LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
PD 1529 – PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE
LEGAL BASIS AND NATURE OF LAND REGISTRATION
CHAPTER 1 (Sections 2 and 3)
NATURE OF REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS, JURISDICTION
NATURE OF REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
Section 2: Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts
- Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines
shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles
underlying the Torrens System. Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands,
including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions
arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of
court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies
of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications
or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes,
within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.
Registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem
A proceeding is in rem when the object of the action is to bar indifferently all
who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought
to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the
strength of alleging facts, which if true, show an inconsistent interest.
A land registration is a proceeding in rem and jurisdiction in rem cannot be
acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through publication
and service of notice. However, personal notice to all claimants of the res is
not necessary to give the court jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the res,
and neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree
or title issued in a registration proceeding, for the State, as sovereign over the
land situated within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a proceeding
in rem or in the nature of a proceeding in rem, which shall be binding upon all
persons, known or unknown.
RTC has plenary & exclusive jurisdiction over land registration cases
Under Section 2, RTC shall have exclusive jurisdiction over:
1.
2.
All applications for original registration of titles to lands, including
improvements and interest therein and;
All petitions filed after original registration of title.
Take note: RTC also has the power to hear and determine all questions arising
upon such applications and petitions.
STATUS OF OTHER LAND REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
Section 3: Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The
system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby
discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which are not yet
covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands. Hereafter,
all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish
Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the
land shall have been brought under the operation of the Torrens System.
Spanish Titles no longer used as evidence of land ownership
Section 3 of PD 1529 reiterates the discontinuance of the system of registration
under the Spanish Mortgage Law. By express provision of PD 892, which was
later on codified in PD 1529, Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence
of land ownership in all registration proceedings. The reason for this is the
proliferation of dubious Spanish titles which have raised conflicting claims of
ownership and tended to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
1 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
CONCEPT OF REGALIAN DOCTRINE
The Regalian doctrine declares that all lands and all other natural
resources are owned by the State.
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of whatever classification and other
natural resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership belong to the State, being the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
Hence, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as
alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State
remain part of the alienable public domain.
Doctrine is founded upon Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution.
The present Constitution provides that, except for agricultural lands of the
public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral
lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the
exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into co-production, joint
venture or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreignowned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development and utilization.
Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 8371, otherwise known as
the Indigenous People Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) on the ground of the
Regalian Doctrine and that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State‟
s ownership over lands of public domain and all other natural resources
therein, by recognizing the right of ownership of Indigenous Cultural
Communities or Indigenous People (ICCs/IPs) to the their ancestral domains
and ancestral lands on the basis of native title.
Doctrine: The Regalian doctrine does not negate native title. Native
title to land, or private ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession
under a claim of ownership since time immemorial, and independent of any
grant from the Spanish Crown – “It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient
to say that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has
been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be
presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public land.”
Secretary of DENR vs. Yap
Respondents sought to register parcels of land in Boracay in their name
through a judicial confirmation of imperfect title. They claimed that they and
their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the lands since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Petitioners
opposed the registration saying that the subject lots was an unclassified land
of the public domain and whatever possession they had cannot ripen into
ownership.
Doctrine: There must be a positive act from the government
classifying lands as alienable and disposable before registration.
Under the Regalian Doctrine, lands of the public domain belong to the State.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership and
all lands that have not been acquired from the government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable public
domain; and before these inalienable lands of public domain becomes
alienable and disposable, there must be a positive act from the government,
such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
Republic v. CA (Spouses Carag case)
By express declaration of Section 45 (b) of Act 2874 which is quoted above,
those who have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since July 26, 1894 may file an
application with the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and these applicants shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
Doctrine: Land ceases to become part of public domain if possession started
from July 26, 1894 or earlier. When the land registration court issued
a decision for the issuance of a decree which was the basis of an
original certificate of title to the land, the court had already made a
determination that the land was agricultural and that the applicant
had proven that he was in open and exclusive possession of the
subject land for the prescribed number of years.
PURPOSE OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM
Doctrine: Every person dealing with a registered land may safely
rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged to interpret
what is beyond the face of the registered title. The court ruled that a
Torrens title is presumed to be valid which purpose is to avoid conflicts of
title to real properties. When the subsequent buyers bought the property
there was no lis pendens annotated on the title. Hence, the court ruled that
the subsequent buyers obtained the property from a clean title in good faith
and for value. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that
the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later
that his acquisition was ineffectual after all.
CHAPTER 2 (Sections 4-13)
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS RDs
PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM
Torrens System upholds indefeasible and imprescriptible title.
The Torrens system requires that the government shall issue an official
certificate of title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of
the property described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as
thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves. The certificate of title is
indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are
quieted upon issuance of said certificate. This system highly facilitates land
conveyance and negotiation.
It is a conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described
therein, and other matters which can be litigated and decided in land
registration proceedings.
Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or
vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely a procedure
to establish evidence of title over realty. It is a means of confirming the fact
of its existence with notice to the world at large. A certificate of title is not a
source of right. It merely confirms or records a title already existing and
vested.
Legarda vs. Saleeby
A stonewall stands between the adjoining lots of Legarda and Saleeby. The
said wall and the strip of land where it stands is registered in the Torrens
system under the name of Legarda in 1906. Six years after the decree of
registration is released in favor of Legards, Saleeby applied for registration
of his lot under the Torrens system in 1912, and the decree issued in favor
of the latter included the stone wall and the strip of land where it stands.
Doctrine: Where two certificates purport to include the same
registered land, the holder of the earlier one continues to hold title
and will prevail.
The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to land;
to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims
which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may
arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in
the portals of the court to avoid the possibility of losing his land. The law
guarantees the title of the registered owner once it has entered into the
Torrens system.
Traders Royal Bank vs. CA
A parcel of land owned by the Spouses Capay was mortgaged to and
subsequently extrajudicially foreclosed by TRB. To prevent property sale in
public auction, the Capays filed a petition for preliminary injunction alleging
the mortgage was void because they did not receive the proceeds of the
loan. A notice of lis pendens was filed before the Register of Deeds with the
notice recorded in the Day Book. Meanwhile, a foreclosure sale proceeded
with the TRB as the sole and winning bidder.
The Capats title was canceled and a new one was entered in TRB‟s name
without the notice of lis pendens carried over the title. The Capays filed
recovery of the property and damages. Court rendered a decision declaring
the mortgage was void for want of consideration and thus cancelled TRB‟s
title and issued a new certificate of title for the Capays. Pending its appeal
before the court, TRB sold the land to Santiago who subsequently subdivided
and sold to buyers who were issued title to the land.
2 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
Section 4: Land Registration Commission - In order to have a more
efficient execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands, geared
to the massive and accelerated land reform and social justice program of
the government, there is created a commission to be known as the Land
Registration Commission under the executive supervision of the Department
of Justice.
