PROPERTY REGISTRATION

UPDATES, CONFLICTS
AND REMEDIES

JUSTICE OSWALDO D. AGCAOILI

Philippine Judicial Academy
(Author of “Property Registration
Decree (Land Titles and Deeds)”
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
• Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State, and that the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
• Also, the doctrine states that all lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
• Consequently, the person applying for registration
has the burden of proof to overcome the
presumption of ownership of lands of the public
domain. (Central Mindanao Unhiversity v.
Republic, GR No. 195026, Feb. 22, 2016)
• The Regalian doctrine is reflected in Art. XII, Sec. 2
of the Constitution:
• Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated.”
• Presumption of State ownership must be overcome by
a positive act of government
– To overcome the presumption of State ownership,
the applicant must establish through
incontrovertible evidence that the land sought to be
registered is alienable or disposable based on a
positive act of the government. (CMU v. Reublic,
supra; Republic v. Remnan Enterprises, Inc., GR
No. 199310, Feb. 19, 2014; Republic v. Bantigue,
GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012; See also:
Agcaoili, “Property Registration Decree and
Related Laws.”)
• To prove that a land is alienable, the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as presidential
proclamation or an executive order; an administrative
action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and a legislative act or a statute
declaring the land as alienable and disposable must be
established. (Republic v. Cortez, GR No. 197472,
Sept. 7, 2015)
• Hence, a public land remains part of the
inalienable public domain unless it is shown to
have been reclassified and alienated by the State to
a private person. (Ibid)
NATURE OF REGISTRATION
PROCEEDINGS
• Registration not a mode of acquiring ownership
– Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership
but is merely a procedure to establish evidence of
title over realty - a system of registration of titles
to lands.
• Registration is a proceeding in rem
– Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands
shall be in rem and based on generally accepted
principles underlying the Torrens system. (Sec. 2,
PD 1529) Jurisdiction in rem is acquired by the
constructive seizure of the land through
publication, service of notice and posting. (Sec. 23,
id.)
• Purpose: to quiet title to land
– The purpose of registration is to quiet title to land;
to put a stop forever to any question as to the
legality of the title, except claims which are noted
in the certificate; to decree land titles that shall be
final, irrevocable, and indisputable; and to relieve
the land of the burden of known as well as
unknown claims.
• But the Torrens system does not furnish a shield
for fraud, nor permit one to enrich himself at the
expense of others. (Rodriguez v. Lim, 459
SCRA 412; Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 125585, June 8, 2005)
JURISDICTION
• Regional trial courts have plenary jurisdiction over
land registration cases and all petitions after original
registration. (Sec. 2, PD No. 1529)
 However, first level courts may be assigned by the
SC to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases:
 (a) Where there is no opposition, or
 (b) Over contested lots, the value of which does
not exceed P100,000. (Sec. 34, BP Blg. 129;
Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14,
2012)
 Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals.
• The value of the property is ascertained in three
ways:
– First, by the affidavit of the claimant;
– Second, by agreement of the respective
claimants, if there are more than one; or,
– Third, from the corresponding tax declaration
of the real property. (Sec. 34, BP 129)
• Facts:
– Bantigue Corp. filed with the RTC an application
for registration over Lot 8060 with an assessed
value of P14,920. However, the RTC motu proprio
remanded the case to the MTC since the assessed
value of the land is only P14,920. After hearing,
the MTC granted the application. The Republic
appealed arguing that the MTC did not acquire
jurisdiction since the selling price of the property
per deed of sale attached to the application is
P160,000.
• Issue:
Did the MTC acquire jurisdiction over the case?
• Ruling:
– Yes. The value of the land is determined, not from
the selling price, but from the tax declaration
which, in this case, stated that the assessed value
of the land is only P14,920, or below the
jurisdictional amount of P100,000 pertaining to
first level courts. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No.
162322, March 14, 2012)
• Is there need for a formal assignment/delegation by the
SC before 1st level courts may exercise jurisdiction?
Bantigue stresses:
• “The delegated jurisdiction of the MTC over cadastral
and land registration cases is indeed set forth in the
Judiciary Reorganization Act, x x x ”
• “(T)he MTC has delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and
land registration cases in two instances: first, where
there is no controversy or opposition; or, second, over
contested lots, the value of which does not exceed
P100,000.”
• Clearly, the law itself, Section 34 of BP Blg.129, aleady
provides the specific instances when first level courts may
exercise their delegated jurisdiction.
• Facts:
– In 1959, Leonor De los Santos filed an application for
registration with the CFI of Rizal. The Director of
Lands opposed. Notices were given and the case was
set for hearing on May 27, 1960. On Sept. 18, 1961,
the court issued an order dismissing the application on
the basis of a report from the LRC that a “homestead
patent was issued (to Julio Delgado)by the Director of
Lands during the pendency of the registration
proceedings.”
• Issue:
• Was the court divested of its jurisdiction by a
subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance
by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent
covering the same land subject of the registration case?
• Ruling:
– No. In her application for registration, De los Santos
alleged, among other matters, that she is the owner in
fee simple of the land. Since the existence or non-
existence of applicant’s registrable title is decisive of
the validity or nullity of the homestead patent, the
court’s jurisdiction could not have been divested by
the homestead patent's issuance.
– Proceedings for land registration are in rem, whereas
proceedings for acquisition of homestead patent are
not. A homestead patent, therefore, does not finally
dispose of the public or private character of the land as
far as courts acting upon proceedings in rem are
concerned . (De los Angeles v. Santos, GR No. L-
19615, Dec. 24, 1964)
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
COURT’S GENERAL JURISDICTION
(AS REGULAR RTC) AND LIMITED
JURISDICTION (AS REGISTRATION
COURT) NOW ELIMINATED
• Sec. 2, PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction
between the court’s general jurisdiction and limited
jurisdiction.
– Thus, a regional trial court has the authority to hear
not only applications for original registration but
also on all petitions filed after original registration
of title. The amendment aims to avoid multiplicity
of suits and simplify registration proceedings.
– The court can now hear and decide not only non-
controversial cases but even contentious issues
which before were beyond its competence.
(Lozada v. Bracewell, G No. 179155, April 2,
2014; Averia v. Caguioa, GR No. L-65129, Dec.
29, 1986)
• As stressed in Lozada v. Bracewell, (April 2, 2014): t
• “With the passage of Sec. 2. PD 1529, the
distinction between the general jurisdiction vested
in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction conferred
upon it as a cadastral court was eliminated. RTCs
now have the power to hear and determine all
questions, even contentious and substantial ones,
arising from applications for original registration
of titles to lands and petitions filed after such
registration.”
LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY (LRA)
• Functions of the LRA
– Issues decrees of registration
– Resolves cases elevated en consulta
– Exercises supervision and control over all clerks of
court in relation to land registration
– Implements orders or decisions of registration
courts
– Verifies and approves subdivision and
consolidation survey plans
• Functions of the LRA:
– Extends assistance to the DAR in the
implementation of the land reform program;
– Extends assistance to registration courts in
ordinary and cadastral registration cases; and
– Acts as central repository of records relative to
original registration, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands.
• LRA: issuance of decree ministerial
– It is ministerial only in the sense that the LRA acts
under the orders of the court and the decree must
be in conformity with the decision of the court.
(Gomez v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 503)
– But the duty ceases to be ministerial where the
issuance of decree would result in double titling of
lands. (Angeles v. Sec. of Justice, GR No. 142549,
March 9, 2010)
 OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
• Register of Deeds; constructive notice
• There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for
each province and city. (Sec. 7, PD 1529)
• Every instrument affecting registered land shall,
if registered in the Office of the Register of
Deeds, be constructive notice to all persons.
(Sec. 52, PD 1529; (Aznar Brothers v. Aying,
458 SCRA 496)
• But this rule does not apply if the property is
not registered under the Torrens system.
(Abrigo v. De Vera, 432 SCRA 544)
• Rule on priority
– Registration in the public registry is notice to the
whole world. (Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez (577
SCRA 441) Thus, between two buyers of the same
land, priority is given to:
• the first registrant in good faith;
• then, the first possessor in good faith; and
• finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the
oldest title. (Art. 1544, CC)
 DUTY OF REGISTER OF
DEEDS TO REGISTER
MINISTERIAL; CONSULTA
• There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each
province and city. (Sec. 7, PD 1529)
– Registration means the entry of instruments or
deeds in book or public registry.
– Registration of instruments affecting registered
land must be done in the proper registry to affect
the land and bind third persons. (Aznar Brothers v.
Aying, 458 SCRA 496;Guaranteed Homes, Inc.
v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)
• General functions of the Register of Deeds
• “It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to
immediately register an instrument presented for
registration dealing with real or personal property
which complies with all the requisites for registration.
He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper
documentary science stamps and that the same are
properly canceled. If the instrument is not registrable,
he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform
the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the
ground or reason therefor, and advising him of his
right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section
117 of this Decree.”
• The aforementioned duty of the Register of Deeds is
ministerial in nature.
• A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer
or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his
own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the
act done.
• If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and
gives him the right to decide how or when the duty
shall be performed, such duty is discretionary, not
ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when its
discharge requires neither the exercise of official
discretion nor the exercise of judgment.
• Duty of RD to register instruments affecting
registered land is ministerial
• [W]hether the document is invalid, frivolous or
intended to harass, is not the duty of a Register of
Deeds to decide, but a court of competent
jurisdiction, and that it is his concern to see
whether the documents sought to be registered
conform with the formal and legal requirements
for such documents. (Campugan v. Tolentino,
A.C. No. 8261, March 11, 2015; Gabriel v.
Register of Deeds, GR No. G.R. No. L-17956,
Sept. 30, 1963; Gurbax Singh v. Reyes, 92 Phil.
182; Almirol v. Register of Deeds of Agusan, 22
SCRA 1152)
• Registration must first be allowed and the validity or
effect thereof litigated afterwards.
• But if the RD is in doubt as to the action taken, or
where the interested party does not agree with the
action taken by him, the RD shall certify the
question to the LRA via consulta for resolution.
(Sec. 117, PD 1529; Soriano v. Fernandez, GR
No. 168157, Aug. 19, 2015)
 INSTANCES WHERE RD MAY HOLD
REGISTRATION
Where there are several copies of the title (as in co-
ownership) but only one is presented.
• Every copy of the duplicate original must contain
identical entries of the transactions, particularly
voluntary ones, otherwise the whole Torrens system
would cease to be reliable.
• The integrity of the Torrens system may be
adversely affected if an encumbrance, or outright
conveyance, is annotated on only one copy and not
on the others.
Where the property is presumed conjugal but
the document bears the signature of only one
spouse.
• Under Art. 160 of the CC, all property of the
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains
exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
• Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an
essential condition for the operation of the
presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.
(Dela Peña v. Avila, GR No. 187490, Feb. 8, 2012;
De Leon v. De Leon, GR No. 185063, July 23,
2009)
• But where there is no showing as to when the
property was acquired, the fact, for instance, that
the title is in the name of “Celia A. Santos,
married to Mario Santos” means that the property
belongs exclusively to the wife, Celia.
• Proof of acquisition during the marriage is a
condition sine qua non for the operation of the
presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.
(Dela Peña v. Avila, supra)
• Under the Family Code (Aug. 3, 1988), the sale of
a conjugal property requires the consent of both
the husband and the wife. The absence of the
consent of one renders the sale null and void.
• A void contract cannot be ratified. (Guiang v. CA,
GR No. 125172, June 26, 1998. Note: SC affirmed
decision of CA composed of JJ. Jaguros, Adefuin
and Agcaoili)
• Without the consent of his wife, Marcelino
constituted a real estate mortgage on the subject
property, which formed part of their conjugal
partnership. Valid? No. (Homeowners Savings &
Loan Bank v. Dailo, GR No. 153802, March 11,
2005.
• Just like the rule in absolute community of property,
if the husband, without knowledge and consent of the
wife, sells conjugal property, such sale is void.
• However, if the sale was with the knowledge but
without the approval of the wife, thereby resulting
in a disagreement, such sale is annullable at the
instance of the wife who is given five (5) years
from the date of the contract to institute the case.
(Ravina v. Villa Abrille, GR No. 160708, Oct. 16,
2009)
Where there is a pending case involving the
character of the land or validity of the conveyance
• In such case, registration may well await the
outcome of the case; meantime the rights of the
interested parties could be protected by the filing
of a notice of lis pendens. (Balbin v. Register of
Deeds, 28 SCRA 12)
 Where required certificates or documents are not
submitted, such as –
– DAR clearance, copy of latest tax declaration,
certificate of payment of documentary stamp tax
and capital gains tax, BIR certificate authorizing
registration (CAR), tax clearance certificate of real
estate taxes, certificate of payment of transfer tax,
secretary’s certificate and articles of incorporation
(in case of a corporation), HLURB registration
papers and license to sell (in case of a subdivision
project), TIN, etc.
 REGISTRATION IN THE
PUBLIC REGISTRY IS NOTICE
TO THE WHOLE WORLD
• Sec. 52 of PD No. 1529 provides:
• SECTION 52. Constructive notice upon
registration. — Every conveyance, mortgage,
lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument
or entry affecting registered land shall, if
registered, filed or entered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where
the land to which it relates lies, be constructive
notice to all persons from the time of such
registering, filing, or entering.
•
• The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned
– Thus, in case of conflict between a vendee and an
attaching creditor, an attaching creditor who
registers the order of attachment and the sale of the
property to him as the highest bidder acquires a
valid title to the property as against a vendee who
had previously bought the same property from the
same owner but who failed to register his deed of
sale. (Ching v. Enrile, GR No. 156076, Sept. 17,
2008; Vilbar v. Opinion, GR No. 176043, Jan. 15,
2014)
PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION
OF LANDS
OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
• The 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the
public domain into:
– Agricultural lands,
– Forest or timberlands,
– Mineral lands, and
– National parks.
• Alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands.
• All lands not appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
• Accordingly, all public lands not shown to have been
reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or
alienated to a private person by the State remain part
of the alienable public domain.
• To prove that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable, the applicant must establish
the existence of a positive act of the government such
as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, an
administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau
of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or a
statute. (Gozo v. Phil. Union Mission Corp., G No.
195990, Aug. 5, 2015)
• Who may classify lands
• The President, through a presidential proclamation
or executive order, can classify or reclassify land
to be included or excluded from the public domain.
• The DENR Secretary is likewise empowered by
law to approve a land classification and declare
such land as alienable and disposable. (Fortuna
v. Republic, GR No. 173423, March 5, 2014)
• Congress may also classify lands through a
legislative act. (Republic v. Cortez, GR No.
197472, Sept. 7, 2015)
• Since 1919, courts were no longer free to
determine the classification of lands.
• (DENR Sec. . Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008)
• Prior rghts of individuals must be respected
• But while the government has the prerogative to
classify lands of the public domain, the primary right
of a private individual who possessed and cultivated
the land in good faith much prior to such classification
must be recognized and should not be prejudiced by
after-events which could not have been anticipated.
(Saad Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, GR No.
152570, Sept. 27, 2006, per Tinga, J.))
• The Government, in the first instance may, by
reservation, decide for itself what portions of public
land shall be considered forestry land, unless private
interests have intervened before such reservation is
made. (Republic v. Court of Appeals and Marcelo, GR
No. L-46048, Nov. 29, 1988, per Regalado, J.)
• Alienable and disposable (A and D) lands of the State
fall into two categories, to wit:
• (a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those
classified as lands of private ownership under
Article 425 of the Civil Code, without limitation;
and
• (b) lands of the public domain, or the public lands
as provided by the Constitution, but with the
limitation that the lands must only be agricultural.
• Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber,
mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of
alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified
as agricultural. (Malabanan v. Republic, GR No.
179987, Sept. 3, 2013)
 SECONDARY
CLASSIFICATION OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
• CA No. 141, or the Public Land Act, as amended by
PD No. 1073, is the existing general law governing
the classification and disposition of lands of the
public domain, other than timber and mineral lands.
For purpose of administration and disposition, A and
D lands may be further classified according to the use
or purpose to which they may be devoted:
• Agricultural;
• Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
purposes
• Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes;
and
• Reservations for townsites and for public and
quasi-public uses. (Sec. 9, CA No. 141).
• Per the Public Land Act, alienable and disposable
public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be
disposed of only as follows:
1. For homestead settlement;
2. By sale;
3. By lease; and
4. By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles:
(a) By judicial legalization;
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent).
NON-REGISTRABLE
PROPERTIES
 Lands for public use or public service
• Those intended for public use, such as roads,
canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges, etc.;
• Those which, without being for public use, are
intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth. (Art. 420, CC)
• These properties are outside the commerce of men
and therefore not subject to private appropriation.
(Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 647)
CAVITE EXPRESSWAY
JONES BRIDGE
 Rivers, waters:
– Rivers and their natural beds, lakes, all categories
of surface waters, atmospheric or subterranean
ground waters, and seawater all belong to the
State. (Art. V, PD 1067)
– Waters found, or rain water falling, on private
lands also belong to the State. (Art. VI, id.)
CAGAYAN RIVER
 Reservations for public and semi-public purposes
• The President may designate by proclamation any
tract of land of the public domain for the use of the
Republic or its branches, e.g., public or semi-
public uses like highways, hydroelectric sites,
railroads, irrigation systems, etc. which shall be
inalienable. (Sec. 83, CA No. 141)
• Reserved lands are withdrawn from sale or
settlement and are inalienable and not subject to
occupation, entry, sale, lease or other disposition
(Sec. 88, ibid; CMU v. Republic, supra), until
otherwise provided by law or proclamation.
(Republic, rep. by Mindanao Medical Center v.
CA, 73 SCRA 146)
• Reservations for public or quasi-public uses: (1) are
non-alienable and non-disposable (Sec. 88 in relation
to Sec. 8, C. No. 141), and (2) remain public domain
lands until they are actually disposed of in favor of
private persons.
• In other words, lands of the public domain
classified as reservations remain to be property of
the public dominion until withdrawn from the
public or quasi-public use for which they have
been reserved, by act of Congress or by
proclamation of the President, or otherwise
positively declared to have been converted to
patrimonial property. (NOVA v, Republic, GR No.
177168, August 3, 2015)
LA MESA WATERSHED RESERVATION
• Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of
man.
• The Constitution expressly mandates the
conservation and proper utilization of natural
resources, which includes the country’s watershed.
(Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, GR No. 112526, Oct. 12, 2001)
LA MESA DAM AND ECOPARK
 Mangrove swamps
Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests
and, therefore, not subject to disposition until and
unless they are first released as forest land and
classified as alienable agricultural land.
– The Fisheries Code makes it unlawful for any
person to convert mangroves into fishponds or for
any other purposes.

