Team Gapang 2 Yr - Atty Espina - Land Titles and Deeds Law

TEAM GAPANG 2ND YR | ATTY ESPINA | LAND TITLES AND DEEDS LAW
of the original certificate of title based on the

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS decree on registration, patent, award or grant.
As to its nature, original

registration is further classified into:
(ways to acquire property)
IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT
1. Judicial (either voluntary/ordinary or
compulsory/cadastral)
2. Administrative
PURPOSE OF LAND REGISTRATION
How is administrative process done?
DAR - Under the agrarian law, if the farmer is a

THE COMPUTERIZATION OF THE LAND qualified beneficiary, the government will
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AND ITS provide the ownership of the farmer beneficiary
REGISTRIES over the land he tilled. They will provide a
Certificate of Ownership to the farmer regarding
land. For it to be registered under the Torrens
System, the CoA must be delivered to the
WORKFLOW IN THE REGISTRY UNDER Registry of Deeds in order to be given a OCT
THE COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM number.
DENR – you go to the DENR where you choose a

patent after accomplishing the requirements,
after choosing a patent, you go to the RD where
DEFINITION OF TERMS
they will issue you an OCT number. This will
now become a Torrens system.
What is Land Registration?
However, not all portions of public land is
It is a judicial or administrative subject to a patent.
proceeding whereby a person’s claim over a
IPC – IPRA, the council will grant ownership to
particular land is determined and confirmed or
the indigenous people wherein the certificate
recognized so that such land and the ownership
will be given to the RD in order for it to be
thereof may be recorded in a public registry.
registered in the Torrens System.
Registry does not vest title. It is
What is Registration of deeds and other
merely evidence of such title over a
instruments or subsequent registration?
particular property
Takes place when a deed or instrument
When Does Registration of Title or
affecting land is made of public record after the
Original Registration Happen?
date of tis registration.
It takes place when the title to land is
Thus, the registration of a sale,
made public record for the first time in the name
mortgage, lease attachment notice of levy or
of its lawful owner.
other encumbrances falls within the purview of
What is Registration of Title or Original subsequent registration.
Registration?
The dealings pertaining to land may
It refers to the registration procedure refer to either voluntary or involuntary
from the filing of the application to the issuance instruments.
1|Page
In the case of Torbela v. Rosario(,

PLACE FACTS HERE), The Supreme Court held
that a Title refers to ownership which is
represented by the Certificate of title, which is a
What is Voluntary Transactions?
document issued by the Register of Deeds (AKA
These are contracts or agreements Transfer Certificate of Title). Placing a
willfully executed by the land owner or his duly parcel of land under the mantle of the torrens
authorized representative such as: system does not mean that ownership thereof
can no longer be disputed. Ownership is
 Sales different from a certificate of title. The TCT is
 Leases only best proof of ownership of a piece of land
 Mortgages but cannot always be considered as conclusive
 Donations evidence of ownership.
 Exchanges Registration is not the equivalent of
 Trusts title, but is only the best evidence thereof.
 Variations thereof affecting real estate
What are the Types of Certificates of
YOU CANNOT REGISTER THE TITLE Title?
WITHOUT THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY.
1. Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
What is Involuntary Transactions? 2. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
Refers to those executed against the will What is an OCT?

or without consent of the landowner contrary to
his interest or will affect him adversely such: It is the first title issued in the name of
the registered owner covering a parcel of land
 Attachment which had been registered under the Torrens
 Levy on execution System by virtue of a judicial or administrative
 Adverse claim proceeding. It is a consequence of
 Lis pendens registering a title of land.
 Other liens
It consists of one copy filed in the
YOU CAN REGISTER THE TITLE EVEN Register of Deeds (called the original copy), and
WITHOUT THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY. the owner’s copy given to the owner (called the
owner’s duplicate copy.)
What are Land Titles?
What happens if only a portion of the
These are evidence of the owner’s right land is taken?
or extent of interest, by which he can:
You still have to present the OCT to the RD,
 Maintain control of the property wherein they will partially cancel the OCT
 Assert right to exclusive possession of stating the land has been sold for a portion and
the property issue a new TCT covering the new portion sold.
 Assert right to exclusive enjoyment of
What is a TCT?
the property
The title issued by the Register of Deeds
What is the Difference between “Title”
in favor of a transferee to whom the ownership
and “Certificate of Title?”
of a registered land has been transferred by any
READ TORBELA V. ROSARIO GR 140528 legal mode of conveyance (ex. Sale, donation).
2|Page
It also consists of an original and rights over immovable property

owner’s duplicate certificate. which are not duly inscribed or
annotated in the Registry of
What is a Deed? Property shall not prejudice
third persons.
It is the instrument in writing by which
3. Security – serves to provide registrants
any real estate or interest therein is created,
an archive for muniments of title, rights
alienated, mortgaged or assigned, or by which
and interest in land recorded in the
title to any real estate may be affected in law or
registry where the property is located.
equity.
What is the Torrens System?

MODE OF REGISTRATION (TI)
It is a system of registration of land
under which, upon the landowner’s application,
the court may, after appropriate proceedings, 1. Transcription – is the entering in the
direct issuance of a certificate of title. registration book by the register of
deeds of the original certificate of title
Torrens system does not create or duly numbered, dated, signed and
vest title because registration is not a sealed issued pursuant to a decree of
mode of acquiring ownership. registration, patent, award or grant.
2. Inscriptions – is the recording on the
What is a Torrens Title? certificate of title a
memorandum/annotation or an abstract
It is a certificate of ownership issued of the instrument sought to be
under the Torrens System, through te register of registered. In order for this to be done,
Deeds, naming and declaring the owner of the there must be prior transcription.
real property described therein, free from all
liens and encumbrances except such as may be
expressly noted there or otherwise reserved by GOVERNING LAW (MEMORIZE)
law.
PD 1529 (PROPERTY REGISTRATION

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES DECREE) , approved June 11, 1978, codified
and incorporated the following laws related to
property registration:
Functions of Registration (PPS)
 ACT 496 – The Land Registration Act
1. Publicity – serves to give notice to all
 CA 141 – The Public Land Act
persons from the time of such
 ACT 2259 – The Cadastral Act
registering, filing and entering that
certain party has or has acquired certain  ACT 3344 – System of Registration for
rights or interest in the property. Unregistered Lands
2. Priority - serves to fix and determine  ACT 1508 - The Chattel Mortgage Law
the relative rights of parties whether  RA 26 - An Act Providing A Special
superior or subordinate, in relation to Procedure For The Reconstitution Of
time, following the maxim “priore Torrens Certificates Of Title Lost Or
tempore, priore jure” (first in time, first Destroyed
in law)  PD 27 – Emancipation Patents, Land
a. Article 709, NCC provides Reform Law
that titles of ownership or other
3|Page
 PD 957 – Subdivision and

Condominiums Protective Buyer’s REGALIAN DOCTRINE
Decree
 RA 4726 – Condominium Act
What is the Regalian Doctrine, and what
Note: is the effect when regarding the State?
 If the duplicate certificate is lost, file In the case of Cruz v. DENR, the
under section 109 of PD 1529 Regalian Doctrine or jura regalia was enshrined
 If the certificate of the original torrens in the Philippine Constitution (starting in 1935)
title is lost by the RoD, file under section for the purpose of nationalizing and conserving
110 of PD 1529 the natural resources of the country. The
Regalian Doctrine is defined as the basic
foundation of the State’s property Regime. The
LEGAL BASIS AND NATURE OF LAND doctrine is embodied in Section 2, Article XII of
REGISTRATION (SEC. 1 TO 3) the Philippine Constitution (First in 1935),
which declares that the State owns all lands of
the public domain, minerals, and natural
Sec. 2 PD 1529 resources, except agricultural lands as they can
be alienated.
Judicial proceedings for registration of
lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem However, it can only apply when the
and shall be based on the generally accepted land is clearly private, meaning no ownership. In
principles underlying the Torrens System. order to rebut the presumption, you must prove
the requirements for orignal registration
Sec. 3 PD 1529
through the administrative or judicial process
Status of other pre-existing land for ownership to be issued to you. Such
registration system. The system of registration requirements may be an OCT over the land or
under the Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby proof of living in the land therein.
discontinued and all lands recorded under said
system which are not yet covered by Torrens title
Sec. 2 Article XII, 1987 Constitution
shall be considered as unregistered lands.
All lands of the public domain, waters,
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
originally registered under the Spanish oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna,
113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been and other natural resources are owned by the
brought under the operation of the Torrens State. With the exception of agricultural lands,
system. all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development and
The books of registration for unregistered lands utilization of natural resources shall be under
provided under Section 194 of the Revised the full control and supervision of the State.
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. The State may directly undertake such
activities or it may enter into co-production,
3344, shall continue to remain in force;
joint venture, or production-sharing
provided, that all instruments dealing with
agreements with Filipino citizens, or
unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered corporations or associations at least sixty per
under Section 113 of this Decree. centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not
exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more
than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
4|Page
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of 3. Congress may, by law, allow small-scale

water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or utilization of natural resources by
industrial uses other than the development of water Filipino citizens;
power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of
4. For the large-scale exploration,
the grant.
development and utilization of minerals,
The State shall protect the nation's marine petroleum and other mineral oils, the
wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, President may enter into agreements
and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use with foreign-owned
and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. corporations involving technical or
financial assistance.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-
scale utilization of natural resources by As owner of the natural resources, the
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish State is accorded primary power and
farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen responsibility in the exploration,
and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and development and utilization of these
lagoons. natural resources.
The President may enter into agreements When and how can land owned by the
with foreign-owned corporations State become alienable?
involving either technical or financial
In the case of DENR v. YAP, A positive act
assistance for large-scale exploration,
declaring land as alienable and
development, and utilization of minerals,
disposable is required, there must be a
petroleum, and other mineral oils
positive act of the government, such as an
according to the general terms and conditions
official proclamation, declassifying inalienable
provided by law, based on real contributions to
public land into disposable land for agricultural
the economic growth and general welfare of the
or other purposes.
country. In such agreements, the state shall
promote the development and use of local The burden of proof in overcoming
scientific and technical resources. the presumption of State ownership of
the lands of the public domain is on the
The President shall notify the Congress of every
person applying for registration (or
contract entered into in accordance with this
claiming ownership), who must prove
provision, within thirty days from its execution.
that the land subject of the application is
alienable or disposable.
The Constitution provides that in the
To overcome this presumption,
exploration, development and utilization
incontrovertible evidence must be established
of these natural resources, the State
that the land subject of the application (or claim)
exercises full control and supervision,
is alienable or disposable. There must still be a
and may undertake the same in four (4)
positive act declaring land of the public domain
modes:
as alienable and disposable. To prove that the
1. The State may directly undertake such land subject of an application for registration is
activities; or alienable, the applicant must establish the
2. The State may enter into co-production, existence of a positive act of the government
joint venture or production-sharing such as a presidential proclamation or an
agreements with Filipino citizens or executive order; an administrative action;
qualified corporations; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and a legislative act or a statute.
The applicant may also secure a certification
5|Page
from the government that the land claimed to valid, he should not run the risk of being told
have been possessed for the required number of later that his acquisition was ineffectual after all.
years is alienable and disposable.
Regalian Doctrine does not negate Native

Title. What is the Purpose and Meaning of the
Torrens Title System of Registration?
READ:
READ
 Cruz v. Sec. of DENR
LEGARDA V. SELAABY (8936),
- remember the CALT and CADT and
its effects. In the case of Legarda v. Selaaby,
 Sec. of DENR v. Yap the primary and fundamental purpose of
 REP V. CA (155450) the torrens system is to quiet title; to put a
stop forever to any question of the legality of the
title, except claims which were noted at the time
TORRENS TITLE of registration, in the certificate, or which may
arise subsequent thereto. Once a title is
registered the owner may rest secure, without
History
the necessity of waiting in the portals of the
The Torrens system was created by Sir Robert court to avoid the possibility of losing his land.
Torrens. It is title by registration over title by
BISHOP V. CA (86787),
deeds. It was designed to give security of
ownership over the land for the owner In the case of Bishop v. CA, the SC
held that an owner of a land registered
Attributes of a title issued under the
under the Torrens system cannot lose it
Torrens System:
by prescription, abiding with the purpose and
1. Indefeasibility – cannot be amended meaning expounded in Tenio v. CA.
or annulled without court order.
MCIAA V. IJORDAN (173140)
Protects the registrant from other
claims. In the case of MCIAA v. Ijordan, the
2. Incontrovertibility - SC held that no adverse possession could
3. Imprescriptibly - Torrens title cannot deprive the registered owners of their
be void due to prescription. title by prescription.
What is the Reason for Adoption of the What is the Exception to the Rule of
Torrens Title System in the Philippines? Quieting Title?
READ (107967) TENIO V. CA Where there is double titling of the
same parcel of land. READ ANGELES V. SANIA
In the case of Tenio v. CA, the Torrens
(44493)
system was adopted in this country because it
was believed to be the most effective measure to
guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS
ownership is established and recognized.
If a person purchases a piece of land on

Land Registration Authority (LRA)
the assurance that the seller's title thereto is
6|Page
Is the head office of the Registration of Deeds. Where the instrument is denied registration, the
Register of Deeds shall notify the interested
What is the Function of the LRA? party in writing, setting forth the defects of the
instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and
Ministerial duty of LRA to issue decrees
advising him that if he is not agreeable to such
of registration with obligation to seek
ruling, he may, without withdrawing the
clarification from the court when in doubt.
documents from the Registry, elevate the matter
READ RODRIGUEZ V. CA (184589)
by consulta within five days from receipt of
They give assistance to the Department notice of the denial of registration to the
of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other Commissioner of Land Registration.
agencies in the implementation of the land
reform program of the government.
The Register of Deeds shall make a
They also extend assistance to courts in
memorandum of the pending consulta on the
ordinary and cadastral land registration
certificate of title which shall be canceled motu
proceeding.
proprio by the Register of Deeds after final
They also are the central repository of resolution or decision thereof, or before
records relative to original registration of land resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
titles under the Torrens system, including
The Commissioner of Land Registration,
subdivision and consolidation plans of titled
considering the consulta and the records
lands (section 6, PD 1529).
certified to him after notice to the parties and
The office that approves original surveys hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step
of lands shall be approved by the Bureau of to be taken or memorandum to be made. His
Lands. Subsequent surveys of lands shall be resolution or ruling in consultas shall be
approved by the LRA. conclusive and binding upon all Registers of
Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who
The LRA also issues decrees of disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or
registration (original registration) pursuant to order of the Commissioner relative to consultas
final judgment of the court. They also exercise may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the
supervision and control over all Register of period and in manner provided in Republic Act
Deeds and other personnel of the Commission. No. 5434.
The LRA shall also resolve cases Executive Order No. 649
elevated en Consulta (sec. 117, PD 1529) by, or
an appeal, from the decision of Registers of Office of the Register of Deeds (RD);
Deeds. General Functions
Section 117. Procedure. When the Register of What is the function of RD?
Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step
The RoD is ministerial in nature.
to be taken or memorandum to be made in
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states
pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other
that "It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds
instrument presented to him for registration, or
to immediately register an instrument presented
where any party in interest does not agree with
for registration dealing with real or personal
the action taken by the Register of Deeds with
property which complies with all the requisites
reference to any such instrument, the question
for registration. ... . If the instrument is not
shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land
registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration
Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the
thereof and inform the presentor of such denial
party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
in writing, stating the ground or reasons
7|Page
therefore, and advising him of his right to appeal legality being presumed until otherwise
by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of declared by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
this Decree." (READ BARANDA V. GUSTILO
(81163)) Does RD have the Power to Determine
Validty of Document?
There is already registration by mere
entry in the books of the RD. No. READ ALMIROL V. RD (22486) “a
The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a register of deeds is entirely precluded by
public repository of records or instruments section 4 of Republic Act 1151 from exercising
affecting registered or unregistered lands and his personal judgment and discretion when
chattel mortgage in the province or city wherein confronted with the problem of whether to
such office is situated.
register a deed or instrument on the ground
The different books of registration of the RD are: that it is invalid. The foregoing notwithstanding,
the court a quo correctly dismissed the petition
1. Books of registered lands
for mandamus. Section 4 above-quoted
2. Book of unregistered lands
3. Book of chattel mortgages
provides that "where any party in interest does
4. Book of personal properties not agree with the Register of Deeds * * * * the
question shall be submitted to the
If you make a registration in the wrong book,
Commissioner of Land Registration," who
there will be no registration at all.
thereafter shall "enter an order prescribing the
What Are The Instances When The RD step to be taken or memorandum to be made",
May Validly Refuse Registration Of which shall be "conclusive and binding upon all
Voluntary Instruments And Private Registers of Deeds." This administrative remedy
Documents?
must be resorted to by the petitioner before he
When on its face, there is an infirmity can have recourse to the courts.”
(in a Deed of Donation?) READ BALBIN V. RD
(20611) Is The RD Duty-Bound To Determine
Validity Of A Document For Purposes Of
“Section 55, supra, obviously assumes that Registration?
there is only one duplicate copy of the title in
No. READ GABRIAL V. RD (17956),
question, namely, that of the registered owner GURBAX V. REYES (3970)
himself, such that its production whenever a
voluntary instrument is presented constitutes
sufficient authority from him for the register of CASES
deeds to make the corresponding
memorandum of registration. In the case at bar, Torbella v. Rosario
the three other copies of the title were in
existence, presumably issued under section 43 Facts:
 The controversy began with a parcel
of Act 496. As correctly observed by the Land
of land, with an area of 374 square
Registration Commissioner, petitioners' claim meters, located in Urdaneta City,
that the issuance of those copies was Pangasinan (Lot No. 356-A) which
unauthorized or illegal is beside the point, its was inherited by the Torbela siblings
from their parents. They executed a
deed of absuolute sale over the
8|Page
property in favor of Dr. Rosario.

Four days after, a TCT was issued to Issue: Whether or not the Express Trust
Dr. Rosario’s name covering the herein was effectively repudiated? YES
property
 Another deed of absolute sale Ruling:
quitclaim was subsequently executed  Express trusts are created by direct
12 days after by Dr. Rosario and positive acts of the parties, by
acknowledging that he only borrows some writing or deed, or will, or by
the lot from the Trbela siblings and words either expressly or impliedly
was already returning the same. The evincing an intention to create a
deed was notarized but not trust. Under Article 1444 of the Civil
immediately annotated. Code, no particular words are
 Dr. Rosasrio used the land as required for the creation of an
mortgage for a loan he obtain express trust, it being sufficient that
through DBP for 70,000.00. He a trust is clearly intended.
used the proceeds of the loan to  There is no dispute that the Torbela
build a 4 storey building which was sibling inherited the title to Lot No.
initially used as a hospital but later 356-A from their parents, the
converted into a commercial space. Torbela spouses, who, in turn,
Part was leased to PT&T and the rest acquired the same from the first
of rosario’s siter who operated Rose registered owner of Lot No. 356-A,
Inn Hotel&Restaurant. Valeriano.
 Dr Rosario fully paid the loan from  However, the Torbela siblings
DBP and the mortgage was cancelled explained that they only executed
and ratified by notary public. the Deed as an accommodation so
However, Dr. Rosario took another that Dr. Rosario could have Lot No.
loan from PNB. He later acquired 356-A registered in his name and
third loan from Banco Filipino and use said property to secure a loan
bought out the loan from PNB from DBP.
cancelling the mortgage with PNB.  Among the notable evidence
Rosario failed to pay their loan in presented by the Torbela siblings is
Banco Filipino and the property was the testimony of Atty. Lorenza
extrajudicially foreclosed. Alcantara (Atty. Alcantara), who had
 Meanwhile, back in 1965, the no apparent personal interest in the
Torbella siblings sought to register present case. The court made a clear
their ownership over the lot and to distinction between title and the
perfect their title but couldn’t certificate of title. In Lee Tek Sheng
because the title was still with DBP. v. CA:
They showed proof that the deed of The certificate referred to is
absolute quitclaim presented that document issued by the
executed by Rosario himself. In Register of Deeds known as
1986, they filed civil case for the Transfer Certificate of
recovery of ownership and Title (TCT). By title, the law
possession and damages. They tried refers to ownership which is
to redeem the lot from banco filipino represented by that
but failed. TCT was issued to Banco document. Petitioner
Filipino. apparently confuses
 Torbela’s claim they have their rights certificate with title. Placing a
over the rents of the building parcel of land under the
through accession because they are mantle of the Torrens system
the land owners. does not mean that
9|Page
ownership thereof can no names of the parties present, dates,

longer be disputed. places, etc.) and is not corroborated
Ownership is different from a by independent evidence.
certificate of title. The TCT is  It can also be said that Dr. Rosario
only the best proof of is estopped from claiming or
ownership of a piece of land. asserting ownership over Lot No.
Besides, the certificate 356-A based on his Deed of
cannot always be considered Absolute Quitclaim dated
as conclusive evidence of December 28, 1964. Dr. Rosario's
ownership. Mere issuance admission in the said Deed that he
of the certificate of title merely borrowed Lot No. 356-A is
in the name of any deemed conclusive upon him.
person does not Under Article 1431 of the Civil
foreclose the possibility Code, through estoppel an
that the real property admission or representation is
may be under co- rendered conclusive upon the
ownership with persons person making it, and cannot be
not named in the denied or disproved as against the
certificate or that the person relying thereon." That
registrant may only be a admission cannot now be denied
trustee or that other by Dr. Rosario as against the
parties may have Torbela siblings, the latter having
acquired interest relied upon his representation.
subsequent to the  Considering the foregoing, the
issuance of the Court agrees with the RTC and the
certificate of title. To Court of Appeals that Dr. Rosario
repeat, registration is not the only holds Lot No. 356-A in trust
equivalent of title, but is only for the Torbela siblings.
the best evidence  WHEREFORE, in view of the
thereof. Title as a concept foregoing, the Petition of the
of ownership should not Torbela siblings in G.R.
be confused with the No. 140528 is GRANTED
certificate of title as
evidence of such CRUZ v SECRETARY OF DENR
ownership although both
are interchangeably use. SYNOPSIS:
 Registration does not vest title; it is  This is a suit for prohibition and
merely the evidence of such mandamus assailing the
title. Land registration laws do not
constitutionality of certain provisions of
give the holder any better title than
Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous
what he actually has.
People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and
 Dr. Rosario testified that he obtained
its Implementing Rules and
Lot No. 356-A after paying the
Regulations. The Court en banc
Torbela siblings P25,000.00,
pursuant to a verbal agreement with deliberated on the petition and the votes
the latter. The Court though gathered were equally divided with no
observes that Dr. Rosario's majority vote obtained. Seven (7)
testimony on the execution and members voted to dismiss the petition.
existence of the verbal agreement Seven (7) other members voted to grant
with the Torbela siblings lacks the petition. After redeliberation, the
significant details (such as the voting remained the same (7 to 7). Thus,
10 | P a g e
the petition, pursuant to Rule 56,  Additionally, ancestral domains and

Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ancestral lands are the private property
was dismissed. of indigenous peoples and do not
constitute part of the land of the public
FACTS: domain. They are private lands which
 R.A. No. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s belongs to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) was passed which is a concept of private land title
and its implementing rules and that existed irrespective of any royal
regulations (IRR) was enforced. grant from the State. The IPRA grants to
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar ICCs/IPs a distinct kind of ownership
Europa filed a suit for prohibition and over ancestral domains and ancestral
mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, lands. The private character of ancestral
assailing the constitutionality of certain lands and domains as laid down in the
provisions of the IPRA law. IPRA is further strengthened by the
 The petitioners brought to the attention option given to individual ICCs/IPs over
of the court the provisions of IPRA law their individually-owned ancestral
on the ground that these amount to an lands. For purposes of registration
unlawful deprivation of the State’s under the Public Land Act and the Land
ownership over lands of the public Registration Act, the IPRA expressly
domain as well as minerals and other converts ancestral land into public
natural resources therein, in violation of agricultural land which may be disposed
the Regalian doctrine embodied in of by the State. The necessary
section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. implication is that ancestral land is
private. It, however, has to be first
ISSUE: Whether or not the ownership converted to public agricultural land
provisions of the IPRA law is violative of the simply for registration purposes. Since
Constitution? (NO) ancestral domains and lands are private,
if the ICC/IP wants to avail of the
RULING: benefits of C.A. 141 and Act 496, the
 The provisions of IPRA do not IPRA itself converts his ancestral land,
contravene the Constitution. Examining regardless of whether the land has a
the IPRA, there is nothing in the law slope of eighteen per cent (18%) or over,
that grants to the indigenous cultural from private to public agricultural land
communities or indigenous peoples for proper disposition. The option to
(ICCs/IPs) ownership over the natural register land under the Public Land Act
resources within their ancestral domain. and the Land Registration Act has
Ownership over the natural resources in nonetheless a limited period. This
the ancestral domains remains with the option must be exercised within twenty
State and the rights granted by the IPRA (20) years from October 29, 1997, the
to the ICCs/IPs over the natural date of approval of the IPRA.
resources in their ancestral domains  The right of ownership and possession
merely gives them, as owners and by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral
occupants of the land on which the domains is a limited form of ownership
resources are found, the right to the and does not include the right to
small scale utilization of these resources, alienate the same. Ownership of
and at the same time, a priority in their ancestral domains by native title does
large scale development and not entitle the ICC/IP to a Torrens title
exploitation. but to a Certificate of Ancestral Domain
Title (CADT). The CADT formally
11 | P a g e
recognizes the indigenous concept of respondents-claimants Mayor Yap, Jr.,

ownership of the ICCs/IPs over their et al.
ancestral domain. The right of
ownership and possession of the RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains is  Respondents-claimants alleged that PN
held under the indigenous concept of 1801 and PTA Circ. No 3-82 raised
ownership. This concept maintains the doubts on their right to secure titles over
view that ancestral domains are the their occupied lands. T
ICCs/IPs private but community  They declared that they themselves, or
property. It is private simply because it through their predecessors-in-interest,
is not part of the public domain. But its had been in open, continuous, exclusive,
private character ends there. The and notorious possession and
ancestral domain is owned in common occupation in Boracay since June 12,
by the ICCs/IPs and not by one 1945, or earlier since time immemorial.
particular person. Ownership over the  They declared their lands for tax
natural resources in the ancestral purposes and paid realty taxes on them.
domains remains with the State and the  PN 1801 and PTA Circ 3-82 did not
ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to place Boracay beyond the commerce of
"manage and conserve" them for future man. Since the Island was classified as a
generations, "benefit and share" the tourist zone, it was susceptible of private
profits from their allocation and ownership.
utilization, and "negotiate the terms and  Under Sec 48(b) of Commonwealth Act
conditions for their exploration" for the No. 141, otherwise known as the Public
purpose of "ensuring ecological and Land Act, they had the right to have the
environmental protection and lots registered in their names through
conservation measures." Simply stated, judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.
the ICCs/IPs' rights over the natural
resources take the form of management OSG’s ARGUMENTS:
or stewardship.
 Boracay Island was an unclassified land
of the public domain. It formed part of
Sec. of DENR v. Yap
the mass of lands classified as "public
forest," which was not available for
FACTS:
disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of
 On 1976, DENR approved the National Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705 or the
Reservation Survey of Boracay which Revised Forestry Code, as amended.
identified several lots as being occupied
 Respondent’s reliance on PD 1801 and
or claimed by named persons.
PTA Circ 3-82 was misplaced. Their
 On 1978, Marcos issued Proclamation right to judicial confirmation of title was
No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island as governed by CA No. 141 and PD No. 705.
tourist zones and marine reserves under
 Since Boracay Island had not been
the administration of the Philippine
classified as alienable and disposable,
Tourism Authority (PTA) and approved
whatever possession they had cannot
PTA Circular 3-82 to implement PN
ripen into ownership.
1801.
 Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 RTC & CA RULING:
and PTA Circular No 3-82 precluded
 RTC rendered a decision in favor of
them from filing an application for
respondents-claimants. It upheld
judicial confirmation of imperfect title
respondents-claimants’ right to have
or survey of land for titling purposes,
their occupied lands titled in their name.
12 | P a g e
It ruled that neither Proclamation No. o Being public forest, the claimed
1801 nor PTA Circular No. 3-82 portions of the island are
mentioned that lands in Boracay were inalienable and cannot be the
inalienable or could not be the subject of subject of judicial confirmation
disposition. of imperfect title.
 CA held that respondents-claimants o It is only the executive
could not be prejudiced by a declaration department, not the courts,
that the lands they occupied since time which has authority to reclassify
immemorial were part of a forest lands of the public domain into
reserve. alienable and disposable lands.
o There is a need for a positive
Additional case (GR 173775) government act in order to
 During the pendency of the case, Pres. release the lots for disposition.
Gloria Arroyo issued PN 1064 classifying
Boracay Island into four hundred (400) ISSUE:
hectares of reserved forest land W/N PN 1801 posed any legal hindrance or
(protection purposes) and six hundred impediment to the titling of the lands in Boracay
twenty-eight and 96/100 (628.96)
hectares of agricultural land (alienable RULING:
and disposable). The Proclamation  The 1935 Constitution classified lands of
likewise provided for a fifteen-meter the public domain into agricultural,
buffer zone on each side of the forest or timber. Meanwhile, the 1973
centerline of roads and trails, reserved Constitution provided the following
for right-of-way and which shall form divisions: agricultural, industrial or
part of the area reserved for forest land commercial, residential, resettlement,
protection purposes. mineral, timber or forest and grazing
 Petitioner-claimants Dr. Sacay, Gelito lands, and such other classes as may be
and other landowners in Boracay filed a provided by law, giving the government
petition for prohibition, mandamus, and great leeway for classification. Then the
nullification of PN 1604. 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935
o They allege that the Constitution classification with one
Proclamation infringed on their addition: national parks. Of these, only
"prior vested rights" over agricultural lands may be alienated.
portions of Boracay.  Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May
o They have been in continued 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never
possession of their respective been expressly and administratively
lots in Boracay since time classified under any of these grand
immemorial. divisions. Boracay was an unclassified
o They have also invested billions land of the public domain.
of pesos in developing their  The Regalian Doctrine dictates that
lands and building all lands of the public domain
internationally renowned first belong to the State, that the State
class resorts on their lots. is the source of any asserted right
 OSG argued that petitioners-claimants to ownership of land and charged
do not have a vested right over their with the conservation of such
occupied portions in the island. patrimony. The doctrine has been
o Boracay is an unclassified public consistently adopted under the 1935,
forest land pursuant to Section 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
3(a) of PD No. 705.
13 | P a g e
 All lands not otherwise appearing to be Boracay into an agricultural land. There
clearly within private ownership are is nothing in the law or the Circular
presumed to belong to the State. which made Boracay Island an
 Thus, all lands that have not been agricultural land. The reference in
acquired from the government, either by Circular No. 3-82 to "private lands" and
purchase or by grant, belong to the State "areas declared as alienable and
as part of the inalienable public domain. disposable" does not by itself classify the
 Necessarily, it is up to the State to entire island as agricultural.
determine if lands of the public domain  Except for lands already covered by
will be disposed of for private existing titles, Boracay was an
ownership. unclassified land of the public domain
 The government, as the agent of the prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such
state, is possessed of the plenary power unclassified lands are considered public
as the persona in law to determine who forest under PD No. 705.
shall be the favored recipients of public  In Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of
lands, as well as under what terms they Forestry, SC discussed that:
may be granted such privilege, not o A forested area classified as
excluding the placing of obstacles in the forest land of the public domain
way of their exercise of what otherwise does not lose such classification
would be ordinary acts of ownership. simply because loggers or
 The burden of proof in overcoming the settlers may have stripped it of
presumption of State ownership of the its forest cover. Parcels of land
lands of the public domain is on the classified as forest land may
person applying for registration (or actually be covered with grass or
claiming ownership), who must prove planted to crops by kaingin
that the land subject of the application is cultivators or other farmers.
alienable or disposable. "Forest lands" do not have to be
 In the case at bar, no such proclamation, on mountains or in out of the
executive order, administrative action, way places. Swampy areas
report, statute, or certification was covered by mangrove trees, nipa
presented to the Court. palms, and other trees growing
 The records are bereft of evidence in brackish or sea water may
showing that, prior to 2006, the also be classified as forest land.
portions of Boracay occupied by private The classification is descriptive
claimants were subject of a government of its legal nature or status and
proclamation that the land is alienable does not have to be descriptive
and disposable. of what the land actually looks
 Absent such well-nigh incontrovertible like. Unless and until the land
evidence, the Court cannot accept the classified as "forest" is released
submission that lands occupied by in an official proclamation to
private claimants were already open to that effect so that it may form
disposition before 2006. part of the disposable
agricultural lands of the public
 Matters of land classification or
domain, the rules on
reclassification cannot be assumed.
confirmation of imperfect title
 Private claimants cannot rely on PN
do not apply.
1801 as basis for judicial confirmation of
 Private claimants cannot rely on
imperfect title. The proclamation did not
Proclamation No. 1801 as basis for
convert Boracay into an agricultural
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
land. It did not convert the whole of
14 | P a g e
The proclamation did not convert then CFI had jurisdiction to adjudicate the
Boracay into an agricultural land. disputed portion in favor of spouses Carag
 The petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 2. WON the Director of Lands' being a party
167707 is GRANTED and the Court of to the original proceedings granted
Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. jurisdiction to the then CFI
71118 REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. HELD: ISSUE 1: YES, then CFI had
 The petition for certiorari in G.R. No. jurisdiction. 1. RULE: a. Aldecoa v. Insular
173775 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Government: … with the exception of …
mineral and timber zone, ALL LANDS
owned by the State … are public in
Republic vs. CA, et.al
character, and per se alienable and,
FACTS
provided they are not destined to the use of
Petition for review of the CA resolution –
the public in general … they may be
CA: dismissed petitioner Republic of the
acquired by any private or juridical person.
Philippines’ amended complaint for
b. Act No. 2874 (prevailing law in 1930):
reversion, annulment of decree, cancellation
SECTION 6. The Governor-General, upon
and declaration of nullity of titles. 1. 1930:
the recommendation of the Secretary of
CFI of Cagayan issued Decree No. 381928 in
Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall
favor of spouses Carag – a. covering a parcel
from time to time classify the lands of the
of land identified containing an area of
public domain into - (a) Alienable or
7,047,673 sqm in Cagayan b. 1938: pursuant
disposable (b) Timber and (c) Mineral lands
to Decree, the Register of Deeds issued OCT
and may at any time and in a like manner
No. 11585 in their name 2. 1994: De Dayag
transfer such lands from one class to
and others requested DENR to file for
another, for the purposes of their
annulment of the Decree – a. Ground: CFI
government and disposition. c. Article XII
did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a
of the 1935 Constitution: SECTION 1. All
portion (“disputed portion”) of the subject
agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of
property which was allegedly still classified
the public domain … belong to the State …
as timber land at the time of the issuance of
subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or
the Decree. b. DENR created an
concession at the time of the inauguration of
investigating team to conduct ground
the Government established under this
verification and ocular inspection of the
Constitution. 2. APPLICATION: a. Aldecoa:
subject property – the findings of the team:
GR: all are alienable; EXC: classified as
i. Disputed portion was found to be still
timber or mineral, or allotted for public use
within the timberland area at the time of the
i. Evidence of Republic does not show: (a)
issuance of the Deacree and O.C.T ii.
that disputed portion was classified as
Disputed portion was only released as
mineral or timber, nor designated for public
alienable and disposable on 22 February
us – thus general rule applies b. Act No.
1982. 3. 1996: Land Management Bureau
2874: not alleged and no evidence showing
recommended to the Director of Lands that
Governor-General classified disputed land
an action for the cancellation of OCT No.
as timber c. Article XII of the 1935
11585 be filed with the proper court. The
Constitution: i. 1935 already admits that the
Director of Lands approved the
lands are already subject to grants and
recommendation. 4. 1998: Republic filed
rights, proof that lands are already alienable
with the CA complaint for cancellation and
as early as 1930 3. CONCLUSION: a. CFI
declaration of nullity of titles – a. that in
has jurisdiction since the disputed portion
1930, CFI had no jurisdiction to adjudicate
was alienable. HELD: ISSUE 2: YES. 4.
the disputed portion since it was allegedly
RULE: Republic of the Philippines v. Court
still classified as timber land at the time of
of Appeals: a. When the land registration
issuance of the Decree and therefore not
court issued a decision for the issuance of a
alienable until February 1982 ISSUES:
decree which was the basis of an original
(there were procedural issues) 1. WON the
15 | P a g e
certificate of title to the land, the court had even gave 2/3 of the harvest to
already made a determination that the land Eduardo Deguro.
was agricultural and that the applicant had  On June 25, 1965, Deguro & his wife,
proven that he was in open and exclusive without the knowledge and consent
possession of the subject land for the of the Alimpoos, then prepared a
prescribed number of years. It was the land deed of sale and made it appear that
registration court which had the jurisdiction the Alimpoos sold the land to them.
to determine whether the land applied for  After Deguro’s death, his heirs sold
was agricultural, forest or timber taking into the land to Tenio-Obsequio.
account the proof or evidence in each  It was allegedly only in 1982, when
particular case. 5. APPLICATION: a. As with Eufronio Alimpoos received a
this case, when the trial court issued the Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold
decision for the issuance of Decree No. of his land from DAR that he learned
381928 in 1930, the trial court had that the land was already titled in
jurisdiction to determine whether the the name of another.
subject property, including the disputed  The heirs of Deguro claimed that
portion, applied for was agricultural, timber Sps. Alimpoos sold the land to their
or mineral land. The trial court determined parents for a consideration of 10k
that the land was agricultural and that php.
spouses Carag proved that they were
 Consorcia Tenio-Obsequio
entitled to the decree and a certificate of
maintains that she purchased the
title. The government, which was a party in
land in good faith, for valuable
the original proceedings in the trial court as
consideration and without
required by law, DID NOT APPEAL the
knowledge of any flaw or defect
decision of the trial court declaring the
whatsoever.
subject land as agricultural. 6.
 RTC ruled in favor of Tenio-
CONCLUSION: a. Since the trial court had
Obsequio
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action, its decision rendered in 1930, or 78  However, CA reversed the ruling of
years ago, is now final and beyond review. the lower court and declared
Eufronio Alimpoos as the true and
Tenio--‐Obsequio vs. CA, legal owner of the property and
ordered for the reconveyance of the
FACTS: property.
 The land in question was previously
ISSUE:
covered by OCT P-1181 registered
W/N there should be reconveyance of the
under the name of Eufronio
property
Alimpoos which he acquired through
a homestead application. The said
RULING:
land is now under Tenio-Obsequio’s
name as evidenced by TCT T-1421.  Under Sec. 55 of the LRA, as
amended by Sec 53 of PD 1529, an
 Private respondents filed a
original owner, of registered land
complaint against Sps. Tenio-
may seek the annulment of a
Obsequio and the heirs of Eduardo
transfer thereof on the ground of
Deguro for recovery of possession
fraud. However, such a remedy is
and ownership, alleging that
without prejudice to the rights of any
sometime in 1964, they mortgaged
innocent holder for value with a
the land to Eduardo Deguro for 10k
certificate of title.
php and to guarantee the loan they
delivered the OCT but they still  In the case at bar, Tenio-Obsequio is
continued to cultivate the land and a purchaser in good faith and there
is no showing whatsoever nor even
16 | P a g e
an allegation that Tenio-Obsequio they are now and possibly also more
had any participation in the alleged abrasive, if not even violent.
forgery.  The Government, recognizing
 Nor can we charge said petitioner the worthy purposes of the
with negligence since, at the time of Torrens system, should be the
the sale to her, the land was already first to accept the validity of
registered in the name of Eduardo titles issued thereunder once
Deguro and the tax declaration was the conditions laid down by the
also issued in the latter's name. law are satisfied.
 It was also clearly indicated at the  WHEREFORE, the decision and
back of the original certificate of title resolution of respondent court now
that Eduardo Deguro acquired under review are hereby REVERSED
ownership over the said land by and the decision of the court a quo is
virtue of the deed of sale executed in accordingly REINSTATED.
his favor.
 The main purpose of the Torrens Legarda vs. Saleeby
system is to avoid possible conflicts FACTS:
of title to real estate and to facilitate  Consuelo and Mauro (C&M) and
transactions relative thereto by Saleeby are owners of adjoining lots
giving the public the right to rely in Ermita.
upon the face of a Torrens certificate  A wall between the said lots existed
of title and to dispense with the need and it is located on C&M’s lot
of inquiring further, except when the  C&M had their lot (incl. wall)
party concerned has actual registered by a petition in the Court
knowledge of facts and of Land Registration (CLR)
circumstances that should impel a o October 1906: a title was
reasonably cautious man to make decreed to them - Later, the
such further inquiry. predecessor of Saleeby
 The Torrens system was presented a petition before
adopted in this country because the CLR for the registration
it was believed to be the most of his lot
effective measure to guarantee o March 1912: the CLR decreed
the integrity of land titles and the registration of said OCT
to protect their indefeasibility under the Torrens system § It
once the claim of ownership is included the wall located on
established and recognized. C&M’s lot
 If a person purchases a piece of land  December 1912: C&M knew of the
on the assurance that the seller's title inclusion of their wall, they
thereto is valid, he should not run petitioned for the adjustment and
the risk of being told later that his correction of the error – o denied by
acquisition was ineffectual after all. the court for failure to make any
 What is worse is that if this were objection during the pendency of the
permitted, public confidence in the predecessor of Saleeby’s petition for
system would be eroded and land registration
transactions would have to be
attended by complicated and not ISSUE: Who is the owner of the wall and
necessarily conclusive investigations the land occupied by it? Chao
and proof of ownership.
 The further consequence would be HELD:
that land conflicts could be even  C&M owns the wall and land on
more numerous and complex than which it stands
17 | P a g e
 TORRENS SYSTEM: Real purpose registered in the name Spouses

of that system is to quiet title to Salang under TCT T-29018.
land; to put a stop forever to any  On January 22, 1985, Spouses
question of the legality of the title, Salang sued Bishop for recovery of
except claims which were noted at possession of the lots in question.
the time of registration (remember: They invoked their rights as
CLR registration by C&M 6 years registered owners of the land.
earlier already notice to everyone),  Bishop claimed that the lots were
in the certificate, or which may arise part of the public domain and could
subsequent thereto. That being the not have been registered under the
purpose of the law, it would seem Torrens system.
that once a title is registered the  All alleged long and continuous
owner may rest secure, without the possession of the lots and produced
necessity of waiting in the portals of tax declarations in their names. Two
the court, or sitting in the "mirador of them maintained that they had
de su casa," to avoid the possibility acquired their respective lots by
of losing his land. It is clothed with virtue of valid contracts of sale.
all the forms of an action and the  RTC rendered judgment in favor of
result is final and binding upon all Spouses Salang.
the world. It is an action in rem. All  Being the registered owners
the world are parties, including the in fee simple of the land in
government. After the registration is question, necessarily have
complete and final and there exists the lawful right to the
no fraud, there are no innocent third physical possession of the
parties who may claim an interest. land. The owner of a land has
The rights of all the world are a right to enjoy and possess
foreclosed by the decree of it, and he has also the right to
registration. recover and repossess the
 The title once registered, with very same from any person
few exceptions, should not thereafter occupying it unlawfully.
be impugned, altered, changed, Art. 428 –– New Civil
modified, enlarged, or diminished, Code
except in some direct proceeding The owner has the right to
permitted by law. Otherwise all enjoy and dispose of a thing,
security in registered titles would be without other limitations
lost. A registered title canNOT be than those established by
altered, modified, enlarged, or law.
diminished in a collateral proceeding The owner has also a right of
and not even by a direct proceeding, action against the holder and
after the lapse of the period possessor of the thing in
prescribed by law. order to recover it.
 There is, therefore, no doubt in law,
Bishop vs. CA that the plaintiffs being the
registered owners of the land in
FACTS: question have also the
 In dispute are certain portions of a corresponding right to the recovery
parcel of land situated in and possession of the same.
Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, with a  Bishop who are in physical
total area of 1,652 square meters. occupancy of the land belonging to
These portions are in the possession the Spouses Salang have no right
of the Bishops. The entire parcel is
18 | P a g e
whatsoever to unjustly withhold the ISSUE: WON the land in question is part of
possession of the said land. the public domain and could not have been
 The defendants' occupancy of the validly registered under the Torrens system.
land in question is unlawful and in
violation of plaintiffs right to the HELD:
recovery and possession of the land  Spouses Salang's title is traceable to
they owned. an Original Certificate of Title issued
 The moment the land in question way back in 1910 or eighty-two years
was titled in the name of the Spouses ago. That certificate is now
Salang, it ceased to become a part of incontrovertible and conclusive
the public domain as the same against the whole world. The
became the private property of the resumption of regularity applies to
registered owner, the herein Spouses the issuance of that certificate. This
Salang. presumption covers the finding that
 Tax declarations of the land made in the land subject of the certificate was
the names of the Bishops are not private in nature and therefore
evidence of title, it appearing that registrable under the Torrens
the land is already titled to the system.
Spouses Salang. The registration of  To sustain an action for annulment
the land in the names of the of a Torrens certificate for being void
defendants with the Assessor's Office ab initio, it must be shown that the
for taxation purposes and the registration court had not acquired
payments of real property taxes by jurisdiction over the case and that
the defendants can not and does not there was actual fraud in securing
defeat the title of the plaintiffs to the the title.
land. The fact that the defendants  Neither of these requirements has
have been in occupancy of the land been established by the Bishop. All
in question for quite a period of time they submitted was the certification
is of no moment as prescription will of the Bureau of Forestry that the
not ripen into ownership because the land in question was alienable and
land is covered by a torrens title. disposable public land.
Acquisitive prescription will not be  RTC was correct in ruling that this
available to land titled under Art. deserved scant consideration for lack
496. of legal basis. To be sure, a
PREMISED THEREFORE on certification from an administrative
the foregoing consideration, body cannot prevail against court
the Court finds and so holds decision declaring the land to be
that the plaintiffs being the registrable.
registered owners of the land  It does not appear in the record that
in question are entitled to the the Director of Forestry, or any other
possession of the same, and representative of the Government
that the defendants who are for that matter, entered any
occupying the land belonging opposition to the land registration
to the plaintiffs in violation proceedings that led to the issuance
of the right of the latter, are of the Original Certificate of Title.
duty-bound to restore  No less importantly, an action to
possession of the same to the invalidate a certificate of title on the
titled owners, the herein ground of fraud prescribes after the
plaintiffs. expiration of one (1) year from the
 CA: affirmed RTC. entry of the decree of registration
and cannot now be resorted to by the
19 | P a g e
petitioners at this late hour. And they had not sold their shares in the
collaterally at that. subject lot, and had not authorized
 The strange theory submitted by Julian to sell their shares to
Bishops that the owner of registered MCIAA's predecessor-in-interest.
land must also possess it does not  The failure of the respondents to
merit serious attention. The non- surrender the owner's copy of OCT
presentation by Spouses Salang of No. RO-2431 prompted MCIAA to
their tax declarations on the land is sue them for the cancellation of title
no indication that they have never in the RTC, alleging in its complaint
acquired ownership thereof or have that the certificate of title conferred
lost it by such omission. no right in favor of the respondents
because the lot had already been
MCIAA vs. Ijordan sold to the Government in 1957; that
the subject lot had then been
Doctrine: declared for taxation purposes under
 A sale of jointly owned real property Tax Declaration No. 00387 in the
by a co-owner without the express name of the BAT; and that by virtue
authority of the others is of the Deed, the respondents came
unenforceable against the latter, but under the legal obligation to
valid and enforceable against the surrender the certificate of title for
seller. cancellation to enable the issuance
of a new one in its name.
Facts:  After MCIAA's presentation of
 On October 14, 1957, Julian Cuizon evidence, the respondents moved to
(Julian) executed a Deed of dismiss the complaint upon the
Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale Demurrer to Evidence dated
(Deed) covering Lot No. 4539 February 3, 1997, contending that
(subject lot) situated in Ibo, the Deed and Tax Declaration No.
Municipality of Opon (now Lapu- 00387 had no probative value to
Lapu City) in favor of the Civil support MCIAA's cause of action and
Aeronautics Administration ((CAA), its prayer for relief. They cited
the predecessor-in-interest of Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of
petitioner Manila Cebu International Court which provided that "when the
Airport Authority (MCIAA). subject of inquiry is the contents of a
 In 1980, the respondents caused the document, no evidence shall be
judicial reconstitution of the original admissible other than the original
certificate of title covering the document itself." They argued that
subject lot. Consequently, Original what MCIAA submitted was a mere
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO- photocopy of the Deed; that even
2431 of the Register of Deeds of assuming that the Deed was a true
Cebu was reconstituted for Lot No. reproduction of the original, the sale
4539 in the names of the was unenforceable against them
respondents' predecessors-in- because it was only Julian who had
interest, namely, Gavina Ijordan, executed the same without obtaining
and Julian, Francisca, Damasina, their consent or authority as his co-
Marciana, Pastor, Angela, Mansueto, heirs; and that the tax declaration
Bonifacia, Basilio, Moises and had no probative value by virtue of
Florencio, all surnamed Cuison. The its having been derived from the
respondents' ownership of the unenforceable sale.
subject lot was evidenced by OCT  In its order dated September 2, 1997,
No. RO-2431. They asserted that the RTC dismissed MCIAA's
20 | P a g e
complaint insofar as it pertained to is revoked by the other contracting

