Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LTD Updates 2012-1 2 PDF
LTD Updates 2012-1 2 PDF
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of whatever classification and other natural
resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State which is the source of any assesdrted right to ownership of land.3 The
1987 Constitution, like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions,4 embodies the principle of State
ownership of lands and all other natural resources as provided in Section 2, Art. XII, to
wit:
“All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and
other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna and other natural resources are owned by the State.
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated.”
PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION
1 Notes based on Agcaoili, “Property Registration Decree and Related Laws (Land Titles and Deeds)” and
“Law on Natural Resources,” 2011 ed., published by Rex Book Store, Inc.
2 Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili finished law at the University of Sto. Tomas. He obtained a degree in
Management at the Asian Institute of Management. A former Chief of Legislative and Research Section,
Bureau of Lands, he was appointed Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor General in 1975, and Assistant
Solicitor General in 1984. In 1995, he was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. He was
Chairman of the 13th Division upon his retirement in August 2003. Justice Agcaoili is a full-time Professor
of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and Professorial Lecturer of the UP Institute for the
Administration of Justice (UP-IAJ) and other MCLE providers. He is a duly accredited Appellate Court
Mediator (ACM). A delegate/participant in several international conferences, he wrote a paper entitled
“Environmental Protection: The Convergence of Law and Policy” which he read during the 20th Biennial
Conference on the Law of the World held in Dublin, Ireland in October 2001. Described by Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno as “isa sa mga eksperto sa mga karapatan sa lupa (one of our experts on land rights),”
Justice Agcaoili is the author of three books: “Property Registration Decree and Related Laws (Land Titles
and Deeds),” “Law on Natural Resources,” and “Reviewer in Property Registration and Related
Proceedings.” (Tel.: 922-0232, 552-9636, 0920-9506384)
3Secretary of the DENR v. Yap, GR No. 172775, Oct. , 2008; Arbias v. Republic, GR No. 173808, Sept.
17, 2008; Alcantara v. DENR, GR No. 161881, July 31, 2008; Buenaventura v. Republic, GR No. 166865,
March 2, 2007;Republic v. Candy Maker, Inc., GR No. 163766, June 22, 2006; Pagkatipunan v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 129862, March 21, 2002.
4 Saad Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, GR No. 152570, Sept. 27, 2006.
!2
However, the Torrens system does not furnish a shield for fraud,8 nor permit one
to enrich himself at the expense of others,9 otherwise its acceptability is impaired.10
Title may be defined briefly as that which constitutes a just cause of exclusive
possession, or which is the foundation of ownership of property. Certificate of title, on
the other hand, is a mere evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the land itself.14
5GR No. 8936, Oct. 2, 1915, 31 Phil. 590, 31 Phil. 590; see also Ching v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 59731,
Jan. 11, 1990, 181 SCRA 9; National Grains Authority v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR No. L-68741,
Jan. 28, 1988, 157 SCRA 388.
6Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abural, GR No. 14167, Aug. 14, 1919, 39 Phil. 996.
7SM Prime Holdings, Inc. v. Madayag, supra.
8Rodriguez v. Lim, GR No. 135817, Nov. 30, 2006, 459 SCRA 412; Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
125585, June 8, 2005.
9Ibid.
10Ermac v. Ermac, GR No. 149679, May 30, 2003, 403 SCRA 291.
11SolidState Multi-Products Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 83383, May 6, 1991, 196 SCRA 630;
Vagilidad v. Vagilidad, GR No. 161136, Nov. 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 94.
12Tiro v. Phil Estates Corporation, GR No. 170528, Aug. 26, 2008 563 SCRA 309.
13Borromeo v. Descallar, supra.
14Castillo v. Escutin, GR No. 171056, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 258.
!3
REGISTRATION OF LANDS:
GOVERNING LAW
PD No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) issued on June 11, 1978 covers both
ordinary and cadastral registration proceedings, and supersedes Act No. 496 (Land
Registration Act) which took effect on February 1, 1903. Act No. 2259, or the Cadastral
Act, governs cadastral proceedings.
Section 48(b), CA No. 141 (Public Land Act) governs the procedure for the
judicial confirmation of imperfect of incomplete titles over public lands.
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS
Lands of the public domain are classified into (1) agricultural, (2) forest or timber,
(3) mineral lands, and (4) national parks. With the exception of agricultural lands, all
other natural resources shall not be alienated.16
“SEC. 9. For the purpose of their administration and disposition, the lands of the
public domain alienable or open to disposition shall be classified, according to the use
or purposes to which such lands are destined, as follows:
(a) Agricultural;
(b) Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar productive purposes;
(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; and
(d) Reservations for town-sites and for public and quasi-public uses.” (CA No.
