Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Land Titles and Deeds Agcaoili PDF
Land Titles and Deeds Agcaoili PDF
II-MANRESA 2016
- The RTC took judicial notice that certain parcels of land in
2016 Boracay Island were covered by OCT in the name of the Heirs
of Ciriaco S. Tirol. The titles were issued on August 7, 1933.
[LAND TITLES AND DEEDS] - CA held that respondents-claimants could not be prejudiced
Agcaoili Book; Atty. Panes Lectures; LA Notes by a declaration that the lands they occupied since time
immemorial were part of a forest reserve.
Sec. 1 Title of Decree – This decree shall be known as the Property
Registration Decree. SECOND CASE: G.R. No. 173775 a petition for prohibition, mandamus,
and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064 issued by PGMA classifying
Regalian Doctrine (Art. 12, Sec. 2 of the 1987 PC) Boracay into reserved forest and agricultural land.
- all lands of whatever classification and other natural During the pendency of the 1st case, PGMA issued Proclamation No.
resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within 1064 classifying Boracay Island into
private ownership belong to the State 1. (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes)
and
Jura Regalia 2. (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (A/D).
private title to a land must be traced to some grant, express 3. (15m) buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and
or implied, or from its successors trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of
- The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all land the area reserved for forest land protection purposes.
titles in the Philippines. This refers to Royal Rights that all
lands were formerly held by the King. On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants , owners of beach resorts
- (Maam Panes): refers to private ownership and how private in Boracay filed with this Court an action to nullify PGMA’s proclamation
ownership of lands were given by virtue of the royal rights claiming that it infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of
possessed by the King Boracay; there is no need for a proclamation reclassifying Boracay into
agricultural land; and Being classified as neither mineral nor timber
Exceptions to Regalian Doctrine land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the Philippine Bill
1) Native Title (Carino v. Insular)– refers to pre-conquest of 1902 and Act No. 926, known as the first PLA. Thus, their
rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory possession in the concept of owner for the required period entitled
reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
by ICCs/Indigenous Peoples, have never been public lands,
and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held the OSG argued that petitioners-claimants Boracay is an unclassified
same way since before Spanish Conquest public forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 and cannot be
the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the
Time Immemorial - A period of time when as far
executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify
back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are lands of the public domain into A&D. There is a need for a positive
known to have occupied, possessed in the concept government act in order to release the lots for disposition.
of an owner, and utilized a defined territory
developed to them, by operation of customary law ISSUE:
or inherited from their ancestors with their W/N petitioner claimants have a right to secure titles over their
customs and traditions occupied portions in Boracay. The twin petitions pertain to their right, if
2) Ancestral Domain (Cruz v. Secretary) any, to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141, as
amended. They do not involve their right to secure title under other
pertinent laws.
SECRETARY OF DENR V. MAYOR JOSE S. YAP
October 8, 2008 HELD:
REGALIAN DOCTRINE AND POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE TO
This case involves 2 petitions regarding the right of the present RECLASSIFY LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Private claimants rely
occupants of Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied lands. on three (3) laws and executive acts in their bid for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title, namely:
FIRST CASE: G.R. No. 167707 Certiorari on CA decision affirming 1) Philippine Bill of 1902 in relation to Act No. 926, later amended
RTC granting declaratory relief field by Mayor Jose Yap et al and and/or superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141;
ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes 2) Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos; and
1976, (DENR) approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay 3) Proclamation No. 1064 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-
Island, which identified several lots as being occupied or claimed by Arroyo.
named persons. President Marcos declared the area as tourist zones
and marine reserves under the administration of the Philippine
Tourism Authority (PTA). Hence, subsequent issuance of PTA Circular 3- 1935 1973 CONSTITUTION 1987
82 to implement Proclamation No. 1801. CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION
- Petitioners claim that Proclamation and PTA Circular 1. agricult 1. agricultural 1. agricultur
precluded them from filing an application for judicial ural 2. industrial/com al (maybe
confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling 2. forest or mercial A/D)
purposes; Marcos’ declaration raised doubts on their right to timber 3. residential 2. forest/tim
secure titles over their occupied lands and Since the Island 4. resettlement ber
was classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private 5. mineral 3. national
ownership; Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (CA) 6. timber/forest parks
No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, they had 7. grazing lands 4. mineral
the right to have the lots registered in their names through 8. others by law
judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.
Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had
OSG invoked Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code never been expressly and administratively classified under any of
that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public
It formed part of the mass of lands classified as public forest, which domain.
was NOT available for disposition and since Boracay Island had not
been classified as A & D whatever possession they had cannot ripen THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE dictates that all lands of the public
into ownership. domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation
ISSUE: whether Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal hindrance or of such patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under
impediment to the titling of the lands in Boracay. RTC neither the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
Proclamation nor the Circular mentioned that lands in Boracay were
inalienable or could not be the subject of disposition. The Circular itself All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
recognized private ownership of lands. ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all
- Sections 87 and 53 of the Public Land Act as basis for lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
acknowledging private ownership of lands in Boracay and by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the
that only those forested areas in public lands were declared inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to
as part of the forest reserve. determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private
ownership. The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of
the plenary power as the persona in law to determine who shall be the
1
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they adjudicated, he shall order the DoL to make
may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles survey thereof, w/ notice to all persons claiming
in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of an interest therein. Thereafter, DoL shall be
Cadastral
ownership. represented by SG, shall institute the registration
Act
proceedings by filing a petition in the proper
Feb. 11, 1913
SPANISH RULE court against the possessors stating that public
Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the interest requires the titles to such lands be
Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories settled and adjudicated.
and possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown. comprehensive law limited the exploitation of
agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and
The Laws Of First introduced Regalian doctrine and laid the citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos
The Indies foundation that all lands that were not acquired the same privileges.
And The from the Government, either by purchase or by Act No. 2874 For judicial confirmation of title, possession and
Royal Cedulas grant, belong to the public domain Second occupation en concepto dueo since time
Ley provided for the systematic registration of titles and Public Land immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was
Hipotecaria deeds as well as possessory claims. Act November required.
Or The 29, 1919 ***POSITIVE ACT REQUIRED
Mortgage Law Under Jones Courts are no longer authorized to determine
Of 1893. Law classification of lands
The Royal partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law and the Gave the executive through the President the
Decree Of Laws of the Indies. It established possessory exclusive prerogative to classify public lands into
1894 Or The information as the method of legalizing possession A & D, mineral or forest. After declaration of
Maura Law of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions A&D, this law requires publication and notice
which were set forth in said decree. Under Section remains as the existing general law governing
393 of the Maura Law, an the classification and disposition of lands of the
1) informacion posesoria or possessory public domain other than timber and mineral
information title, lands, and privately owned lands which reverted
2) when duly inscribed in the Registry of to the State.
Property, is converted into a title of Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained
ownership the requirement under Act No. 2874 of
3) only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of possession and occupation of lands of the
4) uninterrupted possession which must be public domain since time immemorial or
actual, public, and adverse, since July 26, 1894.
5) from the date of its inscription.
CA No. 141
6) However, possessory information title had to Amendments of this Requirement
PUBLIC
be perfected one year after the promulgation Republic Act (RA) No. 1942
LAND ACT
of the Maura Law, or until April 17, 1895. OCENPO 30 Years
1935
Otherwise, the lands would revert to the PD No. 1073,
Constitution;
State. OCENPO since June 12, 1945, or
December 1,
1936 earlier.
In sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only
be founded on royal concessions which took various forms, namely: There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of
a) titulo real or royal grant; imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141,
b) concesion especial or special grant; namely:
c) composicion con el estado or adjustment title; (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
d) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and possession and occupation of the subject land
e) informacion posesoria or possessory information title. by himself or through his predecessors-in-
interest under a bona fide claim of ownership
since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945;
and
(2) The classification of the land as alienable and
disposable land of the public domain.
AMERICAN RULE
discontinued the use of Spanish titles as
Philippine 1) AGRICULTURAL ( those public lands acquired
evidence in land registration proceedings. Under
Bill of 1902 from Spain which are not timber or mineral PD No. 892
the decree, all holders of Spanish titles or grants
US assumed lands) February 16,
should apply for registration of their lands under
administration 2) MINERAL 1976
Act No. 496 within six (6) months from the
of the Phil. Is. a. absolute grant (freehold system) Spanish Titles
effectivity of the decree on February 16, 1976.