the shares of the respondents in Lot party.
No. 4539 but recognized the sale as  But the conveyance by Julian
to the 1/22 share of Julian. through the Deed had full force and
 The CA affirmed the orders of the effect with respect to his share of
RTC. Hence, this petition. 1/22 of the entire property
consisting of 546 square meters by
Issues: virtue of its being a voluntary
1. Whether the subject lot was validly disposition of property on his part.
conveyed in its entirety to the As ruled in Torres v. Lapinid:
petitioner. o x x x even if a co-owner sells
2. Whether respondents are guilty of the whole property as his, the
estoppel by laches. sale will affect only his own
3. Whether MCIAA possessed the share but not those of the
subject lot by virtue of acquisitve other co-owners who did not
prescription. consent to the sale. This is
because the sale or other
Rulings: disposition of a co-owner
First issue affects only his undivided
 No, the CA and the RTC concluded share and the transferee gets
that the Deed was void as far as the only what would correspond
respondents' shares in the subject lot to his grantor in the partition
were concerned, but valid as to of the thing owned in
Julian's share. Their conclusion was common.
based on the absence of the Second issue
authority from his co-heirs in favor  No. MCIAA's assertion of estoppel or
of Julian to convey their shares in ratification to bar the respondents'
the subject lot. We have no reason to contrary claim of ownership of their
overturn the affirmance of the CA on shares in the subject lot is bereft of
the issue of the respondents' co- substance. The doctrine of estoppel
ownership with Julian. Hence, the applied only to those who were
conveyance by Julian of the entire parties to the contract and their
property pursuant to the Deed did privies or successors-in-interest.
not bind the respondents for lack of Moreover, the respondents could not
their consent and authority in his be held to ratify the contract that
favor. As such, the Deed had no legal was declared to be null and void with
effect as to their shares in the respect to their share, for there was
property. Article 1317 of the Civil nothing for them to ratify. Verily, the
Code provides that no person could Deed, being null and void, had no
contract in the name of another adverse effect on the rights of the
without being authorized by the respondents in the subject lot.
latter, or unless he had by law a right Third issue
to represent him; the contract  No. MCIAA's contention on
entered into in the name of another acquisitive prescription in its favor
by one who has no authority or legal must fail. Aside from the absence of
representation, or who has acted the satisfactory showing of MCIAA's
beyond his powers, is unenforceable, supposed possession of the subject
unless it is ratified, expressly or lot, no acquisitive prescription could
impliedly, by the person on whose arise in view of the indefeasibility of
behalf it has been executed, before it the respondents' Torrens title. Under
the Torrens System, no adverse
21 | P a g e
possession could deprive the certificate of title, such right

registered owners of their title by prescribed a long time ago.
prescription. The real purpose of the  The lower court decided the question
Torrens System is to quiet title to in favor of Angeles and ordered the
land and to stop any question as to Samia to execute the necessary deed
its legality forever. Thus, once title is of conveyance to the plaintiff of the
registered, the owner may rest land described in the complaint,
secure, without the necessity of which constitutes the northern
waiting in the portals of the court, or portion of 7 hectares, 13 ares and 81
sitting on the mirador su casa to centiares of said lot No. 3679.
avoid the possibility of losing his  Samia appeals and ascribes the
land. following errors to the trial court,
 WHEREFORE, the among others: (1) The lower court
Court DENIES the petition for erred in not sustaining and holding
review on certiorari; that the plaintiff's action has
and AFFIRMS the decision prescribed; (2) The lower court erred
promulgated on February 22, 2006. in not holding that the plaintiff has
neither alleged nor proven facts
Angeles v. Sania constituting a cause of action;
(3) The lower court erred in not
FACTS: holding that the plaintiff's claim is
 The question involved herein refers contrary to the principal objective of
to the ownership of a parcel of land the Torrens System established in
having an area of 7 hectares, 13 ares this country.
and 81 centiares, situated in the  It is not disputed by the parties that
municipality of Bacolor, of the the land in question was inherited by
Province of Pampanga, included in the plaintiff from his father
lot No. 3679 described in cadastral Antonino Angeles some time before
record No. 11 of the said the year 1896; that thereafter the
municipality, G. L. R. O. Cadastral plaintiff possessed and occupied the
Record No. 148 of Pampanga, and land in question under claim to
now covered by the original ownership up to the present; that
certificate of title No. 8995 of the about the year 1909, he attempted to
registry of deed of Pampanga, register his title to said property in
registered and issued on December the registry of deeds pursuant to the
15, 1921, in the name of the Land Registration Act but his
Macaria Angeles, Petra Angeles, application was denied due to errors
Felisberto Samia, and found in his plan;
Elena Samia as their common  That, this notwithstanding, he
undivided property. continued to exercise acts of
 Mario Angeles, plaintiff, claims to be ownership over the land in question
the exclusive owner of the property openly, uninterruptedly and
in question, and Elena Samia, peacefully at least until March, 1933;
defendant, alleges the same thing.  That on December 15, 1921, without
Samia says: (1) that said property the plaintiff's knowledge and
was allotted to her when her without having been purposely
coöwners made a partition of all the applied for by the defendant and her
properties owned by them in coparticipants Macaria, Petra and
common, and (2) that if the plaintiff Felisberto, said original certificate of
ever had any right thereto prior to title No. 8995 was issued in the
the issuance of said original name of the latter four coöwners;
22 | P a g e
 That the said coöwners having question in any capacity, they never
decided to partition among claimed to be the owners thereof,
themselves the properties held by and if she has done so after the lapse
them in common, the land in of more than eleven years from the
question was allotted to the issuance of the title in their favor, it
defendant; was due to the fact that they were
 That the defendant, desiring to know declared owners thereof through
the area of said land, had it relocated error.
about the end of February or the  The purpose of the Land
beginning of March, 1933, and, as Registration Act, as this court has
soon as it had been done, although had occasion to so state more than
she was then aware that neither she once, is not to create or vest
nor any of her former coparticipants title, but to confirm and
ever occupied it before, because it register title already created
had always been occupied by the and already vested, and or
plaintiff long before 1896, she course, said original certificate of
entered upon said land to exercise title No. 8995 could not have vested
acts of ownership, for which purpose in the defendant more title than
she cut and availed herself of the what was rightfully due her and her
leaves of nipa palms found therein, coöwners.
notwithstanding the protests and  It appearing that said certificate
objections of the plaintiff; granted her much more than she
 That the plaintiff, for the purpose of expected, naturally to the prejudice
avoiding frictions, requested the of another, it is but just that the
defendant, inasmuch as it was error, which gave rise to said
through error that the land in anomaly, be corrected (City of
question had been adjudicated to her Manila vs. Lack, 19 Phil., 324).
and her coöwners, to deign to  The defendant and her coöwners
execute the corresponding deed of knew or, at least, came to know that
transfer thereof in his favor, the land it was through error that the original
being lawfully his; that the certificate of title in question was
defendant refused to do so claiming issued by the court which heard
that her title was already cadastral case No. 11 of Bacolor, not
indefeasible; and that, in view of only in or prior to March, 1933, but
such attitude of said defendant, the from the time said certificate was
plaintiff brought this action one or issued in their favor, that is, from
two days later. December 15, 1921. This is evidenced
by the fact that, even since, they
Issue: remained passive without even
 W/N the defense of prescription attempting to make the least
meritorious in this case -- NO showing of ownership over the land
in question until after the lapse of
Held: more than eleven years.
 The defense of prescription which  The Land Registration Act as well as
the defendant-appellant seeks to the Cadastral Act protects only
avail of to support the irrevocability the holders of a title in good
of her title and to counteract the faith and does not permit its
action of the plaintiff-appellee, is provisions to be used as a
untenable because, aside from the shield for the commission of
fact that neither she nor her fraud, or that one should
coöwners ever possessed the land in enrich himself at the expense of
23 | P a g e
another (Gustilo vs. Maravilla, 48 of Act No. 496, he still has the right
Phil., 442; Angelo vs. Director of to question the legality or validity of
Lands, 49 Phil., 838). The above- the decree in question, because the
stated Acts do not give anybody, who action brought by him in this case is
resorts to the provisions thereof, a not for said purpose but merely to
better title than he really and ask that the land in dispute, which
lawfully has. If he happened to was erroneously included in original
obtain it by mistake or to secure, to certificate of title No. 8995, be
the prejudice of his neighbor, more transferred to him by the defendant,
land than he really owns, with or he being the owner thereof. This is
without bad faith on his part, the possible and it is authorized by law,
certificate of title, which may upon the amendment of the plan
have been issued to him under which must be approved by the
the circumstances, may and competent court, for which purpose
should be cancelled or there is no necessity of altering or
corrected (Legarda and modifying in the least the decree
Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590). already issued.
This is permitted by section 112  Wherefore, the appealed judgment is
of Act No. 496, which is applicable to question is affirmed in toto, and it is
the Cadastral Act because it is so ordered that, upon the amendment
provided expressly by the provisions of the plan of parcel No. 3679 of
of section 11 of the latter Act. cadastral survey No. 11 of Bacalor, G.
 It cannot be otherwise because, as L. R. O. Cadastral Record No. 148 of
stated in the case of Domingo vs. Pampanga, the corresponding writ
Santos, Ongsiako, Lim y Cía. (55 of the execution of said judgment be
Phil., 361), errors in the plans of issued by the lower court, with the
lands sought to be registered in the costs to the appellant.
registry and reproduced in the
certificate of title issued later, do not Rodriguez v. CA,
annul the decree of registration on FACTS
the ground that it is not the plan but  Respondent Spouses Calingo were
the land itself which is registered in the registered owners of a house and
the registry. In other words, if the lot located in Parañaque, Metro
plan of an applicant for registration Manila
or claimant in a cadastral case o Mortgage with DBP
alleges that the land referred to in o But mortgage was
said plan is 100 or 1,000 hectares, subsequently absorbed by the
and the land which he really owns Home Mutual Development
and desires to register in the registry Fund (HMDF) or Pag-IBIG
is only 80 ares, he cannot claims to  April 27, 1992 – Respondent
be the owner of the existing Spouses Calingo and Respondent
difference if afterwards he is issued a Spouses Barrameda entered into a
certificate of title granting him said contract of sale for the said property
area of 100 or 1,000 hectares. with assumption of mortgage—NOT
 Let it not be said that, as the decree registered w/ ROD
of registration which gave rise to o Sps. Barrameda issued 2
original certificate of title No. 8995 checks – 150K and 528K
was issued on December 15, 1921, o Sps. Calingo issued a receipt
and the plaintiff failed to ask for the dated Apr 24, 1992
review of said decree within one
 Apr 23, 1992 – Respondent Sps.
year, in accordance with section 38
Calingo informed HDMF/Pag-IBIG
24 | P a g e
about the sale of the property with o have acquired the property
assumption of mortgage long before the levy was
o Such letter and the affidavit made
executed by Sps. Calingo,  Nov 9, 1992 – Sps. Barrameda found
however, was served upon a Notice of Sherrif’s Sale posted on
HDMF/Pag-IBIG on Oct 2, their front gate announcing the
1992 auction sale of their house
 May 29, 1992 – Respondent Sps. o Sps. Barrameda served a
Barrameda wrote HDMF informing Notice of Third Party Claim
the office that they have purchased to the Sheriff
the subject property from Sps.  Dec 2, 1992 – Sps. Barrameda filed
Calingo with RTC Makati a Petition for
o Filed a notice of adverse Quieting of Title with writ of
claim with the ROD of preliminary injunction
Parañaque o Prayed for the cancellation of
 June 2, 1992 – Sps. Barrameda the Notice of Levy in the
moved into the property certificate of title of the
 July 13, 1992, a notice of levy with property
attachment on real property by  RTC Makati – ruled in favor of
virtue of a writ of execution was Petitioner Sps. Rodriguez and held
annotated at the back of the that:
certificate of title of the disputed o The annotation of
property respondents Barrameda's
o Issued by RTC Makati Judge adverse claim at the back of
in favor of Spouses the certificate of title was
Rodriguez involving a claim insufficient to establish their
by the latter against Sps. claim over the property.
Calingo o Sps. Barrameda, as buyers of
 July 21, 1992 - Sps. Rodriguez’ the property, should have
counsel, Atty. Loyola, sent a letter to registered the title in their
Respondent Sps. Barrameda about names.
the basis of their occupation of the o Sps. Barrameda's adverse
property in question claim had lost its efficacy
 Aug 21, 1992 – Sps. Barrameda after the lapse of thirty days
remitted to Sps. Calingo the amount in accordance with the
of 364K to complete the payment of provisions of the Land
the agreed purchase price Registration Act.
o Sps. Calingo acknowledged o found that there was
receipt of the amount and collusion between Sps.
waived all their rights to the Barrameda and Sps. Calingo
property in favor of Sps. to transfer the property to
Barrameda defraud third parties who
 Sps. Barrameda executed a joint may have a claim against the
affidavit stating that they are owners Calingos.
of the property in question by virtue  CA – reversed and ruled in favor of
of a deed of sale w/ assumption of Sps. Barrameda
mortgage and that they: o Cited Sajonas vs. CA and held
o registered an affidavit of that that respondents
adverse claim with the ROD Barrameda's adverse claim
of Parañaque inscribed on the certificate of
25 | P a g e
title was still effective at the But no deed, mortgage, lease, or

time the property was levied other voluntary instrument, except a
on execution. will purporting to convey or affect
o Therefore, the disputed registered land shall take effect as a
inscription of adverse claim conveyance or bind the land, but
was still in effect on July 13, shall operate only as a contract
1992 when the Rodriguezes between the parties and as evidence
caused the annotation of the of authority to the Register of Deeds
notice of levy on execution to make registration.”
thereto.  The act of registration shall be the
o Consequently, they are operative act to convey or affect the
charged with knowledge that land insofar as third persons are
the property sought to be concerned, and in all cases under
levied upon on execution was this Decree, the registration shall be
encumbered by an interest made in the office of the Register of
the same as or better than Deeds for the province or city where
that of the registered owner the land lies.
thereof.  IN THE CASE AT BAR—It is
o Hence, the notice of levy admitted in this case that the deed of
could not prevail over sale with assumption of mortgage
respondents Barrameda's was not registered, but instead,
adverse claim. 14. Hence, this respondents Barrameda filed an
Petition. affidavit of adverse claim with the
ISSUE: Register of Deeds.
1. Whether respondents Barrameda's ISSUE #2: NO WHEN INSCRIPTION
adverse claim on the property should OF ADVERSE CLAIM IS SUFFICIENT
prevail over the levy on execution TO AFFECT 3RD PARTIES
issued by another court in  In L.P. Leviste and Company, Inc. v.
satisfaction of a judgment against Noblejas, the Court explained when
respondents Calingo. an inscription of an adverse claim is
2. Whether the adverse claim is sufficient to affect third parties:
sufficient to bind third parties such o Brief facts: The basis of
as herein petitioner Sps. Rodriguez respondent Villanueva's
adverse claim was an
RULING: agreement to sell executed in
ISSUE #1: NO DEED OF SALE W/ her favor by Garcia Realty.
ASSUMPTION OF MORTGAGE NOT An agreement to sell is a
BINDING UPON 3RD PERSONS voluntary instrument as it is
 Respondents Barrameda anchor a willful act of the registered
their claim on the property on the owner. However, where the
deed of sale with assumption of owner refuses to surrender
mortgage executed by them and the duplicate certificate for
respondents Calingo on April 27, the annotation of the
1992. voluntary instrument, the
 The Property Registration Decree grantee may file with the
requires that such document be Register of Deeds a
registered with the Register of Deeds statement setting forth his
in order to be binding on third adverse claim, as provided
persons. for in Section 110 of Act No.
 Sec. 51. Conveyance and other 496.
dealings by registered owner. – xxx “
26 | P a g e
o The annotation of an adverse the transfer of the property to

claim is a measure designed respondents Barrameda
to protect the interest of a  There was no reason for the parties'
person over a piece of real failure to seek the approval of the
property where the HMDF to the sale as it appears from
registration of such interest the letter of respondent Barrameda
or right is not otherwise to HMDF that they were ready to
provided for by the Land pay in full the balance of the loan
Registration Act, and serves plus interest. ADVERSE CLAIM
as a notice and warning to  Section 70 of PD 1529 on Adverse
third parties dealing with Claim provides that “whoever claims
said property that someone is any part or interest in registered
claiming an interest on the land adverse to the registered owner,
same or a better right than arising subsequent to the date of the
the registered owner thereof. original registration, may, if no other
 IN THE CASE AT BAR—The reason provision is made in this Decree for
given for the non-registration of the registering the same, make a
deed of sale with assumption of statement in writing setting forth his
mortgage was that the owner's alleged right or interest..” xxx
duplicate copy of the certificate of  Again, we stress that the annotation
title was in the possession of HMDF. of an adverse claim is a measure
 HOWEVER, it was not shown, that designed to protect the interest of a
either respondents Barrameda or person over a piece of property
respondents Calingo exerted any where the registration of such
effort to retrieve the owner's interest or right is not otherwise
duplicate copy from the HMDF for provided for by the law on
the purpose of registering the deed registration of real property. IN THE
of sale with assumption of mortgage. CASE AT BAR
 In fact, the parties did not even seek  The deed of sale with assumption of
to obtain the consent of, much less mortgage executed by respondents
inform, the HMDF of the sale of the Calingo and Barrameda is a
property. registrable instrument.
o despite the provision in the  In order to bind third parties, it
contract of mortgage (with must be registered with the Office of
HDMF) prohibiting the the Register of Deeds.
mortgagor (respondents  It was not shown in this case that
Calingo) from selling or there was justifiable reason why the
disposing the property deed could not be registered.
without the written consent  Hence, the remedy of adverse claim
of the mortgagee. cannot substitute for registration.
o Sps. Calingo, as party to the  The inscription on the adverse claim
contract of mortgage, are by Sps. Barrameda cannot prevail
charged with the knowledge over the notice of levy in the decision
of such provision and are ruled in favor of Sps. Rodriguez
bound to comply therewith.
 Apparently, there was haste in Baranda vs. Gustilo
disposing the property that FACTS: 1. Land in Iloilo with OCT 6406 is
respondents Calingo informed disputed between Baranda and Hitalia (BH)
HMDF of the sale only on October 2, and Perez, Gotera and Silao (PGS) in 2 cases
1992 when they served a copy of in lower courts and this instant petition
their letter to said office regarding before SC (3 in all) 2. BH filed for
27 | P a g e
reconstitution of OCT 6406 (was in the : ISSUE 2 (TOPIC): NO - Sec. 10, PD 1529 –
name of Romana Hitalia) – a. OCT 6406 "It shall be the duty of the ROD to
was cancelled and TCT 106098 was issued; immediately register an instrument
PLUS writ of possession was issued b. PGS presented for registration dealing with real
refused to honor writ of possession – i. or personal property which complies with
Submitted as evidence TCT 25772 over same all the requisites for registration. ... . If the
land – asserting ownership 3. Court found instrument is not registrable, he shall
TCT 25772 to be fraudulently acquired – a. forthwith deny registration thereof and
Ordered writ of possession to be carried out, inform the presentor of such denial in
and also issued writ of demolition 4. PGS writing, stating the ground or reasons
appealed all the way to SC – CA and SC therefore, and advising him of his right to
denied all appeals – writ of demolition appeal by consulta in accordance with
became final. 5. However (as mentioned Section 117 of this Decree." - Sec. 117 –
above) there was still a separate case "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt
pending in the CA for which a notice of lis with regard to the proper step to be taken or
pendens was annotated in the new TCT – a. memoranda to be made in pursuance of any
This prompted the BH to move for the deed, mortgage or other instrument
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens b. presented to him for registration or where
Court ordered Acting ROD for the any party in interest does not agree with the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens i. action taken by the Register of Deeds with
BUT Acting ROD filed an MR invoking Sec reference to any such instrument, the
77 of PD 1529 6. Court granted the Acting question shall be submitted to the
ROD’s MR ISSUE 1: WON the pending CA Commission of Land Registration by the
case barred the cancellation of the notice of Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest
lis pendens on the new TCTs of BH ISSUE thru the Register of Deeds. ... ." - Hence, the
2: WON Acting ROD had authority to file function of a ROD with reference to the
MR against the order for cancellation of registration of deeds encumbrances,
notice of lis pendens instruments and the like is ministerial in
nature – o The respondent Acting ROD did
RULING: not have any legal standing to file an MR o
ISSUE 1: NO. - It is crystal clear that PGS in In case of doubt as to the proper step to be
filing the lower court cases were trying to taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other
delay the full implementation of the final instrument presented to him, he should
decisions over the writ of demolition and have asked the opinion of the Commissioner
possession - The trial court judge abused his of Land Registration now, the Administrator
discretion in sustaining the Acting ROD's of the National Land Title and Deeds
stand that the notice of lis pendens in the Registration Administration in accordance
TCTs cannot be cancelled on the ground of with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No.
pendency of a civil case with the CA. - He 1529. - In the ultimate analysis, however,
conveniently forgot the first paragraph of the responsibility for the delays in the full
PD 1529 thereof which provides: o implementation of this Court's already final
Cancellation of lis pendens. — Before final resolutions falls on the respondent Judge.
judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be
cancelled upon Order of the Court after Balbin vs. Register of Deeds of Ilocus
proper showing that the notice is for the Sur
purpose of molesting the adverse party, or FACTS: 1. Balbins (donees) presented to the
that it is not necessary to protect the rights ROD Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of the
of the party who caused it to be registered. registered owner's (Cornelio Balbin, donor)
It may also be cancelled by the Register of OCT No. 548 and an instrument entitled
Deeds upon verified petition of the party "Deed of Donation inter-vivos – a. Per Deed
who caused the registration thereof. of donation – Cornelio donated 2/3
28 | P a g e
undivided portion of land covered by OT easy to see how their integrity may be
548 b. Balbins requested that the Donation adversely affected if an encumbrance or
be annotated on the OCT 2. ROD denied the conveyance, is annotated on one copy and
requested annotation for being “legally not on the others. The law itself refers to
defective or otherwise not sufficient in law" every copy authorized to be issued as a
– a. previously annotated in the duplicate of the original, which means that
memorandum of encumbrances on the both must contain identical entries of the
certificate are 3 separate sales to 3 different transactions, particularly voluntary ones,
buyers of undivided portions of the same affecting the land covered by the title. If this
land – to Florentino Gabayan, Roberto were not so, if different copies were
Bravo, Juana Gabayan – b. all duly issued permitted to carry differing annotations, the
TCTs, and (per memo annotation): three co- whole system of Torrens registration would
owner's duplicate certificates of title No. cease to be reliable. - The second ground’s
548 have been issued c. Mainly because legal conclusion may appear too general and
these three other co-owner's copies had not sweeping in its implications, for without a
been presented by Balbins, the ROD refused previous settlement of the partnership a
to make the requested annotation 3. Balbins surviving spouse may still dispose of his
referred the matter to the Commissioner of aliquot share or interest therein — subject of
Land Registration – thru a resolution course to the result of future liquidation.
upheld ROD: a. donor is now merely a co- Nevertheless, it is not to be denied that, if
owner with the 3 other vendees – in the conjugal character of the property is
addition to the owner's duplicate of OCT assumed, the deed of donation executed by
548, the 3 co-owner's duplicates must the husband, Cornelio Balbin, bears on its
likewise be surrendered b. Cornelio being face an infirmity which justified the denial
married, the property is presumed conjugal of its registration, namely, the fact that the
– the donation of 2/3 of whole land is more two-thirds portion of said property which he
than his share in the conjugal property 4. donated was more than his one-half share,
Balbins contentions on instant appeal: a. not to say more than what remained of such
issuance of the three co-owner's duplicates share after he had sold portions of the same
was unauthorized b. Sec. 55 of Act 496: the land to three other parties. - It appears that
production of the owner's duplicate there is a case pending in the CFI Ilocos Sur,
certificate of title whenever any voluntary wherein the civil status of the donor
instrument (i.e. the Deed of donation) is Cornelio Balbin and the character of the
presented for registration shall be land in question are in issue, as well as the
conclusive authority from the registered validity of the different conveyances
owner to the ROD to make a memorandum executed by him. The matter of registration
of registration in accordance with such of the deed of donation may well await the
instrument ISSUE: WON the donation may outcome of that case, and in the meantime
be annotated without the surrender of the the rights of the interested parties could be
other 3 co-owners protected by filing the proper notices of lis
HELD: NO - Balbin’s claim that the issuance pendens
of those copies was unauthorized or illegal is
beside the pointo its legality being Almirol vs. Register of Deeds of
presumed until otherwise declared by a Agusan
court of competent jurisdiction (jgo: cannot FACTS:
be collaterally attacked) - Sec. 55 assumes  1961, Teodoro Almirol purchased
there is only one duplicate copy of the title from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land
in question, that of the registered owner – o – covered by OCT P-1237 in the
in case at bar, the 3 other copies of the title name of "Arcenio Abalo, married to
were in existence o There being several Nicolasa M. Abalo"
copies of the same title in existence, it is
29 | P a g e
 May 1962, Almirol applied to speedy and adequate remedy in the