141 or the Public Land Act).
NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES
15Republic v. Court of Appeals and Ribaya, GR No. 113549, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 223.
16 Secs. 2 and 3, Art. XII, Constitution.
17Art. 419, Civil Code.
!4
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads and others of similar character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for
some public service or for the development of the national wealth.18
The following properties are outside the commerce of men and may not be
disposed of or registered: lands for public use or public service, forest lands, mineral,
foreshore lands, swamplands, mangrove lands, watershed, rivers and creeks,
seashore, reclaimed and public reservation.
Foreshore lands, or that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternately
covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides, belong to the State.19 They
can only be disposed of under a foreshore lease or revocable permit application filed
with the Lands Management Bureau.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Morato,21 the Court held that when the sea
moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the invaded property became
foreshore land and passed to the realm of the public domain.
Only when actually reclaimed from the sea can submerged areas be classified as
public agricultural lands, which under the Constitution are the only natural resources that
the State may alienate. Once reclaimed and transformed into public agricultural
lands, the government may then officially classify these lands as alienable or
disposable lands open to disposition. Thereafter, the government may declare these
lands no longer needed for public service. Only then can these reclaimed lands be
considered alienable or disposable lands of the public domain and within the
commerce of man.22
Forest and mineral lands are public lands not subject to private ownership.
Subsequent release of forest lands as A and D lands does not validate the grant.23
“A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not
lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of
its forest cover. x x x The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or
status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks
like. Unless and until the land classified as ‘forest’ is released in an official
proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not
apply.”
In Republic v. Court of Appeals and De la Rosa,26 Justice Cruz said that the
Regalian doctrine reserves to the State all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels
of the earth even if the land where the discovery is made be private. Thus, if a person is
the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of
such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without
the permission of the State to which such minerals belong.
23 Ituralde v. Falcasantos, 301 SCRA 293; Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 296.
24 Republic v. Court of Appeals and Dela Rosa, 160 SCRA 228.
25GR No. 127882, Dec. 1, 2004, 445 SCRA 1.
26GR No. L-43938, April 15, 1980, 160 SCRA 228.
27 Republic v. Southside Homeowners Association, Inc. GR No. 156951, Sept. 2, 2006.
!6
Under Section 14, PD No. 1529, the following may apply for registration:
Under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 (Public Land Act), it is provided as follows:
There is no substantial difference between Sec. 14(1) of PD No. 1529 and Sec.
48(b) of CA No. 141. In both, the applicant must show that (1) the land is alienable and
disposable (A and D) public agricultural land; and (2) he has been in open, continuous
exclusive and notorious possession thereof under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or prior thereto.32 Both refer to original registration proceedings, are
against the whole world, and the decree of registration for both is conclusive and final.
On the basis of their capacity “to acquire or hold lands of the public domain,” the
following may acquire private lands:
The time to determine whether a person acquiring land is qualified is the time the
right to own it is acquired. Thus, a naturalized Canadian citizen who, while still a
natural-born Filipino, acquired land from a vendor who had already complied with the
requirements of registration prior to the purchase, can validly register his title to the land
32Republic v. San Lorenzo Development Corporation, GR No. 170724, Jan. 29, 2007; Reyes v. Republic,
GR No. 141924, Jan. 23, 2007; Republic v. Manna Properties, GR No. 146527, Jan. 31, 2005, 450 SCRA
247..
33Bernas, The 1987 Constitution, A Reviewer Primer, 2000 ed., 515; Sec. 8, Art. XII, Constitution; RA
No. 7042, as amended by RA No. 8179.
34 Borromeo v. Descallar, GR No. 159310, Feb. 24, 2009.
35 Ong Ching Po v. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 341; Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461;
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52.
!8
even if at the time of the filing of his application he was already an alien.36 He already
had a vested right to the land.
Originally, Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 provided for the possession and
occupation of lands of the public domain since July 26, 1984. This was superseded by
RA No. 1942 which provided for a simple 30-year prescriptive period of occupation by
an applicant for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title. The law, however, has been
amended by PD No. 1073, approved on January 25, 1977, which now requires possession
since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto.37
In Malabanan v. Court of Appeals,38 decided April 29, 2009, the Court en banc
reiterated the rule in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Naguit39 that “since Section 48(b)
(in relation to Section 14[1]) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does not
require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period
of possession, the possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto
as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the timeframe imposed by
Section 47 of the Public Land Act.”40
On the other hand, Section 14(2) must be considered in relation to the rule on
prescription under the Civil Code as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial
property. Public domain lands become only patrimonial property not only with a
declaration that these are alienable or disposable. There must also be an express
government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer
retained for public service or the development of national wealth, under Article 422
of the Civil Code. And only when the property has become patrimonial can the
prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to
run.41
River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of
the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new
course in proportion to the area lost.43 However, the owners of the lands adjoining the
old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which value
shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.
