I.

Origin of regallan doctrine and history of land registration laws in the Philippines

Collado v CA, Gr no. 107764, October 4, 2002, in an issue of registration of land in a

public domain where open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession is made, the court
held that under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. A positive act (e.g., an official proclamation) of the
Executive Department is needed to declassify land which had been earlier classified as a
watershed reservation and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other
purposes. Unless and until the land classified as such is released in an official proclamation 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. This law requires at least thirty (30) years of open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and possession of agricultural lands of the public
domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition, immediately preceding the filing of the application
for free patent.

Regalian Doctrine is a principle that was introduced by the Spaniards and gleaned from
Indies law and Royal Cedulas. It was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Spanish Mortgage
Law of 1893 that provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory
claims. Then, it was followed by the Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law that partly amended
the Mortgage Law as well as the Law of the Indies. The Maura law required the adjustment or
registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands would revert to the state. Then, it was
followed by Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act. The law governed the disposition of lands of the
public domain. It prescribed rules and regulations for the homesteading, selling and leasing of
portions of the public domain of the Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions to
enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the Islands. It also provided for the issuance
of patents to certain native settlers upon public lands, for the establishment of town sites and sale
of lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or confirmation of
Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands. Then, Act 2874, the second Public Land Act,
superseded Act No. 926 in 1919. After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, Commonwealth Act
No. 141 (CA 141 for brevity) amended Act 2874 in 1936. CA 141, as amended, remains to this day
as the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public
domain other than timber and mineral lands. Then, it was followed by Act 496, Land Registration
Act, placed all registered lands in the Philippines under the Torrens system. Thereafter, PD 1529,
known as the Property Registration Decree enacted on June 11, 1978, amended and updated Act
496. This law requires that there exists a title which is to be confirmed by the court.

Sec2, Art XII, 1987 Constitution provides that under the Regalian doctrine which is
embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to
the State, which is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.
II. Classification of lands of the public domain

Sec 3, Art XII 1987 Constitution provides that lands of the public domain are classified
into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public
domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
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, for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed
one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred
hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Sec110, CA 141 as amended provides that patents or certificates issued under the
provisions of this Act shall not include nor convey the title to any gold, silver, copper, iron, or other
metals or minerals, or other substances containing minerals, guano, gums, precious stones, coal,
or coal oil contained in lands granted thereunder. These shall remain to be property of the State.

Republic v CA, Gr no L-43938, April 15, 1988, in an issue of conflicting legal claim over
the land and the minerals in it, the court held that this is an application of the Regalian doctrine
which, as its name implies, is intended for the benefit of the State, not of private persons. The rule
simply reserves to the State all minerals that may be found in public and even private land devoted
to "agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or (for) any purpose other than mining." 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.

Sec 9 of CA 141 provides that 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
(d) Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses.

The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall
from time to time make the classifications provided for in this section, and may, at any time and in
a similar manner, transfer lands from one class to another.

MODES OF DISPOSITION
1. For homestead settlement
2. By sale
3. By lease
4. By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
a. By judicial legalization
b. By administrative legalization or free patent
III. Prohibition on aliens from acquiring real properties in the Philippines

Sec7, Art XII, 1987 Constitution provides that save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Section 8, Art XII, provides that
notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations
provided by law.

Republic v Guzman, Gr no. 132964, February 15, 1982, in an issue of owning a private
land in the Philippines by a foreigner, the court held that as a rule, only a Filipino citizen can
acquire private lands in the Philippines. The only instances when a foreigner can acquire private
lands in the Philippines are by hereditary succession and if he was formerly a natural-born Filipino
citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship.

Ramirez v. Ramirez, GR No. L-27962, February 15, 1982, in an issue of owning a private
land in the Philippines by foreigner married to Filipino who expressly mentioned the names of his
foreign wife and companion as usufructuary in his will testament, the court held that the
Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to
testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any
alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in
exchange for a devise of a piece of land. While on the testament for usufructary, the court upholds
the usufruct because a usufruct, albeit a real right, does not vest title to the land in the
usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the
Constitution.

Cheesman v IAC, Gr no. 74833, January 21, 1991, in an issue of lack of consent for the
selling of conjugal property of land between Filipina and Foreigner spouse, the court held that the
fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973
Constitution ordains that, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or
hold lands of the public domain." Since he is an alien who is prohibited from owning land in RP, he
cannot claim that he has a share in the conjugal property and thus, has no legal standing to void
the sale.

Matthews v Taylor, Gr no.164584, June 22, 2009, in an issue of conjugal property

between Filipina and Foreigner spouse, the court held that the rule is clear and inflexible: aliens
are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines, save only in
constitutionally recognized exceptions. There is no rule more settled than this constitutional
prohibition, as more and more aliens attempt to circumvent the provision by trying to own lands
through another. In a long line of cases, we have settled issues that directly or indirectly involve
the above constitutional provision. We had cases where aliens wanted that a particular property be
declared as part of their father’s estate; that they be reimbursed the funds used in purchasing a
property titled in the name of another; that an implied trust be declared in their (aliens’) favor; and
that a contract of sale be nullified for their lack of consent. If the property were to be declared
conjugal, this would accord the alien husband a substantial interest and right over the land, as he
would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution
does not permit him to have.
 Borromeo v Descallar, Gr no. 159310, February 24, 2009, in an issue of invalid sale by
foreigner who owned a land but conveyed it to a Filipino buyer, the court held that if land is
invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a
Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is
rendered valid.

United Church Board for World Ministries v Sebastian, Gr no. L-34672, March 30,
1988, in an issue of invalid sale by foreigner who owned a land but conveyed it to a Filipino buyer,
the court held that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or
transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the
transferee is rendered valid.

WILLEM BEUMER v AVELINA AMORES, G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012, in an

issue of dissolution of conjugal property between Filipina and Foreigner spouse, the court held that
it is well-established that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done
indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly. A contract that violates the
Constitution and the law is null and void, vests no rights, creates no obligations and produces no
legal effect at all.

IV. Former natural born Filipino citizens may acquire real properties in the Philippines

Republic v CA, Gr no. 108998, August 24, 1994, in an issue of foreigner applying for
registration of land which he acquired when he was still a citizen of the Philippines, the court held
that the law provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of 1,000 sq.m., if urban, or
one (1) hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence (BP 185).

Sec2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 (March 16, 1982) provides that any natural-born
citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to
enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum
area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural
land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of
the privilege herein granted; Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired
shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.

In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be
entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when
added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized.

Sec10 of RA no. 7042 as amended by RA 8179 (March 25, 1996) provides that Section
10. Other Rights of Natural-Born Citizen Pursuant to the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the
Constitution declares that any natural-born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who
has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a
private land up to a maximum area of five thousand [5,000] square meters in the case of urban
land or three [3] hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for business or other
purposes. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted:
Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the
maximum herein fixed. In case the transferee already owns urban or rural land for business or
other purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural land for
business or other purposes which when added to those already owned by him shall not exceed
the maximum areas herein authorized. A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two
[2] lots which should be situated in different municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines:
Provided, That the total land area thereof shall not exceed five thousand [5,000] square meters in
the case of urban land or three [3] hectares in the case of rural land for use by him for business or
other purposes. A transferee who has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified from
acquiring rural land and vice versa. [as amended by Republic Act No. 8179]