administrator
shall cause a copy of the notice to be mailed to every person named in the notice whose address is known.

(3) Posting
The third mode of giving notice of the initial hearing is by posting. Within 14 days before the initial hearing, the LRA
Administrator shall cause a duly attested copy of the notice to be posted by the sheriff in a conspicuous place on the land applied
for and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the municipality or city in which the land is situated. This
requirement is also mandatory.
Director of Lands vs CA & Abistado Petitioner: Publication in the Official Gazette is necessary to confer
jurisdiction upon the trial court and in a newspaper of general circulation to comply with the notice requirement of due process.
Abistado: Failure to comply with publication in a newspaper of general circulation is a mere "procedural defect". The publication
in the OG is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. SC: The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for
land registration by means of; (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting. A land registration is a proceeding in rem so the
process must be strictly complied with. Why is there a need to publish in a newspaper of general circulation when there is
publication in OG, mailing and posting already? For due process, and because of the reality that the OG is not as widely read and
circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, such that notices may not reach interested parties on time, if
at all. Application for land registration is hereby dismissed, without prejudice to reapplication in the future.
Doctrine: Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory. There are several issues with the Official Gazette which
might not meet the purpose of publication such as not too many read them, late publications and the like. Given this, publication
in a newspaper of general circulation is more In keeping with an in rem proceeding and affords due process to anyone who may
have an adverse claim over the subject property.
B. PROOF REQUIRED IN REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS Applicant must show, even in the absence of opposition,
that he is
the absolute owner, in fee simple, of such land. The burden is on applicant to prove his positive averments and not for the
government or the private oppositors to establish a negative proposition. He must submit convincing proof of his and his
predecessors-in-interest’s actual, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owner of the lots during the period required
by law.
Republic vs dela Paz One must present a certificate of land classification status issued by the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of
the DENR. He must also prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land as alienable
and disposable, and that it is within the approved area per verification through survey by the CENRO or PENRO. Further, the
applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the
legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established by the applicant to prove that the land is alienable and
disposable. The annotation of the Geodetic Engineer on the survey plan is insufficient.
Doctrine: The presumption is all lands belong to the State. To overcome such presumption, an incontrovertible evidence must be
established that the land of application is alienable or disposable. There has to be certification from the proper government
agency to establish that land is an alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Moreover, aside from proving that land is
alienable and disposable, it must be proved as well that land has been in open, notorious, continuous and exclusive possession
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Tax declaration of 1949 is merely an indicia of ownership.
Republic vs CA & Lapina A foreign national may validly apply for registration of title over a parcel of land
which he acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Philippines from a vendor who has complied with the requirements for
registration under the Public Land Act. The moment you want to avail B.P 185, you should be able to show that you have the
intention to reside in the country permanently. RA 7042 amended RA 8179 which is called National Incentive Law which allows
a former Filipino who became a citizen of another country, this time to acquire a private land after a maximum of an area of
5,000 sq meters of urban land and 3 hectares for rural lands for use for business or other purposes.
Doctrine: Regardless of your citizenship upon registration, what is only necessary is that you are a Filipino when you acquired
the land as the owner. Under Sec 48 of CA 141, the law tacks possession over the property from predecessor-in- interest. It does
not matter whether the applicant has been in possession of the subject property for only a day, so long as the period and or legal
requirements for confirmation of title has been complied with by his predecessors-in- interest. Since the Lapina’s predecessors-
in-interest have been shown to have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation over the land
since 1937. The land, therefore, became private land and therefore registrable. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership,
but merely a formality aimed to confirm a title which one already has. The Lapinas, therefore, had no legal impediments to
register the land which they validly and legally acquired while they were Filipinos. Former stating filipinos that he has may the
acquire intention private of staying lands. permanently Submit a in sworn the Philippines
statement

EXCEPTION for Section 7, Art. 12 of the Constitution

(1) RA 8179 — Foreign Investments Act (2) RA 9225 — Citizenship Retention and

C. ISSUANCE OF DEGREE
Republic vs Nillas No time limit for issuance of decree In 1997, the respondent seeks for the revival of the 1941 decision of the
CFI of Negros Oriental. The CFI, acting as a cadastral court, adjudicated several lots, together with the improvements thereon, in
favor of named oppositors who had established their title to their respective lots and their continuous possession thereof since
time immemorial and ordered the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, upon the finality of the decision, to issue the
corresponding decree of registration. The petitioner contends that the petition of the respondent is barred by prescription or laches
due to the lapse of time from 1941 up to 1997.
Doctrine: Prescription or laches is not a bar to the petition for revival instituted by the respondent. If it is sufficiently
(SandeeSuan)
Page 15 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
established before that body that there is an authentic standing judgment or order from a land registration court that remains
unimplemented, then there should be no impediment to the issuance of the decree of registration. The SC held it in a negative.
The SC reiterated the process in issuing of decree as contemplated in Sec. 39 P.D. 1529 to support the conclusion that in this
procedure, the failure of the administrative authorities to do their part in the issuance of the decree of registration cannot oust the
prevailing party from ownership of the land. Neither the failure of such applicant to follow up with said authorities can. The SC
also emphasized the ultimate goal of our land registration system and such imposition of an additional burden to the owner after
judgment in the land registration case had attained finality would simply frustrate such goal. A decree shall be issued only after
the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of Deeds
concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title. But there is no time limit within which the court may order the issuance of
the decree. In a land registration proceeding, a special proceeding, the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; it is the
ownership by a person of a parcel of land that is sought to be established. After ownership has been proved and confirmed by
judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce judgment is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in
possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom. Hence, upon the finality of a decision adjudicating
such ownership, no further step is required to effectuate the decision and a ministerial duty exists alike on the part of the land
registration court to order the issuance of, and the LRA to issue, the decree of registration. The failure on the part of the
administrative authorities to do their part in the issuance of the decree cannot oust the prevailing party from ownership of the
land. The primary recourse need not be with the courts, but with the LRA, with whom the duty to issue the decree of registration
remains. There is no need for a revival of judgment.
When the decision becomes final, you only have 5 years to question
the judgement.
Ting vs Heirs of Lirio When decision becomes final Sec. 30 of the Property Registration Decree provides: “x x x The judgment
rendered in a land registration proceeding becomes final upon the expiration of thirty days to be counted from the date of receipt
of notice of the judgment. An appeal may be taken from the judgment of the court as in ordinary civil cases. x x x” The decision
in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any further action, upon the
expiration of the period or perfecting an appeal.
In 1976, CFI granted the application filed by the Spouses Lirio for registration of title to the subject lot. The decision later
became final and executory in 1977. The judge then issued an order directing the LRC to issue the corresponding decree of
registration and the certificate of title in favor of the spouses. In 1997, Rolando Ting filed with RTC an application for
registration of the title to the same lot. The respondents then filed an answer to petitioner, calling attention to the decision of CFI
which had become final and executory, and that Ting is barred in filing the application on the ground of res judicata. The RTC
dismissed Ting’s application on the ground of res judicata.
Doctrine: In a registration proceeding instituted for the registration of a private land, with or without opposition, the judgment of
the court confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor, as the case may be, and ordering its registration in his name
constitutes, when final, res judicata against the whole world. It becomes final when no appeal within the reglementary period is
taken from a judgment of confirmation and registration. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to
Sec. 6, Rule 39, regarding the execution of a judgment in a civil action, except the proceedings to place the winner in possession
by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession,
becomes final without any further action, upon the expiration of the period Section 30 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the
Property Registration Decree provides that after judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the court to
forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of this Decree to the Commissioner for the issuance of
the decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged entitled to registration. The
land registration proceedings being in rem, the land registration court’s approval of spouses Diego Lirio and Flora Atienza’s
application for registration of the lot settled its ownership, and is binding on the whole world including petitioner.
NOTE: Approval of resurvey plan by DENR The LRA is supposed to submit a report in the land registration court regarding
certain discrepancies and deficiencies in the survey plan. But, in this case of the Tings, this the LRA failed to do. According to
the Supreme Court, there is nothing wrong about the requirement that the resurvey plan should first be approved by the DENR.
D. WHEN OCT TAKES EFFECT When an Original Certificate of Title takes effect The original certificate of title is issued on
the date the decree of registration is transcribed. What stands as the certificate of title is the transcript of the decree or registration
made by the registrar of deeds in the registry.
Manotok Realty vs CLT Realty Transcription of Decree Both petitioners and respondent claim ownership over a parcel of land.
Claim of ownership sprung from OCT 994. The confusion arises because of the fact that the petitioner’s OCT 994 was registered
on May 3, 1917 while respondent’s OCT 994 was registered on April 19, 1917. Record shows that OCT 994 was received by the
Register of Deeds for Transcription of May 3, 1917.
The land becomes a registered land only upon the transcription of the decree in the original registration book by the Register of
Deeds, and not the date of issuance of the decree. The certificate of title is a true copy of the decree of registration. The original
certificate of title contains the full transcription of the decree of registration. Any defect in the manner of transcribing the
technical description should
be considered as a formal, and not a substantial, defect.
NOTE: Primary entry book The original registration book mentioned here is actually the primary entry book. The Registry of
Deeds does not maintain a separate registration book for OCTs only.
NOTE: Process of entry of decree Entry of the Decree is made by the chief clerk of the land registration and the entry of the
certificate of title is made by the register of deeds. A certificate of title is issued in pursuance of the decree of registration. What
is actually issued by the Register of Deeds is the certificate of title itself, not the decree of registration, as he is precisely the
recipient from the land registration office of the decree for transcription to the certificate as well as the transcriber no less.
Doctrine: OCT takes effect and land becomes registered land only upon transcription of the decree. The land becomes a
registered land only upon the transcription of the decree in the original registration book by the Register of Deeds, and not on the
date of issuance of the decree. Otherwise stated, as soon as the decree has been registered in the office of the Register of Deeds,
the property described therein shall become registered land, and the certificate shall take effect upon transcription of the decree.
A decree of registration is an order issued under the signature of the Commissioner of Land Registration (formerly Chief,
G.L.R.O.) in the name of the Judge to the fact that the land described therein is registered in the name of the applicant or
oppositor or claimant as the case maybe. When this is transcribed or spread in toto in the registration book and signed by the
register of deeds, the page on which the transcription is made become the original certificate of title, more commonly called the
Torrens title. It is only after the transcription of the decree by the register of deeds that the certificate of title is to take effect.
Thus, when there are two similar OCTs, the OCT which was issued before the time such is transcribed in the registration book
and signed by the register of deeds
(SandeeSuan)
Page 16 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Angeles vs Secretary of Justice Re: writ of mandamus against LRA officials Two OCTs were issued, one in April 1917, another
in May 1917.
Transcription was on May 1917. A TCT anchored on a void OCT for it was issued before such date when
it took effect.
Doctrine: OCT takes effect and land becomes registered land only upon transcription of the decree. A certificate of title takes
effect upon the transcription by the Register of Deeds in its registration book, and not on the date of registration. The date April
1917 was the date of the issuance of the title, but it was only on May 1917 that the title was transcribed.
Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a
discretionary duty. The issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where
they find that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land.
NOTE: Effect of probable duplication of titles The very basis of petitioners’ claim is the earlier registered OCT No. 994, which
was declared as null and void in the 2007 Manotok case. If the LRA officials and the Register of Deeds were to issue the title, it
would result to the overlapping of titles. Such issuance may contravene the policy and the purpose, and thereby
destroy the integrity, of the Torrens system of registration.
Q: What would happen to a buyer of any property that is related to the
said null and void OCT 994, considering he is a buyer in good faith? A: Even if the buyer claims that he is a purchaser in good
faith, the title would still remain null and void. The spring cannot rise higher than its source.
Q: Is there a remedy available to the purchaser in good faith? A: Yes, damages.

6. Classification of Public Lands Classification of Public Lands under the 1987 Constitution
1. Agricultural 2. Forest of Timber 3. Mineral 4. National Parks
Classification of public land is an executive prerogative CA No. 141 (Public Land Act), as amended, remains to this day the
existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain, other than timber and mineral
lands. The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the executive department of the government and not of the
courts.
Who may classify lands of the public domain? CA 141, until now, governs the classification and disposition of lands of the
public domain. Under CA 141, the President, through a presidential proclamation or executive order, is authorized, from time to
time, to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable and disposable, timber, or mineral lands. The Secretary of DENR is
the only other public official empowered by law to approve a land classification and declare such land as alienable and
disposable.
System of classification a. The President is authorized, from time to time, to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable
and disposable, timber, or mineral lands. b. Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are further
classified according to their uses into:
i. Agricultural
ii. Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive
purposes; iii. Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or iv. Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-
public uses. c. The Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), is the only other public
official empowered by law to approve a land classification and declare such land as alienable and disposable.