•
ENVIRONMENTALISTS CHECKING THE
MANGROVES
 School site reservations
• Land reserved for a school site under Sec. 83, CA
No. 141, shall not be subject to occupation, entry,
sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared
alienable by proclamation of the President.
(Central Mindanao University v. Republic, GR
No.195026, Feb. 22, 2016).
• It remains to be property of the public dominion
until withdrawn from the public or quasi-public
use for which they have been reserved, by act of
Congress or by proclamation of the President, or
otherwise positively declared to have been
converted to patrimonial property. (NOVA v.
Republic, GR No. 177168, Aug. 3, 2015)
 Forests:
– Forest is a large tract of land covered with a
natural growth of trees and underbrush.
– The classification is descriptive of its legal nature
or status and does not have to be descriptive of
what the land actually looks like. (DENR Sec. v.
Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008)
– Unless and until the land classified as forest is
released as A and D, the rules of confirmation of
title do not apply. (Amunategui v. Director of
Forestry, 126 SCRA 69)
 Mineral lands:
– Mineral land means any area where mineral
resources are found.
– Mineral lands and resources are owned by the
State and their exploration, development and
utilization is subject to the full control and
supervision of the State. (Republic v. CA and Dela
Rosa, 160 SCRA 228; La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos,
445 SCRA 1)
– Possession of mineral land, no matter how long,
does not confer possessory rights. (Atok Big
Wedge v. CA, 193 SCRA 71)
OPEN PIT MINING
 Military or naval reservation:
– Land inside a military (or naval) reservation, like the
Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, cannot be the
object of registration unless it had been withdrawn
from the reservation and declared as A and D land.
– It remains part of a military reservation even if
incidentally it is devoted for a purpose other than as
a military camp.
– Moreover, the 1987 Constitution forbids private
corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
land of the public domain, except through lease for a
limited period. (Republic v. Southside, 502 SCRA
587)
PHILIPPINE NAVY HEADQUARTERS
 Reservations for public/national parks
• Land reserved for park purposes is not registrable.
(Palomo v. Court of Appeals GR No. 95608, Jan.
21, 1997)
• Where a certificate of title covers a portion of land
within the area reserved for park purposes, the title
should be annuled with respect to that portion.
(Palomo v. CA, 266 SCRA 392)
• For instance, the Tiwi Hot Spring National
Park cannot be disposed of under the Public
Land Act or Property Registration Decree.
 Foreshore lands:
– A foreshore land is that “strip of land that lies
between the high and low water marks and that is
alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the
tide,“ or "that part of the land adjacent to the sea
which is alternately covered and left dry by the
ordinary flow of the tides.” Foreshore lands are
inalienable unless declared to be A and D portions
of the public domain. (Republic v. RREC, 299
SCRA 199)
– Land invaded by the sea is foreshore land and
becomes part of the public domain. (Republic v.
CA and Morato, 281 SCRA 639)
• Puno, J., concurring opinion in Republic v. RREC:
– “The CCP is a ‘non-municipal public corporation’
established for the primary purpose of propagating arts
and culture in the Philippines. It was created to awaken
the consciousness of the Filipino people to their artistic
and cultural heritage, and encourage them to assist in
its preservation, promotion, enhancement and
development. The CCP Complex was established as a
worthy venue for Filipino artists to express their art
and for the people to appreciate art and the Filipino
culture. But more than its peso and centavo
significance, the Decision and Amended Decision,
unless reversed, will deal arts and culture a debilitating
blow.”
 Reclaimed lands:
– Submerged areas form part of the public domain;
only when reclaimed from the sea can these
submerged areas be classified as agricultural lands.
– Once reclaimed the government may then officially
classify these lands as A and D, and declare these
lands no longer needed for public service. Only
then can these lands be considered as A and D
lands and within the commerce of men. (Chavez v.
PEA, 384 SCRA 152)
 Lakes:
– Lakes are neither agricultural nor disposable lands
of the public domain; hence, free patents and
certificates of title covering portions of the lake are
a nullity.
– But areas beyond its natural bed, or the ground
covered by the waters at their highest ordinary
depth during the dry season, may be registered.
(Republic v. CA and De Rio, 131 SCRA 532)
LAGUNA LAKE
 Protected areas:
• RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and
management of a national integrated protected
areas system referred to as the “National Integrated
Protected Areas System Act of 1992.”
• Protected areas are necessary to maintain essential
ecological processes and life-support systems, to
preserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable
use of resources found therein.
• A protected area, like the Bataan Natural Park, is
inalienable.
BOHOL CHOCOLATE HILLS
MT. AMUYAO, 3RD HIGHEST PHIL.
MOUNTAIN
REGISTRATION UNDER
THE PROPERTY
REGISTRATION DECREE
(PD 1529)
• Who may apply?
• Under Sec. 14(1)
– “Those who by themselves or their predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or earlier.”
• Requisites
• The applicant must be a Filipino citizen.
• The land must be an agricultural land, already
classified as alienable and disposable (A and D)
land at the time of the filing of the application
(Malabanan v. CA, GR No. 179987, April 29,
2009, Sept. 3, 2013; Mercado v. Valley Mountain
Mines, GR No. 141019, Nov. 23, 2011)
• Applicant must have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
(OCENCO) of the land, under a bona fide claim of
ownership
• Since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• Tersely put, under Section 14 (1) of PD 1529, the
property in question is alienable and disposable land
of the public domain; the applicant by himself or
through his predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation thereto; and such possession is under
a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945,
or earlier. (Republic v. Alba, GR No. 169710, Aug.
19, 2015).
• In Republic v. Alconaba (G.R. No. 155012, April
14, 2004), it was explained that the intent behind
the law's use of the terms possession and
occupation is to emphasize the need for actual and
not just constructive or fictional possession
• Campos v. Republic, GR No. 184371, March 5, 2014,
stresses:
• “We emphasize that since the effectivity of P.D.
No. 1073 13 on January 25, 1977, it must be
shown that possession and occupation of the land
sought to be registered by the applicant himself or
through his predecessors-in-interest, started on
June 12, 1945 or earlier, which totally conforms to
the requirement under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No
1529. A mere showing of possession and
occupation for thirty (30) years or more is no
longer sufficient.”
• Rationale for the rule that the land need be classified
as A and D already at the time the application is filed:
– “If the State, at the time the application is made,
has not yet deemed it proper to release the property
for alienation or disposition, the presumption is
that the government is still reserving the right to
utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its
ownership in the State irrespective of the length of
adverse possession even in good faith.”
• Possession is -
– Open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious
and not clandestine;
– Continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not
intermittent or occasional;
– Exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an
appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and
– Notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or the
people in the neighborhood. (Bienvenido v.
Gabriel, GR No. 175763, April 11, 2012)
• Under Sec. 14(2)
– “Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands by prescription under the provisions of
existing laws”
• Rule on prescription:
 Ordinary prescription – 10 years in good faith
 Extraordinary prescription – 30 years
• But land must be patrimonial property for
prescription to apply. (Malabanan v. Republic,
supra)
• Lands of the public domain shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State when there is a
declaration that:
• These lands are alienable or disposable, and
• Are no longer intended for public use or public
service.
• Only when such lands have become patrimonial
can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of the
property begin to run. (Malabanan v. CA, supra;
Republic v. Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18,
2012)
• The Court in Republic v. Sese, GR No. 185092, June
4, 2014, explicated:
– “The applicant must be able to show that the State, in
addition to the said classification, expressly declared
through either a law enacted by Congress or a
proclamation issued by the President that the subject
land is no longer retained for public service or the
development of the national wealth or that the property
has been converted into patrimonial. Consequently,
without an express declaration by the State, the land
remains to be a property of public dominion and,
hence, not susceptible to acquisition by virtue of
prescription.”
• Concept of possession for purposes of prescription
• Possession must be that of owner, and it must be
public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Acts of a
possessory character by virtue of a license or mere
tolerance are not sufficient.
• The present possessor may complete the period for
prescription by tacking his possession to that of his
grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
• It is presumed that the present possessor who was
also the possessor at a previous time has continued
to be in possession during the intervening time.
• Distinction between Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2):
• Under Sec. 14(1), there must be proof showing
that the land had already been classified as
alienable and disposable at the time the application
is filed.
• Under Sec. 14(2), there must be proof that the land
had already been converted to patrimonial
property (no longer intended for public service or
the development of the national wealth) at the start
of possession. (Republic v. Zuburban Realty, GR
No. 164408, March 24, 2014)
• Under Sec. 14(3)

• “Those who have acquired ownership of

private lands or abandoned river beds by right
of accession or accretion under the existing
laws.”
• Ownership of abandoned river beds by right of
accession:
 Under Article 461 of the Civil Code, river beds
which are abandoned through the natural change in
the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the
owners whose lands are occupied by the new
course in proportion to the area lost. However, the
owners of the adjoining lands shall have the right
to acquire the same by paying the value thereof.
The reason is that they are in the best position to
utilize the old river bed which is adjacent to their
property.
• The owners of the affected lands may not compel the
government to restore the river to its former bed, nor
can they restrain the government from taking steps to
revert the river or stream to its former courts.
• But the owners may themselves undertake the
reversion of the river to its original course, but
upon a permit issued by the government. (Art. 58,
PD 1067, Water Code)
• The ownership of the abandoned river bed is
transferred ipso facto to the owners whose lands
are occupied by the new course of the river “to
compensate for the loss of the land occupied by the
new bed.”
• Requisites for the application of Art. 461:
• The change must be sudden in order that the old
river may be identified;
• The change of the course must be more or less
permanent, and not temporary overflooding of
another’s land.
• The change of the river must be a natural one, i.e.,
caused by natural forces (and not by artificial means)
• There must be a definite abandonment by the
government;
• The river must continue to exist, i.e., it must not
completely disappear.
• Ownership by right of accretion
• Under Art. 457, CC, to the owners of land
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion
which they gradually receive from the effects of
the current of the waters. Justification:
• To offset the owner’s loss for possible erosion
of his land due to the current of the river;
• To compensate him for his burdens arising from
the subjection of his land to encumbrances or
legal easements; and
• Owner is in the best position to cultivate it.
(Cortex v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567)
;
• The owner must register the accretion under the
Torrens system, otherwise the alluvial property may
be subject to acquisition through prescription by third
persons. (Grande v. Court of Appeals, 5 SCRA 524)
• The increment does not automatically become
registered land just because the lot which receives
such accretion is covered by a Torrens title. It must be
placed under the operation of the Torrens system.
(Cureg v. IAC, 177 SCRA 313)
• Requisites for the application Art. 457:
• That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
• That it be made through the effects of the current
of the water; and
• That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the banks of rivers.
• In the absence of evidence that the change in the
course of the river was sudden or that it occurred
through avulsion, the presumption is that the change
was gradual and caused by accretion and erosion.
• Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the
public domain and, therefore, not open to acquisition
by adverse possession.
“Art. 4. Lands added to the shore by accretion and
alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea,
form part of the public domain. When they are no
longer washed by the waters of the sea, and are not
necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the
establishment of special industries, or for the
coast-guard service, the Government may declare
them to be the property of the owners of the estate
adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof.”
(Spanish Law of Waters)
• Until a formal declaration by the government,
through the executive or legislature, that the alluvial
formation is no longer needed for coast guard service,
for public use or for special industries, the same
continues to be part of the public domain not
available for private appropriation of ownership.
• The land is not subject to ordinary prescription as it is
outside the sphere of commerce.
• Under Sec. 14(4)

• “Those who have acquired ownership of land in any

other manner provided for by law.”

• In Republic, rep. by the Mindanao Medical Center v.