Section 5: Officials and employees of the Commission - The Land
Registration Commission shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be
known, respectively, as the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of
Land Registration who shall be appointed by the President. The
Commissioner shall be duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar with at
least ten years of practice in the legal profession, and shall have the same
rank, compensation and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First
Instance. The Deputy Commissioner, who shall possess the same
qualifications as those required of the Commissioner, shall receive
compensation which shall be three thousand pesos per annum less than
that of the Commissioner. He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration
during the absence or disability of the Commissioner and when there is a
vacancy in the position until another person shall have been designated or
appointed in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner shall also
perform such other functions as the Commissioner may assign to him.
They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be
necessary in the interest of the functioning of the Commission, by a Special
Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief Geodetic Engineer who shall
each receive compensation at the rate of three thousand four hundred
pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. All other
officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission including
those of the Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein provided,
shall receive salaries corresponding to the minimum of their respective
upgraded ranges as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget Circular No.
273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, notwithstanding the
maximum salary allowed for their respective civil service eligibilities
The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be
without prejudice to such benefits and adjustments as may from time to
time be granted by the President or by the legislature to government
employees.
All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Deeds
shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the
Commissioner of Land Registration.
Functions of the Land Registration Authority
1.
Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of
Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the
implementation of the land reform program of the government;
2.
Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land
registration proceedings;
3.
Be the central repository of records relative to original registration
of lands titled under the Torrens system including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
Functions of the Land Registration Authority Administrator
1.
Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the
courts in land registration proceedings and cause the issuance by
the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of title
2.
Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and
other personnel of the Commission;
3.
Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision
of, Registers of Deeds;
4.
Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and
personnel of the Courts of First Instance throughout the
Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and
functions in relation to the registration of lands;
5.
Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative
to the registration of lands and issue, subject to the approval of
the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor;
6.
Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidationsubdivision survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496
except those covered by P.D. No. 957.
OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS: GENERAL FUNCTIONS
Section 7: Office of the Register of Deeds - There shall be at least one
Register of Deeds for each province and one for each city. Every Registry
with a yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos during
the last three years shall have one Deputy Register of Deeds, and every
Registry with a yearly average collection of more than three hundred
thousand pesos during the last three years, shall have one Deputy Register
of Deeds and one second Deputy Register of Deeds.
The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial
jurisdiction of each Registry upon the recommendation of the Commissioner
of Land Registration, with the end in view of making every registry easily
accessible to the people of the neighboring municipalities.
The province or city shall furnish a suitable space or building for the office
of the Register of Deeds until such time as the same could be furnished out
of national funds.
Duty of the Register of Deeds to Register is Ministerial.
Registration is a mere ministerial act by which a deed, contract or instrument
is sought to be inscribed in the records of the office of the Register of Deeds
and annotated at the back of the certificate of the title covering the land
subject of the deed, contract or instrument. Whether the document is invalid,
frivolous or intended to harass, is not the duty of a Register of Deeds to
decide, but is for a court of competent jurisdiction to determine.
Instances where Register of Deeds may deny or refuse registration
1.
Where there are several copies of the title (co-owner’s duplicate) but
only one is presented with the instrument to be registered.
2.
Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument
of conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse.
3.
Where there is a pending case in court where the character of the
land and validity of the conveyance are in issue.
4.
Where required certificates or documents are not submitted.
Baranda vs. Gustilo
A parcel of lot was sought to be registered before the Register of Deeds. The
latter denied registration on the ground of lis pendens annotation at the back
of the title. Subsequently, RTC issued an order directing him to cancel the lis
pendens annotation. RD did not yield to such order and filed a motion for
renconsideration before the court.
3 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
Doctrine: The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the
registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is
ministerial in nature. In case of doubt with the proper step to be
taken, he shall elevate the matter en consulta to the LRA for
resolution.
The respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to
file a motion for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order directing
him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles
of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land. In case of doubt as to the
proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed or other instrument
presented to him, he should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of
Land Registration now, the Administrator of the National Land Title and
Deeds Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529. (Section 10 & Section 117 of PD1529)
Balbin vs. Register of Deeds
Petitioner sought for the annotation of a deed of donation in his favor at the
back of the OCT which he brought before the Register of Deeds. It turned
out that at the back of the OCT, there is an annotation that the property is
co-owned and that there are other 3 co-owners‟ copies existing which were
apparently not presented by petitioner. RD denied the annotation of the deed
of donation.
Doctrine: Where several co-owner’s duplicate of certificates of
titles are issued, a voluntary instrument cannot be registered
without surrendering all the copies to the Register of Deeds so that
every copy of thereof would contain identical entries of the
transactions affecting the land covered.
While a Register of Deeds has a ministerial function, he may refuse
registration if the OCT bears on its face an infirmity.
Noblejas vs. Teehankee
Petitioner Noblejas was asked by Respondent Secretary of Justice to answer
in writing why he was approving and recommending for approval orginal
survey plans when he didn‟t have authority to do so and failure to do so
would result to disciplinary actions. The former responded that he can only
be suspended or dismissed following the procedures of the investigation of a
Judge of First Instance since under Section 5 of PD1529, he enjoys the rank,
privileges, emoluments and compensation of a Judge of CFI.
Doctrine: A Commissioner is under the Executive Branch and the
Secretary of Justice can very well impose disciplinary actions
against him. Section 5 does not place him under the Judiciary. To say that
he can only be removed from office by the Supreme Court would tantamount
to a constitutional violation of the separation of powers among the three
branches of the government.
CHAPTER 3 (Sections 14-38)
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
APPLICATION
Who may apply for original registration?
Section 14: Who may apply - The following persons may file in the proper
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether
personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
1.
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
2.
Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription
under the provision of existing laws.
3.
Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned
river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws.
4.
Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
provided for by law.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file
the application jointly.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may
file an application for the original registration of the land: Provided, however,
That should the period for redemption expire during the pendency of the
registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in the
vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may
continue the proceedings.
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any
land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the
trust.
Requirements for Registration under Section 14(1) – Original
Registration Proceedings
1.
The land applied for is an agricultural public land already classified
as alienable and disposable land at the times of the filing of the
application for registration.
2.
The applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest,
has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of the land, under a bona fide claim of ownership.
3.
Such possession and occupation must have commenced since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Ong vs. Republic
Petitioners filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land. The
petitioners, however, admitted that upon buying the lot from their
predecessors-in-interest, they left abroad and have not been actually
occupying the land. The petitioners paid for the realty taxes though.
Doctrine: Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to
alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires
possession and occupation. The law speaks of possession and
occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the
clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other.
Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive
possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to
delimit the encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together
with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word
occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his
possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists
in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party
would naturally exercise over his own property.
Canete vs. Genuine Ice Company
Petitioners sought to cancel respondent’s OCT to a parcel of land.
Respondent said they were in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession of land so were their predecessors-in-interest. Petitioners respond
that their title was spurious, fictitious and issued under mysterious
circumstances and that even assuming possession and occupation, their title
is inconsistent with the intent of the Friar Lands Act.
Doctrine: Under the Friar Lands Act, only "actual settlers and
occupants at the time said lands are acquired by the Government"
were given preference to lease, purchase, or acquire their holdings,
in disregard of the settlement and occupation of persons before the
government acquired the lands.
