Land Title and Deeds Land Title and Deeds

Land Title and Deeds
Ateneo de Davao University

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Ma. Theresa D. Yu-Panes, MD and the Book of Agcaoili
Presidential Decree No. 1529 released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a

private person by the State remain part of the alienable
Section 1. Title of Decree . – This Decree shall be known as the public domain.
Property Registration Decree.  The burden to overturn the presumption by
incontrovertible evidence that the land subject to an
Section 2. Nature of Registration Proceedings; jurisdiction of application is alienable or disposable rests with the
courts. – Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands applicant. There is a need to establish the positive act
throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on classifying the land as alienable and disposable.
o Presidential Proclamation
the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens System.
o Executive Order
o Administrative Action
Regional Trial Courts (Courts of First Instance) shall have exclusive
o Investigative Reports of the Bureau of Lands
jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to
o Legislative Act or statute
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 Concept of Jura Regalia
petitions.  Private title to land must be traced to some grant, express
or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the
The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land American Colonial government, and thereafter, the
Registration Authority (Land Registration Commission) with two Philippine Republic.
(2) certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions  Under Spanish Law, it refers to a right which the sovereign
filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with has over anything in which a subject has a right of property.
the exception of stenographic notes, within five (5) days from the These were the rights enjoyed during feudal times by the
filing or issuance thereof. King as the sovereign.
 By fiction of law, the King was regarded as the original
The Regalian Doctrine proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source of title,
 All lands of whatever classification and other natural and from him all lands were held. The theory of jura regalia
resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of
private ownership belong to the State. conquest.
 The State is the source of any asserted right to ownership
of land and charged with the conservation of such Dominium – The capacity of the State to own or acquire property.
patrimony. (Secretary of DENR vs. Yap )  This was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees
 Presumption: Lands not shown to have been reclassified or embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia.
 By virtue of discovery and conquest, all lands became the
Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 1|P a g e

Cases by Christine Bonifacio and Astrid Gopo
exclusive patrimony and dominion of Spanish Crown. In sum, under the Spanish, private ownership could only be
 The Spanish government took charged of distributing the founded on royal concessions in the forms of:
lands by issuing royal grants and concessions to Spaniards. a) Titulo real or royal grant
 Private land titles could only be acquired from the b) Concession especial or special grant
government either by purchase or by the various modes of c) Composicion con el estado or adjustment title
land grant from the Crown. d) Titulo de compra or title by purchase
e) Informacion posesoria or possessory information title
History Tree of the land law in the Philippines:
1. Roots of Regalian Doctrine, that upon the Spanish 5. Under the American regime, the first law governing the
conquest, the ownership of all lands, territories, and disposition of lands is the Philippine Bill of 1902
possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown a.By
a. By this law, lands of the public domain in the
2. Regalian Doctrine was first introduced in the Phils. Through Philippine Islands were classified into three:
the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas i. Agricultutal
3. This was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Spanish ii. Mineral
Mortgage Law of 1983 iii. Timber or Forest Lands
a.This
a. This provided for the systematic registration of titles b.The
b.The act provided for means of disposal
and deeds as well as possessory claims i. Absolute grabt (freehold system)
4. Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law amended the ii. Lease (leasehold system)
Spanish Mortgage Law and the Laws of the Indies 6. Philippine Legislature passes Act 496 or the Land
a.This
a. This established the possessory information as Registration Act
method of legalizing possession of vacant Crown a.This
a. This established a system of registration by which
lands, under certain conditions set forth recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and
b.Here,
b.Here, possessory information title, when duly imprescriptible known as the Torrens System
inscribed in the Registry of Property is converted 7. Act No. 2874 or the 2 nd Public Land Act superseded Act 926
into a title of ownership only after the lapse of 20 a.This
a. This is a more comprehensive law which limited the
years of uninterrupted actual, public, and adverse exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and
possession from the date of inscription Americans and citizens of other countries which
c. But possessory title had to be perfected one year gave Filipinos same privileges
after the promulgation of the Maura Law.
Otherwise, lands would revert to the State.

b.For
b.For judicial confirmation of title, possession and b.It
b.It governs the registration of lands under the Torrens
occupation en concepto dueno since time System as well as unregistered lands, including
immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required chattel mortgages
8. CA 141 amended Act 2874, and has ever since remained as
the existing general law governing the classification and Secretary of DENR vs. Yap
disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber
Facts:
and mineral lands, and privately-owned lands which
reverted to the State On November 10, 1978, then President Marcos issued Proc.
a.CA
a. CA 141 retained the requirement of Act 2874 as No. 1801declaring Boracay Island, among other islands, caves and
mentioned in 7(b) but was superseded by RA 1942 peninsulas in the Philippines, as tourist zones and marine
which provided for a simple 30-year prescriptive reserves under the administration of the Philippine Tourism
period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title Authority (PTA). President Marcos later
later approved the issuance
of PTA Circular 3-82 dated S eptember 3, 1982, to implement
b.This
b.This was last amended by PD 1073 which now
Proclamation No. 1801.
provides for possession and occupation of the land
applied for since June 12, 1945, or earlier Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No 3-82
9. PD No. 892 discontinued the use of Spanish titles as precluded them from filing an application for judicial confirmation
evidence in land registration proceedings of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes,
a.Under
a. Under this decree, all holders of Spanish titles or respondents-claimants
respondents-claimants Mayor . Yap, Jr., and others filed a
grants should apply for registration of their lands petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan.
under Act 496 within 6 months from the effectivity
of the decree on February 16, 1976 In their petition, respondents-claimants alleged that Proc. No. 1801
b.Thereafter,
b.Thereafter, the recording of unregistered lands shall and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised doubts on their right to secure
be governed by Section 194 of the Revised titles over their occupied lands. They declared that they
themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344
pen, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
10. PD No. 1529 of the Property Registration Decree amended occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time
Act. 496 immemorial. They declared their lands for tax tax purposes and
and paid
a.It
a. It codified the various laws relative to registration of realty taxes on them. Respondents-claimants posited that
property Proclamation No. 1801 and its implementing Circular did not place
Boracay beyond the commerce of man. Since the Island was

classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private (protection purposes) and partly agricultural land (alienable and
ownership. Under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, they had disposable).
the right to have the lots registered in their names through judicial
confirmation of imperfect titles. On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants Sacay,and other
landowners in Boracay filed with this Court an original petition for
prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No.
The Republic, through the OSG, opposed the petition for 1064. They allege that the Proclamation infringed on their “prior
declaratory relief. The OSG countered that Boracay Island was vested rights” over portions of Boracay. They have been in
an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the continued possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time
mass of lands classified as “public forest,” which was not available immemorial.
for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Revised Forestry
Code, as amended. The OSG maintained that On November 21, 2006, this Court ordered the consolidation of the
respondents-claimants’ reliance on PD No. 1801 and PTA Circular two petitions
No. 3-82 was misplaced. Their right to judicial confirmation of title
was governed by Public Land Act and Revised Forestry Code, as Issue:
amended. Since Boracay Island had not been classified as WON private claimants have a right to secure titles over their
alienable and disposable, whatever possession they had cannot occupied portions in Boracay.
ripen into ownership.
Held:
On July 14, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of
respondents-claimants, declaring that, “PD 1810 and PTA Circular Petitions DENIED. The CA decision is reversed.
No. 3-82 Revised Forestry Code, as amended.
Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an
The OSG moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied. The unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No.
Republic then appealed to the CA. On In 2004, the appellate court 1064. Such unclassified lands are considered public forest under
affirmed in toto the RTC decision. Again, the OSG sought PD No. 705.
reconsideration but it was similarly denied. Hence, the present
petition under Rule 45. PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized all unclassified
lands of the public domain as public forest. Section 3(a) of PD
On May 22, 2006, during the pendency the petition in the trial No. 705 defines a public forest as “a mass of lands of the public
court, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. domain which has not been the subject of the present system of
1064 classifying Boracay Island partly reserved forest land classification for the determination of which lands are needed for
forest purpose and which are not .” Applying PD No. 705, all

unclassified lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto occupied by private claimants were subject of a government
considered public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable. Matters of
already existing prior to its effectivity. land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call
for proof.
The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into
agricultural, forest or timber, such classification modified by the Proc. No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to
1973 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 classify Boracay Island as alienable and disposable land. If
Constitution classification with one addition: national parks. Of President Marcos intended to classify the island as alienable and
these, only agricultural lands may be alienated. Prior to disposable or forest, or both, he would have identified the specific
Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island limits of each, as President Arroyo did in Proclamation No.
had never been expressly and administratively classified under any 1064. This was not done in Proclamation No. 1801.
of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the Classification of Lands in the Constitution
public domain.
1935 Constitution classified lands of public domain into:
A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is a. Agricultural
required . In keeping with the presumption of State ownership, b. Forest
the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be
c. Timber
a positive act of the government, such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; 1973 Constitution provided the following divisions:
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a a. Agricultural
legislative act or a statute.
b. Industrial or Commercial
The applicant may also secure a certification from the government c. Residential
that the land claimed to have been possessed for the required d. Resettlement
number of years is alienable and disposable. The burden of proof in e. Mineral
overcoming such presumption is on the person applying for f. Timber or Forest and grazing lands
registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land g. Other classes as may be provided by law
subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 classification plus one
In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, additional”
administrative action, report, statute, or certification was a. Agricultural
presented to the Court. The records are bereft b. Forest/Timber
of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay

c. Mineral Held: Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless declassified and
d. National Parks released by positive act of the Government so that they may form
part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, are
Republic vs. Naguiat not capable of private ownership.
Facts: As to these assets, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do

not apply.
Celestina Naguiat filed an application for registration of title to 4
parcels of land in Botolan, Zambales with the RTC of Zambales. Under Section2, Article XII of the Constitution, which embodies the
Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the
She alleges that she is the owner of the parcels of land having State, the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. All
acquired them from a corporation which likewise acquired the lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion are presumed
same from Calderon, et al and their predecessors-in-interest who to belong to the State.
have been in possession for more than 30 years.
According, the public lands not shown to have been reclassified or
The Republic of the Philippines filed an opposition to the released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private
application on the ground that neither the applicant nor her person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.
predecessors-in-interest (PII) have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation (OCENPO) of Under Section 6 of the Public Land Act, the prerogative of
the lands in question since June 12, 1945 or prior. classifying or reclassifying lands of the public domain belongs to
the Executive Branch of the Government and not the court.
RTC Decision: Adjudicated unto Celestina the parcels of land and Needless to stress, the onus (burden) probandi (proof) to overturn,
decreeing the registration thereof in her name. by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land
subject of an application for registration is alienable or disposable
CA Decision: Affirmed the RTC Decision rests with the applicant.
Issue: The private-claimant has not presented the required certification

WON the private claimant was able to defeat the presumption of from the proper government agency or official proclamation
State ownership of the lands in question. reclassifying the land applied for as alienable or disposable.
Matters of land classification and reclassification cannot be
WON the lands in question ceased to have the status of forest or assumed. It calls for proof.
other inalienable lands of the public domain.
The Regalian Doctrine as Enshrined in the Fundamental Law

o Production-sharing agreements
The 1987 Constitution embodies the principle of State ownership of  Or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
lands and all other natural resources in Section 2 of Article XII on involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale
“National Economy and Patrimony”: EDU
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, The 1987 provision had its roots in Section 1, Article XII of the 1935
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, Constitution which provides:
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of Section 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources all forces or potential energy, and other natural resources of the
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation,
State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the
co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per
with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to
sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the
agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, inauguration of the Government established under this
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public
terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession,
rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of
than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding
measure and limit of the grant. twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of
 The abovementioned provision provides that except for water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure
agricultural lands for public domain in which alone may be and the limit of the grant.
alienated.
 Forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other The 1973 Constitution reiterated the Regalian Doctrine in Section 8,
natural resources must remain with the State, the Artcile XIV:
exploration, development, and utilization (EDU) of which Section 8. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
shall be subject to its full control and supervision, albeit petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
allowing it to enter to: fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines
o Co-production, belong to the State. W ith the exception of agricultural, industrial or
o Joint venture, and

commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the.public Amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over
domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural
concession, or lease for the exploration, development, resources, in violation of the Regalian Doctrine
exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be
granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for By providing an all-encompassing definition of ancestral domains
not more than twenty-five years, except as to water rights for and ancestral lands which might even include private lands found
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the within said areas, violative of the rights of private landowners.
development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may be
the measure and the limit of the grant. The powers vested by the IPRA Law to NCIP and making customary
law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral
The Regalian Doctrine does not negate “native title” domains and ancestral lands to be violative of the due process
clause of the Constitution
Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR
After due deliberation on the petition, the Supreme Court voted as
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought the suit for prohibition and follows:
mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality
of certain provisions of RA 8371 also known as the Indigenous Seven (7) Justices voted to dismiss the petition while seven (7)
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its IRR. other voted to gr ant the petition. As the v otes were equally divided
and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was
Supporters: re-deliberated upon. After the re-deliberation, the voting remained
the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 56 of the ROC,
Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on the petition was dismissed and the validity of the law was deemed
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and the Government agency created upheld.
under the IPRA
The Secretary of the DENR and DBM filed through the OSG a Separate Opinions of the Justices
consolidated comment, and the OSG is of the view that the IPRA is
partly unconstitutional on the ground that its grants ownership Constitutionality of the IPRA Law
over natural resources to IPs and prays that the petition be granted  Justice Kapunan stated that the Regalian Doctrine does not
in part. negate native title to lands held in private ownership since
time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of Carino
Grounds of constitutionality: vs. Insular Government
 The Carino ruling institutionalized 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 by deeds” of the system under the ge neral law.
since time immemorial and independent of any grant from  A sale of land is effected by a registered transfer, upon
the Spanish Crown, as an exception to the theory of jura which a certificate of title is issued.
regalia. o The certificate is guaranteed by statute, and, with
 Justice Puno stated that Carino firmly established a certain exceptions, constitutes indefeasible title to
concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any the land mentioned therein.
royal grant from the State and was based on the strong  Under the old system, the sale would be effected by a
mandate extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of conveyance, depending for its validity, apart from intrinsic
1902 that: flaw, on the correctness of a long series of prior deeds,
o “No law shall be enacted in the said islands which wills, etc.
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, or deny to any person Object: To do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of the
therein the equal protection of the laws. old conveyancing system.
 The IPRA recognizes the existence of the Indigenous
Cultural Communities (ICCS)/Indigenous People (IP) as a  Generally a system of registration of transactions with
distinct sector in the society. It grants this people interest in land whose declared object is, under
ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and governmental authority, to establish and certify to the
ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and ownership of an absolute and indefeasible title to realty,
domains. and to simplify its transfer.
 Justice Vitug opposed the IPRA saying that the Carino  Act 496 or Land Registration Act of 1903, enacted by the
ruling cannot override the collective will of the people Philippine Commission, placed all public and private lands in
expressed in the Constitution. It is in them that sovereignty the Philippines under the Torrens system.
resides and from them all government authority emanates. o It requires the government to issue an official
o It is not for a court ruling or any piece of legislation to certificate of title attesting to the fact that the
be conformed to by the fundamental law, but it is person named is the owner of the property
for the former to adapt to the latter, and it is the described therein, subject to such liens and
sovereign act that must stand inviolate. encumbrances as thereon noted or the law
 Justice Panganiban stated that all Filipinos, whether warrants or reserves
indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution, and that  The certificate of title (COT) is indefeasible and
no one is exempt from its all encompassing provisions. imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are
quieted upon issuance of said certificate.
Background of the Torrens System of Registration
 In this system, title by registration takes the place of “title

G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915 The general rule is in case of two certificates of title purporting
CONSUELO LEGARDA, with her husband MAURO PRIETO, to include the same land, the earlier date prevails unless it can be
plaintiffs-appellants, clearly ascertained by ordinary rules of or statutory construction
vs. that there was mistake in the inclusion in the certificate of title
N.M. SALEEBY, defendant-appellee. with an earlier date.
The primary and fundamental purpose of the torrens system is
Facts: to quiet title. If the holder of a certificate cannot rest secure in his
• Plaintiffs Legarda and Prieto occupy as owners a lot in registered title, then the purpose of the law is defeated.
Ermita. There exist a stonewall on said property. Section 38 of Act 496 provides that a decree of registration
• On March 2, 1906, plaintiffs presented
presented a petition
petition in the court
court of shall be conclusive upon and against all persons including the
land registration for the registration of their lot. government. Such decree shall not be opened by reason of
• They were issued OCT under the Torrens Torrens system
system on October absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereof
25, 1906. nor by any proceeding in court reversing judgment or decree
• Later, the predecessor
predecessor in interest of Saleeby
Saleeby sought to register
register subject only to the right of any person deprived of the land by
his property and was issued an original certificate of title on March decree of registration obtained by fraud to be filed in court of land
25, 1912 with include the stonewall already registered under the registration for review within one year.
title of the plaintiffs. In the case at bar, Legarda was first to register the property
• When plaintiffs discovered that the stone stone wall was also under the torrens title in 1906, therefore such registration is
included in the title of defendant, they pr esented a petition in court constructive notice to the whole world. The second registrant
for adjustment and correction of title. cannot claim good faith for there is already constructive notice
• The lowerlower court denied the said petition
petition contending
contending that they
they through the first registration. It only follows that the registration
did not raise the same during the pendency of the defendant’s by Saleeby in 1912 in null and void.
registration. The decision f the lower court was a judicial
proceeding and that the judgment decree was binding upon all Purpose of the Torrens System (Legarda vs. Saleeby)
parties who did not appear or oppose it. 1. To quiet the title to land,
2. To put a stop forever to any question of legality of the title,
Issue: except claims which were noted at the time of registration,
Who’s title should prevail in case of duplicate or double registration in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto
of the same property under the Torrens system? In this case
Legarda (earlier date) G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991
SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS CORPORATION, petitioner,
Ruling: vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Sixth Division) and THE
Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 10 | P a g e
INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANTENOR S. VIRATA and the Ruling:

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
It is undisputed that the property in the case at bar is a friar
Facts: land. Therefore, the law applicable is Act 1120 or the Friar Lands
Act. It provides that sale or lease of said properties shall be valid
• On September
September 28, 1982,
1982, Solid State, a domestic
domestic corporation only if approved by the Secretary of Interior.
filed an action for quieting of title against the estate of V irata. Clearly, the purchase of Penaranda was in compliance with
• The disputed property here was a friar land. law. The execution of the sale vested title to Penaranda as the
• Plaintiff alleges
alleges that it is the registered
registered owner of the parcel
parcel of Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce approved it. Hence, the
land located in Imus Cavite containing about 48,182 sq. m. issued sale from Penaranda to Solid State validly transferred ownership.
on February 24, 1976. On the other hand, the sale of the lot to Mabini Legaspi
• It further
further alleged,
alleged, that Virata during his
his lifetime
lifetime through fraud occurred much earlier but nowhere in the records show that a
caused the issuance of another certificate of title on September 1, certificate of sale was ever issued by the Bureau of Lands in her
1959 which creates a cloud to petitioner’s title. favor. The off icial receipt of sale presented does not prove that the
• Solid State bought the disputed property in 1976 from one property was conveyed to her by the government. The sale to
Julian Penaranda. Mabini was highly irregular, void and not in compliance with law.
• Julian Penaranda
Penaranda acquired the same by application
application to purchase
purchase Registration does not vest title. It merely evidences such title.
the land which was a friar land. The sale to Penaranda was with the Title does not become incontrovertible since it is void ab initio.
approval of the Secretary of Interior later the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce. He went through the process as  Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure,
provided by Act 1120 or the Friar Lands Act. without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court
• On the other other hand, Virata alleges
alleges that he acquired the to avoid the possibility of losing his land
disputed property December 6, 1957 from Mabini Legaspi. The  While the proceeding is judicial, it involves more in its
latter acquired the same in a public auction on May 5, 1943. consequences than does an ordinary action, and all the
• Mabini testified that she sold the property to Virata. world are parties, including the government.
• TC ruled
ruled in
in favor of Virata and dismissed
dismissed the complaint.  After the registration is complete and f inal and there exists
• CA affirmed the TC no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who may claim
an interest.
Issue:  The rights of all the world are foreclosed by the decree of
registration.
WON the TC erred in considering Virata the owner of the disputed  Aims to decree land titles shall be final, irrevocable, and
property? YES indisputable, and to relieve the land of the burden of

known as well as unknown claims. 4. Simplified ordinary dealings that he has mastered the 3 R’s
 The registration compels the claimants to come to court (Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic) can transact his own
and to make there a record, so that thereafter there may conveyancing
be no uncertainty concerning either the character or the 5. Affords protection against fraud
extent of such claims. 6. Restored to their just value many estates held under good
holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur
Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any
 Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is similar faults
merely a procedure to establish evidence of title over
realty. A View
V iew of Past and Present Legislation on Land Registration
Registration
 It is means of confirming the fact of its existence with  The State has the power and right to provide a procedure
notice to the world at large for the adjudication of title to real estate
 A certificate of title is not a source of right, but merely  State has control over the real property within the limits
confirms or records a title already existing and vested  State posses not only the right to determine how title to
real estate may be acquired and proved, but it is also within
Distinction between
between Title and Certificate of T itle its legislative capacity to establish the method of procedure
Title – a just cause of exclusive possession, or which is the 1. The Public Land Act (CA No. 141)
foundation of ownership of property a. Act No. 926 or the first Public Land Act , passed through
the Philippine Commission in pursuance of the Philippine
Certificate of Title – a mere evidence of ownership, it is not the Bill of 1902.
title to the land itself i. It governed the disposition of lands of public domain
2 Types ii. It prescribed terms and conditions to enable persons
1. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) – a true copy of the to perfect their titles to public lands in the Islands
decree of registration iii. It provided for the issuance of patents to certain
2. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) – issued subsequent to native settlers upon public lands, for the
the original registration establishment of town sites and sale of lots, for the
completion of imperfect titles, and for the
Advantages of the Torrens System (Grey Alba vs. De la Cruz) cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions
1. Substituted security for insecurity and grants in the Islands
2. Reduced the cost of conveyances from pounds to shillings, iv. It operated on the assumption that title to public
and the time occupied from months to days; lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the
3. Exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage government

v. Public Land – referred to all lands of the public perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of
domain whose title still remained in the the province where the land is located for confirmation of their
government and are thrown open to private claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the
appropriation and settlement, and excluded the Land Registration Act , to wit:
patrimonial property of the government and the
friar lands XXX XXX XXX
b. Act No. 2874 or the second Public Land Act superseded Act
No. 926, passed under the Jones Law (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in
i. It was more comprehensive in scope but limited the interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
Americans and citizens of other countries which domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at
gave Filipinos the same privileges least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the
c. CA No. 141, the present Public Land Act , amended Act No. application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war
2874 after the passage of the 1935 Constitution or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
i. The difference between Act No.2874 to the transitory performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and
provisions on the rights of American citizens and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
corporations during the Commonwealth period chapter.
at par with F ilipino citizens and corporations
ii. This applies to lands of the public domain which have (c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves
been declared open to disposition or concession or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
and officially delimited and classified continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
iii. It contains provisions on the different modes of lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether
government grant, i.e. homestead, sale, free disposable or not, under a bona f ide claim of ownership for at least
patent (administrative legalization), and 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b)
reservations for public and semi-public purpose hereof.
iv. The certificate of title issued pursuant to a public land
patent has the same validity and efficacy as a  Section 51 provides that applications for judicial
certificate of title issued through ordinary confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles shall be
registration proceedings subject to the same procedure as that established under
the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529), except that
Section48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, notice of all such applications, together with the plan of the
occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such land claimed, shall be immediately forwarded to the
lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been Director of Lands who may appear as a party in such cases.

2. The Land Registration Act (Act No, 496) Torrens system of registration
i. Approved on November 6, 1902 but became effective on 3. The Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259)
January 1, 1903 i. Took effect on February 11, 1913
ii. Established the Torrens system of registration ii. When in the opinion of the President, the public interest
iii. Created the Court of Land Registration which had exclusive requires that title to any lands be settled and adjudicated;
jurisdiction over all applications for registration with power he shall order the Director of Lands (DOL) to make a survey
to hear and determine all questions arising upon such thereof, with notice to all persons claiming an interest
application therein.
a.Before the creation of the Court of Land Registration iii. The DOL, represented by the OSG, shall institute registration
(CLR), the jurisdiction to determine the nature, proceedings by filing a petition in the proper court against
quality, and extent of land titles, the rival claims of the holders, claimants, possessors or occupants of such
contending parties, and the legality and effect lands, stating that the public interest requires that the titles
thereof was vested in the Courts of First Instance to such lands be settled and adjudicated.
(RTC now) iv. Notice of the filing of the petition is published twice in
b.After land has been f inally registered, the CLR ceased successive issues of the Official Gazette
to have jurisdiction v. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and
c. The only authority remaining in CLR was conferred by decree awarded to the person entitled to the lands or parts
Section 112 thereof
d.The final decrees are regarded as indefeasible and a.The decree shall be the basis for the issuance of the
could not be reopened, EXCEPT: certificate of title which shall have the same effect
i. That any person deprived of land or of any as a certificate of title granted under PD 1529
estate or interest therein through fraud, (Property Registration Decree)
may file in the CFI (RTC now) a petition for b.Cadastral Proceeding – is in rem, binding generally
review within 1 year after entry of the upon the whole world, inclusive of persons not
decree, PROVIDED that the land has not parties thereof, and particularly upon those who
been transferred to an innocent purchaser had actually taken part in the proceeding and their
for value successors in interest by title subsequent to the
iv. Registration under the system did not create a title. It simply commencement of the action
confirmed a title already created and vested c. The provisions of this act have been substantially
v. This Act provided for an Assurance Fund to pay for the loss or incorporated in PD 1529, particularly in Sections 35
damage sustained by any person who, without negligence to 38 thereof, under the title Cadastral Registration
on his part, is wrongfully deprived of any land or interest Proceedings.
therein on account of the bringing of the land under 4. The Property Registration Decree (PD 1529)

i. Approved on June 11, 1978 c. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by giving the
ii. Issued to update the Land Registration Act and to codify the public notice of initial hearing by means of:
various laws relative to registration of property and to i. Publication;
facilitate effective implementation of said laws ii. Mailing; and
iii. This decree supersedes all other laws relative to the iii. Notice
registration of property d.The decree renamed the Land Registration
a.RTCs of the city or province where the land lies, serve Commission (LRC) as Land Registration Authority
as first level courts, exercise jurisdiction over (LRA) – the central repository of records relative to
applications for registration and all subsequent original registration, including subdivision and
proceedings relative thereto, subject to judicial consolidation plans of titled lands
review vi. Section 14 paragraph 1 to 4 of PD 1529 enumerates the persons
iv. Section 14(1) of PD 1529 and Section 48(b) of CA No. 41 are WHO may apply for registration, and the conditions
virtually the same necessary
a.Section 14(1) of PD 1529 – specifically operationalizing
the registration of lands of the public domain and Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the
codifying the various laws relative to the proper Court of First Instance an application for r egistration of title
registration of property to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
v. The act has substantially incorporated the substantive and representatives:
procedural requirements of the Land Registration Act of
1902 (1) Those who by themselves or through their
a.But has expanded its coverage to include: predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
i. judicial confirmation of imperfect or exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
incomplete title in its Section 14(1); alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a
ii. cadastral registration proceedings in bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Sections 35 to 38;
iii. Voluntary proceedings in Sections 51 to 68; (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
iv. Involuntary proceedings in Sections 69 to 77 prescription under the provision of existing laws.
v. Certificates of land transfer and
emancipation patents issued pursuant to (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or
PD No. 27 in Sections 104 to 106; and abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion
vi. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original under the existing laws.
titles in Section 110
b.Judicial proceedings are in rem

(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any Registration under Torrens System is a Proceeding in rem
other manner provided for by law.  Section 2 of PD 1529 expressly states that judicial
proceedings for the registration of land shall be in rem and
 The application for registration shall be filed with the RTC shall be based on the generally accepted principles
of the province or city where the land is situated underlying the Torrens system
 The court shall issue an order setting the date and hour of
initial hearing, and the public shall be given notice thereof Proceeding in rem – when the object of the action is to bar
by means of: indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any
o Publication, sort against the right sought to be established
o Mailing, and
o Posting Proceeding in personam – the technical object of the suit is

 Any person claiming an interest in the land may appear and establish claim against some particular person, with a judgment
file an opposition, stating all his objections to the which generally binds his body, or to bar some individual claim or
application objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in
 Once the judgment becomes final, the court shall issue an defense
order for the issuance of a decree and the corresponding
certificate of title in favor of the adjudicate  Being in rem, upon the presentation in court of an
 Thereupon, the LRA shall prepare the corresponding application for registration of the title to lands, all
decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate occupants, adjoining owners, adverse claimants, and other
certificates of title which shall be sent to the ROD of the interested persons are notified of the proceedings, and
city or province where the land lies for registration have a right to appear in opposition to such application
 Decree of Registration – binds the land and quiets title
thereto, subject only to such exceptions or liens as may be G.R. No. 5246 September 16, 1910
provided by law MANUELA GREY ALBA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs.
 Certificate of Title – shall not be subject to collateral ANACLETO R. DE LA CRUZ, objector-appellee.
attack, nor shall it be altered, modified, or cancelled except
in a direct proceeding in accordance with law Facts:
 Assurance Fund – is provided for the loss, damage, or
deprivation of any interest sustained by any person, • The petitioners, Manuela, Jose, Juan and Francisco are the he
without negligence on his part, as a consequence of the only heirs of Doña Segunda Alba Clemente and Honorato Grey. The
bringing of the land under the operation of the Torrens four petitioners, as co-owners, on Dec. 18, 1906 sought to have
system. registered a parcel of agricultural land in Bulacan. The petition was

accompanied by a plan and technical description of the said lot.