register the deed of sale with the ordinary course of law
ROD and to secure in his name a  CFI: Denied petition – "mandamus
TCT – registration was refused by does not lie . . . because the adequate
the ROD upon the following remedy is that provided by Section 4
grounds: of Rep. Act 1151"
o OCT P-1237 registered in the 
name of “Arcenio Abalo, ISSUE: WON the mandamus will lie to
married to Nicolasa M. compel the respondent to register the deed
Abalo,” and by legal of sale in question.
presumption, is considered
conjugal property; RULING:
o That in the sale of a conjugal  NO. The Mandamus will not lie.
property acquired after the Although the ROD has no authority
effectivity of the New Civil to inquire into the validity of the
Code it is necessary that both instrument for registration that is
spouses sign the document; complete in form, their still remains
but an administrative remedy to be
o Since, as in this case, the wife resorted and exhausted before
has already died when the judicial action may be taken.
sale was made, the surviving ROD HAS NO AUTHORITY:
husband can not dispose of  - Although the reasons relied upon
the whole property without by the respondent evince a sincere
violating the existing law desire on his part to maintain
o To effect the registration of inviolate the law on succession and
the aforesaid deed of transmission of rights over real
absolute Sale, it is necessary properties, these do not constitute
that the property be first legal grounds for his refusal to
liquidated and transferred in register the deed. Whether a
the name of the surviving document is valid or not, is not for
spouse and the heirs of the the register of deeds to determine;
deceased wife by means of this function belongs properly to a
extrajudicial settlement or court of competent jurisdiction.
partition and that the  - Gabriel vs. ROD of Rizal: Whether
consent of such other heir or the document is invalid, frivolous or
heirs must be procured by intended to harass, is not the duty of
means of another document a Register of Deeds to decide, but a
ratifying this sale executed by court of competent jurisdiction.
their father.  - Gurbax Singh Pablo & Co. vs. Reyes
 Almirol filed for petition for and Tantoco: The law on registration
mandamus in CFI to compel the does not require that only valid
ROD to register the deed and issue instruments shall be registered. If
the TCT, and to recover P5,000 in the purpose of registration is merely
moral damages and P1,000 to give notice, then questions
attorney's fees and expenses of regarding the effect or invalidity of
litigation – instruments are expected to be
 Contention: registration is a decided after, not before,
ministerial duty of the ROD to registration. It must follow as a
perform the acts required of him, necessary consequence that
and that Almirol has no other plain, registration must first be allowed,
30 | P a g e
and validity or effect litigated the name of Elisa Gabriel and

afterwards. Juanita R. Domingo but due to the
 - ROD is precluded from exercising fraud and deceit of the latter, all the
his personal judgment and titles were registered in her name
discretion when confronted with the alone, depriving the adverse
problem of whether to register a claimant of the said rights.
deed or instrument on the ground  A similar adverse claim was
that it is invalid. presented saying that the properties
 - Under Sec. 4 of R.A. 1151: when he were legally registered in the name
is in doubt as to the proper step to be of Juanita Domingo. Juanita further
taken with respect to any deed or assailed that the former claim was to
other instrument presented to him Harass her and had no legal basis.
for registration, all that he is  R.D. of Rizal denied the registration
supposed to do is to submit and of the Notice of Adverse Claim by
certify the question to the Elisa Gabriel, saying that it was
Commissioner of Land Registration legally defective and not sufficient in
who shall, after notice and hearing, law. To which she appealed
enter an order prescribing the step  In the Letter of the R.D. to the LRC,
to be taken on the doubtful question. R.D. Rizal justified the said denial by
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY pointing out that such procedure
SHOULD BE EXHAUSTED from was not proper.
judicial action:  LRC heard the cases and resolved
 - The foregoing notwithstanding, that the issue here is WON the
the court a quo correctly dismissed adverse claims are valid and are fit
the petition for mandamus – for the jurisdiction of a competent
 Still under Sec. 4: "where any court.
party in interest does not agree o {Sec 110 of Act 496 provides
with the ROD… the question the legal requirements for
shall be submitted to the registration (Statement shall
Commissioner of Land be signed and sworn to in
Registration," who thereafter writing, stating the claims
shall "enter an order and hearing requirements
prescribing the step to be taken etc…)}
or memorandum to be made,"  The commission holds that the
which shall be "conclusive and notices of adverse claim filed by Elisa
binding upon all Registers of with manila are registrable and
Deeds." Registration should not be confused
 - This administrative remedy must with validity. Validity of such will be
be resorted to by the petitioner decided in a special proceeding.
before he can have recourse to the  Juanita moved for a recon and
courts. appealed to the CA alleging that the
LRC should hold such claim as
Gabriel v. RD of Rizal registrable and that it is their
Facts: mandatory duty to register the
 1960, Gabriel filed with the Register notices WON they are valid or not.
of Deeds an Adverse claim, against
the properties registered in the name Issue: WON RD is duty bound to
of Juanita R. Domingo. It alleged Determine validity of a document for
that The assailed property belonged purposes of registration
to the late Antonia Domingo. The
properties were supposed to be in Held:
31 | P a g e
 It is believed that both parties were jurisdiction, AND THAT CONCERN

able to comply with such TO SEE WON the documents sought
requirements and under paragraph 5 to be registered CONFORM WITH
of the LRC Circular no 2, the THE FORMAL AND LEGAL
Register of Deeds has the power to REQUIREMENTS
perform its ministerial duty on the
said matters. RESOLUTION OF THE LAND
 The notation of an adverse claim REGISTRATION COMMISSION,
does not create a non-existent right HOLDING THE REGISTRABILITY OF THE
or lien and only means that a person CLAIMS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
who chases or contracts on the
property in dispute does so subject Comment:
to the result of such.  P.S. gubot anf F.T.
 The courts here dissected the  But the key take away is that it is the
applicable provision: duty of the R.D. to see if the claims
o SEC 110 of Act 496 states conform with the legal requirements
that 1) the duty of the party in its form. Regarding its validity,
who claims any part of that falls under the jurisdiction of a
interest in the registered land competent court.
adverse to the owner,
subsequent to the date of the
original registration, the Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co. v. Reyes
requirements to complied
with in order that such
statement shall be titled to
registration as an adverse ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
claim, thus showing
ministerial function of the
R.D. 2.) Applies only when, There are two types of original
after registration of the registration:
adverse claim, a party files an
appropriate petition with a 1. Ordinary judicial application for
competent court to resolve original registration of title
whether the adverse claim is 2. Cadastral registration proceedings –
frivolous or vexatious it is the state that will perform this
 In the instant case, the first part was proceeding.
acted upon by the LPC which
resolved the registrability of the
claims and this part should be Are private lands transferrable only
closed. What is left for the court is to qualified individuals or entities?
the determination of validity, after
the filing In the case of Borromeo v. Descallar,
 THE COURT RULED that the Land GR 159310, Feb. 24, 2009, the capacity
Registration Commission did not to acquire private land is dependent on the
state that it was mandatory for the capacity "to acquire or hold lands of the
Register of Deeds to register invalid public domain."
or frivolous documents. It merely
said that whether the document is Private land may be transferred only to
bereft of validity, IT IS NOT THE individuals or entities "qualified to acquire
DUTY OF THE R.D. TO DECIDE but or hold lands of the public domain." Only
the duty of a court of competent Filipino citizens or corporations at
32 | P a g e
least 60% of the capital of which is Hence, by virtue of the Section 7 of Article
owned by Filipinos are qualified to XII of the 1987 Constitution, they are also
acquire or hold lands of the public disqualified from acquiring private lands.
domain. Thus, as the rule now stands, the
fundamental law explicitly prohibits The primary purpose of this
non-Filipinos from acquiring or constitutional provision is the
holding title to private lands, except conservation of the national
only by way of legal succession or if patrimony. The right to acquire lands of
the acquisition was made by a former the public domain is reserved only to
natural-born citizen. Filipino citizens or corporations at least
sixty percent of the capital of which is
If land is invalidly transferred to an alien owned by Filipinos.
who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen
or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the
original transaction is considered cured and APPLICATION
the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
In the case of Ong Ching Po v. CA, GR Who may apply?

113472-73, Dec. 20, 1994, the capacity to
acquire private land is made dependent Section 14 of PD 1529
upon the capacity to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain. Private land may be The following persons may file in the proper
transferred or conveyed only to individuals Court of First Instance an application for
or entities "qualified to acquire lands of the registration of title to land, whether
public domain" personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
The 1935 Constitution reserved the
right to participate in the (1) Those who by themselves or through
"disposition, exploitation, their predecessors-in-interest have
development and utilization" of all been in open, continuous,
"lands of the public domain and other exclusive and notorious
natural resources of the Philippines" possession and occupation of
for Filipino citizens or corporations alienable and disposable lands
at least sixty percent of the capital of of the public domain under a bona
which was owned by Filipinos. fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.
Aliens, whether individuals or
corporations, have been disqualified Predecessor in interest refers to a
from acquiring public lands; hence, person or entity who previously held the
they have also been disqualified from rights or interests that are now held by
acquiring private lands. another.
Can Aliens qualify in acquiring What is meant by open, continuous,

public and public lands? What would exclusive, notorious possession and
be the purposes of the prohibition? occupation? Is possession the same
as occupation?
In the case of Matthews v. Taylor, GR
164584, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA In the case of Ong vs. Republic , G.R. No.
394, aliens, whether individuals or 175746, March 21, 2008, pursuant to the
corporations, have been disqualified from aforequoted provision of law, applicants for
acquiring lands of the public domain. registration of title must prove:
33 | P a g e
would naturally exercise over his own

(1) that the subject land forms part property.
of the disposable and alienable
lands of the public domain, and Possession alone is not sufficient to
(2) that they have been in open, acquire title to alienable lands of the
continuous, exclusive and public domain because the law requires
notorious possession and possession and occupation.
occupation of the same under a
bona fide claim of ownership since When is a land considered alienable
June 12, 1945, or earlier. and disposable?
It has been held that possession is: In the case of Republic vs. Vega, G.R. No.
(1) Open when it is patent, visible, 177790, Jan. 17, 2011, when a land is
apparent, notorious, and not reclassified and declared alienable
clandestine; and disposable. Occupation of the same
(2) Continuous when uninterrupted, in the concept of an owner - no matter how
unbroken, and not intermittent or long - cannot ripen into ownership and
occasional; result in a title; public lands not shown
(3) Exclusive when the adverse to have been classified as alienable
possessor can show exclusive and disposable lands remain part of
dominion over the land and an the inalienable domain and cannot
appropriation of it to his own use confer ownership or possessory
and benefit; and rights.
(4) Notorious when it is so
conspicuous, that it is generally
known and talked of by the public or CASES ON PAR.1
the people in the neighborhood.
(Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo, Ong vs. Republic , G.R. No. 175746,
Aklan v. Municipality of Buruanga, March 21, 2008
Aklan)
FACTS:
The law speaks of possession and  Petitioner Charles L. Ong in his
occupation. Since these words are separated behalf and as duly authorized
by the conjunction and, the clear intention representative of his brothers filed
of the law is not to make one synonymous an Application for Registration of
with the other Title over Lot 15911 (subject lot)
situated in Pangasinan
Possession is broader than occupation  They alleged that:
because it includes constructive possession. o They are the co-owners of the
When, therefore, the law adds the word subject lot;
occupation, it seeks to delimit the all- o that the subject lot is their
encompassing effect of constructive
exclusive property having
possession. Taken together with the words
acquired the same by
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious,
purchase from spouses Tony
the word occupation serves to highlight
Bautista and Alicia Villamil;
the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his
o That the subject lot is
possession must not be a mere fiction.
Actual possession of a land consists in presently unoccupied; and
the manifestation of acts of dominion o That they and their
over it of such a nature as a party predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous and
34 | P a g e
peaceful possession of the bona fide claim of ownership since

subject lot in the concept of June 12, 1945, or earlier.
owners for more than thirty  We sustain the findings and
(30) years. conclusions of the CA.
 Only respondent Republic of the  There is no dispute that the subject lot
Philippines, through the OSG, is classified as alienable and
opposed the application for disposable land of the public domain
registration of title for the reason:
o that neither applicants nor  However, petitioner failed to
their predecessors-in-interest prove that he or his
have been in open, predecessors-in-interest have
continuous, exclusive and been in open, continuous,
notorious possession and exclusive and notorious
occupation of the subject lot possession and occupation of the
o that applicants failed to subject lot since June 12, 1945 or
adduce any muniment of title
earlier.
to prove their claims;
o that the tax declaration  The records show that petitioner and
appended to the application his brothers bought the subject lot
does not appear genuine and from spouses Tony Bautista and Alicia
merely shows pretended Villamil on August 24, 1998, who in
possession of recent vintage; turn purchased the same from spouses
o that the application was filed Teofilo Abellera and Abella Sarmen on
beyond the period allowed
January 16, 1997. The latter bought
under P.D. No. 892; and
o that the subject lot is part of the subject lot from family Cacho, on
the public domain which July 10, 1979.
cannot be the subject of  The earliest tax declaration which was
private appropriation. submitted in evidence was Tax
 The RTC rendered in favor for Declaration No. 25606 issued in 1971
petitioners. CA reversed the in the names of spouses Agustin Cacho
decision. Hence, this petition by the and Eufrosinia Baustista. While tax
petitioner.
declarations are not conclusive proof
ISSUE/S: of ownership, they constitute good
1. WON petitioners are entitled to the indicia of possession in the concept of
subject lot - NO owner and a claim of title over the
subject property. Even if we were to
RULING: tack petitioner’s claim of ownership
 The petition lacks merit over the subject lot to that of their
 Applicants for registration of title alleged predecessors-in-interest,
must prove: spouses Agustin Cacho and Eufrosinia
 (1) that the subject land forms part Baustista in 1971, still this would fall
of the disposable and alienable short of the required possession from
lands of the public domain, and June 12, 1945 or earlier.
 (2) that they have been in open,  Possession alone is not sufficient
continuous, exclusive and to acquire title to alienable lands
notorious possession and of the public domain because the
occupation of the same under a
35 | P a g e
law requires possession and  Significant was the testimony of Mr.

occupation. Rodolfo Gonzales, a Special
 The law speaks of possession and Investigator of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources
occupation. Since these words are
Office (CENRO) of Los Baños,
separated by the conjunction and, the Laguna, under the Department of
clear intention of the law is not to Environment and Natural Resources
make one synonymous with the other. (DENR). He attested to having
Possession is broader than conducted an inspection of the
occupation because it includes subject land and identified the
constructive possession. When, corresponding Report.
o The report stated that the
therefore, the law adds the word
area subject of the
occupation, it seeks to delimit investigation was entirely
the all-encompassing effect of within the alienable and
constructive possession. Taken disposable zone, and that
together with the words open, there was no public land
continuous, exclusive and notorious, application filed for the same
the word occupation serves to land by the applicant or by
any other person.
highlight the fact that for an applicant
 Respondent-intervenors Buhays
to qualify, his possession must not be
intervened in the application,
a mere fiction. Actual possession of a submitting in evidence a subdivision
land consists in the manifestation of plan on a portion of the subject land,
acts of dominion over it of such a which they claimed was sold to their
nature as a party would naturally predecessors-in-interest.
exercise over his own property.  The trial court granted respondents
Vegas’ application and directed the
Republic vs. Vega, G.R. No. 177790, Land Registration Authority (LRA)
Jan. 17, 2011 to issue the corresponding decree of
registration in the name of
FACTS: respondents Vegas and respondents-
 Respondent Vegas filed an intervenors Buhays’ predecessors, in
application for registration of title. proportion to their claims over the
The application covered a parcel of subject land.
land, identified as Lot No. 6191  Petitioner Republic appealed the
 Respondents Vegas alleged that they Decision of the trial court, arguing
inherited the subject land from their that respondents Vegas failed to
mother, Maria Revilleza Vda. de prove that the subject land was
Vega, who in turn inherited it from alienable and disposable, since the
her father, Lorenzo Revilleza. Their testimony of Mr. Gonzales did not
mother’s siblings (two brothers and contain the date when the land was
a sister) died intestate, all without declared as such.
leaving any offspring.  Unpersuaded by petitioner
 Respondents Vegas presented Republic’s arguments, the Court of
several exhibits in compliance with Appeals affirmed in toto the earlier
the jurisdictional requirements, as Decision of the trial court. Aggrieved
well as witnesses to prove by the ruling, petitioner filed the
respondents Vegas’ ownership, instant Rule 45 Petition with this
occupation and possession of the Court.
land subject of the registration.
36 | P a g e
ISSUE/S: applicant must conclusively

1. WON respondent Vegas has establish the existence of a positive
established that the subject land is act of the government, such as any of
alienable and disposable - YES
the following:
RULING: (a) a presidential proclamation
 We find no reversible error or an executive order;
on the part of either the trial court or (b) other administrative actions;
the Court of Appeals. investigation reports of the
 Applicants for registration of Bureau of Lands
title must prove the following: investigator; or
(c) a legislative act or statute.
 (1) that the subject land
(d) The applicant may also
forms part of the disposable and
secure a certification from
alienable lands of the public
the government that the
domain; and
lands applied for are
 (2) that they have been in
alienable and disposable.
open, continuous, exclusive and
 It is not enough for the
notorious possession and
PENRO or CENRO to certify
occupation of the land under a
that a land is alienable and
bona fide claim of ownership
disposable. The applicant for land
since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
registration must prove that the
 Raising no issue with respect
DENR Secretary had approved
to respondents Vegas’ open,
the land classification and
continuous, exclusive and notorious
released the land of the public
possession of the subject land in the
domain as alienable and
present Petition, the Court will limit
disposable, and that the land
its focus on the first requisite:
subject of the application for
specifically, whether it has
registration falls within the
sufficiently been demonstrated that
approved area per verification
the subject land is alienable and
through survey by the PENRO
disposable.
or CENRO.
 Unless a land is reclassified
 In addition, the applicant
and declared alienable and
for land registration must
disposable, occupation of the same
present a copy of the original
in the concept of an owner - no
classification approved by the
matter how long -cannot ripen into
DENR Secretary and certified
ownership and result in a title;
as a true copy by the legal
public lands not shown to have been
custodian of the official
classified as alienable and disposable
records. These facts must be
lands remain part of the inalienable
established to prove that the
domain and cannot confer
land is alienable and
ownership or possessory rights.
disposable.
 Matters of land classification
 Aside from a CENRO
or reclassification cannot be
certification, an application for
assumed; they call for proof. An
original registration of title
37 | P a g e
over a parcel of land must be expressly indicates that the land is

accompanied by a copy of the alienable and disposable. Notably,
original classification approved Mr. De Leon’s annotation pertaining
by the DENR Secretary and to the identification of the land as
certified as a true copy by the alienable and disposable coincides
legal custodian of the official with the investigation report of Mr.
records in order to establish Gonzales.
that the land indeed is  Finally, upon being informed
alienable and disposable. of respondents Vegas’ application for
 A DENR Regional original registration, the LRA never
Technical Director’s raised the issue that the land subject
certification, which is of registration was not alienable and
annotated on the subdivision disposable. Not only did the
plan submitted in evidence, government fail to cross-examine
constitutes substantial Mr. Gonzales, it likewise chose not to
compliance with the legal present any countervailing evidence
requirement to support its opposition. In contrast
 The Court finds that despite to the other cases brought before
the absence of a certification by the this Court, no opposition was raised
CENRO and a certified true copy of by any interested government body,
the original classification by the aside from the pro forma opposition
DENR Secretary, there has been filed by the OSG.
substantial compliance with the  The Court finds that the
requirement to show that the subject evidence presented by respondents
land is indeed alienable and Vegas, coupled with the absence of
disposable based on the evidence on any countervailing evidence by
record. petitioner Republic, substantially
 First, respondents Vegas establishes that the land applied for
were able to present Mr. Gonzales of is alienable and disposable and is the
the CENRO who testified that the subject of original registration
subject land is alienable and proceedings under the Property
disposable, and who identified his Registration Decree. There was no
written report on his inspection of reversible error on the part of either
the subject land. the trial court or the appellate court
 The Court affirms the Court in granting the registration.
of Appeals’ conclusion that Mr.
Gonzales’ testimony and written
report under oath constituted
substantial evidence to support their (2) Those who have acquired ownership
of private lands by prescription
claim as to the nature of the subject
under the provision of existing laws.
land.
 The Subdivision Plan Malabanan vs. Republic, G. R. No. 179987,
formally offered as evidence by April 29, 2009 (Concurring and Dissenting
respondents-intervenors Buhays, Opinion)
38 | P a g e
Malabanan vs. Republic, G. R. No. 179987, Cases under Par. 2

September 3, 2013
(Refer to the cases under par. 2)
Who has ownership over Malabanan vs. Republic, G. R. No.

patrimonial property? How is it 179987,
acquired? September 3, 2013
In the case of Republic v. Metro Index FACTS:

Realty and Development Corp., GR 198585,  The property subject of the application
July 2, 2012, public domain lands become for registration is a parcel of land
only patrimonial property not only with a situated in Cavite
declaration that these are alienable and
disposable. There must also be an express  Applicant Mario Malabanan, who had
government manifestation that the property purchased the property from Eduardo
is already patrimonial or no longer retained Velazco, filed an application for land
for public service or the development of registration covering the property in the
national wealth, under Article 422 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) claiming
Civil Code. And only when the property has that the property formed part of the
become patrimonial can the prescriptive
alienable and disposable land of the
period for the acquisition of property of the
public dominion begin to run. public domain, and that he and his
predecessors-in-interest had been in
In the case of Republic v. Rizalvo, GR open, continuous, uninterrupted, public
172011, Mar. 7, 2011, there must be an and adverse possession and occupation
express declaration by the State that the of the land for more than 30 years,
public dominion property: thereby entitling him to the judicial
 is no longer intended for public
confirmation of his title.
service or the development of the
national wealth; or  To prove that the property was an
 that the property has been converted alienable and disposable land of the
into patrimonial. public domain, Malabanan presented
Without such express declaration, the during trial a certification issued by the
property, even if classified as alienable or Community Environment and Natural
disposable, remains property of the public Resources Office (CENRO) of the
dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and
Department of Environment and
thus incapable of acquisition by
prescription. Natural Resources (DENR),
 The RTC rendered judgment granting
It is only when such alienable and Malabanan’s application for land
disposable lands are expressly declared by registration
the State to be no longer intended for public  OSG appealed the judgment to the CA,
service or for the development of the
arguing that Malabanan had failed to
national wealth that the period of
acquisitive prescription can begin to run. prove that the property belonged to the
Such declaration shall be in the form of a alienable and disposable land of the
law duly enacted by Congress or a public domain, and that the RTC erred
Presidential Proclamation in cases where in finding that he had been in possession
the President is duly authorized by law. of the property in the manner and for
the length of time required by law for
confirmation of imperfect title.
39 | P a g e
 The CA promulgated its decision State. Land that is other than part of the
reversing the RTC and dismissing the patrimonial property of the State,
application for registration of provinces, cities and municipalities is of
Malabanan. private ownership if it belongs to a
 The CA declared that under Section private individual.
14(1) of the Property Registration  All lands not appearing to be clearly
Decree, any period of possession prior to under private ownership are presumed
the classification of the land as alienable to belong to the State. Also, public lands
and disposable was inconsequential and remain part of the inalienable land of
should be excluded from the the public domain unless the State is
computation of the period of possession. shown to have reclassified or alienated
Noting that the CENRO-DENR them to private persons.
certification stated that the property had  The core of the controversy herein lies in
been declared alienable and disposable the proper interpretation of Section
only on March 15, 1982, Velazco’s 11(4), in relation to Section 48(b) of the
possession prior to March 15, 1982 could Public Land Act, which expressly
not be tacked for purposes of computing requires possession by a Filipino citizen
Malabanan’s period of possession. of the land since June 12, 1945, or
 Hence this petition filed before the SC earlier. Bearing in mind such limitations
by the heirs of Malabanan, since Mario under the Public Land Act, the
Malabanan died. applicant must satisfy the
following requirements in order
ISSUE/S: for his application to come under
1. WON the subject lot should be Section 14(1) of the Property
registered in favor of the Heirs of
Registration Decree, to wit:
Malabanan – NO
1. The applicant, by himself or
RULING: through his predecessor-in-
Classifications of land according to interest, has been in
ownership possession and occupation of
 Land, which is an immovable property, the property subject of the
may be classified as either of public application;
dominion or of private ownership. 2. The possession and
 Land is considered of public dominion if occupation must be open,
it either: continuous, exclusive, and
(a) is intended for public use; or notorious;
(b) Belongs to the State, without 3. The possession and
being for public use, and is occupation must be under a
intended for some public service bona fide claim of acquisition
or for the development of the of ownership;
national wealth. 4. The possession and
 Land belonging to the State that is not of occupation must have taken
such character, or although of such place since June 12, 1945, or
character but no longer intended for earlier; and
public use or for public service forms 5. The property subject of the
part of the patrimonial property of the application must be an
40 | P a g e
agricultural land of the public (1) As a general rule and pursuant to the
domain. Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State and are
inalienable. Lands that are not clearly under
Classifications of public lands
private ownership are also presumed to
according to alienability belong to the State and, therefore, may not
be alienated or disposed;
Alienable and disposable lands of the State
fall into two categories: (2) The following are excepted from
(a) Patrimonial lands of the State, the general rule, to wit:
or those classified as lands of private
ownership under Article 425 of the (a) Agricultural lands of the
public domain are rendered
Civil Code, without limitation; and
alienable and disposable
(b) Lands of the public domain, or through any of the exclusive
the public lands as provided by the modes enumerated under
Constitution, but with the Section 11 of the Public Land
limitation that the lands must Act. If the mode is judicial
only be agricultural. confirmation of imperfect title
Consequently, lands classified as under Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Act, the
forest or timber, mineral, or national
agricultural land subject of the
parks are not susceptible of application needs only to be
alienation or disposition unless they classified as alienable and
are reclassified as agricultural. A disposable as of the time of the
positive act of the Government is application, provided the
necessary to enable such applicant’s possession and
reclassification, and the exclusive occupation of the land dated
back to June 12, 1945, or
prerogative to classify public lands earlier. Thereby, a conclusive
under existing laws is vested in the presumption that the applicant has
Executive Department, not in the performed all the conditions
courts. If, however, public land will essential to a government grant
be classified as neither agricultural, arises, and the applicant becomes
forest or timber, mineral or national the owner of the land by virtue of an
imperfect or incomplete title. By
park, or when public land is no
legal fiction, the land has already
longer intended for public service or ceased to be part of the public
for the development of the national domain and has become private
wealth, thereby effectively removing property.
the land from the ambit of public
dominion, a declaration of such (b) Lands of the public domain
conversion must be made in the subsequently classified or
form of a law duly enacted by declared as no longer intended
for public use or for the
Congress or by a Presidential
development of national wealth
proclamation in cases where the are removed from the sphere of
President is duly authorized by law public dominion and are
to that effect considered converted into
patrimonial lands or lands of
private ownership that may be
41 | P a g e
alienated or disposed through Republic v. Metro Index Realty and