Court of Appeals (GR No. L-40912, Sept. 30, 1976),
the SC held that Proclamation No. 350 legally effected
a land grant for medical purposes to the Mindanao
Medical Center validly sufficient for initial registration
under the Land Registration Act.
• What and where to file
• The application for land registration shall be filed
with the RTC of the province or city where the
land is situated. The applicant shall file together
with the application all original muniments of titles
or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land
approved by the Lands Management Bureau. (Sec.
17, PD 1529)
• An application may include two or more parcels of
land belonging to the applicant/s provided they are
situated within the same province or city. (Sec. 18,
ibid.)
• Amendments
• Amendments to the application including joinder,
substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be
allowed by the court at any stage of the
proceedings upon just and reasonable terms.
• Amendments which shall consist in a substantial
change in the boundaries or an increase in area of
the land applied for or which involve the inclusion
of an additional land shall be subject to the same
requirements of publication and notice as in an
original application. (Sec. 19, ibid.)
DEALINGS WITH LAND
PENDING ORIGINAL
REGISTRATION
• Dealings with land pending original registration
• After the filing of the application and before the
issuance of the decree of registration, the land may
still be the subject of dealings in whole or in part, in
which case the interested party shall present to the
court the pertinent instruments together with a
subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands
in case of transfer of portions thereof, and the court,
after notice to the parties, shall order such land
registered subject to the conveyance 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. (Sec. 22, ibid.)
• Sec. 22 of PD 1529 allows the disposition of lands
subject matter of a registration proceeding and the
subsequent registration thereof in the name of the
person to whom the land was conveyed.
• The buyer of the property may be a total stranger
to the case and it is not even required for him to
substitute the original applicant in order that the
decree of registration may be issued in his name.
• The only requirements are: (1) that the instrument
be presented to the court by the interested party
together with a motion that the same be considered
in relation with the application; and (2) that prior
notice be given to the parties to the case. (Lopez v.
Querubin, GR No. 155405, March 18, 2015)
 REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 48(b),
PUBLIC LAND ACT (CA 141)
• Who may apply
• “Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945,
except when prevented by war or force majeure.
These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a
Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the provisions of this
chapter.” (Sec. 48[b], CA 141)
• No material differences between Sec. 14(1) of PD
No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141
– While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to
“agricultural lands of the public domain” and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to
“alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain,” the subject lands are of the same type
since under the Constitution, alienable lands of the
public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands.
• Sec. 14(1), PD 1529 • Sec. 48(b), CA 141
• “Those who by • “Those who by
themselves or through themselves or through
their predecessors-in- their predecessors in
interest have been in interest have been in the
open, continuous, open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation possession and occupation
of alienable and of agricultural lands of the
disposable lands of the public domain, under a
public domain under a bona fide claim of
bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership,
ownership since June 12, except as against the
1945, or earlier.” Government, since June
12, 1945.”
• RA No. 10023, dated March 9, 2010, authorizes
issuance of a free patent title to residential lands
subject to the following (maximum) area limitations:
– (1) Highly urbanized cities, 200 square meters
– (2) Other cities, 500 square meters
– (3) Municipalities (first and
second class), 750 square meters
– (4) All other municipalities, 1,000 square meters
• Land must be within a residential zone, covered by a
survey plan approved by the DENR, and actually
possessed and occupied by the applicant for at least ten
(10) years as shown by the affidavits of residents of the
municipality/city. (Sec. 3, RAQ 10023)
• The CENRO is mandated to process the application
within one hundred and twenty (120) days to include
compliance with the required notices and other legal
requirements, and forward his recommendation to the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
(PENRO), who shall have five (5) days to approve or
disapprove the patent. In case of approval, patent shall be
issued; in case of conflicting claims among different
claimants, the parties may seek the proper judicial
remedies. (Sec. 6, ibid.)
• The restrictions regarding encumbrances, conveyances,
transfers or dispositions imposed in Sections 118, 119,
121, 122 and 123 of Chapter XIII, Title VI of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, shall not apply
to patents issued under this Act. (Sec. 5, RA 10023)
• Developments in the law as to possession
• The first PLA, or Act 926, required a possession
and occupation for a period of ten (10) years prior
to the effectivity of Act No. 2874 on July 26, 1904
or on July 26, 1894.
• The 10-years possession was adopted in the PLA
until it was amended by RA 1942 on June 22, 1957
which required possession for thirty (30) years.
• But with the effectivity of PD 1073 on May 9,
1977, possession and occupation should now
commence on June 12, 1945. (Rep. v. East
Silverlane, GR No. 186961, Feb. 20, 2012; Rep. v.
Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18, 2012)
•
• But PD 1073 cannot impair vested rights
• Vested rights acquired under Sec. 48(b) of the
PLA (as amended by RA 1942) must be respected.
• Thus, an applicant who, prior to the effectivity of
PD 1973 on May 9, 1977 (not Jan. 25, 1977), has
been in OCENPO, for at least 30 years, or at least
since May 8, 1947, as required under RA 1942,
may apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete title under. (Fortuna v. v. Republic, GR
No. 173423, March 5, 2014)
• The Court however clarified in La Tondena, Inc.
v. Republic that only applications for registration
filed prior to 1977 may invoke RA No. 1942. (GR
No. 194617, Aug. 5, 2015)
WHO MAY APPLY:
CITIZENSHIP
REQUIREMENT
• The capacity to acquire private land is made
dependent upon the capacity to acquire or hold lands
of the public domain.
– Private land may be transferred or conveyed only to
individuals or entities "qualified to acquire lands of
the public domain." The 1987 Constitution reserved
the right to participate in the disposition,
exploitation, development and utilization of lands of
the public domain for Filipino citizens or
corporations at least 60 percent of the capital of
which is owned by Filipinos. Aliens, whether
individuals or corporations, have been disqualified
from acquiring public lands; hence, they have also
been disqualified from acquiring private lands.
• On the basis of their capacity “to acquire or holds
lands of the public domain,” the following may
acquire private lands:
• Filipino citizens
• Filipino corporations and associations, 60% of
whose capital are owned by Filipinos
• Aliens by hereditary succession
• A natural born citizen who has lost his citizenship
may be transferee of private lands subject to area
limitations (Sec. 8, Art. XII)
• Aliens are disqualified from acquiring public and
private lands. (Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., GR No.
156364, Sept. 3, 2007; Krivenko v. RD, 79 Phil. 461)
• The capacity to own land is determined at the time of
its acquisition and not registration.
– Example: Pedro, a Filipino, bought land with an
area of 5 has. from Jose who at the time of the sale
had already complied with the requirements for
registration. Pedro later became a naturalized
Canadian citizen.
– Pedro’s subsequent acquisition of Canadian
citizenship will not impair his vested right to the
land which he could have validly registered when
he was yet a Filipino citizen. He is also qualified
under the terms of Sec. 8, Art. XII, Constitution.
(Republic v. CA and Lapiña, 235 SCRA 567)
• Constitutional provisions
• Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, ort associations qualified
to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. (Sec.
7, Art. XII)
• Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this
Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private lands, subject to limitations
provided by law. (Sec. 8, Ibid)
•
• Area limitations
• For business or other purposes (RA 7042 as
amended by RA 8179)
• Urban land – 5,000 square meters
• Rural land – 3 hectares.
• For residence purposes (BP 185)
• Urban land – 1,000 square meters
• Rural land – 1 hectare
• Private corporations not qualified
– “Private corporations or associations may not hold
(such) alienable lands of the public domain except
by lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years,
renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to
exceed 1,000 hectares in area.” (Sec. 3, Art. XII,
Constitution)
• Reason: to encourage economic family-sized farms
by transferring ownership of only a limited area of
alienable lands of the public domain to a qualified
individual. Available lands are decreasing due to
increasing population.
• But the rule does not apply where at the time the
corporation acquired the land, the same was already
private land as when it was possessed by its
predecessor in the manner and for such length of time
as to entitle the latter to registration.
– If the predecessors-in-interest of the corporation
have been in possession of the land in question
since June 12, 1945, or earlier, then it may
rightfully apply for confirmation of title to the
land. That vested right has to be respected.
(Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court and
ACME, 146 SCRA 509)
• Corporation sole
• A corporation sole is vested with the right to hold
real estate and personal property. (Roman
Catholic Apostolic v. LRC, 102 Phil. 596)
• It is created not only to administer the
temporalities of the church or religious society
where the administrator (bishop or archbishop)
belongs but also to hold and transmit the same to
his successor in office.
• Upon the death of the administrator, church
properties pass, by operation of law, not to his
heirs but to his successor in office.
 CITIZENSHIP RETENTION
AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT
(RA NO. 9225)
• Retention of Philippine citizenship
• Under Sec. 3 of the Act, natural-born citizens of the
Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship
by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign
country are deemed to have “re-acquired” Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance:
• "I _________________, solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and
legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities of the Philippines, and I hereby declare
that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of
the Philippines and will maintain true faith and
allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation
upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion."
• But natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after
the effectivity of the Act, become citizens of a foreign
country shall “retain” their Philippine citizenship
upon taking the aforesaid oath
• Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenship under the Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws
of the Philippines. (Sec. 5)
• Is a former Filipino who became a citizen of a foreign
country, and who buys property after having “re-
acquired” his Philippine citizenship, bound by the
area limitations under the law?
• Facts:
• Pedro, a natural born Filipino, became a Canadian
citizen before the effectivity of RA 9225 on August
29, 2003. On April 12, 2007, he filed a
Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) over the
subject land with the CENRO, representing himself
as a Filipino citizen when he was in fact already a
Canadian citizen. Pedro re-acquired his Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225 only on Oct. 11, 2007.
He was therefore charged with falsification of public
documents. He defense is that since he is deemed to
have “re-acquired” his Philippine citizenship under
said law, he could not be held criminally liable for
falsification.
• Issue: Is Pedro’s defense valid?
• Ruling:
– No. The law distinguishes between those natural-
born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before
and after the effectivity of RA 9225 in 2003. For
those who were naturalized in a foreign country
before 2003, they shall be deemed to have “re-
acquired” their Philippine citizenship (which was
deemed lost pursuant to CA 63). But for those who
became foreign citizens after RA 9225 took effect,
they shall “retain” Philippine citizenship if they took
the oath of allegiance under the new law. Here,
Pedro filed his MSA on April 12, 2007, or before he
re-acquired his Philippine citizenship. (David v.
Agbay, GR No. 199113, March 18, 2015)
• Q. Can a Filipino vendor recover land sold to an
alien?
– A. Yes. When an agreement is not illegal per se
but is merely prohibited and the prohibition is
designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may
recover the land, the public policy being to
preserve and maintain the land in the hands of
Filipino citizens. (Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui She,
21 SCRA 52; Borromeo v. Descallar, 580 SCA
175; United Church v. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446)
Note: In Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827, the
Filipino vendor was in pari delicto with the alien
vendee, hence, recovery was not allowed.
• Other illustrative cases on acquisition by aliens
• Where the land was now in the hands of a
naturalized Filipino, there is no more public policy
to be served by allowing recovery. (Barsobia v.
Cuenco , 199 Phil. 26),
• Where land is sold to a Chinese who later sold it to a
Filipino, the sale can no longer be impugned.
(Herrera v. Guan, 1 SCRA 406).
• Chuck, an American, and Cory, a Filipino, acquired
land which was registered in the latter’s name. Cory
sold the land to Mario without Chuck’s consent.
Valid? Yes. Chuck never acquired any right to the
land, he being an alien. (Cheesman v. IAC, 193
SCRA 93)
• Ting Ho, a Chinese citizen, acquired a parcel of
land, with the improvements thereon. Upon his
death, his heirs claimed the properties as part of
the estate of their deceased father. The Court,
however, excluded the land and improvements
from the estate of Ting Ho, being an alien, because
he never became the owner thereof. (Ting Ho. v.
Teng Gui, GR No. 130115, July 16, 2008)
• Petitioner, an Australian, was married to Teresita
Santos; while respondent, a Filipina, was married to
Klaus Muller. Petitioner and respondent met and
cohabited in a common-law relationship, during
which petitioner acquired real properties; but since
he was an alien, respondent's name appeared as the
vendee in the deeds of sale. When their relationship
turned sour, petitioner filed an action for the
recovery of the real properties from respondent.
• The Court denied his petition because he was an
alien, adding that being a party to an illegal contract,
he could not come to court and ask to have his
illegal objective carried out. (Frenzel v. Catito, 453
Phil. 885)
• Elena, a Filipino, and Helmut, a German, were
married in Germany. During their marriage,
Helmut purchased a parcel of land in Antipolo City
which was registered in Elena’s name. They
eventually separated, prompting Helmut to file a
petition for separation of property. Specifically,
Helmut prayed for reimbursement of the money
he paid for the acquisition of the property.
• The Court ruled that Helmut being an alien, he was
prohibited from owning land in the Philippines.
(Muller v. Muller, G.R. No. 149615, August 29,
2006)
• In 1988, Benjamin married Joselyn, 17-year-old
Filipina. During their marriage, Joselyn bought a
lot for P129,000. The sale was financed by
Benjamin. Meantime, Jocelyn leased the property
to Matthew without Benjamin’s consent; hence,
the latter filed suit to annul the lease contract. Is a
lease agreement of a parcel of land entered into by
a Filipino wife (Jocelyn) without the consent of her
British husband (Benjamin) valid?
• The Court held that Benjamin, being an alien, has
no right to nullify the agreement. No implied trust
was created in his favor; nor can reimbursement
for his expenses be allowed. (Matthews v. Taylor,
GR No. 164584, June22, 2009)
• May the RD validly refuse to register a deed of
donation of a residential land executed by a Filipino in
favor of an unregistered organization, the “Ung Sui Si
Temple,” operating through three trustees all of Chinese
nationality?
– Yes. The SC, in Register of Deeds v. Ung Sui Si
temple, GR No. L-6776, May 21, 1995, held that Sec.
5, Title XIII of the 1935 Constitution (now Sec. 8, Art.
XII, 1987 Constitution) that, “save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall
be transferred except to individuals, corporations or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
public domain,” the Constitution makes no exception
to religious groups.
EVIDENCE OF
OWNERSHIP
• The application for original registration must be
accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that land is A
and D; and
(2) Copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by
the legal custodian thereof. (Republic v. Bantigue,
GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012; Republic v. Dela
Paz, GR No. 171631, Nov. 5, 2010; Republic v.
T.A.N, 555 SCRA 477)
Note: In Gaerlan v. Republic, GR No. 192717, March 12,
2014, the Court held that the CENRO/PENRO
certification is not sufficient evidence of the facts stated
therein).
• In Republic v. Aboitiz, GR No. 174626, Oct. 23,
2013, the Court emphasized:
• “Strangely, the Court cannot find any evidence to
show the subject land's alienable and disposable
character, except for a CENRO certification submitted
by Aboitiz. x x x In Republic v. Hanover Worldwide
Trading Corporation, the Court declared that the
CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian
of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring the
alienability and disposability of public lands. Thus, the
CENRO Certification should be accompanied by an
official publication of the DENR Secretary's issuance
declaring the land alienable and disposable.”
• Policy clarification by DENR Memorandum No. 564,
dated Nov. 15, 2012
• The DENR clarified that “the issuance of the
certification and the certified copy of the approved
LC Map to prove that the area applied for is indeed
classified as A and D is within the competence and
jurisdiction of the CENRO.”
• Note: A separate administrative order was issued
“delegating to the CENRO the authority to issue
the certification and the certified true copy of the
approved land classification map and the particular
issuance or order which was used as basis for such
classification.”
• DENR level of authority on land classification
• Secretary: Land classification and release of lands
of the public domain as alienable and disposable
(A and D)
• Secretary: Sub-classification of forest lands
according to use
• PENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber
land or A and D – above 50.0 has.
• CENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber
land or A and D – below 50.0 has.
• Identity of the land
• Land must be surveyed to establish its identity,
location and area. Only the LMB Director may
approve survey plans for original registration
purposes. (PD 239, July 9, 1973)
• There is now no need to present the tracing cloth
plan of the land. A certified blue print or white
print copy of the plan suffices for registration
purposes. (Director of Lands v. CA and Iglesia ni
Cristo, 158 SCRA 586)
• Rule in determining area in case of conflict
– What defines a piece of titled property is not the
numerical data indicated as the area of the land,
but the boundaries or "metes and bounds" of the
property specified in its technical description as
enclosing it and showing its limits. (Rep. v. CA
and Santos, GR No. 116111, Jan. 21, 1969, 301
SCRA 366).
– What defines a piece of land is not the area,
calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in
the description, but the boundaries therein laid
down, as enclosing the land and indicating its
limits. (Balantakbo v. CA, GR No. 108515, Oct.
16, 1995)
• Possession and occupation
 Possession must be under a claim of ownership.
 Acts of a possessory character by one who holds
the property by mere tolerance of the owner is not
in the concept of owner, and do not start the period
of prescription.
 Actual possession consists of acts of dominion of
such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property
 Occupation delimits the all-encompassing effect of
constructive possession.
• Overt acts of possession may consist in:
• Introducing valuable improvements on the land
like fruit-bearing trees;
• Fencing the area
• Constructing a residential house thereon; and
• Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
• In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-
hectare land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
• It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years
• for coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. (Republic v.
CA and Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)
• Rule of preference in case of conflict of possession
• The present possessor shall be preferred;
• If there two possessors, the one longer in
possession;
• If the dates of the possession are the same, the one
who presents a title; and
• If both possessors have titles, the court shall
determine the rightful possessor and owner of the
land. (Art. 538, CC)
• Mere possession will not defeat the title of a holder of
registered land. (Eduarte v. CA, 253 SCRA 391)
• Tax declarations and tax receipts
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership but they are a
good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner. (Llanes v. Republic, 572 SCA 258) A tax
declaration merely prove payment of taxes.
• But when coupled with actual possession, payment
of taxes is evidence of great weight and can be the
basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.
(Republic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611)
• Taxes must be paid annually.
• Spanish titles no longer efficacious as proof of
ownership
• Pursuant to PD No. 892, dated Feb. 16, 1976,
Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence
of land ownership
• The proliferation of dubious Spanish titles have
raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended
to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
• Case study: Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San
Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA
733.
HEARING
• Hearing
– The court shall decide the case within 90 days from its
submission.
– The court may refer the case or part thereof to a referee
who shall submit his report to the court within 15 days
after its termination.
– Applications for registration shall be heard by the
regional trial court or, in proper cases, by the first level
courts.
– The applicant must show, by “well-nigh incontro-
vertible proof,” and even in the absence of opposition,
that he is the absolute owner of the land.
EVIDENCE OF
OWNERSHIP
• Proof that land is A and D
– Certification of the BFD that land has been
released as A and D
– LC Map showing that the land is within the A
and D portion of the public domain
– Executive proclamationy withdrawing a specific
portion from a reservation and declaring same
open for disposition.
– Legislative or executive proclamation reserving a
portion of the public domain for public or quasi-
public use.
• The application for original registration must be
accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that land is
A and D; and
(2) Copy of the original classification approved
by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true
copy by the legal custodian thereof. (Republic v.
Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012;
Republic v. Dela Paz, GR No. 171631, Nov. 5,
2010; Republic v. T.A.N, 555 SCRA 477)
• Policy clarification by DENR Memorandum No.
564, dated Nov. 15, 2012
– The issuance of the certification and the certified
copy of the approved LC Map to prove that the
area applied for is indeed classified as A and D is
“within the competence and jurisdiction of the
CENRO.”
– A separate administrative order has been issued
“delegating to the CENRO the authority to issue
the certification and the certified true copy of the
approved land classification map and the particular
issuance or order which was used as basis for such
classification.”
• DENR level of authority on land classification
– Secretary: Land classification and release of lands
of the public domain as alienable and disposable
(A and D)
– Secretary: Sub-classification of forest lands
according to use
– PENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber
land or A and D – above 50.0 has.
– CENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber
land or A and D – below 50.0 has.
• Identity of the land
– Land must be surveyed to establish its identity,
location and area. Only the LMB Director may
approve survey plans for original registration
purposes. (PD 239, July 9, 1973)
– There is now no need to present the tracing cloth
plan of the land. A certified blue print or white
print copy of the plan suffices for registration
purposes. (Director of Lands v. CA and Iglesia ni
Cristo, 158 SCRA 586)
• What defines a piece of titled property is not the
numerical data indicated as the area of the land, but
the boundaries or "metes and bounds" of the property
specified in its technical description as enclosing it
and showing its limits. (Rep. v. CA and Santos, GR
No. 116111, Jan. 21, 1969, 301 SCRA 366).
• What defines a piece of land is not the area,
calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in
the description, but the boundaries therein laid down,
as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.
(Balantakbo v. CA, GR No. 108515, Oct. 16, 1995)
• In overlapping of titles disputes, it has always been
the practice for the court to appoint a surveyor from
the government land agencies — the LRA or the
DENR — to act as commissioner.
• Survey is the process by which a parcel of land is
measured and its boundaries and contents ascertained;
also a map, plat or statement of the result of such
survey, with the courses and distances and the
quantity of the land.
• A case of overlapping of boundaries or encroachment
depends on a reliable, if not accurate, verification
survey. (Pabaus v. Yutiamco, GR No. 164356, July
27, 2011)
• Possession and occupation
 Possession must be under a claim of ownership.
 Acts of a possessory character by one who holds
the property by mere tolerance of the owner is not
in the concept of owner, and do not start the
period of prescription.
 Actual possession consists of acts of dominion of
such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property
 Occupation delimits the all-encompassing effect
of constructive possession.
• Rule of preference in case of conflict of possession
• The present possessor shall be preferred;
• If there two possessors, the one longer in
possession;
• If the dates of the possession are the same, the
one who presents a title; and
• If both possessors have titles, the court shall
determine the rightful possessor and owner of
the land. (Art. 538, CC)
• Mere possession will not defeat the title of a holder of
registered land. (Eduarte v. CA, 253 SCRA 391)
• Overt acts of possession may consist in:
• Introducing valuable improvements on the land like
fruit-bearing trees;
• Fencing the area
• Constructing a residential house thereon; and
• Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
• In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-
hectare land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
• It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years
for coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. Republic v.
CA and Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)
• Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; exceptions:
– (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of
facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its
findings the CA went beyond the issues of the
case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions
of both the appellant and the appellee;
– (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion.
(Tyson’s Super Concrete v. CA, 461 SCRA 69)
• Tax declarations and tax receipts
– Tax declarations and tax receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership but they are
a good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner. (Llanes v. Republic, 572 SCA 258) A
tax declaration merely prove payment of taxes.
– When coupled with actual possession, payment
of taxes is evidence of great weight and can be
the basis of a claim of ownership through
prescription. (Republic v. Alconaba, 427
SCRA 611)
– Taxes must be paid annually.
• Spanish titles no longer efficacious as proof of
ownership
– Pursuant to PD No. 892, dated Feb. 16, 1976,
Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence
of land ownership
– The proliferation of dubious Spanish titles have
raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended
to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
– Case study: Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San
Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA
733.
JUDGMENT
• The judgment confirms the title of the applicant or
the oppositor. Partial judgment is proper where a
subdivision plan is submitted. (Sec. 28)
• Judgment becomes final after 15 days from
receipt of notice of the judgment.
• Court retains jurisdiction until after the entry of
the final decree of registration. (Gomez v CA,
168 SCRA 503)
• Principle of res judicata is applicable to
registration proceedings. (Aring v. Original, a6
SCRA 1021)
• A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world,
such as a judgment in a land registration case or
probate of a will; and a judgment in personam is
binding upon the parties and their successors-in-
interest but not upon strangers.
– A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a
property to another is in personam.
– An action for declaration of nullity of title and
recovery of ownership of real property, or re-
conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in
personam, for it only binds the parties impleaded
although it concerns the right to a tangible
thing.(Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011)
• Motion for execution of judgment not required
• Upon finality of judgment in land registration cases,
the winning party does not file a motion for execution
as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a petition
with the land registration court for the issuance of an
order directing the Land Registration Authority to
issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then
sent to the Register of Deeds for inscription in the
registration book, and issuance of the original
certificate of title.
• The LRA merely issues an order for the issuance of a
decree of registration and the corresponding certificate
of title in the name of such applicant. (Top
Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR
No.150462, June 15, 2011)
• Execution pending appeal not required
– Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land
registration proceeding and the certificate of title
thereby issued is null and void.
– A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is
not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit
provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires
that a decree shall be issued only after the decision
adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and
it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of
Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate
of title. (Top Management v. Fajardo, supra)
• No period within which decree may be issued
– The fact that no decree has as yet been issued cannot
divest the applicant of his title to and ownership of the
land in question. There is nothing in the law that limits
the period within which the court may issue a decree.
The reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory
in character and does not need to be enforced against
the adverse party. (Del Rosario v. Limcaoco, GR No.
177392, Nov. 26, 2012)
– From another perspective, the judgment does not have
to be executed by motion or enforced by action within
the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595, Jan.
23, 2007)
Kinds of judgment
– (1) A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world,
such as a judgment in a land registration case or probate of
a will; (2) a judgment in personam is binding upon the
parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon
strangers, and (3) a judgment directing a party to deliver
possession of a property to another is in personam; it is
binding only against the parties and their successors-in-
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action.
– An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of
ownership of real property, or reconveyance, is a real action
but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular
individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible
thing. (Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011)
 DECREE OF
REGISTRATION
• The decree of registration shall bind the land and
quiet title thereto, subject to exceptions or liens as
may be provided by law. (Sec. 31, PD No. 1529)
• It shall be conclusive against all persons, including
the government and its branches. (Ibid.)
• Land becomes registered land only upon the
transcription of the decree in the book of the
Register of Deeds, and not on the date of the
issuance of the decree. (Manotok v. CLT Realty,
• GR No. 123346, March 31, 2009)
• Title is deemed issued upon transcription of the
decree. (Manotok Realty v. CLT, 540 SCRA 304)
• A registration court has no jurisdiction to decree
again land already decreed in a prior case. (Laburada
v. LRA, 287 SCRA 333)
• An application for registration of a titled land
constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title.
(SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578 SCRA 552)
• Maysilo Estate Case – “Land of Caveat Emptor”
– Issue: When is a certificate of title deemed
registered – the date of the issuance of the decree
of registration (April 19, 1917), or the date the
decree was transcribed in the Office of the RD
(May 3, 1917)?
– Held: The original certificate of title is issued on
the date the decree of registration is transcribed
since what stands as the certificate is the transcript
of the decree of registration made by the RD in the
registry. (Manotok v. CLT Realty, 540 SCRA 304)
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• Issuance of decree and cetificate of title
– Within 15 days from entry of the judgment, the
court shall direct the LRA Administrator to issue
the decree of registration and prepare the original
and duplicate certificate of title based thereon. The
original certificate of title, signed by him, shall be
a true copy of the decree, and shall be sent,
together with the owner’s duplicate, to the
Register of Deeds of the city or province where
the land lies. (Sec. 39, PD 1529)
• A certificate of title may be an original certificate of
title, which constitutes a true copy of the decree of
registration, or a transfer certificate of title, issued
subsequent to original registration.
• The title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title one year after the issuance of
the decree of registration by the LRA. (Del Prado
v. Caballero, GR No. 148225, March 3, 2010;
Panganiban v. Dayrit, 464 SCRA 370)
• A person dealing with registered land need not go
beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his
predecessor. (Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577
SCRA 441)
• A certificate of title issued pursuant to adminis-
trative proceedings is as indefeasible as any title
issued through judicial proceedings provided the land
is a disposable public land, and becomes
incontrovertible one year after the issuance of the
patent. (Republic v. Carle, 105 Phil. 1227)
• A certificate of title based on an emancipation patent
under PD No. 27 also enjoys the same protection as a
certificate issued judicially or administratively.
(Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, GR No. 175049,
Nov. 27, 2008)
STATUTORY LANDS
AFFECTING TITLE
• Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title
in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a
certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances except
those noted in said certificate and any of the
following encumbrances which may be subsisting,
namely:
• First. Liens, claims or rights arising or existing
under the laws and Constitution which are not by
law required to appear of record in the Registry of
Deeds in order to be valid against subsequent
purchasers or encumbrancers of record.
• Second. Unpaid real estate taxes levied and
assessed within two years immediately preceding
the acquisition of any right over the land by an
innocent purchaser for value.
• Third. Any public highway or private way
established or recognized by law
• Fourth. Any disposition of the property or
limitation on the use thereof by virtue of, or
pursuant to, Presidential Decree No. 27 or any
other law or regulations on agrarian reform.
REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
PRESCRIPTION
• “No title to registered land in derogation of the
title of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.” (Sec. 47, PD
1529)
• Titile to land once registered, is imprescriptible.
It may not be lost by adverse, open and
notorious possession.
• The right to recover possession of registered
property is equally imprescriptible since
possession is a mere consequence of ownership.
(Repulic v. Mendoza, GR No. 185091, Aug. 8,
2010)
• But a registered owner may be barred from
recovering possession by virtue of laches.
• In Panganiban v. Gamponia (100 Phil. 277),
petitioners, for 45 years, did nothing to assert their
right of ownership and were barred from
recovering possession of the property.
• In Agne v. Director of Lands (181 SCRA 7090),
the registered owner’s right to recover possession
was lost by inaction for almost 30 years.
• In Golloy v. CA (173 SCRA 26), while the lot was
registered in the name of respondent, petitioners
acquired title thereto by possession for 50 years.
 REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK
• A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or
cancelled except in a direct proceeding filed with
the RTC (Sec. 48, PD 1529; Manotok v. Barque,
582 SCRA 583)
• Direct attack: when the object of the action is to
annul or set aside the judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement.
• Collateral attack: in an action to obtain a
different relief, an attack on the judgment is
nevertheless made as an incident thereto.
• A direct attack on title is proper in a
counterclaim (Leyson v. Bontuyan, 452 SCRA
94).
• Collateral attack, illustrative cases
– Director of Lands v. Gan Tan (89 Phil. 184) -
where the decision of the lower court denying
reconstitution because petitioner is allegedly an
alien was reversed, the Supreme Court holding that
the issue is a collateral attack on the title and
should be raised only a direct action.
– Oño v. Lim (614 SCRA 514) – where it was held
that there is no collateral attack when respondent
asserted that the title in the name of petitioner’s
predecessor had become inoperative due to the
prior conveyance of the land in favor of
respondent’s mother.
VOLUNTARY DEALINGS
WITH REGISTERED LAND
• An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage,
lease, or otherwise deal with the same in accordance
with laws.
• He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases
or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in
law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
instrument, except a will x x x shall take effect as a
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only
as a contract between the parties and as evidence of
authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration.
• The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned. (Sec. 51 PD 1529)
• Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment,
x x x shall, if registered in the office of the Register
of Deeds, be constructive notice to all persons from
the time of such registering, filing or entering. (Sec,
52, ibid.)
– No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the
Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate
certificate is presented with such instrument, x x x.
– The production of the owner's duplicate certificate,
whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for
registration, shall be conclusive authority from the
registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a
new certificate x x x . (Sec. 53, ibid.)
DEALINGS LESS THAN
OWNERSHIP, HOW
REGISTERED
• No new certificate shall be entered or issued pursuant
to any instrument which does not divest the
ownership or title from the owner or from the
transferee of the registered owners.
– All interests in registered land less than ownership
shall be registered by filing with the Register of Deeds
the instrument which creates or transfers or claims
such interests and by a brief memorandum thereof
made by the Register of Deeds upon the certificate of
title, and signed by him. A similar memorandum shall
also be made on the owner's duplicate. The
cancellation or extinguishment of such interests shall
be registered in the same manner. (Sec. 54, ibid)
• Each Register of Deeds shall keep a primary entry
book in which, upon payment of the entry fee, he
shall enter, in the order of their reception, all
instruments including copies of writs and processes
filed with him relating to registered land.
– They shall be regarded as registered from the time
so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument,
when made on the certificate of title to which it
refers, shall bear the same date.
– All records and papers relative to registered land in
the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to
the public in the same manner as court
records,(Sec. 56, ibid)
CONVEYANCES AND
TRANSFERS
• An owner desiring to convey his registered land in
fee simple shall execute and register a deed of
conveyance. The RD shall thereafter make out in the
registration book a new certificate of title to the
grantee and shall prepare and deliver to him an
owner's duplicate certificate. (Sec. 57, ibid)
– If a deed of conveyance is for a part only of the land,
the RD shall not enter any transfer certificate until a
plan of such land showing all the portions or lots into
which it has been subdivided and the corresponding
technical descriptions shall have been verified and
approved pursuant to Section 50 of this Decree.
Meanwhile, such deed may only be annotated by way
of memorandum upon the grantor's certificate of title.
(Sec. 58, ibid)
• Upon the approval of the plan and technical