After hearing the court, on Feb. 12, 1908, entered a decree directing Issue:
that described in the petition be registered in the names of the 4 1. Did the court below
below commit
commit an error in reopening this case
case in
petitioners. June, 1908, after its decree had been entered in February of the
• On June, 1908, Anacleto
Anacleto Ratilla
Ratilla de la Cruz filed a motion in the same year? NO
Court of Land Registration (CLR) asking for a revision of the case, 2. Whether or not,the petitioners did obtain the decree of Feb
including the decision, upon the ground that he is the absolute 12, 1908, by means of fraud? NO
owner of the 2 parcels of land described in said motion and which
he alleges to be included in the lands decreed to the petitioners. He Ruling:
alleges that the decree of Feb. 12, 1908 was obtained maliciously The judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby
and fraudulently by the petitioners, thereby depriving him of said reversed and judgment entered in favor of the petitioners in
lands. For him, The petitioners deliberately omitted to include in conformity with the decree of the lower court of February 12, 1908.
their registration his name as one of the occupants of the land so 1. The said decree of February 12, 1908, should not have been
as to be given notice of registration. He further alleged having opened on account of the absence, infancy, or other disability of
inherited the 2 lots from his father, Baldomero R. de la Cruz, who any person affected thereby, and could have been opened only on
had a state grant for the same (was duly inscribed in the old the ground that the said decree had been obtained by fraud.
register of property in Bulacan on April 6, 1895.) 2. The application for the registration is to be in writing, signed and
• He therefore asked a revision of the case, case, and that the said sworn to by the applicant, or by some person duly authorized in his
decree be modified so as to exclude the two parcels of land behalf. It is to contain, among other things, the names and
described in said motion. The Land Court upon this motion addresses of all occupants of land and of all adjoining owners, if
reopened the case, and after hearing the additional evidence known.
presented by both parties, rendered, on the Nov. 23, 1908, its The subject land was first rented to Baldomero de la Cruz by
decision modifying the former decree by excluding from the same petitioners’ uncle Jose Grey and this contract was duly executed in
the two parcels of land claimed by Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz. writing. (While the appellee admits that his father and brother
entered into these rental contracts and did, in fact, cultivate the
• From this decision and judgment the petitioners appealed. petitioners’ land, nevertheless he insists that the two small parcels
• The court below held held that the
the failure on the part of the in question were not included in these contracts)
petitioners to include the name of the appellee in their petition, as The subsequent State grant was obtained by Baldomero after the
an occupant of these two parcels of land, was a violation of section death of the petitioners’ parents and while he petitioners were
21 of Act No. 496, and that this constituted fraud within the minors. So it is clear that the petitioners honestly believed
believed that the
meaning of section 38 of said Land Registration Act. The trial court appellee was occupying the said parcels as their lessee at the time
further held that the grant from the estate should prevail over the they presented their application for registration. They did not act in
public document of purchase of 1864. bad faith, nor with any fraudulent intent, when they omitted to

include in their application the name of the appellee as one of the between the constitutional rights of claimants who were known
occupants of the land. They believed that it was not necessary nor and those who were not known to the plaintiff, when the
required that they include in their application the names of their proceeding is to bar all. (Tyler vs. Judges, supra.)
tenants. • action in rem vs. action in personam:
Indeed, the Land Registration Act requires that all occupants be If the technical object of the suit is to establish a claim against
named in the petition and given notice by registered mail. some particular person, with a judgment which generally, in theory
However, this did not do the appellee any good, as he was not at least, binds his body, or to bar some individual claim or
notified; but he was made a party defendant, as we have said, by objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in
means of the publication “to all whom it may concern.” E very defense, the action is in personam, although it may concern the
decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, right to or possession of a tangible thing. If, on the other hand, the
subject only to the [given] exceptions. It shall be conclusive upon object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an
and against all persons, including the Insular Government, and all objection of any sort against the right sought to be established,
the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strenght
application, notice, or citation, or included in the general of alleging facts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest, the
description “to all whom it may concern.” proceeding is in rem.
As to whether or not the appellee can succesfully maintain an • Proof of constructive fraud is not sufficient
sufficient to authorize the
action under the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Land Court of Land Registration to reopen a case and modify its decree.
Registration Act (secs. 2365, 2366, Compilation) we do not decide. Specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive anther of his r ight,
or in some manner injure him, must be alleged and proved; that is,
NOTES: there must be actual or positive fraud as distinguished from
• The main principle of registration
registration is to make registered titles constructive fraud.
indefeasible.
• The element
element of intention to to deprive another of just rights
rights RTC have plenary jurisdiction over land registration cases
constitutes the essential characteristics of actual – as distinguished  The jurisdiction of the RTC over matters involving the
from legal-fraud registration of lands and lands registered under the Torrens
• Looked at either from the point of view of history or of the system is conferred by Section 2 of PD 1529, while
necessary requirements
requirements of justice, a proceeding in rem dealing with jurisdiction over petitions for amendments of certificates of
a tangible res may be instituted and carried to judgment without title is provided for by Section 108
personal service upon claimants within the State or notice by name
to those outside of it, and not encounter any provision of either
constitution. Jurisdiction is secured by the power of the court over
the res. As we have said, such a proceeding would be impossible,
were this not so, for it hardly would do to make a distinction

[G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000] Ruling:
Rudolf Lietz Holdings Inc. v. Registry of Deeds Paranaque The Supreme Court held that the RTC has jurisdiction over the
petition. It held that the Solicitor General has confused jurisdiction
Facts: with venue. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of
the action is conferred by law and may not be conferred by consent
• Petitioner corporation was formerly known as Ruldolf Lietz or waiver. On the other hand, venue as fixed by statute may be
Incorporated. It changed its name to Ruldolf Lietz Holdings changed by consent of parties and may be waived.Jurisdiction is
Incorporated. For this reason, petitioner sought to amend the based on substantive law while venue is based on procedural law.
certificates of title of real properties it owned which was still under
their old name. In the case at bar, petitioner correctly invoked the jurisdiction of
• On November 20, 1997, petitioner petitioner filed a petition for the RTC in seeking amendment of its certificates of title. It is
amendment of titles with the RTC of Paranaque. conferred by law as provided in PD 1529 or the Property
• Petitioner impleaded
impleaded the Registry
Registry of Deeds
Deeds of Pasay and Registration Decree. Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, The
alleged that the properties were all located in Pasay. (This was due Property Registration Decree, viz:
to the mistaken impression that the ROD of Pasay was still in
custody of the certificates of title of properties in Paranaque) Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts . ---
• Subsequently, when petitioner learned that the the titles
titles were
were in Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the
Paranaque, it filed an ex parte motion to amend its petition and Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally
impleaded the ROD Paranaque. accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
• However, the RTC of Paranaque Paranaque already
already dismissed
dismissed motu
proprio Ruldolf Lietz petition due to improper v enue. Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have
• Petitioner filed a MR but was denied. exclusive jurisdiction
jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of
• The Solicitor
Solicitor General on his comment contends that the trial title to lands, including improvements and interest therein, and
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the res because the over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power
allegations in the original petition states that the properties were in to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications
Pasig, hence outside the jurisdiction of the Paranaque court. or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the
Therefore, the court cannot act upon the motion to amend its Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all
petition. pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in
applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of
Issue: W/N the trial court has jurisdiction over the petition? YES stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance
thereof.

More specifically, jurisdiction over petitions for amendments of can only be resorted when there is lack of jurisdiction,
certificates of title, such as the one brought below, is provided for litispendencia, res judicata or prescription.
by Section 108 of P.D. 1529, thus:
 Section 2 provides that the RTCs shall have exclusive
Amendment and alteration of certificates . --- No erasure, jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of
alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book titles to lands, including improvements and interests
after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon therein and over all petitions filed after original registration
and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except of title, with power to hear and determine all questions
upon order of the proper Court of First Instance (now Regional arising upon such applications or petitions
Trial Court). A registered owner or other person having an interest  Before the enactment of PD 1529 , summary reliefs, such as
in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds action to compel the surrender of owner’s duplicate COT to
with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may the ROD, could only be filed with the RTC, sitting as a land
apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered registration court, if there is unanimity among the parties,
interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part
expectant inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated of any party in interest; otherwise the case becomes
and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate contentious and controversial and should therefore be
have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made threshed out in an ordinary action or in the case where the
in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any incident property belonged
duplicate certificate; or that the name of any person on the
certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has Delegated Jurisdiction of Inferior Courts
married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been Section 34 of BP 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary
terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by RA 7691 grants first
be affected, or that a corporation which owned registered land and level courts delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine cadastral
has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within three years or land registration cases .
after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground and the
court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all The Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC),
parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), and Municipal Circuit Trial
certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and Courts (MCTC) shall have jurisdiction in the following instances:
conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may a. Where the lot sought to be registered is not subject of
consider proper: xxx. controversy or opposition; OR
b. Where the lot is contested but the value thereof does not
Therefore, since the court has jurisdiction, RTC erred when it exceed P100, 000
dismissed the petition motu proprio since motu proprio dismissal

The value shall be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by  Section 2 eliminated the distinction between the general
the agreement of the respective claimants, if there be more than jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as
property. a land registration or cadastral court
 Purpose: To avoid multiplicity of suits and expediency
Decisions of the First Level Courts  Appealable to the CA  The change resulted to
a. Simplified registration proceedings by conferring
Delegated Jurisdiction is limited to what is expressly mentioned in upon RTCs the authority to act not only on
the delegation --- to hear and determine cadastral and land applications for original registration but also over
registration cases. Hence, matters subsequent to the original all petitions filed after original registration of title,
registration determined by Second Level courts, including petitions with power to hear and determine all questions
for reconstitution of lost titles, may not be unloaded to First Level arising upon such applications or petitions
courts.
G.R. No. 81401 May 18, 1990
SC Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A
November 15, 1995, SC issued this circular which provides: VIRGINIA FRANCO VDA. DE ARCEO, CARMELITA ARCEO, ZENAIDA
1. Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the ARCEO, ROMEO ARCEO, RODOLFO ARCEO and MANUEL ARCEO,
effectivity of this Administrative Circular but where the petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Former 16th
hearing has not yet commenced shall be transferred by the Division), PEDRO M. ARCEO, SOTERA ARCEO, LORENZO ARCEO,
Executive Judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the and ANTONIO ARCEO, respondents.
cases to the Executive Judge of the appropriate MeTC,
MTCC, MTC, and MCTC for the required raffle among the
Facts:
branches of the court under his administrative supervision;
and
• Spouses Abdon Arceo & Escolastica Geronimo were owners of
2. Cadastral or land registration cases pending in the RTC
4 parcels of land in Bulacan. (actually 6 but only 4 were in dispute)
where the trail had already been commenced as of the date
• Escolastica died on 1942; Abdon died on 1953 while their son
of effectivity of the Administrative Circular shall remain
Esteban died of 1941.
with said courts. However, by agreement of the parties,
• Esteban had 5 children- Jose, Pedro, Lorenzo, Antonio &
these cases may be transferred to the appropriate MeTCs,
Sotera.
MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs.
• Jose is married to Virginia Franco and together they had 6
Distinction between the court’s general and limited jurisdiction
children.
ELIMINATED

• Virginia together with her children are the petitioners in this Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. --- Judicial
case while the siblings of Jose are the respondents in this case. proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the
• On 1972, Virginia and children filed with the cadastral court and Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally
application for registration of the 4 disputed parcels of land, which accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
was opposed by Jose’s siblings.
• Petitioner’s are contending that on September/October 27, Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have
1941 Abdon and Escolastica executed a deed of donation inter vivos exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of
marked as exhibit J in which the spouses bestowed the properties title to lands, including improvements and interest therein, and
in favor of Jose. That since 1942 Jose has been paying the taxes. over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power
• Another deed of donation inter vivos was also executed by the to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications
spouses marked as exhibit T, which further disposed the properties or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the
to Jose. Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all
• On the other hand, respondents rely on a deed of donation pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in
mortis causa executed by the spouses on October 3, 1941 marked applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of
as exhibit 1 which disposed all their properties to all their stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance
grandchildren including Jose. They contend that said deed revoked thereof.
the earlier donation made by the spouses. (pertaining to exhibit J)
• The cadastral court rejected the 3 documents and distributed The Decree has eliminated the distinction between the general
the properties according to the law of intestate succession jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited
• CA affirmed jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting
• Petitioners contend that the cadastral court does not have the merely as a cadastral court." The amendment was "aimed at
power to determine conflicting claims of ownership and that its avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration
authority was merely to confirm an existing title. proceedings by conferring upon the required trial courts the
authority to act not only on applications for 'original registration'
Issue: W/N the RTC acting as cadastral court has the power to 'but also 'over all petitions filed after original registration of title,
determine conflicting claims of ownership? YES with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such
applications or petitions.
Ruling: Registration court is not divested of its jurisdiction by
administrative act for the issuance of patent
Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, The Property  It has been held that a land registration court which has
Registration Decree, viz: validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land for
registration of title cannot be divested of said jurisdiction
by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the

issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent proper court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where
covering the same parcel of land. the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
 The Director of Land’s jurisdiction, administrative On the other hand, all other actions (personal actions) shall be
supervision and executive control extend only to lands of commenced and tried in the proper court where the plaintiff or any
the public domain and not to lands already of private of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
ownership. Accordingly, a homestead patent issued over the principal defendant resides, or in case of a non-resident
land not of the public domain is a nullity, devoid of force defendant where he may be found, at the ELECTION of the
and effect against the owner. ( De los Angeles vs. Santos) PLAINTIFF.
 Proceedings for land registration are in rem, whereas
proceedings for acquisition of homestead patent are not. Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system .
o Therefore, a homestead patent does not finally The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is
dispose of the public or private character of the hereby discontinued and all lands recorded under said system
land as far as courts acting upon proceedings in which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as
rem are concerned. unregistered lands.
Jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to property
Pursuant to Section 19(2) of BP 129, as amended, the RTC shall Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section
involve title to, or possession of, real property or any interest 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been brought under the
therein, where the assessed value of the property operation of the Torrens system.
a. Exceeds P20,000 outside Metro Manila;
b. Exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila The books of registration for unregistered lands provided under
EXCEPT: actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer of lands or Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act
buildings, original jurisdiction is conferred upon the MTCs No. 3344, shall continue to remain in force; provided, that all
 The allegations in the complaint and the reliefs prayed for instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be
determines the jurisdiction registered under Section 113 of this Decree.
 An action for reconveyance or for the annulment of a deed
of sale and partition is one involving title to or interest in Registration under Spanish Mortgage law discontinued
property. Thus, the complaint should allege the assessed  On February 16, 1976 PD 892 (Discontinuance of the
value of the property to determine what court has Spanish Mortgage System and the use of Spanish titles in
jurisdiction Land Registration Proceedings Act) was issued decreeing
Venue the discontinuance of the system of registration under the
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or an Spanish Mortgage law and the use of Spanish titles as
interest therein (real actions), shall be commenced and tried in the evidence in land registration pro ceedings. It provides:

Section 1. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Spanish titles no longer used as evidence of land ownership
Law is discontinued, and all lands recorded under said system  During Spanish time, all lands of any kind were under the
which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as exclusive dominion of the Spanish crown.
unregistered lands.  The Spanish government distributed lands by issuing royal
grants and concessions to settlers and other people in
All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration various forms, such as (RSAPPG)
of their lands under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land a. Titulo real or royal grant;
Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this b.Concession especial or special grant;
decree. Thereafter, Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of c. Composicion con el estado or adjustment title;
land ownership in any registration proceedings under the Torrens d.Titulo de compra or title by purchase;
system. e.Informacion possessoria or possessory information
title; and
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered f. Titulo gratuito or gratuitous title
under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section  Spanish titles
194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act 3344; a. Although evidence of ownership, they may be lost
through prescription
Section 2. All laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules b.Not indubitable evidence of ownership, and neither
and regulations inconsistent with the foregoing provisions are indefeasible nor imprescriptible
hereby repealed or accordingly modified.  Courts are now prevented from accepting and indirectly
confirming such Spanish title in some other form of action
 Section 3 of PD 1073 provides: brought before them
Reasons for Discontinuance of use of Spanish Titles
Section 3. The judicial confirmation of incomplete titles to public 1. Proliferation of dubious Spanish titles which have raised
land based on unperfected Spanish grants such as application for conflicting claims of ownership; and
the purchase, composition or other forms of grant of lands of the 2. They tend to destabilize the Torrens system of r egistration
public domain under the laws and royal decrees in force prior to
the transfer or sovereignty from Spain to the United States shall no Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro vs. Court of Appeals
longer be allowed. However, this Section shall not be construed as
prohibiting any person claiming the same land from acting under Facts:
Section 48(b) and Section 48(c) if he meets the conditions The case is about the fantastic claim of the heirs of Don Mariano
prescribed for judicial confirmation of his incomplete title San Pedro to a vast tract of land with a total land area of 173,000
thereunder. hectares on the basis of a Spanish title --- Titulo de Propriedad No.
4136, dated April 25, 1894.

registered and the registration of the deed does not

Issue: WON the Heirs can validly claim ownership and register the operate as constructive notice to the whole world.
lands based on their Spanish title.  The registration should be made in the property registry to
be binding upon 3 rd persons.
Held:
It is settled that by virtue of PD 892 which took effect on February Section 4. Land Registration Commission . In order to have a more
16, 1976, the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage efficient execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands,
Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish titles or grants would geared to the massive and accelerated land reform and social
cause their lands covered thereby to be registered under the Land justice program of the government, there is created a commission
Registration Act within 6 months from the date of effectivity of to be known as the Land Registration Commission under the
the said decree or until August 16, 1976 . executive supervision of the Department of Justice.
 Renamed Land Registration Authority or Pangasiwaan sa
Otherwise, non-compliance therewith will result in a Patalaan ng Lupain pursuant to Section 28, Chapter 9, Title
re-classification of their lands. Spanish titles can no longer be III, of EO No. 292, known as the Administrative Code of
countenanced as indubitable evidence of land ownership. The 1987.
issue, whether Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is valid or not, must  Exercises supervision and control over all Registers of
now be laid to rest. The titulo cannot be relied upon by the Deeds, as well as the clerical and archival system of the
petitioners-heirs as their privies as evidence of ownership. courts of first instance throughout the Philippines with
reference to the registration of lands
Registration of instruments under Act. No. 3344 ineffective
against 3rd persons Section 5. Officials and employees of the Commission. The Land
 Registration of instruments must be done in the proper Registration Commission shall have a chief and an assistant chief to
registry in order to bind the land be known, respectively, as the Commissioner and the Deputy
 Prior to PD 1529 (PRD), Act No. 496 or the Land Commissioner of Land Registration who shall be appointed by the
Registration Act governed the recording of transactions President. The Commissioner shall be duly qualified member of the
involving registered land, i.e. land with a Torrens titles. Philippine Bar with at least ten years of practice in the legal
 Act No. 3344, provided for the system of recording of profession, and shall have the same rank, compensation and
transactions over unregistered real estate without privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The
prejudice to a 3 rd party with a better right. Deputy Commissioner, who shall possess the same qualifications as
 Accordingly, if a parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is those required of the Commissioner, shall receive compensation
sold, but such sale is registered under Act No. 3344 and not which shall be three thousand pesos (P3,000) per annum less than
under the Land Registration Act, the sale is not considered that of the Commissioner. He shall act as Commissioner of Land

Registration during the absence or disability of the Commissioner are appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon
and when there is a vacancy in the position until another person recommendation of the Administrator
shall have been designated or appointed in accordance with law.  Land Registration Authority – is the central repository of
The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions the records relative to original registration of lands titled
as the Commissioner may assign to him. under the Torrens system, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands. Specifically, it is
They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be responsible for the issuance of decrees of registration and
necessary in the interest of the functioning of the Commission, by a certificates of title (original and duplicate) where land is
Special Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief Geodetic brought for the first time under the Torrens system.
Engineer who shall each receive compensation at the rate of three
thousand four hundred pesos (P3,400) per annum less than that of Section 6. General Functions .
the Deputy Commissioner.
(1) The Commissioner of Land Registration (now the Land
All other officials and employees of the Land Registration Registration Administrator ) shall have the following functions:
Commission including those of the Registries of Deeds whose
salaries are not herein provided, shall receive salaries (a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the
corresponding to the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges courts in land registration proceedings and cause the issuance by
as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget Circular No. 273, plus the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of title;
sixty per centum thereof across the board, notwithstanding the
maximum salary allowed for their respective civil service (b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and
eligibilities. other personnel of the Commission;
The salaries of off icials and employees provided in this Decree shall (c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from
be without prejudice to such benefits and adjustments as may from decision of, Registers of Deeds;
time to time be granted by the President or by the legislature to
government employees. (d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and
personnel of the Courts of First Instance throughout the
All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and
Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon functions in relation to the r egistration of lands;
recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration.
 Headed by an Administrator who is assisted by 2 Deputy (e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated
Administrators, all of whom appointed by the President relative to the registration of lands and issue, subject to the
 All other officials of the LRA, EXCEPT Registers of Deeds, approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and

regulations therefor; powers by charging the Court with administrative function

of supervisory control over executive officials, reducing pro
(f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and tanto the control of the Chief Executive over such officials
consolidation-subdivision survey plans of properties titled under Duty of LRA to issue decree ministerial
Act No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No. 957.  It is ministerial only in the sense that they act under the
orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity
with the decision of the court and with the data found in
(2) The Land Registration Commission (now the Land Registration the record, as to which they have no discretion on the
Authority/LRA) shall have the following functions: matter.
 However, if LRA officials are in doubt upon any point in
(a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is
Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the their duty to refer the matter to the court.
implementation of the land reform program of the government; o In this respect, they act as officials of the court and
not as administrative officials, and their act is the

(b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land act of the court.
registration proceedings; Duty of LRA officials not ministerial
 In cases where they find that such would result to the
(c) Be the central repository of records relative to original double titling of the same parcel of land.
registration of lands titled under the Torrens system, including o In the same vein, the ROD cannot be compelled by
subdivision and consolidation plans of titled lands. mandamus to comply with the order of the court
LRA Administrator for the issuance of new certificate of titles where
 Functions are plainly executive and subject to the there are existing TCT covering the subject parcels
President’s power of supervision and control of land and there are reasons to question the rights
 He can be investigated and removed only by the President of those requesting for the issuance of the new
and not by the SC which is not charged with the titles.
administrative function of supervisory control over o When the court ordered to issue a decree on a lot
executive officials already decreed and titled in the name of another,

 The LRA is not a judge or a member of the judiciary, the LRA is not legal ly obligated to follow the court’s
otherwise if the legislative intent would place him within order for the issuance of the decree. The issuance
the right to be investigated by the SC and to be suspended of a decree of registration is part of the judicial
or removed only upon recommendation of that Court, then function of courts and is not compellable by
such grant or privilege would be unconstitutional since it mandamus because it involves exercise of
would violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of discretion.