Requirements to establish classification

1. Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
(CENRO) to certify that land is alienable and disposable (A and D); 2. Applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary had
approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as A and D land; 3. That the land falls within the land
classification map as verified
through survey by the PENRO or CENRO; 4. The applicant must present a certified copy of the DENR Secretary’s
declaration or the President’s proclamation classifying the land as alienable and disposable.
Only A and D lands may be the subject of disposition Before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of the public
domain, the President must first officially classify these lands as alienable and disposable, and then declare them open to
disposition or cession.
Director of Lands vs CA & Bisnar Re: Forest or Timber Lands Adherence to the Regalian doctrine subject all agricultural,
timber, and mineral lands to the dominion of the State. Thus, before any land may be declassified from the forest group and
converted into alienable and disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a positive act from government.
Even rules on the confirmation of imperfect titles does not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land is released in
an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of public domain.
The petitioner through the OSG seeks to review the findings of the CA regarding the decision of the latter which affirmed the
decision of the RTC which granted the private respondents application for confirmation and registration of their title to two
parcels of land. The petitioners contended that the two parcels of land are classified by the director of forestry as timberland and
therefore the private respondents could not have private ownership notwithstanding the fact that the latter was in possession of
the land for over 80 years. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision. It held that the classification of the
lots as timberland by the Director of Forestry cannot prevail in the absence of proof that the said lots are indeed more valuable as
forest land than as agricultural land.
Doctrine: Possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership so long as there is no classification of the
land as alienable and disposable by the Executive Department. The classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable
or disposable is no longer a prerogative of the court. There should be no more room for doubt that it is not the court which
determines the classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of the
government, through the Office of the President. Hence, it was grave error and/or abuse of discretion for respondent court to
ignore the uncontroverted facts that (1) the disputed area is within a timberland block, and (2) as certified to by the then Director
of Forestry, the area is needed for forest purposes. Positive act of the government is needed to declassify land which is classified
as forest and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. Unless and until the land classified
as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the
public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 17 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
As provided for under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 141, which was lifted from Act 2874, the classification or reclassification
of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department of the
government and not the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt that it is not the court which determines
the classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of the government,
through the Office of the President.
Republic vs CA (discussed above) In 1930, the Trial Court of Cagayan issued a Decree No. 381928 giving the
Spouses Carag’s predecessors an OCT for a parcel of land. The government was a party to this case. 68 years later the Reg.
Executive Director of DENR filed an action to annul the said decree on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the
case. He said that at the time of the issuance of the decree the land was still timber and thus not alienable and disposable. He said
during 1930 it was the Exec Branch of the Government that had power to classify lands of the public domain. Thus, the trial court
having no jurisdiction the title given to the Spouses were null and void. The law prevailing the time of the issuance of the decree
was Act 2874. Sec.6 of the act said that the Gov. Gen shall classify the lands. However, in the case at bar the petitioner did not
allege that the Gov Gen declared the subject land as mineral, timber or reserved for public purpose. Also, sec 8 of the same act
states that land that were classified as A&D as well as those private land can be disposed by the government. But as to the lands
excluded from the classification requirement, the trial court has jurisdiction to adjudicate them to private parties. The SC said that
the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether the property was agricultural, timber or mineral land. Since the TC
determined the land as agricultural the Spouses Carag were entitled to the decree and the certificate of title. Also, the government
was a party to that issuance of decree in 1930, however they did not appeal the decision, thus the judgement of the court was final
and beyond review. Doctrine: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the statute in force at
the time of the filing of the action. Under the applicable law at the time of the issuance of the decree, all lands owned by the State
are alienable lands unless declared as mineral or forest zone, or reserved by the State for public purpose. While it is true that
under the prevailing law at that time (Act No. 2874), the disposition of lands is confined to those which have been declared
alienable or disposable, this provides for an exception such as those lands that were already private lands. Clearly, with respect to
lands excluded from the classification requirement in, trial courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate these lands to private parties.
Act 2874, Section 8 provides that lands which are already private lands, as well as lands on which a private claim may be made
under any law, are not covered by the classification requirement in Section 8 for purposes of disposition. This exclusion in
Section 8 recognizes that during the Spanish regime, Crown lands were per se alienable unless falling under timber or mineral
zones, or otherwise reserved for some public purpose in accordance with law.
Leonardo de Castro vs Mayor Yap (discussed above) All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership
are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to determine if lands of the
public domain will be disposed of for private ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary
power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they
may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be
ordinary acts of ownership.
Classification of Boracay Island a. President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into 400 hectares
of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land (alienable and disposable). b. Except for
lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064.
Under PD No. 705, or Revised Forestry Code, all unclassified lands are considered public forest.
Republic vs T.A.N. Properties Re: Approval by DENR Secretary FACTS: TAN Properties applied for registration over a parcel
of land. It presented a certification from CENRO that the property falls within the “alienable and disposable” area.
Doctrine: CENRO certification is not sufficient proof that the land has been classified A&D. There must be a certification from
the Secretary of the DENR attesting that the land had indeed been classified as A&D.
The certifications are not sufficient. DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20, dated 30 May 1988, delineated the functions
and authorities of the offices within the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, series of 1988, the CENRO issues certificates of land
classification status for areas below 50 hectares. The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Offices (PENRO) issues
certificate of land classification status for lands covering over 50 hectares. DAO No. 38, dated 19 April 1990, amended DAO No.
20, series of 1988. DAO No. 38, series of 1990 retained the authority of the CENRO to issue certificates of land classification
status for areas below 50 hectares, as well as the authority of the PENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for
lands covering over 50 hectares. In this case, respondent applied for registration of Lot 10705- B. The area covered by Lot
10705-B is over 50 hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO certificate covered the entire Lot 10705 with an area of
596,116 square meters which, as per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is beyond the authority of the CENRO to certify as alienable
and disposable. Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The
applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of
the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the
approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must
present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian
of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do
so because the certifications presented by respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
NOTE: CENRO and PENRO issuances CENROs may issue certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares,
while those falling above 50 hectares is within the function of the PENROs
NOTE: Need for classification as A and D Even though it is a government agency, you have to classify the land as A
and D. (CMU v. Republic)
NOTE: Registration not always available In so far as registration is concerned, what might be legal might not be registrable.
Because there are certain rules in registration. In other words, although one may have a right over a property by virtue of a
proclamation in their favor, whether or not the land may be registered under their name is an entirely different story.
Republic vs Santos GR no. 160453 By law, accretion — the gradual and imperceptible deposit made through the effects of the
current of the water-belongs to the owner of the land adjacent to the banks of rivers where it forms. The drying up of the river is
not accretion. Hence, the dried-up river bed belongs to the State as property of public dominion, not to the riparian owner, unless
a law vests the ownership in some other person. Respondents as the applicants for land registration carried the burden of proof to
establish the merits of their application by a preponderance of evidence, by which is meant such evidence that is of greater
weight, or more
(SandeeSuan)
Page 18 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
QUESTION on June 22, No.1: 1994 Angel claiming filed that a petition he has for been registration in actual, of open, a
parcel continuous of land
and appears notorious that he possession, likewise filed in a the foreshore concept lease of an application owner over over
the the same. same It
land CENRO in to 1977. file with During it a report the trial, on the the status court of ordered the subject the land. LRA
The and court the
thereafter said decision rendered became a decision final and on executory. May 3 1995 The granting Office the of
petition. the Solicitor The
general judgment subsequently on the ground filed that a based petition on the for report annulment of the LRA of the which
above was received by it on June 22, 1995, the land applied for is foreshore land. a) What is the nature and classification of
foreshore land? b) Will the action of the Republic through the OSG prosper? ANSWERS: a) NO. water Foreshore marks and
land is is alternatively that strip of wet land and that dry lies to between the flow the of high the tide. and It low is that and left
part dry of by the the land ordinary adjacent flow to of the tides. sea, It which is part is of alternatively the alienable covered land
of the otherwise. public Foreshore domain and land may remains be disposed part of of the only public by domain lease and and
not is outside the commerce of man. It is not capable of private appropriation. b) YES. Even if the decision of the RTC has
become final and executory, the action impressed for with annulment public interest. of judgment The State should has to be
protect sustained its interests since it and is
cannot its Furthermore, officials be bound or Angel agents, by, had or estopped in mush fact filed more, from, a foreshore non-
suited the mistakes lease as or application a negligent result thereof. in acts 1977 of
and Angel’s paid claim the corresponding that he had fees been thereon. in actual, There open, is therefore notorious, doubt and
to
continuous possession in the concept of an owner.
QUESTION registration No.2: of the On three December parcels 27, of land. 1976, He Francisco alleged filed therein a
petition that there for
were predecessors-in-interest hardly any big trees even in the planted subject bananas, property cassava, and that
coconut he and trees his
and open, camotes notorious on the and same. continuous He further possession alleged that of he the had property been
in actual, in the concept on the ground of owner. that The the application subject property was opposed was forest by the
land Director and was of Lands only reclassified as alienable and disposable only on April 16, 1973. a) Should the petition
for registration be granted? b) Is parcel the absence of land of as big not trees belonging conclusive to forest as regards
land?
to the classification of a
ANSWERS: a) NO. Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No.141, the classification and or forest reclassification land is the
prerogative of public lands of the into Executive alienable Department. or disposable, The mineral rule on the land confirmation
classified as forest of imperfect land is released title does in not an official apply unless proclamation and until to that the
effect public so domain. that it may Francisco form part failed of to the adduce disposable in evidence agricultural any
certification lands of the
from property the Bureau is alienable of Lands or disposable. or the Bureau Furthermore, of Forestry since to the the effect
property that was the
reclassified Francisco filed as alienable his application and disposable only on only December on April 27, 16, 1973 1976, and he
irrefragably requisite thirty failed (30)-year to prove period.
his possession of the property for the
b) NO. A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose stripped such it of classification its forest
cover. simply Parcels because of land loggers classified or settlers as forest may land have may actually or other be farmers.
covered “Forest with grass Lands” or do planted not have to crops to be in by the Kaingin mountains cultivators or in out palms
of and the way other places. trees Swampy growing areas in brackish covered or by sea mangrove water may trees, also nipa be
classified or status as and forest does land. not have The classification to be descriptive is descriptive of what of the its land legal
actually nature
looks like.
7. Non-Registrable Properties What properties are not registrable? With respect to land banking program of
Bedrock, the following properties may not be registered under the Torrens System with any Register of Deeds:
(a) inalienable lands of the public domain; and (b) those prohibited under the Constitution (such as national parks, mineral lands,
forest or timber lands and agricultural lands not classified as alienable and disposable)
Santulan vs. Executive Secretary Re: Preferential Right to Lease Foreshore Lands Petitioner Julian Santulan and Antonio Lusin
who have been succeeded by their heirs were rival claimants with respect to the lease of a parcel of foreshore land of public
domain in Cavite. The Petitioner applied for revocable permit for planting then fishpond of Bakawan. He also acquired OCT over
the land. On the other hand, private respondent Lusin was reported that he illegally entered the area covered by the petitioners
fishpond permit. However, private respondent Lusin filed applications for a revocable-permit and a lease of a foreshore. He also
contends that he had been in continuous and exclusive possession of the land and had improvements including water breakers.
The 1942 foreshore lease applications of Petitioner Santulan and private respondent Lusin gave rise to Bureau of Lands conflict.
Doctrine: Disputed land was subject to “riparian rights” of Julian Santulan as owner of the upland of the foreshore. The foreshore
land that accumulated on land covered by OCT subjected the land to the preferential right to lease the land and cannot be
nullified by allegations of possession and improvements of the land. The owner of the OCT has the preferential right to lease the
land.
Paragraph 32 of Land Administrative Order No. 7-1, promulgated for the disposition of alienable lands of the public domain,
provides: “x x x The owner of the property adjoining foreshore lands, marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon
shores or banks of navigable rivers, shall be given preference to apply for such lands adjoining his property as may not be needed
for public service, subject to the laws and regulations governing lands of this nature, provided that he applies therefor within sixty
(60) days from the date he receives a communication from the Director of Lands advising him of his preferential right.” In sum,
the riparian owner of the registered land abutting upon the
foreshore land has the preferential right to lease foreshore land.
NOTE: Riparian owner The term “riparian owner” embraces not only the owners of lands on the banks of rivers but also the
littoral owners, meaning the owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal waters.
Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits when they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and are not
necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coast guard service, may be
declared by the Government as its patrimonial property and may be leased to the riparian owner as having a preferential right.
Republic vs CA & Lastimado Lastimado filed a petition for the reopening of cadastral proceedings over a
portion of the Mariveles Cadastre. There was no opposition from the Government or other private individuals. The court
adjudicated the land, after an ex-parte proceeding and ordered an issuance of a decree of registration. A decree, and then an OCT
was issued in Lastimado’s name. She then caused the lot to be subdivided into 10 lots, and thus corresponding TCTs were issued.
A year after the entry of the decree of registration, the Republic filed a Petition for Review alleging fraud during the alleged
adverse possession since the lot was part of the US Military Reservation and was inside the public forest. According to the
Republic, the land was not subject to disposition or acquisition under the Public Land Act.
Doctrine: The Government is not estopped from questioning the decision. The State cannot be bound by the mistakes of its agents
or officials. Since the subject property was inside the military reservation, it cannot be the object of cadastral proceedings; and
since it also forms part of the public forest, then any possession thereof, however how long can never convert it to private
property.
If the allegation of petitioner that the land in question was inside the military reservation at the time it was claimed is true, then, it
cannot be the object of any cadastral nor can it be the object of reopening under Republic Act No. 931. Similarly, if the land in
question, indeed forms part of the public forest, then, possession thereof, however long, cannot convert it into private property as
it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Cadastral Court to
register under the Torrens System.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 19 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Even assuming that the government agencies can be faulted for inaction and neglect (although the Solicitor General claims that it
received no notice), yet, the same cannot operate to bar action by the State as it cannot be estopped by the mistake or error of its
officials
Chavez vs Public Estates Authority (PEA) From the time of Marcos until Estrada, portions of Manila Bay were being
reclaimed. A law was passed creating the Public Estate Authority. The Public Estates Authority (PEA) is the central
implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the
DENR insofar as reclaimed or about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned. Now in this case, PEA entered into a Joint
Venture Agreement with AMARI, a private corporation. Under the Joint Venture Agreement between AMARI and PEA, several
hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands (77.34 hecatares) and several portions of submerged areas of Manila
Bay( 290.156 hectares) were going to be transferred to AMARI .
Doctrine: Alienable lands of the public domain cannot be sold to private corporations. It can only be leased to the latter.
Ownership of alienable lands of the public domain can only be vested upon individuals. The transfer of PEA to AMARI was not
valid. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to AMARI as private lands will sanction a
gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain
(Sec. 3). Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), reclaimed lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain. Section 3 of the Constitution: Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private
corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease. Also Sec. 2 of the
Constitution prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain. The 157.84 hectares
of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands
of the public domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to
private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987
Constitution and existing laws. Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. Under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts whose “object or purpose is contrary to law,” or whose “object is
outside the commerce of men,” are “inexistent and void from the beginning.” The Court must perform its duty to defend and
uphold the Constitution, and therefore declares the Amended JVA null and void ab initio. The grant of legislative authority to sell
public lands in accordance with Section of the public 60 of domain CA No. into 141 private does not or patrimonial automatically
lands. convert The alienable alienable lands lands of to the government public domain entities must not tasked be transferred to
dispose to of qualified public lands, private before parties, these or
lands constitutional can become ban will become private illusory or patrimonial if Congress can lands. declare Otherwise, lands
of the the public government domain agency as tasked private to or dispose patrimonial of public lands lands.
in the hands of a
Chavez vs NHA & Romero In the case of NHA, how come property can be transferred? The PEA corpo is
more or less the administrator of land agencies of government who are already end-users, thats why it can validly transfer the
lands involved herein. It is already a patrimonial property of the State and when it was alienated they have a special pass to
manage, administer as his own of the land. In the hands of an end user, such as NHA the land is already considered as a private
land Despite not having a congressional approval or explicit declaration, the lands have been deemed to be no longer needed for
public use thru the proclamation no. 39 which states “disposed to qualified beneficiaries” it served as an implied evidence that the
lands were already alienable and disposable. When the titles to the reclaimed lands were transferred to the NHA, said alienable
and disposable lands of public domain were automatically classified as lands of the patrimonial properties of the State because
the NHA is an agency NOT tasked to dispose of alienable or disposable lands of public domain unlike in PEA in the previous
case. The only way
it can transfer to the reclaimed land in conjunction with its housing projects and to attain its goals is when it is automatically
converted to patrimonial properties of the State.
Angel filed a petition for registration of a parcel of land on June 22, 1994 claiming possession, that in the he has concept
been of in an actual, owner open, over the continuous same. It appears and notorious that he likewise During the filed
trial, a foreshore the court lease ordered application the LRA over and the the CENRO same land to in file 1977. with it a
decision a report on on May the status 3 1995 of granting the subject the land. petition. The court The said thereafter
decision rendered became final a based petition and on executory. the for report annulment The of Office the of LRA the
of the which above Solicitor was judgment received general on subsequently by the it ground on June filed that 22, 1995,
the land applied for is foreshore land. a) What is the nature and classification of foreshore land? b) Will the action of the
 Republic through the OSG prosper? Answer: A. NO. water Foreshore marks and land is is alternatively that strip of wet
land and that dry lies to between the flow the of high the tide. and It low is that and left part dry of by the the land
ordinary adjacent flow to of the tides. sea, It which is part is of alternatively the alienable covered land of the otherwise.
public Foreshore domain and land may remains be disposed part of of the only public by domain lease and and not is
outside the commerce of man. It is not capable of private appropriation. B. YES. Even if the decision of the RTC has
become final and executory, the action impressed for with annulment public interest. of judgment The State should has to
be protect sustained its interests since it and is
cannot its officials be bound or agents, by, or estopped mush more, from, non-suited the mistakes as or a negligent result thereof.
acts of
Furthermore, and paid the Angel corresponding had in fact fees filed thereon. a foreshore There lease is application therefore
doubt in 1977 to Angel’s continuous claim possession that he in the had concept been of in an actual, owner.
open, notorious, and
8. Remedies Remedies available to the aggrieved party (1) Rule 37 of Rules of Court – Remedy of
New Trial or
Reconsideration (2) Rule 38 of Rules of Court – Relief from Judgment (3) Section 33 of PD 1529 – Appeal (4) Section 32
of PD 1529 – Review of Decree and Damages (5) Section 53 and 96 of PD 1529 – Reconveyance (6) Section 95 of PD 1529 –
Claim against Assurance Fund (7) Section 101 of CA 141 – Reversion (8) Rule 47 of Rules of Court – Cancellation of Title,
Annulment of
Judgment (9) RPC – Criminal Prosecution
Remedies Available in a Registration Case a. Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration (Rule 31, RoC) b. Petition for Relief from
Judgement (Rule 38, RoC) c. Appeal (Sec. 33, PD 1529)
a. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 31) Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved
party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the causes
materially affecting the substantial rights of said party.
- If motion for new trial is granted — the judgment is set aside; - If motion for reconsideration is granted — the judgment is
merely
amended.
The period for filing either motion is within the period for taking, not perfecting, an appeal. An appeal may be taken within
fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required,
the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days after notice of the judgment or final order.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 20 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
GROUNDS: (1) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and
by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; (2) Newly discovered evidence, which he
could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered, and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the
result. — Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages
awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order or that decision or final order is
contrary to law.
Only extrinsic or collateral, as distinguished from intrinsic, fraud is a
ground for annulling a judgment. ❖ Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the successful party in a litigation which is
committed outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party
is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case. ❖ Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in litigation during the
trial, such as the use of forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not