After the 1898 b. lease (leasehold system) may no longer
Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered
Treaty of Paris 3) TIMBER OR FOREST LANDS. be used as
lands shall be governed by Section 194 of the
established a system of registration by which evidence of
Act No. 496 Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act
recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, ownership due
Land No. 3344.
and imprescriptible. This is known as the to the rise of
Registration Evidences of Ownership during Spanish Regime
TORRENS SYSTEM. several
Act 1) Royal Grant
Made the Court of Land Registration conflicting
On February 2) Special Grant
Does not create title nor vest one, simply claims of
1, 1903 3) Adjustment Title
confirms and register ownership
4) Title by Purchase
introduced the HOMESTEAD SYSTEM , 5) Possessory Information Title
provisions for judicial and administrative 6) Gratuitous Title
Act No. 926
confirmation of imperfect titles Amended and updated the Act. No. 496
First Public
i. OCENPO of agricultural lands for the next ten enacted to codify the various laws relative to
Land Act
(10) years preceding July 26, 1904 registration of property
October 7, PD No. 1529,
governs registration of lands under the Torrens
1903 SALE OR LEASE OF PUBLIC LANDS. Property
system as well as unregistered lands, including
title to public permitted corporations regardless of the Registration
chattel mortgages.
lands in the nationality of persons owning the controlling Decree
Broadened the jurisdiction of RTCs with regard to
Philippines stock to lease or purchase lands of the public June 11, 1978
original registration of title to lands
remained in domain Created the former LRC which is now Land
the gov’t and
judges of courts have the authority to determine Registration Authority
its title sprung
classification of lands
from Treaty of
Paris CFI’s had power to adjudicate cases relating to
land titles and disputes A POSITIVE ACT DECLARING LAND AS ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE IS REQUIRED. In keeping with the presumption of State
Cadastral system of registration – when in ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must
Act. No. the opinion of the President, the public interest be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation,
2259 requires that the title to any lands be settled and declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for
2
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
agricultural or other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141 limits possession of portions of Boracay Island for the requisite period of ten
alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been (10) years under Act No. 926 ipso facto converted the island into
officially delimited and classified. private ownership. Hence, they may apply for a title in their name.A
similar argument was squarely rejected by the Court in Collado v. Court
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF of Appeals. Collado, citing the separate opinion of now Chief Justice
STATE OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural
ON THE PERSON APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION (or claiming Resources,107-a ruled:
ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in
alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, pursuance of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The
incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of law governed the disposition of lands of the public domain. It
the application (or claim) is A/D. prescribed rules and regulations for the homesteading,
selling and leasing of portions of the public domain of the
1) presidential proclamation or P Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions
2) an executive order; E to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the
3) an administrative action; A Islands. It also provided for the issuance of patents to certain
4) investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and native settlers upon public lands, for the establishment of
a R town sites and sale of lots therein, for the completion of
5) legislative act or a statute. L imperfect titles, and for the cancellation or confirmation of
Spanish concessions and grants in the Islands. In short, the
The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that Public Land Act operated on the assumption that title to
the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the
years is alienable and disposable. government; and that the governments title to public land
In this case records bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties
portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a between Spain and the United States.
government proclamation that the land is A/D. Matters of land The term public land referred to all lands of the public
classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof. domain whose title still remained in the government and are
thrown open to private appropriation and settlement, and
Who may classify lands? excluded the patrimonial property of the government and
JUDICIARY (ANKRON AND DE ALDECOA )These cases were the friar lands. Thus, it is plain error for petitioners to argue
decided under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No.
Act No. 926 (October 7, 1926). During that time, the President 926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates
had no power to classify lands of the public domain into mineral, the legal presumption that the lands are alienable and
timber, and agricultural. Hence, the courts were free to make disposable. (Emphasis Ours)
corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were vested
with implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance EXCEPT FOR LANDS ALREADY COVERED BY EXISTING
of the evidence. To aid the courts in resolving land registration TITLES, BORACAY WAS AN UNCLASSIFIED LAND OF
cases under Act No. 926, it was then necessary to devise a THE PUBLIC DOMAIN PRIOR TO PROCLAMATION NO.
presumption on land classification that in the absence of 1064. SUCH UNCLASSIFIED LANDS ARE CONSIDERED
evidence to the contrary, lands are considered agricultural. PUBLIC FOREST UNDER PD NO. 705. The DENR and the
However, this presumption did not automatically converted all National Mapping and Resource Information Authority certify
lands of the public domain as A&D agricultural lands for it would that Boracay Island is an unclassified land of the public
be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long- domain. PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized
entrenched Regalian doctrine. The presumption in Ankron and De all unclassified lands of the public domain as public forest.
Aldecoa attaches only to land registration cases brought under Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a PUBLIC FOREST as a
the provisions of Act No. 926, or more specifically those cases mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the
dealing with judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect subject of the present system of classification for the
titles. The presumption applies to an applicant for judicial or determination of which lands are needed for forest purpose
administrative conformation of imperfect title under Act No. 926. and which are not. Applying PD No. 705, all unclassified
It certainly cannot apply to landowners, such as private lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto
claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, who failed to avail considered public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects
themselves of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to them, their land titles already existing prior to its effectivity.
remained unclassified and, by virtue of the Regalian doctrine, The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a forest
continued to be owned by the State. In any case, the assumption land under PD No. 705 may seem to be out of touch with the
in Ankron and De Aldecoa was not absolute. Land classification present realities in the island. Boracay, no doubt, has been
was, in the end, dependent on proof. If there was proof that the partly stripped of its forest cover to pave the way for
land was better suited for non-agricultural uses, the courts could commercial developments. As a premier tourist destination
adjudge it as a mineral or timber land despite the presumption. for local and foreign tourists, Boracay appears more of a
commercial island resort, rather than a forest land.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Since 1919, courts were no longer Nevertheless, that the occupants of Boracay have built multi-
free to determine the classification of lands from the facts of million peso beach resorts on the island; that the island has
each case, except those that have already became private lands. already been stripped of its forest cover; or that the
Act No. 2874, promulgated in 1919 and reproduced in Section implementation of Proclamation No. 1064 will destroy the
6 of CA No. 141, gave the Executive Department, through the islands tourism industry, do not negate its character as
President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify public public forest.
lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.96-a Since Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the
then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or Constitution classifying lands of the public domain into
implied, to determine the classification of lands of the public agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national
domain. parks, do not necessarily refer to large tracts of wooded land
or expanses covered by dense growths of trees and
underbrushesA forested area classified as forest land of the
Here, private claimants, unlike the HEIRS OF CIRIACO TIROL who public domain does not lose such classification simply
were issued their title in 1933, did not present a justiciable case because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its
for determination by the land registration court of the propertys forest cover. The classification is descriptive of its
land classification. Simply put, there was no opportunity for the legal nature or status and does not have to be
courts then to resolve if the land the Boracay occupants are now descriptive of what the land actually looks like. Unless
claiming were agricultural lands. When Act No. 926 was and until the land classified as forest is released in an official
supplanted by Act No. 2874 in 1919, without an proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the
application for judicial confirmation having been filed by disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules
private claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, the on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. (Emphasis
courts were no longer authorized to determine the supplied)
propertys land classification. Hence, private claimants
cannot bank on Act No. 926.
PROCLAMATION NO. 1801 IS NOT A POSIITIVE ACT. However,
PRIVATE CLAIMANTS CONTINUED POSSESSION UNDER ACT NO. private claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then
926 DOES NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND IS President Marcos in 1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of
ALIENABLE. Private claimants also contend that their continued imperfect title. The Proclamation classified Boracay, among other
3
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert that, as a tourist is already alienable and disposable. this is clear from the
spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership. wording of the law itself. where the land is not alienable and
Proclamation No. 1801 or PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long,
convert the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land but cannot confer ownership or possessory rights.
merely recognizes that the island can be classified by the Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation
Executive department pursuant to its powers under CA No. of imperfect title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect
141. Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be deemed to those lands which were classified as agricultural lands.
the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as Private claimants failed to prove the first element of OCENPO
alienable and disposable land. If President Marcos intended of their lands in Boracay since June 12, 1945.
to classify the island as alienable and disposable or forest, or
both, he would have identified the specific limits of each, as All is not lost, however. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of
President Arroyo did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not right to possess.
done in Proclamation No. 1801. For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as
The Whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1801shows that builders of improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect
the proclamation is aimed at administering the islands their possession. For another, they may look into other modes of
for tourism and ecological purposes. It does not applying for original registration of title, such as by homestead or
address the areas alienability. sales patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law.