descriptions, the original of the plan, together with a
certified copy of the technical descriptions shall be
filed with the RD for annotation in the corresponding
certificate of title and thereupon a new certificate of
title to the grantee for the portion conveyed. (Sec. 58,
ibid.)
– If, at the time of any transfer, subsisting
encumbrances or annotations appear in the
registration book, they shall be carried over and
stated in the new certificate or certificates, except
so far as they may be simultaneously released or
discharged. (Sec. 59, ibid.)
INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
ADVERSE CLAIM
• When adverse claim may be registered
• A person who claims an interest in registered land
adverse to the registered owner may make a statement
under oath setting forth his alleged right or interest
and how acquired, the number of the certificate of
title, name of the registered owner and a description
of the land.
• The statement shall be registered as an adverse
claim and shall be effective for 30 days.
• The annotation may be cancelled upon the filing a
of a verified petition by the party in interest. (Sec.
70, PD 1529)
• An adverse claim is designed to protect the right or
interest of a person over a piece of real property and
serves as a notice to third persons that someone is
claiming an interest in the land or a better right thereto
than the registered owner. (Martinez v. Garcia, GR
No. 166536, Feb. 4, 2010)
• Adverse claim is proper where there is no other
provision of law for the registration of claimant’s
alleged right or interest in the property.
• Thus, an adverse claim based on prescription and
adverse possession cannot be registered because,
under Sec. 47, no title to registered land shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
(Estella v. Register of Deeds, 106 Phil. 911)
• A sale of land may not be annotated as an adverse
claim because the law prescribes the remedy of
registration of the sale and the issuance to the
vendee of a transfer certificate of title. (RD v.
Nicandro, 111 Phil. 989; Sec. 57, PD 1529)
• But hereditary rights of a person fraudulently
registered in her sister’s name is registrable as
adverse claim. (Gabriel v. Register of Deeds, 9
SCRA 136)
• An adverse claim is effective for 30 days; but it is not
ipso facto cancelled after said period - a separate
petition is necessary. (Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 102377, July 5, 1996)
– The RD cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse
claim. There must be a hearing for the purpose.
(Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)
– The adverse claim may be cancelled if it is
frivolous or vexatious, in which case damages may
be adjudged against the adverse claimant.
 NOTICE OF
LIS PENDENS
• Literally, lis pendens means a pending suit. It refers
to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court
acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the
continuance of the action, and until final judgment.
• The suit must involve the title to or possession of
property. The inscription serves a warning that one
who acquires an interest in litigated land does so at
his own risk, and is subject to the outcome of the
litigation.
• Is a notice of lis pendens appropriate in an action for
nullification of marriage?
– “An action for annulment of marriage may be the
subject of lis pendens because if the petition is
granted by the court the conjugal partnership is
dissolved and liquidated and the properties divided
between the spouses. Hence, the properties are
directly affected in the proceeedings.” (LRA
Consulta No. 2201)
• Lis pendens is proper in the following cases:
 Action to recover possession of property;
 Action to quiet title thereto;
 Action to remove clouds thereon;
 Action for partition; and
 Any other proceedings in court directly affecting
the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof
or the buildings thereon.
• The notice need not be annotated on the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title because the notice is an
involuntary transaction. Entry in the day book is
sufficient. (Yu v. CA, 251 SCRA 509)
• Purpose:
• to protect the rights of the party causing registration,
and
• to advise third persons that they deal with the
property subject to the result of the case
• A notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits of
the case nor creates a right or lien.
• Cancellation is proper when filed to molest adverse
party or is not necessary to protect the rights of the
person causing registration.
• Cancellation of lis pendens
• Before final judgment, the notice may be cancelled
upon order of the court if the notice (a) is for the
purpose of molesting the adverse party or (b) if it
is not necessary for the protection of the party who
caused its registration. The cancellation is a mere
incident in the action, and may be ordered by the
court having jurisdiction of it at any given time.
(Casim v. RD, GR No. 168655, July 2, 2010)
• The notice may also be cancelled by the RD upon
verified petition of the party who caused the
annotation thereof. (Sec. 77)
• Cancellation of lis pendens, grounds
• The power to cancel a notice of lis pendens is
exercised only under exceptional circumstances,
such as: where such circumstances are imputable
to the party who caused the annotation; where the
litigation was unduly prolonged to the prejudice of
the other party because of several continuances
procured by petitioner; where the case which is the
basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed for
non prosequitur on the part of the plaintiff; or
where judgment was rendered against the party
who caused such a notation. (Casim v. RD, supra)
REMEDIES
• In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the
owner may pursue all his legal and equitable
remedies against the parties to such fraud without
prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent
holder for value of a certificate of title.
• After the entry of the decree of registration on the
original petition or application, any subsequent
registration procured by the presentation of a
forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged
deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.
(Sec. 5s, ibid.)
REVIEW OF DECREE
• In Eland Philippines v. Garcia, GR No. 173289,
Feb. 17, 2010, the Court, citing Agcaoili, “Property
Registration Decree and Related Laws”, held that:
• courts may reopen the proceedings where a
petition for review is filed within one year from
the issuance of the decree of registration, based
on actual or extrinsic fraud.
• Requisites:
(a) petitioner must have an interest in land;
(b) petition is based on actual or extrinsic fraud;
(c) petition is filed within one year from the
issuance of the decree of registration; and
(d) property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value. (Walstrom v. Mapa, 314 Phil.
527)
 Extrinsic fraud is the fraudulent act of the
successful party committed outside the trial of a
case against the defeated party which prevented the
latter from fairly presenting his case.
 Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in a litigation
during the trial, such as the use of forged
instruments or perjured testimony, which did not
affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a
fair and just determination of the case. (Palanca v.
American Food Manufacturing, 24 SCRA 819)
 The fraud must have prevented a party from having
his day in court.
 ACTION FOR
RECONVEYANCE
• Reconveyance
– It is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the
rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or
erroneously registered in the name of another, to
compel the registered owner to transfer or
reconvey the land to him.
– The action respects the decree of registration as
incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property,
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
person’s name, to its rightful owner or a person
who has a better right. (Alde v. Bernal, GR No.
169336, March 18, 2010; Ybañez v. IAC, 194
SCRA 793; Gonzales v. IAC, 157SCRA 587)
• An action for reconveyance is an ordinary action
involving “title” to land, and should be filed in the
courts where the land or portion thereof is situated.
(Sec. 1, Rule 4; Latorre v. Latorre, GR No. 183026,
March 20, 2010; Republic v. Mangatora, GR No.
170375, July 7, 2010)
• In civil actions involving title to or interest in
property, jurisdiction rests with the RTC where the
assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000
(or, P50,000 in Metro Manila).
• The action is in personam and is binding only on
persons impleaded. (Ching v. CA, 181 SCRA 9)
• Requisites
• Action is brought by the party in interest after one year
from issuance of decree;
• Registration was procured through actual fraud;
• Property has not yet passed to innocent purchaser for
value.
• But a party may file an action for reconveyance of the
property of which he has been illegally deprived even
before the issuance of the decree. (Mun. of Hagonoy v.
Secretary, 73 SCRA 507)
• Meantime, a notice of lis pendens may be annotated
on the certificate of title immediately upon the
institution of the action in court. (Muñoz v. Yabut,
GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011).
• Art. 434 of the CC provides that to successfully
maintain an action to recover the ownership of a
real property, the person who claims a better right
to it must prove, first, the identity of the land
claimed; and second, his title thereto.
• Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188575, Dec. 10, 2012
– Facts: When Pacete procured OCT No. V-16654 in
1961, the disputed lot was already in possession of
Asotigue, whose predecessor-in-interest, Sumagad,
had been occupying it since 1958.
– Issue: Is reconveyance in favor of Asotigue proper?
– Held: Yes. The registration of Asotigue's lot in favor
of Pacete, who neither possessed nor occupied it, is
wrongful. Since Pacete had not yet transferred the lot
to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for
reconveyance is proper. Reconveyance is available not
only to the legal owner of a property but also to the
person with a better right thereto.
• Quieting of title
• An action for reconveyance has sometimes been
treated as an action to quiet title. Requisites:
• Plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest
in the property
• The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must
be shown to be invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity. (Philville
Development and Housing Corporation v.
Bonifacio, GR No. 167391, June 8, 2011)
• Quieting of title, illustration:
• Jose who is an agent, in representation of Pedro,
sells the latter’s house to Mario. The deed of sale
is executed in a public instrument and there is no
indication that the authority of the agent is not in
writing. The deed of sale appears to be valid and
effective on its face.
• As the authority of Jose to sell is, in fact, not in
writing, the sale is void (Art. 1874, CC). Pedro can
file a suit against the buyer Mario to quiet his title.
(Pineda, Property)
• Prescription of action for reconveyance
–Action based on fraud – 4 years
–Action based on implied trust – 10 years
–Action based on void contract – imprescriptible
–Action to quiet title where plaintiff is in possession
– imprescriptible
• But laches may bar recovery. (Lucas v. Gamponia,
100 Phil. 277)
ACTION FOR
DAMAGES
• After one year from the issuance of the decree, the
sole remedy of the aggrieved party is not to set aside
the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no
longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in
the ordinary court for reconveyance.
• But if the property has passed into the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is an action
for damages. (Gonzales v. IAC, 157 SCRA 587)
• Action for damages must be brought within 10 years
from issuance of the questioned certificate of title.
(Art.1144, CC)
REVERSION
– Reversion is an action filed by the government,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, to restore
public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to
private individuals or corporations to the mass of the
public domain. (Yujuico v. Republic, GR No. 168661,
Oct. 26, 2007, citing Agcaoili, “Property Registration
Decree”)
– Ground: in all cases where lands of the public domain
are held in violation of the Constitution.
• All actions for the reversion to the Government of
lands of the public domain or improvements thereon
shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the
officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. (Sec. 101,
PLA)
– But unless and until the land is reverted to the
State by virtue of a judgment of a court of law in a
direct proceeding for reversion, the Torrens
certificate of title thereto remains valid and
binding against the whole world. (Tolentino v.
Laurel, GR No. 181368, Feb.22, 2012)
• The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion
suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment
of the RTC acting as a land registration court.
• Actions for cancellation of title and reversion
belong to the class of cases that "involve the title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein,” and where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00, fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC. (Rep. v. Roman Catholic
Archbishop, GR No. 192975, Nov. 12, 2012;
Santos v. CA, GR No. 61218, Sept. 23, 1992, 214
SCRA 162)
• Reversion suits were originally filed with the RTC to
annul titles or patents administratively issued by the
LMB.
– But with the effectivity of BP Blg. 129 which gave
the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), now
Court of Appeals, jurisdiction over actions for
annulment judgments of RTCs, the Rules of Court
promulgated on July 1, 1997 incorporated Rule 47
on annulment of judgments or final orders of the
RTCs. (Yujuico v. Republic, 537 SCRA 513)
• State not bound by prescription or estoppel
– Under Sec. 91 of the PLA (CA No. 141), the LMB
Director has continuing authority to conduct
investigation to determine whether or not public
land has been fraudulently awarded or titled to the
end that the corresponding certificate of title be
cancelled and the land reverted to the mass public
domain. (Piñero v. Director of Lands, 57 SCRA
386)
– The indefeasibility of a title is not a bar to an
investigation by the State as to how such title has
been acquired. (Cavile v. Litania-Hong, 581 SCRA
408)
• But while the general rule is that the State is immune
from estoppel, this concept is understood to refer to
acts and mistakes of its officials especially those
which are irregular.
• In Rep. v. CA and Santos, GR No. 116111, Jan. 21,
1999), for nearly twenty years (starting from the
issuance of St. Jude's titles in 1966 up to the filing
of the complaint in 1985), the government failed to
correct and recover the alleged increase in the land
area of St. Jude’s property. It was held that the
government’s prolonged inaction strongly
militates against its cause, as it is tantamount to
laches.
CANCELLATION
OF TITLE
• Cancellation of title is an action initiated by a private
party usually in a case where two titles are issued for
the same lot.
• Where two titles are issued for the same lot, the
earlier in date prevails. (Pajomayo v. Manipon,
39 SCRA 676)
• Land does not revert to the State but is declared
as lawfully belonging to the party whose title is
superior over the other.
• But the State is vested with personality to file
the action to protect public interest and
safeguard the Assurance Fund.
• Actions for cancellation of title, reconveyance and
reversion belong to the class of cases that "involve
the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein."
• Where the assessed value of the property exceeds
P20,000.00 (BPBlg. 129, Sec. 19 [2]), the actin
falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. (Rep. v.
Roman Catholic Archbishop, GR No. 192975,
Nov. 12, 2012; Santos v. CA, 214 SCRA 162)
ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT
• This is an extraordinary remedy filed with the Court
of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, where
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner.
• Judgments or orders of quasi-judicial bodies, e.g.,
NLRC or DARAB, are not covered by petitions for
annulment.
 Grounds for annulment:
(a) action is based on extrinsic fraud, filed within
four years from discovery;
(b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant/respondent or over the subject matter of
the action.
• If based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner need not
allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial or
appeal are no longer available through no fault of his.
• If ground is lack of jurisdiction, another remedy is
certiorari under Rule 65 where the CA and SC have
concurrent jurisdiction.
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
FROM THE ASSURANCE
FUND
– A person who sustains loss or damage, or is deprived
of any land or interest therein by the operation of the
Torrens system after original registration, without
negligence on his part, is entitled to recover damages
from the Assurance Fund. (Sec. 95, PD No. 1529)
• But the plaintiff who holds a certificate of title must
be an innocent purchaser for value.
• The action must be brought within 6 years from the
time right of action accrues
• Requisites for recovery
• As to any person who sustains loss or damage:
– No negligence on his part, and
– Loss or damage was through the omission or
mistake of the court personnel, or the Register of
Deeds or other employees of the Registry in the
performance of their duties.
• As to any person deprived of any land or interest in
the land:
• No negligence on his part;
• He was deprived of land or interest therein by the
registration by any other person as owner of such
land; or by mistake , omission or misdescription in
any owner’s duplicate certificate, or in any
memorandum in the register, or by any
cancellation; and
• He is barred from bringing an action for the
recovery of such land or interest therein.
• Illustrative cases
• National Treasurer v. Perez (131 SCRA 264) –
where respondent could not be awarded damages
since the donation to him was not executed with
the formalities of a will and therefore could not
have transferred to him ownership of the property.
• Treasurer of the Philippines v. CA (153 SCRA
3590) – where respondents acquired no land or any
interest in the land as a result of the invalid sale to
them by the impostor Lawaan Lopez who had no
title or interest to transfer.
• Illustrative cases
• La Urbana v. Bernardo (62 Phil. 790) – where,
having knowledge of the pending litigation and
notice of lis pendens affecting the land, it
nevertheless proceeded to take the risk of
purchasing property in litigation.
• Fraginal v. Parañal (516 SCA 530) – where
property sold to petitioner was a prime land which
has been the subject of successive transfers with
“unusual haste” which should have triggered
petitioner’s curiosity.
 CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION
• The State may criminally prosecute for perjury
the party who obtains registration through fraud,
such as by stating false assertions in the
application for registration, sworn answer, or
application for public land patent.
– Sec. 91 of the PLA provides that “the statements
made in the application shall b considered as
essential conditions and parts of any concession,
title, or permit issued on the basis of such
application, and any false statement therein or
omission of facts x x x shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession, title, or permit
granted.”
 A FORGED DEED IS A
NULLITY, BUT IT MAY
BECOME THE ROOT OF A
VALID TITLE
 Forged deed is a nullity
 Generally, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no
title, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title. (Joaquin v. Madrid, 106 Phil.
1060)
 The registered owner does not lose his title, and
neither does the assignee or mortgagee acquire any
right to the property. (Bernales v. Sambaan, 610
SCRA 90)
 The innocent purchaser for value protected by law
is one who purchases a titled land by a virtue of a
deed executed by the registered owner himself, not
by a forged deed.
• But a forged deed may become the root of a valid
title
• A forged deed may become the root of a valid title
in a bona fide purchaser if the certificate has
already been transferred from the name of the true
owner to the name of the forger or the name
indicated by the forger, and while it remained that
way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser for value. (Solivel v. Francisco, 170
SCRA 218)
• For then the vendee had the right to rely upon what
appeared in the certificate. (Guaranteed Homes v.
Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)
• Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011:
• “A void title may become the root of a valid title if
the derivative title was obtained in good faith and
for value. Following the principle of indefeasibility
of a Torrens title, every person dealing with
registered lands may safely rely on the correctness
of the certificate of title of the vendor/transferor,
and he is not required to go beyond the certificate
and inquire into the circumstances culminating in
the vendor's acquisition of the property. The rights
– of innocent third persons who relied on the
correctness of the certificate of title and acquired
rights over the property covered thereby cannot be
disregarded and the courts cannot order the
cancellation of such certificate for that would
impair or erode public confidence in the Torrens
system of land registration.” (See also: Republic v.
Agunoy, 492 Phil. 118 [2005], citing cases)
• Remedy of party defrauded – action for damages
• The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgage must be respected
and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his
title through fraud.
• The remedy of the persons prejudiced is to bring
an action for damages against those who caused
the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action
against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be
filed for the recovery of damages against the
Assurance Fund. (PNB v. CA and Chuy Kim Kit,
187 SCRA 735)
INNOCENT PURCHASER
FOR VALUE
• Innocent purchaser for value
• An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys
the property of another without notice that some
other person has a right to or interest in it, and who
pays a full and fair price at the time of the
purchase or before receiving any notice of another
person’s claim. (Rosales v. Burgos, 577 SCA 264)
• But “in no case shall such (petition for review) be
entertained by the court where an innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an
interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced.”
(Sec. 32, PD 1529)
• In Rep. V. CA and Santos, GR No. 116111, Jan. 21,
1999, private respondents bought the "expanded"
lots in good faith, relying on the clean certificates of
St. Jude, which had no notice of any flaw in them
either. Held: It is only fair and reasonable to apply the
equitable principle of estoppel by laches against the
government to avoid an injustice to the innocent
purchasers for value. Respondents did not have to go
behind the titles to verify their contents or search for
hidden defects or inchoate rights that could defeat
their rights to said lots. They are only charged with
notice of the liens and encumbrances on the property
that are noted on the certificates.
• Every person dealing with registered land has a right
to rely on the correctness of the title and is not
obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the
condition of the property. (Unchuan v. CA, 161
SCRA 710)
– In a series of transfers, it is enough that the buyer
examines the latest certificate of title and need not
scrutinize each and every title that preceded it.
(Tajonera v. CA, 103 SCRA 467)
• Rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware) - one who buys
without checking the vendor’s title takes all the risks
and losses consequent to such failure. (Dacasin v.
CA, 80 SCRA 89)
• Nemo dat quod non habet
• No one can give what one does not have.
• One can sell only what one owns or is
authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no
more than what the seller can transfer legally.
• Prior est temporae, prior est in jura
• He who is first in right is preferred in right.
• Thus, when the thing sold is an immovable, the
one who acquires it and first records it in the
Registry of Property, both made in good faith,
shall be deemed the owner.
• Basic principles
• The rule that where two certificates purport to include
the same land, the earlier in date prevails, is valid
only absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the
process of registration. (Mathay v. Court of Appeals,
295 SCRA 556) A certificate of title is not conclusive
where it is the product of faulty or fraudulent
registration. (Widows and Orphans Association, Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 165)
– Where the inclusion of land in the certificate of prior
date is a mistake, the mistake may be rectified by
holding the latter of two certificates to be
conclusive. (Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590)
• Rule of good faith equally applies to mortgagees (or
other encumbrancers for value) (Sec. 32, PD No.
1529)
– Thus, where the Torrens title was issued through
regular registration proceedings, a subsequent
order for the cancellation nullification of the title is
not a ground for nullifying the mortgage rights of
the bank. (St. Dominic v. IAC, 151 SCRA 577)
– The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be
respected even if the mortgagor obtained his title
through fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil.
494)
• Banks should exercise greater care in their business
dealings
– But unlike private individuals, banks (and other
persons engaged in lending money) are expected to
exercise greater care and prudence in their dealings
for their business is invested with public interest.
(Metrobank v. SLGT Holdings, 533 SCRA 516;
Cruz v. Bancom Finance, 379 SCRA 490)
– Good faith is a question of fact; the burden of
proving the status of a buyer or mortgagee in good
faith rests with the person asserting that status.
(Sigaya v. Mayuga, 467 SCA 341)
• A mortgage is valid as between the parties even if
unregistered, but registration of a mortgage is
indispensable to bind third parties.
• Prior registration of an adverse claim or notice of
lis pendens creates a preference as against a
mortgage registered later.
• The subsequent registration of a prior mortgage
does not diminish this preference, which retroacts
to the date of the notice of adverse claim or lis
pendens. (Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation,
GR No. 147788, March 19, 2002)
• A deed of sale which was absolutely simulated is null
and void and does not convey any right that could
ripen into valid title; there being no valid mortgage,
there could be no valid foreclosure, and the bank
cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith.
• Where title was issued through regular proceedings
and was given as security for a bank loan, the
subsequent declaration of the title as null and void
is not a ground for nullifying the mortgage rights
of the bank. (St. Dominic Corp. V. IAC, 151
SCRA 577; Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
PETITIONS AND ACTIONS
AFTER ORIGINAL
REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT AND
ALTERATION OF
CERTIFICATES
• Pursutant to Sec. 8, PD 1529, no erasure, alteration,
or amendment, shall be made upon the registration
book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a
memorandum thereon except by order of the proper
Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 108, PD 1529; Cuyugan
v. Sy Quia, 24 Phil. A567)
• The petition shall be filed in the original case in
which the decree was entered. (OCA v. Matas, 247
SCRA 9)
• Grounds for amendment
• That registered interests have terminated;
• That new interests have been created;
• That an omission or error was made in entering a
certificate or any memorandum thereon;
• That the registered owner has married, or that the
marriage has been terminated;
• That a corporation which owned registered land
has been dissolved;
• Upon any other reasonable ground.
• Under Sec. 108, in relation to Sec. 2, PD No. 1529,
the registration court may now hear both contentions
and non-contentious cases.
• Thus, the court has jurisdiction over a petition for
cancellation of encumbrances despite respondent’s
contention that the issue is controversial. (PNB v.
International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508).
• The court can compel petitioner to surrender his
owner’s duplicate certificate so that a new title
may be issued to the proper party despite his
argument that the case involved the “registrability”
of the document. (Ligon v. CA, 244 SCA 693)
REPLACEMENT OF LOST
OR DESTROYED
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• Procedure
 The registered owner or person in interest shall
send first a notice, under oath, of the loss or
destruction of the owner’s duplicate certificate to
the Register of Deeds; a mere affidavit of loss
attached to the petition is insufficient. (New
Durawood v. CA, GR No. 111732, Feb. 20, 1996)
 The corresponding petition for the replacement of
the lost or destroyed certificate shall then be filed
in court and entitled in the original case in which
the decree of registration was entered. (Sec. 109,
Id.)
• But where the title was issued pursuant to a public
land patent, the petition shall be filed with the
proper court as a miscellaneous case. (OCA v.
Matas, AM No. RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995)
• Unlike in a petition for reconstitution under Sec.
110 of PD 1529, there is no requirement for the
publication of the petition for replacement of a
lost or destroyed certificate under Sec. 109 of the
Decree.
• After notice and hearing, the court may direct the
issuance of a new duplicate certificate which shall
in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as
the original duplicate. (Sec. 109, PD No. 1529)
 RECONSTITUTION OF
LOST OR DESTROYED
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• Sec. 110 of PD 1529, as amended by RA 6732,
allows the reconstitution of lost or destroyed original
Torrens title either judicially, pursuant to the special
procedure laid down in RA 26, or administratively, in
accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6732.
(Republic v. Camacho, GR No. 185604, June 13,
2013)
– The purpose of such a proceeding is merely to
have the certificate of title reproduced, after proper
proceedings, in the same form it was in when its
loss or destruction occurred. (Id.)
• The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes
restoration in the original form and condition of a lost
or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person
to a piece of land.
– RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is
sought to be reconstituted has already been
brought under the provisions of the Torrens
System. (Republic v. Tuastumban, GR No.
173210, Apri 24, 2009)
• Judicial reconstitution partakes of a land
registration proceeding and is subject to the
jurisdictional requirements of publication, mailing
and posting. This is mandatory. (Sec. 13, RA No.
26; Pinote v. Dulay, GR No. 56694, July 2, 1990)
– Sec. 108 of PD No, 1529 provides that all
petitions or motions after original registration
shall be filed and entitled in the original case in
which the decree of registration was entered.
(See also Sec. 2, RA No. 26; OCA v. Matas, AM
No. RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995).
• Requisites of reconstitution:
• Certificate of title has been lost or destroyed;
• Petitioner is the registered owner or person
who has an interest therein (the RD is only a
nominal party); and
• Certificate of title was in force at the time it
was lost or destroyed.(Sec. 110, PD No. 1529)
• The petition shall be filed with the RTC of the
province or city where the land lies. (Sec. 12, RA
No. 26)
• Reconstitution denotes restoration of the certificate
in its original form and condition. (Republic v.
Tuastumban, 586 SCRA 600)
– Where there exists a previously issued title
which is allegedly fraudulent, the remedy is to
first directly assail the validity thereof before
the proper court. (Manotok v. Barque, 574
SCRA 468)
• Sources of reconstitution
• Sec. 2, RA No. 26 - for reconstitution of an
original certificate of title
• Sec. 3, RA No. 26 – for reconstitution of a
transfer certificate of title.
• “Any other document” as a source of
reconstitution refers to documents similar to
those previously enumerated in the law under the
principle of ejusdem generis. (Republic v. IAC
and Kiram, 157 SCRA 62
• The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed
in Sections 12 (contents of petition) and 13
(requirements of notice and hearing) of RA 26 is
fatal.
• These requirements and procedure are mandatory.
The petition for reconstitution must allege certain
specific jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing
must be published in the Official Gazette and
posted in particular places; and the same sent or
notified to specified persons. Sections 12 and 13 of
the Act provide the mandatory requirements to be
followed. (Castillo v. Republic, GR No. 182980,
Jun 22, 2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE
RECONSTITUTION
• Administrtative reconstitution of lost or destroyed
certificates is governed by RA 6732.
• It is available in case of substantial loss or
destruction of land titles due fire, flood or other
force majeure.
• Requirements:
– Number of certificates lost or damaged is at
least 10% of the total number in possession of
the RD.
– In no case shall be number of certificates be
less than 500.
• Absence of opposition by OSG to petition not
controlling
– The absence of opposition from government
agencies is of no controlling significance because
the State cannot be estopped by the omission,
mistake or error of its officials or agents.
– Neither is the Republic barred from assailing the
decision granting the petition for reconstitution if,
on the basis of the law and the evidence on record,
such petition has no merit. (Republic v. Lorenzo,
GR No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012)
CONSULTA
• When the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what
action should be taken on an instrument presented
for registration, or where ay party does not agree
with the action taken by the Register of Deeds,
the question shall be elevated to the LRA
Administrator via en consulta for determination.
(Sec. 117, PD 1529; Soriano v. Fernandez, GR
No. 168157, Aug. 19, 2015)
• The consulta shall be cancelled (a) upon final
resolution of the case by the LRA
Administrator, or (b) if the consulta is
withdrawn by the petitioner.
• The ruling of the LRA shall be conclusive and
binding on all RDs, without prejudice to an appeal to
the Court of Appeals. (Soriano v. Fernandez, GR No.
168157, Aug. 19, 2015)
– A party who does not agree with the action taken
by the LRA is to appeal to the CA, via Rule 43 -
and not by certiorari or prohibition - within 15
days from notice of the decision or resolution.
(Calalang v. RD of QC, 231 SCRA 88)
– The administrative remedy must be resorted to by
petitioner before he can have recourse to the
courts. (Almirol v. RD of QC, 22 SCRA 1152)
MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS
• The purpose of registration is:
(a) to quiet title to land.
(b) to recognize a valid and subsisting interest in
land.
(c) to bar third parties from claiming any interest in
the land.
(d) to furnish a shield for fraud.
• Which of the following may be the subject of
alienation?
(a) mineral lands
(b) national parks
(c) forest lands
(d) agricultural lands
• The following may classify lands of the public
domain as alienable and disposable:
(a) Congress
(b) The President
(c) The DENR Secretary
(d) All of the above
• Where land is brought for the first time under the
Torrens system, the corresponding survey must be
approved by the:
(a) LRA Administrator
(b) DENR Secretary
(c) DAR Secretary
(d) LMB (Regional Technical) Director
• A plenary action to determine the better right of
possession or possession de jure, filed after one year
from unlawful dispossession, is referred to as:
(a) Accion publiciana
(b) Accion reivindicatoria
(c) Accion interdictal
(d) Quieting of title
• The registration of an instrument affecting
registered land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the
time of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
(c) forecloses any judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) puts in issue an instrument previously
registered.
• The remedy of the interested party if the Register
of Deeds refuses to issue a certificate of title
pursuant to a court judgment is:
(a) To cite the RD in contempt.
(b) To file a mandamus petition versus the RD.
(c) To appeal the RD’s denial to the LRA via
consulta.
(d) To file administrative charges against the RD
with the LRA.
• Which is incorrect?
(a) Patrimonial property of the state, when no longer
intended for public use or for public service, shall
become property of public dominion.
(b) All property of the state, which is not of public
dominion, is patrimonial property.
(c)Property of provinces, cities and municipalities
is divided into property for public use and
patrimonial property.
(d) Property is either of public dominion or of
private ownership.
• An action to recover real property based on
ownership is referred to as:
(a) Quieting of title
(b) Action interdictal
(c) Accion publiciana
(d) Action reivindicatoria
• The Regalian doctrine embodies the concept that:
(a) all lands when classified as A and D belong
to the State.
(b) all lands not clearly within private ownership
presumptively belong to the State.
(c) all lands not covered by Spanish titles
presumptively belong to the State.
(d) the King is regarded as the true and only
source of title.
• In what instances may first level courts exercise
jurisdiction to hear land registration cases?
(a) Where the application is not the subject of any
opposition.
(b) Where the assessed value of the land does not
exceed P500,000.
(c) Where the land is not contested, or even if
contested, has an assessed value not exceeding
P100,000.
(d) Where its exercise is delegated by the RTC.
• A Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud within
what period after the date of issuance of the decree of
registration?
(a) Within four years
(b) Within three years
(c) Within two years
(d) Within one year
• An application for registration of land already
covered by a duly registered title:
(a) may be duly heard to determine who has the
better right of ownership to the land.
(b) will not prosper because of stare decisis.
(c) is a collateral attack on the prior title.
(d) should upon motion of the first registrant be
dismissed outright for being a harrasment suit.
• What is the prescriptive period for an action for
compensation against the Assurance Fund?
(a) 4 years.
(b) 6 years.
(c) 10 years.
(d) imprescriptible.
• PD No. 892, dated February 16, 1976, has outlawed
Spanish titles as evidence of ownership in registration
cases, but
(a) such a title may still be presented in evidence if
accompanied by a survey plan executed prior to
February 16, 1976.
(b) such a title is absolutely barred without if’s or
but’s.
(c) such a title may still be presented if it is in the
nature of a possessory information title.
(d) such a title may still be presented in evidence if
accompanied by its English translation.
 The rationale for the rule that the land sought to be
registered is already A and D “at the time the application
for registration is filed” is that:
(a) it is only when the land is classified as A and D
that the State is deemed to have abdicated its exclusive
prerogative over the land.
(b) it is hardly possible to look for witnesses who
could testify as to the status and condition of the land on
or before June 12, 1945.
(c) prior to the classification of the land as A and D,
the land still remains part of the forest zone, hence,
inalienable.
(d) previous rulings of the Supreme Court requiring
that the land be declared A and D as of June 12, 1945 are
merely obiter dicta.
• The function of the Register of Deeds to register
instruments affecting registered land is ministerial,
hence
(a) his duty is compellable by mandamus.
(b) he has no discretion to determine the intrinsic
validity of the instrument provided that it is a public
insgtrument.
(c) his duty is to register the instrument without
prejudice to a determination of its validity before the
proper forum afterwards.
(d) his duty is to register the instrument unless
enjoined by the LRA.
• Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership
but simply a procedure
(a) to establish evidence of one’s claim of
ownership in the land.
(b) to ensure that third parties may not assert
any claim or interest in the land thereafter.
(c) to remove all liens and encumbrances in
the land.
(d) to assure the claimant a better title than
what he actually has.
• Lot X is registered in the name of “Pedro,
married to Maria.” Can Pedro sell the land to
Jose without the written consent of Maria?
(a) Yes, Pedro is the sole owner, there being
no showing as to when the land was acquired.
(b) No because the property is presumed
conjugal.
(c) No, the lack of consent of Maria is fatal,
there being no showing that she is incapacitated
to give her consent to the sale.
(d) None of the above.
• Registration under the Torrens system is a
proceeding in rem. This means that
(a) all interested persons are constructively
notified of the proceedings and have a right to
appear and oppose the application for registration.
(b) the proceeding is against all known
occupants and adjoining owners of the land.
(c) the proceeding aims to grant certain
persons who claim an interest in the land the right
to be heard.
(d) “b” and “c”.
• Which of the following may be considered sufficient
to show the classification of the land as A and D?
(a) The cadastral survey of a municipality
preparatory to the filing of the petition for cadastral
proceedings.
(b) The titling of properties around the land
subject of registration.
(c) The report and recommendation of the District
Forester for the release of the property from the
unclassified region.
(d) An executive proclamation withdrawing from
a reservation a specific area and declaring the same
open for entry, sale or other mode of disposition.
 Under Sec. 23, PD 1529, publication of the notice of
initial hearing in the OG “shall be sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the court.” If there was such
publication, is there still a need to publish the notice in
a newspaper of general circulation?
(a) No more since the law expressly provides that
publication in the OG is sufficient.
(b) Yes because practically no one reads the OG
anyway.
(c) No more since it is not fair that the applicant
should be unduly burdened by additional expenses
for publication.
(d) Yes because publication in the newspaper is part
of procedural due process.
• To be registrable, the land:
– (a) must already be classified as A and D at the
time the application for registration is filed.
– (b) must be classified as A and D as of June 12,
1945.
– (c) must have been already classified as A and D
for not less than 30 years prior to the filing of the
application.
– (d) none of the above.
 In order that additional area may be the subject of
registration, the applicant should:
(a) withdraw his original application and file a new
one to include the additional area.