any of the modes of acquiring Development Corp., GR 198585, July
ownership under the Civil Code. If 2, 2012
the mode of acquisition is
prescription, whether ordinary FACTS:
or extraordinary, proof that the  Metro Index Realty and Development
land has been already Corporation (respondent) filed with the
converted to private ownership Regional Trial Court (RTC) an
prior to the requisite
application for judicial confirmation of
acquisitive prescriptive period
is a condition sine qua non in title over three (3) parcels of land
observance of the law (Article located at Barangay Alulod/Mataas na
1113, Civil Code) that property Lupa, Indang, Cavite.
of the State not patrimonial in  During the hearings on the application,
character shall not be the the respondent presented two (2)
object of prescription.
witnesses, Enrico Dimayuga (Enrico)
and Herminia Sicap-Fojas (Herminia).
 The petitioners failed to present
 Enrico, who was the respondent’s
sufficient evidence to establish
Project Documentation Officer, testified
that they and their predecessors-
that:
in-interest had been in possession
of the land since June 12, 1945.  (a) the respondent bought
the subject properties from
 Without satisfying the requisite
Herminia, Melinda Sicap
character and period of possession -
(Melinda), and Hernando Sicap
possession and occupation that is open,
(Hernando);
continuous, exclusive, and notorious
since June 12, 1945, or earlier - the land  (b) the subject properties had
cannot be considered ipso jure been declared for tax purposes in
converted to private property even upon the respondent’s name since
the subsequent declaration of it as 2006;
alienable and disposable. Prescription  (c) the subject properties are
never began to run against the State, alienable and disposable as
such that the land has remained evidenced by the certification
ineligible for registration under Section issued by the Department of
14(1) of the Property Registration Environment and Natural
Decree. Resources (DENR);
 Likewise, the land continues to be  (d) as shown by their
ineligible for land registration under respective affidavits, the
Section 14(2) of the Property adjoining lot owners had no
Registration Decree unless Congress adverse claim and objections to
enacts a law or the President issues a the respondent’s application;
proclamation declaring the land as no and
longer intended for public service or for  (e) the respondent and its
the development of the national wealth predecessors-in-interest had
been in possession of the subject
properties for more than fifty
(50) years.
42 | P a g e
 Herminia, on the other hand, testified having acquired an imperfect title over
that: the subject properties is premised on its
 (a) she and her siblings, supposed compliance with the
Melinda and Hernando, requirements of Section 14(2)
inherited the subject properties  Public domain lands become only
from their parents, Brigido Sicap patrimonial property not only with a
and Juana Espineli; declaration that these are alienable and
 (b) their parents had been in disposable. There must also be an
possession of the subject express government manifestation that
properties since 1956 as shown the property is already patrimonial or no
by the tax declarations in their longer retained for public service or the
name; development of national wealth, under
 (c) from the time they Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only
inherited the subject properties, when the property has become
they had actively cultivated them patrimonial can the prescriptive
and religiously paid the taxes period for the acquisition of
due; and property of the public dominion
 (d) the subject properties are begin to run.
planted with coconut, banana,  It is not the notorious, exclusive
santol, palay and corn. and uninterrupted possession and
 The RTC issued a Decision granting the occupation of an alienable and
respondent’s application. On appeal by disposable public land for the
the OSG to the CA, the same was denied. mandated periods that converts it
Hence this petition. to patrimonial. The
indispensability of an official
ISSUE/S: declaration that the property is
1. WON respondent has acquired the now held by the State in its private
property through acquisitive capacity or placed within the
prescription - NO
commerce of man for prescription
RULING: to have any effect against the State
 This Court resolves to GRANT this cannot be overemphasized.
petition.  This Court finds no evidence of
 It is not clear from the assailed decision such official declaration and for
of the CA as well as that of the RTC this reason alone, the respondent’s
whether the grant of the respondent’s application should have been
application is based on Section 14(1) or dismissed outright.
Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529.  First, an alienable and disposable
Nonetheless, considering the land of the public domain is not
respondent’s evidence purportedly necessarily patrimonial. For while
demonstrating that its predecessors-in- the property is no longer for public
interest started to possess and occupy use, the intent to use it for public
the subject properties sometime in 1956 service or for the development of
and not on June 12, 1945 or earlier, the national wealth is presumed
reasonable conclusion is that its claim of unless the contrary is expressly
43 | P a g e
manifested by competent effected by the respondent and its

authority. predecessors-in-interest.
 Second, while the State had already  It is well-settled that tax
deemed it proper to release the declarations are mere bases for
property for alienation and inferring possession. They must be
disposition, the only mode which coupled with proof of actual
the law provides for its acquisition possession for them to constitute
is that provided under Section "well-nigh incontrovertible"
14(1) of P.D. No. 1529. evidence of a claim of ownership.
 It was therefore of no moment if the  It is undisputed that the number of
respondent and its predecessors-in- coconut trees is unspecified while the
interest had allegedly been in possession number of fruit-bearing trees is too few
and occupation of the subject properties (three santol, one avocado and one star
for more than fifty (50) years for the apple). However, the CA haphazardly
subject properties cannot be ruled that this warranted the application
acquired by prescription for as of the doctrine of constructive
long as they remain reserved for possession without considering the size
public service or the development of the subject properties
of national wealth.  The records do not support the
 There was much ado on whether the argument of respondents that Santiago’s
evidence on the character and nature of alleged possession and cultivation of Lot
the respondent’s possession and that of No. 379 is in the nature contemplated by
its predecessors-in-interest measured the Public Land Act which requires more
up to the standards imposed by law and than constructive possession and casual
jurisprudence is definitely futile and cultivation.
otiose; the primary question of whether  A mere casual cultivation of
the subject properties are patrimonial, portions of the land by the
hence, may be acquired by prescription claimant does not constitute
should have been addressed first hand possession under claim of
but regrettably neglected. ownership. In that sense,
 Worse than its failure to see that the possession is not exclusive and
subject properties cannot be acquired by notorious so as to give rise to a
prescription, the CA erred in concluding presumptive grant from the State.
that the possession and occupation of  We are, therefore, constrained to
the respondent and its predecessors-in- conclude that the mere existence of an
interest was in the manner unspecified number of coffee plants,
contemplated by law. sans any evidence as to who planted
 The CA is definitely mistaken in them, when they were planted, whether
downplaying the importance and cultivation or harvesting was made or
indispensability of demonstrating actual what other acts of occupation and
cultivation and development in ownership were undertaken, is not
substantiating a claim of imperfect title sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's
and in putting much premium on the right to the registration of title in her
religious payment of realty taxes favor.
44 | P a g e
Republic v. Rizalvo, GR 172011, Mar.

7, 2011 ISSUE/S:
1. WON respondent and his
FACTS: predecessors-in-interest were in
 respondent Teodoro P. Rizalvo, Jr. filed open, continuous, adverse, and
before the MTC of Bauang, La Union, public possession of the land in
acting as a land registration court, an question in the manner and length of
time required by law as to entitle
application for the registration of a
respondent to judicial confirmation
parcel of land of imperfect title - NO
 Respondent alleged:
 that he is the owner in fee RULING:
simple of the subject parcel of  We answer in the negative.
land;  Under Section 14 (1), applicants for
 that he obtained title over the registration of title must sufficiently
land by virtue of a Deed of establish
Transfer; and  First, that the subject land
 that he is currently in forms part of the disposable and
possession of the land. alienable lands of the public
 In support of his claim, he presented, domain;
among others, Tax Declaration in his  Second, that the applicant
name, and Proof of Payment of real and his predecessors-in-interest
property taxes beginning in 1952 up to have been in open, continuous,
the time of filing of the application. exclusive and notorious
 The Office of the Solicitor General possession and occupation of the
(OSG) filed an Opposition alleging: same; and
 that neither respondent nor  Third, that it is under a bona
his predecessors-in-interest had fide claim of ownership since
been in open, continuous, June 12, 1945, or earlier.
exclusive and notorious  The first requirement was satisfied in
possession and occupation of the this case. The certification and report
subject property since June 12, submitted by Special Investigator I
1945 or earlier; Dionisio L. Picar of the CENRO states
 That the tax declarations and that the entire land area in question is
tax payment receipts did not within the alienable and disposable
constitute competent and zone, certified as such since January 21,
sufficient evidence of ownership; 1987.
 That the subject property was  We have ruled that a certification and
a portion of public domain report from the DENR-CENRO enjoys
belonging to the Republic of the the presumption of regularity and is
Philippines and hence not sufficient proof to show the
subject to private acquisition. classification of the land described
 The MTC granted the respondent’s therein.
application. On appeal to the CA, it  Respondent has likewise met the second
affirmed the MTC decision. Hence, this requirement as to ownership and
petition possession. The MTC and the CA both
45 | P a g e
agreed that respondent has presented  What is categorically required by

sufficient testimonial and documentary law is open, continuous, exclusive,
evidence to show that he and his and notorious possession and
predecessors-in-interest were in open, occupation under a bona
continuous, exclusive and notorious fide claim of ownership since June
possession and occupation of the land in 12, 1945 or earlier.
question. Said findings are binding upon  But given the fact that respondent and
this Court absent any showing that the his predecessors-in-interest had been in
lower courts committed glaring mistakes possession of the subject land since
or that the assailed judgment is based on 1948, is respondent nonetheless entitled
a misapprehension of facts to registration of title under Section 14
 However, the third requirement, (2) of P.D. No. 1529? To this question we
that respondent and his likewise answer in the negative.
predecessors-in-interest be in  An applicant may be allowed to register
open, continuous, exclusive and land by means of prescription under
notorious possession and existing laws. The laws on prescription
occupation of the subject property are found in the Civil Code and
since June 12, 1945 or earlier, has jurisprudence. It is well settled that
not been satisfied. prescription is one of the modes of
 Respondent only managed to present acquiring ownership and that
oral and documentary evidence of his properties classified as alienable
and his mother’s ownership and public land may be converted into
possession of the land since 1958 private property by reason of
through a photocopy of the Deed of open, continuous and exclusive
Absolute Sale dated July 8, 1958 possession of at least thirty years.
between Eufrecina Navarro and Bibiana  Respondent would have been
P. Rizalvo. He presented Tax eligible for application for
Declaration No. 11078 for the year 1948 registration because his claim of
in the name of Eufrecina Navarro and ownership and possession over the
real property tax receipts beginning in subject property even exceeds
1952. thirty (30) years. However, it is
 The Court held that tax declarations jurisprudentially clear that the
are good indicia of possession in thirty (30)-year period of
the concept of an owner, for no one prescription for purposes of
in his right mind would be paying taxes acquiring ownership and
for a property that is not in his actual or registration of public land under
constructive possession. Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 only
 However, even assuming that the 1948 begins from the moment the State
Tax Declaration in the name of expressly declares that the public
Eufrecina Navarro and the tax payment dominion property is no longer
receipts could be taken in this case as intended for public service or the
proof of a claim of ownership, still, development of the national
respondent lacks proof of wealth or that the property has
occupation and possession been converted into patrimonial.
beginning June 12, 1945 or earlier.
46 | P a g e
 Respondent merely presented a for by law is that the owner of the adjoining
certification and report from the DENR- property must register the same under the
CENRO dated July 17, 2001 certifying Torrens system; otherwise, the alluvial
property may be subject to acquisition
that the land in question entirely falls
through prescription by third persons.
within the alienable and disposable zone
since January 21, 1987; that it has not While it is true that a creek is a property of
been earmarked for public use; and that public dominion, the land which is formed
it does not encroach any area devoted to by the gradual and imperceptible
general public use.34 Unfortunately, such accumulation of sediments along its banks
certification and report is not enough in does not form part of the public domain
order to commence the thirty (30)-year Is a dried up river an accretion?
prescriptive period under Section 14
(2). No. In the case of Republic vs. Santos III,
G.R. No. 160453, Nov. 12, 2012, the drying
up of the river is not accretion. The dried-up
river bed belongs to the State as property of
(3) Those who have acquired ownership public dominion, not to the riparian owner,
of private lands or abandoned river unless a law vests the ownership in some
beds by right of accession or other person.
accretion under the existing laws.
Can accretion automatically register
What is Accretion? in the riparian owner’s name?
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is No, accretion does not automatically
deposited along the banks of rivers. register. The riparian owners are merely
given preference . (Heirs of Narvasa Sr. vs.
The deposit of soil, to be considered Imbornal, G.R. No. 182908, Aug. 6, 2014)
accretion, must be:
(a) gradual and imperceptible; Cases under Par. 3
(b) made through the effects of the
current of the water; and
(c) taking place on land adjacent to the Republic vs. Abrille, G. R. No. L-
banks of rivers. 39248, May 7, 1976
What is Accession? FACTS:
The accessory follows the principal and not ISSUE/S:

the other way around
RULING:
In the case of Republic vs. Abrille, G. R. No.
L-39248, May 7, 1976, City mayor of Parañaque vs. Ebio,
G.R. 178411, June 23, 2010
In the case of City mayor of Parañaque vs.
Ebio, G.R. 178411, June 23, 2010, alluvial FACTS:
deposits along the banks of a creek do not
form part of the public domain as the ISSUE/S:
alluvial property automatically belongs to
the owner of the estate to which it may have RULING:
been added. The only restriction provided
47 | P a g e
Republic vs. Santos III, G.R. No.  Ciriaco and his heirs had since occupied the
160453, Nov. 12, 2012 northern portion of the Motherland, while
respondents occupied the southern portion.
FACTS:  Sometime in 1949, the First Accretion
adjoined the southern portion of the
ISSUE/S: Motherland. OCT No. P-318 was issued in
the name of respondent Victoriano covering
RULING: the First Accretion. Decades later, the
Second Accretion abutted the First Accretion
on its southern portion. OCT No. 21481 was
Heirs of Narvasa Sr. vs. Imbornal,
issued in the name of all the respondents
G.R. No. 182908, Aug. 6, 2014
covering the Second Accretion.
 Claiming rights over the entire Motherland,
FACTS: Francisco, et al., as the children of Alejandra
and Balbina, filed an Amended Complaint
 Basilia Imbornal (Basilia) had four (4) for reconveyance, partition, and/or damages
children namely: against respondents. They anchored their
 Alejandra, Balbina, claim on the allegation that Ciriaco, with the
 Catalina, and help of his wife Catalina, urged Balbina and
 Pablo. Alejandra to sell the Sabangan property, and
 Francisco I. Narvasa, Sr. (Francisco) and that Ciriaco used the proceeds therefrom to
Pedro Ferrer (Pedro) were the children of fund his then-pending homestead patent
Alejandra, while petitioner Petra Imbornal application over the Motherland. In return,
(Petra) was the daughter of Balbina. Ciriaco agreed that once his homestead
 Petitioners are the heirs and successors-in- patent is approved, he will be deemed to be
interest of Francisco, Pedro, and Petra holding the Motherland – which now
(Francisco, et al.). included both accretions – in trust for the
 On the other hand, respondents Emiliana, Imbornal sisters.
Victoriano, Felipe, Mateo, Raymundo,  Francisco, et al. alleged that through deceit,
Maria, and Eduardo, all surnamed fraud, falsehood, and misrepresentation,
Imbornal, are the descendants of Pablo respondent Victoriano, with respect to the
 During her lifetime, Basilia owned a parcel First Accretion, and the respondents
of land situated at Pangasinan which she collectively, with regard to the Second
conveyed to her three (3) daughters Balbina, Accretion, had illegally registered the said
Alejandra, and Catalina (Imbornal sisters) accretions in their names, notwithstanding
sometime in 1920. the fact that they were not the riparian
owners (as they did not own the Motherland
 Meanwhile, Catalina’s husband, Ciriaco
to which the accretions merely formed
Abrio (Ciriaco), applied for and was granted
adjacent to). In this relation, Francisco, et al.
a homestead patent over a riparian land
explained that they did not assert their
(Motherland) adjacent to the Cayanga River
inheritance claims over the Motherland and
in Pangasinan
the two (2) accretions because they
 He was eventually awarded Homestead
respected respondents’ rights, until they
Patent therefor, and OCT No. 1462 was
discovered in 1983 that respondents have
issued in his name. Later OCT No. 1492 was
repudiated their (Francisco, et al.’s) shares
cancelled and TCT No. 101495 was issued in
thereon. Thus, bewailing that respondents
the name of Ciriaco’s heirs
have refused them their rights not only with
respect to the Motherland, but also to the
subsequent accretions, Francisco, et al.
48 | P a g e
prayed for the reconveyance of said to the owner of the property alleged to be
properties, or, in the alternative, the erroneously titled in another’s name.
payment of their value  When property is registered in another’s
 the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of name, an implied or constructive trust is
Francisco, et al. created by law in favor of the true
 Dissatisfied with the RTC’s ruling, owner. Article 1456 of the Civil Code
respondents elevated the matter on appeal provides that a person acquiring property
to the CA. the CA rendered a Decision through fraud becomes, by operation of law,
reversing and setting aside the RTC Decision a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit
and entering a new one declaring: (a) the of the real owner of the property. An action
descendants of Ciriaco as the exclusive for reconveyance based on an implied
owners of the Motherland; (b) the trust prescribes in ten (10) years,
descendants of respondent Victoriano asthe reckoned from the date of registration
exclusive owners of the First Accretion; and of the deed or the date of issuance of
(c) the descendants of Pablo (i.e., the certificate of title over the
respondents collectively) as the exclusive property, if the plaintiff is not in
owners of the Second Accretion. possession. However, if the plaintiff is
 hence, this petition taken by the Francisco’s in possession of the property, the
heirs as their successors-in-interest. action is imprescriptible.
 Based on the foregoing, Francisco, et al. had
ISSUE/S: then a period of ten (10) years from the
registration of the respective titles covering
1. WON the descendants of Ciriaco are the
the disputed properties within which to file
exclusive owners of the Motherland
their action for reconveyance, taking into
2. WON the descednants of Respondent
account the fact that they were never in
Victoriano are the exclusive owners of
possession of the said properties.
the First Accretion
 A judicious perusal of the records, however,
3. WON the descendants of Pablo
will show that the Amended Complaint
(respondents collectively) are the
covering all three (3) disputed
exclusive owners of the Second
properties was filed way beyond the
Accretion on the basis of prescription of
10-year reglementary period within
the reconveyance action and the
which to seek the reconveyance of two
existence of an implied trust between
(2) of these properties, namely, the
the Imbornal sisters and Ciriaco
Motherland and the First Accretion, with
RULING: only the reconveyance action with respect to
the Second Accretion having been
 The petition is bereft of merit. seasonably filed. Thus, considering that
PROCEDURAL MATTER: ISSUE ON respondents raised prescription as a defense
PRESCRIPTION (I think this is important to in their Amended Answer, the Amended
know but you may skip it if you want) Complaint with respect to the Motherland
 At the outset, the Court finds that the causes and the First Accretion ought to have been
of action pertaining to the Motherland and dismissed based on the said ground, with
the First Accretion are barred by only the cause of action pertaining to the
prescription. Second Accretion surviving
 An action for reconveyance is one that seeks SUBSTANTIVE MATTER: EXISTENCE OF
to transfer property, wrongfully registered AN IMPLIED TRUST
by another, to its rightful and legal owner.  The main thrust of Francisco, et al.’s
Thus, reconveyance is a remedy granted only Amended Complaint is that an implied trust
had arisen between the Imbornal sisters, on
49 | P a g e
the one hand, and Ciriaco, on the other, with highly implausible that the Motherland had
respect to the Motherland. been acquired and registered by mistake or
 This implied trust is anchored on their through fraud as would create an implied
allegation that the proceeds from the sale of trust between the Imbornal sisters and
the Sabangan property – an inheritance of Ciriaco, especially considering the dearth of
their predecessors, the Imbornal sisters – evidence showing that the Imbornal sisters
were used for the then-pending homestead entered into the possession of the
application filed by Ciriaco over the Motherland, or a portion thereof, or asserted
Motherland. As such, Francisco, et al. claim any right over the same at any point during
that they are, effectively, co-owners of the their lifetime.
Motherland together with Ciriaco’s heirs.  When OCT No. 1492 covering the
 An implied trust arises, not from any Motherland was issued in his name
presumed intention of the parties, but pursuant to homestead Patent,
by operation of law in order to satisfy Ciriaco’s title to the Motherland had
the demands of justice and equity and become indefeasible
to protect against unfair dealing or  Consequently, as Francisco, et al.
downright fraud. failed to prove their ownership rights
 Article 1456 of the Civil Code states that "[i]f over the Motherland, their cause of
property is acquired through mistake or action with respect to the First
fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of Accretion and, necessarily, the Second
law, considered a trustee of an implied trust Accretion, must likewise fail.
for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes." RULE ON ACCRETION (most important)
 The burden of proving the existence of a  Article 457 of the Civil Code states the rule
trust is on the party asserting its existence, on accretion as follows: "[t]o the owners of
and such proof must be clear and lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong
satisfactorily show the existence of the trust the accretion which they gradually receive
and its elements. from the effects of the current of the waters."
 In this case, it cannot be said, merely  Relative thereto, in Cantoja v. Lim, the Court
on the basis of the oral evidence elucidated on the preferential right of the
offered by Francisco, et al., that the riparian owner over the land formed by
Motherland had been either accretions:
mistakenly or fraudulently registered  Being the owner of the land
in favor of Ciriaco. Accordingly, it adjoining the foreshore area, respondent
cannot be said either that he was is the riparian or littoral owner who has
merely a trustee of an implied trust preferential right to lease the foreshore
holding the Motherland for the area as provided under paragraph 32 of
benefit of the Imbornal sisters or their the Lands Administrative Order No. 7-1:
heirs.  32. Preference of Riparian
 A homestead patent award requires proof Owner. – The owner of the property
that the applicant meets the stringent adjoining foreshore lands,
conditions set forth under Commonwealth marshylands or lands covered
Act No. 141, as amended, which includes with water bordering upon shores
actual possession, cultivation, and or banks of navigable lakes or
improvement of the homestead. It must be rivers, shall be given preference to
presumed, therefore, that Ciriaco underwent apply for such lands adjoining his
the rigid process and duly satisfied the strict property as may not be needed for
conditions necessary for the grant of his the public service, subject to the
homestead patent application. As such, it is laws and regulations governing
50 | P a g e
lands of this nature, provided that he  In this case, Francisco, et al. and, now, their
applies therefor within sixty (60) days heirs, i.e., herein petitioners, are not
from the date he receives a the riparian owners of the Motherland
communication from the Director of to which the First Accretion had
Lands advising him of his preferential attached, hence, they cannot assert
right. ownership over the First Accretion.
 That rule in paragraph 32 is in consonance Consequently, as the Second
with Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters Accretion had merely attached to the
of 1866 which provides that, while lands First Accretion, they also have no
added to the shore by accretions and right over the Second Accretion.
alluvial deposits caused by the action Neither were they able to show that
of the sea form part of the public they acquired these properties
domain, such lands, "when they are through prescription as it was ·not
no longer washed by the waters of the established that they were in
sea and are not necessary for possession of any of them.
purposes of public utility, or for the
established [sic] of special industries,
or for the coast guard service, "shall (4) Those who have acquired ownership
be declared by the Government "to be of land in any other manner
the property of the owners of the provided for by law.
estates adjacent thereto and as
increment thereof." Manner of acquiring ownership:
 Article 4 recognizes the preferential right of
i. Reservation for a specific
the littoral owner (riparian according to purpose
paragraph 32) to the foreshore land formed ii. Titles by escheat under Rule
by accretions or alluvial deposits due to the 91, Rules of Court
action of the sea.1âwphi1 iii. Donation
 The reason for that preferential right is the iv. Succession
same as the justification for giving v. Voluntary Alienation
accretions to the riparian owner, which is
that accretion compensates the riparian
owner for the diminutions which his land Additional Cases for Section 14, PD
suffers by reason of the destructive force of 1529
the waters. So, in the case of littoral lands,
he who loses by the encroachments of the
sea should gain by its recession. Republic of the Philippines vs. Sps.
 Alluvial deposits along the banks of a Go, G.R. No. 197297, August 2, 2017,
creek or a river do not form part of Leonen, J.
the public domain as the alluvial
property automatically belongs to the FACTS:
owner of the estate to which it may
have been added. The only restriction ISSUE/S:
provided for by law is that the owner
of the adjoining property must RULING:
register the same under the Torrens
Republic vs. Sps. Noval, et. al., G.R.
system; otherwise, the alluvial
property may be subject to acquisition
No. 170316, September 18, 2017,
through prescription by third Leonen, J.
persons.
51 | P a g e
FACTS:  They farther alleged that, sometime in