IT WAS PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 OF 2006 WHICH POSITIVELY More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle private
DECLARED PART OF BORACAY AS ALIENABLE AND OPENED THE claimants to acquire title to their occupied lots or to exempt them from
SAME TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. certain requirements under the present land laws. There is one such
Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141 provide that it is only the bill now pending in the House of Representatives. Whether that bill or
President, upon the recommendation of the proper a similar bill will become a law is for Congress to decide.
department head, who has the authority to classify the lands
of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the government has taken the step
mineral lands. In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, President necessary to open up the island to private ownership. This gesture may
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo merely exercised the authority not be sufficient to appease some sectors which view the classification
granted to her to classify lands of the public domain, of the island partially into a forest reserve as absurd. That the island is
presumably subject to existing vested rights. Classification of no longer overrun by trees, however, does not becloud the vision to
public lands is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive protect its remaining forest cover and to strike a healthy balance
Department, through the Office of the President. Courts have between progress and ecology. Ecological conservation is as important
no authority to do so. Absent such classification, the land as economic progress.
remains unclassified until released and rendered open to
disposition. To be sure, forest lands are fundamental to our nations survival. Their
PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE promotion and protection are not just fancy rhetoric for politicians and
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW. Private activists. These are needs that become more urgent as destruction of
claimants further assert that Proclamation No. 1064 violates our environment gets prevalent and difficult to control. As aptly
the provision of the (CARL) or RA No. 6657 barring observed by Justice Conrado Sanchez in 1968 in Director of Forestry v.
conversion of public forests into agricultural lands. Munoz:
They claim that since Boracay is a public forest under PD No.
705, President Arroyo can no longer convert it into an The view this Court takes of the cases at bar is but in adherence to
agricultural land without running afoul of Section 4(a) of RA public policy that should be followed with respect to forest lands. Many
No. 6657, thus: have written much, and many more have spoken, and quite often,
SEC. 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform about the pressing need for forest preservation, conservation,
Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement protection, development and reforestation. Not without justification.
and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural For, forests constitute a vital segment of any country's natural
lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive resources. It is of common knowledge by now that absence of the
Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain necessary green cover on our lands produces a number of adverse or
suitable for agriculture. ill effects of serious proportions. Without the trees, watersheds dry up;
rivers and lakes which they supply are emptied of their contents. The
That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under fish disappear. Denuded areas become dust bowls. As waterfalls cease
PD No. 705 did not bar the Executive from later converting it to function, so will hydroelectric plants. With the rains, the fertile
into agricultural land. Boracay Island still remained an topsoil is washed away; geological erosion results. With erosion come
unclassified land of the public domain despite PD No. 705., the dreaded floods that wreak havoc and destruction to property crops,
the prohibition under the CARL applies only to a livestock, houses, and highways not to mention precious human lives.
reclassification of land. If the land had never been Indeed, the foregoing observations should be written down in a
previously classified, as in the case of Boracay, there lumbermans decalogue.
can be no prohibited reclassification under the
agrarian law. We agree with the opinion of the Department
of Justice on this point: Thus, obviously, the prohibition in REPUBLIC V. NAGUIAT
Section 4(a) of the CARL against the reclassification of forest FACTS: Respondent Celestina Naguiat filed for an application for
lands to agricultural lands without a prior law delimiting the registration of 4 parcels of land located in Zambales. She alleges that
limits of the public domain, does not, and cannot, apply to she is the owner of the subject lands having acquired them from LID
those lands of the public domain, denominated as public Corporation. LID Corp. acquired the land from Calderon, Moraga, Monje
forest under the Revised Forestry Code, which have not been and their predecessors in interest who have been in OCENPO for more
previously determined, or classified, as needed for forest than 30 years. She believes that the lots are not mortgaged nor
purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Revised encumbered.
Forestry Code.
RP opposed the application alleging
PRIVATE CLAIMANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR 1) No OCENPO since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto;
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE UNDER CA NO. 2) muniments of title and tax payment receipts of applicant do not
141. NEITHER DO THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS OVER THE constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide
OCCUPIED LANDS UNDER THE SAID LAW. There are two requisites acquisition of the lands applied for or of his OCENPO ;
for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 3) applicants claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of
141, namely: Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of . . .; and that
1) OCENPO of the subject land by himself or through his 4) parcels of land applied for are part of the public domain belonging
predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of to RP not subject to private appropriation.
ownership since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945;
and The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Naguiat which was
2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable subsequently affirmed by the CA. Hence, the appeal before the SC. The
land of the public domain. Republic faults the CA on its finding which respects the length of
Naguiat’s occupation of the subject property and for not considering
Why pb of 1902 and act. No. 926 and pn 1801 reliance the fact that she has not established that the lands in question have
must fail? been declassified from forest land to A&D property.
because of the absence of the 2nd of a/d their
entitlement to a government grant under our present public ISSUE: whether or not the areas in question have ceased to have the
land act presupposes that the land possessed and applied for status of forest or other inalienable lands of the public domain?
4
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Sec. 2 Nature of Registration Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Courts
RULING: SC had an opportunity to discuss the concept of Regalian Judicial Proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippin
Doctrine in this case. It states that all lands of the public domain in rem
belong to the State that is the source of any asserted right to Based on generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens syst
ownership of land. Public lands not shown to have been reclassified or CFI shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person all applications for original registration of title to lands,
by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain. including all improvements and interests therein, and
over all petitions filed after original registration of title,
The burden of proof to overturn the presumption that the land subject with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such
of an application is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant. The petitions.
SC said that the CA, in this case, assumed that the lands in question The court through its clerk of court shall
are already A&D. CA ratiocinated that the possession of Naguiat of the furnish the Land Registration Commission with
lands created a legal fiction where without judicial declaration, the o 2 certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and de
same ceases to be a public land and becomes private property ipso issued in applications or petitions for land registration,
jure. o with the exception of stenographic notes,
within 5 days from the filing or issuance thereof
Respondent Naguiat did not present any incontrovertible proof that
there has been a positive act from the government which reclassified
the land applied for as A&D. The tax receipts cannot be a sufficient
proof for there is no information about the classification of the property History
on it. Instead, the applicant could have obtained a Certificate of Land - conceptualized by Sir Robert Torrens from South Australia
Classification from the DENR as a valid proof. Since the land is - the purpose is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and
unclassified, according to SC, the same cannot be acquired by adverse expense of the system
occupation. Occupation on such land in the concept of an owner,
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered What is Torrens System?
title. To this, the application of Naguiat to have the lands registered is - Those systems of registration of transaction with interest in
denied. land whose declared object is, under governmental
authority;
- To establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and
ISAGANI CRUZ VS. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT indefeasible title to realty,
347 SCRA 128 - To simplify its transfer
FACTS:
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the What are the Purposes of Torrens System? (Legarda v. Saleeby)
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples 1) To quiet title to land;
Rights Act of 1997) together with its implementing rules and 2) To put a stop forever to any question of the legality of title
regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly Exception
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural Claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the
resources to indigenous people. certificate or which may arise subsequent thereto
once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure
On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the without necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to sitting in the “mirador de su casa” to avoid the possibility of
protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious losing his land.
disadvantage like indigenous people. For this reason, it prays that the
petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa countered the Advantages of the Torrens System
constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground that 1) Substitutes security for insecurity
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over 2) Reduced the cost of conveyances and time occupied
lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural 3) Exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage
resources. Also, that the law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine 4) Simplified ordinary dealings
embodied in the Constitution. 5) Affords protection against fraud
6) Restored to their just value many estates, held under good
Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur
definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any
include private lands found within the said areas. similar faults
ISSUE: May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the
JURISDICTION OVER LAND REGISTRATION CASES ground of improper venue? NO.
VENUE
RTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction (Sec. 2 (2) of PD 1529) RULING: While the ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the
1) All applications for original registration of title to lands, petition below was clearly that of improper venue, the Solicitor General
including improvements and interests therein confuses venue with jurisdiction. A distinction between the two must
2) All petitions filed after original registration of title, with be drawn.
power to hear and determine all question arising upon such
applications or petition JURISDICTION OVER THE VENUE OF AN ACTION
MTC’s delegated jurisdiction SUBJECT MATTER
MTCs may hear and determine land registration cases in the following nature of an action is conferred as fixed by statute may be
instances: only by law. It may not be changed by the consent of the
1) Lot sought to be registered is not subject to controversy or conferred by consent or waiver parties, and an objection on
opposition upon a court which otherwise improper venue may be waived by
2) Lot is contested, but the value thereof does not exceed 100, would have no jurisdiction over the failure of the defendant to
000 the subject matter of an action raise it at the proper time.
a. Such value is ascertained by Rules as to jurisdiction can never In such an event, the court may
by the affidavit of the claimant be left to the consent or still render a valid judgment
by the agreement of the respective claimants (if there be more than agreement of the parties.
one), or jurisdictional Procedural (may be waived); to
from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property provide convenience to the parties
rather than restrict their access to
SC Administrative Circular 6-93-A the courts as it relates to the
Nov. 15, 1995 place of trial.
1) Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of
this A.C. shall be transferred by the Executive Judge of the RTC Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of
having jurisdiction over the cases to E.J. of the appropriate Court
Courts of limited jurisdiction for the required raffle among the a. laying of venue is
branches of the court under his administrative supervision procedural rather than
2) But those already commenced as of the date of effectivity shall substantive.
remain w/ said courts, except when the parties agree otherwise b. It relates to the jurisdiction
RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC., of the court over the
vs. RoD Paranaque. person rather than the
[G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000] subject matter.
c. Provisions relating to venue
FACTS: establish a relation
PETITIONER CORPORATION was formerly known as Rudolf Lietz, between the plaintiff and
Incorporated. On July 15, 1996, it amended its Articles of the defendant and not
Incorporation to change its name to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc and was between the court and the
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, subject matter.