Petition exclusive for of relief each and other

motion for new trial/reconsideration are
A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot file a petition for relief after his motion has been denied. These two
remedies are exclusive of each other. He should appeal from the judgment and question such denial. Relief will not be granted to
a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own
negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure.
b. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT (RULE 38) When a judgment or final order is entered, or any proceedings is
thereafter taken against a party in any court through, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such
court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside When a judgment or final order is rendered
by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking
an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course. A “final”
judgment or order (as distinguished from one which has “become final” or “executory” as of right [final and executory]), is one
that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the court in respect thereto. Conversely, an order that does not
finally dispose of the case, and does not end the court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contention and determining their rights
and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the court, is “interlocutory.”
Time for filing petition A petition for relief from judgment or from denial of appeal under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 38, must be
verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside,
and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be
accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting
the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

Petition exclusive for of relief each and other

motion for new trial or reconsideration are
A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot file a petition for relief after his motion has been denied. These two
remedies are
exclusive of each other. He should appeal from the judgment and question such denial.

c. APPEAL (SEC. 33, PD 1529)

Sec 33. Appeal from judgment, etc. The judgment and orders of the court hearing the land registration case are appealable to the
Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions.
An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
when declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable.
• It must be filed within 15 days from receipt of the judgment or final
order appealed from
• Under PD 1529, judgments and orders in land registration cases are appealable to the CA or to the SC in the same manner as
ordinary actions.
Who may file an appeal in land registration cases? Only those who participated in the proceedings can interpose an
appeal.

In pending land registration appeal?

cases, may a party validly move for execution
No. A motion for execution pending appeal is not applicable to land registration proceedings. The reason is to protect innocent
purchasers.
No appeal may be taken from: 1) Order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration 2) Order denying a petition for relief or
any similar motion seeking
relief from judgment 3) Interlocutory order 4) Order disallowing or dismissing an appeal 5) Order denying a motion to set
aside a judgment by consider, confession, or compromise on the ground of F/M/D or any ground vitiating consent 6) Order of
execution 7) Judgment or final order for or against parties in separate claims, counter-claims, crossclaims, and 3rd party
complaints — main case is pending 8) Order dismissing an action without prejudice

Remedies in under cases of the fraudulent Property Registration registration

Decree,
a. Petition for Review of Decree (Sec. 32) b. Action for Reconveyance (Sec. 53 and 96) c. Action for Damages (Sec. 32) d.
Recovery from the Assurance Fund (Sec. 95)

PETITION OF ORDINARY APPEAL

• Within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from
• When a record of appeal is required, within 30 days from notice of
judgment or final order
• Period of appeal shall be interrupted by a firmly motion for new trial
or reconsideration
• In the above case, there would be a “fresh 15 days”

a. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECREE (SEC. 32)

SEC. 32. Review of Decree of Registration; Innocent Purchaser for Value — ...a registration not later than one year from and
after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where the
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, who rights may be prejudiced.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 21 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Requisites for Petition for Review of Decree (a) The petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land (b) He must show actual
fraud in the procurement of the decree of
registration (c) The petition must be filed within one year from the issuance of the
decree by the Land registration Authority (d) The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value (If it has
already passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the party filing the petition for review can only get damages)

In land registration cases, when may a petition for review may be

filed? Any person may file a petition for review to set aside the decree of registration on the ground that he was deprived of
their opportunity to be heard in the original registration case not later than 1 year after the entry of the decree.
Grounds for filing a petition for review: 1. That a land belonging to a person has been registered in the name
of another or that an interest has been omitted in the application; 2. Registration has been procured thru actual fraud; 3.
Petitioner is the owner of the said property or interest therein; 4. Property has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for
value; 5. Action is filed within one year from the issuance ad entry of the
decree of registration; or 6. Actual fraud must be utilized in the procurement of the decree and
not thereafter. Note: What is contemplated by law is extrinsic fraud.
Fraud must be extrinsic fraud. Only extrinsic or collateral, as distinguished from intrinsic, fraud is a ground for annulling a
judgment. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the successful party in a litigation which is committed outside the trial of
a case against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is prevented from presenting
fully and fairly his side of the case. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in litigation during the trial, such as
the use of forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and
just determination of the case.
The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive the parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right
to the property registered in the name of the applicant.
Specific instances of actual or extrinsic fraud (1) Deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested when
in fact they are; (2) Applying for and obtaining adjudication and registration in the name of a co-owner of land which he
knows had not been allotted to him in the partition; (3) Intentionally concealing facts, and conniving with the land inspector to
include in the survey plan the bed of a navigable stream; (4) Willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims; (5)
Deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice; (6) Inducing a claimant not to oppose the application for registration; (7)
Misrepresentation as to the identity of the lot to the true owner (8) Failure of the applicant to disclose vital facts (9) Deliberate
falsehood
PETITION MUST BE FILED WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF ENTRY OF THE DECREE — this decree pertains to the
decree prepared and issued by the LRA

IN CASE OF PUBLIC LANDS, HOW SHOULD THE PERIOD BE

COMPUTED?
• Date of issuance of the patent corresponds to the date of the decree
in ordinary registration cases
• Decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it and the patent issued by the Director of Lands
equally and finally grants, awards, and conveys the lands applied for to the applicant

When relief may not be granted?