To the owner of lands adjoining the bank rivers belong to the accretion which
they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.44 Article 457 of
the Civil Code requires that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; that it be made
through the effects of the current of the water; and that the land where accretion takes
place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.
However, the accretion does not automatically become registered land just
because the lot which receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens title. There
must be a separate action for the registration thereof.45
Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and is not open
to acquisition by adverse possession, unless subsequently declared as no longer needed
for coast guard service, for public use or for special industries.46
A private corporation may not hold alienable lands of the public domain except by
lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares.47 The rule does not apply where at the time the
corporation acquired the land, the same was already private land as when it was
possessed by its predecessor in the manner and for such length of time as to entitle the
latter to registration.48
Within five days from the filing of the application for registration, the court shall
issue an order setting the date and hour of initial hearing which shall not be earlier than
45 days nor later than 90 days from date of the order.52 The public is given notice of the
initial hearing by (a) publication once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of
general circulation; (b) mailing, and (c) posting. Publication in the OG shall be sufficient
to confer jurisdiction.53 However, publication of the notice in a newspaper of general
circulation remains an indispensable requirement consistent with procedural due
process.54
54Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 63 SCRA 302; Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals and Abistado, 27 SCRA
276.
!11
OPPOSITION
Any person, whether named in the notice or not, may appear and file and
opposition, based on right of dominion or some other real right, to the application for
registration.56 The absence of opposition does not justify outright registration. Since the
presumption is that all lands belong to the State, the applicant has the burden of proving
his imperfect right or fee simple title to the land applied for.57 The failure of the
government to file an opposition, despite receipt of notice, does not deprive it of its right
to appeal a decision adjudicating the land as private property.58
EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION
Under Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 and Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529, the
reckoning point of possession is June 12, 1945.59 It is only necessary that the land is
already classified as A and D land at the time of the filing of the application for
registration.60
Possession must be open, continuous, exclusive and notorious under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.61 Acts of a possessory character by
61Sec. 14(1), PD No. 1529; Sec. 48(b), CA No. 141, as amended; Tan v. Republic, GR No. 177797, Dec. 4,
2008; Republic v. Herbieto, GR No. 156117, 26 May 2005, 459 SCRA 183
!12
virtue of a license or mere tolerance on the part of the real owner are not sufficient.62
Mere casual cultivation of land, the raising of cattle or grazing of livestock without
substantial enclosures or other permanent improvements do not constitute exclusive and
notorious possession under claim of ownership63
Tax declarations and payment of taxes are not conclusive proof of ownership but
have strong probative value when accompanied by proof of actual possession or
supported by other effective proof.64 Declaring land for taxation purposes and visiting it
every once in a while do not constitutes acts of possession.65 Tax declarations are not
evidence of the right of possession unless supported by the other effective proof. But
they constitute proof that the holder has claim of the title over the property.66
Within 15 days from entry of judgment, the court shall issue an order directing the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue a decree of registration and certificate of
title.67
While the judgment becomes final 15 days from receipt of notice of the judgment
(as to the government, period of appeal shall be reckoned from receipt of the decision by
the Solicitor General who represents the government in all registration proceedings),68 the
court nevertheless retains jurisdiction over the case until after the expiration of one year
from the issuance of the decree of registration;69 hence, the case may still be reopened
and the decision set aside when granted.70
62 Seminary of San Carlos v. Municipality of Cebu, GR No. L-4641, March 13, 1911, 19 Phil.32.
63Municipality of Santiago v. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 734; Director of lands v. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177.
64 Tan v. Republic, GR No. 177797, Dec. 4, 2008; Municipality of Santiago v. Court of Appeals, id.
65Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 214.
66 Municipality of Antipolo v. Zapanta, 133 SCRA 820; Masagana v. Argamora, 109 SCRA 53; Director of
lands v. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177.
67 Sec. 30, PD No. 1529)
REMEDIES CONSEQUENT TO
FRAUDULENT OR IRREGULAR
REGISTRATION
The aggrieved party has a number of remedies to question the validity of the
decision. These include the remedies of new trial or reconsideration under Rule 37 of
the Rules of Court, relief from judgment under Rule 38, or appeal to the Court of
Appeals or Supreme Court pursuant to Section 33, PD No. 1529.