One who acquires land under the Friar Lands Act, as well as his successorsin-interest, may not claim successional rights to purchase by reason of
occupation from time immemorial, as this contravenes the historical fact that
friar lands were bought by the Government of the Philippine Islands,
pursuant to an Act of Congress of the United States, approved on July 1,
1902, not from individual persons but from certain companies, a society and
a religious order.
OCT 614 did legally exist and was previously issued in the name of the
Philippine Government in 1910 under the provisions of Act 496. The Piedad
Estate has been placed under the Torrens system of land registration, which
means that all lots therein are titled. The petitioners‟ claimed actual, adverse,
4 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
peaceful and continuous possession of the subject property is really of no
moment unless it is shown that their predecessors-in-interest were actual
settlers and occupants at the time said lands were acquired by the
Government, and whose rights were not disregarded even though they were
in occupation of the same before the government acquired the land; yet, no
period of time in relation to adverse possession is alleged.
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES
Section 48 (b) CA 141 (Public Land Act)
(CA 141) Section 48: The following described citizens of the Philippines,
occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or
an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed,
may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of
title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, except
when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively
presumed by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed
to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and
shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
(As amended by PD 1073)
History of CA 141 Section 48(b) as to Period of Possession
Requirement
Law
Period of Possession
Effectivity
OCENPO of agricultural public lands for a
period of 10 years next preceding the
effectivity of this Act.
Oct 7, 1903
Act 926
OCENPO of agricultural lands of the public
domain since July 26, 1894 for Filipino
and American citizens
Nov 29, 1919
Act 2874
Possession and occupation of lands of the
public domain since July 26, 1894 but
only to Filipinos
Nov 7, 1936
Possession and occupation for at least 30
years immediately preceding the filing of
the application for confirmation of title
June 22,
1957
OCENPO of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain since June 12, 1945
Jan 25, 1977
CA 141
(unamended)
RA 1942
PD 1073
TAKE NOTE: When given a problem, check for the date of the filing of
application for registration and apply the existing law at that time.
Section 14(a) of PD 1529 and Section 48(b) of CA 141: No material
difference
Both provisions have identical requirements for application of original
registration of title to land and the judicial confirmation of an imperfect of
incomplete title. (Comment: I think the only reason why they were
designated on different topics is to highlight the history of CA 141 and to
know which period of possession to apply at a given period of time.)
Susi vs. Razon
Petitioner has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of a land since 1899. He was in peaceful and uninterrupted
possession and occupation of the land until Razon, in 1913, sued to recover
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
the land from Suzi. CFI ruled in favor of Susi. Razon, desperate, applied for
the purchase of the land from the Director of Lands, which the latter
approved. Razon, now with a certificate of title, sued for forcible entry against
Susi.
Doctrine: Open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the
legal fiction whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite
period, ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other sanction,
ceases to be public land and becomes private land. When Razon
applied for the purchase of the land, Susi had already been in possession
thereof personally for more than 30 years. Given that, Susi had already
acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the
Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued
in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application
therefor being sufficient.
Republic vs. IAC and ACME
There was an order for registration of five parcels of land acquired by ACME
Plywood from Mariano and Acer Infiel, who are members of the Dumagat
tribe. The Director of Lands filed an appeal for certiorari because the
prevailing law then was the prohibition against private corporations from
holding lands of public domain except in lease not exceeding 1,000 hectares.
Doctrine: Where at the time the corporation acquired the land, its
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession and occupation
thereof in the manner and for the period prescribed by law as to
entitle him to registration in his name, then the proscription against
corporations acquiring alienable lands of the public domain except
through lease does not apply for the land was no longer public land
but private property.
Alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or through his
predecessors in interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the
prescribed statutory period (30 years) is converted to private property by
mere lapse or completion of said period.
Following that rule, the subject land was already private property at the time
it was acquired from the Infiels. Acme thereby acquired a registrable title,
there being at the time no prohibition against said corporation’s holding or
owning private land. (Comment: RA 1942 was the law existing at this time
Republic vs. CA and Naguit
Naguit filed a petition for registration of title through judicial confirmation of
respondent’s imperfect title over a parcel of land. The evidence on record
reveals that the subject parcel of land was originally declared for taxation
purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano (Urbano) in 1945.
Naguit, and her predecessors were in open, continuous and exclusive
possession in the concept of an owner without any objection from any private
person or even the government.
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the property
which is in open, continuous and exclusive possession must first be alienable.
Naguit could not have maintained a bona fide claim of ownership since the
subject lot was declared A and D only in October 15, 1980. The alienable and
disposable character of the land should have already been established since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Doctrine: Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree merely
requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable
and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is
filed.
The more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires
the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at
the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the
time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the
property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government
is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve
its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession
even if in good faith.
5 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and
disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part
of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
Republic vs. Herbieto
Herbietos filed an application for registration of title to a land. They have
been in possession and occupation in 1950 and the land was declared as
alienable and disposable in 1963.
Doctrine: Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act requires possession
and occupation since June 12, 1945. Applicants could not acquire land
through adverse possession since the land was only classified as alienable in
1963 and their possession only started in 1950.
Also, Under the PRD, there already exists a title which is confirmed by the
Court; while under the PLA, the presumption always is that the land applied
for pertains to the State, and that the occupants and possessors only a claim
an interest in the same by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open
and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Take note: This is a
nuisance case. Follow the Naguit ruling.
Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic
Doctrine: Applicants under 14(1) of PD 1529 in relation to sec 48(b) of CA
141 acquire ownership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the
length and quality of their possession. It is sufficient that the land be
declared alienable and disposable at the time of the filing for the
application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title and the land
need not be alienable and disposable during the entire period of
possession.
Republic vs. CA (Spouses Carag)
In 1930, the Trial Court of Cagayan issued a Decree No. 381928 giving the
Spouses Carag’s predecessors an OCT for a parcel of land. The government
was a party to this case. 68 years later the Reg. Executive Director of DENR
filed an action to annul the said decree on the ground that the trial court had
no jurisdiction of the case. He said that at the time of the issuance of the
decree the land was still timber and thus not alienable and disposable. He
said during 1930 it was the Exec Branch of the Government that had power
to classify lands of the public domain. Thus, the trial court having no
jurisdiction the title given to the Spouses were null and void.
The law prevailing the time of the issuance of the decree was Act 2874. Sec.6
of the act said that the Gov. Gen shall classify the lands. However, in the
case at bar the petitioner did not allege that the Gov. Gen declared the
subject land as mineral, timber or reserved for public purpose. Also, sec 8 of
the same act states that land that were classified as A&D as well as those
private land can be disposed by the government. But as to the lands excluded
from the classification requirement, the trial court has jurisdiction to
adjudicate them to private parties.
The SC said that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether the
property was agricultural, timber or mineral land. Since the TC determined
the land as agricultural the Spouses Carag were entitled to the decree and
the certificate of title. Also, the government was a party to that issuance of
decree in 1930, however they did not appeal the decision, thus the
judgement of the court was final and beyond review.