1997. As a consequence of its change of name, petitioner sought the d. Venue relates to trial not to
amendment of the TCTs over real properties owned by the said jurisdiction, touches more of
corporation, all of which were under the old name, Rudolf Lietz, the convenience of the
Incorporated. For this purpose, petitioner instituted, on November 20, parties rather than the
1997, a petition for amendment of titles with the RTC of substance of the case.
Paraaque City impleading as respondent the ROD of Pasay City,
apparently because the titles sought to be amended, all state that they In Dacoycoy v. IAC, this Court ruled:
were issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. Petitioner likewise The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by
inadvertently alleged in the body of the petition that the lands covered respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain
by the subject titles are located in Pasay City. Subsequently, error, obviously attributable to its inability to distinguish between
petitioner learned that the subject titles are in the custody of jurisdiction and venue.
the Register of Deeds of Paraaque City. Hence, Ex-Parte Motion
to Admit Amended Petition now impleading ROD of Paraaque City, VENUE, IN INFERIOR COURTS AS WELL AS IN THE CFI (NOW
and alleged that its lands are located in Paraaque City. Court RTC), MAY BE WAIVED EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY Dismissing the
dismissed due to improper venue since properties are in Pasay complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not the
In the meantime, however, on January 30, 1998, the court a quo had appropriate course of action at this stage of the proceedings,
dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of first
it appearing therein that the respondent is the Registry of Deeds of instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where the
Pasay City and the properties are located in Pasay City. [7]MR denied defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as
provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the
PETITIONER BEFORE SC trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or
The court a quo acted contrary to the rules and jurisprudence on the in a special action be permitted to belatedly challenge the wrong
matter for the following reasons: venue, which is deemed waived.
1. It has no power to immediately dismiss an initiatory pleading for
improper venue; THOUGH TECHNICALLY WRONG, MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE
2. Assuming the Order of 30 January 1998 was proper, it was PARTIES FOR WHOSE CONVENIENCE THE RULES ON VENUE HAD
nevertheless still a matter of right on petitioners part to amend BEEN DEVISED. Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the
its petition in order to correct the wrong entries therein; and venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have
3. The unassailable reality is that the subject parcels of land are been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the
venue, though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for
located in Paraaque City, so venue was properly laid despite that
whose convenience the rules on venue had been devised. The trial
erroneous allegation in the original petition.[11]
court cannot pre-empt the defendants prerogative to object to the
improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case.
OSG
The Solicitor General filed on November 4, 1998 his Comment said that
INDEED, IT WAS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS FOR THE TRIAL COURT
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the res because it appeared
TO HAVE TAKEN A PROCEDURAL SHORT-CUT BY
from the original petition that the lands are situated in Pasay City;
DISMISSING MOTU PROPRIO the complaint on the ground of
hence, outside the jurisdiction of the Paraaque court. Since it had no
improper venue without first allowing the procedure outlined in the
10
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
rules of court to take its proper course. Although we are for the speedy prescription does not lie against co-owners, unless the following
and expeditious resolution of cases, justice and fairness take primary requisites concur.
importance. The ends of justice require that respondent trial court a. There is a clear showing that the claimant has
faithfully adhere to the rules of procedure to afford not only the repudiated the co-ownership.
defendant, but the plaintiff as well, the right to be heard on his cause. b. He has made known to the co-owners that he is
[18]
assuming exclusive ownership over the property.
c. Clear and convincing evidence thereof.
d. His possession is OCEN.
PETITIONER CORRECTLY INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE This circumstances were not present in the case at bar. The fact of
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN SEEKING THE AMENDMENT OF ITS paying taxes cannot defeat the right of coowners to their right to enjoy
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE. The jurisdiction of the RTC over matters the use of their property, the same does not confer title upon a
involving the registration of lands and lands registered under the claimant.
Torrens system is conferred by Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. Nonetheless, the SC granted the petition and have the lands registered
1529, The Property Registration Decree, viz: under the name of Jose and his heirs by
Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. --- Judicial virtue of the valid deed of donation inter vivos. The Supreme Court
proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines further ruled that the donation mortis causa did not revoke the first
shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles donation. The weight of authority is that a valid donation, once
underlying the Torrens system. accepted, becomes irrevocable subject to few exceptions. Finally, the
court said that the disposition in favor of Jose of the subject properties
COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have should be respected.
exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of
title to lands, including improvements and interest 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.
Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration
The COURT through its CLERK OF COURT shall system. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is
1. furnish the Land Registration Commission with two hereby discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which
certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered
decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land lands.
registration, Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under
2. WITH THE EXCEPTION of stenographic notes, the Spanish Mortgage Law may be
3. within five days from the filing or issuance thereof. recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have
been brought under the operation of the Torrens system. The books of
registration for unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the
In the case at bar, the lands are located in Paraaque City, as stated on Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall
the faces of the titles. Petitioner, thus, also correctly filed the petition continue to remain in force; provided, that all instruments dealing with
in the place where the lands are situated, pursuant to the following unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under Section 113 of
rule: this Decree.
Venue of real actions. --- Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
or a portion thereof, is situated.[19] instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall
be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such
instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein prescribed
VDA. DE ARCEO VS. CA in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
185 SCRA 489 land lies.
Facts:
Spouses Arceo are owners of four parcels of unregistered lands located (a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a
in Bulacan. They had one Son named Esteban who had 5 children. Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary
Esteban’s children and their children are the parties involved in this Entry Book shall contain, among other particulars,
case. In 1941, Spouses Arceo executed a donation inter vivos in favor 1. the entry number,
of Jose, one of Esteban’s children. Since 1942, Jose paid the taxes, took 2. the names of the parties,
personal possession of the land and claimed it as his own. In 1941, 3. the nature of the document,
also, Arceos supposedly 4. the date, hour and minute it was presented and received.
signed a deed of donation mortis causa to give away the subject 5. The recording of the deed and other instruments relating
properties in favor of all his grandchildren including Jose. However, the to unregistered lands shall be effected by any of
said document was notarized in 1944 only after Mrs. Arceo died. annotation on the space provided therefor in the
Registration Book, after the same shall have been
Subsequently, the wife of Jose, together with their children, filed with entered in the Primary Entry Book.
the cadastral court an application for
registration in their names the subject lands. This was contested by (b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in
Pedro and Lorenzo, Jose’s siblings contending that they are entitled to law, the Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument
a part of the subject parcels of land. The cadastral court rejected the in the manner provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds
registration and distributed the properties according to law on intestate refuses its administration to record, said official shall advise the
succession instead. The CA affirmed its decision. party in interest in writing of the ground or grounds for his
Issue: WON the cadastral court has jurisdiction in determining the refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter to the
ownership of lands? Commissioner of Land Registration in accordance with the
provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be
Ruling: understood that any recording made under this section shall be
As to the issue of jurisdiction, Section 2 of PD 1529 provides that RTC, without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
sitting as a land registration court, is no
longer circumscribed as it is in the previous law. PD 1529 eliminated (c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall
the general jurisdiction of RTC and the limited jurisdiction of RTC acting endorse among other things, upon the original of the recorded
merely as a cadastral court; the purpose of this is to avoid multiplicity instruments, the file number and the date as well as the hour
of suits. and minute when the document was received for recording as
In this case, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning to the registrant or
jurisdiction in the determination of issues on person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with
ownership, which at the same time involves the issue on the right of appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the
registration. There would be a multiplicity of suits or the registration instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the
will be prolonged if not impossible should the cadastral court decide provincial or city assessor as required by existing law.
not to pass upon the issue of ownership.
(d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse
As to the issue of co-ownership: claim and other instruments in the nature of involuntary dealings
Jose’s wife contends that they acquired the lot through acquisitive with respect to unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient
prescription. This was rejected by the SC. The Civil Code provides that in law, shall likewise be admissible to record under this section.
11
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration.