1982, respondent National Housing
ISSUE/S: Authority forcibly took possession of a
RULING: 10,798 square meter portion of the
property.
Kawayan Hills Coporation vs. CA,  Despite their repeated demands for
G.R. No. 203090, September 5, 2018, compensation, the National Housing
Leonen, J. Authority failed to pay the value of the
property.
FACTS:
 The Delfin Spouses thus, filed their
ISSUE/S: Complaint. They asserted that the
property's reasonable market value was
RULING: not less than P40 per square meter and
that its improvements consisting of
Republic vs. Javier, G.R. No. 214367, fruit-bearing trees should be valued at
April 4, 2018, Leonen, J. P13,360.00 at the time of taking. They
FACTS: similarly claimed that because the
National Housing Authority occupied
ISSUE/S: the property, they were deprived of an
average net yearly income of P10k.
RULING:  Petitioners argue that they and their
predecessors-in-interests' open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious
Heirs of Delfin vs. NHA, G.R. No. possession of the Iligan Property for
193618, November 28, 2016, Leonen, more than 30 years converted the
J. property from public to private. They
then posit that they acquired ownership
FACTS: of the property through acquisitive
prescription under Section 14(2) of
 In a Complaint for "Payment of Parcel(s)
Presidential Decree No. 1529.
of Land and Improvements and
 On the other hand, the National
Damages" the Delfin Spouses claimed
Housing Authority alleged that the
that they were the owners of a parcel of
Delfin Spouses' property was part of a
land in Iligan City.
military reservation area
 They allegedly bought the property in
 It cited Proclamation No. 2143 as having
1951 from Felix Natingo and Carlos
supposedly reserved the area in which
Carbonay, who, allegedly, had been in
property is situated for Iligan City's slum
actual possession of the property since
improvement and resettlement
time immemorial.
program, and the relocation of families
 The Delfin Spouses had been declaring
who were dislocated by the National
the Iligan Property in their names for
Steel Corporation's five-year expansion
tax purposes since 1952, and had been
program. It also mandated it to
planting it with mangoes, coconuts,
determine the improvements' valuation.
corn, seasonal crops, and vegetables.
52 | P a g e
 Based on the study of the committee it  For acquisitive prescription to set

created, the value of the property was in pursuant to Section 14(2) of
supposedly only P4.00 per square Presidential Decree No. 1529, two
meter, regardless of the nature of the (2) requirements must be
improvements on it. satisfied:
 Only the Delfin Spouses and two others  first, the property is
remained unpaid because of their established to be private in
disagreement on the property's character; and
valuation.  second the applicable
 The Regional Trial Court rendered a prescriptive period under existing
Decision in favor of the Delfin Spouses. laws had passed.
 On the National Housing Authority's  "Land is considered of public dominion
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed if it either:
the RTC decision in favor of NHA. (a) is intended for public use; or
 During the pendency of their petition (b) belongs to the State, without
before the Court of Appeals, Leopoldo being for public use, and is
and Soledad Delfin both passed away. intended for some public service
Their surviving heirs, Emelita D. or for the development of the
Fabrigar and Leonilo C. Delfin filed a national wealth."
Motion for Substitution before the Court  Land that belongs to the state but which
of Appeals, which was not acted upon. is not or is no longer intended for public
 Court of Appeals denied the Motion for use, for some public service or for the
Reconsideration filed by the heirs of the development of the national wealth, is
Delfin Spouses. patrimonial property; it is
 Hence, this petition property owned by the State in its
private capacity. Provinces, cities,
ISSUE/S: and municipalities may also hold
patrimonial lands.
1. WON petitioners are entitled to just
 Private property "consists of all
compensation for the Iligan City
property belonging to private
property occupied by respondent
persons, either individually or
National Housing Authority as the
collectively," as well as "the
subject property is the former’s
patrimonial property of the State,
based on acquisitive prescription –
provinces, cities, and
NO, but may claim title
municipalities." only publicly
pursuant to Section 48 (b) of
owned lands which are
CA 141
patrimonial in character are
RULING: susceptible to prescription under
Section 14(2) of Presidential
 Petitioners are erroneously claiming title Decree No. 1529
based on acquisitive prescription under  For land of the public domain to be
Section 14(2) of Presidential Decree No. converted into patrimonial
1529. property, there must be an express
declaration
53 | P a g e
 There must be an express declaration by Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the

the State that the public dominion Public Land Act).
property is no longer intended for public  Section 48 enabled the confirmation of
service or the development of the claims and issuance of titles in favor of
national wealth or that the property has citizens occupying or claiming to own
been converted into patrimonial. lands of the public domain or an interest
 Without such express declaration, therein. Section 48 (b) specifically
the property, even if classified as pertained to those who "have been in
alienable or disposable, remains open, continuous, exclusive, and
property of the public dominion, notorious possession and, occupation of
pursuant to Article 420 (2), and agricultural lands of the public domain,
thus incapable of acquisition by under a bona fide claim of acquisition or
prescription. ownership, since June 12, 1945"
 It is only when such alienable and  Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act
disposable lands are expressly therefore requires that two (2) requisites
declared by the State to be no be satisfied before claims of title to
longer intended for public service public domain lands may be confirmed:
or for the development of the  first, that the land subject of
national wealth that the period of the claim is agricultural land;
acquisitive prescription can begin and
to run. Such declaration shall be in the  second, open, continuous,
form of a law duly enacted by Congress notorious, and exclusive
or a Presidential Proclamation in cases possession of the land since June
where the President is duly authorized 12, 1945.
by law.  As the Court of Appeals emphasized,
 A mere indorsement of the respondent has conceded that the Iligan
executive secretary is not the law property was alienable and disposable
or presidential proclamation land.
required for converting land of the  The Iligan property was alienable and
public domain into patrimonial disposable, agricultural land, has been
property and rendering it admitted.
susceptible to prescription. There  What is claimed instead is that
then was no viable declaration petitioners' possession is debunked by
rendering the Iligan property to how the Iligan Property was supposedly
have been patrimonial property at part of a military reservation area which
the onset. Accordingly, regardless of was subsequently reserved for Iligan
the length of petitioners' possession, no City's slum improvement and
title could vest on them by way of resettlement program, and the
prescription. relocation of families who were
UNDER CA 141 dislocated by the National Steel
 While petitioners may not claim Corporation's five-year expansion
title by prescription, they may, program.
nevertheless, claim title pursuant  Indeed, by virtue of Proclamation No.
to Section 48 (b) of 2143, certain parcels of land in Iligan
54 | P a g e
City were reserved for slum- completed, may apply to the Court of
improvement and resettlement program First Instance of the province where
purposes. However, even if the Iligan the land is located for confirmation of
Property was subsumed by their claims and the issuance of a
certificate of title therefor, under the
Proclamation No. 2143, the same
Land Registration Act , to wit:
proclamation recognized private rights,
which may have already attached, and (b) Those who by themselves or
the rights of qualified free patent through their predecessors in
applicants. interest have been in open,
 However, even if the Iligan Property was continuous, exclusive, and notorious
subsumed by Proclamation No. 2143, possession and occupation of
agricultural lands of the public
the same proclamation recognized
domain, under a bona fide claim of
private rights, which may have already acquisition or ownership, for at least
attached, and the rights of qualified free thirty years immediately preceding
patent applicants the filing of the application for
 There is documentary evidence to the confirmation of title except when
effect that the Iligan Property was not prevented by war or force majeure.
even within the area claimed by These shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all the
respondent.
conditions essential to a
 Records of this Office show that said Government grant and shall be
land was surveyed and claimed by the entitled to a certificate of title under
Military Reservation, but the portion of the provisions of this chapter.
which has been released in favor of the
actual occupants and the area of Cases under judicial confirmation of
Leopoldo Delfin is one of the portions imperfect or incomplete titles
released for agricultural purposes
 In view hereof, it is therefore Susi vs. Razon, G.R. No. 24066,
respectfully recommended that the entry December 9, 1925
of the application be now confirmed and
that patent be yes issued in favor of FACTS:
Leopoldo Delfin.
 CFI case by Susi against Razon and
the Director of Lands praying for:
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF declaration that Suzi be the sole and
IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE absolute owner of the parcel of land,
TITLES annulling the sale made by the
Director of Lands in favor of Angela
Razon.
Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, C.A. 141  The Director of Lands said that the
property in question was validly sold
Section 48. The following-described to Razon by the Government of the
citizens of the Philippines, occupying U.S.
lands of the public domain or  Court of First Instance rendered
claiming to own any such lands or judgement in favor of Susi and
an interest therein, but whose titles orders the cancellation of Certificate
have not been perfected or of title for Razon.
55 | P a g e
 Director of Lands appealed saying Razon applied for the grant, Susi was
that the annulment of the certificate already in possession thereof for 34
of title is erroneous and that Razon years. So that when Razon applied
is the true owner by the sale between for the grant, Susi has already
Razon and the Government of U.S.
acquired, by operation of law. Thus,
 A review of Evidence shows
o 1880 Nemesio Pinlac sold the it had ceased to be part of the public
subject property to Apolnio domain and had become private
Garcia and Basilio Mendoza, property such that the Director of
built a fishpond Lands no longer has any title or
o 1899, after destruction of the control and the sale was void and of
fishpond, Garcia and no effect.
Mendoza sold the property to  Wherefore, Valentin Susi has the
Valentin Suzi for same price
right to bring an action for recovery
p12, in a pacto de retro sale
(not exercised) of possession and hold it. CFI ruling
o Susi has been in open, affirmed.
continuous, adverse and
public possession and
occupation of the subject
land until Razon filed a case
to recover the land in 1913. Republic vs. Noval, G.R. No. 170316,
o Having failed such case, she Sept. 18, 2017
sought the help of the
Director of Lands for the FACTS:
purchase
o Susi opposed the sale and  The applicants sought the registration of
the Director of Lands ignored their titles over the subdivided portions
such of a land in Barangay Casili,
o Armed with the document of Consolacion, Cebu, designated as Lot
sale, Razon ordered Suzi to 4287
vacate the land, but she  They alleged to have acquired their
refuses.
respective portions of this land by
o thus the institution of the
"purchase, coupled with continuous,
case
public, notorious, exclusive and peaceful
possession in the concept of an owner
ISSUE/S: for more than 30 years including [the
possession] of their predecessors-in-
1. WON ownership was legally interest." They also alleged that they
conferred to Angela Razon - NO were in actual possession of their
RULING: respective portions of the property.
 The Republic through the Office of the
 No, it clearly appears that Susi has Solicitor General, filed its Opposition on
been in possession of the land in the ground that the applicants failed to
question openly, continuously, prove open, continuous, exclusive, and
adversely and publicly, personally notorious possession of the property
through his predecessors in interest since June 12, 1945. It also argued that
since 1880. Further, in 1924 when the property sought to be registered was
56 | P a g e
part of the public domain. It alleged that  Any person seeking relief under
the tax declarations and tax payment Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the Public
receipts attached to the application were Land Act, admits that the property being
not competent to show bona applied for is public land.
fide acquisition or open and continuous
 Under the Public Land Act, public lands may
possession of the land.
be disposed of through confirmation of
 The applicants' immediate predecessor-
imperfect or incomplete titles. Confirmation
in-interest was Cecilia Alilin Quindao
of title may be done judicially or through
(Cecilia), who was already 73 years old
when she testified before the trial court. the issuance of a free patent. The process
She said that she was familiar with Lot for judicial confirmation of title is outlined
4287 since she was 15 years old. Her in Section 48 of the Public Land Act, as
grandmother, Flaviana Seno Alilin amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073
(Flaviana), had already possessed and  When a person applies for judicial
owned this property and enjoyed the confirmation of title, he or she already
fruits of 15 coconut trees already holds an incomplete or imperfect title over
growing there. Her grandmother's the property being applied for, after having
possession was "peaceful exclusive, been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
adverse, public and in the concept of notorious possession and occupation from
[an] owner."
June 12, 1945 or earlier. The date "June 12,
 The Municipal Trial Court granted their
1945" is the reckoning date of the
application for registration of title. It
applicant's possession and occupation, and
declared the applicants to be the
not the reckoning date of when the
absolute owners and possessors of their
respective lots, having established property was classified as alienable and
conclusively that they are the exclusive disposable.
owners and peaceful possessors of the  a property applied for judicial confirmation
properties. The trial court ordered the of title may be classified as alienable and
issuance of decrees of registration upon disposable at any time. For the purposes of
finality of its judgment. judicial confirmation of title, only
 CA affirmed the decision of the MTC, possession and occupation must be
hence this petition reckoned from June 12, 1945.
 The Public Land Act is a special law that
ISSUE/S:
applies only to alienable agricultural
1. WON the Court of Appeals erred in lands of the public domain, and not to
affirming the trial court decision to forests, mineral lands, and national parks.
allow the Spouses Joel and Andrea Parenthetically, not all lands and natural
Noval, Ellen N. delos Reyes, Dale Y. resources, by default, belong to the State.
Noval, Winnie T. Refi, Zenaida Lao,  Under the Public Land Act, ownership is
and Daisy N. Morales to register
recognized if possession dates back since
their respective portions of Lot 4287.
June 12, 1945 or earlier. The law refers to
RULING: this as "judicial legalization," which allows
for agricultural public lands to be disposed
57 | P a g e
of by the, State and acquired by Filipino  In order to establish that an agricultural

citizens. land of the public domain has become
 Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the alienable and disposable, "an applicant
Property Registration Decree, has a similar must establish the existence of a positive
provision, but also recognizes ownership act of the government such as a
through prescription. presidential proclamation or an executive
 Section 14(1) does not vest or create a title order; an administrative action;
to public land. The procedure of registering investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
one's title "simply recognizes and investigators; and a legislative act or a
documents ownership and provides for the statute." It is settled that the declaration of
consequences of issuing paper titles." alienability must be through executive fiat,
 applicants for judicial confirmation of title as exercised by the Secretary of the
must still comply with the requisites stated Department of Environment and Natural
in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Resources.
Section 14(1) of the Property Registration  respondents have failed to present any
Decree: document from the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources certifying that the property is
1. The applicant, by himself or through part of the alienable and disposable land of
his predecessor-in-interest, has been the public domain. On the other hand, the
in possession and occupation of the
property subject of the application; Court of Appeals observed, as this Court
has, that the Office of the Solicitor General
2. The possession and occupation must has failed to "present any evidence,
be open, continuous, exclusive, and testimonial or documentary evidence to
notorious;
support its opposition."
3. The possession and occupation must  When the State has no effective opposition,
be under a bona fide claim of except for a pro forma opposition, to
acquisition of ownership; controvert an applicant's convincing
4. The possession and occupation must evidence of possession and occupation,
have taken place since June 12, 1945, presumptions are tilted to this applicant's
or earlier; and favor.
 Therefore, when an applicant is shown to
5. The property subject of the
application must be an agricultural have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
land of the public domain. and notorious possession of a land for the
period required by law, he or she has
 The burden of proving that the property is acquired an imperfect title that may be
an alienable and disposable agricultural confirmed by the State. The State may not,
land of the public domain falls on the for the simple reason that an applicant
applicant, not the State. The Office of the failed to show documents which the State is
Solicitor General, however, has the in the best position to acquire,
correlative burden to present effective indiscriminately take an occupied property
evidence of the public character of the land.
58 | P a g e
and unjustly and self-servingly refuse to purposes (paragraph (9), Exhibit 'M-
acknowledge legally recognized rights l');
evidenced by possession, without violating
3. That the land subject of the Land
due process. Registration proceeding was
ancestrally acquired by Acme
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on
October 29, 1962, from Mariano
Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members
Republic vs. IAC and ACME Plywood of the Dumagat tribe and as such are
and Veneer Co., G.R. No. 73002, Dec. cultural minorities;
29, 1986
4. That the constitution of the
FACTS:
Republic of the Philippines of 1935 is
applicable as the sale took place on
 The Director of Lands has brought this
October 29, 1962;
appeal by certiorari from a judgment of
the Intermediate Appellate Court 5. That the possession of the Infiels
affirming a decision of the Court of First over the land relinquished or sold to
Instance of Isabela, which ordered Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc.,
registration in favor of Acme Plywood & dates back before the Philippines
Veneer Co., Inc. of five parcels of land was discovered by Magellan as the
measuring 481, 390 square meters, ancestors of the Infiels have
possessed and occupied the land
more or less, acquired by it from
from generation to generation until
Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the the same came into the possession of
Dumagat tribe. Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel;
 The registration proceedings were for
confirmation of title under Section 48 of 6. That the possession of the
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (The Public applicant Acme Plywood & Veneer
Land Act). as amended: and the Co., Inc., is continuous, adverse and
public from 1962 to the present and
appealed judgment sums up the findings
tacking the possession of the Infiels
of the trial court in said proceedings in who were granted from whom the
this wise: applicant bought said land on
October 29, 1962, hence the
1. That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. possession is already considered
Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo from time immemorial.
Nazario is a corporation duly
organized in accordance with the 7. That the land sought to be
laws of the Republic of the registered is a private land pursuant
Philippines and registered with the to the provisions of Republic Act No.
Securities and Exchange 3872 granting absolute ownership to
Commission on December 23, 1959; members of the non-Christian Tribes
on land occupied by them or their
2. That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. ancestral lands, whether with the
Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo alienable or disposable public land
Nazario can acquire real properties or within the public domain;
pursuant to the provisions of the
Articles of Incorporation particularly 8. That applicant Acme Plywood &
on the provision of its secondary Veneer Co. Inc., has introduced
59 | P a g e
more than Forty-Five Million reversible error to decree registration in

(P45,000,000.00) Pesos worth of favor of Acme Section 48, paragraphs
improvements, said improvements (b) and (c), of Commonwealth Act No.
were seen by the Court during its
141, as amended
ocular investigation of the land
sought to be registered on ISSUE/S:
September 18, 1982;
1. WON the title that the Infiels had
9. That the ownership and transferred to Acme in 1962 could be
possession of the land sought to be
confirmed in favor of the latter in
registered by the applicant was duly
recognized by the government when proceedings instituted by it in 1981
the Municipal Officials of when the 1973 Constitution was
Maconacon, Isabela, have negotiated already in effect, having in mind the
for the donation of the townsite from prohibition therein against private
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., corporations holding lands of the
and this negotiation came to reality public domain except in lease not
when the Board of Directors of the
exceeding 1,000 hectares.
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc.,
had donated a part of the land
RULING:
bought by the Company from the
Infiels for the townsite of
 The question turns upon a determination of
Maconacon Isabela (Exh. 'N') on
November 15, 1979, and which the character of the lands at the time of
donation was accepted by the institution of the registration proceedings in
Municipal Government of 1981. If they were then still part of the
Maconacon, Isabela (Exh. 'N-l'),
public domain, it must be answered in the
during their special session on
November 22, 1979. negative. If, on the other hand, they were
then already private lands, the
 The Director of Lands takes no issue constitutional prohibition against their
with any of these findings except as to acquisition by private corporations or
the applicability of the 1935 Constitution associations obviously does not apply.
to the matter at hand. Concerning this,  Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the
he asserts that, the registration logical inevitability of considering
proceedings have been commenced only possession of public land which is of the
on July 17, 1981, or long after the 1973
character and duration prescribed by
Constitution had gone into effect, the
statute as the equivalent of an express
latter is the correctly applicable law; and
grant from the State than the dictum of the
since section 11 of its Article XIV
prohibits private corporations or statute itself that the possessor(s) "... shall
associations from holding alienable be conclusively presumed to have
lands of the public domain, except by performed all the conditions essential to a
lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares (a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
prohibition not found in the 1935 certificate of title .... " No proof being
Constitution which was in force in 1962 admissible to overcome a conclusive
when Acme purchased the lands in presumption, confirmation proceedings
question from the Infiels), it was would, in truth be little more than a
60 | P a g e
formality, at the most limited to acquiring interests in public land to which

ascertaining whether the possession the vendor had already acquired that type
claimed is of the required character and of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect"
length of time; and registration thereunder title. The only limitation then extant was
would not confer title, but simply recognize that corporations could not acquire, hold or
a title already vested. The proceedings lease public agricultural lands in excess of
would not originally convert the land from 1,024 hectares. The purely accidental
public to private land, but only confirm such circumstance that confirmation proceedings
a conversion already affected by operation were brought under the aegis of the 1973
of law from the moment the required Constitution which forbids corporations
period of possession became complete. As from owning lands of the public domain
was so well put in Carino, "... (T)here are cannot defeat a right already vested before
indications that registration was expected that law came into effect, or invalidate
from all, but none sufficient to show that, transactions then perfectly valid and
for want of it, ownership actually gained proper. This Court has already held, in
would be lost. The effect of the proof, analogous circumstances, that the
wherever made, was not to confer title, but Constitution cannot impair vested rights.
simply to establish it, as already conferred  The fact, therefore, that the confirmation
by the decree, if not by earlier law." proceedings were instituted by Acme in its
 If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land own name must be regarded as simply
was already private land to which the Infiels another accidental circumstance,
had a legally sufficient and transferable title productive of a defect hardly more than
on October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it procedural and in nowise affecting the
from said owners, it must also be conceded substance and merits of the right of
that Acme had a perfect right to make such ownership sought to be confirmed in said
acquisition, there being nothing in the 1935 proceedings, there being no doubt of
Constitution then in force (or, for that Acme's entitlement to the land. As it is
matter, in the 1973 Constitution which unquestionable that in the light of the
came into effect later) prohibiting undisputed facts, the Infiels, under either
corporations from acquiring and owning the 1935 or the 1973 Constitution, could
private lands. have had title in themselves confirmed and
 Even on the proposition that the land registered, only a rigid subservience to the
remained technically "public" land, despite letter of the law would deny the same
immemorial possession of the Infiels and benefit to their lawful successor-in-interest
their ancestors, until title in their favor was by valid conveyance which violates no
actually confirmed in appropriate constitutional mandate.
proceedings under the Public Land Act,  The Court, in the light of the foregoing, is of
there can be no serious question of Acmes the view, and so holds, that the majority
right to acquire the land at the time it did, ruling in Meralco must be reconsidered and
there also being nothing in the 1935 no longer deemed to be binding precedent.
Constitution that might be construed to The correct rule, as enunciated in the line of
prohibit corporations from purchasing or cases already referred to, is that alienable
61 | P a g e
public land held by a possessor, personally o it is the absolute owner in fee