(b) file a separate application for the additional
area.
(c) amend his application to include the additional
area but subject to the requirements of publication.
(d) file a separate application for the additional area
and move for the consolidation of said application with
the original application for registration.
• Overt acts of possession may consist in introducing
valuable improvements on the property like fruit-
bearing trees. In Republic v. Court of Appeals and
Chavez (GR No. L-62680, Nov. 9, 1988), the Court
held that in a practical and scientific way of planting,
(a) it takes only 5 years for coconut trees and 3
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(b) it takes only 10 years for mango trees and 5
years for coconut trees to begin bearing fruit.
(c) it takes only 3 years for coconut trees and 5
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(d) it takes only 10 years for coconut trees and 5
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
• The capacity to acquire private land is determined
by the capacity
(a) to convert the land to its maximum
productivity.
(b) to acquire public land.
(c) to proffer well-nigh incontrovertible proof of
possession since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto.
(d) to show full compliance with the residence
and cultivation requirements of the law.
• The Civil Code provides that accretion belongs to
the owners of the land adjoining the banks of the
river. It is however necessary that the accretion
(a) must have taken place for such length of time
as to ipso jure convert the same into private
ownership.
(b) is made through the effects of the current of
the water.
(c) is formed by the natural change in the course
of the river.
(d) must have been formed gradually and
imperceptibly for a period of not less than 10 years.
• The duty of the LRA Administrator to issue a
decree of registration is ministerial, the reason
being that
(a) his refusal would subject him to contempt
of court.
(b) he is an officer, and acts upon order, of the
court.
(c) the winning party has an absolute right to
the fruits of the verdict.
(d) the issuance of the decree is an express
component of his official functions.
 Pedro applied for the registration of land. The
government opposed. Judgment was rendered in favor
of Pedro, which became final. Thereafter, Pedro sold
the land to Jose. Can the government appeal the
judgment?
(a) No because a final judgment can no longer be
the subject of appeal.
(b) No because the government is already
concluded by the judgment as oppositor.
(c) Yes because the government is not bound by the
mistakes or errors of its agents.
(d) No because the land is now transferred to a
third person.
• To avail of a petition for review,
(a) the petitioner must allege facts surrounding
the trial which prevented a fair and just determination
of the case.
(b) the petition must be filed within 60 days from
the finality of the decision of the court.
(c) the petitioner must await the expiration of one
year from the issuance of the decree of registration.
(d) the property has not passed to an innocent
purchaser for value.
• An action for reversion filed by the Solicitor
General is proper where defendant’s title covers
(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits caused
by the action of the sea.
(b) land which had been previously titled
through cadastral proceedings.
(c) land subject of irregular reconstitution
proceedings.
(d) land forming part of the friar lands estate.
• Recovery from the Assurance Fund is possible
(a) when private defendant is insolvent.
(b) when plaintiff failed in his action for
reconveyance.
(c) when plaintiff has been deprived of an
interest in land on account of bringing the land
under the Torrens system.
(d) when the Register of Deeds failed to
exercise due care to forestall fraudulent
registration.
• When a deed of sale presented for registration is
forged,
(a) the registered owner does not lose his title to
the land.
(b) the transferee can recover damages from the
Assurance Fund.
(c) the transferee can ask the true owner to
execute a deed of sale in his favor.
(d) the Register of Deeds should elevate the
matter to the LRA via en consulta.
• A plenary action to recover ownership which
necessarily includes recovery of possession is
referred to as:
(a) Action for quieting of title
(b) Accion interdictal
(c) Accion publiciana
(d) Accion reivindicatoria
• The burden of proving the status of a purchaser
in good faith is discharged
(a) by one who asserts that status.
(b) by invoking the legal presumption of good
faith.
(c) by proof that the vendor is the true owner
of the property sold.
(d) by proof that the property was
unencumbered at the time of the sale.
• Jose forged the signature of the registered owner,
Pedro, in a deed of sale purportedly made by Pedro
to Mario who paid the full purchase price of the
land. Is Mario a buyer in good faith?
(a) No because as a cautious person he should
have first determined in the office of the Register of
Deeds who the true owner of the property is.
(b) No because the forged deed does not convey
any valid title to the vendee.
(c) Yes because a buyer of registered land need
not go beyond the four corners of the title to
determine any flaw in the title of his vendor.
(d) Yes because he has paid the full purchase
price of the land.
• Pedro sold registered land to an alien. The sale was
not registered. Realizing that the sale is prohibited,
Pedro seeks to recover the land from the alien
vendee. Will the action prosper?
(a) Yes because the sale is not yet registered.
(b) No because both Pedro and the alien vendee
are in pari delicto.
(c) No because Pedro is estopped from impugning
the sale.
(d) Yes because the prohibition is designed for
the protection of the Filipino vendor.
• An action for reversion by the State is proper
when defendant’s title covers
(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits caused
by the action of the sea.
(b) land previously titled through cadastral
proceedings.
(c) land within a reservation for public use.
(d) (a) and (c).
• Minerals are discovered underneath Pedro’s titled
property. Who has the right to exploit the minerals?
(a) The government has the absolute right to
exploit the minerals.
(b) Pedro has the right to exploit the minerals
because he is the absolute owner of the land.
(c) Pedro has the right to exploit the minerals as
owner of the land and anything underneath it.
(d) The government has the right to exploit the
minerals upon prior expropriation of the property.
• The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is
(a) to fortify the claim of ownership of the
party causing the registration thereof.
(b) to prevent the owner of the property from
alienating it while the case is still pending trial.
(c) to advise third persons who purchase the
property that they do so at their peril.
(d) to put the owner on notice that he holds
the property in trust for the person causing the
annotation of the lis pendens.
• May an adverse claim of ownership, based on
prescription and adverse possession, be registered over
registered land?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to protect the
interest of the person claiming ownership of the land.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because the adverse claim serves as a
notice that the adverse claimant has a better right to
the land than the registered owner thereof.
(d) No because prescription for the acquisition of
title is never presumed.
• Reconstitution denotes reconstruction of a lost or
destroyed original certificate of title. The term
“any other document” as a source of reconstitution
may include
(a) an order of the court for the issuance of the
decree.
(b) an approved survey plan and technical
description of the land.
(c) a certification by the LRA that a decree of
registration was in fact issued.
(d) none of the above.
 Gan Tan lost his title when his house was burned in 1995.
He filed for reconstitution in 2004. The court denied the
petition based on a BID certification submitted by the
OSG that Gan Tan is an alien. In case of appeal, how
should the case be resolved?
(a) The appeal should be denied because Gan Tan being
an alien is disqualified from owning land in the
country.
(b) Reconstitution should be ordered because a Torrens
title, as a rule, is irrevocable and indefeasible.
(c) The appeal should be dismissed since petitioner has
lost his right to the land on the ground of laches.
(d) Reconstitution should be ordered because a Torrens
title cannot be collaterally attacked.
• OCT No. 38621 was decreed in the name of “Pedro
Valdez, married to Lita Marquez”. Because of the
loss of the original copy of the title, Pedro petitioned
the court for reconstitution. During the pendency of
the case, Lita died. Assuming that the petition is
substantiated, the court should issue an order of
reconstitution:
(a) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, widower”.
(b) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, married to Lita
Marquez, deceased”.
(c) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, married to Lita
Marquez”.
(d) in the name of “Pedro Valdez”.
• If the Register of Deeds is unsure whether or not an
instrument affecting registered land is registrable, he
should
(a) return the document to the registrant for the
reformation of the instrument.
(b) ask the registrant to elevate the matter to the
LRA for the resolution of the issue via en consulta.
(c) himself refer the matter to the LRA for the
determination of the issue.
(d) advise the registrant to file an adverse claim in
the meantime pending further study and determination
of the issue.
• Every purchaser of registered land –
(a) is charged with notice of all liens whether
or not annotated on the title,
(b) should first investigate to determine the
condition of the property.
(c) may safely rely on the validity of the title.
(d) should cautiously look behind the
certificate to determine the true owner.
 May a Dutch national validly purchase a residential unit in
a townhouse project constituted under the Condominium
Act?
(a) No because aliens, whether individuals or
corporations, are disqualified from acquiring public lands,
hence, they are also disqualified from acquiring private
lands.
(b) Yes because for as long as 60% of the members
of the condominium corporation are Filipinos, the
remaining members can be foreigners.
(c) Yes because the unit owner is simply a member of
the condominium corporation and the land remains owned
by the condominium corporation.
(d) (b) and (c).
 If only a portion of the land covered by a certificate of
title is sold by the owner, and the deed is presented for
inscription, the Register of Deeds
(a) shall annotate the deed by way of memorandum
on the grantor’s certificate of title, original and
duplicate.
(b) shall not enter any transfer certificate to the
grantee until a plan of the land showing all the portions
or lots into which it has been subdivided shall have been
verified and approved.
(c) shall issue a new certificate of title to the
grantee for the portion conveyed and at the same cancel
the grantor’s certificate partially with respect only to the
portion conveyed.
(d) (a) and (b).
 Pedro decides to sell his property to Jose only to
discover the loss of his owner's duplicate certificate of
title covering it. What initial recourse should Pedro
take?
(a) Report the fact of loss to the police and then file
a petition for replacement of the lost title before the
court.
(b) Send a notice under oath to the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon
as the loss is discovered.
(c) Promptly file with the proper court a verified
petition for replacement of the lost title.
(d) Proceed with the documentation of the sale and
then file a petition for replacement of the lost title.
 In 1995, Pedro, a natural born Filipino, bought an
agricultural land from Jose who had been in possession
thereof as owner since 1942. Pedro migrated to Japan
where he acquired Japanese citizenship. He came back to
the Philippines in 2010 and applied for the registration of
the land, now industrial in character. The government
opposed since Pedro is an alien. Is the opposition valid?
(a) Yes because aliens are disqualified from acquiring
lands in the Philippines.
(b) Yes because even privately owned unregistered lands
are presumed public lands under the Regalian doctrine.
(c) No because the land at the time of its acquisition by
Pedro is deemed already a private land.
(d) Yes because industrial lands may only be leased to
aliens.
• The registration of an instrument affecting
registered land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the
time of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
(c) forecloses a judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) records an existing title.
• The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens
(a) is contingent on the existence of a final
judgment.
(b) is proper where it appears that the case has
been unnecessarily prolonged.
(c) may only be made at the instance of the
adverse party.
(d) may be made motu proprio by the Register
of Deeds if it appears that the notice was filed to
molest the adverse party.
• Mineral resources are owned by
(a) the State, subject to privates rights if
any there be.
(b) the owner of the property where they
are found.
(c) the State.
(d) the indigenous peoples when they are
found within ancestral domains.
• Which of the following statements is not correct:
(a) Because the majority of land in the country
are agricultural lands, courts have a right to presume
that lands are agricultural unless shown otherwise.
(b) By reason of the rapid growth of timber or
minerals today, lands classified as agricultural today
may be differently classified tomorrow.
(c) In classifying lands, each case must be
classified upon the proof in a particular case.
(d) When a tract of land has trees upon it, it is
sufficient to declare the legal classification of the
land as forest land.
• Private land taken by the government for public
use through expropriation becomes
(a) private property of the State.
(b) public land.
(c) patrimonial property.
(d) part of the public domain.
• The date of the initial hearing of a registration
case shall not be earlier than
(a) 45 days from the date of the order.
(b) 60 days from the date of the order.
(c) 120 days from the date of the order.
(d) 90 days from the date of the order.
• Can a deed of donation of a parcel of land by a
Filipino citizen to a religious organization whose
trustees are non-Filipinos, be admitted by the RD for
registration?
(a) Yes because to disqualify the corporation would be a
violation of its religious freedom.
(b) No because land tenure is not indispensable to the
free exercise of religion.
(c) Yes because the acquisition of the land is strictly for
religious purposes, i.e., upon which to build churches
and charitable institutions.
(d) Yes because the religious organization has no capital
stock, and so the Constitutional inhibition does not
apply.
• Mangrove swamps are not registrable. They are
under the jurisdiction of the
(a) Bureau of Forest Development.
(b) Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
(c) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
(d) Lands Management Bureau.
• The registration court
(a) must personally hear the parties and
receive their evidence.
(b) may refer the case to the clerk of court for
the reception of evidence.
(c) may refer the case to a referee but the
court may accept or reject his report.
(d) may not refer the case to a referee for
hearing because judicial power is vested in the
court itself.
• Which statement is correct?
(a) Public land is not synonymous with public
domain.
(b) Public land includes all lands of
government ownership.
(c) Government land and public land are
synonymous terms.
(d) The government owns real estate which is
part of the public lands and other real estate
which is not a part thereof.
• Under PD No. 1529, the registration court shall
decide the case within how many days from the
date the case is submitted for resolution?
(a) 90 days.
(b) 120 days.
(c) 1 year.
(d) 30 days.
• The certification by the LRA that publication,
mailing and posting of the notice of initial hearing
have been complied with
(a) is immaterial to the applicant’s claim of
ownership.
(b) may be considered because of the
presumptive regularity in the performance of
official functions.
(c) is subject to contrary proof.
(d) is conclusive as to such fact.
 Where no person appears or answers within the
time allowed,
(a) the court shall enter an order of special
default.
(b) an order of default may likely result in a
judgment favorable to the applicant.
(c) the allegations in the application shall be
held as confessed.
(d) the court may now render judgment either
granting or dismissing the application for
registration.
• Where there is no publication of the notice of
initial hearing,
(a) the proceeding is utterly void.
(b) personal notice to known adjoining owners
may be made to rectify the omission.
(c) the notice may be published at ay time
before judgment.
(d) the proceeding is valid if not contested by
the Solicitor General.
• Which of the following is false?
(a) a judicial foreclosure of mortgage is a quasi in
rem proceeding
(b) An action to recover a parcel of land is a real
action and an action in rem.
(c) Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in
rem but are characterized as quasi in rem.
(d) An action to recover a parcel of land is an
action in personam.
• Lands invaded by the sea
(a) belong to the affected municipality as
municipal waters.
(b) belong the State as maritime waters.
(c) belong to the State as part of the public
domain.
(d) may be reclaimed by the affected private
property owner.
• The Land Registration Authority (LRA), which is
the central repository of records relative to
registered lands, is under what office?
(a) Department of Agrarian Reform.
(b) Department of Justice.
(c) Office of the President.
(d) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
• To be valid and effective, a notice of lis pendens
must be
(a) filed simultaneously with the filing of the
action subject of the notice.
(b) annotated on both the duplicate certificate
of title on file with the Register of Deeds and in
the possession of the registered owner.
(c) approved by the court in the pending case.
(d) annotated on the original duplicate
certificate of title on file with the Register of
Deeds.
 Which of the following allegations cannot be a
ground for the amendment or correction of a
certificate of title?
(a) that the registered owner has married.
(b) that new interests not appearing on the
certificate have arisen.
(c) that the corporation which is the registered
owner of the land has been dissolved.
(d) that the area should be corrected to conform
to the new survey.
• A Torrens certificate of title
(a) protects the true owner from the usurper.
(b) permits one to defeat the claim of another.
(c) is an effective tool against the commission
of fraud.
(d) records an existing title.
• An action for reconveyance
(a) seeks to reopen the registration
proceedings.
(b) respects the decree as incontrovertible and
no longer open to review.
(c) seeks to nullify defendant’s title to pave
the issuance of a new title to the rightful owner.
(d) confirms plaintiff’s ownership over the
property.
• Under the Administrative Code, the Solicitor General
shall “represent the government in all land registration
and related proceedings.” Which of the following is
false?
(a) the SG may deputize any government prosecutor to
assist him in the case.
(b) the SG is bound by notice of court orders and
decisions received by the deputized prosecutor for
purposes of counting the period to appeal.
(c) the SG may withdraw the government’s appeal if he
finds the same to be without basis.
(d) the SG may not interpose any opposition to the
application for registration.
• The period of prescription in an action for
reconveyance is counted from the
(a) date of the issuance of the title.
(b) date of the promulgation of the judgment.
(c) discovery of the fraud.
(d) date of issuance of the decree of
registration.
• An adverse claim may be recorded in which of
the following instances?
(a) lease over land which could not be
registered because the owner’s duplicate title
was not surrendered.
(b) existing claims on the land prior to the
issuance of the certificate of title.
(c) hereditary rights of a person in the land
registered in her sister’s name.
(d) (a) and (c).
• Opposition to an application for registration must
be based on real right or dominion to property.
This means that –
(a) the oppositor must be able to show title to the
property.
(b) the oppositor must have the legal character
necessary to maintain a registration proceeding
in his own name.
(c) it is enough that the oppositor should appear
to have an interest in the property.
(d) all of the above.
• Under the Water Code, waters found on private
lands belong the State. Which of the following
is excluded?
(a) continuous or intermittent waters rising on
such lands.
(b) lakes and lagoon naturally occurring on
such lands.
(c) rain water falling on such lands.
(d) none of the above.
• Pedro files an application for registration. However,
the land applied for had been previously registered in
the name of Jose. What should Jose do?
(a) Jose should file an opposition and present his
title during the hearing.
(b) Jose should file an opposition alleging that
Pedro’s application constitutes a collateral attack
on his title.
(c) Jose should file a motion to dismiss based on
res judicata.
(d) Jose should file a suit for damages against
Pedro for fraudulently seeking to register land
which, he should know, is already titled to another.
• The presumption in Article 160 of the Civil
Code that all property of the marriage belongs
to the conjugal partnership applies when
(a) the “spouses” are legally married.
(b) the title is in the name of both husband
and wife.
(c) the spouses are living together.
(d) the property was acquired during the
marriage.
• In reconstitution proceedings, which of the
following propositions is wrong:
(a) The issuance of a reconstituted title does
not determine the issue of ownership.
(b) The LRA can motu proprio revoke the
reconstituted title if the lost or destroyed title
is subsequently found.
(c) The issuance by the LRA of a
reconstituted title is an administrative
function.
(d) The doctrine of res judicata applies to
judicial reconstitution.
•Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 requires possession
and occupation of the land applied for since June 12,
1945. Which of the following propositions is false?
(a) Occupation is broader than possession
because it includes the latter.
(b) Occupation delimits the effect of constructive
possession.
(c) Possession means acts of dominion which a
party would naturally exercise over his own property.
(d) Occupation serves to highlight that possession
must not be a mere fiction.
• An adverse claim is effective for 30 days. To render
the adverse claim functus officio,
(a) the interested party should formally request
the Register of Deeds to cancel the same upon the
expiration of the 30-day period.
(b) no action is necessary since the adverse claim
automatically lapses upon the expiration of the 30-
day period.
(c) the interested party should file a petition in
court for the cancellation of the adverse claim.
(d) it is necessary to await the final outcome of
the case.
• Can an adverse claim of ownership over registered
land, based on acquisitive prescription, be
registered?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to protect the
interest of the person claiming ownership
thereof.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because adverse claim is a notice that the
adverse claimant has a better right to the land
than the registered owner thereof.
(d) No because acquisitive prescription of title to
land can never be presumed.
• An action for reconveyance based on a void
deed of sale for lack of consent
(a) prescribes in 10 years.
(b) prescribes in 4 years
(c) is imprescriptible
(d) prescribes in 6 years.
• A corporation sole may purchase and hold real
estate because -
(a) the properties acquired by the corporation
pass upon the death of the administrator to his
heirs who are Filipino citizens.
(b) ownership of said properties fall upon the
church or congregation and not upon the
incumbent administrator.
(c) the corporation exercises ownership
independently of the nationality of its incumbent
administrator.
(d) (b) and (c).
• Land already decreed in an ordinary registration
case cannot again be the subject of a subsequent
cadastral proceeding because
(a) once land is judicially decreed, the judgment
is res judicata.
(b) the registration in the name of the first
owner is constructive notice to the whole world.
(c) to declare the later title valid as against the
first would undermine the efficacy of Torrens
system.
(d) all of the above.
• Pedro files a petition for administrative
reconstitution of title, but it appears that the land is
already titled in the name of Lim, a Chinese. What
are the options open to the LRA?
(a) LRA should order outright the
cancellation of Lim’s title and act on Pedro’s
petition for reconstitution.
(b) LRA should dismiss Pedro’s petition
pending the filing by the OSG or the
competing claimant of an action before the
RTC for the cancellation of Lim’s title.
(c) LRA should elevate the matter to the
Secretary of Justice for advisory opinion.
(d) LRA should defer action on Pedro’s
• Who is the proper party to file an action for
annulment or amendment of the title where it appears
that the Assurance Fund may be held liable for
damages due to the unlawful or erroneous issuance
thereof?
(a) the Solicitor General
(b) the LRA Administrator
(c) the LMB Director
(d) the Register of Deeds
• The rule that a forged deed may become the root
of a valid title
(a) does not apply where the owner still holds a
valid title over the land.
(b) applies even where the owner no longer
holds a valid title to the land.
(c) applies where the forger obtains a title to
the land and thereafter sells it to another.
(d) (a) and (c).
• The Assurance Fund is not liable for loss or
damage caused by which of the following?
(a) Breach of trust, express or implied.
(b) Mistake in the resurvey of registered land
causing expansion of the area.
(c) Error in the subdivision of the land resulting
in the increase in area.
(d) all of the above.
• A notice of lis pendens
(a) binds a bona fide purchaser of the property
in dispute.
(c) creates a right or lien that previously did not
exist.
(c) binds a purchaser, whether bona fide or not,
of the disputed property.
(d) is part of the doctrine of notice.
• The original certificate of title is deemed issued
on the date
(a) the decree of registration is issued by the
LRA.
(b) the title is given the corresponding number
by the Register of Deeds.
(c) the original and duplicate copies are
received by the Register of Deeds from the LRA.
(d) the decree of registration is transcribed in
the day book of the Register or Deeds.
• A certificate of title based upon a public land
patent becomes indefeasible within what period?
(a) 5 years after the issuance of the patent.
(b) 1 year from the issuance of the patent.
(c) 1 year from the date of the order of award.
(d) 5 years from the approval of the
application.
• An action for reconveyance based on an implied
or constructive trust prescribes in how many years
from the issuance of the title over the property?
(a) 4 years.
(b) imprescriptible.
(c) 10 years.
(d) 6 years.
• Where the object of the plaintiff is to recover
possession of real property as owner, the proper
action is:
(a) forcible entry and detainer.
(b) accion reivindicatoria.
(c) accion publiciana.
(d) declaratory relief.
• Laches is the failure or neglect to assert a right
within reasonable time. Which is not correct in
the following statements?
(a) Laches is concerned with the fact of delay.
(b) Laches applies in equity.
(c) Laches is concerned with the effect of delay.
(d) Laches is not based on a fixed time.
• Within what period may a judgment in a land
registration case be enforced?
(a) Upon motion within 5 years from the date
of entry.
(b) No further proceeding to enforce the
judgment is necessary.
(c) Upon motion within 10 years from the date
of entry.
(d) Upon motion after finality of judgment
praying that LRA be directed to issue the decree
of registration.
• The writ of possession may not be issued in which
of the following?
(a) in a land registration proceeding.
(b) in a petition for reconstitution.
(c) in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a realty
mortgage.
(d) in a judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
 An action for reconveyance of land valued at P18,000
should be filed with what court?
(a) the RTC of the province where the land lies.
(b) the MTC of the place where plaintiff resides.
(c) the MTC of the place where the land lies.
(d) the RTC or MTC of the place where plaintiff
resides at his option.
• An action to quiet title to property in the
possession of the plaintiff is imprescriptible, the
reason being that:
(a) he has a continuing right to the aid of a
court of equity to remove a cloud on his title.
(b) he may wait until his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right.
(c) possession is a continuing right as is the
right to defend such possession.
(d) all of the above.
• The State may prosecute for perjury the party
who obtains registration through fraud, such as
by stating false assertions in the sworn
application of applicants? Thus premised,
which of the following is false?
• (a) A judgment on the guilt of the accused
would not undermine the indefeasibility of
Torrens titles.
• (b) To give immunity from prosecution to
those successful in deceiving the registration
court would be putting a premium on perjury.
• (c) The prosecution for perjury would amount
• The following things are property of public
dominion:
(a) Foreshore lands
(b) The Philippine vessel M/V Alcaraz
(c) The Macarthur highway in Luzon.
(d) All of the above.
 THANK YOU AND
GOOD LUCK
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philippine Judicial Academy
Supreme Court
MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS
Thank you and good day!
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philja, Supreme Court
MORTGAGES AND LEASES
• Characterstics of mortgage
• It is a real right. A mortgage binds a purchaser who
knows of its existence or if the mortgage was
registered.
• It is an accessory contract. If the principal obligation
is void, the mortgage is also void.
• It is indivisible. For example, A and B mortgaged
their land to C. While the mortgage debt was pending,
A and B partitioned the land between them, and A
paid his share of the debt. Is the mortgage on A’s
share of the land extinguished? No, because the
mortgage is indivisible.
• It is inseparable. The mortgage adheres to the
property regardless of who its owner may
subsequently be.
• It is a real property. A mortgage on real property is
by itself real property also.
• It is a limitation on ownership. A mortgage
encumbers, but does not end ownership, and may thus
be foreclosed.
• Mortgage is a right in rem which follows the property
• The mortgage is inseparable from the property mortgaged
as it is a right in rem — a lien on the property whoever its
owner may be.
• It subsists notwithstanding a change in ownership; in
short, the personality of the owner is disregarded.
• Thus, all subsequent purchasers must respect the
mortgage whether the transfer to them be with or without
the consent of the mortgagee, for such mortgage until
discharged follows the property.
•
• Mortgagor must be the owner of the property
• The must be the absolute owner of the property as
required by Art. 2085 of the Civil Code, otherwise
the mortgage is void.
– A mortgagee has no right to eject the occupants of
the property mortgaged. This is so because a
mortgage passes no title to the mortgagee. Indeed,
by mortgaging a piece of property, a debtor merely
subjects it to lien but ownership thereof is not
parted with.
•
• Where the certificate of title is in the name of the
mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the mortgagee
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate
of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No. 69622, Jan. 29,
1988)
– The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be respected
and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his
title thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, GR
No. L-15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
• A contract of sale with right to repurchase shall be
presumed to be an equitable mortgage in any of the
following cases:
– When the price of the sale is unusually inadequate;
– When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or
otherwise;
– When upon or after the expiration of the right to
repurchase another instrument extending the period of
redemption or granting a new period is executed;
•
– When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the
purchase price;
– When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the
thing sold; and,
– In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that
the real intention of the parties is that the transaction
shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance
of any other obligation.
• For a presumption of an equitable mortgage to arise,
two requisites must be satisfied, namely: (a) that the
parties entered into a contract denominated as a contract
of sale, and (b) that their intention was to secure an
existing debt by way of mortgage.
• Mortgagee in good faith
– The phrase “innocent purchaser for value” in Section
32 of the Property Registration Decree includes an
innocent lessee, mortgagee or other encumbrancer for
value.
– Under this doctrine, even if the mortgagor is not the
owner of the mortgaged property, the mortgage
contract and any foreclosure sale arising therefrom are
given effect by reason of public policy.
– Hence, even if the mortgagor is not the rightful owner
of, or does not have a valid title to, the mortgaged
property, the mortgagee in good faith is, nonetheless,
entitled to protection.
• Illustrative cases
• In Blanco v. Esquierdo (110 Phil. 494), the land was
originally registered in the name of the "Heirs of
Maximiano Blanco" but upon Maximo’s death, his
common law wife, Fructuosa Esquierdo, extrajudicially
adjudicated the entire land to herself, obtained title in her
name and then mortgaged the land to the bank. The bank
had the right to rely on what appeared in the certificate
and, in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, was
under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and
investigate. Being thus an innocent mortgagee for value,
its lien upon the land mortgaged must be respected even if
the mortgagor obtained her title thereto thru fraud.
• In Gonzales v. Intermediate Appellate Court (157 SCRA
187), when the certificate of title in the name of the Panzo
spouses was submitted to the bank as mortgagee, it was
free from any lien or encumbrance. The mortgage was
registered with the Register of Deeds on May 28, 1971.
The certificate of title was in the name of the mortgagors.
An ejectment case was subsequently filed by petitioner
against the Panzo spouses which was annotated as a lis
pendens at the back of the title only on March 29, 1973.
Is the bank an innocent mortgagee and buyer for value in
good faith? The Court held in the affirmative since the
subsequent notice of lis pendens cannot in any way
prejudice the mortgage previously registered.
• In Mahinay v. Gako (GR No. 165338, Nov. 28,
2011), the Court ruled that when a mortgagee relies
upon what appears on the face of a Torrens title and
lends money in all good faith on the basis of the title
in the name of the mortgagor, only thereafter to learn
that the latter's title was defective, being thus an
innocent mortgagee for value, his or her right or lien
upon the land mortgaged must be respected and
protected.
– The rationale for this ruling is, if the rule were
otherwise public confidence in the certificate of title
would be impaired as everyone dealing with property
registered under the Torrens system would have to
inquire on the regularity of its issuance.
 Although Art. 2085, CC, requires that the mortgagor
must be the owner of the mortgaged property, the
subsequent declaration that the title is null and void is
not a ground for nullifying the mortgage right of the
mortgagee. (Rural Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon, 175
SCRA 62)
 The remedy of the person prejudiced is against those
who caused the fraud, or if insolvent, an action for
recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.
(Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
• Effect of a forged deed of mortgage
– A forged power of attorney is without force and
effect, and the mortgage constituted by virtue
thereof is also null and void and could not
prejudice the rights of the registered owner.
(Veloso v. La Urbana, a58Phil. 681)
– An absolutely simulated contract of sale is void
and transfers no ownership right; hence, the
purported buyer, not being the owner, cannot
validly mortgage the property and neither does the
buyer at foreclosure sale acquire any title thereto.
(Cruz v. Bancom, 379 SCRA 490)
• Higher standard of care requiree of banks
• The general rule that a mortgagee need not look
beyond the title does not apply to banks and other
financial institutions as greater care and due diligence
is required of them. Imbued with public interest, they
"are expected to be more cautious than ordinary
individuals.“ (Alano v. Planter’s Development Bank,
GR No. 171628, June 13, 2011)
– The ascertainment of the status or condition of a
property offered to it as security for a loan must be a
standard and indispensable part of its operations.
(Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, GR No. 140528, Dec. 7, 2011)
• Remedies of a secured creditor
– A secured creditor may institute against the
mortgage debtor either (a) a personal action for the
collection of the debt, (b) a real action to judicially
foreclose the real estate mortgage, or (c) an
extrajudicial judicial foreclosure of the mortgage.
– The remedies, however, are alternative, not
cumulative, and the election or use of one remedy
operate as a waiver of the others
• Foreclosure of mortgage
– Certain requisites must be established before a
creditor can proceed to an extrajudicial
foreclosure, namely:
• first, there must have been the failure to pay the
loan obtained from the mortgagee-creditor;
• second, the loan obligation must be secured by a
real estate mortgage; and
• third, the mortgagee-creditor has the right to
foreclose the real estate mortgage either judicially
or extrajudicially. (Sycamore Ventures Corporation
v. Metrobank, GR No. 173183, Nov. 18, 2013)
• Redemption
– The mortgagor has one year within which to
redeem the property from the registration of sale.
– If no redemption is made within said period, the
right of the purchaser to the possession of the
foreclosed property becomes absolute. He is
entitled to possession following the consolidation
of ownership in his name.
– The writ of possession becomes a matter of right
and its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.
WRIT OF POSSESSION
• Writ of possession
– Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, a writ of possession
may be issued either (a) within the one-year
period, upon the filing of a bond, or (b) after the
lapse of the redemption period, without need of a
bond.
– The proceeding for the issuance of the writ is ex
parte and is ministerial duty of the court, unless a
third party is actually holding the property
adversely to the judgment debtor, or where the bid
price is unjustifiably higher than the real amount of
the obligation.
• In extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser becomes
the absolute owner when no redemption is made.
– Thus, after consolidation of ownership and issuance of
a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the
purchaser, he is entitled to possession of the property
as a matter of right under Section 7 (Act 3135), and its
issuance by the RTC is a mere ministerial function.
• But pursuant to Sec. 33, Rule 39, Rules of Court, the
possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed property
shall be withheld from the purchaser if a third-party
is actually holding the same adversely to the
mortgagor/debtor. (Madriaga v. China Banking
Corp., G No. 192377, July 2, 2012)
• The issuance of the writ may not be stayed by a
pending action for annulment of the mortgage or the
foreclosure itself, without prejudice, of course, to the
eventual outcome of the pending annulment case.
(Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Tarampi, GR No.
174988, Dec. 10, 2008)
• Issuance of the writ is ex parte, summary and and
ministerial. The order of the RTC granting the
petition for a writ of possession is final which can
only be questioned on appeal. (San Fernando Rural
Bank, Inc. v. Pampanga Omnibus Development
Corporation, GR No. 168088, April 4, 2007)
ADMINISTRATIVE TITLING
VIA ISSUANCE OF
PATENTS
• Registration of Patents
– Public lands suitable for agriculture can be
disposed of by (a) homestead, (b) sale, (c)
lease, and (d) confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete titles by (1) judicial legalization or
(2) administrative legalization (free patent)
– Public land patents when duly registered are
veritable Torrens titles, entitled to all the
safeguards relative thereto
• Homestead patent
– Any citizen of the Philippines may apply for a
homestead of not exceeding 12 hectares.
– The applicant must have cultivated and
improved at least one-fifth of the land and
resided in the municipality (or adjacent
municipality) where the land is located for at
least one year.
– Once the applicant has complied with all the
conditions essential to a government grant, he
acquires not only a right to a grant but a grant
of the land from the government.
• Sales patent
– A Filipino citizen or lawful age or the head of a
family may apply for the purchase of an
agricultural public land not to exceed 12
hectares.
– The land shall be sold through public bidding,
and the land awarded to the highest bidder.
– The purchase price may be paid in full or in 10
installments.
– The applicant must cultivate at least one-fifth of
the land within 5 years from the date of award.
• Direct sale (RA No. 730)
– RA No. 730 permits the private sale of not more
than 1,000 square meters for residential purposes.
The applicant:
• Is a Filipino citizen;
• Is not the owner of a home lot in the city or
municipality;
• Has established in good faith his residence on
land not needed for public service;
• Has constructed his house and actually resided
therein.
• Free patent
– Applicant is a natural-born citizen who is not
the owner of not more than 12 hectares of
agricultural public land.
– He has occupied and cultivated the land for at
least 30 years, by himself of his predecessors-
in-interest;
– He has paid the real estate taxes while the same
has not been occupied by any other person.
 ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENT TO
RESIDENTIAL LANDS (RA NO. 10023)
– Requirements for a residential free patent:
• Applicant must be a Filipino citizen
• In actual occupation, residence and continuous
possession and occupation of a residential land
• Identified and zoned through an ordinance and
not needed for public use or public service
• For at least 10 years prior to the filing of the
application
• Area limitation:
– Highly urbanized cities – 200 sq. m.
– Other cities – 500 sq. m.
– 1st and 2nd class municipalities – 750 sq. m.
– Other municipalities – 1,000 sq. m.