(e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under Section 6. General Functions.
this section, he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed (1) The Administrator of Land Registration shall have the
for similar services for the registration of deeds or instruments following functions:
concerning registered lands. a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of
the courts in land registration proceedings and cause the
REGISTRATION UNDER THE SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW issuance by the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding
certificates of title;
TITULO DE PROPRIEDAD NO. 4136 The case of Director of Forestry b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of
v. Muñoz would soon be the core of subsequent decisions declaring the Deeds and other personnel of the Commission;
infamous Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as a forgery foisted upon the c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from
courts and bereft of any validity and efficacy as evidence of ownership. decision of, Registers of Deeds;
In this case, petitioners-heirs did not adduce d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and
evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad 4136 was brought under personnel of the Courts of First Instance throughout the
the operation of P.D. No. 892 despite their Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and
allegation that they did so on August 13, 1976. Proof of compliance functions in relation to the registration of lands;
with P.D. No. 892 should be the Certificate of Title covering the land e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated
registered. relative to the registration of lands
and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all
REGISTRATION UNDER ACT NO. 3344; ineffective as against 3 rd needful rules and regulations therefor;
persons f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and
The inscription under Act No. 3344 of a transaction relating to consolidation-subdivision survey plans of properties titled
unregistered land was held not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of under Act No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No. 957.
the Civil Code, the law on double sale of the same property. The (2) The Land Registration Authority shall have the following
registration should be made in the property registry to be binding upon functions:
third persons; mere registration of a sale in one’s favour does not give a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department
him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in
the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the the implementation of the land reform program of the
earlier sale was unrecorded. government;
b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land
registration proceedings;
c) Be the central repository of records relative to original
registration of lands titled under the Torrens system,
CHAPTER II including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF lands.
DEEDS SEC. 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. — There shall be at least
one Register of Deeds for each province and one for each city.
Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In order to have a more Every Registry with a
efficient execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands,
yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos
geared to the massive and accelerated land reform and social justice
during the last three years shall have one
program of the government, there is created a commission to be
o Deputy Register of Deeds,
known as the Land Registration Commission under the executive
supervision of the Department of Justice. and every Registry with a
Section 5. Officials and employees of the Commission. The Land yearly average collection of more than three hundred
Registration Commission shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be thousand pesos
known, respectively, as the Commissioner and the Deputy during the last three years, shall have one
Commissioner of Land Registration who shall be appointed by the o Deputy Register of Deeds and
President. o one second Deputy Register of Deeds.
The Commissioner shall be
duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial
with at least ten years of practice in the legal profession, jurisdiction of each Registry upon the recommendation of the
and Commissioner of Land Registration, with the end in view of making
shall have the same rank, compensation and privileges as every registry easily accessible to the people of the neighboring
those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. municipalities. The province or city shall furnish a suitable space or
The Deputy Commissioner, who shall building for the office of the Register of Deeds until such time as the
possess the same qualifications as those required of the same could be furnished out of national funds.
Commissioner,
Registry of Property
shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand
pesos per annum less than that of the Commissioner. in accordance with Sec. 51 of PD 1529 which provides that
“no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument –
He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during
except a will- purporting to convey or affect registered land
the absence or disability of the Commissioner and
shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land until its
when there is a vacancy in the position until another person
registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding
shall have been designated or appointed in accordance with
only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect
law.
innocent 3rd persons.
The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey
functions as the Commissioner may assign to him.
or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.
They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be
Between the two buyers of the same immovable property
necessary in the interest of the functioning of the Commission, by a
registered under the Torrens System, the law gives
Special Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief Geodetic
ownership priority to
Engineer who shall each receive compensation at the rate of three
1) First registrant in good faith
thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy
2) First possessor in good faith
Commissioner.
3) Buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title
All other officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission
including those of the Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein
Effect of Registration
provided, shall receive salaries corresponding to the minimum of their
respective upgraded ranges as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Constructive notice to all persons from the time of such
Budget Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the registering, filing, or entering.
board, notwithstanding the maximum salary allowed for their
respective civil service eligibilities. SEC. 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies
The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be and other subordinate personnel; salaries. — Registers of Deeds
without prejudice to such benefits and adjustments as may from time shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon
to time be granted by the President or by the legislature to recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Deputy Registers of Deeds
government employees. and all other subordinate personnel of the Registries of Deeds shall be
All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon the recommendation of the
Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon Commissioner of Land Registration. The salaries of Registers of Deeds
and their Deputies shall be at the following rates:
12
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
(1) First Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds b) When there are several copies of title but only one is
in first class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred presented with the instrument to be registered
pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. c) Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the
(2) Second Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one
Deeds in second class Registries shall be three thousand four spouse;
hundred pesos per annum less than those of Registers of d) Where there is pending case in court where the character of
Deeds in first class Registries. the land and the validity of conveyance is in issue;
(3) Third Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of o In this case, the matter of registration may well
Deeds in third class Registries shall be three thousand four await the outcome of that case, and in the
hundred pesos per annum less than those of Registers of meantime the rights of the interested parties could
Deeds in second class Registries. be protected by the filing the proper notices of lis
(4) The salaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds and Second pendens.
Deputy Registers of Deeds shall be three thousand four e) Where required certificates and documents are not
hundred pesos per annum less than those of their submitted
corresponding Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of
Deeds, respectively.
(5) The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the May the RoD be compelled by mandamus?
Commissioner of Land Registration, shall cause the No. Since the registration is a judicial function, it cannot be compelled
reclassification of Registries based either on work load or the by mandamus. The interested party must resort to the available
class of province/ city, whichever will result in a higher administrative remedy before he can have recourse to the courts.
classification, for purposes of salary adjustments in
accordance with the rates hereinabove provided.
SEC. 11. Discharge of duties of Register of Deeds in case of
vacancy, etc. —
SEC. 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds and Deputy 1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a
Registers of Deeds. — No person shall be appointed Register of province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon the
Deeds unless he has been admitted to the practice of law in the occasion of the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of the
Philippines and shall have been actually engaged in such practice for Register of Deeds to discharge his duties, said duties shall be
at least three years or has been employed for a like period in any performed by the following officials, in the order in which they are
branch of government the functions of which include the registration of mentioned below, unless the Secretary of Justice designates
property. another official to act temporarily in his place:
The Deputy Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine Bar. a) For the province or city where there is a Deputy
Provided, however, That no Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Register of Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or
Deeds holding office as such upon the passage of this Decree shall by by the second Deputy Register of Deeds, should there
reason hereof, be removed from office or be demoted to a lower be one;
category or scale of salary except for cause and upon compliance with b) For the province or city where there is no Deputy or
due process as provided for by law. second Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or
City Fiscal, or any Assistant Fiscal designated by the
SEC. 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. — The office of Provincial or City Fiscal.
the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of 2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of
instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel Deeds without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the
mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated. Secretary of Justice may, in his discretion, authorize the payment
of an additional compensation to the official acting as Register of
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to Deeds, such additional compensation together with his actual
immediately register an instrument presented for salary not to exceed the salary authorized for the position thus
registration dealing with real or personal property filled by him.
which complies with all the requisites for registration. 3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending
He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper establishment of a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a
documentary and science stamps and that regular Register of Deeds for the new province or city, the
Register of Deeds of the mother province or city shall be the ex-
the same are properly cancelled.
officio Register of Deeds for said new province or city.
If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith
o deny registration thereof and
SEC. 12. Owner’s Index; reports. — There shall be prepared in
o inform the presentor of such denial in writing, every Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all
o stating the ground or reason therefor, and registered owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an index
o advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in card which shall be prepared in the name of each registered owner
accordance with Section 117 of this Decree. which shall contain a list of all lands registered in his name.
The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration
Office of the Register of Deeds Commission within ten days after the month to which they pertain his
Public repository of records of instruments affecting monthly reports on collections and accomplishments. He shall also
registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in submit to the Commission at the end of December of each year, an
the province or city wherein such office is situated annual inventory of all titles and instruments in his Registry.
NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF LRA SEC. 13. Chief Geodetic Engineer. — There shall be a Chief
General Rule:It’s duty is ministerial – those acts of functions that Geodetic Engineer in the Land Registration Commission who shall be
conform to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. They act under the technical adviser of the Commission on all matters involving
the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the surveys and shall be responsible to him for all plats, plans and works
decision of the court and with the data found in the record. If the LRA requiring the services of a geodetic engineer in said office. He shall
is in doubt as to the issuance and preparation of the decree, it perform such other functions as may, from time to time, be assigned to
is their duty to refer the matter to the court. In this sense, they him by the Commissioner.
act as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their
act is the act of the court. They are specifically called upon to extend PD 239
assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration - Only the LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU has authority to
proceedings. approve original survey plans for registration purposes.
- The grant of authority to the LRC to approve original survey
The validity of the document is not for the register to determine for it is plans has resulted in wasteful overlapping or duplication of
a function of a court of competent jurisdiction. Validity is to be decided functions. There was therefore a need to centralize in one
after the registration in a litigation. In case of doubt, it shall be referred agency, the LMB, the function of verifying and approving
to the LRA original survey plans for all purposes in order to assure
LRA shall after notice and hearing, enter an order compliance with established standards and minimize
prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful question irregularities in the execution of land surveys
which shall be conclusive and binding upon all RoDs
Exception: LRA officials may exercise discretion in the following
instances: Survey Plan
a) When obeying the court’s order would result to double - serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure
titling; that it does not overlap a parcel of land portion thereof
already covered by previous land registration, and to
13
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
forestall the possibility of which by a subsequent registration The parties submitted a Motion for Dismissal in view of their agreement
of any adjoining land. in the instant (RTC) case that neither of them can physically take
possession of the property in question until the instant case is
terminated. Hence the ejectment case was dismissed.
