Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Usec Hornilla On Land Registration Law
Usec Hornilla On Land Registration Law
Usec Hornilla On Land Registration Law
Who applies?
In an ordinary land registration proceedings under Act
496 and Sections 14-33, P. D. No. 1529, only those
who claim to own the land in fee simple may
apply, i.e., those who acquired ownership of the land
by titulo real (royal grant), titulo de composicion con el
estado (adjustment title), titulo de concession especial
(special grant), titulo de compra (title by purchase
during the Spanish Colonial Period, or thru the
different forms of accession under the Civil Code and
special laws, like accretion, avulsion, abandonment of
river bed, formation of lands in non navigable rivers
and reclamation.
IMPERFECT/INCOMPLETE
TITLE
The title to the land is imperfect or incomplete,
invoke Section 48(b) of C. A. no. 141, as
amended, otherwise known as the Public Land
Act, which provides:
citizens of the Philippines, occupying the lands of
the public domain or claiming to own such lands
or an interest therein, but whose title 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 under the
Land Registration Act
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
THE TITLE OF OWNERSHIP ON THE LAND IS
VESTED UPON THE OWNER UPON EXPIRATION OF
THE PERIOD TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OR
ADJUDICATION BY THE CADASTRAL COURT
The land had become a registered property which could
not be acquired by adverse possession and, therefore,
beyond the jurisdiction of the Land Management Bureau,
to subject it to a free patent. The free patent issued by
the DENR and the certificate of the title issued by the
Register of Deeds are null and void. [Calimpong vs.
Heirs of Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441 (March 31,
2006), citing De la Merced vs. CA, 5 SCRA 240]
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
The President of the Philippines or his alter ego,
the Director of Lands, has no authority to grant a
free patent for land that has ceased to be a
public land and has passed to private ownership;
and a title so issued is null and void. The nullity
arises not from the fraud or deceit, but from the
fact that the land is not under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Lands. [Calimpong vs. Heirs of
Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441 (March 31,
2006), citing De la Merced vs. CA, 5 SCRA 240]
PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY
OF A TORRENS TITLE
PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY
OF A TORRENS TITLE
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF TORRENS
TITLE
It is not disputed that at the core of this controversy
is a parcel of land registered under the Torrens
system. In a long line of cases, we have
consistently ruled that lands covered by a title
cannot be acquired by prescription or by adverse
possession. So it is that in Natalia Realty Corp. vs.
Vallez, et al., we held that a claim of acquisitive
prescription is baseless when the land involved is a
registered land because of Article 1126 of the Civil
Code and Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529. [Ragudo vs.
Fabella Estate tenants Association, Inc., 466 SCRA
136(August 9, 2005)]
PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY
OF A TORRENS TITLE
HOMESTEAD
A homestead patent is one of the modes to acquire title
to public lands suitable for agricultural purposes. Under
the Public Land Act, a homestead patent is one issued
to any citizen of this country, 18 years of age or head of
family, and who is not the owner of more than 24
hectares of land in the country. To be qualified, the
applicant must show that he has resided continuously
for at least one (1) year in the municipality where the
land is situated and must have cultivated at least onefifth of the land applied for. [Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos,
479 SCRA 533 (January 23, 2006)]
A homestead patent once registered under the Land
Registration Act becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens
title. [Portes Sr. vs. Arcala, Supra]
FOREST LAND
Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless
declassified and released by positive act of the
Government so that they may form part of the
disposable lands of the public domain, are not
capable of private appropriation. The rules on
confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
Forests, in the context of both the Public Land
Act and the Constitution classifying lands of the
public domain into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands and national parks, do not
necessarily refer to a large tract of wooded land
or an expense covered by dense growth of trees
or underbrush. (Republic vs. Naguiat, 479
SCRA 585 (January 24, 2006)
FORESHORE LAND
Foreshore land has been defined as that which lies
between the high and low watermarks, and that is
alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the
tide. In other words, it is that strip of land between
high and low water, the land left dry by the flux and
re-flux of the tide. In the present case, although
corners 3 and 4 of lot 2833 have been shown to
adjoin the sea, they have not been proven to be
covered by water during high tide. Hence, the
property cannot be considered foreshore land.