Doctrine: Land ceases to become part of public domain if possession
started from July 26, 1894 or earlier.
Spouses Fortuna vs. Republic
The spouses filed for registration of their parcel of land and claimed that they
have been in (OCEN) Open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession of
the land for 50 years. The Republic objected and contested but they were
not able to present enough evidence. At the RTC level, the Spouses won.
This was reversed by the CA because the Spouses failed to show and prove
possession.
Doctrine: Land, being A&D, needs an incontrovertible evidence. A
mere certification of DENR is not sufficient government act to
classify lands as alienable and disposable. The surveyor’s notation is
insufficient to prove conversion of land into A&D. In reality, the survey plan
is done by the Bureau of Lands. DENR will go over the cadastral map and if
it sees that the land is already A&D, it will approve the survey plan.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land
Registration Authority.
 Cadastral map
 LRA – Municipal index max
 Secure a certification from the DENR that there is no pending
land registration
 Cert from the LRA that there is no decree and patent
 Cert from the RD that there is no title
REGISTRATION UNDER THE IPRA
Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 8371, otherwise known as
the Indigenous People Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) on the ground of the
Regalian Doctrine and that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State‟
s ownership over lands of public domain and all other natural resources
therein, by recognizing the right of ownership of Indigenous Cultural
Communities or Indigenous People (ICCs/IPs) to the their ancestral domains
and ancestral lands on the basis of native title.
5.
Doctrine: The Regalian doctrine does not negate native title. Native
title to land, or private ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession
under a claim of ownership since time immemorial, and independent of any
grant from the Spanish Crown – “It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient
to say that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has
been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be
presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public land.”
Benin v. Tuazon
In an application for registration, where there is an increase of
land area (due to a land survey) there is a need to cause the
publication of the increased area, otherwise, the court will have
no jurisdiction over the case.


FORMS AND CONTENTS (Sections 15-19)
WHAT AND WHERE TO FILE
Section 17: What and where to file – The application for land
registration shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or
city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file together with the
application all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey
plan of the land approved by the Lands Management Bureau.
The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that
the applicant has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the
application and all annexes.
Service by mailing of notice upon contiguous owners,
occupants and those known to have interests in the
property.
7.
Posting by the sheriff of the notice in a conspicuous place
on the land and in the bulletin board of the municipal
building or city where the land is situated.
8.
Filing of answer to the application by any person whether
named in the notice or not.
Court is very liberal in the lifting of the order of general default
(give everyone an opportunity to oppose)
 Oppositor must have an interest
 Should state his ground
 Should indicate his required relief
 Follow the formalities of the opposition (similar to an
answer)
Where to file: RTC of the province or city where land is situated.
STEPS IN BRIGING A LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
Failure of an opposition from the government does not ipso facto
grants the applicant of the land. It is the applicant who has the
burden of proof
In order that land may be brought under the operation of the Torrens system,
the following steps should be observed:
Survey of land by the Lands Management Bureau or a duly
licensed private surveyor.
To establish the precise identity of the land in terms of metes and
bounds
Director of Lands v. Reyes
The passing of the original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory
requirement (Daiso polyester film)
PD 239 – Only the Land Management Bureau may approve original
survey plans for purposes of land registration.
2.
3.
Filing of application for registration by the applicant.
There must be 3 copies (original – clerk of court, 2nd copy – land
registration authority, 3rd copy – OSG)
Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application
by the court.
Should not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days (but not
a mandatory requirement, simply directory)
Republic v. Mana properties
It is not within the control of the applicant when the initial hearing
will be held. It is unfair to punish the applicant for something
outside his control.
4.
Transmittal of the application and the date of initial
hearing together with all the documents or other evidence
6 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
If there is a decrease in area, there is no need for a republication.
Purpose of publication: to confer jurisdiction on the
court and notify the public for possible oppositions
6.
What to file: Application along with all original muniments of titles and a
survey plan of the land approved by the LMB.
1.
Publication of the notice of the filing of the application
and date and place of the hearing in the Official Gazette
and in a newspaper of general circulation.
9.
Hearing of the case by the court.
In the absence of provisions of Property Registration Law, by
analogy the rules of court will have suppletory application.
10. Promulgation of judgment by the court.
OSG or an oppositor may file the necessary motion for
reconsideration or appeal if court grants the application.
11. Issuance of an order for the issuance of a decree declaring
the decision final and instructing the Land Registration
Authority to issue the decree of confirmation and
registration.
12. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration
Authority.
Within 1 year from the entry of the decree – title becomes
incontrovertible.
13. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the
corresponding Register of Deeds.
14. Transcription of the decree of registration in the
registration book and the issuance of the owner’s
duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the
Register of Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed fees.
It is during the transcription in the registration book that the title
takes effect.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
Take note: Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements will justify the
court to deny the application for registration.
registration court had no jurisdiction, the certificate of title is null and void
insofar as it concerns the land or lands over which the registration court had
not acquired jurisdiction.
FORMS & CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION
1.
Full description of the land as evidenced by a survey plan
duly approved by the Director of Lands, surveyor’s
certificate and technical description.
Carpo v. Ayala
One of the grounds Carpo used in assailing the title of Ayala is an
SWO plan – a special work order, NOT VALID.
2.
Citizenship and civil status of the applicant.
If married, the name of the spouse. If marriage has been legally
dissolved, when and how the marriage relation was terminated.
If registered before the Family Code – conjugal
If after – presumption is ACP
Republic v. Santos
Owner of river beds
The State may not be divested of its right of ownership. Article 502 of the
Civil Code expressly declares that rivers and their natural beds are public
dominion of the State. It follows that the river beds that dry up, like Lot
4998-B, continue to belong to the State as its property of public dominion,
unless there is an express law that provides that the dried-up river beds
should belong to some other person
Acquisitive prescription
Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man and not
susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription, the
adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title in the
confirmation of an imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable
portions of the public domain
SURVEY OF THE LAND
3.
Full names and addresses of all occupants of the land
4.
Assessed value of the land and the buildings and
improvements thereon



Assessed value is important to determine filing fee
Mirror principle – right to rely on the face of the title
Assurance principle – assurance fund you pay in registering
your land for the first time (ex. land has been transferred
to an innocent purchaser. Remedy is to go after the person
who deprived you of your property. If you cannot because
he is insolvent, run after the assurance fund)
5.
Whether or not there are mortgages or encumbrances or
any other person having any interest therein, legal or
equitable, or in possession thereof.
6.
The manner by which the applicant has acquired the land
(refer to section 14, PD 1529)
7.
Whether or not property is conjugal, paraphernal or
separate property
8.
Names of all occupants of the land, if any.
AMENDMENTS OF BOUNDARIES OR AREA
Section 19: Amendments – Amendments to the application including
joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be allowed by the
court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms.
Amendments which shall consist in a substantial change in the boundaries
or an increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion
of an additional land shall be subject to the same requirements of
publication and notice as in an original application.