14
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
the land was already covered by the Torrens system at the consistently held as regards registered land that a purchaser in good
time the conveyance was registered under Act 3344. For the faith acquires a good title as against all the transferees thereof whose
same reason, inasmuch as the registration of the sale to Respondent rights are not recorded in the Registry of Deeds at the time of the sale.
De Vera under the Torrens system was done in good faith, this sale
must be upheld over the sale registered under Act 3344 to Petitioner-
Spouses Abrigo.
CHAPTER III
NOTES: (ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS)
SECTION 14
The principle in Article 1544 of the Civil Code is in full accord with Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the
Section 51 of PD 1529 which provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to
other voluntary instrument — except a will — purporting to convey or land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the representatives:
land until its registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect innocent interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
third persons. possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since
Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo25 explained the difference in the June 12, 1945, or earlier.
rules of registration under Act 3344 and those under the Torrens (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
system in this wise: prescription under the provision of existing laws.
“Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or
unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice to a third party with a better abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under
right.’ The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean the existing laws.
that the mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give (4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the provided for by law.
owner of the land having previously sold the same to Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file
somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. the application jointly.
“The case of Carumba vs. Court of Appeals is a case in point. It was Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a
held therein that Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application retro may file an application for the original registration of the
to land not registered under Act No. 496. Like in the case at bar, land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption
Carumba dealt with a double sale of the same unregistered land. The expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings and
first sale was made by the original owners and was unrecorded while ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the
the second was an execution sale that resulted from a complaint for a latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the
sum of money filed against the said original owners. Applying [Section proceedings.
33], Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court held that Article
1544 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked to benefit the purchaser at A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original
the execution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even registration of any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by
if this second sale was registered. It was explained that this is the instrument creating the trust.
because the purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff’s
execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment Registration – the entry of instruments or deeds in book or public
debtor, and merely acquires the latter’s interest in the registry. To register, means to enter in a register, to record formally or
property sold as of the time the property was levied upon. distinctly, to enroll; to enter in a list.
“Applying this principle, x x x the execution sale of unregistered land in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) The first title issued in the name
favor of petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer belonged of a registered owner by the ROD over a parcel of land registered
to the judgment debtor as of the time of the said execution sale. under the Torrens System by virtue of
a) Judicial or
3. Good-Faith Requirement b) Administrative proceedings.
We have consistently held that Article 1544 requires the second buyer
to acquire the immovable in good faith and to register it in good faith. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Subsequent issuance of ROD
Mere registration of title is not enough; good faith must concur with the pursuant to any voluntary and involuntary instrument relating to the
registration.We explained the rationale in Uraca v. Court of Appeals, same land.
which we quote: Note: Registration proceedings may be in rem or in personam. The
following are its distinctions.
“Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by
the second buyer does not by itself confer ownership or a better right In rem Binds the whole world
over the property. Article 1544 requires that such registration In personam To enforce a personal right against a person
must be coupled with good faith. Jurisprudence teaches us that Quasi in rem Deals with status, ownership or liability of a particular
‘(t)he governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, property. It only operates on the question between the parties.This is
stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible
sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights except where the second claimants.
buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first, as
provided by the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not
bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to
SECTION 14 (1) – OCENPO
register first her purchase as against the second buyer. But in
-Registration under the first paragraph of Section 14 requires the
converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale
concurrence of the following
defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since
REQUISITES:
such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the
(1) Land applied for is an agricultural public land classified as
price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer
alienable and disposable land at the time;
being able to displace the first buyer; that before the second buyer can
(2) Application for registration is filed with the proper court;
obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith
(3) Applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has
throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer’s
been in OCENPO thereof, under bona fide claim of ownership;
rights) —- from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to
(4) Such possession and occupation has been effected since June
him by registration, or failing registration, by delivery of
12, 1945 or earlier.
possession.’”34 (Italics supplied)
SECTION 14 (2) – PRESCRIPTION
Equally important, under Section 44 of PD 1529, every registered
PRESCRIPTION LACHES
owner receiving a certificate of title pursuant to a decree of
registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking an extraordinary mode of the unreasonable delay in the
such certificate for value and in good faith shall hold the same free acquiring or losing of ownership bringing of a cause of action
from all encumbrances, except those noted and enumerated in the and other real rights through the before the courts of justice. It is
certificate. Thus, a person dealing with registered land is not lapse of time in the manner and also referred to as ‘sleeping on
required to go behind the registry to determine the condition under the conditions laid down by your rights
of the property, since such condition is noted on the face of the law.
register or certificate of title.Following this principle, this Court has A matter of time A question of equity
It is statutory not statutory
15
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
It is based on law based on equity
based on a fixed time the period varies SC said, unlike Sec 14(1), Sec 14 (2) explicitly refers to the principles
on a case-to-case basis on prescription under existing laws. The SC also said that the rules on
prescription under the Civil Code is applicable in Sec 14 (2).Article
The basis for Sec. 14 (2) is found in Article 1113 of the Civil Code 1113 of the Civil Code says that only the patrimonial property of the
Article 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men state can be subject to prescription. Also it is clear that land which is
are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. part of public dominion cannot be alienated even if it is declared A&D.
Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial There must be a declaration of the State that the public dominion
in character shall not be the object of prescription. property is no longer intended for the development of the national
Maam: You have to be specific, because not all lands of ‘public domain’ wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial for the
are inalienable. Patrimonial properties of the State are still considered period of prescription to run. Without these, the property remains to be
public domain. of public dominion.
Section 14 (1) mandates registration on the basis of possession while
Patrimonial property – Property owned by the State but which is not Sec. 14 (2) entitles registration on the basis of prescription.
devoted to public use, public service, or the development of national Registration under Section 14 (1) is extended under the aegis of the
wealth. It is wealth owned by the State in its private capacity. Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act, while registration
under Section 14 (2) is made available both by the Property
For private lands, which are patrimonial properties of the Registration Decree and the Civil Code.
State, to be acquired via prescription, the following must
concur: Also, Registration under Sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act is based on
1) Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription, 10 years possession in good possession,
faith and with just title; or Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 is founded on extraordinary prescription
2) Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription, uninterrupted adverse under the Civil Code. The rules on prescription under the Civil Code do
possession of patrimonial property for at least 30 years, not apply to Sec 14 (1) since there is no such intent manifested by the
regardless of good faith and just title; and There must be an legislature and that PD 1529 is neither superior nor inferior than Civil
express declaration by the State that the public dominion Code, legislature is not bound to adhere on Civil Code framework.
property is no longer intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT MALABANAN IS
ENTITLED TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY BASED ON SECTION 14
MALABANAN V. REPUBLIC (1) OR SECTION 14(2) OF PD 1529 OR BOTH.
The SC said that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that
Malabanan thas acquired ownership over the subject property under
Facts: Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence
In 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an application for land registration to establish that Malabanan or his predecessors-in-interest have been
covering a parcel of land located in Silang Cavity. Malabanan claimed in possession of the property since June, 12, 1945 or earlier. The
that he purchased the land from Eduardo Velazco, and that he and earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, as evidenced a
his predecessors-in-interest had been in OCENPO of the land for more tax declaration, is to the year 1848. Therefore, they cannot register the
than 30 years. land under Sec. 14 (1). Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section
Aristedes Velazco, Malabanan’s witness, testified before the court 14 (2) as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared
that the property originally belonged to a 22- hectare property owned A&D in 1982, there is no competent evidence that is no longer
by Lino Velazco, her great-grandfather. Lino had 4 sons – Benedicto, intended for public use, public service, or for the development of the
Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban. Esteban is Aristedes’ grandfather. The national wealth. The classification of the subject property as
property was divided among the 4 of them. A&D land of the public domain does not change its status as
In 1996, Magdalena, Esteban’s wife, became the administrator of all property of the public dominion. Thus, it is insusceptible to
the properties of the Velazco sons. After Esteban and Magdalena died, acquisition by prescription
their son Virgilio succeded them in administering the properties,
including the subject land, which is owned by his uncle, Eduardo RP V. CA AND NAGUIT
Velazco. Eduardo sold this to Malabanan. Section 14 (1) merely requires the property sought to be
Also, a certificate issued by CENRO, DENR dated JUNE 1, 2001 was registered as already alienable and disposable “at the time the
presented verifying the said land as A and D. RTC ruled in favor of application for registration of title is filed. A contrary interpretation
Malabanan. Republic appealed, now represented by the OSG, CA renders par. (1) Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes the
reversed the decision of the RTC. government from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public
agricultural lands as A&D.