1. When the alleged fraud goes into the merits of the case, is
intrinsic, and has been controverted and decided 2. Where it appears that the fraud consisted in the presentation at the trial of
a supposed forged document, or of a false or perjured testimony, or in basing a judgment on a fraudulent CA, or in the alleged
fraudulent acts or omissions of the accused.
Innocent Purchaser for Value in Good Faith
• One who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a
full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or Before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person
in the property
• Good faith is the honest intention to abstain from taking any
unconscientious advantage of another
• The decree guarantees to every purchaser of registered land in good faith that they can take and hold the same free from any and
all prior claims, liens and encumbrances except those set forth in the certificate of title
• Good faith requires a well-founded belief that the person from whom the title was received was himself the owner of the land,
with the right to convey it
Republic vs CA & Ribaya GR 113549 1 year period provided in Section 38 of Act 496 merely refers to a petition
for review and is reckoned from the entry of the decree. There are other remedies available to an aggrieved party after the said
one-year period: Reconveyance, Damages, Assurance Fraud. PRESCRIPTION NEVER LIES AGAINST THE STATE for the
reversion of property which is part of the public forest/forest reservation which was registered in favour of any party. It was part
of the public forest released only in 1930, no jurisdiction of land reg court because not yet A & D. Hence, state action to annul
the certificates of title and for the reversion of the land is not barred by prescription.
Only where the original survey plan is amended during the registration proceedings, by the addition of land not previously
included, should publication be made in order to confer jurisdiction of the court to order the registration of the area. If reduction,
no need for publication. Amendment was made after the land registration court rendered its decision. So it follows that reopening
of the case was indispensable. But no re-opening happened.
Eland Philippines, Inc vs Garcia On 1998, the heirs of Malabanan filed for Quieting of Title against Eland. They
claimed that they’ve been in open, continuous, actual possession of land for 30 years, and that there was never a claim on said
land until they found out that on August 1997, the land was awarded to Eland in a Land registration proceeding. Ruling: the
proper remedy for the heirs of malabanan is not one for
quieting of title, but review of decree of registration. Doctrine: When the requisites for petition for review are all present,
petition for review is the more appropriate action and not quieting of title. Anyone affected by a decree of registration issued by
the court may ask for a review of decree of registration, as long as it was filed within 1 year from the issuance of decree. The
following requisites must be present:
a. Petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land
(SandeeSuan)
Page 22 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
b. There was actual fraud in the procurement of the decree of
registration c. Must be filed w/in 1 year from issuance of decree by LRA d. Property has not yet passed to an innocent
purchaser
Doctrine: “1 year from issuance of decree” means any time after the rendition of the court’s decision BEFORE the expiration of 1
year from entry of final decree of registration.
Courts may reopen proceedings already closed by final decision or decree when an application for review is filed by the party
aggrieved within one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. However, the basis of the aggrieved party must be
anchored solely on actual fraud.
Requisites for review: (a) The petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land (b) He must show actual fraud in the
procurement of the decree of
registration (c) The petition must be filed within one year from the issuance of the
decree by the Land registration Authority (d) The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value
✦ Q: Remedy should have been a petition for review instead of
quieting of title?
➡ A: Because it is still well within the 1 year period provided by law. 1 year from the time the title was issued and from the time
they alleged there was fraud
✦ Q: A petition for review may be filed even before a decree of
registration?
➡A: Yes. Even if no decree of registration has yet been issued, a
petition for review under sec 32 is available for remedy.
Serna vs CA Petitioners spouses Serna claim ownership of the land based on the deed of sale executed
by Turner Land Surveying Co. in favor of Alberto Rasca, which, however, they failed to present in court. The truth or falsity of
this claim is a question of fact, which, as aforesaid, is not reviewable in this appeal. On the other hand, respondents proved that
they were enjoying open, continuous and adverse possession of the property for more than (60) years. As early as 1921, Dionisio
Fontanilla was in adverse possession and paying taxes over the land. Rosa in turn, paid taxes for the first time in 1939, while
respondents began paying taxes in 1967. They had their residential house built in 1955, which was completed in 1957. In 1980,
Santiago executed a tenancy agreement with a certain Sixto Fontanilla. Until 1984, Santiago paid the taxes together with his
tenant Sixto. Though mere tax declaration does not prove ownership of the property of the declarant, tax declarations and receipts
can be strong evidence of ownership of land when accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for prescription.
Respondents came to know of the fraud in securing title to the land sometime after its registration, however, an innocent
purchaser for value had not acquired the property. Extrinsic fraud attended the application for the land registration. It was filed
when respondents were out of the country and they had no way of finding out that petitioners applied for a title under their name.
“An action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years. This means that petitioners should have enforced
the trust within ten (10) years from the time of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property.” Discovery
of the fraud must be deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the certificate of title because registration of real property is
considered a “constructive notice to all persons” and it shall be counted “from the time of such registering, filing or entering.”
Fortunately, respondents’ action for reconveyance was timely, as it was filed within ten (10) years from the issuance of the
Torrens title over the property.

RULE ON DOUBLE SALE OF PROPERTY

1. The first registrant in good faith
2. The first possessor in good faith 3. The buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title

RULE OF “PRIOR EST TEMPORAE, PRIOR EST IN JURA”

• He who first in time is first in right
• The rule that where 2 certificates purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails, is valid only absent any anomaly
or irregularity tainting the registration process
• Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s right except only as provided for in the
CC and that’s where the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first

RULES OF PREFERENCE
1. The first registrant in good faith 2. The first in possession in good faith 3. The buyer who presents the olders title in good faith

b. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE (SEC. 53 AND 96)

Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the
Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided
for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown. The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any
voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of
Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new
certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every
purchaser for value and in good faith. In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and
equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a
certificate of title. After the entry of the decree of registration on the original petition or application, any subsequent registration
procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.
Section 96. Against whom action filed. If such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of any
estate or interest therein arising wholly through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of the court personnel,
Register of Deeds, his deputy, or other employees of the Registry in the performance of their respective duties, the action shall be
brought against the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land is situated and the National Treasurer as defendants.
But if such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of any interest therein arising through
fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of person other than court personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or
other employees of the Registry, such action shall be brought against the Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer and other
person or persons, as co-defendants. It shall be the duty of the Solicitor General in person or by representative to appear and to
defend all such suits with the aid of the fiscal of the province or city where the land lies: Provided, however, that nothing in this
Decree shall be construed to deprive the plaintiff of any right of action which he may have against any person for such loss or
damage or deprivation without joining the National Treasurer as party defendant. In every action filed against the Assurance
Fund, the court shall consider the report of the Commissioner of Land Registration.

Reconveyance land from the is registered an action owner seeking to the to rightful transfer owner.
or reconvey the
Reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in the name of another. It is also available not only to the legal owner of a property but also to the person with the
better right than the person under whose name said property was erroneously registered. The decree becomes incontrovertible and
can no longer be reviewed after one year from the date of the decree so that the only remedy of the landowner is to bring an
action in court for reconveyance.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 23 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino

Nature and Purpose of an Action for Reconveyance

• An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.
• Such action, filed after 1 year from the issuance of the decree, does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding but
only to show that the person who secured the registration proceeding but only to show that the person who secured the
registration of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof.
• It does not seek to set aside the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or
reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner, or to the one with a better right.
• When a person is a party to a registration proceeding, or, when notified, he does not want to participate and only after the
property has been adjudicated to another and the corresponding title has been issued does he file an action for reconveyance, to
give due course to the action is to nullify registration proceedings and defeat the purpose of the law.
Requisites for Reconveyance: (a) the action must be brought in the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right over
the land registered in the name of the defendant (b) the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was
procured through fraud or other illegal means (c) the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value (d) the
action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final and incontrovertible within 4 years from the discovery of
fraud, or not later that 10 years in the case of an implied trust

DECREE BECOMES INCONTROVERTIBLE AFTER 1 YEAR FROM THE

ISSUANCE OF DECREE
• Action for reconveyance still available as remedy
• Action in personam that it is always as long as the property has not
passed to an innocent purchaser for value

RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS
1. That the plaintiff is the owner of the land 2. That the defendant has illegally disposed him of the same

Reconveyance is an Action in Personam

• Binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or
given an opportunity to be heard
• Directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments
• Court must have jurisdiction over the defendant
THE RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER AN ACTION FOR
RECONVEYANCE
THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY OVER WHICH RECONVEYANCE IS BEING SOUGHT ARE
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES WITHOUT WHOM NO RELIEF IS AVAILABLE
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE MAY BE BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Action for Reconveyance may be barred by prescription
GROUNDS PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD Action based on fraud where a
plaintiff is in actual possession
Imprescriptible
If the ground relied upon for an action for reconveyance is fraud,
what is the period for filing the same? If ground relied upon is fraud, action may be filed within 4 years from discovery thereof.
Discovery is deemed to have taken place when said instrument was registered. It is because registration constitutes constructive
notice to the whole world.
STATE IS NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION The State has an imprescriptible right to cause the reversion of a piece of
property belonging to the public domain if title has been acquired through fraudulent means.

Laches may bar recovery

1. Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom him or one under who he claims, giving rise to the situation of
which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks relief 2. Delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the
complainant having had knowledge or notice, or the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a
suit 3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his
suit 4. Inquiry or prejudice to the defendant in the event the relief is
afforded the complainant or the suit is not held to be barred

Action may be barred by Res Judicata

1. Final judgment 2. Court has competent jurisdiction 3. Between the first and second causes of action—there is identity of
parties, subject matter and causes of action
Action based on implied or constructive trust It does not apply where the person enforcing the trust is in actual possession of the
title because he is in effect seeking to quiet title to the same which is imprescriptible.
QUIETING OF TITLE What is action for quieting of title? It is an action that is brought to remove clouds on the tile to real
property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently
valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title.
Who may file an action to quiet title? (1) Registered owner; (2) A person who has an equitable right or interest in the property; or
(3) The State
QUIETING OF TITLE IS PROPER WHEN There is a cloud on the title — an outstanding claim or encumbrance which if valid
would affect or impair the title of the owner of a particular estate, on its face has that effect but can be shown by extrinsic proof
to be invalid or inapplicable to the estate in question
GROUNDS PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Action based on fraud
4 years after the discovery of the alleged
fraud Action based on implied or
constructive trust
Roque vs Aguada For Reconveyance, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to show that he has a legal
claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value. Examining its provisions, the Court finds that the stipulation above- highlighted shows that the 1977 Deed of
Conditional Sale is actually in
(SandeeSuan)
Page 24 of 34 10 years from the
issuance of the OCT or
TCT Action based on express trust Not barred by prescription Action based on a void
contract Imprescriptible
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
the nature of a contract to sell and not one of sale contrary to Sps. Roque’s belief and therefore the seller retains ownership before
payment of the entire price. Hence reconveyance is not the remedy.
It is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to show that he has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner
and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. It was a contract to sell and therefore the
seller retains ownership before
payment of the entire price. Hence reconveyance is not the remedy.
Emma Ver Reyes vs Montemayor A case about double sales, there was an anomaly how the second sale
was registered. Any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or of a forged
deed or other instrument, shall also be null and void. The third party here cannot be considered to be innocent purchasers for
value, because they acquired it from private respondent who beforehand already admitted to holding a dubious title of the subject
property.
Reyes filed a complaint of reconveyance against Montemayor claiming that she bought lot from Marciano. However, she failed
to register the sale and lot because she was suffering from diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. Later, she found out that the lot was
already registered under the name of Montemayor, who also claimed to have bought it from Marciano. When asked, Marciano
said he only sold it to Reyes and never to Montemayor. There were evidences of forged signature of Montemayor too.
Montemayor executed a waiver and quitclaim admitting that her claim to the property is of dubious origin, which conveyed the
property to Isip.
Doctrine: Reconveyance is the proper remedy for a land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another’s name. Torrens system should not be a means to perpetrate fraud. Isip is not a purchaser for value in good faith and
cannot be protected under the law since he knew that Montemayor already admitted his dubious claim over the property and that
should have raised a suspicion on his part.
It has long been established that the sole remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered
in another's name is to bring an ordinary action in an ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages. "It is one thing to protect an innocent third party; it is entirely a
different matter and one devoid of justification if deceit would be rewarded by allowing the perpetrator to enjoy the fruits of his
nefarious deed." Reconveyance is all about the transfer of the property, in this case the title thereto, which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better right. Evidently,
petitioners, being the rightful owners of the subject property, are entitled to the reconveyance of the title over the same.
Gasataya vs Mabasa SC ruled Gasataya defrauded respondents and thus they can file an action for
reconveyance. Even though they don’t have the titles of the lots they can file for reconveyance because Gasataya was a purchaser
in bad faith. Reconveyance is also available to the heirs and not just necessarily to the registered owners Whenever a title is
issued pursuant to a homestead or a free patent, the person or his heirs have a right to repurchase this property within a period of
5 years from the date of reconveyance. Pursuant to Sec 119 of Commonwealth act 145. In the case where it is mortgaged or
consolidated, heirs have 5 years to repurchase said property. Reason: to preserve the homestead in favour of the grantee. Unlike
in a judicial title, that there is no prohibition. Thats why some are reluctant receive mortgage land that has homestead and patent
titles.
Mabasa mortgaged his lots to DBP. He wasn’t able to pay his loan, so it was foreclosed and bought by DBP. Later, DBP and
Mabasa entered into an agreement to repurchase. For payment of repurchase price, Mabasa entered into another agreement with
Gasatayas which stated that Gasatayas will pay for him, so long as he can possess for 20 yrs.
However, Gasatayas stopped paying DBP, so DBP ordered foreclosure and Heirs of Gasataya bought the property.
Doctrine: Reconveyance is a remedy available not only to the rightful owner but also to one who has a better right over the
property. Here, Mabasa had a better right over the property. Had it not been for the deliberate fraudulent design of Gasataya, the
mortgaged would not have been foreclosed.