or through his predecessors-in-interest, simple over the land, having
openly, continuously and exclusively for the acquired the same from PN Roa
prescribed statutory period (30 years under Enterprises (former owner) by
The Public Land Act, as amended) is virtue of Deed of Absolute Sale
o subject land was assessed at
converted to private property by the mere
P2.2M as shown in the tax
lapse or completion of said period, ipso
declarations
jure. Following that rule and on the basis of
o RRDC registered the land for
the undisputed facts, the land subject of
taxation purposes and paid the
this appeal was already private property at realty taxes due therein from its
the time it was acquired from the Infiels by acquisition to the filing
Acme. Acme thereby acquired a registrable o After getting the land, it took
title, there being at the time no prohibition actual physical possession of
against said corporation's holding or owning the land and has been
private land. occupying it since
 There is also nothing to prevent Acme from  Attached to application are: 1) original
reconveying the lands to the Infiels and the copy of the land’s technical description;
latter from themselves applying for 2) Tracing Cloth Plan of the survey plan;
confirmation of title and, after issuance of 3) certification in lieu of
Surveyor’s/Geodetic Engineer’s
the certificate/s of title in their names,
Certificate issued by the Chief of the
deeding the lands back to Acme. But this
Land Surveys Assistance Section, DENR;
would be merely indulging in empty 3) Tax Declaration in RRDC’s name; and
charades, whereas the same result is more 5) Deed of Absolute Sale between RRDC
efficaciously and speedily obtained, with no and PN Roa Enterprises
prejudice to anyone, by a liberal application  Heirs of Paulino Avancena opposed,
of the rule on amendment alleging that:
 WHEREFORE, there being no reversible o Lot was already claimed and
error in the appealed judgment of the onwed by late Atty Paulino,
Intermediate Appellate Court, the same is Avancena, their father and
hereby affirmed, without costs in this predecessor-in-interest as early
instance. 1926
o Paulino had been in open,
continuous, notorious, adverse,
Republic vs. Rovancy Realty, G.R. No. and exclusive possession and
190817, Jan. 10, 2018 occupation the land
o Paulino registered the land for
FACTS:
taxation purposes and paid the
 March 22, 2001: Rovency Realty and taxes due thereon in 1948
Development Corp (RRDC) filed an o Their parents, Paulino and
Amended Application for Registration, Rizalino, merely allowed and
covering land in CDO tolerate Pedro Roa’s possession
 RRDC alleged that: after he approached them and
62 | P a g e
requested to use the land for o Lands of the public domain are
his business classified into agricultural,
o Sometime in 1994, Rizalina forest or timber, mineral lands,
demanded the return of the lot and national parks. Agricultural
from Pedro’s heirs, but to no lands of the public domain may
avail be further classified by law
o Their parents never sold the according to the uses which
land to Pedro nor to the RRDC they may be devoted. Alienable
and as such, no right or title lands of the public domain shall
over the land was passed to be limited to agricultural
RRDC lands. Private corporations or
 RRDC then submitted documents to associations may not hold such
support his application alienable lands of the public
o Various Deeds of Sale domain except by lease, for a
o CENRO certification, certifying period not exceeding twenty-
that the lot is alienable and five years, renewable for not
disposable and not covered by more than twenty-five years,
any public land application and not to exceed one
patent thousand hectares in
o Several tax declarations in the area. Citizens of the Philippines
name of its predecessors-in- may lease not more than five
interest, the earliest showed hundred hectares, or acquire
that realty taxes have been paid not more than twelve hectares
in 1947 thereof by purchase,
 RTC granted RRDC’s application for homestead, or grant.
registration, opining that the CENRO  Sec 3, Art XII applies only to lands of the
certification is sufficient to show the public domain. Private lands are thus,
outside its limitations and prohibitions
land’s character. RRDC also had been in
 However, this doesn’t mean that
open and continuous possession under
private corporations are prohibited
a bona fide claim of ownership
from applying for original registration of
 CA affirmed RTC’s decision title to lands.
 Whether RRDC can acquire the land and
ISSUE/S:
to what extent depends on the pieces
1. WON of evidence and whether they
sufficiently established that the lot is
RULING: alienable and disposable land of the
public domain and that the nature and
 Republic argued that the RTC and CA
duration of the possession converted
erred in granting the application for the
the land to private by operation of law
registration since the total land area is
31.8 ha which beyond the 12-ha limit Requirements for original registration of title to
under Sec 3, Art XII of the 1987 land
Constitution:
63 | P a g e
 Applicants for original registration of o 1) subject land forms part of

title must first establish compliance the disposable and alienable
with the provisions of either Sec 14(1) lands of the public domain
or Sec 14(2) of PD 1529 o 2) applicant and his
o Sec. 14. Who may apply. The predecessors-in-interest have
following persons may file in been in open, continuous,
the proper Court of First exclusive, and notorious
Instance an application for possession and occupation of
registration of title to land, the same
whether personally or through o 3) possession is under a bona
their duly authorized fide claim of ownership since
representatives: June 12, 1945 or earlier
o (1) Those who by themselves or  The first requisite entails that the
through their predecessors-in property sought to be registered should
interest have been in open, be alienable and disposable at the time
continuous, exclusive and of the filing of the application
notorious possession and  To prove that, the application must be
occupation of alienable and accompanied by
disposable lands of the public o 1) CENRO/ PENRO Certification
domain under a bona fide claim o 2) copy of the original
of ownership since June 12, classification approved by the
1945, or earlier. DENR Secretary and certified as
o (2) Those who have acquired true copy by the legal custodian
ownership of private lands by of the official records
prescription under the  IN THIS CASE, RRDC only presented the
provision of existing laws CENRO certificate. Without the
 The difference between the two is that certification of the DENR Secretary, the
Sec 14(1) mandates registration based application falls short of the
on prescription while Sec 14(2) is based requirements
on prescription  Aside from that, RRDC failed to prove
 IN THIS CASE, RRDC alleged that it and that it and its predecessors-in-interest
its predecessors-in-interest had been in had sufficiently complied with the
“open, continuous, adverse, and required period and nature of
peaceful possession in concept of possession
owner of the subject property since  An applicant must exhibit that he and
time immemorial or for more than 30 predecessors-in-interest had been in
years”. The allegation is unclear open, continuous, exclusive, and
whether registration is sought under notorious possession and occupation of
Sec 14(1) or Sec (2) the land under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945
Registration under Sec 14(1) of PD 1529
 It has been held that possession is open
 Under Sec 14(1), applicants must when it is patent, visible, apparent,
comply w/ the ff. requisites: notorious, and not clandestine; it is
continuous when uninterrupted,
unbroken, and not intermittent or
64 | P a g e
occasional; it is exclusive when the  In Heirs of Malabanan v Republic, the

adverse possessor can show exclusive SC explained that when Sec 14(2) of PD
dominion over the land and an 1529 provides that persons who “have
appropriation of it to his own use and acquired ownership over private lands
benefit; and notorious when it is so by prescription under the provisions of
conspicuous that it is generally known existing laws”, it refers to the Civil Code
and talked of by the public or the as a valid basis for land registration. The
people in the neighborhood CC is the only law that specifically
 In Republic v Remman Enterprises Inc, allows the acquisition by prescription of
SC held that proof of specific acts of private lands, including patriomonial
ownership must be presented to property belonging to the State
substantiate the claim of open,  Art 1113 of CC makes it clear that
continuous, exclusive and notorious patrimonial property may be acquired
possession and occupation of the land. through prescription
Actual possession is in the  However, this does not mean that when
manifestation of acts of dominion over a piece of land is declared alienable and
it of such nature as a party would disposable part of the public domain, it
actually exercise over his own property can already be acquired by prescription.
 In Republic v Gielczyk, possession and As in Malabanan, there must be an
occupation are not synonymous. express declaration that the public
Possession is broader because it dominion property is no longer
includes constructive possession. Thus, intended for public service or
taken together with the words open, development of the national wealth or
continuous, exclusive, and notorious, that the property has been converted
the word occupation means that for into patrimonial
one’s title to land be judicially  The classification as alienable and
recognized, his possession must not be disposable of the public domain does
mere fiction not change its status as property of the
 IN THIS CASE, aside from the deeds of public dominion. Hence, it is still
sale, RRDC did not present any evidence insusceptible to acquisition by
to show that it and its predecessors prescription
exercised acts of dominion over the  IN THIS CASE, RRDC didn’t present
land evidence to prove that the land is
 The tax declarations cannot prove the already patrimonial. Hence, it failed to
required possession as the earliest prove that acquisitive prescription has
dates back to only 1948 begun to run against the State and that
 Hence, the lot cannot be registered in it has acquired title thereto
RRDC’s name under Sec 14(1) of PD  Because of its failure to comply with the
1529 requirements, its application should be
denied
Requirements under Sec 14(2) of PD 1529
PETITION IS GRANTED
 RRDC also failed to establish
compliance with the requirements
under Sec 14(2) Rep. vs. CA and Naguit, G.R.
No.144057, Jan. 17, 2005
65 | P a g e
 Naguit and her predecessors-in-

FACTS: interest have occupied the land
openly and in the concept of owner
 Sps. Corazon & Manolito Naguit without any objection from any
filed with the MCTC-Aklan, a private person or even the
petition for registration of title of a government until she filed her
parcel of land in Nabas, Aklan. The application for registration.
application seeks judicial  MCTC rendered a decision ordering
confirmation of Naguit’s imperfect that the subject parcel be brought
title over the land. under the operation of the Property
 The parcel of land is designated as Registration Decree or PD 1529 and
Lot No. 10049, Cad. 758-D, Nabas that the title thereto registered and
Cadastre, AP – 060414-014779, and confirmed in the name of Naguit.
contains an area of 31,374 square  RTC dismissed the appeal and CA
meters. affirmed.
 The public prosecutor, appearing for  OSG assails the decision of the Court
the government, and Jose Angeles, of Appeals contending that the
representing the heirs of Rustico appellate court gravely erred in
Angeles, opposed the petition. On a holding that there is no need for the
later date, however, the heirs of government’s prior release of the
Rustico Angeles filed a formal subject lot from the public domain
opposition to the petition. before it can be considered alienable
 The subject parcel of land was or disposable within the meaning of
originally declared for taxation P.D. No. 1529, and that Naguit had
purposes in the name of Ramon been in possession of Lot No. 10049
Urbano in 1945 under TD No. 3888. in the concept of owner for the
 On July 1992, Urbano executed a required period.
Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the
heirs of Honorato Maming. The subject land was declared alienable only
 Subsequently, the heirs of Maming on October 15, 1980, Naguit could not have
executed a deed of absolute sale in maintained a bona fide claim of ownership
favor of respondent Naguit who since June 12, 1945, as required by Section
thereupon started occupying the 14 of the Property Registration Decree, since
same. prior to 1980, the land was not alienable or
 She constituted Manuel Blanco, Jr. disposable
as her attorney-in-fact and
administrator. The administrator ISSUE/S:
introduced improvements, planted
trees, such as mahogany, coconut 1. WON it is necessary under Sec. 14(1)
and gemelina trees in addition to of PD 1529 that the subject land be
existing coconut trees which were first classified as alienable and
then 50 to 60 years old, and paid the disposable before the applicant’s
corresponding taxes due on the possession under a bonafide claim of
subject land. ownership could even start -
 At present, there are parcels of land
surrounding the subject land which RULING:
have been issued titles by virtue of
judicial decrees.
66 | P a g e
 Petitioner suggests an interpretation application for registration of

that the alienable and disposable title is filed.
character of the land should have  If the State, at the time the
already been established since June application is made, has not yet
12, 1945 or earlier. This is not borne deemed it proper to release the
out by the plain meaning of Section property for alienation or
14(1). "Since June 12, 1945," as used disposition, the presumption is that
in the provision, qualifies its the government is still reserving the
antecedent phrase "under a bonafide right to utilize the property; hence,
claim of ownership." Generally the need to preserve its ownership in
speaking, qualifying words restrict the State irrespective of the length of
or modify only the words or phrases adverse possession even if in good
to which they are immediately faith.
associated, and not those distantly  However, if the property has already
or remotely located. Ad proximum been classified as alienable and
antecedents fiat relation nisi disposable, as it is in this case, then
impediatur sentencia. there is already an intention on the
 Absent a legislative part of the State to abdicate its
amendment, the rule would be, exclusive prerogative over the
adopting the OSG’s view, that property.
all lands of the public domain  It must be noted that the present
which were not declared case was decided by the lower courts
alienable or disposable before on the basis of Section 14(1) of the
June 12, 1945 would not be Property Registration Decree, which
susceptible to original pertains to original registration
registration, no matter the through ordinary registration
length of unchallenged proceedings. The right to file the
possession by the occupant. application for registration derives
Such interpretation renders from a bona fide claim of ownership
paragraph (1) of Section 14 going back to June 12, 1945 or
virtually inoperative and even earlier, by reason of the claimant’s
precludes the government from open, continuous, exclusive and
giving it effect even as it notorious possession of alienable
decides to reclassify public and disposable lands of the public
agricultural lands as alienable domain. A similar right is given
and disposable. The under Section 48(b) of the Public
unreasonableness of the situation Land Act.
would even be aggravated  When the Public Land Act was first
considering that before June 12, promulgated in 1936, the period of
1945, the Philippines was not yet possession deemed necessary to vest
even considered an independent the right to register their title to
state. agricultural lands of the public
 The more reasonable domain commenced from July 26,
interpretation of Section 14(1) 1894.
is that it merely requires the  However, this period was amended
property sought to be by RA 1942, which provided that the
registered as already alienable bona fide claim of ownership must
and disposable at the time the have been for at least thirty (30)
67 | P a g e
years. Then in 1977, Section 48(b) of private property by reason of open,

the Public Land Act was again continuous and exclusive possession
amended, this time by PD 1073, of at least thirty (30) years. With
which pegged the reckoning date at such conversion, such property may
June 12, 1945. This new starting now fall within the contemplation of
point is concordant with Section "private lands" under Section 14(2),
14(1) of the Property Registration and thus susceptible to registration
Decree. by those who have acquired
 Indeed, there are no material ownership through prescription.
differences between Section 14(1) of  Thus, even if possession of the
the Property Registration Decree alienable public land
and Section 48(b) of the Public Land commenced on a date later
Act, as amended. True, the Public than June 12, 1945, and such
Land Act does refer to "agricultural possession being been open,
lands of the public domain," while continuous and exclusive, then
the Property Registration Decree the possessor may have the
uses the term "alienable and right to register the land by
disposable lands of the public virtue of Section 14(2) of the
domain." It must be noted though Property Registration Decree.
that the Constitution declares that  The land in question was found
"alienable lands of the public to be cocal in nature, it having
domain shall be limited to been planted with coconut
agricultural lands." Clearly, the trees now over fifty years old.
subject lands under Section The inherent nature of the land but
48(b) of the Public Land Act confirms its certification in 1980 as
and Section 14(1) of the alienable, hence agricultural. There
Property Registration Decree is no impediment to the application
are of the same type. of Section 14(1) of the Property
 Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree, as correctly
Registration Decree and the accomplished by the lower courts.
amendatory P.D. No. 1073 preclude  Notably, possession since 1945
the application for registration of was established through proof
alienable lands of the public of the existence of 50 to 60-year
domain, possession over which old trees at the time Naguit
commenced only after June 12, purchased the property as well
1945? It did not, considering Section as tax declarations executed by
14(2) of the Property Registration Urbano in 1945.
Decree, which governs and  Although tax declarations and
authorizes the application of "those realty tax payment of property
who have acquired ownership of are not conclusive evidence of
private lands by prescription under ownership, nevertheless, they
the provisions of existing laws." are good indicia of the
 Prescription is one of the possession in the concept of
modes of acquiring ownership owner for no one in his right
under the Civil Code. There is a mind would be paying taxes for
consistent jurisprudential rule that a property that is not in his
properties classified as alienable actual or at least constructive
public land may be converted into possession. They constitute at
68 | P a g e
least proof that the holder has a Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan,
claim of title over the property. The on 25 June 1976.
voluntary declaration of a piece  The petitioner Republic filed an
of property for taxation Opposition to the respondents'
purposes manifests not only application for registration of the
one’s sincere and honest desire
Subject Lots arguing that: (1)
to obtain title to the property
Respondents failed to comply with the
and announces his adverse
claim against the State and all period of adverse possession of the
other interested parties, but Subject Lots required by law; (2)
also the intention to contribute Respondents' muniments of title were
needed revenues to the not genuine and did not constitute
Government. Such an act competent and sufficient evidence
strengthens one’s bona fide claim of of bona fide acquisition of the Subject
acquisition of ownership. Lots; and (3) The Subject Lots were part
 Considering that the possession of of the public domain belonging to the
the subject parcel of land by the Republic and were not subject to private
respondent can be traced back to appropriation.
that of her predecessors-in-interest
 The MTC issued an Order of Special
which commenced since 1945 or for
Default, with only petitioner Republic
almost fifty (50) years, it is indeed
beyond any cloud of doubt that she opposing the application for registration
has acquired title thereto which may of the Subject Lots.
be properly brought under the  The MTC set the initial hearing on 03
operation of the Torrens system. September 1999. All owners of the land
That she has been in possession of adjoining the Subject Lots were sent
the land in the concept of an owner, copies of the Notice of Initial Hearing. A
open, continuous, peaceful and copy of the Notice was also posted on 27
without any opposition from any July 1999 in a conspicuous place on the
private person and the government Subject Lots, as well as on the bulletin
itself makes her right thereto
board of the municipal building of
undoubtedly settled and deserving of
Consolacion, Cebu, where the Subject
protection under the law.
Lots were located. Finally, the Notice
was also published in the Official
Republic vs. Herbieto, G.R. No. Gazette on 02 August 1999 and The
156117, May 26, 2005 Freeman Banat News on 19 December
FACTS: 1999. (important in the issue of
jurisdiction)
 Respondents in the present Petition are  The MTC promulgated its Judgment
the Herbieto brothers, Jeremias and ordering the registration and
David, who filed with the MTC, a single confirmation of the title of respondent
application for registration of two Jeremias over Lot No. 8422 and of
parcels of land, Lots No. 8422 and 8423 respondent David over Lot No. 8423. It
 They claimed to be owners in fee simple subsequently issued an Order declaring
of the Subject Lots, which they its Judgment final and executor.
purchased from their parents, spouses
69 | P a g e
 The CA affirmed the decision of the jurisdiction of the MTC to proceed with
MTC, hence this petition and hear their application for
registration of the Subject Lots.
ISSUE/S:  The Property Registration
Decree recognizes and expressly allows
1. WON the MTC had jurisdiction over
the following situations: (1) the filing of
the registration of the subject lots
a single application by several applicants
2. WON the respondents complied with
for as long as they are co-owners of the
the required period of possession
parcel of land sought to be
over the Subject lots for the judicial
registered; and (2) the filing of a single
confirmation of imperfect or
application for registration of several
incomplete title
parcels of land provided that the same
RULING: are located within the same
province. The Property Registration
 Addressing first the issue of jurisdiction, Decree is silent, however, as to the
this Court finds that the MTC had no present situation wherein two applicants
jurisdiction to proceed with and hear the filed a single application for two parcels
application for registration filed by the of land, but are seeking the separate and
respondents but for reasons different individual registration of the parcels of
from those presented by petitioner land in their respective names.
Republic.  Since the Property Registration Decree
failed to provide for such a situation,
A. The misjoinder of causes of action then this Court refers to the Rules of
and parties does not affect the Court to determine the proper course of
jurisdiction of the MTC to hear and
proceed with respondents' action. Section 34 of the Property
application for registration. Registration Decree itself provides that,
"[t]he Rules of Court shall, insofar as not
 Respondents filed a single application inconsistent with the provisions of this
for registration of the Subject Lots even Decree, be applicable to land
though they were not co-owners. registration and cadastral cases by
Respondents Jeremias and David were analogy or in a suppletory character and
actually seeking the individual and whenever practicable and convenient."
separate registration of Lots No. 8422  Considering every application for land
and 8423, respectively. registration filed in strict accordance
 Petitioner Republic believes that the with the Property Registration Decree as
procedural irregularity committed by a single cause of action, then the defect
the respondents was fatal to their case, in the joint application for registration
depriving the MTC of jurisdiction to filed by the respondents with the MTC
proceed with and hear their application constitutes a misjoinder of causes of
for registration of the Subject Lots, action and parties. Instead of a single or
 This Court, however, disagrees with joint application for registration,
petitioner Republic in this regard. This respondents Jeremias and David, more
procedural lapse committed by the appropriately, should have filed separate
respondents should not affect the applications for registration of Lots No.
8422 and 8423, respectively.
70 | P a g e
 Misjoinder of causes of action and Property Registration Decree expressly

parties do not involve a question of provides that publication in the Official
jurisdiction of the court to hear and Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
proceed with the case. They are not even jurisdiction upon the land registration
accepted grounds for dismissal court, it still affirms its declaration
thereof. Instead, under the Rules of in Director of Lands v. Court of
Court, the misjoinder of causes of action Appeals that publication in a newspaper
and parties involve an implied of general circulation is mandatory for
admission of the court's jurisdiction. the land registration court to validly
 The misjoinder of causes of action and confirm and register the title of the
parties in the present Petition may have applicant or applicants.
been corrected by the MTC motu  In the instant Petition, the initial
propio or on motion of the petitioner hearing was set by the MTC, and was in
Republic. It is regrettable, however, that fact held. While the Notice thereof was
the MTC failed to detect the misjoinder printed in the issue of the Official
when the application for registration Gazette it was published in The
was still pending before it; and more Freeman Banat News, a daily
regrettable that the petitioner Republic newspaper printed in Cebu City and
did not call the attention of the MTC to circulated in the province and cities of
the fact by filing a motion for severance Cebu and in the rest of Visayas and
of the causes of action and parties, Mindanao more than three months after
raising the issue of misjoinder only the initial hearing.
before this Court.  The late publication of the Notice of
Initial Hearing in the newspaper of
B. Respondents, however, failed to general circulation is tantamount to no
comply with the publication publication at all, having the same
requirements mandated by the ultimate result. Owing to such defect in
Property Registration Decree, thus,
the publication of the Notice, the MTC
the MTC was not invested with
jurisdiction as a land registration failed to constructively seize the Subject
court. Lots and to acquire jurisdiction over
respondents' application for registration
 A land registration case is a thereof. Therefore, the MTC Judgment
proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction in ordering the registration and
rem cannot be acquired unless there be confirmation of the title of respondents
constructive seizure of the land through as well as the MTC Order declaring its
publication and service of notice. Judgment final and executory are both
 Section 23 of the Property Registration null and void for having been issued by
Decree requires that the public be given the MTC without jurisdiction.
Notice of the Initial Hearing of the
Respondents failed to comply with
application for land registration by
the required period of possession of
means of (1) publication; (2) mailing;
the Subject Lots for the judicial
and (3) posting.
confirmation or legalization of
 Even as this Court concedes that the
imperfect or incomplete title.
aforequoted Section 23(1) of the
71 | P a g e
 Respondents' application filed with the  Section 48(b), as amended, now