 The duty of LRA officials to render reports is not limited to  Art. 708 of the Civil Code provides for the establishment of
the period before the court’s decision becomes final, but a Registry of Property which has for its object the
may extend even after its finality but NOT beyond the lapse inscription or annotation of acts and contracts relating to
of 1 year from the entry of the decree. the ownership and other rights over immovable property.
 The original copy of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
Section 7. Office of the Register of Deeds . There shall be at least shall be filed in the Registry of Deeds.
one Register of Deeds for each province and one for each city. o It shall be bound in consecutive order together with
Every Registry with a yearly average collection of more than sixty similar COT and shall constitute the registration
thousand pesos during the last three years shall have one Deputy book for titled properties.
Register of Deeds, and every Registry with a yearly average  Each ROD shall keep a primary entry book where all
collection of more than three hundred thousand pesos during the instruments including copies of writs and processes
last three years, shall have one Deputy Register of Deeds and one relating to registered land shall be entered in the order of
second Deputy Register of Deeds. their filing. They shall be regarded as registered from the
time so noted.
The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and
territorial jurisdiction of each Registry upon the recommendation Registration – the entry of instruments or deeds in a book or pubic
of the Commissioner of Land Registration, with the end in view of registry
making every registry easily accessible to the people of the  To register means to enter in a register, to record formally
neighboring municipalities. and distinctly, to enroll, to enter in a list
 It includes both registration in its ordinary and strict sense,
The province or city shall furnish a suitable space or building for the and cancellation, annotation, and even the marginal notes.
office of the Register of Deeds until such time as the same could be  In its strict acceptation, it is the entry made in the Registry
furnished out of national funds. which records solemnly and permanently the right of
ownership and other real rights.
Registry of Property
 Sec. 51 of PD 1529 provides that no deed, mortgage, lease, Effects of Registration
or other voluntary instrument --- except a will, purporting  Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole
to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a world.
conveyance or bind the land until its REGISTRATION  The act of registration shall be operative act to convey or
o If the sale is not registered, it is binding only between affect the land insofar as 3 rd persons are concerned, and in
the seller and the buyer BUT it DOES NOT affect all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in
innocent 3rd persons. the office of the ROD for the province or city where the

land lies. The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the

Commissioner of Land Registration, shall cause the reclassification
Between two buyers of the same immovable property registered of Registries based either on work load or the class of
under the Torrens system, the law gives ownership priority to: province/city, whichever will result in a higher classification, for
1. The first registrant in good faith; purposes of salary adjustments in accordance with the rates
2. The first possessor in good faith; and hereinabove provided.
3. The buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title
Section 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds and Deputy
Section 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies Registers of Deeds. No person shall be appointed Register of
and other subordinate personnel; salaries . Registers of Deeds shall Deeds unless he has been admitted to the practice of law in the
be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon Philippines and shall have been actually engaged in such practice
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Deputy Registers of for at least three years or has been employed for a like period in
Deeds and all other subordinate personnel of the Registries of any branch of government the functions of which include the
Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon the registration of property.
recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The salaries of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies shall be at the The Deputy Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine
following rates: Bar. Provided, however, that no Register of Deeds or Deputy
(1) First Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in first Register of Deeds holding office as such upon the passage of this
class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per Decree shall by reason hereof, be removed from office or be
annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. demoted to a lower category or scale of salary except for cause
(2) Second Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in and upon compliance with due process as provided for by law.
second class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos
per annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in first class
Registries. Section 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. The office of
(3) Third Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in third the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of
class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel
annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in second class mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated.
Registries.
(4) The salaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds and Second Deputy It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register
Registers of Deeds shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or
annum less than those of their corresponding Registers of Deeds personal property which complies with all the requisites for
and Deputy Registers of Deeds, respectively. 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 and functions which are at least of quasi-judicial nature
deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial  The function of the ROD with reference to the registration
in writing, stating the ground or reason therefor, and advising him of deeds, encumbrances, instruments and the like is
of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of ministerial in nature
this Decree. o Whether a document is valid or not is NOT for the
ROD to determine as this function belongs properly

Office of the Register of Deeds to a court of competent jurisdiction
 It constitutes a public repository of records of instruments o If the purpose of registration is merely to give notice
affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is instruments are expected to be decided AFTER, not
situated before the registration
 The existence of a COT in the Registry of Deeds supports  Registration is a mere ministerial act by which a deed,
and strengthens the authenticity of the title contract, or instrument is sought to be inscribed in the
 There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each records of the office of the Register of Deeds and
province and one for each city annotated at the back of the certificate of title covering the
o The DOJ Secretary shall define the off icial station and land subject of the deed, contract, or instrument.
territorial jurisdiction of each Registry upon the
recommendation of the LRA Administrator Instances where the ROD may deny registration
o The purpose is to make every Registry easily 1. Where there are several copies of the title (co- owner’s
accessible to the people of the neighboring duplicate) but only one is presented with the instrument to
municipalities be registered
Register of Deeds The law requires that every copy authorized to be
 To be appointed by the President upon the issued as duplicate of the original must contain
recommendation of the DOC Secretary identical entries of the transactions affecting the
 Deputy Register of Deeds and all other subordinate land covered by the title.
personnel of the ROD shall be appointed by the DOJ If different copies were permitted to carry differing
Secretary upon the recommendation of the LRA annotations, the whole system of Torrens would
Administrator cease to be reliable.
 Both must of the ROD and Deputy ROD must be members 2. Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the
of the Bar instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one
spouse
Duties of Register of Deeds In donation of conjugal property is signed by only of
 It perform both functions of an administrative character the spouses, such bears on its face an infirmity

which justifies denial of its registration. to register a deed or instrument on the ground that it is
3. Where there is a pending case in court where the character invalid.
of the land and validity of the conveyance are in issue Registration does not validate an Invalid Instrument
In such case, the matter of registration may well  While registration operates as notice of the deed, contract,
await the outcome of that case, and in the or instrument to others, it does not add to its validity nor
meantime the rights of the interested parties could converts and invalid instrument into a valid one as between
be protected by filing the proper notice of lis the parties, nor amounts to a declaration that the
pendens. instrument recognizes a valid and subsisting interest in the
4. Where required certificates or documents are not land.
submitted
It is important to submit required certificates or G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998]
documents such as DAR clearance, copy of latest SPOUSES MARIANO and ERLINDA LABURADA, represented by
tax declaration, HLURB registration papers etc. to their attorney-in-fact, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., petitioners, vs. LAND
facilitate registration REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondent.
The refusal by the ROD to register an instrument
affecting registered land by reason of Facts:
non-compliance with certain requirements does n ot • Petitioners, Spouses Laburada were applicants for registration
bar registration if thereafter the defects are cured. of Lot 3A which is a portion of Lot 3 Block 159 located in
Doubtful questions submitted to LRA Administrator for resolution Mandaluyong City.
 Sec. 10 states that it shall be the duty of the ROD to • On January 8, 1991 the trial court acting as land registration
immediately register an instrument presented for court confirmed and ordered the registration of their title.
registration dealing with real or personal property which • After the finality of the decision, TC upon motion of petitioners
complies with all the requisites for registration. issued an order on March 15, 1991 requiring the Land Registration
 He shall see to it that the said instrument bears the proper Authority to issue corresponding decree of registration.
documentary and science stamps and that the same are • LRA refused the issuance. Thereafter petitioners filed for
properly cancelled. mandamus contending that there was unlawful neglect in the
 If the instrument is NOT registerable, he shall forthwith performance of LRA’ duty.
deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such • Silverio Perez, Director of LRA explained that after plotting the
denial in writing, stating the ground or reason thereof, and aforesaid plan sought to be registered, it was found that it might
advising him of his right to appeal by CONSULTA in be a portion of the parcels of land decreed in Court of Land
accordance with Sec. 117 Registration (CLR) Case Nos. 699, 875 and 817, as per plotting of
 A ROD is precluded from exercising his personal judgment the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-319932. The records on file in this
and discretion when confronted with the proble whether Authority show that CLR Case Nos. 699, 875 & 917 were issued

Decree Nos. 240, 696 and 1425 on August 25, 1904, September 14, officers of said court, and their act is the act of the court. They are
1905 and April 26, 1905, respectively; (take note of the dates) specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in ordinary
• After verification of the records on file in the Register of and cadastral land r egistration proceedings.
Deeds for the Province of Rizal, it was found that Lot 3-B of the The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial
subdivision plan Psd-1372 being a portion of Lot No. 3, Block No. function of courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be
159, Plan S.W.O. -7237, is covered by Transfer Certificate of T itle No. compelled through mandamus. Thus, this Court held in Valmonte
29337 issued in the name of Pura Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor, a copy and Jacinto vs. Nable:
is attached as Annex F hereof. Said TCT No. 29337 is a transfer from Moreover, after the rendition of a decision by a registration or
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6595. However, the title issued for cadastral court, there remain many things to be done before the
Lot 3-A of the subdivision plan Psd-1372 cannot be located because final decree can be issued, such as the preparation of amended
TCT No. 6595 consisting of several sheets are incomplete. plans and amended descriptions, especially where the decision
• For this Authority to issue the corresponding decree of orders a subdivision of a lot, the segregation therefrom of a
registration sought by the petitioners pursuant to the Decision portion being adjudicated to another party, to fit the said decision.
dated January 8, 1991 and Order dated March 15, 1991, it would As said by this Court in the case of De los Reyes vs. De Villa, 48 Phil.,
result in the duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, and 227, 234
thus contravene the policy and purpose of the Torrens registration
system, and destroy the integrity of the same. Note: During the discussion, Ma’am said that the s pouses Laburada
should have exhausted all administrative remedies before filing for
Issue: W/N mandamus is the proper remedy? NO mandamus.
Ruling: [G.R. No. 154409. June 21, 2004]

Spouses NOEL and JULIE ABRIGO, petitioners, vs. ROMANA DE
LRA hesitates in issuing a decree of registration is understandable. VERA, respondent.
Rather than a sign of negligence or nonfeasance in the
performance of its duty, the LRAs reaction is reasonable, even Facts:
imperative. Considering the probable duplication of titles over the • On May 27, 1993, Gloria Villafania sold a house and lot located
same parcel of land, such issuance may contravene the policy and at Banaoang, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and covered by Tax
the purpose, and thereby destroy the integrity, of the Torrens Declaration No. 1406 to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go.
system of registration. The said sale became a subject of a suit for annulment of
In Ramos vs. Rodriguez, this Court ruled that the LRA is mandated documents between the vendor and the vendees.
to refer to the trial court any doubt it may have in regard to the • The parties thereafter, entered into a compromise agreement
preparation and the issuance of a decree of registration. In this which provides that Gloria has a period of one year to buy back the
respect, LRA officials act not as administrative officials but as house and lot. However, Gloria failed to do so.

• Unknown, however to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should
Cave-Go, Gloria Villafania obtained a free patent over the parcel of be movable property.
land involved [on March 15, 1988 as evidenced by OCT No. P -30522]. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to
The said free patent was later on cancelled by TCT No. 212598 on the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
April 11, 1996. Registry of Property.
• On October 16, 1997, Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
Cave-Go, sold the house and lot to the herein [Petitioner-Spouses person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the
Noel and Julie Abrigo]. absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
• On October 23, 1997, Gloria Villafania sold the same house and provided there is good faith.
lot to Romana de Vera x x x. Romana de Vera registered the sale
and as a consequence, TCT No. 225 15 was issued in her name. Otherwise stated, the law provides that a double sale of
• On November 12, 1997 De Vera filed an action for forcible entry immovables transfers ownership to (1) the first registrant in good
against Abrigo spouses but was dismissed. faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3) finally, the
• On November 21, 1997, petitioners filed the instant case with buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. There is no
the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City for the annulment of ambiguity in the application of this law with respect to lands
documents, injunction, preliminary injunction, restraining order and registered under the Torrens system.
damages against respondent and Gloria V illafania. This principle is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529 which
• TC awarded the property to Abrigo. provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary
• CA on its amended decision, found respondent De Vera to be a instrument -- except a will -- purporting to convey or affect
purchaser in good faith and for value. The appellate court ruled registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land
that she had relied in good faith on the Torrens title of her vendor until its registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding
and must thus be protected. only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect
innocent third persons
Issue: Who between de Vera and Spouses Abrigo has the better
right? Romana De Vera In the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent
registered the sale of the property. Since neither petitioners nor
Held: their predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go) knew that the
This case involves a double sale by Gloria to : property was covered by the Torrens system, they registered their
May 27, 1993 – Rosenda and Rosita respective sales under Act 3344. For her part, respondent
October 23, 1997- Romana Rivera registered the transaction under the Torrens system because,
during the sale, Villafania had presented the transfer certificate of
Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different title (TCT) covering the property
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who

Soriano v. Heirs of Magali, held that registration must be done in (2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of
the proper registry in order to bind the land. Since the property in Deeds without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the
dispute in the present case was already registered under the Secretary of Justice may, in his discretion, authorize the payment
Torrens system, petitioners registration of the sale under Act 3344 of an additional compensation to the official acting as Register of
was not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code. Deeds, such additional compensation together with his actual
Therefore, 1544 does not apply to Spouses Abrigo. salary not to exceed the salary authorized for the position thus
filled by him.
De Vera under 1544 is considered to have registered the property in (3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending
good faith first which is under the torrens system. De Vera is in establishment of a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a
good faith since she had no notice of the earlier sale of the land to regular Register of Deeds for the new province or city, the Register
[petitioners]. She ascertained and verified that her vendor was the of Deeds of the mother province or city shall be the ex-officio
sole owner and in possession of the subject property by examining Register of Deeds for said new province or city.
her vendors title in the Registry of Deeds and actually going to the
premises. There is no evidence in the record showing that when Section 12. Owner's Index; reports. There shall be prepared in
she bought the land on October 23, 1997, she knew or had the every Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all
slightest notice that the same was under litigation. registered owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an
index card which shall be prepared in the name of each registered
Section 11. Discharge of duties of Register of Deeds in case of owner which shall contain a list of all lands registered in his name.
vacancy, etc.
(1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration
province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon the Commission within ten days after the month to which they pertain
occasion of the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of the his monthly reports on collections and accomplishments. He shall
Register of Deeds to discharge his duties, said duties shall be also submit to the Commission at the end of December of each
performed by the following officials, in the order in which they are year, an annual inventory of all titles and instruments in his
mentioned below, unless the Secretary of Justice designates Registry.
another official to act temporarily in his place:
(a) For the province or city where there is a Deputy Register of Section 13. Chief Geodetic Engineer . There shall be a Chief Geodetic
Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or by the second Deputy Engineer in the Land Registration Commission who shall be the
Register of Deeds, should there be one; technical adviser of the Commission on all matters involving
(b) For the province or city where there is no Deputy or second surveys and shall be responsible to him for all plats, plans and
Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or City Fiscal, or any works requiring the services of a geodetic engineer in said office.
Assistant Fiscal designated by the Provincial or City Fiscal; He shall perform such other functions as may, from time to time,
be assigned to him by the Commissioner.

manner provided for by law.

Importance of a Survey Plan
 A survey plan serves to establish the true identity of the Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the
land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a application jointly.
portion thereof already covered by a previous land
registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a
overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining retro may file an application for tthe original registration of the
land land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption
 In pursuant to PD 239 dated July 9, 1973, the authority of expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings and
the LRA to approve survey plans for original registration ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the
purposes has been withdrawn. latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the
o The authority is now exercised by the Lands proceedings.
Management Bureau (LMB), the function of
verifying and approving original survey plans for all A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original
purposes in order to assure compliance with registration of any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by
established standards and minimize irregularities in the instrument creating the trust.
the execution of land surveys.
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the Purpose of the Torrens System of Registration
proper Court of F irst Instance an application for registration of title The primary purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to
to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable, and undisputable.
representatives: As expressed in Section 31 of the Property Registration Decree (PD
1529), the decree of registration shall bind the land and shall be
(1) Those who by themselves or through their conclusive upon and against all persons, including the National
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive Government and all the branches thereof.
and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of Further, as stated in Section 32, the decree shall not be reopened
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in court for
prescription under the provision of existing laws. reversing judgments.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or
abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the EXCEPTION: If there is right of any person deprived of land or of
existing laws. any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other of title obtained by ACTUAL FRAUD to file in the proper Regional

Trial Court (RTC) a petition for reopening and review of the decree uncertainty concerning either the character or the extent
of registration not later than 1 year from and after the date of the of such claims
entry of such decree of registration. Placing a parcel of land under the Torrens system does not mean
that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed.
 A certificate of title is the best proof of ownership of land. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. While certificate
 The title, once registered, is notice to the world. of title may be considered the best proof of ownership, the mere
 No one can plead ignorance of the registration. issuance thereof does not foreclose the possibility that the
property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in
Registration only confirms ownership the certificate or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that
 A decree of registration merely confirms, but does not the other parties may have acquired interest subsequent to the
confer, ownership. issuance of the certificate of title (COT).
 Registration does not vest or give title to the land, but
merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already System of Registration
possessed by the owner, making it imprescriptible by Registration – an entry made in the books of the registry, including
occupation of 3rd parties. both registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation,
 The Torrens system of land registration is a system for the annotation, and even marginal notes.
registration of title to land only, and not a system In its strict sense, it is the entry made in the registry which records
established for the acquisition of land. solemnly and permanently the right of ownership and other real
 It is not intended that lands may be acquired by said system rights.
of registration. It is intended only that the title, which the
petitioner has, shall be registered and thereby cleared of all 2 Systems of Registration
liens and burdens of whatsoever character, EXCEPT those 1. One for registered lands under PD 1529/Property
which shall be noted in the order of registration and in the Registration Decree
certificate issued. 2. For unregistered lands under Act 3344
o If there exist known and just claims against the title
of the applicant, he gains nothing in effect by his  Registration of instruments must be done in the proper
registration, EXCEPT in the simplicity of subsequent registry in order to bind the land.
o Accordingly, if a parcel of land covered by a Torrens
transfers of his title.
Effects of Registration title is sold, but the sale is registered under Act No.
a. Relieves the land of all known as well as unknown claims; 3344 and not under the Property Registration
or Decree, the sale is not considered registered and
b. it compels the claimants to come into court and to make the registration of the deed does not operate as
there a record, so that thereafter there may be no constructive notice to the whole world.

 Act No. 3344, on the other hand, provided for the system of title to real estate may be acquired and proved, but it is also
recording of transactions over unregistered real estate within its legislative capacity to establish the method of
without prejudice to a third party with a better right. procedure.
o There can be no constructive notice through
registration under Act No. 3344 if the property is Primary Source of Legislation on Registration of Private Lands and
registered under the Torrens system, nor can the Lands of Public Domain
registration be effective for the purpose of Article a. CA 141 or the Public Land Act, approved Nov. 7, 1936,
1544 of the Civil Code on double sale. effective on Dec. 1, 1936
 Governs the judicial confirmation of imperfect or
Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different incomplete titles on the basis of possession and
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who occupation of alienable portions of the public
may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should domain in the manner and for the length of time
be movable property. required by law
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to  Relevant provisions: Sec. 47-57, Chapter VIII of the
the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Act
Registry of Property. b. PD 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, issued on
June 11, 1978
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the  A codification of all laws relative to the registration
person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the of property, and supersedes all other laws relative
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, to registration of property.
provided there is good faith.  It has substantially incorporated the provisions of
Act 496 or the Land Registration Act, Sec. 14, Par. 1
 The recording of instruments relation to unregistered lands to 4, enumerating the persons who may apply for
is governed by Section 113 of PD 1529 which provides that registration and the conditions therefor
no deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary c. Act No. 2259 or the Cadastral Act, enacted on Feb. 11, 1913
instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens  An offspring of the system of registration under the
system shall be valid, EXCEPT as between the parties Land Registration Act
thereto, UNLESS such instrument shall have been recorded  It aims to serve public interests by requiring that the
in the office of the ROD. title to any lands be titles and adjudicated
 The salient provisions in the Cadastral Act have now
Laws governing land registration been carried over in the present Property
 The State possesses not only the right to determine how Registration Decree Sec. 35-38.
d. RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA),

approved on Oct. 29, 1997 possible claimants

 Recognizes the rights of ownership and possession
of indigenous cultural communities or indigenous  Registration is voluntary under the following:
peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral domains and a. Public Land Act;
ancestral lands on the basis of native title, and b.Property Registration Decree; and
defines the extent of these lands and domains. c. IPRA
 IPRA expressly converts ancestral lands into public  Registration is compulsory under the Cadastral Act
agricultural lands, and individual members of c. It is the government itself which initiates the petition
cultural communities, with respect to their
individually-owned ancestral lands, shall have the A. Registration under the Property Registration Decree
option to secure title to their ancestral lands under
the provisions of the PUBLIC LAND ACT or the 1. Who may apply? (Sec. 14 of PD 1529
PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE. 1. Those who by themselves or through their
i. The option is limited to ancestral lands only, predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
not domains, and such lands must be exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
individually, not communally, owned. alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Registration Proceedings are judicial and in rem 2. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
Distinguish in rem proceedings vs. in personam and quasi in rem prescription under the provision of existing laws.
In rem In personam Quasi in rem 3. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or
Binds the whole to enforce personal Deals with the abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion
world rights and status, ownership or under the existing laws.
obligations against a liability of a 4. Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other
person although it particular property manner provided for by law.
may involve his right but which are  Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners
to, or the exercise of intended to operate shall file the application jointly.
ownership of, on these questions  Under Art. 493 of the CC, each co-owner shall have
specific property only as between the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and
particular parties to benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefor
the proceedings and alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute
not to ascertain or another person in its enjoyment, EXCEPT when
cut off the rights and personal rights are involved.
interests of all  The effect of alienation/mortage with respect to the

co-owners shall be limited to the portion may be reposes as regards property for the benefit
allotted to him in the division upon termination of of another
the co-ownership 3. Cestui que trust – the person for whose
 Since a co-owner cannot be considered a true owner benefit the trust h as been created
of a specific portion until division or partition is  Whoever claims an interest in registered land by
effected, he cannot file an application for reason of any implied or constructive trust shall file
registration for the whole area without joining the with the ROD for registration a sworn statement
co-owners as applicants. containing a
 Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the 1. description of the land;
vendor a retro may file an application for the original 2. the name of the registered owner; and
registration of the land, provided, however, that should the 3. a reference to the number of the certificate
period for redemption expire during the pendency of the of title
registration proceedings and ownership to the property  A corporation sole or ordinary is NOT the owner of
consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be the properties that he may acquire but merely the
substituted for the applicant and may continue the administrator thereof and holds the same in TRUST
proceedings. for the faithful member of the society or church for
 A sale with pacto de retro transfers the legal title to which the corporation is organized.
the vendee (buyer) and the vendee is subrogated  Properties acquired by the incumbent pass, by
to all the rights and actions of the vendor, subject operation of law, upon his death not to his personal
to the latter’s right of re demption. heirs but to this successor in office.
 Having legal title to the land, the vendee a retro
(buyer) has a registerable title which may be the Section 14 (1)
subject of initial registration. Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
 The right to redeem retained by the vendor a retro have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
should only be noted in the decree and COT that and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public
may be issued domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945,
 A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original or earlier.
registration of any land held in trust by him, unless  Pertain to original registration through ordinary
prohibited by the instrument creating the trust. registration proceedings
 A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for  Right to file the application for registration is derived from
original registration of any land held in trust by him a bona fide claim of ownership going back to June 12, 1945
1. Trustor – a person who establishes a trust or earlier, by reason of the claimant’s Open, Continuous,
2. Trustee – one in whom confidence is Exclusive, and Notorious possession in the Concept of an

Owner (OCENCO) of alienable and disposable lands of the governmentuntil she filed her application for registration.
public domain. • The MCTC rendered a decision confirming the title in the name
Requisites for Registration under Sec. 14(1) of Naguit upon failure of Rustico Angeles to appear during trial
1. That the land applied for is an agricultural public land after filing his formal opposition to the petition.
classified as ALIENABLE and DISPOSABLE land at the time; • The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the
2. The application for registration is filed with the proper Philippines, filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that
court; the property which is in open, continuous and exclusive possession
3. That the applicant, by himself or though his must first be alienable. Naguit could not have maintained a
predecessors-in-interest, has been in Open, Continuous, bonafide claim of ownership since the subject land was declared as
Exclusive, and Notorious possession in the Concept of an alienable and disposableonly on October 15, 1980.
Owner (OCENCO); and • The alienable and disposable character of the land should have
4. That such possession and occupation has been effected already been established since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
since June 12, 1945 or earlier
Issue: Whether or not it is necessary under Section 14 (1) of the
(1) Land must already be A and D at the time of the filing of the Property Registration Decree that the subject land be first
application classified as alienable and disp osable before the applicant’s
In Republic vs. Naguit, the issue is whether it is necessary under possession under a bona fide claim of ownership could even start?
Sec. 14(1) of the PRD that the subject land be first classified as A NO
and D before the applicant’s possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership could even start. Ruling:
Section 14 (1) merely requires that the property sought to be
[G.R. No. 144057. January 17, 2005] registered asalready alienable and disposable at the time the
application for registration of title isf iled.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS and CORAZON NAGUIT, respondents. There are three requirements for registration of title, (1) that the
subject propertyis alienable and disposable; (2) that the applicants
Facts: and their predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
• Corazon Naguit filed a petition for registration of title which and exclusive possession and occupation, and; (3) that the
seeks judicial confirmation of her imperfect title over a parcel of possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
land in Nabas, Aklan. 1945.
• It was allegedthat Naguit and her predecessors-in-interest There must be a positive act of the government through a statute
have occupied the land openly and in the concept of owner or proclamation stating the intention of the State to abdicate its
without any objection from any private person or even the exclusive prerogative over the property, thus, declaring the land as

alienable and disposable. However, if there has been none, it is public domain. Forest lands cannot be alienated in favour
presumed that the government is still reserving the right to utilize of private persons or entities. ( Alvarez vs. PICOP
the property and the possession of the land no matter how long Resources, Inc.)
would not ripen into ownership through acquisitive prescription.  Forest land is not registerable and possession thereof, no
matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into private
To follow the Solicitor General’s argument in the construction of property, unless such lands are reclassified and considered
Section 14 (1)would render the paragraph 1 of the said provision disposable and alienable.
inoperative for it would mean that all lands of public domain which
were not declared as alienable and disposable before June 12, 1945 This was reiterated in the case of Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic:
would not be susceptible to original registration, no matter the
length of unchallenged possession by the occupant. In effect, it G.R. No. 179987 April 29, 2009
precludes the government fromenforcing the said provision as it HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN, (Represented by Sally A.
decides to reclassify lands as alienable anddisposable. Malabanan), Petitioners,
The land in question was found to be cocal in nature, it having been vs.
planted with coconut trees now over fifty years old. The inherent REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
nature of the land but confirms itscertification in 1980 as alienable,
hence agricultural. There is no impediment to the application of Facts:
Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree. Naguit had the
right to apply for registration owing to the continuous possession • On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for
by her and her predecessors-in-interest of the land since 1945. land registration before the RTC of Cavite-Tagaytay, covering a
parcel of land situated in Silang Cavite, consisting of 71,324 square
 The SC answered in the negative, holding that Sec. 14(1) meters.
MERELY requires the property sought to be registered as • Malabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from
already alienable and disposable at the time the application Eduardo Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had
for registration of title is FILED . been in open, notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful
 The court, however, stressed that the rule is different with possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years. Velazco
respect to non-agricultural lands, like forest lands. There testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty-two
can be no imperfect title to be confirmed over lands not yet hectare property owned by his great-grandfather, Lino Velazco.
classified as disposable or alienable. Indeed, it has been • Lino had four sons– Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and
held that the rules on the conf irmation of imperfect title do Esteban–the fourth being Aristedes’s grandfather. Upon Lino’s
not apply unless and until the land classified as forest land death, his four sons inherited the property and divided it among
is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that themselves.
it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the • But by 1966, Esteban’s wife, Magdalena, had become the

administrator of all the properties inherited by the Velazco sons provided that it is established that the applicant has been in open,
from their father, Lino. After the death of Esteban and Magdalena, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land under a
their son Virgilio succeeded them in administering the properties, bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier
including Lot 9864-A, which originally belonged to his uncle,
Eduardo Velazco. It was this property that was sold by Eduardo 2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
Velazco to Malabanan. Decree may a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable
be deemed private land and therefore susceptible to acquisition by
• Among the evidence presented by Malabanan during trial was prescription in accordance with the Civil Code? NO
a Certification dated 11 June 2001, issued by the Community
Environment & Natural Resources Office, Department of Ruling:
Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-DENR), which stated
that the subject property was “verified to be within the Alienable The Pertition is denied.
or Disposable land per Land Classification Map No. 3013 established
under Project No. 20-A and approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on (1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
March 15, 1982.” On 3 December 2002, the RTC approved the Decree, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and
application for registration. confirms that “those who by themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
• The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
arguing that Malabanan had failed to prove that the property disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
belonged to the alienable and disposable land of the public acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945” have acquired
domain, and that the RTC had erred in finding that he had been in ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the
possession of the property in the manner and for the length of length and quality of their possession.
time required by law for confirmation of imperfect title. On 23
February 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling and (a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June
dismissed the application of Malabanan. 1945 and does not require that the lands should have been
alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, the
Issues: possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his title
1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject
domain may be registered under Section 14(1) of Presidential to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.
Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration
Decree, should the land be classified as alienable and disposable as (b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public
of June 12, 1945 or earlier? NO, it sufficient that such classification Land Act is further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property
occur at any time prior to the filing of the applicant for registration Registration Decree.

that Malabanan has acquired ownership over the subject property

Amendments to Section 48b of CA 141: under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive
Originally- OCENPO since July 26, 1894 or earlier evidence to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as his
June 22, 1957 (RA 1942)- OCENPO for 30 years predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property
January 25, 1977 (PD1073)- OCENPO since June 12, 1945 or earlier since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date
back their possession, according to their own evidence —the Tax
(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Declarations they presented in particular —is to the year 1948.
Decree, consider that under the Civil Code, prescription is Thus, they cannot avail themselves of registration under Section
recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
property. However, public domain lands become only patrimonial
property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for
disposable. There must also be an express government registration. While the subject property was declared as alienable
manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer or disposable in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no
retained for public service or the development of national wealth, longer intended for public use service or for the development of
under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when the property has the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil
become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition Code. The classification of the subject property as alienable and
of property of the public dominion begin to run. disposable land of the public domain does not change its status as
property of the public dominion under Article 420(2) of the Civil
(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.
person acquires ownership of patrimonial property by prescription
under the Civil Code is entitled to secure registration thereof under G.R. No. 176885 July 5, 2010
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial DOMINGO ESPINOSA, Respondent.
property may be acquired, one ordinary and other extraordinary.
Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires Facts:
ownership of a patrimonial property through possession for at • On March 2, 1999. Espinosa filed with the MTC of Cebu an
least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under application for land registration.
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person’s uninterrupted • He alleged that :
adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) o the land is alienable and disposable
years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership. o he purchased the said property from his mother Isabela on
July 4, 1970
It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish o that he has been in OCENPO in the concept of an owner over

the said property for more than 30 years such date. The earliest tax declaration was in 1965.
• Proof presented:
o Tax Declaration On the ground und Section 14(2) which provides that those
o Survey plan describing land as alienable and disposable (June who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription
25, 1963) under the provision of existing laws. What is applicable here is the
• Republic contends that Espinosa did not comply with Section New Civil Code.
48b of CA 141 which requires OCENPO in the concept of an owner
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
• MTC granted the application for registration
• CA dismissed Republic’s appeal and based the grant on the 30 (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
year OCENPO torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks,
shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
Issue: WON Espinosa’s confirmation of imp erfect title should be
granted? NO (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use,
and are intended for some public service or for the development of
Ruling: the national wealth.
Espinosa’s claim is based on Section 14 (2) of PD 1529 Property Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer
Registration Decree and not on Section 14(1). He does not allege intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the
that he or his predecessors in interest have been in OCENPO of the patrimonial property of the State.
property in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
His main allegation was the possession of the property for more Only private properties are susceptible to prescription. As long
than 30 years. as the property belongs to the state though alienable and
disposable still remains property of public dominion unless
Amendments to Section 48b of CA 141: classified by the government as patrimonial and no longer needed
Originally- OCENPO since July 26, 1894 or earlier for public use, public service and development of the national
June 22, 1957 (RA 1942)- OCENPO for 30 years wealth. Such act must be a positive act from the government.
January 25, 1977 (PD1073)- OCENPO since June 12, 1945 or earlier
In the case at bar, the property was never declared patrimonial
Even assuming that his ground was Section 14(1), his and no longer needed for public use, public service and
possession should have begun on January 24, 1947 or prior to development of the national wealth. Such act must be a positive
January 25, 1977 (effectivity of amendment to 48b of CA 141. In the act from the government. Hence cannot be acquired through
case at bar, he never alleged to have possessed the property on prescription.