Re: 4 year period and 10 year period to file action

Almerol vs Bagumbayan In this case, the land in question was patented and titled in respondent’s name by
and through his false pretenses. Molok Bagumbaran fraudulently misrepresented that he was the occupant and actual possessor of
the land in question when he was not because it was Liwalug Datomanong. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust must perforce prescribed in ten years and not otherwise. It is abundantly clear from all the foregoing that the
action of petitioner Datomanong for reconveyance, in the nature of a counterclaim interposed in his Answer, filed on December
4, 1964, to the complaint for recovery of possession instituted by the respondent, has not yet prescribed. Between August 16,
1955, the date of reference, being the date of the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title in the name of the respondent, and
December 4, 1964, when the period of prescription was interrupted by the filing of the Answer cum Counterclaim, is less than ten
years. One parcel of land was issued with two free patents. Amerol (proper name: Datumanung) has been in possession of the
land and he was also cultivating the land. He did not know that Bagumbayan registered the land in his name and an OCT has
been issued in favor of Bagumbayan. He sought for reconveyance of the land, only after 9 years from issuance of patent and
claimed that the patent was secured by Bagumbayan through fraud and deceit.
Doctrine: An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance
of the Torrens title over the property.
In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of
the property, in this case the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its
rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better right. The registrant, then, is holding the property in trust for the rightful owner.
It was proven that fraud and misrepresentation was done by Bagumbayan. The Supreme Court said that the prescriptive period in
this case is 10 years from the issuance of the certificate of title because an implied trust was created.
Sanjorjo vs Quijano We agree with the ruling of the CA that the torrens title issued on the basis of the free
patents became as indefeasible as one which was judicially secured upon the expiration of one year from date of issuance of the
patent. The order or decision of the DENR granting an application for a free patent can be reviewed only within one year
thereafter, on the ground of actual fraud via a petition for review in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) provided that no innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the property or any interest thereon. However, an aggrieved party may still file an action for
reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in ten years from the date of the issuance of the Certificate
of Title over the property provided that the property has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value. ——— Plaintiffs
are owners of a parcel of land. Later, plaintiff filed for a criminal case against defendant for theft saying that defendant stole
coconuts. The court acquitted the defendant finding that the latter is the owner of the property. It is only here when they learned
that the property was already titled under defendant’s name. They filed an action for reconveyance. Defendant said that the action
has already prescribed.
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust
must perforce prescribe in ten years and not otherwise. It must be stressed, at this juncture, that Article 1144 and Article 1456,
are new provisions. They have no counterparts in the old Civil Code or in the old Code of Civil Procedure, the latter being then
resorted to as
(SandeeSuan)
Page 25 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
legal basis of the four-year prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance of title of real property acquired under false
pretenses.
Q: Was there res judicata in this case? A: There was no res judicata in this case because the decision of the Regional Executive
Director was not a decision on the merits of the complaint. Only the regular courts of justice have jurisdiction on the matter of
cancellation of title.
Q: What about the second issue? A: Regarding the reconveyance of the lots, the respondents alleged that the petitioners are
barred by Sec. 32 of PD 1529 however the SC ruled that they agreed with the CA that the torrens title issued became as
indefeasible as one which was judicially secured upon the expiration of one year from date of issuance of the patent. In the
instant case, the one applied for is an administrative patent so there was no decree. But same rule applies, still it should be 1 year
from the issuance of the patent. So after the lapse of 1 year, it should not be open for review.
However an aggrieved party may still file an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, w/c prescribes 10
years from the date of issuance of title (in this case the free patent) provided that the property has not been acquired by an
innocent purchaser for value. In the case, the remedy of action for reconveyance is not available for the petitioners.

NOTE:
• The Regional Executive Director is not supposed to entertain actions for reconveyance especially once an OCT is issued
pursuant to a patent.
• Under the Public Land Act (CA 141), the Dir of Lands, this is now exercised by the Regional Exec Director has this continuing
authority to conduct an investigation. The purpose of this investigation, once a title has been issued, is really to recommend to the
SolGen to file an action for the person in the cancellation of the title. In this case, it seems that patents have already been issued
that’s why the Regional Exec Director excluded only the lands, titles in the name of Alan Quijano and Gwendolyn Enriquez. The
land of Gwendolyn, 3 years has already lapsed but even if it was still within the 1 year period from the time the patent was
issued, still it does not have jurisdiction to cancel the title. Unlike in a judicial proceeding, within the period of 1 year, the Court
still has the authority to order the decree be vacated but the Regional Exec Dir has no authority.
• Once an OCT is issued, his authority is only up to the time the patent was issued. But once OCT has been issued pursuant to a
patent, he loses jurisdiction over the case.
• If it is a case of reconveyance, it is still not a proper subject matter for the SolGen to institute an action where it is
recommended that it be instituted by the SolGen, discussed here under Sec. 101. If the purpose is to revert back the land to the
public domain, that’s the time where the SolGen has right to institute the action but where the purpose is to reconvey the land in
favor of a prevailing party, it is not proper for the SolGen to assume its jurisdiction to the instituted action.
TOPIC: PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES (1990, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003) Louie, New application before York, for leaving
USA, registration, entrusted the country under to to the his train Land first-degree as a Registration chef in cousin a five-
Act, star Dewey of hotel a parcel an in
of Philippines land located and discovered in Bacolod that City. Dewey A year registered later, Louie the land returned
and obtained to the
an Compounding Original Certificate the matter, of Title Dewey over sold the property the land in to his Huey, (Dewey’s)
an innocent name.
purchaser the parcel of for land value. against Louie Huey.
promptly filed an action for reconveyance of
A. Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy? B. B. Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will the
action
prosper from the if entry the case of the was decree filed of beyond registration?
one year, but within ten years,
A. An because action Huey for is reconveyance an innocent against purchaser Huey for value. is not The the proper proper
recourse remedy, is for registration Louie to and go subsequent after Dewey sale for of damages the land. by If Dewey reason is
of insolvent, the fraudulent Louie
may Castro file 324 a claim SCRA against 591 [2000] the Assurance citing Sps. Fund Eduarte (Heirs vs. CA, of Pedro 323 Phil
Lopez 462).
vs. De
B. Yes, years, the not remedy within will one prosper (1) year because when a the petition action for prescribes the reopening in
ten of (10) the registration from the petition decree to may reopen be filed. the decree The action of registration for reconveyance
(Grey Alba is vs. distinct Dela Cruz). property There should is no just need be reconveyed to reopen to the the registration real
owner.
proceedings, but the
The which action prescribes for reconveyance in ten (10) is years based from on implied the date or of constructive issuance of
trust, the original possession certificate of the land. of title. Where This it rule is the assumes plaintiff that who the is in defendant
possession is in of the quieting land, of the title action which for action reconveyance is imprescriptible would be (David in the
nature vs. Malay).
of a suit for
The spouses Zulueta obtained from GSIS various loans secured by real estate their loans mortgages which over prompted
parcels GSIS of land. to foreclose The spouses the real Zulueta estate failed mortgages. to pay
During to GSIS. the However, auction some sale, some lots which of the were mortgaged covered properties by the
mortgaged were awarded titles were sufficient expressly to pay excluded for all the from mortgage the auction debts.
since This those notwithstanding, that were sold GSIS were
included Affidavit the of excluded Consolidation lots when of Ownership it executed on on November the basis 25, of 1975
which, an
certificates Zulueta thereafter of title over transferred the same his were rights issued over in the the excluded name of
lots GSIS. to Eduardo the said excluded in 1989 lots. who Eduardo consequently then demanded filed on May from 7,
1990 GSIS a complaint the return for of
reconveyance of real estate against the GSIS. a) Can GSIS legally claim ownership over the excluded properties on the
basis name?
of the certificates of title over the same which were issued in its
b) Has the action for reconveyance prescribed? ANSWERS: a) NO. Even if titles over the lots had been issued in the name of the
GSIS, still them it because could not indefeasibility legally claim of ownership title under and the Torrens absolute system
dominion does over not attach committed to titles by GSIS secured in the by form fraud of concealment or misrepresentation. of
the existence The of fraud said lots from and the failure foreclosure to return sale the made same GSIS to holders the real in
owners bad faith. after It their is well exclusion settled that protection a holder of the in law bad for faith the of law a cannot
certificate be used of title as a is shield not entitled for fraud.
to the
b) NO. through Article mistake 1456 of or the fraud, Civil the Code person provides: obtaining If the it property is, by force is
acquired of law, considered whom the property a trustee comes. of an implied An action trust for for reconveyance the benefit of
based the person on implied from
or registration constructive or date trust of prescribes issuance of in the ten certificate years from of title the alleged over the
fraudulent property. The place general upon the rule registration that the discovery of real property of fraud because is deemed it
is to “considered have taken a constructive point is Samonte notice to vs all Court persons” of does Appeals not apply where in
the this case. Supreme The case Court in
reckoned implied trust the from prescriptive the actual period discovery for the of the filing fraud. of the Santiago action came
based know on
of Following action GSIS’ for fraudulent reconveyance the Court’s acts pronouncement only was thus in 1989 well and within in
the Samonte, complaint the prescriptive the was institution filed period.
in of 1990. the
In the August cadastral 1950, court the Republic claiming of ownership the Philippines over certain filed an properties
application which with
covered over Gregorio, Lot Lot who 4329. 4329. claimed Guillermo Guillermo to be died the filed only during an son
answer of the Guillermo, claiming pendency therein substituted of the a right case. the latter, became and final to and
him, executory. Lot 4329 On was July adjudicated 8, 1985, OCT by the No. court. 0-6,151 The was decision issued in
Guillermo the name filed of Gregorio. a complaint Sometime for recovery thereafter, of the possession brothers with and
sisters damages of
against and that Gregorio, Gregorio alleging obtained that title Guillermo to the property died single through and
without fraud deceit issue
and cancelled gross and misrepresentation. the property be reconveyed They prayed to them. that Gregorio’s After the
trial, title the be
court son of declared Guillermo that but Gregorio ruled that has he not has sufficiently the right proved of possession
that he of is the the disputed property?
property. Is Gregorio entitled to the possession of the disputed
ANSWER: questioned YES. property Gregorio after was the able cadastral to obtain proceedings a title in his instituted name
over by the the
Republic. the subject This land. Torrens After title the is expiration now a conclusive of the evidence one-year of period his
ownership from the of
issuance incontrovertible. of the decree In fine, of whether registration, or not the his said title certificate was obtained of title
fraudulently became
is should beyond have the been competence raised during of the the Supreme proceeding Court before to the determine. cadastral
The court. issue A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked, the issue on the validity of title,
(SandeeSuan)
Page 26 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
i.e. expressly whether instituted or not it for was that fraudulently purpose. issued The prayer can only for be the raised
cancellation in an action of Gregorio’s Guillermo title is legally and the impossible. reconveyance To of sustain the same the to
said brothers action and would sisters be of
inconsistent conveys a parcel with of the land rule to that its the registered act of registration owner under is the the operative
Torrens act system. that
What proved we his are filiation emphasizing to the late is that, Guillermo, although the Gregorio fact that has he has not a
sufficiently legal title over determination the subject of land the validity
entitles him to possession thereof, pending the final

c. ACTION FOR DAMAGES (SEC. 32)

SEC. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or
revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any
court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in
the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one (1) year from
and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where
an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase
innocent purchaser for value or any equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee,
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become
incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages
against the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.
• Prescription: An action for damages should be brought within 10 years from the date of the issuance of the questioned
certificate of title pursuant to Article 1144 of the Civil Code. ⁍ Is available when the remedy of an action for reconveyance may
no longer be availed of or when the land has passed already to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

d. RECOVERY FROM THE ASSURANCE FUND (SEC. 95)