MTC did not state the statutory basis for requires adverse possession of the land
their title to the Subject Lots. They only since 12 June 1945 or earlier. In the
alleged therein that they obtained title to present Petition, the Subject Lots
the Subject Lots by purchase from their became alienable and disposable only on
parents, spouses Gregorio Herbieto and 25 June 1963. Any period of possession
Isabel Owatan, on 25 June 1976. prior to the date when the Subject Lots
Respondent Jeremias, in his testimony, were classified as alienable and
claimed that his parents had been in disposable is inconsequential and
possession of the Subject Lots in the should be excluded from the
concept of an owner since 1950. computation of the period of possession;
 Yet, according to the DENR-CENRO such possession can never ripen into
Certification, submitted by respondents ownership and unless the land had been
themselves, the Subject Lots are "within classified as alienable and disposable,
Alienable and Disposable, of the rules on confirmation of imperfect
Consolacion, Cebu certified under title shall not apply thereto. It is very
Forestry Administrative Order No. 4- apparent then that respondents could
1063”. Likewise, it is outside Kotkot- not have complied with the period of
Lusaran Mananga Watershed Forest possession required by Section 48(b) of
Reservation The Subject Lots are thus the Public Land Act, as amended, to
clearly part of the public domain, acquire imperfect or incomplete title to
classified as alienable and disposable as the Subject Lots that may be judicially
of 25 June 1963. confirmed or legalized.
 no public land can be acquired by  WHEREFORE, based on the
private persons without any grant, foregoing, the instant Petition is
express or implied, from the GRANTED.
government; and it is indispensable that
the person claiming title to public land
Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs
should show that his title was acquired Republic, Supra
from the State or any other mode of (REPEATED CASE)
acquisition recognized by law.
 Since respondents herein filed their Republic vs. Bacas, G.R. No. 182913,
application before the MTC, then it can Nov 20, 2013
be reasonably inferred that they are
FACTS:
seeking the judicial confirmation or
legalization of their imperfect or  In 1938, Commonwealth President
incomplete title over the Subject Lots. Manuel Luis Quezon (Pres. Quezon)
 Judicial confirmation or legalization of issued Presidential Proclamation No.
imperfect or incomplete title to land, not 265, reserving for the use of the
exceeding 144 hectares, may be availed Philippine Army three (3) parcels of the
of by persons identified under Section public domain situated in the barrios of
48 of the Public Land Act, as amended Bulua and Carmen, then Municipality of
by Presidential Decree No. 1073 Cagayan, Misamis Oriental. The parcels
of land were withdrawn from sale or
72 | P a g e
settlement and reserved for military application ensued. The LRC then
purposes, "subject to private rights, if rendered a decision holding that
any there be." Chabons’ evidence established their
 The Bacases filed their Application for ownership in fee simple over the subject
Registration covering a parcel of land, property and that their possession,
together with all the improvements including that of their predecessor-in-
found thereon, located in Patag, interest, had been actual, open, public,
Cagayan de Oro City, herein Lot No. peaceful, adverse, continuous, and in
4354. The Chabons filed their concept of owners for more than thirty
Application for Registration covering a (30) years.
parcel of land located in Carmen-  As a consequence of the LRC decisions
District, Cagayan de Oro City, known as in both applications for registration, the
Lot 4357 Republic filed a complaint for
 The Bacases alleged ownership in fee annulment of titles against the Bacases
simple of the property and indicated in and the Chabons before the RTC.
their application the names and  In the civil case against the Bacases The
addresses of the adjoining owners, as Republic claimed in its petition for
well as a statement that the Philippine annulment before the RTC that the
Army (Fourth Military Area) recently certificate of title issued in favor of the
occupied a portion of the land by their Bacases was null and void because they
mere tolerance. fraudulently omitted to name the
 The Chabons alleged ownership in fee military camp as the actual occupant in
simple over the property and indicated their application for registration.
therein the names and addresses of the Specifically, the Republic, through the
adjoining owners, but no mention was Fourth Military Area, was the actual
made with respect to the occupation, if occupant of Lot No. 4354 and also the
any, by the Philippine Army. The owner and possessor of the adjoining
Chabons likewise alleged that, to the Lots Nos. 4318 and 4357. Further, the
best of their knowledge, no mortgage or Bacases failed to likewise state that Lot
encumbrance of any kind affecting said No. 4354 was part of Camp Evangelista.
land with the exception of 18,957 square These omissions constituted fraud
meters sold to Minda J. Castillo and which vitiated the decree and certificate
1,000 square meters sold and conveyed of title issued.
to Atty. Arturo R. Legaspi  Also, the Republic averred that the
 In the registration of the Bacases, no subject land had long been reserved in
appeal was interposed by the Republic 1938 for military purposes at the time it
from the decision of the LRC. Thus, the was applied for and, so, it was no longer
decision became final and executory, disposable and subject to registration.
resulting in the issuance of a decree and  In the civil case against the Chabons, the
the corresponding certificate of title over Republic claimed that it was the
the subject property. absolute owner and possessor of Lot No.
 In the registration of Chabons, there 4357. The said lot, together with Lots
being no opposition made, even from 431817 and 4354, formed part of the
the government, hearing on the military reservation known as Camp
Evangelista in Cagayan de Oro City,
73 | P a g e
which was set aside and reserved under its opposition to the application and,
Presidential Proclamation No. 265 naturally, it was not able to file an
issued by President Quezon on March appeal either.
31, 1938.
 The RTC dismissed the two complaints. The Republic can also question a final and
CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence executory judgment when the LRC had no
this petition jurisdiction over the land in question
ISSUE/S:  With respect to the Bacases, although

the lower courts might have been correct
1. WON the decisions of the LRC over in ruling that there was substantial
the subject lands can still be compliance with the requirements of law
questioned; and when they alleged that Camp
2. WON the applications for Evangelista was an occupant, the
registration of the subject parcels of Republic is not precluded and estopped
land should be allowed. from questioning the validity of the title.
 The success of the annulment of title
RULING:
does not solely depend on the existence
of actual and extrinsic fraud, but also on
The Republic can question even final and
executory judgment when there was fraud. the fact that a judgment decreeing
registration is null and void.
 The governing rule in the application for  any title to an inalienable public land is
registration of lands at that time was void ab initio. Any procedural infirmities
Section 21 of Act 496 which provided for attending the filing of the petition for
the form and content of an application annulment of judgment are immaterial
for registration, and it reads: since the LRC never acquired
 Section 21. The application shall be in jurisdiction over the property. All
writing, signed and sworn to by proceedings of the LRC involving the
applicant, or by some person duly property are null and void and, hence,
authorized in his behalf. x x x It shall did not create any legal effect. A
also state the name in full and the judgment by a court without jurisdiction
address of the applicant, and also the can never attain finality.
names and addresses of all adjoining
The subject lands, being part of a military
owners and occupants, if known; and, if
reservation, are inalienable and cannot be
not known, it shall state what search has
the subjects of land registration proceedings
been made to find them. x x x
 Here, the Chabons did not make any  the necessary requirements for the
mention of the ownership or occupancy grant of an application for land
by the Philippine Army. They also did registration are the following:
not indicate any efforts or searches they
had exerted in determining other 1. The applicant must, by himself or
occupants of the land. Such omission through his predecessors-in-interest,
constituted fraud and deprived the have been in possession and
Republic of its day in court. Not being occupation of the subject land;
notified, the Republic was not able to file
74 | P a g e
2. The possession and occupation They merely relied on such "recognition"

must be open, continuous, exclusive of possible private rights. In their
and notorious; application, they alleged that at the time
of their application, they had been in
3. The possession and occupation
open, continuous, exclusive, and
must be under a bona fide claim of
ownership for at least thirty years notorious possession of the subject
immediately preceding the filing of parcels of land for at least thirty (30)
the application; and years and became its owners by
prescription. There was, however, no
4. The subject land must be an allegation or showing that the
agricultural land of the public government had earlier declared it open
domain. As earlier stated, in 1938, for sale or settlement, or that it was
President Quezon issued
already pronounced as inalienable and
Presidential Proclamation No. 265,
which took effect on March 31, 1938, disposable.
reserving for the use of the  It is well-settled that land of the public
Philippine Army parcels of the domain is not ipso facto converted into a
public domain situated in the barrios patrimonial or private property by the
of Bulua and Carmen, then mere possession and occupation by an
Municipality of Cagayan, Misamis
individual over a long period of time.
Oriental. The subject parcels of land
were withdrawn from sale or  Well-entrenched is the rule that unless a
settlement or reserved for military land is reclassified and declared
purposes, "subject to private rights, alienable and disposable, occupation in
if any there be." the concept of an owner, no matter how
long, cannot ripen into ownership and
 Such power of the President to segregate be registered as a title. Consequently,
lands was provided for in Section 64(e) respondents could not have occupied the
of the old Revised Administrative Code Lot in the concept of an owner in 1947
and C.A. No. 141 or the Public Land Act. and subsequent years when respondents
Later, the power of the President was declared the Lot for taxation purposes,
restated in Section 14, Chapter 4, Book or even earlier when respondents'
III of the 1987 Administrative Code. predecessors-in-interest possessed the
When a property is officially declared a Lot, because the Lot was considered
military reservation, it becomes inalienable from the time of its
inalienable and outside the commerce of declaration as a military reservation in
man. It may not be the subject of a 1904. Therefore, respondents failed to
contract or of a compromise prove, by clear and convincing evidence,
agreement. A property continues to be that the Lot is alienable and disposable.
part of the public domain, not available  WHEREFORE, the petition is
for private appropriation or ownership, GRANTED.
until there is a formal declaration on the
part of the government to withdraw it
from being such. Sps. Fortuna vs. Republic
 the respondents miserably failed to G.R.No.173423, March 5, 2014
prove that, before the proclamation, the
FACTS:
subject lands were already private lands.
75 | P a g e
 the spouses Fortuna filed an application RULING:

for registration over a land identified as
Lot No. 4457  We deny the petition for failure of the
 The spouses Fortuna stated that Lot No. spouses Fortuna to sufficiently prove
4457 was originally owned by Pastora their compliance with the requisites for
Vendiola, upon whose death was the acquisition of title to alienable lands
succeeded by her children, Clemente of the public domain.
and Emeteria Nones. Through an
The nature of Lot No. 4457 as
affidavit of adjudication dated August 3,
alienable and
1972, Emeteria renounced all her disposable public land has not been
interest in Lot No. 4457 in favor of sufficiently established
Clemente. Clemente later sold the lot in
favor of Rodolfo Cuenca on May 23,  The Constitution declares that all lands
1975. Rodolfo sold the same lot to the of the public domain are owned by the
spouses Fortuna through a deed of State. Of the four classes of public land,
absolute sale dated May 4, 1984. i.e., agricultural lands, forest or timber
 The spouses Fortuna claimed that they, lands, mineral lands, and national
through themselves and their parks, only agricultural lands may be
predecessors-in-interest, have been in alienated. Public land that has not been
quiet, peaceful, adverse and classified as alienable agricultural land
uninterrupted possession of Lot No. remains part of the inalienable public
4457 for more than 50 years, and domain. Thus, it is essential for any
submitted as evidence the lot’s survey applicant for registration of title to land
plan, technical description, and derived through a public grant to
certificate of assessment. establish foremost the alienable and
 Although the respondent, Republic of disposable nature of the land. The PLA
the Philippines (Republic), opposed the provisions on the grant and disposition
application,5 it did not present any of alienable public lands, specifically,
evidence in support of its opposition. Sections 11 and 48(b), will find
Since no private opposition to the application only from the time that a
registration was filed, the RTC issued an public land has been classified as
order of general default against the agricultural and declared as alienable
whole world, except the Republic and disposable.
 The RTC granted the application for  Under Section 6 of the PLA, the
registration in favor of the spouses classification and the reclassification of
Fortuna. However, the CA reversed the public lands are the prerogative of the
RTC decision. Hence this petition. Executive Department.
 In this case, the CA declared that the
ISSUE/S: alienable nature of the land was
1. WON spouses Fortuna sufficiently established by the notation in the survey
prove with the requisites for plan, Mere notations appearing in
acquisition of title to alienable lands survey plans are inadequate proof of the
of the public domain - NO covered properties’ alienable and
disposable character. These notations, at
76 | P a g e
the very least, only establish that the  The cut-off date of July 26, 1894 was
land subject of the application for replaced by a 30-year period of
registration falls within the approved possession under RA No. 1942. Section
alienable and disposable area per 48(b) of the PLA, as amended by RA No.
verification through survey by the 1942. PD No. 1073 replaced the 30-year
proper government office. The period of possession by requiring
applicant, however, must also present a possession since June 12, 1945.
copy of the original classification of the  Under the PD No. 1073 amendment,
land into alienable and disposable land, possession of at least 32 years – from
as declared by the DENR Secretary or as 1945 up to its enactment in 1977 – is
proclaimed by the President required. This effectively impairs the
 The survey plan and the DENR-CENRO vested rights of applicants who had
certification are not proof that the complied with the 30-year possession
President or the DENR Secretary has required under the RA No. 1942
reclassified and released the public land amendment, but whose possession
as alienable and disposable. The offices commenced only after the cut-off date of
that prepared these documents are not June 12, 1945 was established by the PD
the official repositories or legal No. 1073 amendment. To remedy this,
custodian of the issuances of the the Court ruled in Abejaron v.
President or the DENR Secretary Nabasa that "Filipino citizens who by
declaring the public land as alienable themselves or their predecessors-in-
and disposable. interest have been, prior to the
 For failure to present incontrovertible effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25,
evidence that Lot No. 4457 has been 1977, in open, continuous, exclusive and
reclassified as alienable and disposable notorious possession and occupation of
land of the public domain though a agricultural lands of the public domain,
positive act of the Executive under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
Department, the spouses Fortuna’s ownership, for at least 30 years, or at
claim of title through a public land grant least since January 24, 1947 may apply
under the PLA should be denied. for judicial confirmation of their
imperfect or incomplete title under Sec.
In judicial confirmation of imperfect 48(b) of the [PLA]." January 24, 1947
or incomplete title, the period of was considered as the cut-off date as this
possession should commence, at the was exactly 30 years counted backward
latest, as of May 9, 1947
from January 25, 1977 – the effectivity
date of PD No. 1073.
 As mentioned, the PLA is the law that
 It appears, however, that January 25,
governs the grant and disposition of
1977 was the date PD No. 1073 was
alienable agricultural lands. Under
enacted; based on the certification from
Section 11 of the PLA, alienable lands of
the National Printing Office, This
the public domain may be disposed of,
uncontroverted fact materially affects
among others, by judicial confirmation
the cut-off date for applications for
of imperfect or incomplete title. This
judicial confirmation of incomplete title
mode of acquisition of title is governed
under Section 48(b) of the PLA.
by Section 48(b) of the PLA
77 | P a g e
 Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 that Pastora planted fruit-bearing trees

should be understood to mean that the on her properties.
decree took effect only upon its  WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
publication, or on May 9, 1977. In other
words, applicants must prove that they
have been in open, continuous, exclusive
REGISTRATION UNDER
and notorious possession and
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT
occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim
of acquisition of ownership, for at least R.A. No. 8371
30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947.
Constitutionality
The spouses Fortuna were unable to
CRUZ v SECRETARY OF DENR
prove that they possessed Lot No.
4457 since May 8, 1947
SYNOPSIS:
 This is a suit for prohibition and
 The records disclose that the spouses
mandamus assailing the
Fortuna acquired adjoining parcels of
constitutionality of certain provisions of
land, all of which are claimed to have Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous
previously belonged to Pastora. People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and
 As these cases involved different but its Implementing Rules and
adjoining lots that belonged to the same Regulations. The Court en banc
predecessor-in-interest, the spouses deliberated on the petition and the votes
Fortuna alleged that the final rulings gathered were equally divided with no
upholding Pastora’s ownership, be taken majority vote obtained. Seven (7)
members voted to dismiss the petition.
into account in resolving the present
Seven (7) other members voted to grant
case.
the petition. After redeliberation, the
 Notably, the total land area of the voting remained the same (7 to 7). Thus,
adjoining lots that are claimed to have the petition, pursuant to Rule 56,
previously belonged to Pastora is 9,564 Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
sq. m. This is too big an area for the was dismissed.
Court to consider that Pastora’s claimed
acts of possession and occupation (as FACTS:
testified to by Macaria) encompassed  R.A. No. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s
the entirety of the lots. Given the size of Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) was passed
and its implementing rules and
the lots, it is unlikely that Macaria (age
regulations (IRR) was enforced.
21 in 1947) could competently assess
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar
and declare that its entirety belonged to Europa filed a suit for prohibition and
Pastora because she saw acts of mandamus as citizens and taxpayers,
possession and occupation in what must assailing the constitutionality of certain
have been but a limited area. As provisions of the IPRA law.
mentioned, Tax Declaration No. 8366  The petitioners brought to the attention
described Lot No. 4457 as "cogonal," of the court the provisions of IPRA law
thus, Macaria could not have also been on the ground that these amount to an
referring to Lot No. 4457 when she said unlawful deprivation of the State’s
78 | P a g e
ownership over lands of the public converts ancestral land into public
domain as well as minerals and other agricultural land which may be disposed
natural resources therein, in violation of of by the State. The necessary
the Regalian doctrine embodied in implication is that ancestral land is
section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. private. It, however, has to be first
converted to public agricultural land
ISSUE: Whether or not the ownership simply for registration purposes. Since
provisions of the IPRA law is violative of the ancestral domains and lands are private,
Constitution? (NO) if the ICC/IP wants to avail of the
benefits of C.A. 141 and Act 496, the
RULING: IPRA itself converts his ancestral land,
 The provisions of IPRA do not regardless of whether the land has a
contravene the Constitution. Examining slope of eighteen per cent (18%) or over,
the IPRA, there is nothing in the law from private to public agricultural land
that grants to the indigenous cultural for proper disposition. The option to
communities or indigenous peoples register land under the Public Land Act
(ICCs/IPs) ownership over the natural and the Land Registration Act has
resources within their ancestral domain. nonetheless a limited period. This
Ownership over the natural resources in option must be exercised within twenty
the ancestral domains remains with the (20) years from October 29, 1997, the
State and the rights granted by the IPRA date of approval of the IPRA.
to the ICCs/IPs over the natural  The right of ownership and possession
resources in their ancestral domains by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral
merely gives them, as owners and domains is a limited form of ownership
occupants of the land on which the and does not include the right to
resources are found, the right to the alienate the same. Ownership of
small scale utilization of these resources, ancestral domains by native title does
and at the same time, a priority in their not entitle the ICC/IP to a Torrens title
large scale development and but to a Certificate of Ancestral Domain
exploitation. Title (CADT). The CADT formally
 Additionally, ancestral domains and recognizes the indigenous concept of
ancestral lands are the private property ownership of the ICCs/IPs over their
of indigenous peoples and do not ancestral domain. The right of
constitute part of the land of the public ownership and possession of the
domain. They are private lands which ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains is
belongs to the ICCs/IPs by native title, held under the indigenous concept of
which is a concept of private land title ownership. This concept maintains the
that existed irrespective of any royal view that ancestral domains are the
grant from the State. The IPRA grants to ICCs/IPs private but community
ICCs/IPs a distinct kind of ownership property. It is private simply because it
over ancestral domains and ancestral is not part of the public domain. But its
lands. The private character of ancestral private character ends there. The
lands and domains as laid down in the ancestral domain is owned in common
IPRA is further strengthened by the by the ICCs/IPs and not by one
option given to individual ICCs/IPs over particular person. Ownership over the
their individually-owned ancestral natural resources in the ancestral
lands. For purposes of registration domains remains with the State and the
under the Public Land Act and the Land ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to
Registration Act, the IPRA expressly "manage and conserve" them for future
79 | P a g e
generations, "benefit and share" the residential lots, rice terraces or paddies,
profits from their allocation and private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.
utilization, and "negotiate the terms and
conditions for their exploration" for the National Commission on Indigenous
purpose of "ensuring ecological and Peoples (NCIP)
environmental protection and
conservation measures." Simply stated, The primary government agency
the ICCs/IPs' rights over the natural responsible for the formulation and
resources take the form of management implementation of policies, plans and
or stewardship. programs to promote and protect the rights
and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the
recognition of their ancestral domains as
Ancestral Domains vs. Ancestral
well as the rights thereto.
Lands
the NCIP shall have the following powers,
Ancestral domains are all areas
jurisdiction and function:
belonging to ICCs/IPs held under a claim of
ownership, occupied or possessed by
a) To serve as the primary government
ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their
agency through which ICCs/IPs can
ancestors, communally or individually since
seek government assistance and as
time immemorial, continuously until the
the medium, through which such
present, except when interrupted by war,
assistance may be extended;
force majeure or displacement by force,
deceit, stealth or as a consequence of
b) To review and assess the conditions
government projects or any other voluntary
of ICCs/IPs including existing laws
dealings with government and/or private
and policies pertinent thereto and to
individuals or corporations. Ancestral
propose relevant laws and policies to
domains comprise lands, inland waters,
address their role in national
coastal areas, and natural resources therein
development;
and includes ancestral lands, forests,
pasture, residential, agricultural, and other
c) To formulate and implement
lands individually owned whether alienable
policies, plans, programs and
or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds,
projects for the economic, social and
worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and
cultural development of the
other natural resources. They also include
ICCs/IPs and to monitor the
lands which may no longer be exclusively
implementation thereof;
occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they
traditionally had access to for their
d) To request and engage the services
subsistence and traditional activities,
and support of experts from other
particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs
agencies of government or employ
who are still nomadic and/or shifting
private experts and consultants as
cultivators.
may be required in the pursuit of its
objectives;
Ancestral lands are lands held by the
ICCs/IPs under the same conditions as
e) To issue certificate of ancestral
ancestral domains except that these are
land/domain title;
limited to lands and that these lands are not
merely occupied and possessed but are also
f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into
utilized by the ICCs/IPs under claims of
contracts, agreements, or
individual or traditional group ownership.
arrangement, with government or
These lands include but are not limited to
private agencies or entities as may
80 | P a g e
be necessary to attain the objectives individual, corporate entity or any

of this Act, and subject to the government agency, corporation or
approval of the President, to obtain subdivision thereof on any part or
loans from government lending portion of the ancestral domain
institutions and other lending taking into consideration the
institutions to finance its programs; consensus approval of the ICCs/IPs
concerned;
g) To negotiate for funds and to accept
grants, donations, gifts and/or n) To decide all appeals from the
properties in whatever form and decisions and acts of all the various
from whatever source, local and offices within the Commission;
international, subject to the approval
of the President of the Philippines, o) To promulgate the necessary rules
for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and and regulations for the
administer the same in accordance implementation of this Act;
with the terms thereof; or in the
absence of any condition, in such p) To exercise such other powers and
manner consistent with the interest functions as may be directed by the
of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws; President of the Republic of the
Philippines; and
h) To coordinate development
programs and projects for the q) To represent the Philippine
advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to ICCs/IPs in all international
oversee the proper implementation conferences and conventions dealing
thereof; with indigenous peoples and other
related concerns.
i) To convene periodic conventions or
assemblies of IPs to review, assess as
well as propose policies or plans;
j) To advise the President of the

Philippines on all matters relating to
the ICCs/IPs and to submit within
sixty (60) days after the close of each
calendar year, a report of its
operations and achievements;
k) To submit to Congress appropriate

legislative proposals intended to
carry out the policies under this Act;
l) To prepare and submit the

appropriate budget to the Office of
the President;
m) To issue appropriate certification as

a pre-condition to the grant of
permit, lease, grant, or any other
similar authority for the disposition,
utilization, management and
appropriation by any private
81 | P a g e

Team Gapang 2 Yr - Atty Espina - Land Titles and Deeds Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Gapang 2 Yr - Atty Espina - Land Titles and Deeds Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM GAPANG 2ND YR | ATTY ESPINA | LAND TITLES AND DEEDS LAW

of the original certificate of title based on the

As to its nature, original

DAR - Under the agrarian law, if the farmer is a

DENR – you go to the DENR where you choose a

In the case of Torbela v. Rosario(,

Refers to those executed against the will What is an OCT?

It also consists of an original and rights over immovable property

What is the Torrens System?

PD 1529 (PROPERTY REGISTRATION

 PD 957 – Subdivision and

conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of 3. Congress may, by law, allow small-scale

Regalian Doctrine does not negate Native

If a person purchases a piece of land on

property in favor of Dr. Rosario.

ownership thereof can no names of the parties present, dates,

the petition, pursuant to Rule 56,  Additionally, ancestral domains and

recognizes the indigenous concept of respondents-claimants Mayor Yap, Jr.,

 TORRENS SYSTEM: Real purpose registered in the name Spouses

complaint insofar as it pertained to is revoked by the other contracting

possession could deprive the certificate of title, such right

title was still effective at the But no deed, mortgage, lease, or

o The annotation of an adverse the transfer of the property to

 May 1962, Almirol applied to speedy and adequate remedy in the

and validity or effect litigated the name of Elisa Gabriel and

 It is believed that both parties were jurisdiction, AND THAT CONCERN

In the case of Ong Ching Po v. CA, GR Who may apply?

Can Aliens qualify in acquiring What is meant by open, continuous,

would naturally exercise over his own

peaceful possession of the bona fide claim of ownership since

law requires possession and  Significant was the testimony of Mr.

ISSUE/S: applicant must conclusively

over a parcel of land must be expressly indicates that the land is

Malabanan vs. Republic, G. R. No. 179987, Cases under Par. 2

Who has ownership over Malabanan vs. Republic, G. R. No.

In the case of Republic v. Metro Index FACTS:

alienated or disposed through Republic v. Metro Index Realty and

manifested by competent effected by the respondent and its

Republic v. Rizalvo, GR 172011, Mar.

agreed that respondent has presented  What is categorically required by

What is Accession? FACTS:

The accessory follows the principal and not ISSUE/S:

FACTS:  They farther alleged that, sometime in

 Based on the study of the committee it  For acquisitive prescription to set

 There must be an express declaration by Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the

of by the, State and acquired by Filipino  In order to establish that an agricultural

more than Forty-Five Million reversible error to decree registration in

formality, at the most limited to acquiring interests in public land to which

public land held by a possessor, personally o it is the absolute owner in fee

 Applicants for original registration of o 1) subject land forms part of

occasional; it is exclusive when the  In Heirs of Malabanan v Republic, the

 Naguit and her predecessors-in-

 Petitioner suggests an interpretation application for registration of

years. Then in 1977, Section 48(b) of private property by reason of open,

 Misjoinder of causes of action and Property Registration Decree expressly

 Respondents' application filed with the  Section 48(b), as amended, now

ISSUE/S:  With respect to the Bacases, although

2. The possession and occupation They merely relied on such "recognition"

 the spouses Fortuna filed an application RULING:

 Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 that Pastora planted fruit-bearing trees

be necessary to attain the objectives individual, corporate entity or any

j) To advise the President of the