Republic vs. Sarmiento
Sarmiento filed for an application for registration of land. To support his
claim, he presented the notation of surveyor-geodetic engineer which states
that “this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area” to prove that
the lot is alienable. The Court ruled that the reliance on such notation of
surveyor-geodetic engineer is insufficient and does not constitute
incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that it remains part
of the inalienable public domain.
Doctrine: It is required that the application for registration must be
accompanied by a survey plan of the land duly approved by the
Director of Lands, together with the claimant’s muniments of title
to prove ownership. No plan or survey may be admitted in the land
registration proceedings until approved by the Director of Lands.
Carpo vs. Ayala Land
Carpo filed a complaint for the quieting of title against Ayala Land
Incorporated. Ayala pointed out that it traces back its original title in OCT
No.242 issued in 1950 while Carpo's title was derived from OCT No. 8575
issued only in 1970.CA ruled that Carpo's cause of action has been barred by
prescription and laches. But the latter alleged that Ayala's title is void for
want of duly approved survey plan, thus their cause of action did not
prescribe.
Doctrine: The submission of the plan is a statutory requirement of
mandatory character and unless the plan and its technical
description are duly approved by the Director of Lands the same are
not of much value. It is admitted that a survey plan is one of the
requirements for the issuance of decrees of registration; it can most certainly
be assumed that said requirement was complied with by Ayala's original
predecessors-in-interest- at the time the latter sought original registration of
the subject property.
PUBLICATION, OPPOSITION AND DEFAULT (Sec 23)
Benin vs. Tuason
Once the registration court had acquired jurisdiction over a certain parcel, or
parcels, of land in the registration proceedings in virtue of the publication of
the application, that jurisdiction attaches to the land or lands mentioned and
described in the application.
Doctrine: If it is later shown that the decree of registration had
included land or lands not included in the original application as
published, then the registration proceedings and the decree of
registration must be declared null and void insofar – but only
insofar – as the land not included in the publication is concerned.
This is so, because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the land not
included in the publication the publication being the basis of the jurisdiction
of the court. But the proceedings and the decree of registration, relating to
the lands that were included in the publication, are valid. Thus, if it is shown
that a certificate of title had been issued covering lands where the
7 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING
Section 23: Notice of Initial hearing, publication, etc. The Court,
shall within 5 days from the filing of the application, shall issue an order
setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier
than 45 days nor later than 90 days from the date of the order. The public
shall be given notice of the initial hearing by means of: (a) publication, (b)
mailing, and (c) posting. This requirement of giving notice by all 3 modes
is mandatory.
3 NECESSARY MODES OF GIVING NOTICE:
1.
2.
3.
Publication
Mailing
Posting
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
Publication
The publicity which permeates the whole system established for the
registration of real property requires that the application for registration be
accompanied by a plan of the land, together with its description, and that all
the owners of the adjacent properties and all other persons who may have
an interest in the realty shall be notified, which notification with a description
of the property concerned in the application, shall be published in the Official
Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation.
Publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the land
registration court. However, absent any publication of the notice of initial
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation, the land registration court
cannot validly confirm and register the title of the applicants. The rationale
behind the newspaper publication is due process and the reality that the
Official Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as newspapers and is
oftentimes delayed in its circulation.
Mailing
In addition to publication, mailing is also an indispensable and mandatory
requirement for notice of initial hearing.
Within 7 days from publication in the Official Gazette, LRA Administrator shall
cause a copy of the notice to be mailed to every person named in the notice
whose address is known.
Posting
The third mode of giving notice of the initial hearing is by posting. Within 14
days before the initial hearing, the LRA Administrator shall cause a duly
attested copy of the notice to be posted by the sheriff in a conspicuous place
on the land applied for and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board
of the municipality or city in which the land is situated. This requirement is
also mandatory
Director of Lands vs. CA and Abistado
Abistado applied for a registration of a parcel of land. He failed to publish
the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
Doctrine: Publication in a newspaper of general circulation is
mandatory. There are several issues with the Official Gazette which might
not meet the purpose of publication such as not too many read them, late
publications and the like. Given this, publication in a newspaper of general
circulation is more in keeping with an in rem proceeding and affords due
process to anyone who may have an adverse claim over the subject property.
PROOF REQUIRED IN REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
Applicant must show, even in the absence of opposition, that heirs
the absolute owner, in fee simple, of such land.
The burden is on applicant to prove his positive averments and not for the
government or the private oppositors to establish a negative proposition. He
must submit convincing proof of his and his predecessors-in-interest’s
actual, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owner of the lots
during the period required by law.
Republic vs. dela Paz
Dela Paz filed a case to register a parcel of land in Taguig. They alleged that
they came into possession through their parents who have been in
continuous, uninterrupted, open, public and adverse possession of the land
in the concept of ownership and presented tax declarations since 1949. The
Republic opposed application saying land was of public domain.
Doctrine: The presumption is all lands belong to the State. To
overcome such presumption, an incontrovertible evidence must be
established that the land of application is alienable or disposable.
There has to be certification from the proper government agency to establish
that land is an alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Moreover,
aside from proving that land is alienable and disposable, it must be proved
as well that land has been in open, notorious, continuous and exclusive
possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Tax declaration of 1949 is merely
an indicia of ownership.
8 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
Republic vs. CA and Lapina
In 1978, while still Filipinos, the spouses Lapina bought 2 lots. They applied
for its registration in 1987 when they were already naturalized Canadians.
Petitioner opposed application saying that they cannot register the land given
that they were already foreigners at the time of the registration.
Doctrine: Regardless of your citizenship upon registration, what is
only necessary is that you are a Filipino when you acquired the land
as the owner. Under Sec 48 of CA 141, the law tacks possession over the
property from predecessor-in- interest. It does not matter whether the
applicant has been in possession of the subject property for only a day, so
long as the period and or legal requirements for confirmation of title has been
complied with by his predecessors-in-interest. Since the Lapina‟s
predecessors-in-interest have been shown to have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation over the land since 1937.
The land, therefore, became private land and therefore registrable.
Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership, but merely a formality
aimed to confirm a title which one already has. The Lapinas, therefore, had
no legal impediments to register the land which they validly and legally
acquired while they were Filipinos.
ISSUANCE OF DECREE
Republic v. Nillas
On April 10, 1997, Nilllas asked for a petition for revival of judgment because
of the CFI’s decision on July 17, 1941 adjudicating lots to oppositors. Nillas
said that his parents have been in possession of the lot. The OSG then assails
the petition of Nillas invoking Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which says that
prescriptive period of final and executory judgment is 5 years after the date
of its entry.
Doctrine: From the time decisions in land registration case becomes
final – it is complete in itself and does not need to be filled in;
judgment does not have to be executed by motion or enforced by
action. Rule 39 merely applies to ordinary civil proceedings and not to
special proceedings similar to land registration. Unlike ordinary civil actions,
the intent of land registration is to establish ownership. Hence, Nilla’s action
is not barred by prescription.