patrimonial property of the State? – When there is a declaration by

Section 14(2) the government that these are alienable or disposable and are no
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by longer intended for public use or public service.
prescription under the provision of existing laws.  Only when such lands have become patrimonial can the
 Properties of public dominion cannot be acquired by prescription period for the acquisition of property of the
prescription. No matter how long the possession of the public dominion begin to run.
properties has been, there can be no prescription against  THUS, where land is already a private land, the applicant
the State regarding property of public domain. EXCEPT: has the right to register the same under Section 14(2) even
Where the law itself so provides. if the possession thereof for the required prescriptive
 Thus, patrimonial property of the State may be subject of period commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945 .
acquisition through prescription as Section 14(2) specifically
allows qualified individuals to apply for registration of Prescription – one acquires ownership and other real rights
property, ownership of which he has acquired by through the lapse of time in the manner and under the action laid
prescription under existing laws. down by law.
Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides for the legal foundation for
the application of Section 14(2): 2 Kinds of Prescription
Article 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men are 1. Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription – acquires ownership of a
susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of patrimonial property through possession for at least 10 years, in
the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall good faith and with just title
not be the object of prescription. 2. Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription – a person’s uninterrupted
adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least 30 years,
regardless of good faith or just title
 Under the Civil Code, it is clear that where lands of the
 Section 14(2) puts into operation the entire regime of
public domain are patrimonial and, hence, private in
prescription under the Civil Code, which does not hold true
character, they are susceptible to acquisitive prescription.
with respect Section 14(1)
 Public domain lands that are NOT susceptible to acquisitive
 In order for Section 14(2) to apply, there must be an
prescription are timber lands and mineral lands as the
express declaration by the State that the public dominion
Constitution proscribes private ownership of timber or
property is no longer intended for public service or the
mineral lands.
development of the national wealth or that the property
 What is referred to by the phrase “by prescription under
has been converted into patrimonial.
the provision of existing laws” unmistakably refers to the
Civil Code as a valid basis for the registration of lands.
o Without such express declaration, the property,
When shall land of public dominion shall form part of the even if classified as alienable or disposable,
remains property of the public dominion, and thus

incapable of acquisition by prescription . Computation of prescription

o Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly  In the computation of time necessary for prescription, the
enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation present possessor may complete the period necessary for
in cases where the President is duly authorized by prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor
law. (Malabanan vs. Republic) or predecessor-in-interest.
 It is presumed that the present possessor who was also the
Where prescription applies ? possessor at a previous time, has continued to be in
 All things which are within the commerce of men are possession during the intervening time, unless there is
susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. proof to the contrary.
Where prescription DOES not apply? Distinguish Prescription from Laches

 Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not Prescription Laches
patrimonial in character shall not be object of prescription Concerned with the fact of delay Concerned with the effect of
delay
What is good faith of the possessor? Is a matter of time Is principally a question of
 The good faith consists in the reasonable belief that the inequity of permitting a claim to
person from whom he received the thing was the owner be enforced
thereof, and could transmit his ownership.
This inequity is being founded
When is there just title? on some change in the
 There is just title when the adverse claimant came into condition of the property or the
possession of the property through one of the modes relation of the parties
recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other Is statutory Not statutory
real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not Applies in equity Applies at law
transmit any right. Based on a fixed time Is not based on a fixed time
Concept of possession for purposes of prescription Section 14(3)

 To consolidate prescription, the possession must be that of (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or
owner, and it must be public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the
 Acts of a possessory character done by virtue of a license or existing laws.
mere tolerance on the part of the real owner are not
sufficient.
(1) Ownership of abandoned river beds by accession

 Refers to acquisition of ownership of private lands or

abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion Requisites for the application of Art. 457: (GEA)
under existing laws 1. That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
 Under Art. 461 of the Civil Code, river beds which are 2. That it be made through the effects of the current of the
abandoned through the natural change in the course of the water; and
waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are 3. That the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the
occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. banks of rivers.
 However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed  In the absence of evidence that the change in the course of
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value the river was sudden or that it occurred through avulsion,
thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area the PRESUMPTION is that the change was gradual and
occupied by the new bed. caused by accretion and erosion.
 The right of the owner of the land to additions thereto by
Requisites for the application of Art. 461: (SPNAC) accretion has been said to rest in the law of nature, and to
1. The change must be sudden in order that the old river may be analogous to the right of the owner of a tree to its fruits,
be identified; and the owner of flocks and herd to their natural increase.
2. The changing of the course must be more or less
permanent , and not temporary overflooding of another’s (3) Accretion along the banks of creeks, streams, and lakes
land; Art. 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 remains to be in
3. The change of the river must be a natural one; effect, reads:
a. Caused by natural forces and not by artificial means
4. There must be definite abandonment by the government Article 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon lands contiguous
a.If the government shortly after the change decides to creeks, streams, rivers, and lakes, by accessions or sediments
and actually takes steps to bring the river to its old from the waters thereof, belong to the owners of such lands.
bed, Art. 462 will not apply for it cannot be said that  Alluvial deposits along the banks of creeks, streams, and
there was abandonment. lakes do not form part of the public domain as the alluvial
5. The river must continue to exist property automatically belongs to the owner of the estate
a.The river must not completely dry up or disappear to which it may have been added.
 But the owner of the adjoining property must register the
(2) Ownership by right of accretion along river banks same under the Torrens system; otherwise, the alluvial
 Art. 457 of the Civil Code provides that to the owners of property may be subject to acquisition through prescription
lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion by 3rd persons
which they gradually receive from the eff ects of the current  Alluvion must be due to the effects of the current and the
of the waters

exclusive work of nature. In the early 1930’s, the Grandes decided to have their land surveyed
Accretion does not automatically become registered land for registration purposes. The land was described to have Cagayan
 Accretion does not become automatically registered land River as the northeastern boundary, as stated in the title.
just because the lot which receives it is covered by a • By 1958, the bank thereof had receded to a distance of about
Torrens title thereby making the alluvial property 105 meters from its original site, and an alluvial deposit of 19,964
imprescriptible square meters (1.9964 hectares), more or less, had been added to
 Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and registration the registered area.
under the Torrens system of that ownership is quite • The Grandes filed an action for quieting of title against the
another. Calalungs, stating that they were in peaceful and continuous
 Ownership over the accretion received by the land possession of the land created by the alluvial deposit until
adjoining a river is governed by the Civil Code. September 1948, when the Calalungs entered upon the land
Imprescriptibility of registered land is provided in the under claim of ownership.
registration law. • Respondents claim ownership in themselves, asserting that
 To bring an area formed by accretion under the Torrens they have been in continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of
system, there must be an application for registration filed said portion, since prior to the year 1933 to the present and claims
for the purpose. that they have acquired the property through prescription.
 In order that the accretion may be protected by the rule on • The CFI ruled in favor of the Grandes and ordered the
imprescriptibility, it is necessary that the same be brought Calalungs to vacate the premises and pay for damages. (Based its
under the operation of the Torrens system. Where the decision on Art. 457 of the NCC-The land in question being an
adjoining land owner does not cause the registration of the accretion to the mother or registered land of the plaintiffs, the
increment to his property, the same may be acquired by 3 rd accretion belongs to the plaintiffs)
persons. This is illustrated in the case of Grande vs. CA • Upon appeal to the CA, however, the decision was reversed.
Held that an accretion to registered land, while declared by specific
G.R. No. L-17652 June 30, 1962 provision of the Civil Code to belong to the owner of the land as a
IGNACIO GRANDE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF natural accession thereof, does not ipso jure become entitled to
APPEALS, DOMINGO CALALUNG, and ESTEBAN CALALUNG, the protection of the rule of imprescriptibility of title established by
respondents. the Land Registration Act. Such protection does not extend
beyond the area given and described in the certificate.
Facts:
• The Grandes are owners of a parcel of land in Isabela with an Issue: Whether respondents have acquired the alluvial property in
area of 3.5032 hectares, by inheritance from their deceased question through prescription? YES
mother, Patricia Angui, who likewise, inherited it from her parents.
Ruling:

Art. 457 provides that “to the owner of lands adjoining the banks witness (Laureana Rodriguez) who claims that the Calalungs only
of rivers, belongs the accretion which they gradually receive from entered the land in 1948, the Calalungs have been held to have
the effects of the current of the waters." acquired the land created by the alluvial deposits by prescription.
There can be no dispute that both under Article 457 of the New This is because the possession took place in 1934, when the law to
Civil Code and Article 366 of the old, petitioners are the lawful be followed was Act 190, and not the New Civil Code, which only
owners of said alluvial property, as they are the registered owners took effect in 1950.
of the land which it adjoins. The question is whether the accretion  Similarly, in Cureg vs. IAC, it was held that the accretion
becomes automatically registered land just because the lot which does not automatically become registered land just
receives it is covered by a Torrens title thereby making the alluvial because the lot which receives such accretion is covered by
property imprescriptible. a Torrens title. As such, it must also be placed under the
SC agrees with the CA that it does not automatically become operation of the Torrens system.
registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and
registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is quite (4) Alluvial formation along the seashore forms part of the public
another. Ownership over the accretion received by the land domain
adjoining a river is governed by the Civil Code. Imprescriptibility of  In CONTRAST to the rule on accretion, alluvial formation
registered land is provided in the registration law. along the seashore is part of the PUBLIC DOMAIN and,
Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Acts does therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse possession by
not vest or give title to the land, but merely confirms and private persons.
thereafter protects the title already possessed by the owner,  It is outside the commerce of man, unless otherwise
making it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. But to declared by either the executive or legislative branch of the
obtain this protection, the land must be placed under the operation government.
of the registration laws wherein certain judicial procedures have  Since the land is foreshore land or property of public
been provided. dominion , its disposition falls under the exclusive
In the case at bar, petitioners never sought registration of the supervision and control of the Bureau of Lands (now Lands
disputed alluvial property. Therefore, it never became registered Management Bureau)
property, and hence is not entitled or subject to the protection of  Until a formal declaration on the part of the government,
imprescriptibility enjoyed by registered property under the Torrens through executive department or the legislature, to the
system. Consequently, it was subject to acquisition through effect that the land is no longer needed for
prescription by third persons. a. Coast guard service;
b.for public use; or
Since the Calalungs proved that they have been in possession of c. for special industries
the land since 1933 or 1934 via two credible witnesses (Pedro they continue to be part of the public domain, not available
Laman and Vicente Bacan), as opposed to the Grande’s si ngle

for private appropriation or ownership. Note: what was really awarded to Eugenio de Jesus was only
 The adjoining registered owner of foreshore land cannot 20.6400 hectares and not 33 hectares as applied for by him.
claim ownership thereof by right of accretion. Unless he
has filed the appropriate application, like a revocable Facts:
permit application with the Lands Mgt. Bureau, he has not • On January 22, 1921, Eugenio de Jesus, the father of
right whatsoever in the foreshore land as to be entitled to respondent Alejandro de Jesus, applied with the Bureau of Lands
protection in the courts of justice. for Sales Patent (Sales Application No. 5436) of a 33-hectare
situated in barrio Libaron, Municipality of Davao (now Davao City).
Revocable permit application – temporary authority to occupy a The property applied for was a portion of what was then known as
foreshore land, upon payment of permit fees, and cannot be used Lot 522 of the Davao Cadastre.
to acquire the land in full ownership. • Because the area conveyed had not been actually surveyed at
the time Eugenio de Jesus filed h is Sales Application, the Bureau of
Section 14(4) Lands conducted a survey under Plan Bsd-1514. On July 29, 1936,
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other the plan was approved and the land awarded to Eugenio de Jesus
manner provided for by law. was designated as Lot Nos. 1176-A, 1176-B-1-A and 1176-B-1-B with an
aggregate area of 20.6400 hectares, Bsd-10153, City of Davao.
Reservation for a specific purpose by President Proclamation • On August 28, 1936, the Director of Lands ordered an
 The privilege of occupying public lands with a view of amendment of the Sales Application of Eugenio de Jesus stating
preemption confers no contractual or vested right in the that "a portion of the land covered by Sales Application No. 5436
lands occupied and the authority of the President to (E-3231) of Eugenio de Jesus is needed by the Philippine Army for
withdraw such lands for sale or acquisition by the public, or military camp site purposes, the said application is amended so as
to preserve them for public use, PRIOR to the divesting by to exclude therefrom portion "A" as shown in the sketch on the
the government of title thereof, stands even though this back thereof, and as thus amended, it will continue to be given due
may defeat the imperfect title of a settler. course." The area excluded was Identified as Lot 1176-B-2, the very
 Lands covered by reservation are NOT subject to entry, and land in question, consisting of 12.8081 hectares.
no lawful settlement on them can be acquired. • On September 7, 1936, President Manuel L. Quezon issued
Proclaimation No. 85 withdrawing Lot No. 1176-B-2 from sale and
This was reiterated in… settlement and reserving the same for military purposes, under the
administration of the Chief of Staff, Philippine Army.
G.R. No. L-40912 September 30, 1976 • On November 29, 1939, Eugenio de Jesus paid P660.45
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the MINDANAO covering the 8th and 10th installment for 20.6400 hectares, the
MEDICAL CENTER, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and remaining area after his Sales Application was amended. This
ALEJANDRO Y DE JESUS, respondents. payment did not include the military camp site (Lot No. 1176-B-2) as

the same had already been excluded from the Sales Application at Medical Center
the time the payment was made. Thereafter, or on May 15, 1948, • CA decreed in the name of appellants(De Jesus) an area of
then Director of Lands Jose P. Dans ordered the issuance of patent 12.8081 square meters, but said appellant is hereby ordered to
to Eugenio de Jesus, pursuant to his Sales Application for "a tract relinquish to the appellee(MCC) that portion of Lot 1176-B-2 which
of land having an area of 20.6400 hectares, situated in the barrio of is occupied by the medical center and nervous disease pavilion and
Poblacion, City of Davao. 4 On the same date, then Secretary of their reasonable appurtenances
Agriculture and Natural Resources Mariano Garchitorena granted a • Petitioner Mindanao Medical Center contends that it has
Sales Patent to Eugenio de Jesus for "a tract of agricultural public registerable title over the whole contested area of 12.8081
land situated in the City of Davao, Island of Mindanao, Philippines, hectares, designated Lot No. 1176-B-2, and not only on a portion
containing an area of 20 hectares, 64 ares, and 00 centares. thereof occupied by the Medical Center, its nervous disease
• On August 11, 1956, President Ramon Magsaysay revoked pavilion and their reasonable appurtenances
Proclamation No. 85 and declared the disputed Lot 1176-B-2 open to
disposition under the provisions of the Public land Act for Issue:WON MMC has registrable title over the whole contested
resettlement of the squatters in the Piapi Beach, Davao City. In area of 12.8081 hectares by virtue of Proclamation No. 350 serving
the following October 9, President Magsaysay revoked this area for medical site purposes? YES
Proclamation No. 328 and reserved the same Lot No. 1176-B-2 for
medical center site purposes under the administration of the Ruling:
Director of Hospital.(Proc 350) 1. By virtue of Proclamation 350, such land grant is constitutive of a
• Whereupon, on December 6, 1969, petitioner Mindanao "fee simple" tile or absolute title in favor of petitioner Mindanao
Medical Center applied for the Torrens registration of the Medical Center. Thus, Section 122 of the Act, which governs the
12.8081-hectare Lot 1176-B-2 with the Court of First Instance of registration of grants or patents involving public lands, provides
Davao. The Medical Center claimed "fee simple" title to the land on that "Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to
the strength of proclamation No. 350 reserving the area for the Government of the Philippines are alienated, granted, or
medical center site purposes. conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same
• Respondent Alejandro de Jesus, the son and shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act [Land
successor-in-interest of sale applicant Eugenio de Jesus, opposed Registration Act, Act 496] and shall become registered lands."
the registration on the ground that his father, Eugenio de Jesus, Certainly, proclamation no. 350 is free of any legal infirmity. It
had aquired a vested right on the subject lot by virtue of the Order proceeds from the recognized competence of the president to
of Award issued to him by the Director of Lands. A certain Arsenio reserve by executive proclamation alienable lands of the public
Suazo likewise filed his opposition to the registration on the claim domain for a specific public use or service.
that the 2-hectare portion on the northeastern part of Lot 1176-B-2 1. Seen in the light of Patent, and Sales Order for Issuance of
belongs to him. Patent, and Sales Patent, invariably bearing the area awarded to
• TC granted the application for registration of Mindanao sales applicant Eugenio de Jesusas 20.6400 hectares, it becomes

imperative to conclude that what was really awarded to Eugenio de public domain except by lease not exceeding 1,000
jesus was only 20.6400 hectares and not 33 hectares as applied for hectares
by him.  1987 Constitution, Sec. 3, Art. XII provides that private
2. Lands covered by reservation are not subject to entry, and no corporations or associations may not hold such alienable
lawful settlement on them can be acquired. 23 The claims o0f lands of the public domain EXCEPT by lease, for a period
persons who have settled on occupied, and improved a parcel of not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25
public land which is later included in a reservation are considered years, and NOT to exceed 1,000 hectares in area
worthy of protection and are usually respected, but where the The Susi Doctrine
President, as authorized by law, issuesa proclamation reserving  In Susi vs. Razon, the SC held a doctrinal precept, that
certain lands and warning all persons to depart therefrom, this where AT THE TIME the corporation acquired the land, its
terminates any rights previously avquired in such lands by a person predecessors-in-interest had been in possession and
who was settled thereon in order to obtain a preferential right of occupation thereof in the manner and for the period
purchase. 24 And patents for lands which have been previously prescribed by law as to entitle him to registration in his
granted, reserved from sale, or appropriate, are void. name, then the proscription against corporations acquiring
3. Eugenio de Jesus cannot be said to be possessed of that alienable lands of the public domain except through lease
"proprietary " right over the whole 33 hectares in 1936 including does NOT apply for the land was no longer public land but
the disputed 12.8081 hectares for at that time this 12.8081-hectare private property.
lot had already been severed from the mass of disposable public Purpose of Prohibition
lands by Proclamation No. 85 and excluded in the Sales Award.  To transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable
Impoverishment of Eugenio's assets as a consequence of such land of the public domain (public lands) to a qualified
donation is therefore farfetehed. In fact, even if We were to individual
assume in gratia argumenti that the 12.8081-hectare lot was  Prohibiting corporations is virtually removing the vehicle to
included in the Sales Award, still the same may not be the subject circumvent the constitutional intent
of donation. In Sales Award, what is conferred on the applicant is  Without the constitutional prohibition, individuals who
merely the right "to take possession of the land so that he could already acquired maximum area of alienable lands of the
comply with the r equirements prescribed by law." public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire
more alienable public lands.
Land Acquisition by private Corporations
 1935 Constitution expressly allowed private juridical entities G.R. No. 73002 December 29, 1986
(corporations) to acquire alienable lands of the public THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE
domain NOT exceeding 1,024 hectares APPELLATE COURT and ACME PLYWOOD & VENEER CO. INC., ETC.,
 1973 Constitution, Sec. 11, Art. XIV provides that NO private respondents.
corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the

alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease not to exceed

Facts: 1,000 hectares (a prohibition not found in the 1935 Constitution
which was in force in 1962 when Acme purchased the lands in
• Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a corp. represented by Mr. question from the Infiels), it was reversible error to decree
Rodolfo Nazario, acquired on October 29, 1962, from Mariano and registration in favor of Acme Section 48, paragraphs (b) and (c), of
Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe 5 parcels of land which Commonwealth Act No. 141
has been in possession of the Infiels over the land dates back
before the Philippines was discovered by Magellan (time Issues:
immemorial) 1. W/N the land is already a private land - YES
• Court of First Instance of Isabela ordered registration in favor 2. W/N the constitutional prohibition against their acquisition by
of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of five parcels of land private corporations or associations applies- NO
measuring 481, 390 square meters, more or less. TC f inding were:
o That the constitution of the Republic of the Philippines of 1935 Ruling:
is applicable as the sale took place on October 29, 1962; 1. SEC. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines,
o That the land sought to be registered is a private land pursuant occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such
to the provisions of Republic Act No. 3872 granting absolute lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been
ownership to members of the non-Christian Tribes on land perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of
occupied by them or their ancestral lands, whether with the the province where the land is located for confirmation of their
alienable or disposable public land or within the public domain claims, and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the
o Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., has introduced more than Land Registration Act, to wit:
P45M worth of improvements ownership and possession of the xxx xxx xxx
land sought to be registered was duly recognized by the (b) Those who by themselves or through their
government when the Municipal Officials of Maconacon, Isabela predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
donated part of the land as the townsite of Maconacon Isabela and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of
the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or
• IAC affirmed CFI: in favor of Acme ownership, for at least thirty y ears immediately preceding the f iling
• The Director of Lands takes no issue with any of these findings of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented
except as to the applicability of the 1935 Constitution to the matter by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to
at hand. Concerning this, he asserts that, the registration have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant
proceedings have been commenced only on July 17, 1981, or long and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of
after the 1973 Constitution had gone into effect, the latter is the this chapter.
correctly applicable law; and since section 11 of its Article XIV (c) Members of the National Cultural minorities who by themselves
prohibits private corporations or associations from holding or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open.

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had already
lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title.
disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not
30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in subsection (b) acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024
hereof. hectares.
As interpreted in several cases, when the conditions as specified in The purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings
the provisions of law are complied with, the possessor is deemed were brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which
to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, a forbids corporations from owning lands of the public domain
government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into
being issued. The land, therefore, ceases to be of the public domain effect, or invalidate transactions then perfectly valid and proper.
and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. This Court has already held, in analogous circumstances, that the
The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of Constitution cannot impair vested rights.
which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be  The Acme case is now the prevailing jurisprudence on the
evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the matter.
strength of said patent.  When natural persons have fulfilled the required statutory
If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land was already private land period of possession, the Public Land Act confers on them a
to which the Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable title on legally sufficient and transferable title to the land, which
October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it from said owners, it must are already private lands because of acquisitive prescription
also be conceded that Acme had a perfect right to make such and which could be validly transferred or sold to private
acquisition, there being nothing in the 1935 Constitution then in corporations.
force (or, for that matter, in the 1973 Constitution which came into Corporation Sole Qualified to apply for registration
effect later) prohibiting corporations from acquiring and owning  It was held in Republic vs. IAC and Roman Catholic
private lands Archbishop of Lucena that a corporation sole is qualified to
own and register private agricultural land
 A corporation sole by the nature of its incorporation is
2. NO 1935 Constitution is applicable. vested with the right to purchase and hold real estate and
If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land was already private land personal property
to which the Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable title on  It is a special form of corporation usually associated with
October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it from said owners, it must the clergy
also be conceded that Acme had a perfect right to make such  It consists of one person only, and his successors are
acquisition. There also being nothing in the 1935 Constitution that incorporated by law in order to give them some legal
might be construed to prohibit corporations from purchasing or

capacities and advantages particularly that of perpetuity, BINAN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., respondents. MINISTER OF
which in their natural persons they could not have had. NATURAL RESOURCES and DIRECTOR OF LANDS, intervenors.
 In Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao vs.
Land Registration Commission , the SC held that “bishops Facts:
or archbishops, as sole corporations are merely • On January 21, 1953, the Director of Lands, after bidding,
administrators of the church properties that come to their awarded to Biñan Development Co., Inc. on the basis of its 1951
possession, and which they hold in trust for the church. Sales Application No. V-6834 Cadastral Lot No. 281 located at Barrio
Thus, church properties acquired by the incumbent of a Tamugan, Guianga (Baguio District), Davao City with an area of
corporation sole pass, by operation of law, upon his death, about two hundred fifty hectares.
not to his heirs but to his successor in office. • Some occupants of the lot protested against the sale.
Vested Rights not impaired by subsequent law • The Director found that the protestants (defendants in the
 A right is vested when the right to enjoyment, present or 1961 ejectment suit, some of whom are now petitioners herein)
prospective, has become the property of some particular entered the land only after it was awarded to the corporation and,
person or persons as a present interest. therefore, they could not be regarded as bona fide occupants
 Vested right is some right or interest in property which has thereof. The Director characterized them as squatters.
become fixed and established and is no longer open to • He issued a writ of execution but the protestants defied the
doubt or controversy. writ and refused to vacate the land.
 The due process clause prohibits the annihilation of vested • Since the alleged occupants refused to vacate the land, the
rights. corporation filed against them on February 27, 1961 in the Court of
 In Acme, the SC declared that the purely accidental First Instance of Davao, Civil Case No. 3711, an ejectment suit
circumstance that confirmation proceedings were brought (accion publiciana with 40 defendants).
under the aegis of a subsequent law which forbids • The Director of Lands in his memorandum dated June 29, 1974
corporations from owning lands of the public domain for the Secretary of Natural Resources, recommending approval of
cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came the sales patent, pointed out that the purchaser corporation had
into effect, or invalidate transactions then perfectly valid complied with the said requirements long before the effectivity of
and proper. the Constitution, that the land in question was free from claims and
 The Constitution or subsequent law cannot impair vested conflicts and that the issuance of the patent was in conformity with
rights. the guidelines prescribed in Opinion No. 64, series of 1973, of
Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos and was an exception to
the prohibition in section 11, Article XIV of the Constitution and the
G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 LAUSAN AYOG, et al,
Secretary of Natural resources approved the patent.
petitioners, vs. JUDGE VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., Court of First
• Before the patent was issued (Aug. 14, 1975), there was a trial,
Instance of Davao, Branch I, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF DAVAO, and
and 15 of the defendants testified that they entered the disputed

land long before 1951 and that they planted it to coconuts, coffee, Some of the petitioners were not defendants in the ejectment
jackfruit and other fruit trees. case. The Court held that the said constitutional prohibition has no
• However the court did not give credence to their testimonies. retroactive application to the sales application of Biñan
They found out that the plantings on the land could not be more Development Co., Inc. because it had already acquired a vested
than ten years old, meaning that they were not existing in 1953 right to the land applied for at the time the 1973 Constitution took
when the sales award was made. effect.
• Hence, the trial court ordered the defendants to vacate the That vested right has to be respected. lt could not be abrogated by
land and to restore the possession thereof to the corporation. CA the new Constitution. Section 2, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution
affirmed. allows private corporations to purchase public agricultural lands
• After the record was remanded to the trial court, the not exceeding one thousand and twenty-four hectares. Petitioners'
corporation filed a motion for execution. The defendants, some of prohibition action is barred by the doctrine of vested rights in
whom are now petitioners herein, opposed the motion. They constitutional law.
contended that the adoption of the Constitution, which took effect SC cannot review the factual findings of the trial court and the
on January 17, 1973, was a supervening fact which rendered it Court of Appeals, they cannot entertain petitioners' contention
legally impossible to execute the lower court's judgment. that many of them by themselves and through their
(supervening fact) predecessors-in-interest have possessed portions of land even
• They invoked the constitutional prohibition, already before the war. They should have filed homestead or free patent
mentioned, that "no private corporation or association may hold applications. Their jurisdiction is limited to the resolution of the
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed legal issue as to whether the 1973 Constitution is an obstacle to the
one thousand hectares in area." The lower court suspended action implementation of the trial court's 1964 final and executory
on the motion for execution because of the manifestation of the judgment ejecting the petitioners. On that issue, we have no choice
defendants that they would file a petition for prohibition in this but to sustain its enforceability.
Court. On August 24, 1977, the instant prohibition action was filed. Petition is dismissed for lack of merit but with the clarification that
the said judgment cannot be enforced against those petitioners
Issue: herein who were not defendants in the ejectment case, Civil Case
No. 3711, and over whom the lower court did not acquire
WON the 1973 Constitutional prohibition on private corporations jurisdiction. The contempt proceeding is also dismissed.
from purchasing public lands apply to a 1953 sales award made by
the Bureau of Lands considering the sales patent and Torrens title
were issued in 1975? NO  In Republic vs. CA and Baloy, the SC held that private land
could be deemed to have become public land only bi vurtue
Ruling: of a juridical declaration after due notice and hearing.
Without a judgment or order declaring the land to be

public, its private character and the possessory information hereof.