It has been ruled that the petition may be filed at any time after the rendition
of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the
final decree of registration for, as noted in Rivera v. Moran,72 there can be no possible
reason for requiring the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before
urging his claim of fraud.
Under the Torrens system of registration, the Torrens becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible one year from the issuance of the final decree and is generally conclusive
evidence of the ownership.74 The rule on the inconvertibility and indefeasibility of a
Torrens title after one year from entry of the decree of registration is equally applicable to
title acquired through homestead or free patents.75 Only extrinsic or collateral, as
distinguished form intrinsic, fraud is a ground for annulling a judgment.
To avail of a petition for review, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the
petitioner must have an estate or interest in the land; (b) he must show actual fraud in the
procurement of the decree of registration; (c) the petition must be filed within one (1)
year from the issuance of the decree by the Land Registration Authority; and (d) the
property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value.76
76 Walstrom v. Mapa, GR No. 38387, Jan. 29, 1990, 181 SCRA 431.
77Bautista-Borja v. Bautista, GR No. 136197, Dec. 10, 2008; Daclag v. Macahilig, GR No. 159578, July
28, 2008; Esconde v. Barlongay, 152 SCRA 603; Rodriguez v. Toreno, 79 SCRA 356.
78 Huang v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 198525, September 13, 1994.
!15
(c)the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value; and
(d)the action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final and
incontrovertible but within four years from the discovery of the fraud,79 or
not later than 10 years in the case of an implied trust.80
A petition for review and action for reconveyance are no longer available if
the property has already been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.
Section 32 of PD No. 1529 provides that “in no case shall such (petition for review)
be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land
or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced.”
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without
notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair
price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s
claim.81
A person dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to rely
on, the title. He is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims which are
annotated on the title, for registration is the operative act that binds the property.82
The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of the supposed title of
the vendor and one who buys without checking the vendor’s title takes all the risks and
losses consequent to such failure.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that, as regards immovable property,
ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded the sale
in the Registry of Property.
In Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, the adverse claim and the notice of lis
pendens were annotated on the title on October 30, 1979 and December 10, 1979,
respectively; the real estate mortgage over the subject property was registered by
79Balbin v. Medalla, GR No. L-46410, Oct. 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 666, which held that: “An action for
reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud may be barred by the statute of limitations, which
requires that the action shall be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud.”
80New Regent Sources, Inc. v. Tanjuatco, GR No. 168800, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 329, citing Walstrom
v. Mapa, GR No. 38387, Jan. 29, 1990, 181 SCRA 431; Kionisala v. Dacut, GR No. 147379, Feb. 27,
2002, 378 SCRA 206.
81Rosales v. Burgos, GR No. 143573, Jan. 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 264.
82Unchuan v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 78775, May 31, 1988, 161 SCRA 710.
!16
respondent only on March 14, 1980. The Court stated that the prior registration of a lien
created a preference. Even a subsequent registration of the prior mortgage will not
diminish this preference, which retroacts to the date of the annotation of the notice of lis
pendens and the adverse claim.
The phrase “innocent purchaser for value” in Section 32 of the Property Registration
Decree includes an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.83 But
unlike private individuals, banks are expected to exercise greater care and prudence in
their dealings, including those involving registered lands. A banking institution is
expected to exercise due diligence before entering into a mortgage contract.
In St. Dominic Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court,84 the Court, held that
where a Torrens title was issued as a result of regular land registration proceedings and
was in the name of the mortgagor when given as a security for a bank loan, the
subsequent declaration of said title as null and void is not a ground for nullifying the
mortgage rights of the bank which had acted in good faith.
In Blanco v. Esquierdo,85 it was held that the right or lien of an innocent mortgagee
for value upon the land mortgaged must be respected and protected, even if the
mortgagor obtained his title thereto thru fraud. In this case, upon a complaint filed by the
legal heirs of Maximiano, the trial court ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-6582 for
having been secured through fraud, and also the cancellation of DBP’s mortgage. The
only question is whether the bank is an innocent purchaser for value. The Court answered
in the affirmative. The bank was not a party to the fraud. The certificate of title was in the
name of Fructuosa at the time of the mortgage. Hence, the bank had the right to rely on
what appeared in the certificate and was under no obligation to look beyond the
certificate and investigate. The remedy of the persons prejudiced is to bring an action
for damages against those who caused the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an
action may be filed for recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.
“ART. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession
thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in
good faith was first in possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who
presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.’’
Between two buyers of the same immovable property registered under the Torrens
system, the law gives ownership priority to: (a) the first registrant in good faith; (b) then,
the first possessor in good faith; and (c) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the
oldest title. This provision, however, does not apply if the property is not registered under
the Torrens system.86
In Remalante v. Tibe,87 the Court ruled that the civil law provision on double sale is
not applicable where there is only one valid sale, the previous sale having been found to
be fraudulent.