Ting v. Heirs of Lirio
In 1976, CFI granted the application filed by the Spouses Lirio for registration
of title to the subject lot. The decision later became final and executory in
1977. The judge then issued an order directing the LRC to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and the certificate of title in favor of the
spouses.
In 1997, Rolando Ting filed with RTC an application for registration of the
title to the same lot. The respondents then filed an answer to petitioner,
calling attention to the decision of CFI which had become final and executory,
and that Ting is barred in filing the application on the ground of res judicata.
The RTC dismissed Ting‟s application on the ground of res judicata.
Decision: The decision in a land registration case, unless the
adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any
further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an
appeal. (In other words, when the decision is not appealed, it becomes final.
No need for the judgment to be executed by the winning party, except if the
losing party is in possession of the land – that is the only time a writ of
possession or execution is needed)
In a registration proceeding with or without opposition, the judgment of the
court confirming the title of the applicant/oppositor ordering the registration
in his name, when final, becomes res judicata against the whole world. When
there is no appeal within the reglementary period from the judgment, then
it becomes final. An LR proceeding is in rem and thus binds the whole worlds
including petitioner.
The provision on the Rules of Court referring to that a judgment must be
enforced by a motion within 5 years and an action within 10 years is for civil
actions and is not applicable to special proceedings. in special proceedings,
the purpose it to establish a status. in land registration proceedings, the
ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
ownership has been proven and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further
proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary.
WHEN OCT TAKES EFFECT
Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty
Both petitioners and respondent claim ownership over a parcel of land. Claim
of ownership sprung from OCT 994. The confusion arises because of the fact
that the petitioner’s OCT 994 was registered on May 3, 1917 while
respondent’s OCT 994 was registered on April 19, 1917. Record shows that
OCT 994 was received by the Register of Deeds for Transcription of May 3,
1917.
Doctrine: OCT takes effect and land becomes registered land only
upon transcription of the decree. The land becomes a registered land
only upon the transcription of the decree in the original registration book by
the Register of Deeds, and not on the date of issuance of the decree.
Otherwise stated, as soon as the decree has been registered in the office of
the Register of Deeds, the property described therein shall become registered
land, and the certificate shall take effect upon transcription of the decree.
Angeles v. Sec of Justice
This case involves the vast land of Maysilo Estates. Two OCTs were issued,
one in April 1917, another in May 1917. It was found that the one issued in
May is the genuine one.
Why two OCTs were issued: The issuance by the LRA officials of a decree
of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that
such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. In the same
vein, we find that in this case, which involves the issuance of transfer
certificates of title, the Register of Deeds cannot be compelled by mandamus
to comply with the RTC Order since there were existing transfer certificates
of title covering the subject parcels of land and there was reason to question
the rights of those requesting for the issuance of the TCTs.
Doctrine: When title takes effect - A certificate of title takes effect
upon the transcription by the Register of Deeds in its registration
book, and not on the date of registration. The date April 1917 was the
date of the issuance of the title, but it was only on May 1917 that the title
was transcribed.
CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS
CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS UNDER 1987 CONSTITUTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
Agricultural
Forest or Timber
Mineral
National Parks
Who may classify lands of the public domain?
The Public Land Act or CA 141, until now, governs the classification and
disposition of lands of the public domain. Under CA 141, the President,
through a presidential proclamation or executive order, is authorized, from
time to time, to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable and
disposable, timber, or mineral lands. The Secretary of DENR is the only
other public official empowered by law to approve a land classification and
declare such land as alienable and disposable.
Director of Lands v. CA and Bisnar
Doctrine: Possession of forest lands, however long cannot ripen
into private ownership so long as there is no classification of the
land as alienable and disposable by the Executive Department. A
forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and
beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under
the Torrens system.
A positive act of the government is needed to declassify land which is
classified as forest and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for
agricultural or other purposes. Under Sec 6 of CA 141, the classification or
reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable is a prerogative of
the Executive department and not the courts.
9 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
Republic v. CA
In 1930, CFI of Cagayab issued a decree in favor of SPs Carag over a parcel
of land. Upon petition of Dayag et.al, DENR investigated on the subject lot
and found out that it was only declared alienable and disposable in 1982.
Doctrine: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
and is determined by the statute in force at the time of the filing of
the action. Under the applicable law at the time of the issuance of
the decree, all lands owned by the State are alienable lands unless
declared as mineral or forest zone, or reserved by the State for
public purpose.
While it is true that under the prevailing law at that time (Act No. 2874), the
disposition of lands is confined to those which have been declared alienable
or disposable, this provides for an exception such as those lands that were
already private lands. Clearly, with respect to lands excluded from the
classification requirement in, trial courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate these
lands to private parties.
Director Lands v. Reyes
Section 48 b of CA no. 141, as amended, applies exclusively to
public agricultural land. Forest lands or areas covered with forest
are excluded. It is well-settled that forest land is incapable of registration;
and its inclusion in a title, whether such title be one issued during the Spanish
sovereignty or under the present Torrens system of registration, nullifies the
title.
De Castro v. Mayor Yap
Doctrine: Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was
an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064.
Such unclassified lands are considered public forest under P.D. No. 705.
If we accept the position of private claimants, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and
Act No. 926 would have automatically made all lands in the Philippines,
except those already classified as timber or mineral land, alienable and
disposable lands. That would take these lands out of State ownership and
worse, would be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the longentrenched Regalian doctrine.
Republic v. TAN Properties
TAN Properties applied for registration over a parcel of land. It presented a
certification from CENRO that the property falls within the alienable and
disposable area.
Doctrine: CENRO certification is not sufficient proof that the land
has been classified as alienable and disposable. There must be a
certification from the Secretary of the DENR attesting that the land
had indeed been classified as alienable and disposable.
NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES
LBP v. Republic
A certificate of title is void when it covers property of public domain classified
as forest or timber or mineral land; any title issued covering non-disposable
lots even in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value shall be
cancelled.
Santulan v. Executive Secretary
Petitioner Julian Santulan and Antonio Lusin who have been succeeded by
their heirs were rival claimants with respect to the lease of a parcel of
foreshore land of public domain in Cavite. The Petitioner applied for revocable
permit for planting then fishpond of Bakawan. He also acquired OCT over the
land. On the other hand, private respondent Lusin was reported that he
illegally entered the area covered by the petitioners fishpond permit.
However, private respondent Lusin filed applications for a revocable-permit
and a lease of a foreshore. He also contends that he had been in continuous
and exclusive possession of the land and had improvements including water
breakers. The 1942 foreshore lease applications of Petitioner Santulan and
private respondent Lusin gave rise to Bureau of Lands conflict.
Doctrine: Disputed land was subject to “riparian rights” of Julian
Santulan as owner of the upland. The foreshore land that
accumulated covered by OCT that subjected the land to the riparian
rights of the owner of the land cannot be nullified by allegations of
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
possession and improvements of the land. The owner of the OCT
has the preferential right to lease the land.
Republic vs. CA and Lastimado
Lastimado filed a petition for the reopening of cadastral proceedings over a
portion of the Mariveles Cadastre. There was no opposition from the
Government or other private individuals. The court adjudicated the land, after
an ex-parte proceeding and ordered an issuance of a decree of registration.
A decree, and then an OCT was issued in Lastimado‟s name. She then caused
the lot to be subdivided int 10 lots, and thus corresponding TCTs were issued.
A year after the entry of the decree of registration, the Republic filed a
Petition for Review alleging fraud during the alleged adverse possession since
the lot was part of the US Military Reservation and was inside the public
forest. According to the Republic, the land was not subject to disposition or
acquisition under the Public Land Act.
Doctrine: The Government is not estopped from questioning the
decision. The State cannot be bound by the mistakes of its agents
or officials.
Since the subject property was inside the military reservation, it
cannot be the object of cadastral proceedings; and since it also
forms part of the public forest, then any possession thereof,
however how long can never convert it to private property.
Laurel v. Garcia
Petitioners want to stop the sale of the Ropongi property in Japan. Such
property was given by the Japanese government as a reparation for damages
done during the war. Petitioner argues that the said property is still
considered a property of public dominion, although it has no longer been
used for public service.
Whether the government has abandoned the Ropongi propery and thus
made it into a patrimonial property of the state?
Doctrine: For a property of public dominion to become patrimonial
property, there has to be a positive act from the legislature or the
executive branch of the government. For there to be an
abandonment, it must be clearly established thru pronouncements
made by the government that such property is no longer part of the
public dominion. And since no pronouncement has yet been made,
then the property still remains as a property of public dominion and
is thus outside the commerce of man.
Chavez v. PEA
From the time of Marcos until Estrada, portions of Manila Bay were being
reclaimed. A law was passed creating the Public Estate Authority (PEA). It is
the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects
nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR insofar
as reclaimed or about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned.
PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with AMARI, a private
corporation. Under the Joint Venture Agreement between AMARI and PEA,
several hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands and
several portions of submerged areas of Manila Bay were going to be
transferred to AMARI.
Doctrine: Alienable lands of the public domain cannot be sold to
private corporations. It can only be leased to the latter. Ownership
of alienable lands of the public domain can only be vested upon
individuals.
The transfer of PEA to AMARI was not valid. To allow vast areas of reclaimed
lands of the public domain to be transferred to AMARI as private lands will
sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain (Sec. 3).
Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), reclaimed lands are
classified as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Section 3
of the Constitution: Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease. Also Sec. 2 of the
Constitution prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than
agricultural lands of the public domain.
10 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
Chavez v. NHA and Regis Romero
The NHA is a government agency not tasked to dispose of public lands under
its charter—The Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The NHA is an “enduser agency” authorized by law to administer and dispose of reclaimed lands.
Doctrine: The moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the
special patents are transferred to the NHA by the Register of Deeds,
they are automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the
State which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private corporations,
60% of which are owned by Filipinos.
The reason is obvious: if the reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial
land once transferred to NHA, then it would be useless to transfer it to the
NHA since it cannot legally transfer or alienate lands of public domain.
More importantly, it cannot attain its avowed purposes and goals since it can
only transfer patrimonial lands to qualified beneficiaries and prospective
buyers to raise funds for the SMDRP.
From the foregoing considerations, we find that the 79-hectare reclaimed
land has been declared alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
and in the hands of NHA, it has been reclassified as patrimonial property.
REMEDIES
REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN A REGISTRATION CASE
1.
2.
3.
Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration (Rule 31)
Petition for Relief from Judgment (Rule 38)
Appeal (Section 33 PD 1529)
REMEDIES UNDER THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE IN
CASES OF FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION
1.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECREE
Section 32: Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for
value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason
of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected
thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject,
however, to the right of any person, including the government and the
branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by
such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in
the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the
entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be
entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired
the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever
the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in
this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or
other encumbrance for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and
the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy
by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible
for the fraud.
Requisites for Petition for Review of Decree
1.
Petitioner must have an interest in the land
2.
He must show actual fraud in the procurement of the decree of
registration
3.
The petition must be filed within 1 year from the issuance of the
decree by the LRA
4.
The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for
value
Fraud must be extrinsic fraud
Only extrinsic or collateral, as distinguished from intrinsic, fraud is a ground
for annulling a judgment. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the
successful party in a litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case
against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of
the case. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in
litigation during the trial, such as the use of forged instruments or perjured
testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent
a fair and just determination of the case.
The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive the parties of their day in
court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property
registered in the name of the applicant. (Please check instances of actual
Action for Reconveyance may be barred by prescription
A.
B.
C.
D.
fraud in the book. Section 32, page 310)
Eland Phil v. Garcia
On 1998, the heirs of Malabanan filed for Quieting of Title against Eland.
They claimed that they’ve been in open, continuous, actual possession of
land for 30 years, and that there was never a claim on said land until they
found out that on August 1997, the land was awarded to Eland in a Land
registration proceeding.
The proper remedy for the heirs of Malabanan is not one for quieting of title,
but review of decree of registration.
Doctrine: When the requisites for petition for review are all present,
petition for review is the more appropriate action and not quieting
of title. Anyone affected by a decree of registration issued by the
court may ask for a review of decree of registration, as long as it
was filed within 1 year from the issuance of decree. The following
requisites must be present:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land
There was actual fraud in the procurement of the decree of
registration
Must be filed w/in 1 year from issuance of decree by LRA
Property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser
“1 year from issuance of decree” means anytime after the rendition of the
court’s decision BEFORE the expiration of 1 year from entry of final decree
of registration
2.
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE (SECTIONS 53 AND 96)
Nature and purpose of an action for reconveyance
An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the
rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered
in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or
reconvey the land to him. Such action, filed after 1 year from the issuance of
the decree, does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding
but only to show that the person who secured the registration proceeding
but only to show that the person who secured the registration of the
questioned property is not the real owner thereof. It does not seek to set
aside the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open to
review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to
the rightful owner, or to the one with a better right.
When a person is a party to a registration proceeding, or, when notified, he
does not want to participate and only after the property has been adjudicated
to another and the corresponding title has been issued does he file an action
for reconveyance, to give due course to the action is to nullify registration
proceedings and defeat the purpose of the law.
Requisites of an Action for Reconveyance
1. The action must be brought in the name of a person claiming
ownership or dominical right over the land registered in the name of
the defendant.
2. The registration of the land in the name of the defendant was
procured through fraud or other illegal means.
3. The property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
4. The action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final
and incontrovertible but within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud
or not later than 10 years in the case of an implied trust.
Reconveyance is an action in personam
A judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and
duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard.
11 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
Action based on fraud – 4 years after the discovery of the
alleged fraud.
Action based on implied trust – 10 years from the issuance of
the OCT or TCT.