title over it must be respected.
 Subsection (b) was later amended by RA 1942 dated June
Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles 22, 1957
 Governing provision is Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 (Public Land
Act) approved on November 7, 1936 "(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
SEC. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at
lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the
perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of application for confirmation of title except when prevented by
the province where the land is located for confirmation of their war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
claims, and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and
Land Registration Act, to wit: shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
xxx xxx xxx chapter."
(b) Those who by themselves or through their  Subsection (b) and (c) were later amended by PD 1073
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive dated January 25, 1977
and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of  “agricultural lands” was changed to “alienable and
the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or disposable lands of the public domain”
ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the  Possession must be since “June 12, 1945
filing of the application for confirmation of title except when
prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively “Section 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c),
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the
Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and
under the provisions of this chapter. disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by
(c) Members of the National Cultural minorities who by themselves the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest , under a
or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open. bonafide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.”
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether
disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least
30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in subsection (b) As amended, Sec. 48(b) and (c) of CA 141, as amended, reads:

immediately preceding the filing of the application for

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in confirmation of title
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious  PD 1073 dated January 25, 1977 further amended CA 141 by
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the providing that it shall apply only to alienable and disposable
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, lands of the public domain and reverted the required
since June 12, 1945, except when prevented by war or force possession and occupation to June 12, 1945
majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed
all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be  CA 141 remains to this day the special law governing the
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. classification and disposition of lands of the public domain
(c) Members of the National Cultural minorities who by themselves other than timber and mineral alnds
or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open.  As presently phrased, Sec. 48 of the Public Land Act
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of requires possession of lands of the public domain must be
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain , under a bona from June 12, 1945 for the same to be acquired through
fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945, shall be entitled to the judicial confirmation of imperfect title
rights granted in subsection (b) hereof.  Sec. 48(b) has a counterpart provision in PD 1529 (Property
Registration Decree), which is Section 14(1)
Period of Possession (Historical Background)  There are no material difference between Sec. 14(1)
 Act No. 926 or the 1st Public Land Act passed on October 7, of the PRD and Sec. 48(b0 of the PLA
1903 provides for the OCENPO of agricultural public lands  PLA refers to agricultural lands of public domain
for a period of 10 years whereas PRD uses the term alienable and
 Act No. 2874 of the 2 nd Public Land Act approved on disposable lands of the public domain
November 29, 1919 , applied to lands of the public domain  But the Constitution declares that “alienable lands of
except timber and mineral lands, the OCENPO of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural
agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide lands”
claim of acquisition of ownership since July 26, 1894  The subject lands under Sec. 48(b) of the PLA and
 CA 141 or the Public Land Act approved on November 7, Sec. 14(1) of the PRD are virtually the same, with the
1936, but took effect December 1, 1936, retained the latter operationalizing the registration of lands of
requirement under Act. No. 2874 of possession and public domain and codifying the various law relative
occupation of lands of the public domain since July 26, 1894 to the registration of property
but the application was limited only to F ilipino citizens
 RA 1942 dated June 22, 1957 amended CA 141 Sec. 48(b) by Rights of Cultural Minorities to their lands
requiring possession and occupation for at least 30 years  RA 3872 dated June 18, 1964 amended Sec. 48 adding
subsection (c)

 The amendment is founded on the right of the national right of acquisition is governed by Chapter VII on judicial
cultural communities to avail of the benefits of registration confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles
over lands occupied and settled by them to enhance their Requisites for Registration under Sec. 48 (b) of the PLA and Sec.
social and economic status as a distinct sector of society 14(1) of PRD
 To address the centuries-old neglect of the Philippine a. The land is alienable public land
indigenous peoples, Congress passed and approved bRA b. His possession and occupation has been open, continuous,
8371, known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) exclusive, notorious, and in the concept of owner
on October 29, 1997 (OCENCO)
 It granted these people the ownership and c. Since June 12, 1945
possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral
lands based on indigenous concept of ownership  A certificate of title is void when it covers property of
under customary law which in turn traces its origin public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral
to native title lands
Extension of Period to file application  Even in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for
 RA 9176 dated November 13, 2002 was enacted value, such title shall be cancelled
a. Extending the period to file an application for  In Rep. vs. CA and Naguit, the phrase “since June 12, 1945”
judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete qualifies its antece dent phrase “under bona fide claim of
titles to December 31, 2020 ownership”
b.Further limiting the area applied for to 12 hectares  Hence, what the law merely requires is that the property
c. Providing that all pending applications filed before sough to be registered is already alienable and disposable
the effectivity of the amendatory Act shall be AT THE TIME of application for registration of title is filed.
treated as having been fixed in accordance with the  It is not necessary that the land be first classified as
provisions thereof alienable and disposable before the applicant’s possession
 The extension of the period fixed by law for the filing of under a bona f ide claim of ownership could start.
the application for registration is not jurisdictional but is  The rule on confirmation of imperfect title does not apply
more of a time limitation unless and until the land is classified as alienable and
Registration Proceedings presupposes that land is a public disposable. The reclassification of public lands into
agricultural land alienable or disposable lands is the prerogative of the
 Registration under Sec. 48 (b) of the PLA (CA 141) presumes executive department.
that the land was originally public agricultural land but o The applicant must establish the existence of a
because adverse possession since June 12, 1945, the land positive act of the g overnment such as
has become private. a. presidential proclamation or an executive
 The ownership is based on adverse possession and the order;

b. an administrative action;  Applications for registration shall be heard in the RTC or in

c. reports of investigators from the Bureau of proper cases in a first level court, in the same manner and
Lands (now Lands Mgt. Bureau); and shall be subject to the same procedure as established in the
d. a legislative act or statute PRD
 In Bracewell vs. CA, there can be no imperfect title to be 1. Notice of all such applications, together with a plan
confirmed over lands not yet classified as disposable or of the lands claimed, shall immediately forwarded
alienable. In the absence of such classification, the land to the Director of Lands
remains unclassified public land until released therefrom 2. Prior to the publication for hearing, all of the papers
and open to disposition. in said case shall be transmitted by the clerk to the
 When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the PLA are SolGen or officer acting in his stead
complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired,  The burden is on applicant to prove his positive averments
by operation of law, a right to a grant, without the and not for the govt. or the private oppositors to establish
necessity of a COT being issued. a negative proposition insofar as the applicants’ specific
o The application for confirmation is a mere formality, lots are concerned
the lack of which does not affect the legal 1. Applicant must submit convincing proof of his and
sufficiency of the title as would be evidence by the his PII’s actual, peaceful, and adverse possession in
patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the the concept of owner of the lots during the period
strength of said patent. required by law
o This doctrinal principle has been enunciated in Susi  Whenever any judgment of confirmation or other decree of
vs. Razon the court under Chapter VIII of the PLA shall become final,
 In Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands , the SC recognized an the clerk of court shall certify the fact to the Director of
EXCEPTION to the rule that all lands that were not acquired Lands, with a cert. copy of the decree of confirmation or
from the government, either by purchase or by grant, judgment of the court and the plan and technical
belong to the public domain. description of the land
o Any land that should have been in possession of an 1. The final decree of the court shall be the basis for
occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since the OCT in favor of the persons entitled to the
time immemorial, for such possession would justify property
the presumption that the land had never been part
of the public domain or that it had been a private Lands declared public land in previous registration may be subject
property even before the Spanish conquest. of judicial confirmation
o This principle is rooted in Carino vs. Insular Govt. ,
institutionalizing the concept of native title G.R. No. L-19535 July 10, 1967
Hearing HEIRS OF PELAGIO ZARA; et al, applicants-appellants, vs.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, Government open continuous, notorious and under the claim of ownership.
oppositor-appellees. VICENTE V. DE VILLA, JR., and VICENTE S. • The said proceeding being in rem, the failure of the applicants
DE VILLA, SR., private oppositors-appellees. to appear at the case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 to prove their
imperfect and incomplete title over the property, barred them
Facts: from raising the same issue in another case.
• On August 4, 1960 appellants (Heirs of Zara) filed an • On November 15, 1960 the De Villas (De Villa, Sr. was
application for registration of the land consisting of 107 hectares, subsequently included as oppositor) filed a motion to dismiss,
more or less, situated in the barrio of Sampiro, Municipality of San invoking the same grounds alleged in its opposition, but principally
Juan, Province of Batangas pursuant to the provisions of Act 496. the fact that the land applied for had already been declared public
Alternatively, should the provisions of the Land Registration Act be land by the judgment in the former registration case.
not applicable, applicants invoke the benefits of the provisions of • The trial court, over the objection of the applicants, granted
Chapter VIII, Section 48, subsection (b) of C.A. 141 as amended, on the motion to dismiss by order dated January 27, 1961
the ground that they and their predecessor-in-interest had been in
continuous and adverse possession of the land in concept of owner Issue:
for more than 30 years immediately preceding the application.
• They alleged that the land had been inherited by them from WON the 1949 judgment in the previous case, denying the
their grandfather, Pelagio Zara, who in turn acquired the same application of Vicente S. de V illa, Sr., and declaring the 107 hectares
under a Spanish grant known as "Composicion de Terrenos in question to be public land, precludes a subsequent application
Realengos" issued in 1888. by an alleged possessor for judicial confirmation of title on the
• Oppositions were filed by the Director of Lands, the Director basis of continuous possession for at least thirty years, pursuant to
of Forestry and by Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141? NO
• Villa’s contend that that the parcel of land sought to be
registered by the applicants consisting of 107 hectares, more or Ruling:
less, was included in the area of the parcel of land applied for
registration by Vicente S. de Villa, Sr. in Civil Case No. 26, L.R. Case Section 48(b) of CA 141 provides “Those who by themselves or
No. 601 in this Court, which was decided by this same Court through their predecessors in interest have been in open,
through the then incumbent Judge, the Honorable Juan P. continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
Enriquez, on September 30, 1949; that the parcel sought to be agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
registered by the applicants was declared public land in said acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
decision; that they (the oppositors Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. and preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title,
Vicente S. de Villa, Sr.) have an interest over the land in question except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be
because for a period more than sixty (60) years, the de Villas have conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions
been in possession, and which possession, according to them, was essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a

certificate of title under the pr ovisions of this Chapter. Registration under IPA Law
 RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997,
The right to file an application under the foregoing provision has dated Oct. 29, 1997
been extended by Republic Act No. 2061 to December 31, 1968. (at  It deals with Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) or the
present extended to December 31, 2020) Indigenous Peoples (IPs)
It should be noted that appellants' application is in the  The law allows IPs to obtain recognition of their right of
alternative: for registration of their title of ownership under Act ownership over ancestral lands and ancestral domains by
496 or for judicial confirmation of their "imperfect" title or claim virtue of native title
based on adverse and continuous possession for at least thirty  The 1987 Constitution carries provisions which guarantee
years. It may be that although they were not actual parties in that the rights of tribal Filipinos to their ancestral domains and
previous case the judgment therein is a bar to their claim as owners ancestral lands, and their right to live in a culture distinctly
under the first alternative, since the proceeding was in rem, of their own
which they and their predecessor had constructive notice by
publication. Constitutionality of the IPRA Law
In any case, appellants' imperfect possessory title was not
disturbed or foreclosed by such declaration, for precisely the Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa v. Dept. of Energy and Natural
proceeding contemplated in the aforecited provision of Resources,
Commonwealth Act 141 presupposes that the land is public. G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
The basis of the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein
is not that the land is already privately owned and hence no longer Facts:
part of the public domain, but rather that by reason of the • Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for
claimant's possession for thirty years he is conclusively presumed prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A.
grant. 8371), otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of
Case is remanded to the Court a quo for trial and judgment on the 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
merits, with costs against the private oppositors-appellees. (Implementing Rules).
 Note, however, that in Diaz vs, Republic, the Court ruled • Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following
that in registration cases filed under the provisions of PLA provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground
for judicial confirmation of an incomplete and imperfect that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States
title, an order dismissing an application for registration and ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and
declaring the land as part of public domain constitutes res other natural resources therein, in violation of the Regalian
judicata, not only against the adverse claimant, but also Doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution
against ALL persons. • The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of the indigenous

peoples over ancestral domains which may include natural go, the plaintiff and his ancestors had held the land as owners.
resources. Cruz et al content that, by providing for an • His grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences
all- encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral sufficient for the holding of cattle, according to the custom of the
lands” which might even include private lands found within said country, some of the fences, it seems, having been of much earlier
areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law violate the r ights of private date.
landowners. • His father had cultivated parts and had used parts for
• In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA pasturing cattle, and he had used it for pasture in his turn. They all
defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had
customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving inherited or received the land from his father in accordance with
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these Igorot custom.
provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution. • No document of title, however, had issued from the Spanish
Crown, and although, in 1893-1894 and again in 1896-1897, he made
Issue: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional? NO application for one under the royal decrees then in force, nothing
seems to have come of it
Ruling: • In 1901 a petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law
and the lands were registered to him but process only established
The SC deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted possessory title
and reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same r esult • The lower court granted the application for registration on
transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was March 4, 1904.
dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained. Hence, ancestral • An appeal was filed in behalf of the Government of the
domains may include natural resources – an exception to the Philippines and as US having taken possession of the property for
Regalian Doctrine. military and public purposes. The application for registration was
dismissed.
• Respondent’s argue that Spain assume d, asserted, and had
title to all the land in the Philippines except so far as it saw fit to
The Concept of Native Title permit private titles to be acquired; that there was no prescription
against the Crown, and that, if there was, a decree of June 25, 1880,
Carino v. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449 (1909) required registration within a limited time to make the title good;
that the plaintiff’s land was not registered, and therefore became,
Facts: if it was not always, public land; that the United States succeeded
• The applicant and plaintiff Mateo Carino is an Igorot of the to the title of Spain, and so that the plaintiff has no rights that the
Province of Benguet, where the land lies. For more than fifty years Philippine government is bound to respect.
before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, as far back as the findings • Even if the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered,

because the Philippine Commission’s Act No. 926, of 1903, excepts government which seeks to deprive him of it, for failure to comply
the Province of Benguet among others from its operation. But that with provisions of a subsequently enacted registration act.
act deals with the acquisition of new titles by homestead entries, Title by prescription against the crown existed under Spanish law in
purchase, etc., and the perfecting of titles begun under the Spanish force in the Philippine Islands prior to their acquisition by the
law. United States, and one occupying land in the Province of Benguet
for more than f ifty years before the Treaty of Paris is entitled to the
Issue: Whether the plaintiff owns the land? YES, he owns the land. continued possession thereof.
Whatever the law upon these points may be, and we mean to go
Ruling: no further than the necessities of decision demand, every
presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case
The grant to the plaintiff was a result of prescription as like the present. It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say
mentioned in the royal cedula of October 15, 1754, cited in 3 Phil. that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has
546: been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will
“Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the
shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession, as a Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. (Native
valid title by prescription.” title)
Moreover, the Decree of June 25, 1880 states that possessors for  Justice Puno is his separate opinion said that the IPA
certain times shall be deemed owners; if cultivated land 20 years, if categorically declares ancestral lands and domains held by
uncultivated 30 years. When this decree went into effect, the native title as never to have been public land and are
applicant’s father was owner of the land by the very terms of the private.
decree.  The Court laid down the presumption of a native title:
The acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of a. As far back as testimony or memory went, and
acquiring the lands occupied by the inhabitants, and under the b.Under a claim of private ownership
Organic Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stat. 691, providing that  Justice Puno stressed that ancestral lands and ancestral
property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the domains are not parts of the public domain.
inhabitants, one who actually owned land for many years cannot  Justice Kapunan explained that the doctrine in Carino
be deprived of it for failure to comply with certain ceremonies applies only to lands which have always been considered as
prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine Commission or by private, and not to lands of the public domain, whether
Spanish law. alienable or otherwise.
The Organic Act of the Philippines made a bill of rights embodying Distinction between ownership by native titles and acquisitive
safeguards of the Constitution, and, like the Constitution, extends prescription
those safeguards to all. Every presumption of ownership is in favor Ownership by Native Title Ownership by Acquisitive
of one actually occupying land for many years, and against the

Prescription Ancestral Domains

Presupposes that the land has Involves conversion of the  ALL areas belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland
been held by its possessor and character of the property from waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held
his predecessors-in-interest in alienable public land to private under a claim of ownership, occupied, or possessed by
the concept of an owner since land, which presupposes a ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors,
time immemorial transfer of title from the state communally or individually since time immemorial,
to a private person continuously to the pr esent
The land is not acquired from the  Shall include ancestral lands and lands no longer exclusively
State or its successors-in-interest, occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had
the US, and the Philippine access for their subsistence and traditional activities
Government Ancestral Lands
 The classification of lands of public domain into  Land occupied, possessed, and utilized by individuals,
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national families, and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since
parks is irrelevant to the application of the Carino Doctrine time immemorial, by themselves or through their PII, under
because the Regalian Doctrine which vest in the State claims of individual or traditional group ownership,
ownership of lands of the public domain does not cover continuously, to the present except when interrupted by
ancestral lands and ancestral domains. war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit,
IPRA Law/Definition of Terms stealth, or as a consequence of govt. projects and other
voluntary dealings
Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs)/Indigenous Peoples (IPs) Native Title
 Group of people or homogenous societies identified by  Pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back
self-ascription and ascription by others, who have as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of
continuously lived as organized community or communally private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands
bounded and defined territory and are thus indisputable presumed to have been held that
 They have claims of ownership since time immemorial, way since before the Spanish conquest
occupied, possessed, and utilized such territories, sharing Time Immemorial
common bonds of language, customs, traditions, and other  The period of time when as far back as memory can go,
distinctive cultural traits certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in
 Or those who have, though resistance to political, social, the concept of owner, and utilized a defined territory
and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous devolved to them, by operation of customary law or
religions and cultures, became historically differentiated inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their
from the majority of F ilipinos customs and traditions.
Indigenous Concept of Ownership
 Under IPRA, the ownership given is the indigenous concept  By virtue of the communal character of ownership, the
of ownership under customary law which traces its origin property held in common is meant to benefit the whole
to native title. indigenous community and not merely the individual
 Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view that member
ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall  It is private simply because it is not part of public domain
serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. but it is owned in common by the ICCs/IPs and not by one
 The concept holds that ancestral domains are ICCs/IPs particular person.
private but community property, which belongs to all  The domain cannot be transferred, sold, or conveyed to
generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed, or other persons by any one person.
destroyed. Ownership over Natural Resources in Ancestral Domains/Lands
 Prior to the enactment of IPRA, PD 410 dated march 11, 1974 belong to the State
governed the distribution of ancestral lands  While ancestral domains and ancestral lands are considered
o The Decree defined ancestral lands as part of the private in character, it does not necessarily mean that
public domain which have been in OCENO and natural resources found therein belong to the ICCs/IPs as
cultivation by members of the national cultural private property
communities by themselves or through their  Justice Kapunan opined in Cruz vs. DENR Secretary that the
ancestors, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of inclusion of natural resources in the definition of ancestral
ownership according to their customs and domains does not ipso facto convert the character of such
traditions for a period of at least 30 years before natural resources as private property of the indigenous
the approval of the Decree peoples.
o All unappropriated agricultural lands forming part of  The recognition of ancestral domains as “private but
the public domain occupied and cultivated by community property” of the IP cannot be construed as to
members of the NCCs were declared part of the mean that the natural resources are their private property
ancestral lands and are further declared alienable as well. The phrase used is merely descriptive of the IPs
and disposable to be distributed EXCLUSIVELY concept of ownership as distinguished from that provided
among the members of the NCC concerned. in our Civil Code.
o The lands shall be identified, surveyed, and  Justice Puno, in his separate opinion, states that ownership
subdivided into family-sized farm lots not over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains
exceeding 5 hectares each and allocated to with the State and the ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right
qualified members of the cultural groups by the to “manage and conserve” them for future generations,
issuance of land occupancy certificates “benefit and share” the profits from their allocation and
 The indigenous peoples’ concept of ownership emphasizes utilization, and “negotiate the terms and conditions for
the importance of communal or group ownership their exploration” for the purpose of ensuring ecological

and environmental protection and conservation measures. ancestral domains and lands is guided by the principle of
 The rights of ICCs/IPs over the natural resources take the self-delineation and is set forth under Sec. 52 and 53
form of management and stewardship. Chapter VIII of RA 8371, and in Part 1 Rule VII of the NICP AO
 The law only grants priority rights in the development or No. 01-98 (IRR of RA 8371)
exploitation of natural resources. This implies that there is a  Under self-delineation principle, the sworn statements of
superior entity that owns these natural resources and this the elders as to the scope of territories and
entity has the power to grant preferential rights over the agreements/pacts made with neighboring ICCs/IPs will be
resources to whosoever itself chooses. essential to the determination of these traditional
o A non-member of the ICCs/IPs may be allowed to territories.
take part in the development and utilization of the  The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries
natural resources for a period of not exceeding 25 including census of all community members therein, shall
years, renewable for not more than 25 years. be immediately undertaken by Ancestral Domains Office
o A formal and written agreement is entered into with (ADO) upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs
the ICCs/IPs concerned, or that the community, concerned
pursuant to its own decision making process, has  Proof of ancestral domain claims shall include the
agreed to allow such operation. following:
o The Natl. Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)  Testimony of elders or community under oath;
may exercise visitorial powers and take appropriate  Other documents directly or indirectly attesting to
action to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs under the possession or occupation of the area since time
the same contract. immemorial by such ICCs/IPs in the concept of
 Ancestral domains remain as such even when possession or owners
occupation of the area have been interrupted by caused  On the basis of investigation and the findings of facts
provided under law such as voluntary dealing entered into based thereon, the ADO shall prepare a perimeter map,
by the govt. and private individuals/corporations. complete with technical descriptions and description of the
o Hence, the issuance of Timber License Agreements natural features and landmarks embraced therein
(TLA) to a corporation did not cause the ICCs/IPs to  The approved and validated survey plan of the ancestral
lose their possession or occupation over the area domain claim and the petition for delineation shall
covered by the TLA. constitute the basic documents of the delineation process.
Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains  A copy of each document, including a translation in the
 Prior to IPRA Law, ancestral domains and lands were native language of the ICCs/IPs shall be posted in a
delineated under the DENR and governed by DENR AO No. prominent place for at least 15 days
2 series of 1993  A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local,
 Presently, the process of delineation and recognition of provincial, and regional offices of the NCIP, and shall be

published in a newspaper of general circulation once a the census

week for 2 consecutive weeks to allow claimants to file  In all proceedings for identification or delineation of the
opposition thereto within 15 days from the date of such ancestral domains, the Director of Lands shall represent the
publication interest of the RP
 In areas where no such newspaper exists,  The NCIP is the agency authorized to issue a certification
broadcasting in a radio stations shall be a valid precondition in favor of any entity which desires to
substitute. If both newspaper and radio station are undertake operations within the ancestral domains of the
not available, then mere posting shall be deemed IPs or whose proposed projects will affect the ancestral
sufficient. domains
 Within 15 days from publication, and of the inspection  The law does not grant the executive department of
process, the ADO shall prepare a report to the NCIP the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral
endorsing favorable action upon a claim that is deemed to domain by mere agreement or compromise.
have sufficient proof. Identification, delineation, and certification of ancestral lands
 However, if the proof is deemed insufficient, the  The allocation of lands WITHIN any ancestral domain to
ADO shall require submission of additional individual or indigenous corporate (family or clan)
evidence. claimants shall be left to the ICCs/IPs concerned to decide
 The ADO shall reject any claim that is deemed in accordance with customs and traditions
patently false or fraudulent after inspection and  Individual and indigenous corporate claimants of ancestral
verification. lands which are NOT within ancestral domains may have
 In case of rejection, the Ado shall give the applicant their claims officially established by filing applications for
due notice, copy furnished all concerned, the identification and delineations of their claims with the
containing the grounds for denial. ADO
 The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP. o An individual or recognized head of a family or clan
 In case of conflicting claims among the ICCs/IPs on may file such application in his behalf or in behalf of
boundaries of the ancestral domain claims, the ADO his family or clan, respectively
shall cause the contending parties to meet and o Proofs of such claim shall accompany the application
assist them in coming up with a preliminary form which may include:
resolution of the conflict, WITHOUT prejudice to its  Testimony of elders or community under
full adjudication according to Sec. 62 of the IPRA oath;
 ICCs/IPs whose ancestral domains have been officially  Other documents directly or indirectly
delineated and determined by the NCIP shall be issued a attesting to the possession or occupation of
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) in the name the area since time immemorial by such
of the community, containing a list of all those identified in ICCs/IPs in the concept of owners