Section 95. Action for compensation from funds. A person who, without negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is
deprived of land or any estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under the operation of the Torrens
system of arising after original registration of land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the registration book, and who by the provisions of
this Decree is barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an action for the recovery of such land
or the estate or interest therein, may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to be paid
out of the Assurance Fund.
Public policy admits of affording remedies to those unjustly deprived of their rights over real property by reason of the operation
of our registration laws.
Sc 95 of Property Registration Decree provides that a person who, without negligence on his part sustain loss or damage or is
deprived of land or any estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under the operation of Torrens System
or arising after the original registration of the land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, may bring an action in any court
of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages paid out of the Assurance Fund within 6 years from the time the right to
bring such action accrues. The assurance fund is intended to relive innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a
certificate of title is conclusive evidence of indefeasible title to the land.
Requisites for Recovery from the Assurance Fund a. A person sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of any estate of
interest in land,
b. On account of the bringing of land under the operation of the
Torrens system arising after original registration c. Through fraud, error, omission, mistake or misdescription in a
certificate of title or entry or memorandum in the registration book d. Without negligence on his part and e. Is barred or
precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of
such land or estate or interest therein.
Development Bank of the Philippines vs Bautista In the suit before the lower court, the Director of Lands and the National
Treasurer of the Philippines were likewise made defendants by appellant bank because of its belief that if no right existed as
against appellee Bautista, recovery could be had from the Assurance Fund. Such a belief finds no support in the applicable law,
which allows recovery only upon a showing that there be no negligence on the part of the party sustaining any loss or damage or
being deprived of any land or interest therein by the operation of the Land Registration Act. This certainly is not the case here,
plaintiff-appellant being solely responsible for the plight in which it now finds itself. Accordingly, the Director of Lands and the
National Treasurer of the Philippines are likewise exempt from any liability.
After appellant bank had acquired her title by such extrajudicial foreclosure sale and thus, through its own act, seen to it that her
obligation had been satisfied, it could not thereafter, seek to revive the same on the allegation that the title in question was
subsequently annulled, considering that she was not made a party on the occasion of such nullification. Recovery can be effected
from the Assurance Fund only upon a showing that there be no negligence on the part of the party sustaining any loss or damage
or being deprived of any land or interest therein by the operation of the Land Registration Act. DBP was not able to claim from
the Assurance Fund because it was declared negligent. Bautista loaned from RFC, predecessor-in-interest of DBP. As a security,
she offered a parcel of land as a mortgage. She failed to pay so the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed. Subsequently,
Ramoses came in claiming ownership over the land. In a judicial proceeding between DBP and the Ramoses, wherein Bautista
was not made a party to and was not summoned in the suit, the title was adjudicated to the Ramoses. Consequently, title of RFC
from Bautista was set aside. RFC sought to recover from the assurance fund but he cannot do so. A bank is required to exercise
extraordinary diligence which RFC failed to do so.
Doctrine: Recovery could be had from the Assurance Fund only upon a showing that there be no negligence on the part of the
party sustaining any loss or damage or being deprived of any land or interest therein by the operation of the Land Registration
Act.
• The fees for claim in the assurance fund is increased to 2% of the assessed value but under the law, it’s 1⁄4 of 1% of the
assessed value. If there is no assessed value or it is not stated, the fees will be computed through the SWORN DECLARATION
of 2 disinterested persons on the value of the land is required.
• Assurance Fund — a special fund which is created under the Torrens System for the compensation of certain persons for losses
sustained by operations under the system.
✦ Q: If you recover from the assurance fraud, who will you sue?
➡A: Register of Deeds or National Treasurer
✦ Q: If you are able to recover damages from the person who was responsible for the fraud, can you still recover from the
assurance fraud?
➡A: Not anymore. Barred from double recovery.
Other Remedies Available a. Action for Cancellation or Reversion (Sec. 101 of the Public Land
Act) b. Annulment of Judgements, Final Orders or Resolutions (Rule 47,
Rules of Court) c. Criminal Action for Perjury
(SandeeSuan)
Page 27 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino

a. ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OR REVERSION (SEC.

101, CA 141) SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or
improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor-General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the
name of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
What is cancellation suit? It is an action for cancellation of title brought by a private individual, alleging ownership as well as the
defendant’s fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining title over a disputed land claimed by the plaintiff.
• If public land, the Solicitor General will represent the government—
will revert to the public domain
• Violations of Sections 118, 120, 121, 123, and 124 of CA 141
• State is not barred by res judicata or estoppel
• If regarding private property, the action would be an ACTION FOR
CANCELLATION, which is another remedy
• Section 101 of Public Land Act provides for a remedy whereby lands of the public domain fraudulently awarded to the
applicant may be recovered or reverted back to its original owner, the government
• Lands of public domain wrongfully registered in another person’s name is imprescriptible because the person never owned the
land in the first place. It belongs to the public domain.
• It is improper for the government to file an action for reversion of land titled to defendant pursuant to a free patent where the
alleged fraud consists in the fact that said land, at the time of issuance of the free patent was no longer a part of the public
domain, having been adjudicated as private property of another person in a previous registration case
• An action for reversion on the ground that defendant obtained patent through fraud would also fail where the land had
successively been sold by the heirs of the patentee to third parties who are holding Torrens titles and enjoying the presumption of
good faith
• Private parties cannot challenge the validity of the patent and title when they are not registered owners thereof nor had they
been declared the owners as owners in the cadastral proceedings— whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a
question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by the government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it.
The legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government.

PRIVATE PARTY CANNOT BRING ACTION FOR REVERSION

• If there has been any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the title, an action for reversion instituted by the Solicitor General
would be the proper remedy

ACTION FOR REVERSION NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION

• Statute of limitations doesn’t run against the State

ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE

• Proper when a private party claims ownership of the land as private property by virtue of a long period of possession and hence,
no longer deemed a part of the public domain which could be disposed of under the provisions of the Public Land Act, or when
the land is already covered by a previously issued certificate of title
Cawis vs Cerilles The petitioners’ complaint questioning the validity of the sales patent and the original
certificate of title over Lot No. 47 is, in reality, a reversion suit. The objective of an action for reversion of public land is the
cancellation of the certificate of title and the resulting reversion of the land covered by the title to the State. This is why an action
for reversion is oftentimes designated as an annulment suit or a cancellation suit.
In this case, it is clear that Lot No. 47 was public land when Andrada filed the sales patent application. Any subsequent action
questioning the validity of the award of sales patent on the ground of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation should thus be initiated
by the State. The State has not done so and thus, we have to uphold the validity and regularity of the sales patent as well as the
corresponding original certificate of title issued based on the patent. The prescription issue pertaining to the action is now moot.
 Republic vs CA & Alpuerto The land in question is not within the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands but of
the Director of Forestry. Although the Public Land Act vests upon the Director of Lands, subject to the immediate control of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of
concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain (Sec. 4, Commonwealth Act No. 141), the same law
explicitly states that timber and mineral lands shall be governed by special laws. And the Forestry Law (Secs. 1814-1842,
Revised Administrative Code, as amended) now vests in the Director of Forestry (now Director of Forest Development under
P.D. No. 705) the jurisdiction and authority over forest or timberland. Therefore the title is deemed void. An action to recover
lands of the public domain is imprescriptible. Such right however can be barred by laches/estoppel under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529
which recognizes the rights of innocent purchasers for value above the interests of the government.

d. ANNULMENT OF JUDGEMENTS, FINAL ORDERS OR

RESOLUTIONS (RULE 47, RULES OF COURT)
Yujuico vs Republic Effective 1 July 1997, any action for reversion of public land instituted by the
Government was already covered by Rule 47 and the same should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial
Court. The Republic misfiled the reversion suit with the Paranaque RTC. It should have been filed in the CA. Evidently, the
Paranaque RTC had no jurisdiction over the instant reversion case.
When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure became effective on July 1, 1997, it incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or
final orders and resolutions of the RTCs. The two grounds for annulment under Sec. 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery, and if based on lack of
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel as provided by Section 3, Rule 47. Thus, effective July 1, 1997, any action
for reversion of public land instituted by the Government was already covered by Rule 47. The instant Civil Case No. 01-0222
for annulment and cancellation of Decree No. N-150912 and its derivative titles was filed on June 8, 2001 with the Parañaque
City RTC. It is clear therefore that the reversion suit was erroneously instituted in the Parañaque RTC and should have been
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The proper court is the CA which is the body mandated by BP Blg. 129 and prescribed by Rule
47 to handle annulment of judgments of RTCs. Assuming that the Parañaque RTC has jurisdiction over the reversion case, still
the lapse of almost three decades in filing the instant case, the inexplicable lack of action of the Republic and the injury this
would cause constrain us to rule for petitioners. While it may be true that estoppel does not operate against the state or its agents,
deviations have been allowed. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, where the title of an innocent purchaser for value who relied on
the clean certificates of the title was sought to be cancelled and the excess land to be reverted to the Government, we ruled that
"[i]t is only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of estoppel by laches against the government to avoid an injustice
to innocent purchasers for value.

e. CRIMINAL ACTION FOR PERJURY

• The state may criminally prosecute for perjury the party who obtains registration through fraud, such as by stating false
assertions in the application for registration, sworn answer required of applicants in cadastral proceedings or application of public
land patent.
• On the matter of disposition of public lands, Sec 91 of Public Land Act provides that “the statements made in the application
shall be
(SandeeSuan)
Page 28 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, permit issued on the basis of such application and any false
omission of facts altering, changing, modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent
modification, alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the
concession, title or permit granted.
Louie, New before York, leaving USA, entrusted the country to to his train first—degree as a chef in cousin a five-star
Dewey hotel an in
application of land located for registration, in Bacolod under City. the A year Land later, Registration Louie returned
Act, of a to parcel the Philippines an Original and Certificate discovered of Title that over Dewey the registered property
the in his land Dewey’s and obtained name. Compounding purchaser for value. the matter, Louie promptly Dewey sold
filed the an land action to for Huey, reconveyance an innocent of the proper parcel remedy?
of land against Huey. Is the action pursued by Louie the
An Huey action is an for innocent reconveyance purchaser against for value. Huey The is not proper the proper recourse remedy,
is for Louie because to go subsequent after Dewey sale for of the damages land. If by Dewey reason is of insolvent, the
fraudulent Louie may registration file a claim and
against the Assurance Fund. (Heirs of Lopez vs. De Castro 324 SCRA 591)

CHAPTER 4 (SEC. 39 TO 50, PD 1529)

KEY CONCEPTS SYSTEM
OF THE TORRENS
Decree Binds The Land (Sec. 31, PD 1529) Section 31. Decree of registration. Every decree of registration issued by
the Commissioner shall bear the date, hour and minute of its entry, and shall be signed by him. It shall state whether the owner is
married or unmarried, and if married, the name of the husband or wife: Provided, however, that if the land adjudicated by the
court is conjugal property, the decree shall be issued in the name of both spouses. If the owner is under disability, it shall state the
nature of disability, and if a minor, his age. It shall contain a description of the land as finally determined by the court, and shall
set forth the estate of the owner, and also, in such manner as to show their relative priorities, all particular estates, mortgages,
easements, liens, attachments, and other encumbrances, including rights of tenant-farmers, if any, to which the land or owner's
estate is subject, as well as any other matters properly to be determined in pursuance of this Decree. The decree of registration
shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be
conclusive upon and against all persons, including the National Government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by
name in the application or notice, the same being included in the general description "To all whom it may concern".
ISSUANCE OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE The court shall issue within 15 days from the
entry thereof, an order directing the LRA administrator to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
1. The OCT shall be the true copy of the decree of registration 2. Transcript of the decree 3. Accumulates in one decree a precise
and correct statement of the exact status of the fee simple title which an owner possesses 4. Evidence of the title which the owner
has 5. What appears on the face of the title is controlling on questions of ownership since the certificate of title is an absolute and
indefeasible evidence of ownership of the

DECREE BINDS THE LAND AND IS CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE

WHOLE WORLD
• As soon as the decree of title has been registered in the office of the
RD, the property included therein becomes registered land
• Certificate of title shall take effect upon the transcription of the
decree
REGISTRATION DOESN'T GIVE ANY PERSON A BETTER TITLE
THAN WHAT HE REALLY HAS
PROBATIVE VALUE OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• Serves as an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein and is conclusive as to the
identity of the land and its location
• The title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible one year from its
final decree
• The notations or memoranda at the back of the certificate aren’t admissible as proof of the contracts or documents to which they
pertain
• Validity and correctness of the title is presumed