Likewise, in Espiritu and Espiritu v. Valerio,88 where the same parcel of land was
purportedly sold to two different parties, the Court held that despite the fact that one deed
of sale was registered ahead of the other, Art. 1544 of the Civil Code will not apply where
said deed is found to be a forgery, the result of this being that the right of the other
vendee should prevail.89 The rule that where two certificates purport to include the same
land, the earlier in date prevails, is valid only absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting
the process of registration.90
Moreover, it is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have
— nemo dat quod non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is
authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can transfer
legally.
86Abrigo v. De Vera, GR No. 154409, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 544.
87GR No. L-59514, February 25, 1988, 158 SCRA 138.
88GR No. L-18018, Dec 26, 1963, 119 Phil. 69.
89Fudot v. Cattleya Land, Inc., GR No. 171008, Sept. 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 350.
90Mathay v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 15788, Sept. 17, 1988, 295 SCRA 556.
91Ney v. Quijano, GR No. 178609, Aug. 4, 2010, and cases cited therein.
!18
Where a court of equity finds that the position of the parties has to change that
equitable relief cannot be afforded without doing injustice, or that the intervening rights
of third persons may be destroyed or seriously impaired, it will not exert its equitable
powers in order to save one from the consequences of his own neglect.94 This is the basic
principle of laches which may bar recovery for one’s neglect or inaction.
certificate of entry in the registration book; (d) without negligence on his part, and (e) is
barred from bringing an action for recovery of the land.96
* Reversion.
The action is instituted by the government, through the Solicitor General, in all
cases where lands of public domain are held in violation of the Constitution97 or were
fraudulently obtained.98
* Annulment of Judgment.
A petition for annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders of
Regional Trial Court for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, etc. are no
longer available must be based on (a) extrinsic fraud, and (b) lack of jurisdiction.99 A
petition for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within four (4)
years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches
or estoppel.100
In Yujuico v. Republic,101 the Court ruled that the action of the government for
reversion on the ground that the land was part of the Manila Bay was improperly filed
with the RTC as the action should have been filed with the Court of Appeals pursuant to
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court governing annulment of judgments of RTCs.
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.108 Prescription is unavailing not only
against the titled owner but also against his heirs.109 But ownership may be lost through
laches110 which is failure or neglect to assert a right for an unreasonable length of time.111
REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR
DESTROYED CERTIFICATE
Section 109, PD No. 1529, governs the procedure for the replacement of a lost or
destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate of title. Where the owner’s duplicate copy is not
104 Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 180; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 366.
105 Tan v. Bantegui, GR No. 154027, Oct. 24, 2005.
106 Demasiado v. Velasco, 71 SCRA 105.
107 Odsigue v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 626.
108 Sec. 47, PD No. 1529.
109 Barcelona v. Barcelona, 100 Phil. 251; Guinoo v. Court of Appeals, 97 Phil. 235.
110 Lucas v. Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277.
in fact lost or destroyed, a petition for the purpose is unwarranted as the court has no
jurisdiction over the petition.115
RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR
DESTROYED CERTIFICATE
ADVERSE CLAIM
record the same on the title of ministerial.121 The notice of adverse claim is to apprise
third person that there is controversy over the ownership of the land, such that any
transaction regarding the land is subject to the outcome of the dispute.122
An adverse claim is not ipso facto cancelled upon the lapse of the thirty days from
its registration. There must be a petition for the purpose to afford the adverse claimant an
opportunity to be heard.123
A notice of lis pendens should contain (1) a statement of the institution of the
action or proceeding; (2) the court where the same is pending; (3) the date of its
institution; (4) a reference to the number of the certificate of title; and (5) an adequate
description of the land affected and its registered owner.124 The notice is not a lien or
encumbrance on the property, but simply a notice to prospective buyers or to those
dealing with the property that it is under litigation.125 The litigation must involve the title
to, or the use or occupation of, a specific property. It does not apply where the object of
the suit is money judgment, or proceedings for the probate of will or administration of the
estate of a deceased person, levy on execution or preliminary attachments.126 A notice of
lis pendens subjects the interest of the transferee to the results of the pending suit.
CONSULTA
Reference:
128 Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 231 SCRA 88.
!23
AGCAOILI, “Property Registration Decree and Related Laws (Land Titles and
Deeds)”, 2011 ed., cited by the Supreme Court as “one of the recognized textbooks on
property registration” in Eland Philippines Inc. v. Garcia, GR No. 173289, Feb. 17,
2010.