 Upon receipt of the applications for delineation and corporate claimant over ancestral land.
recognition of ancestral land claims, the ADO shall cause  The ADO, upon written request from the ICCs/IPs, may
the publication of the application and a copy of each review existing claims which have been fraudulently
document submitted including a translation in the native acquired by any person or community.
language of the ICCs/IPs concerned in a prominent place for o Any claim found to be fraudulently acquired, title
at least 15 days issued may be cancelled by NCIP after due notice
 A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, and hearing of all parties concerned.
provincial, and regional offices of the NCIP, and shall be Registration of CADTs and CALTs
published in a newspaper of general circulation once a  NCIP through ADO shall register all CADTs and CALTs with
week for 2 consecutive weeks to allow claimants to file the ROD of the place where the properties are located
opposition thereto within 15 days from the date of such  The recording of the CADT/CALT in the Office of the ROD
publication does NOT result in the issuance of a Torrens COT like that
o In areas where no such newspaper exists, issued through a regular registration proceedings.
broadcasting in a radio stations shall be a valid  The purpose of registration is to apprise the public of the
substitute. If both newspaper and radio station are fact of recognition by the NCIP of specific claims to
not available, then mere posting shall be deemed portions of ancestral domains or ancestral lands
sufficient.  No part of the ANCESTRAL DOMAIN may be subject of
 Within 15 days after such publication, the ADO shall alienation or disposition because they are communally
investigate and inspect each publication, and if found owned although private in nature.
meritorious, shall cause a parcellary survey of the area  But ANCESTRAL LANDS may be the subject of registration
being claimed. under the PLA or PRD
 The ADO shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false o If successful, a decree of registration will be issued
or fraudulent after inspection and verif ication. by the LRA as basis of the COT to be issued to the
o IN case of r ejection, the ADO shall give the applicant applicant who is a member of the cultural
due notice, copy furnished all concerned, community
containing the grounds for denial. o In any subsequent dealings, like sale, mortgage, or
o The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP lease, the instrument embodying the transaction,
 The ADO shall prepare and submit a report on each and together with the owner’s duplicate certif icate shall
every application surveyed and delineated to the NCIP, be presented to the ROD for him to annotate the
which shall evaluate the report submitted. encumbrance created by the instrument on said
 If NCIP finds such claim meritorious, it shall issue a title or to issue a new title to the person to whom
Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT the land has been conveyed.
 ), declaring and certifying the claim of each individual or o The surrender of the owner’s copy of the title shall

be the authority for the Register of Deeds to enter alienable and disposable land, and there is no need to
registration submit separate certification that the land has been
2 Modes of Acquisition of Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands classified as A and D land.
a. By native title over both ancestral lands and domains; or Effects of Registration
b. By Torrens title under Public Land Act or Property  A duly issued Torrens certificate of title covering ancestral
Registration Decree with respect to ancestral lands ONLY land has the same efficacy, validity, and indefeasibility as
any title issued through regular registration proceedings
IPRA converts Ancestral Land as Public Agricultural Land for  The title shall not be subject to collateral attack nor can it
registration purposes be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or
 For registration purposes, the IPRA expressly converts diminished except in a direct proceeding permitted by law
ANCESTRAL LAND into public agricultural land which may Transfer of Land or Property Rights
be disposed of by the State  The right of ownership and possession of the ICCs/IPs to
 Hence, there is no need to secure a separate certification their ancestral lands may be transferred subject to the
that the ancestral land is ALIENABLE and DISPOSABLE in following limitations:
character, it being sufficient to show that the land is duly  Only to members of the SAME ICCs/IPs;
identified, delineated, and certified as ancestral land.  In accord with customary laws and traditions; and
 Individually-owned ancestral lands, which are agricultural in  Subject to the right of redemption of the ICCs/IPs for
character and actually used for agricultural, residential, a period of 15 years if the land was transferred to a
pasture, and tree farming purposes, are considered as non-member of the ICCs/IPs
alienable and disposable agricultural lands under IPRA. Ancestral Domain Ancestral Land
o Since ancestral domains and ancestral lands are It is private but communal Ownership allows the transfer
private, IPRA itself converts ancestral land, ownership which belong to all of ancestral land or property
regardless whether the land has a slope of 18% or generations and therefore rights thereto to members of
over, from private to public agricultural land proper cannot be sold, disposed, or the same group
for disposition destroyed
 The requirements for registration of AL are different from
that under regular registration proceedings  RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, Sec. 16,
states that no ancestral land shall be opened for mining
Requirements for Registration of Ancestral Lands operations without the prior consent of the indigenous
a. The applicant is a member of an indigenous cultural group; cultural community concerned
b. He must have been in possession of an individually-owned  Sec. 17 provides that in event of an agreement for mining
ancestral land for not less than 30 years; and operations, the royalty payment, upon utilization of the
c. By operation of law (IPRA), the land is already classified as

minerals, shall be agreed upon by the parties, and shall 2. Resolution of conflicts
form part of a trust fund for the socio-economic well-being 3. Issuances of CADT/CALT
of the ICC. 4. Cancellation of ancestral domain and ancestral land titles
 RA 7076 or the People’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991 , 5. Issuance of certification as a precondition to the grant of
Sec. 7, states that no ancestral land may be declared as permit
people’s small-scale mining area without the prior consent 6. Power to cite contempt, issue restraining order
of the ICCs concerned
 If ancestral lands are declared as people’s small -scale 1. Formulation of policies, issuance of rules and regulations
mining areas, the members of the cultural  NCIP is granted with administrative, quasi-legislative, and
communities therein shall be given priority in the quasi-judicial powers to carry out its mandate
awarding of small-scale mining contracts  Primary agency charged with the formulation and
Authority of PEZA to issue building permits implementation of policies, plans, programs, and projects
 By specific provision of law, it is the Philippine Economic for the economic, social, and cultural development of the
Authority (PEZA) which has authority to issue building ICCs/IPs, and to monitor implementation thereof
permits for the construction of structures within the areas  It is also mandated to issue rules and regulations for the
owned or administered by it, whether on public or private implementation of the Act
lands. 2. Resolution of Conflicts
o PEZA may require owners of structures built without  NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes
said permit to remove such structures. involving rights of the ICCs/IPs
 A Certified of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) is merely a  Before NCIP’s assumption of jurisdiction over such
registered claim and not a proof of ownership. disputes, it is a condition that the parties shall have
 Ancestral land claimants cannot build structures within the exhausted all remedies provided under their customary
economic zone on the basis of their CALC without the laws and have obtained a certification from the Council of
building and fencing permits issued by PEZA. Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle
the dispute that the same has not been resolved.
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)  It has also the authority to decide ALL appeals from the
 An independent agency under the Office of the President decisions and acts of all the various offices within the
and is composed of seven (7) Commissioners belonging to Commission
ICCs/IPs from different ethnographic areas who are  It shall issue rules and regulations to carry out its
appointed by the President adjudicatory functions
 Any decision, order, award, or ruling of the NCIP on any
Specific Powers and Functions ancestral domain dispute, or any matter pertaining to the
1. Formulation of policies, issuance of rules and regulations

application, implementation, enforcement, and  The provision does not vest the NCIP with
interpretation of the Act may be brought by a petition for power over the other agencies of the State
review to the Court of Appeals within 15 days from receipt as to determine to grant or deny any
of a copy thereof concession or license or agreement. It
3. Issuance of CADT/CALT merely gives the NCIP the authority to
4. Cancellation of CADT and CALT ensure that the ICCs/IPs have been
 NCIP has exclusive and original jurisdiction over petitions informed of the agreement and that their
for the cancellation of CADTs/CALTs alleged to have been consent thereto has been obtained.
fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any person or 6. Power to cite for contempt, issue restraining order
community provided that such action is filed within 1 year a. To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing
from the date of registration and disposition of cases filed before it as well as those
 However, the jurisdiction over actions or incidents affecting pertaining to its functions and such rules and regulations as
a certificate of title issued through registration proceedings may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act;
is vested in the courts of justice (RTC or MTC) b. To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy,
5. Issuance of certification as precondition to the grant of permit issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of
 Has the authority to issue the appropriate certification as witnesses or the production of such books, papers,
pre-condition to the grant of permit, lease, grant, or any contracts, records, agreements, and other document of
other authority for disposition, utilization, and similar nature as may be material to a just determination of
management of portions of the ancestral domain with the the matter under investigation or hearing conducted under
consensus approval of the ICCs/IPs concerned the IPRA;
 The issuance of CADT/CALT is merely a formal recognition c. To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and
of the ICCs/IPs rights of possession and ownership over impose appropriate penalties therefor; and
their ancestral domain identified and delineated in d. To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case
accordance with the IPRA but cannot be considered as a before it which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause
condition precedent for the need for an NCIP certification grave or irreparable damage, to any of the parties to the
o Citing the opinion of Justice Puno in Cruz vs. DENR case or seriously affect social or economic activity
Secretary , the SC held:
 It is required as a precondition for the In order to reinforce the powers of the NCIP, the IPRA provides
issuance of any concession, license or that no restraining order or preliminary injunction may be issued by
agreement over natural resources that a any inferior court against the NCIP in any case, dispute or
certification be issued by the NCIP that the controversy arising from or necessary to the interpretation of the
area subject of the agreement does not lie IPRA and other laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.
with any ancestral domain.

Regional Hearing Offices the territorial integrity of all ancestral domains

 NCIP, through its Regional Hearing Offices, shall exercise
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of Sec. 15 Form and Contents (see PD 1529 for the form)
the ICCs/IPs and all cases pertaining to the implementation,
enforcement, and interpretation of RA 8371 (IPRA) Requisite steps in bringing land under the Torrens System
 Has original and exclusive jurisdiction over: a. Survey of land by the Lands Management Bureau or a duly
a. all disputes and controversies involving ancestral license private surveyor;
lands/domains, violations of the requirement of b. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;
free and prior and informed consent of the ICCs/IPs; c. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application
b. Actions for enforcement of decisions of ICCs/IPs by the court;
involving violations of customary laws or d. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing
desecration of ceremonial sites, sacred places, or together with all the documents or other evidences
rituals; attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land
c. Actions for redemption/reconveyance under Sec. Registration Authority
8(b) of RA 8371; and e. Publication of the notice of the filing of the application and
d.Cases analogous to the foregoing date and place of the hearing in the Official Gazette and
 Has original jurisdiction over cases affecting property in a newspaper of general circulation;
rights, claims of ownership, hereditary succession, and f. Service by mailing of notice upon contiguous owners,
settlement of land disputes between and among ICCs/IPs occupants and those known to have interests in the
that have not been settled under customary laws; and property;
DAMAGES arising out of any violation of the IPRA g. Posting by the sheriff of the notice in a conspicuous place
Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) on the land and in the bulletin board of the municipal
 Under the NCIP, shall be responsible for the identification, building or city where the land is situated;
delineation, and recognition of ancestral land/domains h. Filing an answer to the application by any person whether
 It shall also be responsible for the management of named in the notice or not;
ancestral lands/domains in accordance with a master plan i. Hearing of the case by the court;
as well as the implementation of the ancestral domain j. Promulgation of judgment by the court;
rights of the ICCs/IPs as provided in Chapter III of the IPRA k. Issuance of an order for the issuance of a decree declaring
 It shall issue, upon the free and prior informed consent of the decision final and instructing the LRA to issue the
the ICCs/IPs concerned, certification prior to the grant of decree of confirmation and registration;
any license, lease, or permit for the exploitation of natural l. Entry of the decree of registration in the LRA;
resources affecting the interests of ICCs/IPs or their m. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the
ancestral domains and to assist to the ICCs/IPs in protecting corresponding ROD; and

n. Transcription of the decree of registration in the any kind whatsoever affecting the land, or any other
registration book and the issuance of the owner’s duplicate person having any interest therein, legal or equitable, or in
original certificate of title to the applicant by the ROD, possession, thereof;
upon payment of the prescribed fees f. The manner by which the applicant has acquired the land
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements will justify the (refer to Sec. 14);
court to deny the application for registration. g. Whether or not the property is conjugal, paraphernal or
exclusive property of the applicant;
Forms and contents of the application for registration h. Names of all occupants of the land, if any;
Section 15 requires that the application for land registration shall i. Original muniments of title and other related documents
be: supporting applicant’s claim of ownership; and
a. Writing; j. If the land is bounded by a public or private way or road,
b. Signed by the applicant or the person duly authorized in his whether or not the applicant claims any and what portion
behalf; and of the land within the limits of the way or road, and
c. Sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way or
for the province or city where the application was actually road determined
signed
If there is more than one applicant, the application shall be signed Pursuant to the Manual Instructions to be observed by the Clerks
and sworn to by and in behalf of each. of Court of the RTC in Ordinary and Cadastral Land registration
The application shall provide information on the following cases issued by the LRA on February 20, 1991, the application for
(contents): registration shall be filed in the following form:
a. Full description of the land as evidence by a survey plan a. That the application shall be in accordance with the form
duly approved by the Director of Lands, surveyor’s prescribed in Sec. 15 and should state the full name of the
certificate, and technical description; applicant, his civil status, citizenship, residence and postal
b. Citizenship and civil status of the applicant, whether single address, and if a minor, his age.
or married, and, if married, the name of the wife or  If the applicant is married, the application should
husband, and if the marriage has been legally dissolved, state the name of his spouse and whether the
when and how the marriage r elation terminated; property applied for registration is conjugal or
c. Full names and addresses of all occupants of the land and exclusive property of the applicant.
those of the adjoining owners, if known, and, if not known,  If the marriage has been legally dissolved, when and
it shall state the extent of the search made to find them; how the marriage relation terminated.
d. Assessed value of the land and the buildings and  The application should also state the names and
improvements thereon; addresses of all occupants of the land and those of
e. Whether or not there are mortgages or encumbrances of the adjoining owners, if known and if not known, it

shall state the extent of the search made to find be legible.

them.  Such true copy shall be retained by the court
b. That the application to be subscribed by the applicant or concerned and a copy thereof duly certified as a
the person duly authorized in his behalf, and sworn to faithful reproduction by the Clerk of Court shall be
before any officer authorized to administer oaths for the forwarded to the LRA.
province or city where the application was actually signed. b. The white or blue print copies of the plan.
 Should there be more than one applicant, the c. The original and two copies of the technical descriptions
application shall be signed and sworn to by and in certified by the RTD of the official so authorized and not
behalf of each. merely signed by the Geodetic Engineer who prepared the
c. That the application and its accompanying papers be filed plan.
in triplicate which shall be distributed as follows: d. The original and two copies of the Geodetic Engineer’s
 ORIGINAL  for the Clerk of Court certificate, or in lieu thereof, a certif ication from the RTD as
 DUPLICATE  for the LRA to its availability
 TRIPLICATE  for the Solicitor General e. A certificate in triplicate of the Provincial, City, or Municipal
d. That prior to the filing of the application, the applicant has Assessor of the assessed value of the land at its last
furnished the Director of Lands (now, Regional Executive assessment for taxation or, in the absence thereof, that of
Director of the DENR) with a copy of the application and its the next preceding year.
annexes.  In case the land has not been assessed, an aff idavit in
triplicate (Judicial Form No. 81) of the market value
The application shall be accompanied by the following documents: of the land signed by 3 disinterested witnesses.
a. The original plan in tracing cloth or Diazo Polyester film f. All original muniments of title of the applicant which prove
duly approved by the Regional Technical Director, Land his ownership of the land.
Management Service of the DENR, a certified copy of the  This requirement is NOT mandatory as long as the
same by Clerk of Court shall be attached to the duplicate documents can be produced before the court
records and forwarded to the LRA. during the hearing whenever required or necessary.
 Where in lieu thereof, a true copy of the original
plain in tracing cloth or Diazo Polyester film is NOTE: Under LRA Circ. 05-2000, the original tracing cloth plan is no
submitted, the Clerk of Court shall see to it that the longer forwarded to the LRA; only a certified copy thereof need be
same is properly attested and duly certified correct forwarded.
by the Regional Technical Director concerned or the Reason: To obviate problems of applicants for registration in
official authorized should sign the plan for the RTD. remote provinces or cities where they would still go to the LRA to
 All bearings, distances, and the technical retrieve the tracing cloth for submission as evidence during trial or
descriptions of the land appearing on the plan must to cause the production thereof by said office via a subpoena

duces tecum issued by the court for the same purpose. together with the application all original muniments of titles or
copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the
Section 16. Non-resident applicant . If the applicant is not a resident Bureau of Lands.
of the Philippines, he shall file with his application an instrument in
due form appointing an agent or representative residing in the The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown
Philippines, giving his full name and postal address, and shall that the applicant has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy
therein agree that the service of any legal process in the of the application and all annexes.
proceedings under or growing out of the application made upon
his agent or representative shall be of the same legal effect as if Application for Land Registration
made upon the applicant within the Philippines. If the agent or  As provided in Sec. 2, the Regional Trial Courts shall have
representative dies, or leaves the Philippines, the applicant shall the exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for ORIGINAL
forthwith make another appointment for the substitute, and, if he registration of title to lands, including improvements and
fails to do so the court may dismiss the application. interests therein, and over all petitions filed AFTER original
registration of title, with power to HEAR and DETERMINE
 Non-resident of the Philippines shall file his application all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
through a duly authorized representative or  First Level Courts (MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC) may also
attorney-in-fact. be assigned to handle ORIGINAL registration cases in the
 Service of all papers and other legal processes shall be following instances (provided by RA 7691 amending Sec. 34
made upon said representative or attorney-in-fact with the of BP 129):
same effect as if made upon the applicant himself. a. Where the lot is NOT subject of controversy or
 A special power of attorney executed in a foreign country opposition; or
CANNOT be admitted in evidence unless it is duly certified b. Where the lot is contested but the value thereof
by the secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, DOES NOT exceed P100, 000
consul, vice consul or consular agent or by any off icer in the  Appeals from decision of inferior courts in land registration
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign cases are taken to the Court of Appeals .
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his office. (Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of  The application for registration must be accompanied by a
Court) survey plan of the land duly approved by the Director of
Lands, together with the claimant’s muniments of title to
Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land prove ownership.
registration shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of the  In Director of Lands vs. Reyes , the SC declared that the
province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file submission of the tracing cloth plan is a statutory
requirement of mandatory character. The plan and the

technical description of the land must be duly approved by joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be
the Director of Lands, otherwise the same have no allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and
probative value. reasonable terms.
o Purpose of the Original Tracing Cloth – To fix the
exact or definite identity of the land as shown in Amendments which shall consist in a substantial change in the
the plan and technical descriptions. boundaries or an increase in area of the land applied for or which
 The LRA has NO authority to approve original survey plans involve the inclusion of an additional land shall be subject to the
nor to check the correctness thereof. same requirements of publication and notice as in an original
o Under PD 239, only the Lands Management Bureau application.
may not verify and approve survey plans for original
registration purposes.  Where the amendments consists in a substantial change in
 The clerk of court shall NOT accept any application unless it the boundaries or increase in area of the land or involve the
is shown that the applicant has furnished the Director of inclusion of additional area, the amendment shall be
Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes. subject to the same requirements of publication and notice
as in the case of an original application.
Section 18. Application covering two or more parcels. An  An order of the court, in a land registration proceeding,
application may include two or more parcels of land belonging to amending an official plan so as to include land not
the applicant/s provided they are situated within the same province previously included therein, is a nullity as against a person
or city. The court may at any time order an application to be who is not a party and who has NO notice of the
amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or by a proceeding, unless publication is effected anew.
severance of the application.  Publication is one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction
of the court in land registration and cadastral cases, and
 Where during the pendency of an application for additional territory cannot be included by amendment of
registration, the applicant sold the property to another the plan without new publication.
under pacto de retro, but owing to the lapse of the  Thus, if it shown that a certificate of title had been issued
redemption period, ownership became consolidated in the covering lands where the registration court had no
vendee, the latter as the new and lawful owner is entitled jurisdiction, the certificate of title is null and void insofar as
to be subrogated in place of the applicant and may it concerns the land over which the registration court has
continue the proceedings in the case and f inally obtain title NOT acquired jurisdiction.
as owner.  Conversely, if the amendment does NOT involve an
addition, but on the contrary, a reduction of the original
Section 19. Amendments. Amendments to the application including area that was published, no new publication is required.

of a new certificate of title will not conflict with a valid and

Section 20. When land applied for borders on road. If the existing certificate of title.
application describes the land as bounded by a public or private  For this purpose, the court may require the filing of
way or road, it shall state whether or not the applicant claims any additional papers to aid it in its determination and
and what portion of the land within the limits of the way or road, resolution of the case and also order the conduct of an
and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way or ocular inspection in the presence of the interested parties if
road determined. deemed necessary.
 The land registration court may also require the DENR, LRA,
 Pursuant to Sec. 44 of the PRD (PD 1529), every registered and other government agency to submit a report on
owner receiving a COT issued pursuant to a decree of whether the subject property has already been registered
registration and ever subsequent purchaser of the and covered by the certificates of title to avoid overlapping
registered land for value and in good faith shall hold the of claims and duplication of titles. This is in line with the
same FREE from all encumbrances. EXCEPT: Purpose of Land Registration Law :
a. Those which are noted in the certificate of title; or a.Ascertain once and for all the absolute title over a
b. Those encumbrances enumerated in the law such as given landed property;
public highways or private ways, government b. To make, so far as it is possible, a certificate of title
irrigation canals or lateral thereof issued by the court to the owner of the land
 Under Art. 420 of the Civil Code, lands intended for public absolute proof of such title;
use, such roads, canals, rivers, ports and bridges, banks, c. To quiet title to the land and to put stop forever to
shores, roadsteads and others of similar character are any question of legality to a title; and
OUTSIDE the COMMERCE OF MEN and may not be subject d. To decree that land title to be final, irrevocable, and
of private appropriation. undisputable.
Section 21. Requirement of additional facts and papers; ocular Section 22. Dealings with land pending original registration . After
inspection . The court may require facts to be stated in the the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree
application in addition to those prescribed by this Decree not of registration, the land therein described may still be the subject
inconsistent therewith and may require the filing of any additional of dealings in whole or in part, in which case the interested party
paper. It may also conduct an ocular inspection, if necessary. shall present to the court the pertinent instruments together with
a subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of
 In view of the nature of a Torrens title, a land registration transfer of portions thereof and the court, after notice to the
court has the duty to determine the propriety of the parties, shall order such land registered subject to the conveyance
application for registration and to ensure that the issuance or encumbrance created by said instruments, or order that the
decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to

whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments. joinder, substitution, or discontinuance of the parties
 In Sec. 108, it involves amendments after entry of the
Dealings with the land while registration is pending certificate of title
 The land subject of registration is allowed to be dealt with  In Sec. 22, amendment of the application is NOT required, it
after the filing of the application and before the issuance of being sufficient that the court, by motion of other
decree. appropriate pleading, be presented with the instruments
 The land may be sold or otherwise encumbered, but evidencing the transaction, and the approved subdivision
whatever may be the nature of the transaction, the plan where a portion of the land is conveyed to another.
interested party SHOULD submit to the court the pertinent
instruments evidencing the transaction to be considered in The application of Sec. 22 is illustrated in the case of Mendoza vs.
the final adjudication of the case. CA: G.R. No.
 In case of transfer of a portion of the land, the
corresponding subdivision plan should also be presented.
 Upon notice to the parties, the court shall:
 Order the land registered subject to the conveyance
or encumbrance created by such instruments; G.R. No. L-36637 July 14, 1978
 Order that the decree of r egistration be issued in the GENEROSO MENDOZA, substituted by his wife and administratrix
name of the person to whom the property has been DIEGA DE LEON VDA. DE MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. THE HON.
conveyed. COURT OF APPEALS, DANIEL GOLE CRUZ and DOLORES
 The adjudication of land in a land registration or cadastral MENDOZA, respondents.
proceeding does NOT become final, in the sense of
incontrovertibility, until after one year from the entry of the
final decree prepared by the LRA. Facts:
 As long as the final decree has not been entered, and
the one year period has not elapsed from such • On May 15, 1964, Generoso Mendoza, herein petitioner, filed
entry, the title is not deemed finally adjudicated with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan an application for the
and the decision in the registration proceeding registration of two parcels of land, with a residential house
continues to be under the control of the court. thereon, situated in the Poblacion of Sta. Maria Bulacan.
• A notice was issued on December 3, 1964 setting the date of
Dealings/transactions entered into pending registration do not initial hearing on June 18, 1965. Said notice was duly published,
require amendment of application posted and served but nobody appeared nor filed an answer or
 In Sec. 22, it refers to amendments to the application by opposition within the period allowed for that purpose.
Consequently, the registration court entered on July 6, 1965, an

order of general default and allowed the applicant to present his registration and the issuance of the decree of title.
evidence ex-parte. “SEC. 29.(Section 22 of Property Registration Decree) After the
• During pendency of the application before the land filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of
registration court, Mendoza sold the land to the spouses Daniel title by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the land
Gole Cruz and Dolores Mendoza, herein private respondents, therein described may be dealt with and instruments relating
subject to the vendors' usufructuary rights. thereto shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds at
• The contract of sale was admitted in court in lieu of the any time before issuance of the decree of title, in the same manner
pending application for land title. The registration court rendered a as if no application had been made. The interested party may,
decision in July 21, 1965, ordering the registration of the two however, present such instruments to the Court of First Instance
parcels of land in the name of Cruz subject to the usufructuary instead of presenting them to the office of the register of deeds,
rights of Mendoza. together with a motion that the same be considered in relation
• The decision became final and executory. In 1968, however, with the application, and the court after notice to the parties, shall
upon failure of Cruz to pay Mendoza, Mendoza petitioned that the order such land registered subject to the encumbrance created by
title issued in the name of Cruz be cancelled. The land registration a said instruments, or order the decree of registration issued in the
court ruled in favor of Mendoza on the ground that the court erred name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has been
in its earlier decision in issuing the land title to Cruz – who was not conveyed by said instruments.
a party to the application of title initiated by Mendoza. Cruz A stranger or a third party may be dealt with in the land
appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cruz. registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1)
that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested
Issue: party together with a motion that the same be considered in
Whether or not the title can be dealt with in the name of a “third relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be given to
party”. the parties to the case. And the peculiar facts and circumstances
obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been
Held: complied with in this case.
 The law does not require that the application for
Yes. The Court of Appeals ruling must be sustained. First of all, it registration be amended by substituting the “buyer” or the
was proven that Mendoza caused the registration in the name of “person to whom the property has been conveyed” for the
Cruz pursuant to their contract of sale. Second, Mendoza overlooks applicant. Neither does it require that the “buyer” or the
Section 29 of the Land Registration Act which expressly authorizes “person to whom the property has been conveyed” be a
the registration of the land subject matter of a registration party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the
proceeding in the name of the buyer (Cruz) or of the person to land registration proceedings. The ONLY requirements of
whom the land has been conveyed by an instrument executed the law are:
during the interval of time between the filing of the application for a. That the instrument be presented to the court by

the interested party together with a motion that Commissioner of Land Registration shall also, within seven days
the same be considered in relation with the after publication of said notice in the Official Gazette, as
application; and hereinbefore provided, cause a copy of the notice of initial hearing
b. That prior notice be given to the parties to the case. to be mailed to every person named in the notice whose address is
known.
Section 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court
shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an order (b) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Public Highways, the
setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be Provincial Governor and the Mayor. If the applicant requests to
earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date have the line of a public way or road determined, the Commissioner
of the order. of Land Registration shall cause a copy of said notice of initial
hearing to be mailed to the Secretary of Public Highways, to the
The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the Provincial Governor, and to the Mayor of the municipality or city, as
application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) the case may be, in which the land lies.
mailing; and (3) posting.
(c) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the
1. By publication. Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Public
Works, the Director of Forest Development, the Director of Mines
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial and the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. If the land
hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause notice borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the
of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or on a lake,
once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines: or if it otherwise appears from the application or the proceedings
Provided, however, that the publication in the Off icial Gazette shall that a tenant-farmer or the national government may have a claim
be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall adverse to that of the applicant, notice of the initial hearing shall
be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the be given in the same manner to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Mines
"to all whom it may concern". Said notice shall also require all and/or the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as may be
persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to appropriate.
show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted.
3. By posting.
2. By mailing.
The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also cause a duly
(a) Mailing of notice to persons named in the application. The attested copy of the notice of initial hearing to be posted by the
sheriff of the province or city, as the case may be, or by his deputy,

in a conspicuous place on each parcel of land included in the have to said lands or any por tion thereof, and to submit evidence in
application and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of support of such claim; and unless you appear at said Court at the
the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land time and place aforesaid, your default will be recorded and the title
or portion thereof is situated, fourteen days at least before the to the lands will be adjudicated and determined in accordance with
date of initial hearing. law and the evidence before the Court, and thereafter you will
forever be barred from contesting said application (or petition) or
The court may also cause notice to be served to such other persons any decree entered thereon.
and in such manner as it may deem proper.
Witness, the Hon. ________________________ Judge of the Court
The notice of initial hearing shall, in form, be substantially as of First Instance of _______ this _______ day of
follows: _________________, in the year 19______.
(Caption and Title) Attest:
NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING Commissioner of Land Registration
To (here insert the names of all persons appearing to have an Notice of Initial Hearing
interest and the adjoining owners so far as known, and to all whom  Within 5 days from the filing of the application, the court
it may concern): shall issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial
hearing which shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later
An application (or petition) having been filed in the above-entitled than 90 days from the date of the order.
case by (full name and address) praying for the registration and
confirmation (or for the settlement and adjudication, in case of 3 Means of Notice of the Initial Hearing
petition in cadastral proceedings) of title to the following 1. Publication;
described lands: 2. Mailing; and
3. Posting
(Insert description)
 The requirement of giving notice by all 3 modes is
You are hereby served this notice to appear before this Court at its MANDATORY
session to be held at _________________ on the ______________  The notice of hearing is signed by the judge and copy of
day of _______________, 19 ______, at _____________ o'clock in notice is mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA
the _________ then and there to present such claims as you may

(1) Publication granted.