WHERE EARLIER TWO IN OR DATE MORE PREVAILS

CERTIFICATES COVER THE SAME LAND, THE
ENTRY OF Original Certificate Of Title
• The OCT is issued for the first time after initial registration
proceedings
• OCT shall be the true coy of the decree of registration
• Upon receipt of the RD of the original and duplicate copy of the certificate of title, he shall enter the same in the record book
and shall be numbered, dated and signed and sealed with the seal of his office
Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City The dela Cruz case was already final when it was decided upon by the
Supreme Court on July 25, 1984. That issue of ownership in that case has been resolved already and the principle of res judicata
should be applied. Even if the parties were not the parties in such case, they cannot claim that they were never notified of that the
case was pending. Amando Clemente was never a registered owner of the land because his predecessors-in-interest have lost their
rights over that land when the lot was sold to Lucia dela Cruz in 1943. The sale to Lucia dela Cruz was valid and the registration
the lot under her name in the Primary Book of the Registry of Deeds was a constructive notice to the whole world. And even if
they claim that Clemente, their predecessor, has a title, the same cannot be preferred over Lucia’s since Clemente’s title was
issued in 1951. Instant case applying the principle of res judicata or, otherwise, the rule on conclusiveness of judgment. The less
familiar concept or less terminological usage of res judicata as a rule on conclusiveness of judgment refers to the situation where
the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to the matters actually determined therein or which were
necessarily included therein (De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals) To reopen or to question the legality of INK's title would defeat the
purpose of our Torrens system which seeks to insure stability by quieting titled lands and putting to a stop forever any question of
the legality of the registration in the certificate or questions which may arise therefrom.
INK was issued a Torrens Title over the lot as a result of the sale in 1975.
The actions instituted by the petitioners took place in 1986. Under the Torrens System of registration, the Torrens Title became
indefeasible and incontrovertible one year from its final decree of registration. A Torrens Title is generally a conclusive evidence
of the ownership of the land referred to therein. It is, therefore, too late in the day for the petitioners to reopen or question the
legality of INK's title over Lot 671 at this time.
DepEd vs Delfina Casibang
Owner’s Duplicate Certification (Sec. 41) Section 41. Owner's duplicate certificate of title. The owner's duplicate certificate of
title shall be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly authorized representative. If two or more persons are registered
owners, one owner's duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole land, or if the co-owners so desire, a separate duplicate may
be issued to each of them in like form, but all
(SandeeSuan)
Page 29 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
outstanding certificates of title so issued shall be surrendered whenever the Register of Deeds shall register any subsequent
voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or part thereof or any interest therein. The Register of Deeds shall note on each
certificate of title a statement as to whom a copy thereof was issued.

ISSUANCE OF THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

• Shall be delivered to the registered owner or his duly authorized
representative
• If 2 or more persons are registered owners, one owner’s duplicate
may be issued for the whole land
• If the 2 co-owners desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to each of them in like form but all outstanding certificates so
issued shall be surrendered whenever the RD shall register any subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or part
thereof or any interest therein
THE ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGEE’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE IS
DISCONTINUED
CO-OWNER MAY ONLY DISPOSE OF HIS ALIQUOT SHARE IN THE
PROPERTY HELD IN COMMON
REGISTERED OWNER ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE OWNER’S
DUPLICATE Registered owner has preferential right to the possession of the owner’s duplicate as against one whose name
doesn't appear in the certificate but who may have right or claim to the possession of the land

DECREE UPON ITS AND ISSUANCE. TITLE BECOME THERE INCONTROVERTIBLE ARE
EXCEPTIONS THOUGH—
AFTER ONE YEAR
1. Laches 2. If there is fraud and misrepresentation on the title over public land 3. Buyer in bad faith 4. When the title over the
land which you acquire is already privately
owned