Action based on a void contract – Imprescriptible
Action based on fraud where a plaintiff is in actual possession –
Imprescriptible
Emma Reyes v. Montemayor
Reyes filed a complaint of reconveyance against Montemayor claiming that
she bought lot from Marciano. However, she failed to register the sale and
lot because she was suffering from diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. Later,
she found out that the lot was already registered under the name of
Montemayor, who also claimed to have bought it from Marciano. When
asked, Marciano said he only sold it to Reyes and never to Montemayor.
There were evidences of forged signature of Montemayor too. Montemayor
executed a waiver and quitclaim admitting that her claim to the property is
of dubious origin, which conveyed the property to Isip.
Doctrine: Reconveyance is the proper remedy for a land owner
whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another’s name. However, it is possible only if property is not yet in
possession of innocent purchasers. Torrens system should not be
means to perpetrate fraud. Isip is not a purchaser for value in good faith
and cannot protected under the law since he knew that Monetamayor already
admitted his dubious claim over the property and that should have raised a
suspicion on her part. Hence a forged deed cannot convey a title, for being
a nullity.
Heirs of Labanon v. Heirs of Labanon
Constancio, the illiterate brother, was able to settle in an A &D land. Due to
his being illiterate, he asked help from his brother, maximo, in registering the
land. They both agreed that maximo will apply for registration, and they will
divide the lot among the 2 of them. When application was granted, the land
was registered in Maximo‟s name. Later, when both brothers died, the heirs
of Maximo were trying to find ways to eject the heirs of Constancio. Heirs of
Contancio tried to ask for OCT, but heirs of Maximo in return, filed for
recovery of ownership.
Doctrine: P.D. 1529 does not totally deprive a party of any remedy
to recover the property fraudulently registered in the name of
another. It merely precludes the reopening of the registration
proceedings for titles covered under the Torrens system, but does
not foreclose other remedies for the reconveyance of the property
to its rightful owner.
Reconveyance is the proper remedy for a land owner whose property has
been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name. Torrens system
should not be a means to perpetrate fraud.
Gasataya v. Mabasa
Mabasa mortgaged his lots to DBP. He wasn‟t able to pay his loan, so it was
foreclosed and bought by DBP. Later, DBP and Mabasa entered into an
agreement to repurchase. For payment of repurchase price, Mabasa entered
into another agreement with Gasatayas which stated that Gasatayas will pay
for him, so long as he can possess for 20 yrs. However, Gasatayas stopped
paying DBP, so DBP ordered foreclosure and Heirs of Gasataya bought the
property.
Doctrine: Reconveyance is available not only to the legal owner of
a property but also to the person with a better right than the person
under whose name said property was erroneously registered. Here,
Mabasa had a better right over the property. Had it not been for the
deliberate fraudulent design of Gasataya, the mortgaged would not have
been foreclosed.
3.
4-YR PERIOD AND 10-YR PERIOD TO FILE ACTION
Amerol v. Bagumbayan
One parcel of land was issued with two free patents. Amerol (proper name:
Datumanung) has been in possession of the land and he was also cultivating
the land. He did not know that Bagumbayan registered the land in his name
and an OCT has been issued in favor of Bagumbayan. He sought for
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS l Atty. Emmanuel Gimarino
reconveyance of the land, only after 9 years from issuance of patent and
claimed that the patent was secured by Bagumbayan through fraud and
deceit.
Article 1456 of the Civil Code applies in this case: If property is acquired
through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is by force of law,
considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from
whom the property comes.
Doctrine: An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the issuance of the
Torrens title over the property.
In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property, in this
case the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered
in another person's name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a
better right.
Sanjorjo v. Quijano
Plaintiffs are owners of a parcel of land. Later, plaintiff filed for a criminal
case against defendant for theft saying that defendant stole coconuts. The
court acquitted the defendant finding that the latter is the owner of the
property. It is only here when they learned that the property was already
titled under defendant’s name. They filed an action for reconveyance.
Defendant said that the action has already prescribed.
Doctrine: An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the
Torrens title over the property.
In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property, in this
case the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered
in another person's name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a
better right. The registrant, then, is holding the property in trust for the
rightful owner.
It was proven that fraud and misrepresentation was done by Bagumbayan.
The Supreme Court said that the prescriptive period in this case is 10 years
from the issuance of the certificate of title because an implied trust was
created.
4.
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
When the property has already passed to an innocent purchaser for value,
an action for damages may be instituted by the aggrieved party against the
fraudulent party who caused the conveyance.
Prescription: An action for damages should be brought within 10 years from
the date of the issuance of the questioned certificate of title pursuant to Art
114 of the Civil Code.
5.
RECOVERY FROM THE ASSURANCE FUND (SEC 95)
Section 95. Action for compensation from funds. A person who, without
negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any
estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under
the operation of the Torrens system of arising after original registration of
land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in
the registration book, and who by the provisions of this Decree is barred or
otherwise precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an action
for the recovery of such land or the estate or interest therein, may bring an
action in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to
be paid out of the Assurance Fund.
Requisites for Recovery from the Assurance Fund
1. A person sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of any estate of
interest in land,
2. On account of the bringing of land under the operation of the Torrens
system arising after original registration
12 |U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
3. Through fraud, error, omission, mistake or misdescription in a
certificate of title or entry or memorandum in the registration book
4. Without negligence on his part and
5. Is barred or precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of such
land or estate or interest therein.
DBP v. Bautista
Bautista loaned from RFC, predecessor-in-interest of DBP. As a security, she
offered a parcel of land as a mortgage. She failed to pay so the mortgage
was extrajudicially foreclosed. Subsequently, Ramoses came in claiming
ownership over the land. In a judicial proceeding between DBP and the
Ramoses, wherein Bautista was not made a party to and was not summoned
in the suit, the title was adjudicated to the Ramoses. Consequently, title of
RFC from Bautista was set aside. RFC sought to recover from the assurance
fund but he cannot do so. A bank is required to exercise extraordinary
diligence which RFC failed to do so.
Doctrine: Recovery could be had from the Assurance Fund only
upon a showing that there be no negligence on the part of the party
sustaining any loss or damage or being deprived of any land or
interest therein by the operation of the Land Registration Act.
OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE
1.
2.
3.
Action for cancellation or reversion (Sec 101 Public Land Act)
Criminal Action for Perjury
Annulment of Judgments, Final Orders or Resolutions (Rule 47,
Rules of Court)
Estate of the late Yujuico v. Republic
An action for reversion seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and
disposed to private individuals or corporations back to the mass of public
domain. This remedy is provided under Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141
(Public Land Act) which became effective on December 1, 1936.
Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil procedure provides the two grounds on
annulling RTC judgment. Final orders and resolution.
1.
2.
Extrinsic fraud – must be filed within 4 years from discovery
Lack of jurisdiction – barred by laches or estoppel
Equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when lot was
already alienated to innocent buyers for value and if government did not
undertake any act to contest title for an unreasonable length of time. Since
more than 27 years had elapsed since Yujuico bought the lot before action
for reversion was filed, said action is now barred by latches.
Doctrine: An action to recover lands of the public domain is
imprescriptible. Such right however can be barred by
laches/estoppel under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 which recognizes the
rights of innocent purchasers for value above the interests of the
government.