 The procedure prescribed by the PRD in land registration is  Constructive seizure of the land for registration is effected
denominated as in rem, or one against all persons who may through publication of the application for registration and
allege any right to the land sought to be registered, and the posting and service of notice to affected parties.
decree of the court granting registration is valid and
effective against all who may have an interest in the land. Publication of notice of initial hearing
 The publicity which permeates the whole system  Sec. 23(1) provides that upon receipt of the order of the
established for the registration of real property requires court setting the case for initial hearing, the Land
that the application for registration accompanied by a plan Registration Administrator shall cause the notice to be
of the land, together with its description, and all the published once in the Official Gazette and once in a
owners of the adjacent properties and all other persons newspaper of general circulation; however, the publication
who may have an interest in the realty shall be notified, in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
which notifications with a description in the Official Gazette jurisdiction upon the court
and in a newspaper of general circulation  The notice shall require all persons concerned to appear in
court on the date and time indicated and to show cause
Purpose of Publication why the application shall not be granted.
1. To confer jurisdiction upon the court over the res, and
2. To apprise the whole world of the pending registration case Publication in a newspaper is NECESSARY to accord DUE PROCESS
so that they may assert their rights or interests in the land,  In Roxas vs.CA, it was held that while publication of the
if any, and oppose the application, if so minded. notice in the OG is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
court, publication in a newspaper of general circulation
 A land registration is a proceeding in rem, and the remains an indispensable procedural requirement.
proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as  It is a component of procedural due process and aimed at
against all persons, including the State, who have rights to giving “as wide publicity as possible” so that all persons
or interests in the property. having an adverse interest in the land subject of the
 An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through registration proceedings may be notified thereof.
publication. This being so, the process must be strictly be  Although it will not affect jurisdiction, the fact that
complied with. publication was NOT made in a newspaper of general
 A party seeking registration has to prove his title against circulation is material and relevant in assessing the
the whole world. This can be achieved when all persons applicant’s right or title to the land. This was enunciated by
concerned who have rights to or interests in the subject the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Lands vs. CA
property are notified and effectively invited to come to and Abistado:
court and who cause why the application should not be

[G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997] of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado. The Court of Appeals
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ruled that it was merely procedural and that the failure to cause
TEODORO ABISTADO, substituted by MARGARITA, MARISSA, such publication did not deprive the trial court of its authority to
MARIBEL, ARNOLD and MARY ANN, all surnamed ABISTADO, grant the application.
respondents. • The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General thus
elevated this recourse to the Supreme Court.
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that
• On December 8, 1986, Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original
original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land land registration case is mandatory? YES
under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529.
• However, during the pendency of his petition, applicant died. Ruling:
Hence, his heirs Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann,
all surnamed Abistado -- represented by their aunt Josefa Abistado, Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. -- The court shall,
who was appointed their guardian ad litem, were substituted as within five days from f iling of the application, issue an order setting
applicants. the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier
• The land registration court in its decision dated June 13, 1989 than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the
dismissed the petition “for want of jurisdiction”, in compliance order.
with the mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application
initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.(notice of initial for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3)
hearing was only published in the Official Gazette) The trial court posting.
also cited Ministry of Justice Opinion No. 48, Series of 1982, which 1. By publication. --
in its pertinent portion provides: Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial
o It bears emphasis that the publication requirement under hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice
Section 23 [of PD 1529] has a two-fold purpose; the first, which is of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and
mentioned in the provision of the aforequoted provision refers to once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines:
publication in the Official Gazette, and is jurisdictional; while the Provided, however, that the publication in the Off icial Gazette shall
second, which is mentioned in the opening clause of the same be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall
paragraph, refers to publication not only in the Official Gazette but be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the
also in a newspaper of general circulation, and is procedural. land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and
Neither one nor the other is dispensable. `to all whom it may concern.' Said notice shall also require all
• The case was elevated to respondent Court of Appeals which, persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to
set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the registration show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted.

The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529  Clearly, lack of personal notice will NOT vitiate the
requires publication of the notice of initial hearing. It should be proceedings. Sec. 23 states that “the court may also cause
noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem. Being in notice to be served to such persons and in such manner as
rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as it may deem proper”. Evidently, personal notice is NOT
against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or necessary unless required by the court.
interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated  In Adez Realty, Inc. vs. CA, SC held that notice of hearing by
essentially through publication. This being so, the process must proper publication in the OG is suff icient to clothe the court
strictly be complied with. with jurisdiction, and the mere fact that a person
The Supreme Court has no authority to dispense with such purporting to have a legitimate claim in the property did
mandatory requirement. The law is unambiguous and its not receive personal notice is NOT sufficient ground to
rationale clear. Time and again, this Court has declared that invalidate the proceedings.
where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no  The proviso requires that applications for registration
room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation; there is room should contain a notification to all the occupants of the
only for application. There is no alternative. Thus, the application land and of all adjoining owners, if known; and if not
for land registration filed by private respondents must be known, it shall state what search has been made to find
dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all them. Interpreting this provision, the SC held that lack of
the legal requisites shall have been duly complied with. notice is denial of due process and constitutes EXTRINSIC
FRAUD.
Publication in the OG does not dispense with the requirement of
notice by MAILING and POSTING Purpose of Notice by ALL 3 Modes
 The proviso in Sec. 23 that “the publication in the Official  The purpose of the requirement of giving notice by all 3
Gazette shall modes is to strengthen the Torrens System through
 be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court” was safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property.
never meant to dispense with the requirement of notice by  Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that only very few
mailing and by posting. have access to or could read the OG, which comes out in
few copies only per issue.
Lack of Personal Notice does NOT vitiate the proceedings  In Director of Lands vs, CA and Abistado , the SC ruled that
 The requirement that personal notice SHALL be a while Sec. 23 of the Decree indeed provides that
prerequisite to the validity of registration would absolutely publication in the OG suffices to confer jurisdiction upon
prohibit the foreclosure of unknown claims, for the reason the land registration court, there is still need of publication
that personal notice could never be given to unknown in a newspaper of general circulation to comply with the
claimants. requirements of due process.

New Publication necessary to include additional area arm of the sea, or lake, or if it otherwise appears that a
 If the amendment of the application for registration tenant-farmer or the national govt. may have a claim
consists of an area or parcel of land not previously included adverse to that of the applicant, the notice shall be mailed
in the original application, as published, a new publication to the DAR Secretary, the Solicitor General, Director of
of the amended application must be made. Lands, Director of Public Works and Communications,
 Without a new publication the registration court cannot Director of Forest Development, Director of Mines and
acquire jurisdiction over the area or parcel of land that is Geo-Sciences and Director of Fisheries and Aquatic
added to that covered by the original application, and the Resources as may be appropriate.
decision of the registration court would be a nullity insofar
as the decision concerns the newly included land. Role of the Solicitor General
 But if the amendment consists in the exclusion of a portion  Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Solicitor
of the area covered by the original application and the General is bound to “represent the Government in all land
original plan as previously published, a new publication is registration and related proceedings”.
not necessary.  No other officer can exercise such function.
 In De Luzurriaga vs. Republic, the SC clarified that were the  It is also the practice in the OSG to deputize lawyers in
identity and area of the claimed property are not the government offices involved in land matters or provincial
subject of amendment but merely other collateral matters, or city prosecutors to represent the government in the
a new publication is NOT needed. handling of such proceedings.
 But as a rule, only notices of court proceedings and related
(2) Mailing processes actually served upon the SG are binding on his
 This requirement is mandatory office.
 Within 7 days after publication in the OG of the notice of
initial hearing, the LRA Administrator shall cause a copy of PD 478, the Magna Carta of the OSG, which took effect June 4,
the notice to be mailed to every person named in the notice 1974 provides:
whose address is known.
Sec. 1. Functions and Organization. – The Office of the Solicitor
Mailing to the Secretary of DPWH etc., Governor, and Mayor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its
 If the applicant requests to have the line of a public way or agencies and instrumentalities, government-owned or controlled
road determined, the notice shall also be mailed to the corporations, and its officials and agents in any litigation,
DPWH Secretary, Provincial Governor and Mayor of the proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a
municipality or city in which the land is situated. lawyer. XXX XXX
 If the land borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, an
(e) Represent the Government in all land registration and related

proceedings. Institute actions for the reversion to the Government Section 24. Proof of publication and notice . The certification of the
of lands of the public domain and improvements thereon as well as Commissioner of Land Registration and of the sheriff concerned to
lands held in violation of the Constitution. the effect that the notice of initial hearing, as required by law, has
been complied with shall be filed in the case before the date of
(g) Deputize, whenever in the opinion of the Solicitor General the initial hearing, and shall be conclusive proof of such fact.
public interest requires, any provincial or city fiscal to assist him in
the performance of any function or discharge of any duty  The certification by the LRA Administrator as to the fact of
incumbent upon him, within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid publication and mailing, and that of the sheriff as to
provincial or city fiscal. posting, as required by law, are conclusive.
The Solicitor General has CONTROL and SUPERVISION over the Section 25. Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings. Any
special attorney or prosecutor who has been deputized to appear person claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not,
for him. The special attorney or prosecutor is no more than the may appear and file an opposition on or before the date of initial
surrogate of the SG in any particular proceeding. As the principal, hearing, or within such further time as may be allowed by the
the SG is entitle to be furnished copies of all court orders, notices, court. The opposition shall state all the objections to the
and decisions. application and shall set forth the interest claimed by the party
filing the same and apply for the remedy desired, and shall be
 The deputized special attorney has no legal authority to signed and sworn to by him or by some other duly authorized
decide whether or not an appeal should be made. As person.
consequence, copies of orders and decisions served on
deputized counsel, acting as agent or representative of the If the opposition or the adverse claim of any person covers only a
SG are not binding until they are actually received by the portion of the lot and said portion is not properly delimited on the
latter. plan attached to the application, or in case of undivided
co-ownership, conflicting claims of ownership or possession, or
(3) Posting overlapping of boundaries, the court may require the parties to
 Within 14 days before the initial hearing, the LRA submit a subdivision plan duly approved by the Director of Lands.
Administrator shall cause a duly attested copy of the notice
be posted by the sheriff in a conspicuous place on the land
 Any person, whether named in the notice or not, may
applied for and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin
appear and file an opposition on or before the date of
board of the municipality or city in which land is situated.
initial hearing, or within such time as may be allowed by the
 The requirement is also mandatory. court, provided he has an interest in the property applied
for.

 The opposition shall: does not incapacitate him from opposing

a. State his objections to the application; registration of the property in the name of the
b. Set forth the nature of his interest; and applicant.
c. Indicate the relief desired o Nor is it even material for the opponent to have the
 The opposition shall be signed and sworn to by him or by legal character necessary to enable him to maintain
his duly authorized representative a registration proceeding in his own name and
behalf.
Requisites for the Consideration of an Opposition  All that is necessary to enable on to exert the faculty of
1. The oppositor must have an interest in the land applied for; opposition is that he should appear to have an interest in
2. He should state the grounds for his objection as well as the the property. It is immaterial whether this interest is in
nature of his claimed interest; character of legal owner or is purely equitable nature as
3. He should indicate the desired r elief; and where he is the beneficiary in a trust.
4. The opposition should be signed and sworn to by him or by  All claims of 3 rd persons to the property must be asserted in
his duly authorized representative. the registration proceedings.
 If any claim to a portion thereof is upheld, that portion is
 It has been held, however, that unverified oppositions in segregated from the property applied for, and is not
land registration proceedings are nevertheless sufficient to included in the decree of registration and certificate of title
confer standing in court to oppositors who may be allowed subsequently issued to the applicant.
to verify their oppositions later on, especially where said  If it is included, the claim is deemed adversely resolved with
defect is demmed waived by the applicant’s failure to finality, subject only to a petition for review of the decree
invoke said requirement seasonably. within one year from its issuance on the ground of fraud.
 A mere claim cannot defeat a registered title. A claim is
Nature of interest to support opposition merely noted on the survey plan cannot prevail over the
 Opposition to an application for registration of the title actual decree of registration as reproduced in the
must be based on the right of dominion or some other real certificate.
right opposed to the adjudication or recognition of the  The phrase “claim of ownership” means the possession of
ownership of the applicant, whether it be limited or piece of property with the intention of claiming it in
absolute. hostility to the true owner.
 To give a person a legal standing to object to the  The phrase is also defined as “a party’s manifest intention
application for registration, “he must make some claim to to take over land, regardless of title or right”.
the property”.
o The circumstance that an opponent in a land Effect of failure to file opposition
registration proceeding cannot show title in himself

 A person who has not challenged an application for by filing his application with the LMB, he recognizes the
registration of land even if the appeal afterwards character of the land as public land and not as private
interposed is based on the right of dominion over the same property. In such case, only the Government though the SG
land, cannot allege damage or error against the judgment may properly interpose its opposition following the
ordering the registration inasmuch as he did not allege or principle that all lands and other natural resources are
pretend to have any right to such land. owned by the State.
 A claimant having failed to present his answer or objection  The burden of overthrowing the presumption of State
to the registration of a parcel of land under the Torrens ownership belongs to the registration applicant by
System or to question the validity of such registration “well-nigh incontrovertible proof” and that he is entitled to
within the period of 1 years after the COT had been issued, registration under the law.
is deemed to have forever lost his right in said land even  A private person may not oppose an application for
granting that he had any right thereon. registration on behalf of the government on the ground
that the land belongs to the government.
Persons having legal standing to file opposition
The following are deemed to have an interest or equitable title Opposition by the government
necessary to give them legal standing as oppositors:  The government acting through the OSG is invariably
1. A homesteader who has not yet been issued his title but represented by the Director of Lands or Director of
has fulfilled all the conditions required by law for the Forestry as public oppositor in all land registration and
issuance of patent; related proceedings.
2. A purchaser of friar land who is deemed to have an  Only the Solicitor General, as the lawyer of the government,
equitable title to the land even before the issuance of the can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
patent; Philippines and, therefore, actions filed in the name of the
3. An awardee in a sales application who, by virtue of the Republic, or its agencies, if not initiated by the SG, will be
award, is authorized to take possession of the land to summarily dismissed.
enable him to comply with the requirements for the  Notwithstanding the absence of opposition from the
issuance of patent; government, the applicant in land registration cases is NOT
4. A person claiming to be in possession of the land and has relieved of the burden of proving the imperfect right or
applied with the Lands Management Bureau for its title sought to be confirmed.
purchase.  The applicant must show that even though there is no
opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the
 A mere public land applicant under any mode of disposition absolute owner, in fee simple.
under the PLA cannot be a proper party to oppose an  Even in the absence of any adverse claim, the applicant is
application for registration under the Torrens System since not assured of a favorable decree by the land registration

court if he fails to establish a proper title for official o The belated filing of an appeal by the State, or even
recognition. its failure to file an opposition, in a land registration
case because of the mistake or error on the part of
Hearing is necessary to determine validity of ownership claim its officials or agents does not deprive the
 Under Sec. 1 of Rule 131 of the ROC, each party whether government of its right to appeal from a judgment
applicant or oppositor, must prove his own affirmative of the court.
allegations by the amount of evidence required by law to
obtain a favorable judgment. Motion to Dismiss based on res judicata proper in registration
 The court, if it deems necessary, may refer the case or any proceeding
part thereof to a referee who shall hear the parties and  The PRD does not provide for a pleading similar or
their evidence, and the referee shall submit his report corresponding to a motion to dismiss. However, Sec. 34 of
thereon to the court within 15 days after the termination of the PRD provides that the Rules of Court which are not
such hearing. inconsistent with the provisions of the Decree shall be
 The failure of the Director of Lands, in representation of applicable to land registration and cadastral cases by
the government, to oppose the application for registration analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
for which he was declared in default will NOT justify the practicable and convenient.
court in adjudicating the land applied for as private  Sec. 47 of Rule 39 of the ROC sets forth the doctrine of res
property. judicata.
 The court has to receive evidence to determine whether or
not the applicant, or private oppositor if claiming 2 Concepts of res judicata
affirmative relief, has discharged the burden of establishing 1. Bar by former judgment; and
ownership. 2. Conclusiveness of judgment
 In Director of Lands vs. Santiago , it was held that where an The rule bars the re-litigation of particular facts or
opposition or answer, which is based on substantial issues involving the same parties even if raised
grounds, has been formally filed, it is improper for the under different claims or causes of action.
court to declare the opposition in default simply because
he failed to appear on the day set for the initial hearing. Requisites as to the f irst concept
 In Republic vs. CA and Arquillo, it was held that the failure a. the former judgment or order was final;
of the government agency concerned to file an opposition b. it adjudged the pertinent issue or issues on their merits;
to the application for registration or to appeal from the c. it was rendered by a court that had jurisdiction over the
adverse decision of the registration court is NOT fatal. The subject matter and the parties; and
reason for this is that the government is usually NOT d. between the first and the second actions, there was
estopped by the mistake or error of its officials or agents. identity of parties, subject matter, and of causes of action

CA reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint of the

 If there is no identity of causes of action but only identity of petitioner on grounds that the description of the property in the
issues, res judicata comes under the second concept --- complaint is different from the subdivision plan provided by the
conclusiveness of judgment. respondents with their respective area and boundaries appearing
to be completely different. The court did not find any compliance
In Valisno vs. Plan, the SC applying the principle of res judicata, to the requirement of the law that the property in dispute must be
sustained the applicant’s motion to dismiss the opposition ruling clearly identified.
that the two courts’ having equal jurisdiction is not a requisite of • Under the Civil Code, Articles 433 and 541, the actual possessor
res judicata. of the property has the presumption of a just title and he need not
be compelled to show or prove why he possesses the same. It was
G.R. No. L-55152 August 19, 1986 clear that the respondent is the current possessor of the property
having constructed the apartment on the property in dispute.
FLORDELIZA L. VALISNO and HONORIO D. VALISNO, petitioners, • Contrasting the evidence of the respondent and petitioner, the
vs. court choose the respondent’s evi dence as they were able to
HON. JUDGE ANDRES B. PLAN, Presiding Judge of the Court of provide a vicinity plan that shows the land position in relation to
First Instance of Isabela, Second Branch, and VICENCIO CAYABA, the adjoining properties with known boundaries and landmarks.
respondents. Petitioner merely presented a sketch prepared by Dr. Blanco
constituting as mere guess works.
• Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition for
Facts: registration of the property before the CFI which was opposed by
• On August 21, 1964 petitioners Spouses Valisno purchased 2 the petitioner. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the
parcels of land from the family of Blanco’s and subsequently opposition that the same is barred by a prior judgment of the
declared ownership over the land for taxation purposes and took court.
possession thereof by assigning a caretaker (Fermin Lozano) over • The CFI dismissed the opposition on ground of res judicata
the property who built his house thereon. thus this appeal before the SC. With the petition given due course
• On August 12, 1968 respondent Cayaba claims to be the owner by the SC, it orders both parties to submit their briefs. Only the
of the property by virtue of a deed of sale executed in his and petitioner submitted their own brief within the given period thus
Bienvenido Noriega’s favor on June 30, 1967 from the heirs of the SC considered the case submitted for decision with the brief of
Verano and ousted the caretaker from the property and the respondent. The petitioner filed a motion to amend the
constructed an apartment thereon. application to include Bienvenido Noriega as a co-applicant to the
• Petitioners filed an action for recovery of possession of the petition.
land.
• The court decided in favor of the petitioner but on appeal, the Issue:

Whether or not the grant of the motion to dismiss the opposition is it seeks to exclude the whole world in the second action.
proper? YES The cause of action however remains the same. The employment
of two different actions does not allow one to escape against the
Ruling: principle of res judicata where one and the same cause of action
The SC held that the Land Registration Act does not provide cannot be litigated twice. Although the first action was litigated
for pleading similar to a motion to dismiss but the Rules of Court before a competent court of general jurisdiction and the other over
allows its application in land registration proceeding as only a registration court is of no significance since that both courts
suppletory when it is practicable and convenient. Therefore, the should be of equal jurisdiction is not a requisite for res judicata to
court may sustain a motion to dismiss in land registration apply. For convenience, the SC should decide whether to dismiss
proceeding as the case at bar. the application for registration or the opposition thereto. Because
Noted by the court in the ordinary civil case, the counterclaim can the conflicting claims of both parties have been settled and
be taken as a complaint where the defendant becomes the decided by the court previously, it upheld the finality of its decision
plaintiff. The original plaintiff thus becomes defendant in the and dismissed the petition.
counterclaim and he may choose to answer the counterclaim or be  In a registration case, it was held that the defense of res
declared in default or file a motion to dismiss the same. The judicata when not set up either in a motion to dismiss or in
respondent clearly opted for the last choice. answer is deemed waived.
The SC held that res judicata operates in the case at bar with its  Res judicata cannot be pleased for the first time on appeal.
requisites present in the case: [a] the former judgment must be
final, [b] it must have been' rendered by a court having jurisdiction Submission of subdivision plan
of the subject matter and of the parties, [c] it must be a judgment The court may require the submission by the parties of a
on the merits and [d] there must be between the first and second subdivision plan duly approved by the Director of Lands, in the
actions identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action. following instances:
The inclusion of private respondent Cayaba's co-owner, a. If the opposition or adverse claim covers only a portion of
Bienvenido Noriega, Sr., in the application for r egistration does not the lot applied for which is not delimited on the plan
result in a difference in parties between the two cases. One right of accompanying the application;
a co-owner is to defend in court the interests of the co-ownership. b. In case of undivided co-ownership, conflicting claims of
Although the first action was captioned for the recovery of ownership or possession, or overlapping of boundaries
possession, possession is sought based on ownership, thus the
action was one in the nature of accion reinvidicatoria. The second Section 26. Order of default; effect . If no person appears and
action is for registration of title where the registration is sought answers within the time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of
based on one’s ownership over the property. The difference the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing, order a default
between the two is that the plaintiff seeks to exclude other to be recorded and require the applicant to present evidence. By
persons from ownership over the property in the first action while the description in the notice "To all Whom It May Concern", all the

world are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the

default order. Motion to lift order of general default
 An order of general default is interlocutory in character,
Where an appearance has been entered and an answer filed, a subject to the control of the court, and may be modified or
default order shall be entered against persons who did not appear amended as the court may deem proper at any time prior
and answer. to the rendition of judgment.
 But the motion to lift the order of general default should be
When Order of Default be entered filed before the entry of final judgment.
 A motion to set aside the order of default filed prior to the
Order of General Default rendition of the judgment on the merits should be
 Addressed to the whole world considered with liberality.
 If no person appears and answers within the time allowed,  However, where the court revoked the order of default 5
the court shall, upon motion of the applicant, order a years after the said order had been entered, and permitted
default to be entered and require the applicant to present private claimant to file his answer and later ordered the
evidence. registration of the lots in his name, it was held that the
 All the world are made parties defendant and shall be order setting aside the order of default, and the
concluded by the default order. proceedings adjudicating the lots as private property, are
null and void and should be set aside.
Order of Special Default
 When an appearance has been entered and answer filed, a Party in Default can appeal judgment
default order shall be entered against persons who did not  In Martinez vs. Republic, the Court held that a defendant
appear and answer. party declared in default retains the right to appeal from
the judgment by default on the ground that:
When no answer in writing or any opposition is made to an a. The plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations
application for the registration of property, all the allegations of the complaint, or
contained in the application shall be held as confessed by reason of b. That the decision is contrary to law, even without
the absence thereof. the need of the prior filing of a motion to set aside
 But a declaration of default is not a guarantee that the the order of default
application for registration will be granted.
 It is still the burden of the applicant to prove that he is Section 27. Speedy hearing; reference to a referee . The trial court
entitled to registration by “well-nigh incontrovertible shall see to it that all registration-proceedings are disposed or
proof”. within ninety days from the date the case is submitted for decision.

possession in the concept of owner of the lots during the

The Court, if it deems necessary, may refer the case or any part period required by law
thereof to a referee who shall hear the parties and their evidence,
and the referee shall submit his report thereon to the Court within Citizenship Requirement
fifteen days after the termination of such hearing. Hearing before a
referee may be held at any convenient place within the province or The Krivenko Doctrine: Aliens disqualified from acquiring public
city as may be fixed by him and after reasonable notice thereof and private lands
shall have been served the parties concerned. The court may In the landmark case of Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds , the SC
render judgment in accordance with the report as though the f acts settled the issue as to who are qualified and disqualified to own
have been found by the judge himself: Provided, however, that the public as well as private lands in the Philippines.
court may in its discretion accept the report, or set it aside in whole KRIVENKO v REGISTER OF DEEDS
or in part, or order the case to be recommitted for further
proceedings G.R. No. L-630 November 15, 1947
ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, petitioner-appellant,
Hearing vs.
 Sec. 27 aims to dispose of registration cases as THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA, respondent and
expeditiously as possible and hence the court is required to appellee.
decide the case within 90 days from the time it is submitted
for decision.
 It may be necessary for the court to refer the case to a FACTS
referee, usually the branch clerk of court, for hearing and • Alexander A. Kriventor, alien, bought a residential lot from the
reception of evidence to enable the judge to devote his Magdalena Estate, Inc., in December of 1941, the registration of
time to other important businesses of the court. which was interrupted by the war.
 In such event, the referee shall receive the evidence and
submit his report to the court within 15 days from the • In May, 1945, he sought to accomplish said registration. ROD
termination of the hearing. Manila denied on the ground that, being an alien, he cannot
 The court shall render judgment on the basis of the report. acquire land in this jurisdiction.
Proof required in registration proceedings • Krivenko then brought the case to the CFI Manila by means of
 The burden is on applicant to prove his positive averments. a consulta. The previous judgment was sustained. This is Krivenko’s
 He must submit convincing proof of his and his appeal
predecessor-in-interest’s actual, peaceful, and adverse
Notes on Motion to withdraw the appeal:

• there has been a motion to withdraw appeal but the court has domain, water, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
nevertheless resolved the case on the merits, as not only had the forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the
brief been presented, but the case has already been voted upon Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation,
• While the motion was pending, DOJ issued a new circular came development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the
instructing all register of deeds to accept for registration all Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per
transfers of residential lots to aliens. ROD Manila naturally obeyed centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to
the new circular, as against his own stand in this case which had any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the
been maintained by the trial court and defended by the SolGen inaguration of the Government established uunder this
here. Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public
• Reason for not granting the withdrawal: Krivenko wins his agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no licence, concession,
case, not by a decision of this Court, but by the DOJ circular, issued or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of
while this case was pending before this Court. The possibility for the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding
this court to voice its conviction in a future case may be remote, twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except
with the result that our indifference of today might signify a as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial
permanent offense to the Constitution. uses other than the development of water "power" in which cases
beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant.
ISSUE
WON an ALIEN under our Constitution may acquire residential land. SCOPE: embraces all lands of any kind of the public domain
NO. PURPOSE: to establish a permanent and fundamental policy for the
conservation and utilization of all natural resources of the Nation.
RULING RULE: "natural resources, with the exception of public
agricultural land, shall not be aliented," and with respect to public
Under the Constitution aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens.
agricultural lands, including residential lands.
The phrase "public agricultural lands" appearing in Sec 1 of Article When Art 13, Sec 1 makes mention of only agricultural, timber and
XIII of the Constitution must be construed as including residential mineral lands, it means that all lands of the public domain are
lands, in conformity with a legislative interpretation given after the classified into said three groups. This classification is corroborated
adoption of the Constitution. by existing public laws and judicial decisions in the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Article XIII, section 1, Constitution
Article XIII. — Conservation and utilization of natural r esources. The term "public agricultural lands" under said classification had
SECTION 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public then acquired a technical meaning that was well-known to the

members of the Constitutional Convention who were mostly

members of the legal profession. The term "public agricultural lands" has both a broad and a
particular meaning.
"AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC LANDS"
The definition provided for by Mapa vs. Insular Government (1908), BROAD OR GENERAL MEANING: as used in the Constitution, it
as provided for in Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, has been followed embraces all lands that are neither timber nor mineral.
in a long line of decisions of this Court. - "those public lands PARTICULAR MEANING: Sec 9, CA 141 which classifies "public
acquired from Spain which are neither mineral for timber lands." agricultural lands" for purposes of alienation or disposition, into
a. lands that are stricly agricultural or actually devoted to
“RESIDENTIAL LANDS” cultivation for agricultural puposes;
it has been held that since they are neither mineral nor timber b. ands that are residential;
lands, of necessity they must be classified as agricultural. c. commercial;
d. industrial;
LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION THAT THE TERM "PUBLIC e. or lands for other purposes.
AGRICULTURAL LAND" INCLUDES LAND FOR RESIDENCE
PURPOSES
The fact that these lands are made alienable or disposable under
In relation to rules of construction, it may be safely presumed that Commonwealth Act No. 141, in favor of Filipino citizens, is a
the ConCon referred to the technical description then prevailing conclusive indication of their character as public agricultural lands
because at the time the Constitution was adopted, lands of the under said statute and under the Constitution.
public domain were classified in our laws and jurisprudence into
agricultural, mineral, and timber, and that the term "public OBSERVE THAT:
agricultural lands" was construed as referring to those lands that Prior to the Constitution
were not timber or mineral, and as including residential lands. Aliens could acquire public agricultural lands used for industrial
or residential purposes (Sec 24 of Public Land Act No. 2874)
Revision of the Public Land Law, Passage of the CA 141 (after the Land of the public domain suitable for residence or industrial
Constitution was adopted) purposes could be sold or leased to aliens (Sec 57 of Public Land
Act No. 2874)
Residential lots are considered as agricultural lands, for, under
the Constitution, only agricultural lands may be alienated. This can After the Constitution
be gleaned from the fact that SEC 58, 59 and 60, CA 141 permit the the right of aliens to acquire such kind of lands is completely
sale of residential lots to Filipino citizens or to associations or stricken out, undoubtedly in pursuance of the constitutional
corporations controlled by such citizens. limitation. (Sec 23, CA 141)