• Requirements for application:

– Approved plan and technical description
– Affidavit of two (2) witnesses confirming
possession of applicant for at least 10 years
• Special patents
– A special patent is issued upon the promulgation
of a special law or act of Congress or by the
DENR Secretary as authorized by an EO of the
President.
– Example: Freedom Islands in the Manila Bay
area to which TCTs were issued to PEA.
– However, the lands so titled shall not be disposed
unless with the approval of Congress if owned by
the national agency, or by the sanggunian
concerned through an approved ordinance if
owned by LGUS.
• Prohibited alienations
– Sec. 118 of CA 141 proscribes the alienation or
encumbrance of land acquired under a free
patent or homestead patent within 5 years from
the grant of the patent. The policy is to give
patentee a place where to live with his family
– After 5 years but before 25 years from the
issuance of the patent, a homestead may be
disposed of subject to the approval of the
DENR Secretary; but land covered by a free
patent may be disposed of after 5 years.
REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 48(B) OF THE
PUBLC LAND ACT (CA NO. 141)
“Sec. 48. x x x (b) Those who by themselves or through
their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership;, since June 12, 1945, except when prevented
by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential
to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under provisions of this chapter.”
• There are no material differences between Sec.
14(1) of PD No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No.
141.
– While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to
“agricultural lands of the public domain” and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to
“alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain,” the subject lands are of the same type
since under the Constitution, alienable lands of the
public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands.
• Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073,
requires possession since June 12, 1945, or
prior thereto
• But land need be classified as A and D land at
the time of the filing of the application for
registration ( Malabanan vs. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009)
• When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the
PLA are complied with, the possessor is deemed
to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a
grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title
being issued.
• Compliance with all requirements for a
government grant ipso jure converts land to
private property.
• The land ceases to be of the public domain and
beyond the authority of the DENR to dispose of.
• Registration under Sec. 48(b) of the PLA
presumes that the land was originally public
agricultural land but because of adverse
possession since June 12, 1945, the land has
become private.
• A certificate of title is void when it covers non-
registrable lands (e.g., forest or timber or mineral
lands).
• Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the
hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value,
shall be cancelled.
Thank you and good day!

Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili

Philja, Supreme Court
REGISTRATION UNDER THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
RIGHTS ACT (RA 8371)
• Constitutional provisions

“The State recognizes and promotes the rights of

indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.”
(Sec. 2 Art. II)
“The State, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution and national development policies
and programs shall protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral
lands to ensure their economic, social, and
cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary law governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent
of ancestral domain.”
• Indigenous concept of ownership
– The IPRA recognizes the existence of the
indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in
Philippine Society.
– It grants these people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these
lands and domains.
– The ownership given is the indigenous concept
of ownership under customary law which
traces its origin to native title.
• Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the
lands of the public domain but are private lands
belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied,
possessed and utilized their territories under claim
of ownership since time immemorial.
• Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as
far back as memory reaches, have been held under
claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never
been public lands and are thus indisputably
presumed to have been held that way since before
the Spanish Conquest.
• The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP) has the authority to issuer certificates of
ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificates of
ancestral land title (CALT).
• The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office
of the Register of Deeds does not result in the
issuance of Torrens certificate of title.
• The purpose of registration is simply to apprise
the public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP
of specific claims to portions of the ancestral
domains or ancestral lands.
• Modes of acquisition
– The rights of ICCsIPs to their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in
two modes:
 By native title over both ancestral lands and
domains; or
 By Torrens title under the Public Land Act
(CA No. 141) of the Property Registration
Decree (PD No. 1529) with respect to ancestral
lands only.
• Requirements for registration
– The applicant is a member of an indigenous
cultural group;
– He must have been in possession of an
individually-owned ancestral land for not less
than thirty (30) years;
– By operation of law, the land is already
classified as A and D, even if it has a slope of
18% or over, hence, there is no need to submit
a separate certification that the land is A and D.
• Transfer of land or property rights
The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may
be transferred subject to the following limitations:
– Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;
– In accord with customary laws and traditions;
and
– Subject to the right of redemption for a period of
fifteen (15) years if the land was transferred to a
non-member.
• Ancestral domains belong to all generations and
therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.
 CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
• The purpose is to serve the public interest by
requiring that the titles to any unregistered lands
“be settled and adjudicated.”
• The government initiates the proceeding so that
all private lands in the town are registered in one
single proceeding.
• Government surveyors give advance notice to
survey claimants of date of survey to afford them
to indicate their claims during the survey.
• After survey, the government files the
petition with the RTC so that all claimants
and possessors shall be heard on their claims.
• Jurisdiction of cadastral court over previously
titled lands limited to correction of technical
errors in the description of the land.
• Decision declaring land as public land not a
bar to a subsequent action for confirmation of
title over the same land.
• Initially, the land registration court has jurisdiction
over the land applied for at the time of the filing of the
application.
• But if the court determines at the trial, in the exercise
of its jurisdiction, that the land applied for is not
registrable, as where it is yet within the forest zone,
then it has no jurisdiction to order its registration and
must perforce dismiss the application. (Yujuico v.
Republic, 537 SCRA 513; City of Dumaguete v. Phil.
Ports Authority, GR No. 168973, Aug. 24, 2011).
• The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion
suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment
of the RTC acting as a land registration court.
• Actions for cancellation of title, reconveyance and
reversion belong to the class of cases that "involve
the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein" and where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00 Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Sec. 19 (2), fall under the jurisdiction of the
RTC. (Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, GR
No. 192975, Nov. 12, 2012; Santos v. CA, 214 SCRA
162)
ADMINISTRATIVE TITLING
UNDER THE PUBLIC LAND
ACT (CA NO. 141)
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