[Republic vs. Lensico, 466 SCRA 361 (August 9,
2005)]
Quieting of Title
The settled rule is that an action for quieting of title is
imprescriptible, as in the instant case, where the person
seeking relief is in the possession of the disputed
property. A person in actual possession of a piece of
land under claim of ownership may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before
taking any step to vindicate his right, and that the
undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to
seek the aid of the Court of Equity to ascertain and
determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party
and its effect on his title.
Payment of taxes
Only a positive and categorical assertion of their
supposed rights against petitioners would rule out the
application of laches. It means taking the initiative by
instituting means to wrest possession. Respondents
payment of taxes alone, without possession, could
hardly be considered as an exercise of ownership. What
stands out is their overwhelming passivity by allowing
petitioners to exercise acts of ownership and to enjoy the
fruits of the litigated lot for 32 years without any
interference. (Rumarate vs. Hernandez, 487 SCRA 317
[April 18, 2006])
Effective Possession
The statement of an immediate neighbor
of a disputed property as to who he
observed was in effective possession of
the same commands great weight and
respect. (Buduhan vs. Pakurao, 483
SCRA 116 (Feb. 22, 2006)]
NOTICE OF PETITION
Publication
The notice of petition be published at the
expense of the petitioner twice in
successive issues in the Official Gazette,
and posted in the main entrance of the
provincial building and the municipal
building of the municipality or city in which
the land is located at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of hearing
Jurisdictional Requirements
Jurisdictional Requirements
Jurisdictional Requirements
A copy of the notice must also be sent, by
registered mail or otherwise, at the
expense of the petitioner, to every person
named (i.e. the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, the owner of
adjoining properties and al other
interested parties whose address is
known, at least 30 days prior to the date of
the hearing;
Jurisdictional Requirements
At the hearing, the petitioner must submit
proof of publication, posting and service of
notice as directed by the court.
The non-observance of the requirement
invalidates the reconstitution
proceedings in the trial court.
Jurisdictional Requirements
Judicial Reconstitution
In case the reconstitution is to be made
exclusively from source enumerated in Section 2
(f), (any other doc) the petition shall be
accompanied by a plan and technical description
of the property duly approved by the General
Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy
of the description taken from the prior certificate
of title covering the same property. [Cabello vs.
Republic, 467 SCRA 330 (Aug. 18, 2005)]
JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION
As a rule, the annotation of an affidavit of loss
on a reconstituted certificate might be defective
and inferior to an already existing certificate of
title.
The remedy to nullify an order granting
reconstitution is a petition for annulment under
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. [Eastworld Motor
Industries Corp. vs. Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA
420 (Dec. 16, 2005)]
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Since respondents' source of reconstitution is
the owner's duplicate certificate of title, there is
no need for the reconstituting officer to require
the submission of the plan, much less deny the
petition on the ground that the submitted plan
appears to be spurious. By enumerating the
hierarchy of sources to be used for the
reconstitution, it is the intent of the law to give
more weight and preference to the owner's
duplicate certificate of title over the other
enumerated sources."
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
"The factual finding of the LRA that respondents' title is
authentic, genuine, valid, and existing, while petitioners'
title is sham and spurious, as affirmed by the two
divisions of the Court of Appeals, is conclusive before
this Court."
ADVERSE CLAIMS
The general rule is that a person dealing with
registered land is not required to go behind the
register to determine the condition of the
property. However, such person is charged with
notice of the burden on the property which is
noted on the face of the register or certificate of
title. A person who deals with registered land is
bound by the liens and encumbrances including
adverse claim annotated therein. [Navotas
Industrial Corp. vs. Cruz, 469 SCRA 530
(September 12, 2005)]