3 PRINCIPLES UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM:

1. “Curtain Principle” — In Land Registration proceedings, once the 1 year period from the time the decree or registration was
issued, the title now becomes indefeasible and registration binds the land and quiets title thereto. 2. “Mirror Principle” — you are
not supposed to go beyond the face of the title, one should rely on what appears on the certificate 3. “Insurance Principle” —
When everything else fails, the person aggrieved in the land registration proceedings (after filing petition, action for
reconveyance, etc.) should go after the Assurance Fund as a remedy to claim for damages.
Reyes vs. Rayal-Reyes The one who should be in custody or who should possess the owner’s duplicate of
title is the registered owner. Raval-Reyes’ interests are already protected and so he should surrender it back to the Reyeses. We
see no valid and plausible reason to justify, on this ground, the withholding from the registered owners, such as the petitioners-
appellants herein, the custody and possession of the owners' duplicates of certificates of title. In a decided case, this Court has
already held that: the owner of the land in whose favor and in whose name said land is registered and inscribed in the certificate
of title has a more preferential right to the possession of the owner's duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the
certificate and has yet to establish his right to the possession thereof.
This Court has already held that: the owner of the land in whose favor and in whose name said land is registered and inscribed in
the certificate of title has a more preferential right to the possession of the owner's duplicate than one whose name does not
appear in the certificate and has yet to establish his right to the possession thereof.
Undisputed that respondent had already availed of an independent civil action to recover his alleged co-owner's share in the
disputed lots by filing a counterclaim for partition in said Civil Case No. 3659, his rights appear to be amply protected, and
considering that he may also avail of, to better protect his rights thereto. Notice of lis pendens under Section 24, Rule 14, of the
Revised Rules of Court, for the purpose of recording the fact that the lots covered by the titles in question are litigated in said
Civil Case No. 3659, we again see no justifiable reason for respondent to retain the custody of the owners' duplicates of
certificates of title. Respondent Mateo Raval Reyes is hereby ordered to deliver to petitioners the owners' duplicate of Original
Certificates of Title No. 22161 and 8066. With costs against respondent appellee, Mateo Raval Reyes.
Abrigo vs. De Vera Registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the land. ✦ Q: Will
the rules on double sale of the CC apply in this case?
➡A: No, in the case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered the sale of the property. Since neither petitioners nor their
predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go) knew that the property was covered by the Torrens system, they registered their
respective sales under Act 3344. ➡For her part, respondent registered the transaction under the Torrens system because, during
the sale, Villafania had presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) covering the property.
✦ Q: What is wrong with registering it under Act 3344?
➡ A: Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is without prejudice to a third party with a
better right.
On the issue of good faith, knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights except
where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first, as provided by the Civil Code. Such knowledge
of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against
the second buyer. But in converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to
register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith.
Republic vs. Mendoza From the facts of the case, it is evident that the Bureau of Forestry released Silot Bay
as alienable and disposable by virtue of the Memorandum issued by then President Marcos on 16 January 1967 which clearly
empowered said bureau to identify and locate the 700,000 hectares of fishpond areas and to release said areas as alienable and
disposable. Hence, the courts, in view of the clear legal directive by which said area was released as alienable and disposable,
will refrain from questioning the wisdom of such classification or declaration. Finally, it should be borne in mind that the
contested areas and titles thereto had already passed on to third parties who acquired the same from the Mendozas in good faith
and for value. The Mendozas' certificates of title were clean and, thus, MENCA Corporation, Jacinto Velez, Jr. and Carmen
Velez-Ting were induced to acquire the same from the Mendozas. That they did so in good faith and for value was not even
questioned herein. Their titles, rights, and interests to the fishpond area must be respected and protected.
A decree of registration is conclusive upon all persons, including the Government of the Republic and all its branches, whether or
not mentioned by name in the application for registration or its notice. Here, the existence and genuineness of the Mendoza’s title
over the property has not been disputed. While the consolidation and subdivision plan of Lots 1923 and 1925 shows that a 1,149
square meter lot had been designated to the City Government, the Republic itself admits that no new title was issued to it or to
any of its subdivisions for the portion that PPS had been occupying since 1957.
✦ Q: Can Court grant just compensation in the absence proceeding?
➡A: Yes. ✦ Q: How is the value determined?
➡A:It should be determined from the time of the taking.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 30 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Statement of Personal Circumstance (Sec. 45) Section 45. Statement of personal circumstances in the certificate. Every
certificate of title shall set forth the full names of all persons whose interests make up the full ownership in the whole land,
including their civil status, and the names of their respective spouses, if married, as well as their citizenship, residence and postal
address. If the property covered belongs to the conjugal partnership, it shall be issued in the names of both spouses.
Litam vs. Espiritu Further strong proofs that the properties in question are the paraphernal properties of
Marcosa Rivera, are the very Torrens Titles covering said properties. All the said properties are registered in the name of
'Marcosa Rivera, married to Rafael Litam.' This circumstance indicates that the properties in question belong to the registered
owner, Marcosa Rivera, as her paraphernal properties, for if they were conjugal, the titles covering the same should have been
issued in the names of Rafael Litam and Marcosa Rivera. The words 'married to Rafael Litam' written after the name of Marcosa
Rivera, in each of the above mentioned titles are merely descriptive of the civil status of Marcosa Rivera, the registered owner of
the properties covered by said titles.
1st marriage was not acknowledged by the SC. Property regime — absolute separation of properties Presumption is whenever
properties acquired in marriage, it is conjugal.
There Property is exception. of Marcosa When was paraphernal. the parties stipulated Not conjugal.
another property regime.
The words “married to Rafael Litam” is merely descriptive. Most of the properties of Marcosa were acquired prior to the
constitution. Another special reason proceeding.
— declaration of heirs is not in the civil case but in another
Every time an heir or a successor claims, there should be declaration first of who the heirs are. You do not file claim that you are
an heir if you there is no declaration.
Yaptinchay vs Del Rosario GR 124320, March 2, 1999 Petitioners are the legal heirs of the late Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, the
owners-claimants of Lot No. 1131 situated in Bancal, Carmona, Cavite. Petitioners discovered that a portion, if not all, of the
aforesaid properties were titled in the name of respondent Golden Bay Realty and Development Corporation (Golden Bay) under
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 225254 and 225255. They filed a complaint for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of TCT
Nos. 493363-67 and its derivatives and as alternative reconveyance of realty with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/or
restraining order with damages with the Regional Trial Court in Imus, Cavite. Private respondents presented a motion to dismiss
on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that petitioners did not have a right of action, that they have
not established their status as heirs and that the land being claimed is different from that of the private respondents. The said
motion to dismiss was granted by the respondent court holding that petitioners have not shown any proof or even a semblance of
it except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the deceased couple. Petitioners interposed a motion for reconsideration
but it was denied. Hence, the present petition. Petitioners contended that the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion
in ruling that the issue of heirship should first be determined before the trial of the case could proceed. It is petitioners submission
that the respondent court should have proceeded with the trial and simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in the same case.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil
action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right, or particular fact. The Court held that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the
petitioners in the case at bar are seeking the establishment of a status or right.
Parulan vs Garcia Principle: It is hornbook doctrine that successional rights are vested only at the time of
death. Article 777 of the New Civil Code provides that "[t]he rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
death of the decedent." In Butte v. Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc., we proclaimed the fundamental tenets of succession: The principle
of transmission as of the time of the predecessor's death is basic in our Civil Code, and is supported by other related articles.
Thus, the capacity of the heir is determined as of the time the decedent died (Art. 1034); the legitime is to be computed as of the
same moment (Art. 908), and so is the in officiousness of the donation inter vivas (Art. 771). Similarly, the legacies of credit and
remission are valid only in the amount due and outstanding at the death of the testator (Art. 935), and the fruits accruing after that
instant are deemed to pertain to the legatee (Art. 948).
Borromeo vs Descallar The mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her name
does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the owner. The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply
to respondent. A certificate of title implies that the title is quiet, and that it is perfect, absolute and indefeasible. However, there
are well-defined exceptions to this rule, as when the transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the subject
properties for a valuable consideration. This is the situation in the instant case. Respondent did not contribute a single centavo in
the acquisition of the properties. She had no income of her own at that time, nor did she have any savings. She and her two sons
were then fully supported by Jambrich.
The evidence clearly shows that as between respondent and Jambrich, it was Jambrich who possesses the financial capacity to
acquire the properties in dispute. The rule of co-ownership applies to a man and a woman living exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, but otherwise capacitated to marry each other does not apply. In the case at
bar, respondent was still legally married to another when she and Jambrich lived together. In such an adulterous relationship and
no co-ownership exists between the parties. It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the
acquisition of property in order to able to lay claim to any portion of it. It is settled rule that registration is not a mode of
acquiring ownership. It is only a means of confirming the existence with notice to the world at large. The mere possession of a
title does not make one the true owner of the property. Thus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties
in her name does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the owner.
Ventura vs Abuda Civil Law — in unions between a man and a woman who are incapacitated to marry
each other, the ownership over the properties acquired during the subsistence of that relationship shall be based on the actual
contribution of the parties. It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of
property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply.
The title itself shows that the Vitas property is owned by Esteban alone. The phrase "married to Socorro Torres" is merely
descriptive of his civil status, and does not show that Socorro co-owned the property.The evidence on record also shows that
Esteban acquired ownership over the Vitas property prior to his marriage to Socorro, even if the certificate of title was issued
after the celebration of the marriage. Registration under the Torrens title system merely confirms, and does not vest title.
Edilberto claims that Esteban s actual contribution to the purchase of the Delpan property was not sufficiently proven since
Evangeline shouldered some of the amortizations.Thus, the law presumes that Esteban and Socorro jointly contributed to the
acquisition of the Delpan property. Civil Law - Art. 1238. Payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed
by the debtor is deemed to be a donation, which requires the debtor s consent. But the payment is in any case valid as to the
creditor who has accepted it. Thus, it is clear that Evangeline paid on behalf of her father, and the parties intended that the Delpan
property would be owned by and registered under the name of Esteban.
(SandeeSuan)
Page 31 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Registered Land Not Subject to Prescription (Sec. 47) Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to
registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Supapo vs De Jesus Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of
possession of realty independent of title. It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the
cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. In the present case, the Spouses Supapo filed an
action for the recovery of possession of the subject lot but they based their better right of possession on a claim of ownership.
This Court has held that the objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.
However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties
has the right to possess the property. This adjudication is not a final determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the
purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The
adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the
property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of ownership. Thus, while we will dissect the Spouses
Supapo’s claim of ownership over the subject property, we will only do so to determine if they or the respondents should have
the right of possession. Having thus determined that the dispute involves possession over a real property, we now resolve which
court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. In the present case, the Spouses Supapo alleged that the assessed value of the subject
lot, located in Metro Manila, is P39,980.00. This is proven by the tax declaration issued by the Office of the City Assessor of
Caloocan. The respondents do not deny the genuineness and authenticity of this tax declaration. Given that the Spouses Supapo
duly complied with the jurisdictional requirements, we hold that the MeTC of Caloocan properly acquired jurisdiction over the
complaint for accion publiciana. The cause of action has not prescribed RA 7691 — MTC - 20k outside metro manila, 50k metro
manila Right of possession is a logical consequence of your right to ownership
under the Torres System.
Barred by Statute of Limitation
— Accion Publiciana - 10 year prescription
Supapo the land admit is covered they filed by Torrens beyond title.
10 years but the right is imprescriptible for
- TCT lands cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession
regardless of length
Cabrera vs CA The argument that laches does not apply because what was sold to the Cabreras was a
definite portion of the community property, and, therefore, void, is untenable. Under Article 493 of the Civil Code: “Each co-
owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and even he may therefore
alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But
the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to
him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.” Undisputed is the fact that since the sale of the two-third portion
of the subject property to the plaintiff, the latter had allowed Felicidad Teokemian to occupy that one-third portion allotted to her.
There has, therefore, been a partial partition, where the transferees of an undivided portion of the land allowed a co-owner of the
property to occupy a definite portion thereof and has not disturbed the same, for a period too long to be ignored--the possessor is
in a better condition or right.
Tiongco vs Tiongco The Court agrees with the CA’s disquisition that an action for reconveyance can
indeed be barred by prescription. In a long line of cases decided by this Court, we ruled that an action for reconveyance based on
implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
However, there is an exception to this rule. There is but one instance when prescription cannot be invoked in an action for
reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed. The exception was based on the theory that
registration proceedings could not be used as a shield for fraud or for enriching a person at the expense of another. Prescription
does not run against the plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives
him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its
effect on his title. The Court held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance remains in possession of the subject land,
the action for reconveyance becomes in effect an action to quiet title to property, which is not subject to prescription. In this case,
petitioner’s possession was disturbed in 1983 when respondent Jose filed a case for recovery of possession. The RTC of Iloilo
City ruled in respondent Jose’s favor but the CA on November 28, 1991, during the pendency of the present controversy with the
court a quo, ruled in favor of petitioner. Petitioner never lost possession of the said properties, and as such, she is in a position to
file the complaint with the court a quo to protect her rights and clear whatever doubts has been cast on her title by the issuance of
TCTs in respondent Jose’s name.
A Torrens certificate of title is indefeasible. The power to pass upon the validity of such certificate of title at first instance
belongs to the Regional Trial Court in a direct proceeding for the cancellation of title. The alleged invalidity of a Torrens
certificate of title may not be raised by way of a defense in an ejectment case where the question of ownership may be
provisionally ruled upon only for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.
Certificate of Title Not Subject to Collateral Attack (Sec. 48) Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of
title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance
with law.
A decree of registration and registered title cannot be impugned, enlarged, altered, modified, or diminished either in collateral or
direct proceeding, after the lapse of one year from the date of its entry.
If an attack is made thru a counterclaim, should it be disregarded
for being a collateral attack? No. A counterclaim is also considered an original complaint, and as
such, the attack on the title is direct and not collateral.
It is well settled that the Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was
fraudulently issued can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. It has been invariably stated that the real
purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land to stop forever any question as to its legality. 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 a su casa” to avoid
the possibility of losing his hand.”
“Respondents’ application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack
against petitioners’ title, not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title.”
“A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and
determined, but also upon matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings. Thus, it is too late for
the respondents to question petitioners’ titles considering that
(SandeeSuan)
Page 32 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
the certificates of title issued to the latter have become incontrovertible after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of
registration.”
Taparuc vs Vda de Mende It appears undisputed that the assailed Deed of Sale is a public document, having
been duly notarized by a certain Atty. Rodolfo Yap who, unfortunately, had already passed away. Being a notarial instrument, the
deed in question is a public document and as such enjoys the presumption of regularity in its execution. To overthrow that
presumption, sufficient, clear and convincing evidence is required, otherwise the document should be upheld. As a rule, forgery
cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Mere allegation of forgery is not evidence and
the burden of proof lies on the party alleging it. Here, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden.
With the Mendes’ possession in this case having been in the concept of an owner and the land itself registered in their names for
more than thirty (30) years now, their title thereto had become indefeasible and their possession could no longer be disturbed.
The petitioners’ failure to take the necessary steps to assert their alleged right for at least twenty- nine (29) years from date of
registration of title is fatal to their cause of action on the ground of laches.
A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The question on the validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not,
can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. The title represented by the certificate cannot be changed,
altered, modified, enlarged, diminished, or cancelled in a collateral proceeding. The action for the declaration of nullity of deed
of sale commenced by the petitioners in the RTC is not the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens certificate of
title. First issue: Forgery — is a question of fact. Petition for review in the SC is
only about question of law. Second show; Petitioners issue: it is has readily the apparent absolute control that the the forgery,
evidence they since were the not case able to is a civil case and not a criminal case. But they did not show any evidence.
A torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. It was not considered as a
direct of Sale attack and Cancellation because the of action subsequent filed was documents.
for Declaration of Nullity of Deed
Rodriguez vs Rodriguez We agree with the RTC that a certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of
ownership of the land described therein; the validity of which shall not be subject to a collateral attack, especially in an answer in
an ejectment case which is summary in nature. ——— Being a summary proceeding intended to provide an expeditious means of
protecting actual possession or right to possession of property, the question of title is not involved and should be raised by the
affected party in an appropriate action in the proper court. However, when the issue of ownership is raised the court is not ousted
of its jurisdiction. Section 16 of Rule 70.(ROC) All that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the
owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership. But this
adjudication is only provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.
Wills - The lower courts considered the following documentary evidence in arriving attheir respective decisions: 1)
HulingHabilin at Testamento 2) Deed of Sale 3) TCT No. in the name of the petitioner; and 4) Partition Agreement executed by
both the respondents and the petitioner. Based on the foregoing documentary evidence, we find that there is preponderance of
evidence in favor of the petitioner’s claim. Respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the Huling Habilin at
Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no legal effect since the will has not been probated. Before any will can have force
or validity itmust be probated. This cannot be dispensed with and is a matter of public policy. Article 838 of the Civil Code
mandates that “[n]o will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of
Court.” As the will was not probated, the Partition Agreement which was executed pursuant thereto cannot be given effect. Thus,
the fact that petitioner was a party
to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession. Moreover, at the time the deed of sale was
executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to his heirs at
the time of his death. Thus, as owner of the property, he had the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime.
Corpuz vs Agustin Facts: Ruben C. Corpuz filed a complaint for ejectment against Spouses Hilarion and
Justa Agustin on the allegation that he is the registered owner of two parcels of land covered by TCT No. 12980. Aforesaid
parcels of land were formerly owned by Francisco D. Corpuz,
father of Ruben C. Corpuz. The elder Corpuz allowed spouses Agustin to occupy subject properties, the latter being relatives.
Despite demand to vacate, the Agustins refused to leave the premises. Ruben alleged that he has the better right to possess subject
property having acquired the same from his father who executed a Deed of Quitclaim in his favor. Spouses Agustin interposed
the defense that Francisco Corpuz disposed of subject property by executing a Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor for a
consideration. Issue: Whether or not Corpuz has the right to possession of the disputed
properties being the registered owner of the same? Held: Petitioner is correct that as a Torrens title holder over the subject
properties, he is the rightful owner and is entitled to possession thereof. However, the lower courts and the appellate court
consistently found that possession of the disputed properties by respondents was in the nature of ownership, and not by mere
tolerance of the elder Corpuz. In fact, they have been in continuous, open and notorious possession of
the property for more than 30 years up to this day. Petitioner opted to file an ejectment case against respondents where the only
question that the courts will resolve is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de
facto and not to the possession de jure. For this reason, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor
of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Petitioner has not proven that respondents' continued
possession of the subject properties was by mere tolerance of his father nor the possession of the properties became unlawful - a
requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case.
Tuazon vs Isagon An action for unlawful detainer is summary in nature and cannot be delayed by a mere
assertion of ownership as a defense. When the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass upon
that issue only if needed to determine who between the parties has a better right to possess the property. Furthermore, the
adjudication on the issue of ownership is only provisional, and subject to a separate proceeding that the parties may initiate to
settle the issue of ownership. A person who possesses a title issued under the Torrens system is
entitled to all the attributes of ownership including possession. A certificate of title cannot be subject to a collateral attack in an
action for unlawful detainer. A collateral attack is made when, in an action to obtain a different relief, the validity of a certificate
of title is questioned.
It as an ejectment case, but the defendant set the defense that the title of the plaintiff was illegally obtained. SC said it was
considered as a collateral attack to the certificate of title. Issue of Unlawful detainer case is about possession and not
ownership. So the SC considered it as a collateral attack.
Romero vs Singson The procedural issue of lack of attempts at compromise should be resolved in
respondent’s favor. True, no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified
complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made. However, the failure of a party to comply with
this condition precedent is not a jurisdictional defect. If the opposing party fails to raise such defect in a motion to dismiss, such
defect is deemed waived. In arriving at its pronouncement, the CA passed upon the issue or claim of ownership, which both
parties raised. While the procedure taken is allowed — under Section 16, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
(SandeeSuan)
Page 33 of 34
LAND TITLES MIDTERMS (2017) Atty. Gimarino
Procedure, the issue of ownership may be resolved only to determine the issue of possession — the CA nonetheless committed
serious and patent error in concluding that based solely on respondent’s TCT 12575 issued in her name, she must be considered
the singular owner of the subject property and thus entitled to possession thereof — pursuant to the principle that “the person
who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.” Such provisional determination of ownership should have
been resolved in petitioners’ favor. Insofar as a person who fraudulently obtained a property is concerned, the registration of the
property in said person’s name would not be sufficient to vest in him or her the title to the property. A certificate of title merely
confirms or records title already existing and vested. The indefeasibility of the Torrens title should not be used as a means to
perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real property. Good faith must concur with registration because, otherwise,
registration would be an exercise in futility. A Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud, notwithstanding the long-standing
rule that registration is a constructive notice of title binding upon the whole world. The legal principle is that if the registration of
the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name the land is registered holds it as a mere trustee. Since respondent acquired no
right over the subject property, the same remained in the name of the original registered owners, Macario and Felicidad. Being
heirs of the owners, petitioners and respondent thus became, and remain co-owners — by succession — of the subject property.
As such, petitioners may exercise all attributes of ownership over the same, including possession — whether de facto or de jure;
respondent thus has no right to exclude them from this right through an action for ejectment. With the Court’s determination that
respondent’s title is null and void, the matter of direct or collateral attack is a foregone conclusion as well. “An action to declare
the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack;” petitioners were not
precluded from questioning the validity of respondent’s title in the ejectment case.
(SandeeSuan)
Page of 34 34