Land of public domain suitable for residence or industrial Importance of his opinion: not alone because it comes from a
purposes may only be leased, but not sold, to aliens, and the lease Secratary of Justice who later became the Chief Justice of this
granted shall only be valid while the land is used for the purposes Court, but also because it was rendered by a member of the
referred to. The exclusion of sale in the new Act is undoubtedly in cabinet of the late President Quezon who actively participated in
pursuance of the constitutional limitation, and this again is another the drafting of the constitutional provision under consideration.
legislative construction that the term "public agricultural land" And the opinion of the Quezon administration was reiterated by
includes land for residence purposes. (Sec 60, CA 141) the Secretary of Justice under the Osmeña administration, and it
was firmly maintained in this Court by the Solicitor General of both
administrations.
The three great departments of the Government — judicial,
legislative and executive — have always maintained that lands of SECTION 5 DISCUSSION: The constitutional purpose of section 1 of
the public domain are classified into agricultural, mineral and Article XIII of the Constitution of conserving agricultural resources
timber, and that agricultural lands include residential lots. in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the
Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural
Executive Department of the Government: lands in favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that section
1939, Secretary of Justice Jose Abad Santos: “At the time of the 5 is included in Article XIII:
adoption of the Constitution of the Philippines, the term Sec. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
'agricultural public lands' acquired a technical meaning in our public agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to
laws. *Mapa vs. Insular Government definition was cited* individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or
Residential commercial, or industrial lots forming part of the public hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.
domain must have to be included in one or more of these classes.
Clearly, they are neither timber nor mineral, of necessity, therefore, Undoubtedly, as above indicated, section 5 is intended to insure
they must be classified as agricultural. the policy of nationalization contained in section 1. Both sections
must, therefore, be read together for they have the same purpose
Test in determining whether lands are agricultural or not: Character and the same subject matter.
of the land is the test. In other words, it is the susceptibility of the
land to cultivation for agricultural purposes by ordinary farming Since "agricultural land" under section 1 includes residential lots,
methods. the same technical meaning should be attached to "agricultural
land under section 5. It is a rule of statutory construction that "a
Director of Lands: no reason is seen why a piece of land, which may word or phrase repeated in a statute will bear the same meaning
be sold to a person if he is to devote it to agricultural, cannot be throughout the statute, unless a different intention appears."
sold to him if he intends to use it as a site for his home.”
The lands are the same in both sections, and, for the conservation

of the national patrimony, what is important is the nature or class "that lands, minerals, forests, and other natural resources
of the property regardless of whether it is owned by the State or constitute the exclusive heritage of the Filipino nation. They
by its citizens. should, therefore, be preserved for those under the sovereign
authority of that nation and for their posterity."
Sec 1 “agricultural land” – public
Sec 5 "agricultural land" – private under section 5, is that the It is well to note at this juncture that in the present case we have
former is public and the latter private. no choice. We are construing the Constitution as it is and not as we
may desire it to be. Perhaps the effect of our construction is to
But such difference refers to ownership and not to the class of preclude aliens, admitted freely into the Philippines from owning
land. sites where they may build their homes. But if this is the solemn
mandate of the Constitution, we will not attempt to compromise it
The purpose of the constitutional provision is the conservation of even in the name of amity or equity.
the national patrimony, and private residential lands are as much
an integral part of the national patrimony as the residential lands of We are satisfied, however, that aliens are not completely excluded
the public domain. Specially is this so where, as indicated above, by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes.
the prohibition as to the alienable of public residential lots would Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be
become superflous if the same prohibition is not equally applied to granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not
private residential lots. forbidden by the Constitution. Should they desire to remain here
forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship
is not impossible to acquire.
If the term "private agricultural lands" is to be construed as not
including residential lots or lands not strictly agricultural; RESULT The 1935 Constitution (Sec. 1 of Art. XIII) reserved the right to
the result would be that "aliens may freely acquire and possess not participate in the disposition, exploitation, development, and
only residential lots and houses for themselves but entire utilization of all lands of the public domain and other natural
subdivisions, and whole towns and cities," and that "they may resources of the Philippines for Filipino citizens or corporations at
validly buy and hold in their names lands of any area for building least 60% of the capital of which was owned by Filipinos.
homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries, hatcheries, schools,
health and vacation resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, Aliens, whether individual or corporations, have been disqualified
airfields, and a host of other uses and purposes that are not, in from acquiring public lands; hence, they have also been disqualified
appellant's words, strictly agricultural." from acquiring private lands.
Fundamental principal underlying the provision of Article XIII of the (Sec. 5, Art. XIII) Save in cases of legal succession, no private
Constitution agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to

individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or land, or 3,000 hectares in the case of rural land.
hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.  In case of married couples, one of them may avail of the
privilege herein granted. But if both shall avail of the same,
 The constitutional intent of the 1935 Constitution is the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum
strongly reflected in CA 141, known as the Public Land Act. herein fixed.
 In Borromeo vs. Descallar, the SC held that aliens are  In case the transferee already owns urban or rural land for
prohibited from acquiring private lands. This is embodied in business or other purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a
Sec. 7 Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution. The capacity to transferee of additional urban or rural land for business or
acquire private land is dependent on the capacity to acquire other purposes which, when added to those already owned
or hold lands of the public domain. by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein
o Private land may be transferred only to individuals authorized.
or entities qualified to acquire or hold lands of the  If the transferee has already acquired urban land, he shall
public domain. Only Filipino citizens or corporations be disqualified from acquiring rural land area and vice
at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by versa.
Filipinos are qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
public domain. Thus, as the rule now stands, the Under the Citizenship Rerention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
fundamental law explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos (RA 9225) provided that natural-born citizens of the Philippines
from acquiring or holding title to private lands who have lost their Philippines citizenship by reason of their
except only by way of legal succession or if the naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed
acquisition was made by a former natural-born to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking oath of
citizens. allegiance to the Republic, and shall enjoy full civil and political
rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities
A natural-born Filipino citizens who has lost his citizen-ship may under existing laws of the Philippines.
be a transferee of private land  The area limitation under RA 7042 does not apply to those
Sec. 8 of Art. XII of the Constitution provides that a natural-born who has re-acquired lost citizenship under RA 9225 since
citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may they are granted the right to “enjoy full civil and political
be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by rights” upon the re-acquisition of his F ilipino citizenship.
law.
Capacity to own land is determined as of the time of its acquisition
Pursuant to Sec. 10 of RA 7042, as amended by RA 8179 dated and not registration
March 28, 1996, provided that any natural-born citizen who has the  The time to determine whether a person acquiring land is
legal capacity to enter into a contract may be a transferee of a qualified is the time the right to own it is acquired and not
private land up to a maximum of 5,000 sq. meters in case of urban the time to register ownership.

 Thus, a naturalized Canadian citizen who, while still a Found that the land sought to be registered has been declared
Filipino citizen acquired land from a vendor who had to be within the alienable and disposable zone established by the
already complied with the requirements of registration Bureau of Forest Development
prior to the purchase, can validly register his title to the
land. that “both applicants were still Filipino citizens when they
This was the ruling of the SC in the case of Republic vs. Director of bought the land in controversy from its former owner. For this
Lands and Lapina: reason, the prohibition against the acquisition of private lands by
aliens could not apply.
REPUBLIC v CA and LAPIÑA
G.R. No. 108998 August 24, 1994
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, Their purpose in initiating the instant action is merely to
vs. confirm their title over the land, for, as has been passed upon, they
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES MARIO B. LAPIÑA AND had been the owners of the same since 1978. It ought to be pointed
FLOR DE VEGA, respondents. out that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. The
Torrens System was not established as a means for the acquisition
FACTS: of title to private land. It is intended merely to confirm and register
June 17, 1978 - Sps Lapiña bought 2 Lots (347 and 348), as the title which one may already have.
their residence situated in San Pablo City, from one Cristeta Dazo
Belen. At the time of the purchase, respondent spouses where That title and ownership over lands within the meaning and for
then natural-born Filipino citizens. the purposes of the constitutional prohibition dates back to the
time of their purchase, not later. The fact that the
February 5, 1987 - spouses filed an application for registration applicants-appellees are not Filipino citizens now cannot be taken
of title of the 2 parcels of land (RTC). This time, however, they were against them for they were not disqualified from acquiring the land
no longer Filipino citizens and have opted to embrace Canadian in question
citizenship through naturalization.Republic opposed.
REPUBLIC
RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT That the sps have not acquired proprietary rights over the
The court confirmed their title to the lots in question. (Noting subject properties before they acquired Canadian citizenship
in the dispositive portion that they were Filipino citizens by birth through naturalization to justify the registration thereof in their
but now Canadian citizens by naturalization and their residence in favor.
both the PH and Canada).
that even privately owned unregistered lands are presumed to
RULING OF THE CA: AFFIRMED. be public lands under the principle that lands of whatever

classification belong to the State under the Regalian doctrine. however, what the law provides.
Thus, before the issuance of the certificate of title, the occupant is
not in the jurisdical sense the true owner of the land since it still With respect to possession and occupation of the alienable and
pertains to the State. disposable lands of the public domain, the law employs the terms
"by themselves", "the applicant himself or through his
That it is only when the court adjudicates the land to the predecessor-in-interest".
applicant for confirmation of title would the land become privately
owned land, for in the same proceeding, the court may declare it It matters not whether the vendee/applicant has been in
public land, depending on the evidence. possession of the subject property for only a day so long as the
period and/or legal requirements for confirmation of title has been
ANCILLARY ISSUE: Republic does not deny that the sps’ PII complied with by his predecessor-in-interest, the said period is
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession tacked to his possession.
of the disputed land not only since June 12, 1945, but even as early
as 1937. Except that respondent spouses, in its perception, were in Section 48 of the Public Land Act (CA 141):
possession of the land sought to be registered only in 1978 and (b) Those who by themselves or through their
therefore short of the required length of time. predecessors-in-interest….. shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and
ISSUE shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
MAIN ISSUE: Can a FOREIGN NATIONAL apply for registration of chapter.
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 As amended by PD 1073:
the requirements for registration under the Public Land Act (CA Sec. 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter
141)? YES VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that
these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain which have been in open, continuous,
RULING exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the
applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona
ANCILLARY ISSUE: Tacking of possession: fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.
Following the logic of the Republic, any transferee is thus
foreclosed to apply for registration of title over a parcel of land
notwithstanding the fact that the transferor, or his Private respondents stepped into the shoes of their
predecessor-in-interest has been in open, notorious and exclusive predecessors-in-interest and by virtue thereof, acquired all the legal
possession thereof for thirty (30) years or more. This is not, rights necessary to confirm what could otherwise be deemed as an

imperfect title. filing, it goes without saying that they had acquired no vested
right, consisting of an imperfect title, over the property before
The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove that they lost their Philippine citizenship.
(a) the land is alienable public land and
(b) his possession, in the concept above stated, must be either Clearly, the application in Buyco were denied registration of title
since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public not merely because they were American citizens at the time of
Land Act their application therefor. Respondents therein failed to prove
possession of their predecessor-in-interest since time immemorial
Open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land or possession in such a manner that the property has been
for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby segregated from public domain; such that at the time of their
the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and application, as American citizens, they have acquired no vested
without the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public rights over the parcel of land.
land and becomes private property. . . .( Director of Lands v IAC)
In the case at bar
When the conditions as specified in the foregoing provision are Sps were undoubtedly natural-born F ilipino citizens at the time
complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by of the acquisition of the properties and by virtue thereof, acquired
operation of law, a right to a grant, a government grant, without vested rights thereon, tacking in the process, the possession in the
the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land, concept of owner and the prescribed period of time held by their
therefore, ceases to be of the public domain and beyond the predecessors-in-interest under the Public Land Act.
authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The application for
confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not affect In addition, private respondents have constructed a house of
the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the strong materials on the contested property, now occupied by
patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said respondent Lapiñas mother.
patent.
But what should not be missed in the disposition of this case is the
The Torrens system was not established as a means for the fact that the Constitution itself allows the sps to register the
acquisition of title to private land. It merely confirms, but does not contested parcels of land in their favor.
confer ownership.
Sections 7 and 8 of Article XII of the Constitution
MAIN ISSUE: CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT Sec. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall
be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
Compared to Buyco case: associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
the private respondents became American citizens before

Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a

natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine Even if sps were already Canadian citizens at the time they applied
citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to for registration of the properties in question, said properties as
limitations provided by law. discussed above were already private lands; consequently, there
could be no legal impediment for the registration thereof by
similar to Section 15, Article XIV of the then 1973 respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains. The parcels
Sec. 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14 of this Ar ticle, of land sought to be registered no longer form part of the public
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his citizenship domain. They are already private in character since private
may be a transferee of private land, for use by him as his residence, respondents' predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
as the Batasang Pambansa may provide. continuous and exclusive possession and occupation thereof under
claim of ownership prior to June 12, 1945 or since 1937.
Pursuant thereto, Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 was passed into law,
the relevant provision of which provides: It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private
land, were natural-born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose
Sec. 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his of transfer and/or acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not
Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a significant whether private respondents are no longer Filipino
contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land citizens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land
up to a maximum area of 1000sqm, in the case of urban land, or 1 in question. What is important is that private respondents were
hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees
In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the of a private land, they could apply for registration in accordance
privilege herein granted; Provided, That if both shall avail of the with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution.
same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein
fixed. In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for Considering that private respondents were able to prove the
residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of requisite period and character of possession of their
an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, predecessors-in-interest over the subject lots, their application for
when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed the registration of title must perforce be approved.
maximum areas herein authorized.
RE: dissenting opinion, however, states that the r equirements in BP
BP 185 governs the disposition of private lands in favor of a 185, must also be complied with by spouses. Specifically, it refers to
natural-born Filipino citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship Section 6.
remains to be BP 185. (since from the adoption of the 1987 The requirements in Sec. 6 of BP 185 do not apply in the instant
Constitution up to the present, no other law has been passed by case since said requirements are primarily directed to the register
the legislature on the same subject) of deeds before whom compliance therewith is to be submitted.

Nowhere in the provision is it stated, much less implied, that the Aliens may lease private lands
requirements must likewise be submitted before the land  Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they
registration court prior to the approval of an application for may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract
registration of title. which is not forbidden by the Constitution.
 A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. But if an
An application for registration of title before a land registration alien is given a lease to last for 50 years, then it becomes
court should not be confused with the issuance of a certificate of clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of
title by the register of deeds. It is only when the judgment of the ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages the
land registration court approving the application for registration sum of rights (jus possidendi, jus utendi, jud fruendi, and jus
has become final that a decree of registration is issued. And that is abutendi) which make up ownership.
the time when the requirements of Sec. 6, BP 185, before the
register of deeds should be complied with by the applicants. This Foreigners allowed to purchase condominium units
decree of registration is the one that is submitted to the office of  Under RA 4726, foreign nationals can own Philippine real
the register of deeds for issuance of the certificate of title in favor estate through the purchase of condominium units or
of the applicant. Prior to the issuance of the decree of registration, townhouses pursuant to Sec. 5
the register of deeds has no participation in the approval of the  The law provides that no condominium unit can be sold
application for registration of title as the decree of registration is without at the same time selling the corresponding amount
yet to be issued. of rights, shares, or other interests in the condominium
management body, the condominium corporation.
Contra-distinguish this case with Director of Lands vs. Buyco,  No one can buy shares in a condominium corporation
where the applicants were like-wise natural-born Filipino citizens without at the same time buying a condominium unit.
who later became naturalized American citizens. But their  It expressly allows foreigners to acquire condominium units
application was denied registration, not simply because they were and shares in condominium corporations up to not more
already American citizens at the time they filed the application, but than 40% of the total and outstanding capital stock of a
because they failed to prove that their predecessor-in-interest had Filipino-owned or controlled corporation.
possessed the property in such manner as to segregate or remove o Under this set-up, the ownership of the land is
the same from the mass of the public domain. legally separated from the unit itself.
o The land is owned by the condominium corporation
Unlike in the case of Lapina, they had acquired no vested right, and the unit owner is simply a member in this
consisting of an imperfect title over the property before they lost condominium corporation. As long as 60% of the
their Philippine citizenship. In fact, the entire property is a pasture members of this condominium corporation are
land which is not alienable under the Constitution. Filipinos, the remaining members can be foreigners.
Hence, the constitutional proscription against aliens

owning real property does not apply. November 10, 1939 provided that until the final withdrawal
of the United States sovereignty over the Philippines,
Donation in favor of Religious Corporation controlled by citizens and corporations of the United States could enjoy
non-Filipinos not registrable all the same civil rights as Philippine citizens. The Ordinance
 The 1987 Constitution makes no exception in favor of was made part of the 1935 Constitution as directed in Sec. 2
religious associations. To permit religious associations of the Tydings-McDuffie Law or the Independence Law.
controlled by non-Filipinos to acquire agricultural lands  The proclamation of the Philippine Independence on July 4,
would be to drive the opening wedge to revive alien 1946 did not impair Moss’ proprietary rights over the said
religious landholdings in the country. land because the 1935 Constitution provides that upon the
 As to the contention that the disqualification is violative of proclamation of Philippine Independence, “all existing
the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, the property rights of citizens or corporations of the United
Court stated that land ownership is NOT dispensable to the States shall be acknowledged, respected, and safeguarded
free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession or to the same extent as property rights of citizens of the
worship. Philippines. This Constitutional provision is implemented in
 In Register of Deeds of Rizal vs. Ung Siu Si Temple , the SC Art. VI of the Treaty of General Relations entered into
held that the fact that the religious organization has not between the Republic of the Philippines and the United
capital stock does not suffice to escape the Constitutional States on July 4, 1946.
inhibition since it is admitted that its members are of
foreign nationality. The spirit of the Constitution demands Corporation sole may acquire and register private agricultural
that in the absence of capital stock, the controlling land
membership should be composed of Filipino citizens.  It was held in Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of
Davao, Inc. vs. Land Registration Commission that a
Distinguish the Ung Siu Si case from the case of Roman Catholic corporation sole, which consists of one person only, is
Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. vs. Land Registration vested with the right to purchase and hold real estate and
Commission where the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of to register the same in trust for the faithful or members of
Davao is a corporation sole whereas the former is a corporation the religious society or church for which the corporation
aggregate, an unregistered organization operating through three was organized.
trustees, all of Chinese nationality.  It is not treated as an ordinary private corporation because
whether or not it be so treated, the Constitutional
Land acquired by an American citizen in 1945 can be registered proscription against private corporations acquiring public
under the Ordinance appended to the 1935 Constitution agricultural lands will not apply.
 While aliens are disqualified to acquire lands under the 1935  The reason for this is that a corporation sole has “no
Constitution, the Ordinance appended thereto on nationality” and the framers of the Constitution did not

have in mind the religious corporation sole when they estate of Wong Heng, deceased, defendant-appellant.
provided that 60% of the capital thereof be owned by
Filipino citizens. FACTS
 A corporation sole or “ordinary” is not the owner of the • Justina Santos y Canon Faustino and her sister Lorenzo were
properties that he may acquire but merely the the owners in common of a piece of land in Manila.
administrator thereof. The properties pass, upon his death, • The sisters lived in one of the two houses in it, while Wong
not to his personal heirs but to his successor in office. Heng, a Chinese, lived with his family in the restaurant. Wong had
been a long-time lessee of a portion of the property, paying a
Can a F ilipino vendor recover land sold to an alien? monthly rental of P2,620.
 In Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee Hun , the SC ruled in the negative
because the Filipino vendor was in pari delicto with the • Justina Santos became the owner of the entire property as her
alien vendee. sister died with no other heir. Then already well advanced in years,
 In Cabanatuan vs. Uy Hoo, the SC made the being at the time 90 years old, blind, crippled and an invalid, she
pronouncement the Filipino vendor is prevented from was left with no other relative to live with. Her only companions in
invoking the doctrine in the Krivenko case if their purpose the house were her 17 dogs and 8 maids.
is to recover the lands thay they have voluntarily parted
with, because of their guilty knowledge that what they • Her otherwise dreary existence was brightened now and then
were doing was in violation of the Constitution. They by the visits of Wong's four children who had become the joy of
cannot escape this conclusion because they are presumed her life. Wong himself was the trusted man to whom she delivered
to know the law. As this Court well-said, a party to an illegal various amounts for safekeeping. Wong also paid her expenses.
contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have
his illegal objects be carried out. The law will not aide either • "In grateful acknowledgment of the personal services of the
party to an illegal agreement, it leaves the parties where it lessee to her," Justina Santos executed a contract of lease in
finds them. favor of Wong, covering the portion then already leased to him and
another portion. The lease was for 50 years, although the lessee
However, Rellosa was reversed by Philippine Banking Corporation was given the right to withdraw at any time from the agreement;
vs. Lui She: the monthly rental was P3,120. The contract covered an area of
G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 1,124 square meters.
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, representing the estate of
JUSTINA SANTOS Y CANON FAUSTINO, deceased, • Ten days later the contract was amended so as to make it
plaintiff-appellant, cover the entire property, including the portion on which the house
vs. of Justina Santos stood, at an additional monthly rental of P360.
LUI SHE in her own behalf and as administratrix of the intestate For his part Wong undertook to pay, out of the rental due from

him, an amount not exceeding P1,000 a month for the food of her • PRESENT ACTION: seeking cancellation of the registration of
dogs and the salaries of her maids. the contracts + collection of sum of money; alleged that the
contracts were obtained by Wong through fraud, etc. and were
• she executed another contract giving Wong the option to buy made to circumvent the constitutional provision prohibiting aliens
the leased premises for P120,000, payable within 10 years at a from acquiring lands in the Philippines and also of the Philippine
monthly installment of P1,000. The option, written in Tagalog, Naturalization Laws."
imposed on him the obligation to pay for the food of the dogs and • The CFI declared the documents null and void + ordered to pay
the salaries of the maids in her household, the charge not to the lease, among others. Both parties appealed. After the case was
exceed P1,800 a month. submitted for decision, both parties died, substituted.
• The option was conditioned on his obtaining Philippine ISSUE

citizenship, a petition for which was then pending. It appears, As regards the validity of the lease contracts in favor of Wong
however, that this application for naturalization was withdrawn Cheng
when it was discovered that he was not a resident of Rizal.
RULING
• Justina filed a petition to adopt him and his children on the
erroneous belief that adoption would confer on them Philippine Aliens may use lands by lease
citizenship. The error was discovered and the proceedings were A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option
abandoned. giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is
granted Philippine citizenship. (Krivenko v. RoD)
• Subsequently, she executed two other contracts, extending
the term of the lease to 99 years, and another fixing the term of Aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the
the option of 50 years. Both contracts are written in Tagalog. use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the
Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights
• In two wills executed subsequently, Justina bade her legatees such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution.
to respect the contracts she had entered into with Wong, but in a Should they desire to remain here forever and share our fortunes
codicil of a later date she appears to have a change of heart. and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
Claiming that the various contracts were made by her because of
machinations and inducements practiced by him, she now directed Justina’s intentions –
her executor to secure the annulment of the contracts. The ambition of the old woman, before her death, was to see to it
that these properties be enjoyed, even to own them, by Wong
Heng because Doña Justina did not have any relatives, near or far,
and she considered Wong Heng as a son and his children her

grandchildren; especially her consolation in life was when she can be done, then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding
would hear the children reciting prayers in Tagalog. in the Philippines, as announced in Krivenko v . Register of Deeds,22
is indeed in grave peril.
She was very emphatic in the care of the (17) dogs and of the maids
who helped her much, and she wanted that no one could disturb It does not follow from what h as been said, however, that because
Wong Heng from those properties (reason for the 99-year lease). the parties are in pari delicto they will be left where they are,
without relief.
Contracts VOID; the contracts were a scheme to circumvent the 1. the original parties who were guilty of a violation of the
Constitutional prohibition – fundamental charter have died and have since been substituted by
For the testimony just quoted, while dispelling doubt as to the their administrators to whom it would be unjust to impute their
intention of Justina Santos, at the same time gives the clue to what guilt.
we view as a scheme to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition 2. ART 1416 of the Civil Code provides, EXCEPTION to the pari
against the transfer of lands to aliens. "The illicit purpose then delicto rule:
becomes the illegal causa"19 rendering the contracts void. "When the agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited,
and the prohibition by law is designed for the protection of the
Taken singly, the contracts show nothing that is necessarily illegal, plaintiff, he may, if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what
but considered collectively, they reveal an insidious pattern to he has paid or delivered."
subvert by indirection what the Constitution directly prohibits.
The Constitutional provision that "Save in cases of hereditary
if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or
piece of land, by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations
otherwise dispose of his property,21 this to last for 50 years, then it qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the
becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of Philippines"24 is an expression of public policy to conserve lands
ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of for the Filipinos. As this Court said in Krivenko:
the right to enjoy the land ( jus possidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi
and jus abutendi) but also of the right to dispose of it ( jus ….Perhaps the effect of our construction is to preclude aliens
disponendi) — rights the sum total of which make up ownership. It admitted freely into the Philippines from owning sites where they
is just as if today the possession is transferred, tomorrow, the use, may build their homes. But if this is the solemn mandate of the
the next day, the disposition, and so on, until ultimately all the Constitution, we will not attempt to compromise it even in the
rights of which ownership is made up are consolidated in an alien. name of amity or equity . . . .
And yet this is just exactly what the parties in this case did within
the space of one year, with the result that Justina Santos' Aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, including
ownership of her property was reduced to a hollow concept. If this residential lands, and, accordingly, judgment is aff irmed.


Land Title and Deeds Land Title and Deeds

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Land Title and Deeds Land Title and Deeds

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Land Title and Deeds

Ateneo de Davao University

Presidential Decree No. 1529 released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 1|P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 2|P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 3|P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 4|P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 5|P a g e

Facts: As to these assets, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do

Issue: The private-claimant has not presented the required certification

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 6|P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 7|P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 8|P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 9|P a g e

INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANTENOR S. VIRATA and the Ruling:

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 11 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 12 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 13 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 14 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 15 | P a g e

o Posting Proceeding in personam – the technical object of the suit is

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 16 | P a g e

accompanied by a plan and technical description of the said lot.

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 17 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 18 | P a g e

[G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000] Ruling:

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 19 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 20 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 21 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 22 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 23 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 24 | P a g e

registered and the registration of the deed does not

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 25 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 26 | P a g e

regulations therefor; powers by charging the Court with administrative function

not as administrative officials, and their act is the

executive officials already decreed and titled in the name of another,

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 27 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 28 | P a g e

land lies. The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 29 | P a g e

ROD to determine as this function belongs properly

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 30 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 31 | P a g e

Ruling: [G.R. No. 154409. June 21, 2004]

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 32 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 33 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 34 | P a g e

manner provided for by law.

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 35 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 36 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 37 | P a g e

approved on Oct. 29, 1997 possible claimants

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 38 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 39 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 40 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 41 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 42 | P a g e

that Malabanan has acquired ownership over the subject property

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 43 | P a g e

Notes by Shelumiel Abapo, CPA 44 | P a g e

patrimonial property of the State? – When there is a declaration by