Issue/Ruling:
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND, IN ORDER
TO BE REGISTRABLE UNDER SECTION 14 (1) OF PD 1529,
SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A&D AS OF JUNE 12, 1945. SEC. 14 (3) – ACCESSION AND ACCRETION
The OSG contends that all lands certified as A&D after June 12, 1945 A. Accession – Refers to the right of an owner of a thing to its
cannot be registered either under Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 sec. 48 (b) of products as well as whatever is inseparably attached thereto as
Public Land Act. an accessory. The accessory follows the principal.
The SC said such interpretation renders the mentioned provision
virtually inoperative and even precludes the government form giving it Basis in the Civil Code
effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as A&D. Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by
Such unreasonableness accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is
is aggravated of the fact the before June 12, 1945, Philippines was not incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.
yet even considered an independent state. The SC cited the case of
Naguit. Such decision provides that the Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 only Requisites of Accession (applies to lakes, creeks, and streams):
requires the property sought to be registered as already A&D 1. That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
at the time the application for registration of title is filed. 2. That it be made through the effects of the current of the
water;
If the State has not yet released the land as A&D at the time of the 3. That the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to
application, it is presumed that the State is still reserving its right to the banks of the river.
utilize the property. But in this case, the property was already classified
as A&D, this shows an intention of the State to abdicate its authority
over the land. B. Accretion and Alluvion
Accretion – defined as the addition of portions of soil, by gradual
deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT A LAND CLASSIFIED AS already in the possession of the owner. (Black’s Law)
A&D BE DEEMED PRIVATE LAND AND THEREFORE SUSCEPTIBLE
TO ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION. Alluvion – It refers to the accretion made by flow of rivers. A form
In this case, the petitioners primarily based their registration bid on of accession natura , which is provided for in Articles 457 and 461.
Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 or prescription.
Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that “All things which are within Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects
provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not of the current of the waters.
patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.”
16
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural - It may only be disposed of if there is a formal declaration by the
change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the government that the same is A and D. Its
owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion disposition falls under the exclusive supervision and control of the Land
to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the Management Bureau.
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 SEC. 14 (4) – IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY LAW
occupied by the new bed. 1) Presidential proclamation reserving lands for specific
public purpose
Requisites of Accretion or Alluvion: The president has the authority to set aside lands from
1) The change must be sudden; sale/public acquisition and reserve them to public use, even
2) The changing of the course must be more or less permanent, though this might defeat the imperfect right of a settler.
and not temporary over flooding of another’s land; Lands covered by reservation are not subject to entry and
3) The change of the river must be a natural one, not by may not be the subject of lawful settlement.
artificial means;
4) There must be definite abandonment by the government; Example:
5) The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not 1) Proclamation 791. It set aside a parcel of land for the University of
completely dry up or disappear. the Philippines’ College of Agriculture even though a logger-
corporation had been possessing the land by virtue of a timber
Rationale of the law on accretion: license. (International hardwood vs. University of the Phil.)
- It is primarily anchored on the principle or right of accession 2) Proclamation 350 was a land grant to the Mindanao Medical
in Art. 457. Also, to compensate the owner for the danger of Center even though the occupant possessed a sales patent.
loss that he suffers because of the location of his lands. (Republic & Mindanao Medical Center vs. CA)
3) Proclamation 180 set aside a parcel of land upon which a public
ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP IN ANY MANNTER PROVIDED school was to be built. The occupant could not prove OCENPO and
FOR BY LAW could not therefore assert a superior right over the school.
o RESERVATION FOR SPECIFIC PUBLIC (Republic vs. Doldol)
PURPOSE
17
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
It is true that Proclamation No. 350 states that the same is subject to under the Public Land Act, there can be no question to Acme’s right to
"privilege rights, if any there be," but Eugenio de Jesus or his son acquire the same since there is no prohibition for corporation to
Alejandro de Jesus failed to prove any private rights over the property acquire incomplete or imperfect title. The only limitation was
reserved. Wee-settled is the rule that unless the applicant has shown that corporations could not hold or lease public agricultural
by clear and convincing evidence that a certain portion of the public lands in excess of 1, 024. 1973 Constitution also cannot defeat
domain was acquired by him or his ancestors either by composition a right already vested before the law came into effect, or
title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, invalidate transaction then perfectly valid and proper
or any other means for the acquisition of public lands, such as grants
or patents, the property must be held to be part of the public domain What is a Corporation Sole?
It is a special form of corporation usually associated with the
Even on the gratuitous assumption that a donation of the military clergy. It consists of one person only, and his successors (who
"camp site" was executed between Eugenior de Jesus and Serafin will always be one at a time), who are incorporated by law to
Marabut, such donation would anyway be void, because Eugenior de give them some legal capacity to administer church properties
jesus held no dominical rights over the site when it was allegedly that come into their possession.
donated by him in 1936. They are not treated as ordinary private corporation. As by the
nature of its incorporation, it is empowered by law to purchase
and hold real estate and personal property.
Vested rights
B. LAND ACQUISITION BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS It is some right or interest in property, which has become fixed
Ownership by Corporations and established and no longer open to doubt or controversy. It
History cannot be impaired without violating one’s right to due process.
1935 It allowed private juridical entities to acquire alienable
Constitut lands of public domain, which shall only be less than 1, Judicial confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles
ion 024 hectares.
1973 Section 11, Article 14 of the said constitution stated that AYOG VS. CUSI
Constitut no private corporation xxx may hold alienable lands 146 SCRA 15
ion except by lease not to exceed 1000 hectares in FACTS:
area. In 1953, the Director of Lands granted Binan Development Co., Inc. its
1987 Section 3, Article 12 retained the 1973 Constitution’s Sales Application of the land located in Davao City with an area of
Constitut limitations, but added lease period not exceeding 25 250 hectares. There were protesters but then their protest was
ion years and renewable for not more than 25 years. dismissed by the Director and ordered them to vacate the subject lot.
General Rule: Corporations are disqualified from owning alienable No appeal was made from the decision. Despite that, the “squatters”
lands of public domain except through lease. defied the Director of Land’s order to vacate. An ejectment suit was
brought which caused the delay of the issuance of the patent.
Exception: Where at the time the Corporation acquired the land, its
predecessors-in-interest have complied with OCENPO as to entitle him The Director of Lands recommended to the Secretary of Natural
registration in his name. The Constitutional prohibition will no longer Resources the approval of the Sales Patent saying that the Corporation
apply as the land, by virtue of prescription has become private. (Suzi had complied with the said requirements long before the effectivity of
vs. Razon) the 1973 Constitution, that the land in question was free from claims
and conflicts and that the issuance of the patent was legal, and the
said issuance is an exception to the prohibition of ownership by private
corporation.
DOL V. IAC AND ACME PLYWOOD AND VENEER
146 SCRA 509 The Secretary of Natural Resources noted that the applicant had
Facts: acquired a vested right to issuance. Subsequently, the ejectment suit
In 1981, Acme Plywood and Veneers Co. Inc. applied for a land was decided in favor of the corporation. However, the “squatters”
registration of 5 parcels (481, 390 sqm) of land it allegedly acquired alleged that the adoption of the 1973 Constitution was a
from Mariano and Acer Infiel, both member of the Dumagat tribe. The supervening fact that will make the issuance of patent illegal
Infiels substantiates their ownership saying that their ancestors have since no private corporation is allowed to hold alienable lands
possessed and occupied the land from generation to generation until it of the public domain except by lease not to exceed 1,000
came into their possession. Acme contended in its application that hectares.
their adverse and continuous possession since 1962 and by tacking
their possession to that of the possession of the Infiels, they have ISSUE: WON BInan Development Corporation may validly acquire the
already acquired title over it; that the ownership of lands by Sales Patent despite the prohibition embodied in the 1973
corporations is governed by the 1935 Constitution. Acme further Constitution? Yes.
proves that the subject land is a private land after it ownership was
given to the non-Christian tribes pursuant to RA 3872. That also, RULING:
they have introduced more than 45 million pesos worth of The said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application to the
improvements on the land. Also that their ownership is recognized by sales application of Binan Corp. because it has already acquired a
Municipality of Isabela through the donation it made which was vested right to the land applied for at the time of the 1973 Constitution
accepted by the former. took effect. Such vested right has to be respected. It could not be
abrogated by the new Constitution.
The Director of Lands opposed to nothing of the allegations except the
applicability of the 1935 Constitution. DL contends that the registration A vested right is defined as when the right to enjoyment has become
was commenced only in 1981 which was long after the 1973 the property of some person as a present interest, or, it is some right
Constitution took effect. or interest in property which has become fixed and established and is
Article 14 Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits private no longer open to doubt or controversy. In this case, it is undisputed
corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public that prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, the right of the
domain, except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares. This corporation to purchase the land in question had become fixed and
proscription is not found in the 1935 Constitution which was in force established and was no longer open to doubt or controversy. Its
the time Acme bought the land in question. Hence, it cannot be compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Law had the
registered under Sec. 48 of CA 141. RTC and CA ruled in favor of the effect of segregating the said land from public domain. The petitioners
Director of Lands. contention that their predecessors-in-interest have possessed the
property should fail, the SC said, they should have applied for patent
Issue: WON the title Infiels transferred to Acme in 1962 could be applications if it is true.
confirmed in favor of Acme? And WON 1973 Constitution should apply?
HELD:
Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as RA 8371
amended. Oct. 29, 1997
The right to file an application under the foregoing provision has been INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT
extended by Republic Act No. 2061 to December 31, 1968. CARINO V. INSULAR
It should be noted that appellants' application is in the alternative: Facts:
- for registration of their title of ownership under Act 496 or Carino applied for the registration of a parcel of land located in
- for judicial confirmation of their "imperfect" title or claim based Benguet province. Carino alleges that:
on adverse and continuous possession for at least thirty years. a. His predecessors has been in the possession of the land for more
It may be that although they were not actual parties in that than 50 years.
previous case the judgment therein is a bar to their claim as b. He was inherited the land under the Igorot customs.
owners under the first alternative, since the proceeding was in However, it was not shown that Carino has a document of title to prove
rem, of which they and their predecessor had constructive ownership such as royal grant. The dispute arose when the government
notice by publication. Even so this is a defense that properly opposed the registration contending that the land in question belonged
pertains to the Government, in view of the fact that the judgment to the State.
declared the land in question to be public land. That the Spanish law provides that all lands belonged to the Spanish
Crown (Jura Regalia), and it could not have been acquired by Carino
In any case, appellants' imperfect possessory title was not since prescription does not lie against the crown.
disturbed or foreclosed by such declaration, for precisely the
proceeding contemplated in the aforecited provision of Issue: WON Carino’s application should be granted? YES.
Commonwealth Act 141 presupposes that the land is public. Ruling:
The basis of the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein is Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title. The
not that the land is already privately owned and hence no longer part Supreme Court of the United States through Justice Holmes had this to
of the public domain, but rather that by reason of the claimant's say: “It might perhaps be proper and sufficient to say that when, as
possession for thirty years he is conclusively presumed to have far as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant. individuals under a claim of private ownership. It will be presumed to
On the question of whether or not the private oppositors-appellees have been held in the same way from before the Spanish Conquest,
have the necessary personality to file an opposition, we find in their
19
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
and never to have been in Public Land.” It was further ruled that b) He must have been in possession of an individually-owned
Carino’s kind of title, a native title, is an exception to Jura Regalia. ancestral land for not less than 30 years
c) By operation of law (IPRA), the land is already classified as
CRUZ V. DENR A&D land, even if it has a slop of 18% hence there is no need
FACTS: to submit a separate certification that the land is A&D
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples Transfer of land or property rights
Rights Act of 1997) together with its implementing rules and 1) Only the members of the ICCs/IPs
regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly 2) In accord with customary laws and customs
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural 3) Subject to the right of redemption of the ICCs/IPs for a period
resources to indigenous people. of 15 years if the land was transferred to a non-member of
ICCs/IPs
On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the
principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to Mining Operations on Ancestral Land
protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious General Rule: Not allowed
disadvantage like indigenous people. For this reason, it prays that the Exception: If the ICCs concerned consent to it
petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa countered the
constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground that In the event of an agreement of mining operations
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over 1) Parties shall agree upon the Royalty payment
lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural 2) The Royalty payment shall form part of trust fund for the
resources. Also, that the law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine socio-economic well-being of the ICC
embodied in the Constitution. Members of the cultural communities are given priority in awarding of
SMALL-SCALE MINING CONTRACTS- Sec. 7, 7076
Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing
definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
include private lands found within the said areas. 1) Jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the
rights of ICCs/IPs
Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian o Condition precedent to the acquisition of
Doctrine? jurisdictions: Exhaustion of all remedies provided
Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional. under their customary laws and a certification
After due deliberation on the petition, 7 members of the court voted to from the Council of Elders/Leaders who
dismiss the petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the participated in the attempt to settle the dispute
same. and that it was not resolved.
The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the 2) It has the authority to issue Certificates of Ancestral
same. According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be Lands Title (CALT) and Certificates of Ancestral
dismissed. The constitutionality of IPRA is upheld. Domain Title (CADT)
3) It has OEJ over petition for cancellation of CADT and
Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion: CALT alleged to have been fraudulently acquired to
Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality: any person
1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public 4) Issuance of certification as a precondition to grant of
Domains. That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of the permit for disposition
Constitution that only agricultural lands of the public domain can 5) Power to cite for contempt and issue restraining
be considered as alienable and disposable lands. orders
2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s natural
resources and 1/3 of the country’s land will be concentrated to 12 Ancestral Domains Office
Million IPs, and while 60 million other Filipinos will share the - Responsible for identification, delineation, and recognition of
remaining. These figures violates the constitutional principle of a ancestral lands/domains
“more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth”
among Filipinos.
3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full Control and Supervision of
Natural Resources CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT,
4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY
and Cannot be Alienated or Ceded
SEC. 104. Provisional Register of Documents. — The Department
of Agrarian Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special
Ancestral Domain- refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs registry book to be known as the “Provisional Register of
comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources Documents issued under PD-27” which shall be kept and
therein maintained in every Registry of Deeds throughout the country.
Ancestral Land – refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by Said Registry Book shall be a register of:
individuals, families, and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since a) All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No.
time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in- 27; and
interest, under claims of individual or traditional ownership b) All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer
such as adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of
Native Title- refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains, erroneous Certificates of Land Transfer
which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under claim of
private ownership by ICCs/IPs. SEC. 105. Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents.
— The Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27
Time Immemorial – period of time when as far back as memory can issue in duplicate, a Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought
go, certain IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept under “Operation Land Transfer,” the original of which shall be kept by
of owner the tenant-farmer and the duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds.
IPRA connotes group or communal ownership. Ancestral After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements
domains are private, but community property for a grant of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which
Private- since it is not part of the public domain may cover previously titled or untitled property shall be issued by the
Community – ancestral domain is owned in common and Department of Agrarian Reform.
not by 1 particular person The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the
aforementioned Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original
Ownership over the natural resources STILL belong to the certificate of title number in case of unregistered land, and in case of
State registered property, shall issue the corresponding transfer certificate of
- ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to manage and title without requiring the surrender of the owner’s duplicate of the title
conserve them for future generation. The rights of IPs take to be cancelled.
the form of management and stewardship
In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform
Modes of Acquisition of Ancestral domains and ancestral lands shall determine his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the
by the IP Register of Deeds accordingly. In case of subsequent transfer of
a) Applicant must be a member of indigenous cultural group;
20
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
property covered by an Emancipation Patent or a Certificate of Title 2) Private lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for
emanating from an Emancipation Patent, the Register of Deeds shall prawn farms and fishponds, provided that the same have
effect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership
Department of Agrarian Reform. Award issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the
CARP;
No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in 3) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to
connection with the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and be necessary for:
for the registration of related documents. a. National defense, school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by
TENANT EMANCIPATION DECREE public or private schools for educational purposes,
(PD 27) seeds and seeding research and pilot production
(Oct. 21, 1972) center
Applicability/Coverage b. Church sites and convents, mosque sites and
This applies to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands Islamic centers, common burial grounds
primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of c. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by
sharecrop or lease tenancy, whether classified as landed inmates
estate or not d. Government and private research and quarantine
centers
Retention Limits/Award Ceiling e. All lands with 18% slope and over, except those
A farmer shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a already developed
family-size farm of Agricultural lands reclassified by LGU’s into residential,
o 6 hectares if not irrigated commercial or industrial uses excluded
o 3 hectares if irrigated This is based on DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) which
provides that with respect to the conversion of
Landowner Retention Limit agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non-
o 7 hectares if such landowner is cultivating such agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR to approve
such conversion may be exercised from the date of its
area or will now cultivate it
effectivity or on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands already
classified as commercial, industrial or residential before
Cost of Land/Compensation
that date no longer need any conversion clearance
The land shall be equivalent to 2 ½ times the average
from the DAR.
harvest of 3 normal crop years
It shall be paid by the tenant in 15 equal annual
amortizations including interest at the rate of 6% per annum Homesteads
While PD No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants
from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them
Requisite before the title to the land owned be actually issued ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social
to the tenant farmer legislation, it cannot defeat the very purpose of the
Tenant farmer should become a full-fledged member of a duly Public Land Act which has been enacted for the welfare
recognized farmer’s cooperative and protection of the poor.
HELD:
Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of
CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural
uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other
than DAR. Thus, for instance, the conversion of portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision for residential use and developed such prior to the
passage of the law excluded the area for CARL coverage because it
ceased to be devoted to agricultural activity.
23