• Regalian doctrine – all lands and all other natural

resources are owned by the State.
• No public land can be acquired by private persons
without any grant, express or implied from the
government.
• Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition
or concession which have been officially delimited
and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and
which have not been reserved for public or quasi-
public uses, nor appropriated by the government, nor
in any manner become private property.
• Land remains unclassified land until it is released
therefrom and rendered open to disposition.
• The classification of public lands is a function of the
executive branch of government.
• For purposes of their administration and disposition,
lands of the public domain which are alienable or
open to disposition may be further classified as: (a)
agricultural, (b) residential, commercial, industrial, or
for similar productive purposes, (c) educational,
charitable, or other similar purposes, and (d)
reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-
public uses.
OVERVIEW
• Functions of the DENR Secretary, LMB Director
• Under the RAC of 1987, the DENR
Secretaryexercises exclusive jurisdiction on the
management and disposition of all lands of the
public domain as well as classification,
classification, surveying and titling of lands.
• Pursuant to EO No. 192, the newly created Lands
Management Bureau (LMB) has absorbed the
functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands
except those line functions and powers which were
transferred to the regional field offices.
• The LMB Director shall advise the DENR
Secretary on matters pertaining to land
classification and disposition.
• Jurisdiction as to questions of possession
• The jurisdiction of the DENR over public lands
does not negate the authority of courts of justice to
resolve questions of possession and their decisions
stand in the meantime that the DENR itself has not
settled the respective rights of public land
claimants.
• But once the DENR has decided, particularly with
the grant of a public land patent for instance and
issuance of the corresponding certificate of title, its
decision prevails.
• CA No. 141 (Public Land Act) governs disposition of
public lands
– The Public Land Act (CA No. 141, as amended,
Nov. 7, 1936), compiled the then existing laws on
lands of the public domain, and remains to this day
the existing general law governing the
classification and disposition of lands of the public
domain other than timber and mineral lands.
– The Public Land Act applies only to lands of the
public domain.
• Decisions of the Regional Executive Director as to
questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved
by the DENR Secretary.
• But said decisions may be annulled or reviewed in
a direct proceeding and not collaterally as when
the issue involves a question of law or is based
upon a misconstruction of the law, or when the
conclusions drawn by the Secretary on appeal from
the facts found are erroneous or not warranted by
law.  (Firmalo v. Tutaan, GR No. L-35408, Oct.
27, 1973; Alfafara v. Mapa, GR No. L-7042, May
28, 1954)
• Classification of lands an exclusive executive
prerogative
• For purposes of the administration and disposition
of alienable or disposable public lands, the
President, upon recommendation of the Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources, shall from
time to time declare what lands are open to
disposition or concession under the Act.
• Section 6 of the Public Land Act classifies lands of
the public domain into alienable or disposable,
timber, and mineral lands.
• The classification is a prerogative of the executive
department and not the courts.
• Classification for purposes of administration and
disposition
• For purposes of their administration and
disposition, A and D lands of the public domain
may be further classified as:
(a) agricultural,
(b) residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
productive purposes,
(c) educational, charitable, or other similar purposes,
and
(d) reservations for townsites and for public and
quasi-public uses.
• Disposition of lands for residential, etc. purposes
• Lands are classified as: (a) lands reclaimed by the
government by dredging, filling, or other means
(b) foreshore (c) marshy lands or lands covered
with water bordering upon the shores or banks of
navigable lakes or rivers, and (d) lands not
included in any of the foregoing classes.
• The lands comprised in classes (a) and (b) shall be
disposed by lease only.   Lands comprised in
classes (c) and (d) may be sold.
• The lease or sale shall be made through oral
bidding, and adjudication shall be made to the
highest bidder.
•
• Modes of disposition
(1) For homestead settlement
(2) By sale
(3) By lease
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
title
(a) By judicial legalization
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent)
• Homestead
• Any citizen of the Philippines over the age of
eighteen years, or the head of a family, may enter a
homestead of not exceeding twelve hectares of
agricultural land of the public domain.
• The applicant must have cultivated and improved
at least one-fifth of the land continuously since the
approval of the application and resided for at least
one year in the municipality in which the land is
located or municipality adjacent thereto. (Sec. 12,
CA No. 141)
• Effect of compliance with requirements
• When a homesteader has complied with all the
terms and conditions which entitle him to a patent
for a tract of public land, he acquires a vested
interest therein, and is to be regarded as the
equitable owner thereof.
• The execution and delivery of the patent, after the
right to a particular parcel of land has become
complete, are the mere ministerial acts of the
officer charged with that duty.
• Free patent
– Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is
not the owner of more than 12 hectares and who,
for at least 30 years, has continuously occupied
and cultivated, by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest a tract of agricultural
public land, and who shall have paid the real estate
tax thereon shall be entitled to have a free patent
issued to him for such tract of land not to exceed
twelve 12 hectares. (Sec. 44, ibid. as amended by
RA No. 782 and RA No. 6940, approved March
28, 1990; Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic, GR No.
158449, Oct. 22, 2004)
• RA No. 10023, dated March 9, 2010, authorizes
issuance of free patent titles to zoned residential
lands under the following requirements:
• Survey plan and technical description
• Affidavit of two 2 persons who are residents of the
barangay that the applicant has actually resided on,
and actually possessed and occupied, the land
applied for, under a bona fide claim of ownership,
for at least 10 years, and has complied with the
other requirements prescribed by the Act

–
• Area limitations
• In highly urbanized cities - not exceed two
hundred (200) square meters;
• In other cities - not exceed five hundred (500)
square meters;
• In first class and second class municipalities - not
exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square meters;
and
• In all other municipalities - not exceed one
thousand (1,000) square meters:
• Sales patent
• Any citizen of the Philippines of lawful age or the
head of a family may purchase any tract of public
agricultural land not to exceed twelve hectares
which shall be sold thru sealed bidding. The land
shall be awarded to the highest bidder, but the
applicant may equal the highest bid.
• The purchaser shall have not less than one-fifth of
the land cultivated within five years from the date
of the award, and pays the full purchase price or in
not more than ten equal annual installments from
the date of the award. (Secs. 22, 26 and 28, CA
No. 141)
• Approval of application authorizes applicant to take
possession
– The approval of a sales application merely
authorizes the applicant to take possession of the
land so that he could comply with the requirements
prescribed by law before a final patent could be
issued in his favor.
– What divests the government of title to the land is
the issuance of the sales patent and its subsequent
registration with the Register of Deeds.
• Direct sale under RA No. 730
• RA No. 730 permits the direct sale of public lands
for residential purposes to qualified applicants.
The applicant must:
(a) be a Filipino citizen of legal age;
(b) not the owner of a home lot in the
municipality or city in which he resides;
(c) has established in good faith his residence on
a parcel of public land which is not needed
for public service; and
(d) has constructed his house and actually
resided therein.
•
• Sale of lands within military reservations
• Pursuant to RA No. 274,  lands within military
reservations, when declared by the President as no
longer needed for military purposes, may be
subdivided by the Director of Lands, and thereafter
sold to persons qualified to acquire agricultural
public lands under the Public Land Act, with
priority given to bona fide occupants and then to
war veterans.
• Lands for educational, charitable and other similar
purposes
– Lands for educational, charitable and similar
purposes may be sold or leased, under the same
conditions as the sale or lease of agricultural public
lands, for the purpose of founding a cemetery,
church, college, school, university, or other
institutions for educational, charitable, or
philanthropical purposes or scientific research, the
area to be such as may actually and reasonably be
necessary to carry out such purposes.
– The DENR Secretary may order the sale to be made
without public auction, at a price to be fixed by him.
(Secs. 69 and 70, Chapter X, CA No. 141)
–
• Lease
• Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines, and any
corporation or association of which at least sixty per
centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said
capital stock belongs wholly to citizens of the
Philippines, and which is organized and constituted
under the laws of the Philippines, may lease any
tract of agricultural public land available for lease
under the provisions of this Act, not exceeding a
total of one thousand and twenty-four hectares.
• If the land leased is adapted to and be devoted for
grazing purposes, an area not exceeding two
thousand hectares may be granted. (Sec. 33, CA No.
141, as amended)
• Reservations for public or quasi-public purposes
• Upon the recommendation of the DENR Secretary, the
President may designate by proclamation any tract or
tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for
the use of the Republic of the Philippines or of any of
its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in
accordance with regulations prescribed for this
purpose, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the
public interest requires it. (Sec. 83, CA No. 141)
• A certified copy of every proclamation of the President
shall be forwarded to the Director of Lands for record
purposes, and a copy of this record shall be forwarded
to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where
the land lies. (Sec/ 86. id.)
•
• Special patents
– A special patent is a “patent to grant, cede, and
convey full ownership of alienable and disposable
lands formerly covered by a reservation or lands of
the public domain” and is issued upon the
“promulgation of a special law or act of Congress
or by the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources as authorized by an Executive Order of
the President.”
– Example: Freedom Islands located in the Manila
Bay and pursuant to which the Register of Deeds
issued TCT Nos. 7309, 7311 and 7312 in the name
of PEA.
• Friar lands
• Friar lands were purchased by the government for
sale to actual occupants under the provisions of
Act No. 1120, or the Friar Lands Act, dated April
26, 1904. These lands are not public lands but
private or patrimonial property of the government.
• The conveyance or certificate of sale executed in
favor of a buyer or purchaser is a conveyance of
the ownership of the property. Upon full payment,
the government shall issue a final deed of
conveyance in favor of the purchaser, subject to
the approval of the Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources.
ADMINISTRATIVE TITLING
UNDER THE PUBLIC LAND
ACT (CA NO. 141)
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

• Regalian doctrine – all lands and all other natural

resources are owned by the State.
• No public land can be acquired by private persons
without any grant, express or implied from the
government.
• Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition
or concession which have been officially delimited
and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and
which have not been reserved for public or quasi-
public uses, nor appropriated by the government, nor
in any manner become private property.
• Land remains unclassified land until it is released
therefrom and rendered open to disposition.
• The classification of public lands is a function of the
executive branch of government.
• For purposes of their administration and disposition,
lands of the public domain which are alienable or
open to disposition may be further classified as: (a)
agricultural, (b) residential, commercial, industrial, or
for similar productive purposes, (c) educational,
charitable, or other similar purposes, and (d)
reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-
public uses.
OVERVIEW
• Functions of the DENR Secretary, LMB Director
• Under the RAC of 1987, the DENR
Secretaryexercises exclusive jurisdiction on the
management and disposition of all lands of the
public domain as well as classification,
classification, surveying and titling of lands.
• Pursuant to EO No. 192, the newly created Lands
Management Bureau (LMB) has absorbed the
functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands
except those line functions and powers which were
transferred to the regional field offices.
• The LMB Director shall advise the DENR
Secretary on matters pertaining to land
classification and disposition.
• Jurisdiction as to questions of possession
• The jurisdiction of the DENR over public lands
does not negate the authority of courts of justice to
resolve questions of possession and their decisions
stand in the meantime that the DENR itself has not
settled the respective rights of public land
claimants.
• But once the DENR has decided, particularly with
the grant of a public land patent for instance and
issuance of the corresponding certificate of title, its
decision prevails.
• CA No. 141 (Public Land Act) governs disposition of
public lands
– The Public Land Act (CA No. 141, as amended,
Nov. 7, 1936), compiled the then existing laws on
lands of the public domain, and remains to this day
the existing general law governing the
classification and disposition of lands of the public
domain other than timber and mineral lands.
– The Public Land Act applies only to lands of the
public domain.
• Decisions of the Regional Executive Director as to
questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved
by the DENR Secretary.
• But said decisions may be annulled or reviewed in
a direct proceeding and not collaterally as when
the issue involves a question of law or is based
upon a misconstruction of the law, or when the
conclusions drawn by the Secretary on appeal from
the facts found are erroneous or not warranted by
law.  (Firmalo v. Tutaan, GR No. L-35408, Oct.
27, 1973; Alfafara v. Mapa, GR No. L-7042, May
28, 1954)
• Classification of lands an exclusive executive
prerogative
• For purposes of the administration and disposition
of alienable or disposable public lands, the
President, upon recommendation of the Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources, shall from
time to time declare what lands are open to
disposition or concession under the Act.
• Section 6 of the Public Land Act classifies lands of
the public domain into alienable or disposable,
timber, and mineral lands.
• The classification is a prerogative of the executive
department and not the courts.
• Classification for purposes of administration and
disposition
• For purposes of their administration and
disposition, A and D lands of the public domain
may be further classified as:
(a) agricultural,
(b) residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
productive purposes,
(c) educational, charitable, or other similar purposes,
and
(d) reservations for townsites and for public and
quasi-public uses.
• Disposition of lands for residential, etc. purposes
• Lands are classified as: (a) lands reclaimed by the
government by dredging, filling, or other means
(b) foreshore (c) marshy lands or lands covered
with water bordering upon the shores or banks of
navigable lakes or rivers, and (d) lands not
included in any of the foregoing classes.
• The lands comprised in classes (a) and (b) shall be
disposed by lease only.   Lands comprised in
classes (c) and (d) may be sold.
• The lease or sale shall be made through oral
bidding, and adjudication shall be made to the
highest bidder.
•
• Modes of disposition
(1) For homestead settlement
(2) By sale
(3) By lease
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
title
(a) By judicial legalization
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent)
• Homestead
• Any citizen of the Philippines over the age of
eighteen years, or the head of a family, may enter a
homestead of not exceeding twelve hectares of
agricultural land of the public domain.
• The applicant must have cultivated and improved
at least one-fifth of the land continuously since the
approval of the application and resided for at least
one year in the municipality in which the land is
located or municipality adjacent thereto. (Sec. 12,
CA No. 141)
• Effect of compliance with requirements
• When a homesteader has complied with all the
terms and conditions which entitle him to a patent
for a tract of public land, he acquires a vested
interest therein, and is to be regarded as the
equitable owner thereof.
• The execution and delivery of the patent, after the
right to a particular parcel of land has become
complete, are the mere ministerial acts of the
officer charged with that duty.
• Free patent
– Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is
not the owner of more than 12 hectares and who,
for at least 30 years, has continuously occupied
and cultivated, by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest a tract of agricultural
public land, and who shall have paid the real estate
tax thereon shall be entitled to have a free patent
issued to him for such tract of land not to exceed
twelve 12 hectares. (Sec. 44, ibid. as amended by
RA No. 782 and RA No. 6940, approved March
28, 1990; Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic, GR No.
158449, Oct. 22, 2004)
• RA No. 10023, dated March 9, 2010, authorizes
issuance of free patent titles to zoned residential
lands under the following requirements:
• Survey plan and technical description
• Affidavit of two 2 persons who are residents of the
barangay that the applicant has actually resided on,
and actually possessed and occupied, the land
applied for, under a bona fide claim of ownership,
for at least 10 years, and has complied with the
other requirements prescribed by the Act

–
• Area limitations
• In highly urbanized cities - not exceed two
hundred (200) square meters;
• In other cities - not exceed five hundred (500)
square meters;
• In first class and second class municipalities - not
exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square meters;
and
• In all other municipalities - not exceed one
thousand (1,000) square meters:
• Sales patent
• Any citizen of the Philippines of lawful age or the
head of a family may purchase any tract of public
agricultural land not to exceed twelve hectares
which shall be sold thru sealed bidding. The land
shall be awarded to the highest bidder, but the
applicant may equal the highest bid.
• The purchaser shall have not less than one-fifth of
the land cultivated within five years from the date
of the award, and pays the full purchase price or in
not more than ten equal annual installments from
the date of the award. (Secs. 22, 26 and 28, CA
No. 141)
• Approval of application authorizes applicant to take
possession
– The approval of a sales application merely
authorizes the applicant to take possession of the
land so that he could comply with the requirements
prescribed by law before a final patent could be
issued in his favor.
– What divests the government of title to the land is
the issuance of the sales patent and its subsequent
registration with the Register of Deeds.
• Direct sale under RA No. 730
• RA No. 730 permits the direct sale of public lands
for residential purposes to qualified applicants.
The applicant must:
(a) be a Filipino citizen of legal age;
(b) not the owner of a home lot in the
municipality or city in which he resides;
(c) has established in good faith his residence on
a parcel of public land which is not needed
for public service; and
(d) has constructed his house and actually
resided therein.
•
• Sale of lands within military reservations
• Pursuant to RA No. 274,  lands within military
reservations, when declared by the President as no
longer needed for military purposes, may be
subdivided by the Director of Lands, and thereafter
sold to persons qualified to acquire agricultural
public lands under the Public Land Act, with
priority given to bona fide occupants and then to
war veterans.
• Lands for educational, charitable and other similar
purposes
– Lands for educational, charitable and similar
purposes may be sold or leased, under the same
conditions as the sale or lease of agricultural public
lands, for the purpose of founding a cemetery,
church, college, school, university, or other
institutions for educational, charitable, or
philanthropical purposes or scientific research, the
area to be such as may actually and reasonably be
necessary to carry out such purposes.
– The DENR Secretary may order the sale to be made
without public auction, at a price to be fixed by him.
(Secs. 69 and 70, Chapter X, CA No. 141)
–
• Lease
• Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines, and any
corporation or association of which at least sixty per
centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said
capital stock belongs wholly to citizens of the
Philippines, and which is organized and constituted
under the laws of the Philippines, may lease any
tract of agricultural public land available for lease
under the provisions of this Act, not exceeding a
total of one thousand and twenty-four hectares.
• If the land leased is adapted to and be devoted for
grazing purposes, an area not exceeding two
thousand hectares may be granted. (Sec. 33, CA No.
141, as amended)
• Reservations for public or quasi-public purposes
• Upon the recommendation of the DENR Secretary, the
President may designate by proclamation any tract or
tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for
the use of the Republic of the Philippines or of any of
its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in
accordance with regulations prescribed for this
purpose, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the
public interest requires it. (Sec. 83, CA No. 141)
• A certified copy of every proclamation of the President
shall be forwarded to the Director of Lands for record
purposes, and a copy of this record shall be forwarded
to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where
the land lies. (Sec/ 86. id.)
•
• Special patents
– A special patent is a “patent to grant, cede, and
convey full ownership of alienable and disposable
lands formerly covered by a reservation or lands of
the public domain” and is issued upon the
“promulgation of a special law or act of Congress
or by the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources as authorized by an Executive Order of
the President.”
– Example: Freedom Islands located in the Manila
Bay and pursuant to which the Register of Deeds
issued TCT Nos. 7309, 7311 and 7312 in the name
of PEA.
• Friar lands
• Friar lands were purchased by the government for
sale to actual occupants under the provisions of
Act No. 1120, or the Friar Lands Act, dated April
26, 1904. These lands are not public lands but
private or patrimonial property of the government.
• The conveyance or certificate of sale executed in
favor of a buyer or purchaser is a conveyance of
the ownership of the property. Upon full payment,
the government shall issue a final deed of
conveyance in favor of the purchaser, subject to
the approval of the Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources.