ASS —m (GUIDELINES IM LAND REGISTRATION I. Land registration and related laws. 1. PD No, 1529, as amended (Property Registration Decree) CA 141, as amended (Public Land Act) fi, Jurisdiction of courts over registration of tlle. 1. Ses. 2, Par. 2, PD No. 1529 or Sec. 48, CA 141 (Regional Trial Court of the province where the land js located). a. RTCs no longer have limited jurisdiction in original land registration cases (Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. vs. First Baptist Church, 152 SCRA 393 [1987}), so there is no more distinction between its general jurisdiction and the limited jurisdiction conferred by the Land Registration Act. b. — RTCs may now hear and decide not only non- controversial cases but even the contentious and substantial issues (Averia vs. Caguioa (146 SCRA 459 [1986]). Kn Sec. 34, BP Big. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691 (delegated jurisdiction of the lower courts in. cadastral and land registration cases, involving lots where there is mo controversy or opposition, or contested lots, the value of which does not exceed : 100,000.00). II. Administration of Torrens System. 1. Land Registration Authority (Sec. 28, Chapter 9, Title Ill, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987). 2. — Registry of Deeds (Sec. 10, PD 1529).a. The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds, encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature (Baranda vs. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757 [1988]). b. Instances when the Register of Deeds may 2 deny registration of voluntary instruments ‘ (Balbin vs. Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur, 28 SCRA 12 [1969]; Sec. 112, PD 1529) c. When in doubt as to the proper action to be taken on an Instrument or deed, the Register of Deeds may refer the matter to the Land Registration Authority for consulta (Sec. 117, PD 1529). Registration cannot be compelled by mandamus. The aggrieved party must avail of the remedy of consulta (Almirol vs. The Register of Deeds of Agusan, 22 SCRA 1152 g [1968]). If still aggrieved, the decision of the , LRA Administrator in consulta may be appealed to the Court of Appeals within 15 days (SC Rev. Adm. Circular No. 1-95). IV. Registrable properties. Tay be te subject lava registration (Sec. 14, PD 1529) or a petition for confirmation of imperfect title (Sec. 48 [bJ, CA 141). 2. Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain are also conveyed by way of public patents. The registration of these public land patents (such as free, homestead, sales or special patents) is required (Sec. 103, PD 1529). A.patent-becomes-indefeasible as a Torrens Title only-when the. said patent is registered. (Ortega vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 635 (1991). a. Citizens of the Philippines may acquire not < more than 12 hectares of agricultural land of a the public domain by purchase, homestead, or grant (Sec. 3, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution).b. — Requirements for the issuance of a homestead patent (Secs. 12, 13 and 14, CA 141). c. Requirements for the issuance of a free patent (Sec. 44, CA 141), Under RA 6940, which was approved on March 28, 1990, and which amended Section 44, the period for filing of applications for free patents ends on December 31, 2000. The filing and processing of the application and the issuance of the free patent. constitute the administrative mode of confirming an imperfect title, the judicial mode being under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act (Kabayan vs. Republic, 52 SCRA 357 [1973)). d. Sales patents are issued for public agricultural lands (Sees. 22 to 28, CA 141), or agricultural lands suitable for residential, commercial or industrial purposes (Secs. 59, 61, 63, 65 and 67, supra), which are sold at public auction. Under RA 730, which took effect on June 18, 1952, sale without public auction of public lands, not exceeding 1,000 sq. ms., for a residential purposes is allowed. ; Special patents may also be granted to non- Christians under Section 84 of the Public Land “ae Act, or for educational, charitable and similar purposes under Sections 69 and 70, supra, or as payment for landed estates acquired by the Government under RA 926, which took effect on June 20, 1953. Original certificates of title issued pursuant to special patents serve as concrete and conclusive evidence of indefeasible title to the properties covered thereof (Cagayan de Oro City Landless jents Assn., Inc. vs. CA, 254 SCRA 220 2 V. Non-registrable properties. 1. Properties of public dominion pee subject of private ownership (Republic vs. Court-of Appeals, 131 SCRA 532 [1984]). They are things res publicae q in mature, incapable of private appropriation (Republic vs. Alagad, 169 SCRA 466 [1989]).‘Thus, with the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shail not be alienated (Sec, 2, Prt. XLof the 1987 Constitution). Article 420 of the New Civil Code enumerates the things which are properties of public dominion. Article 502, supra, on special properties like water, enumerates the other properties of public dominion. Samples of non-registrable properties or lands: forest or timberland, public forest, forest reserves (Director of Lands vs. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 [1990]}) b. mangrove swamps (Director of Forestry vs. Villareat, 170 SCRA 598 [1980]). c. mineral lands (Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 71 fceat a u. foreshore land or seashore (Cagampang vs. Morano, 22 SCRA 1040 [1968}). e. navigable rivers, streams and __creeks (Republic vs. Lozada, 90 SCRA 502 [1979]; Maneclang ws. IAC, 161 SCRA 469 [1985]). flakes (Art. 502 [4], New Civil Code). g. military reservations (Republic vs. Marcos, 52 SCRA 238 [1973]). h. other kinds of reservations, such as for paris purposes (Palomo vs. CA, 266 SCRA 392 [1997]); medical center site (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 146 [1976]); Baguio Townsile Reservation, where all lands within the reservation, save those excepted from the effect of the 1922 decision in Civil reservation Case No. 1, are no longer registrable under the Land Registration Act (Republic vs. Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515 (1988). i, watershed (Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302 [1983]). j. grazing land (Director of Lands vs. Rivas, 141 SCRA 329 [1986]).k. previously titled lands (Lahora vs. Dayanghirang, 37 SCRA 346 [1971]). |. alluvial deposit along river when man-made (Republic vs. CA, 132 SCRA 514 [1984]). m. public market, public plaza, municipal streets ‘or public buildings (Municipality of Antipolo vs. Zapanta, 133 SCRA 820 [1984]). 4 rn. Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan (Laurel vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 [1990}). 4, Under the Public Land Act, only titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain may be judicially confirmed. Unless a public land is i reclassified and declared as such, occupation thereof in the concept of an owner, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory rights (De Ocampo vs. Aros, 343 SCRA 716 [2000}). VI. Power to clas: or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable lands. 1. Under Section 6 of CA 141, the classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department of the Government and not the courts (Director of Lands and Director of Forest Development vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689 [1984]). 2. Under Section 8, CA 144, the declaration of lands of the public domain as open for disposition may be by Presidential proclamation duly published or by an Act of Congress. 3. Proofs of reclassification, that land is alienable or disposable, and is registrable. a. By way of a positive act of Government (Republic vs. Animas, 5G SCRA 499 [1974]). b. By way of an official proclamation (Director of | / Lands vs. CA, 178 SCRA708 [1989]). Y c. By legislative act, or by statute (International ‘i Hardwood and Veneer Co. of the Phils. vs. University of the Philippines, 200 SCRA 554VII. Applicants in ordinary registra| [1991], wherein a previously reserved forest area was segregated and ceded to the University of the Philippines, pursuant to RA 3990). d. Certification of the Bureau of Forestry that the land applied for became allenable and disposable (Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 701 [1984]). However, where the forester who issued the certification did not testify in court, such evidence is hearsay; hence, not controlling (Tottoc vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 180 SCRA 386 [1989]). e. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigator (Republic vs. De Porkan, 151 SCRA 88 [1987]). f. Also, Executive Order, Administrative Order, Land Classification Map, reports of District Forester. 1 proceedings. Unden Section i4 of Pb 1529, the following may file an application forregistration-of title to land: Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest. have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945. Those whe have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws. a. Under Article 1137, New Civil Code, “ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through — uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.” This thirty-year open, notorious, and conclusive possession in the concept of an owner was observed in Del Rosario vs. Republic, June 6, 2002, G.R. No. 148338, wherein it was held, among others,a wey that “in view of the lack of sufficient evidence of the 30-year open, notorious, and conclusive possession in the concept of an owner, as required by CA. No. 141, S 48 (b), as amended, petitioner's application for original registration of Lot No, 1891 cannot be granted.” be In De Ocampo vs. Arlos, 343 SCRA 717 (2000), it was held, among others, that the subject lot was declared alienable only In 1971. Thus, the respondents therein, which filed the application for registration in 1977, could not i have "satisfied the thirty-year requirement under the Public Land Act.” Yhose who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned riverbeds by right or accession or accretion under existing laws. a. Article 457, New Civil Code provides that ."to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers betong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.“ Under Article 461, supra, “river beds which are abandoned ; through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost x x x.” b. An accretion from river to registered land does not automatically become registered land. AS such, It must be placed under the operation of the torrens system (Cureg vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 177 SCRA 313 [1989}). An accretion from the sea is part of the public domain and outside the commerce of man (De Buyser vs. Director of Lands, 121 SCRA 13 [1983]). Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. a. In Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 146 (1976), it was held that the land reserved . for medical center site purposes constitute a - fee simple title or absolute title in favor of thegrantee. Thus, the grantee may apply for registration of tille thereto. b. The University of the Philippines, which was. granted title to a portion of a public forest, for research and extension functions (International Hardwood and Veneer Co. of the Phils. vs. University of the Philippines, 200 SCRA 554 [1991]), may also apply for registration of title thereto. Where the land is owned in common, all the co- owners shall file the application jointly. In a pacto de retro sale, the vendor a retro may file an application for the original registration of the land. But, should the title be consolidated with the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the proceedings. A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of the land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust. VIII. Judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Le Under Section 48 (b) of CA 141, Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to the effectivity of PD_1073 on January 25,1977, in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years, (oPat least_since_Jal 24, 1947, may also fil&~an application for | registration of title (RA 1942, which took effect on June 22, 1957; Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and ACME, 146 SCRA 509 [1986]). 2. AS amended by PD 1073, the possession and occupation required under Section 48 (b), CA 141 must also be from June 12, 1945 or_earlier (Republic vs. Doldol, 295 SCRA 359 (1998)]. 3. ‘This period of possession and occupation applies also to Section 48 (c), supra.4, Period of application. a. Presently, the period within which to file applications for confirmation of Imperfect title will lapse on December 31, 2020. Sald period, which was not to extend beyond December 31, 1938 under Section 47 of CA 141, was extended untill December 31, 1941 by CA 292; until December 31, 1957 by RA 107; until December 31, 1968 by RA 2061; until December 31, 1976 by RA 6236; until 3 December 31, 1987 by PD 1073; until 3 December 31, 2000 by RA 6940; and until December 31, 2020 by RA 9176 (which was approved on November 13, 2002). ad. The latest extension of the period to December 31, 2020 shall apply if the area applied for does not exceed 12 hectares (RA 9176). Applications filed before the effectivity of RA 9176 “shall be treated as having been filed in accordance with the provisions” thereof. b. Under Section 14, PD 1529, persons who possess the qualifications fixed by Section 48 : (b) and (c), CA 141 may still apply for registration of title 5. Applicants for judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June « 12, 1945 or earlier (Sec. 14 [1], PD 1529, as a amended by PD 1073), of since time : immemorial (Republic vs. CA, 218 SCRA 773 (1993). b Filipino. citizer who by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to the effectivity of PD 1073 on January 25, 1977, in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public demain under bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for_at least 30 yearscl 6.2, 10 or at Jeast since January 24, 1947 (Section 48 (by), CA 141, as amended by RA 1942; Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and ACME, 146 SCRA S09 [1986]). Private corporations or associations which had acquired lands, formerly part of allenable and disposable lands of public domatn, from Filipina citizens who had possessed the same In the manner and for the length of time Indicated above (Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and ACME, supra). Where at the time the private corporation acquired the land, its predecessors-in-interest by adverse possession of the same for more than 30 years had acquired ownership thereof ipso jure, enabling the latter to convey title to the corporation, it can institute confirmation proceedings (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 155 SCRA 344 [1987]). Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred ar conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain (Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution). 60% of the capital of such corporations or associations must belong to Filipinos (Section 3, Article XII, supra). A corporation sole which is composed of an overwhelming majority of Filipinos (or for more than 60%) may acquire by purchase a parcel of private agricultural land (Roman Catholic Apostolic of Davao, inc. vs. Land Registration Commission, 102 Phil. 596 [1956)). Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship, who have acquired disposable and alienable lands of the public domain from Filipino citizens who had possessed the same in the same manner and for the length of time indicated above (BP 185; Republic vs. CA, 235 SCRA 567 [1994]). An alien who acquired land through hereditary succession, However, this applies to intestatea jon and not to testamentary succession (Ramirez vs. Vda. De Ramirez, 211 SCRA 704 {1987 }). sul IX, Evidence required. he land must be classified as allenable and disposable land of the public domain, hence registrable; the possession and occupation thereof for the length of time and in the manner required by law. And if private ownership is claimed not because of applicant’s possession, muniments of title rust be submitted. 2. Proof that the land Is alienable and disposable, and registrable. a. Presidential proclamation and other executive acts, including LC Maps, reports or certification of District Forester or Bureau of Lands investigator. a.1 A survey plan, even if approved by the Bureau cof Lands, does not convert such land into alienable land, much less private property (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 476 [1987)). The mere fact that the area in which the land is located has become highly developed residential or commercial land and actually no i longer forest land does not alter the lot's 3 status as still forest land (Republic vs. Bacus, : 176 SCRA 376 {1989]). 3 b, Legislative acts. 3. entity of land. a. In land registration proceedings, the land must e be identified (Director of Lands vs. Court of e Appeals, 130 SCRA 91 [1984]). b. The survey plan of the property which shows the boundaries and total area clearly identifying and delineating the extent of the land, must be approved by the Bureau of Lands. Otherwise, it cannot be considered as :bb 12 evidence (Director of Lands vs. Hers of Juana © .rolino, 140 SCRA 396 [1985]). Even if duly approved, the survey plan is not entitled to credit if the survey plan shows that the lots sought to be registered have areas very much bigger than those indicated In the tax declarations of the same lols (Republic Cement Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 734 [1991]). Tracing cloth plan or diazo polyester film (Del vs. Republic, G.R. No. 148338, June NB. NALTDRA (LRC) Circular No, 66 dated May 2, 1985 and Bureau of Lands General Circular No. 124 dated August 20, 1985 have authorized the use of diazo polyester film in lieu of tracing cloth as material in the preparation of survey plans or maps for land registration. tax declarations may be submitted as evidence of identity of land (Director of Lands vs. Funtilar, 142 SCRA 57 [1986]) 4. Proofs of private ownership. b. Spanish titles are now inadmissible and ineffective proof of ownership in land registration proceedings filed after August 16, 1976, pursuant to PD 892 (Director of Lands vs. Rivas, 141 SCRA 329 [1986]). Tax declarations and reaity tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ~—_ ownership (Republic vs. CA, 258 SCRA 712 [1996]). But they become strong evidence of éwnership acquire’sby-prescription. when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property’ (Lazatin vs. CA, 211 SCRA 129 [1992]) or supported by other effective proof (Municipality of Santiago, Isabela vs. CA, 120 SCRA 734 [1983]). Presidential proclamation reserving a land for specific purpose or purposes in favor of an entity, such as for medical center sitepurposes, constitutes a fee simple titte or absolute title in favor of the grantee (Repul vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 146 [1976]). 5. Possession as a mode of acquiring ownership. a. d. Open, actual, notorious, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of an owner of alienable public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal ficlion whereby the land, upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial order or other sanctions, ceases to be public land and becomes private property, And the possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law, a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued (Director of Lands vs. Bengzon, 152 SCRA 369 [1987]}). Mere allegation of one’s adverse possession and that of the predecessors-in-interest is not sufficient. Specific facts to show the nature of possession must be presented (Republic vs. CA, 167 SCRA 150 [1988]). Mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the Claimant does not constitute possession under claim of ownership (Del Rosario vs. Republic, G.R. No. 148388, June 6, 2002). ‘The possession must be singe June 12, 1945 or earlier (Sec. 14 [1], PD 1529 and Sec. 48 [b] [ce], CA Lat, as amended by PD 1073). This period ef eccupation does not apply under Section 14 [2] [3] and [4], PD 1529. Thus, the 30-year adverse possession for acquiring litle by acquisitive prescription may be availed of. N.B. If the land was released and declared alienable and disposable only on June 13, 1945 or later, definitely, June 12, 1945 cannot be used as reckoning date. Otherwise, no land declared as alienable and disposable after June 12, 1945 could ever be titled. If the land is formerly part of the forest land, the period of occupancy for purposes of confirmation of imperfect title would beL4 counted from the date when the land Is released and declared as allenable and disposaile land of the public domain (Repu fic vs. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 480 [1987]). For, unless a public land is reclassified as alienable and disposable land, occupation thereof, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership of possessory rights (Public Estates Authority vs. Court of Appeais, 345 SCRA 96 [2000]). X. Jurisdictional Requirements. Publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing once In the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. a, The notice should be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land involved, including adjoining owners so far as known and in general to whom it may concern. b. The notice requires all persons concerned to appear in court on the date and time indicated to show cause why the application for registration should not be granted (Sec. 23, PD 1529; Republic v. Marasigan, 198 SCRA 216 [1991]). Posting of Notice of Initial Hearing. The notice of initial hearing duly attested by Administrator of Land Registration Authority should be posted in a conspicuous place on each parcel of land as well as on the bulletin board of the municipality or city in which the land is situated at least 14 days in advance from the date set for hearing (Republic vs. Marasigan, supra) Mailing and Posting of Notice of Initial Hearing 4. The publication of the notice of initial hearing, as well as the giving of notice by mailing and posting are mandatory and jurisdictional (Republic vs. Marasigan, supra; Director of Lands vs. CA, 276 SCRA 276 [1997]).15 b. A defective publication of the notice of initial hearing deprives the court of jurisdiction (Po vs. Republic, 40 SCRA 37 [1971]). And when the court @ quo lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks the authority over the whole case and all its aspects (Pinza vs. Aldovino, 5 SCRA 224 [1968]). Persons and officials to whem notice is given by mailing Section 23 of PD 1529 provides that the Commissioner of Land Registration Commission (now Administrator of the Land Registration Authority) shall cause a copy of the notice of initial hearing of the application to be mailed to the following: ) o d) To every person named in the notice whose address is known — within seven days after publication of said notice in the Official Gazette. To the Secretary of the Public Works and Highways, to the Provincial Governor, and to the Mayor of the municipality or city, as the case may be, in which the land lies — if the applicant requests to have the line of a public way or road determined. To the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands Management, the Director of Mines and/or the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as may — be appropriate ~ if the land borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or on a lake, or if it otherwise appears from the application or the proceeding that a tenant-farmer or the _—_national government may have a claim adverse to that of the applicant. To such other persons deem proper, the court may 4. Tracing cloth plan or diazo polyester film duly approved and certified by the Director of Lands (LRC16 Circular No, 66 dated May 2, 1985; Bureau Lands General Cvcular No. 124 dated August 20, 1985; Del Rosario vs. Republic, supra). Report uf no adverse finding from LRA. DENR Certification that land is alienable and disposable. Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) Certification that land is not within the foreshore oF lakebed areas of Laguna Lake. (For lands situated In the Provinces of Rizal and Laguna;Cities of Pasay, Marikina, Pasig, Muntinlupa, Caloocan, Manila, Quezon, San Pablo, Tagaytay and Tanauan; Towns of Sto. Tornas and Malvar in Batangas Province; Towns of Silang and Carmona in Cavite Province; Towns of Lukban in Quezon Province; and Towns of Taguig and Pateros in Metro Manila). XE. Formal Requirements. e The application must be in writing, signed and sworn io by the applicants or by his duly authorized representatives and if there is more than one (1) applicant, the application shall be signed and sworn to by and on behalf of each, The full name, citizenship, status, residence and post office address of the applicant must be stated therein. It shall also state whether the property is conjugal, paraphernal or exclusively owned by the applicant The application must contain the description of the land; the number of parcels and location thereof; the nature of title thereto; encumbrances, if any; occupants thereon, names and acldresses of adjoining owners, if known; assessed value of the property and the length of possession. The application must be accompanied with: a. tracing cloth plan or diazo polyester film duly approved by the Director of Lands b. copies of corresponding technical descriptions17 os &. 3 copies of the surveyor’s certificate d. all original muniments of title in the possession of the applicant which proved his rights e. certificate in quadruplicate of the city or provincial treasurer of the assessed value of the land, at its last assessment for taxation or In the absence thereof, that of the next preceding year. However, in case the land has not been assessed, the application may be accompanied with an affidavit in quadruplicate of the fair market value of the land signed by 3 interested persons. XII. Steps in Chronological Order for the Registration of itle to Land. 1. Survey of the land by the Bureau of Lands or a Guly licensed surveyor; 2. Preparation and filing of the application for registration by the applicant; 3, Setting of the date for the hearing of the application by the court; 4, Yransmittal of the duplicate of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all documents attached thereto by the Clerk’of Court to the Land Registration Authority; Publication of notice of the filing of the application and date and place of the hearing once in a i newspaper of general circulation and once in the Official Gazette; 6. Service of notice upon contiguous _ owners, occupants, and those knawn to have interests in the property by the sheriff; 7. Filing of the answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not; 8. Hearing of the case by the court and the presentation of evidence;10. ad. 12. 13. 18 Promulgation of the judgment by the court; Issuaice of an order by the court declaring the judgment final and instructing the Land Registration ‘Authority to Issue the decree of registration in accordance with Section 39 of PD 1529; Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Author't Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Registrar of Deeds by the Land Registration Authority; Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owner’s duplicate certificate of the original certificate of title to the applicant by the Registrar of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees (Republic v. Heirs of Luisa Abrilie, 71 SCRA 57 (1976]). Basic references: 1 Amado D. Aquino, Land Regi Proceedings, 2002 Revised Edition. Antonio H. Noblejas and Edilberto H. Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1992 Revised ition.POLICY IN REVERS TON AND ANNULMENT OF TITLE CASES L. Distinction betwen action for reversion and action for declaration of nullity of land titles prefatorily, distinction must be made between an action for reversion and an action for cleclaration of nullity of land titles. Reversion is a proceeding by which the State seeks the return of lands of the public domain or the improvements thereon through the cancellation of private title erroneously or fraudulently issued over it (Figuracion vs. Libi, 539 SCRA 50, 60[2007]). Otherwise stated, teversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert land back to the government under the Regalian doctrine. Actions. for raversion should be filed by the Office of the Solicitor General at the behest of the Director of Lands since the land title subject of the action originated from a grant by the government, thus, their cancellation is ginatter the grantor and the grantee (De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 394 SCRA 302, 309[2002]), The proper official to initiate an action for reversion is the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, who is authorized by law to do so on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Only the State can institute an action for reversion of the land to the public domain; a private individual cannot bring such action, pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act (Alvarico v. Sola, 383 SCRA 232, 339-240[2002]; Urquiaga v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 738, 545[1999]; Causapin v. CA, 233 SCRA 615, 624-625 [1994]), thus: Sec. 101. = All actions for reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Even after the lapse of one year, the State may still bring an action under Section 101 of the Public Land Act for the reversion to the public domain of lands which have been fraudulently granted to private individuals (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 335 [1996]). The right of reversion or reconveyance to the State is not barred by prescription (Republic v. Animas, 56 SCRA 499[1974]; Articles 11084], 1113, Civil Code). Prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the State to recover its own property acquired through fraud by private individuals (Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., 393 SCRA 361, 374[2002]; Republic v. Heirs of Agustin L. Angeles, 390 SCRA 502, 503, 509[2002]). This is settled law (Republic v. Heirs ofFelipe Alejaga, Sr., supra, citing Baguio v. Republic, 301 SCRA 450[1999]; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 111 SCRA 721[1989]; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 620[1990}; Republic v. Mina, 114 SCRA 945[1982]; Director of Lands v. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358[1983]). Appropriately, actions for reversion may be instituted under Section 124 of the Public Land Act, thus: Sec. 124. Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the provisions of sections one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and twenty two, and one hundred and twenty-three of this Act shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall produce the effect of annulling and canceling the grant, title, patent, or permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or presumptively, and cause the reversion of the property and its improvements to the State. (Inclusion of this provision suggested by Sol. Ramolete) The acquisition of lands in violation of the pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act is null and void and entitles the government, thru the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, to file or initiate reversion proceedings. On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff's ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such fee patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant's fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefore is consequently void ab initio. The real party-in-interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant (Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut, 378 SCRA 206, 214-215[2002], cited In Evangelista v. Santiago, 457 SCRA 744, 764[2005]). The line of distinction having been drawn, OSG lawyers should be able to discriminate between requests for reversion and requests for cancellation or declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title. In the former, the relief sought is the return of the land back to the government. In the latter, it is the recognition of ownership of the private party suing as plaintiff over the subject landI, Reason for backlog of DENR requests for reversion and cancellation of titles Going to the backlog of DEN < requests of the filing of reversion and cancellation of title cases, it lias |ven observed that the tedious work of OSG lawyers is further stymi-d by the following factors: (1) many of the requests have incomplete documentation: (2) the DENR requests are not accompanied by a list of lawyers to be deputized to prosecute the cases; (3) many reversion and canceliation of title cases filed by the OSG in court are dismissed for failure to prosecute, on account of the inability of OS's deputized DENR lawyers to appear and prosecute the cases in court, TI. OSG lawyers should require complete documental requests for reversion and cancellation of titles For the documentation to be complete, the OSG lawyer should look for: 1. A formal endorsement from the DENR Secretary or his duly-designated Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary, or the Lands Management Bureau Director. 2. Investigation report by the LMB Director (Piero v. Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 386, 392[1974]; Republic v. Lozada, 90 SCRA 502, 511[1979]), or the DENR investigator upon authority of the DENR Regional Executive Director or CENRO, cf. Lands Office Circular No. 68, cited in Manual on Settlement of Land Disputes) 3. Such investigation report should provide: (a) dear and convincing evidence and not merely preponderance of evidence of fraud and misrepresentation committed against the government in securing the title sought to be cancelled, explaining the details attending the issuance of title over the alleged inalienable land, and (b) that the intended complaint for reversion is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the public domain to the government, explaining why such the issuance of title deprived the State of the claimed property (see SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, 530 SCRA 522, 528- 529[2006]).IV. Proper subjects of reversion. aly When the lands are titled in violation of Sections 118, 120, 121, 122 and 123 of the Public Land Act (Section 124, CA No. 141, as amended). 2. following: Fraudulently titled non-registrable properties, such as the a. forest. or timberland, public forest, forest reserves (Director of Lands vs. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296, 304[1990}; Director of Lands vs. Rivas, 141 SCRA 329, 334 [1986]; Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution), including natural resources like watershed reservations or areas (Director of Land Management v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 455, 458, 463-464; Collado v. Court of Appeals, 390 SCRA 343, 359, 364, 372[2002] in rel. to Section 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution). b. mineral lands (Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 71, 75-76 [1991]; Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution). c. military reservations (Republic vs. Marcos, 52 SCRA 238, 242 [1973]). d. other kinds of reservations, such as for park purposes (Palomo vs. CA, 266 SCRA 392, 400-401 [1997]; Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution); medical center site (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 146, 152-153 [1976]); Baguio Townsite Reservation, where all lands within the reservation, save those excepted from the effect of the 1922 decision in Civil reservation Case No. 1, are no longer registrable under the Land Registration Act (Republic vs. Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515, 520 [1988]). e. foreshore land or seashore (Cagampang vs. Morano, 22 SCRA 1040, 1042[1968]). f. navigable rivers, streams and creeks (Republic vs. Lozada, 90 SCRA 503, 510 [1979]); Maneclang vs. IAC, 161 SCRA 469, 471 [1985]) and man-made alluvial deposit along a river, moreso if it is part of the river bed (Republic vs. CA,132 SCRA 514, 520-522 [1984]). g. lakes (Art. 502 [4], New Civil Code). h. mangrove swamps (Director of Forestry vs. Villareal, 170 SCRA 598, 602[1980}). i. public market, public plaza, municipal streets or public buildings (Municipality of Antipolo vs, Zapanta, 133 SCRA 820, 824 [1984]). (adopted with modification from the enumeration of non-registrable properties by Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, citing Aquino, Land Registration and Related Proceedings, 2002 Rev. Ed., andNoblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1992 Rev. Ed.). 3, When land is titled on the basis of false statements by the patentee or grantee (Section 91, CA No. 141, as amended; Piero v. Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 386, 391-392[1974]; Republic v. Lozada, 90 SCRA 503, 509-51111979). . 4. When the acquisition is in violation of the Constitution (Sec. 35 [5], Chapter XII, Title IIL, Book IV, E.0. No. 292), as when a private corporation acquires title to land of the public domain in violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Vv. Recommended courses of action OSG lawyers through their ASGs must: (1) return to the DENR all requests for the filing of reversion and cancellation of title cases with incomplete documentation, together with their records; (2) reject requests for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title although they are couched as requests for reversion and cancellation of title, where the intended beneficiary is a private party; (3) reject requests where no DENR lawyers have been designated to handle and prosecute the cases to be filed by the OSG; and (4) return to the DENR the records of terminated or dismissed reversion cases. (5) in case the request is properly endorsed and fully documented, the reversion complaint may be filed and said complaint should be verified by the DENR Secretary or his duly-designated official Lastly, the ASGs must inform the OSG Docket Division of the lawyers to which the DENR requests for reversion are presently assigned, for it to update its records. Respectfully submitted. an GS OL RENAN E. RAMOS Assistant Solicitor General1 esa a ql POLICY IN REVERSION AND ANNULMENT OF TITLE CASES (Revised as of July 1, 2008) I. Distinction between action for reversion and action for declaration of nullity of land titles » distinction must be made between an Action for Prefatoril ‘ction for declaration of nullity of land title reversion and a Reversion is a proceeding by which the State seeks the return of lands of the public domain or the improvements thereon through the cancellation of private title erroneously or fraudulently issued over it (Figuracion vs. Libi, 539 SCRA 50, 60[2007]). Otherwise stated, reversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert land back to the government under the Regalian doctrine, Actions for reversion ghouldbe filed by the Office of the Solicitor General at the behest of the Director of Lands since the land title subject of the action originated from @ grant by the government, thus, their cancellation is a mattertWé"yrantor and the grantee (De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 394 SCRA 302, 309{2002]) The proper official to initiate an action for reversion is the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, who is authorized by law to do so on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Only the State_can institute an action for reversion of the land to the public domain; a private individual cannot bring such action, pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act (Alvarico v. Sola, 383 SCRA 232, 239-240[2002]; Urquiaga v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 738, 745[1999]; Causapin v. CA, 233 SCRA 615, 624-625 [1994]), thus: 5ec._101. - All_actions for reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Even after the lapse of one year, the State may still bring an action under Section 101 of the Public Land Act for the reversion to the public domain of lands which have been fraudulently granted to private individuals (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 335 [1996]). The right of reversion or reconveyance to the State is not barred by prescription (Republic v. Animas, 56 SCRA 499[1974]; Articles 1108[4], 1113, Civil Code). Prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the State to recover its own property acquired through fraud by private individuals (Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., 393 SCRA 361, 374[2002]; Republic v, Heirs of Agustin L. Angeles, 390 SCRA 502, 503, 509[2002]). This is settled law (Republic v. Heirs of t amyFelipe Alejaga, Sr. supra, citing Baguio v. Republic, 301 SCRA 450[1999]; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 111 SCRA 721(1989]; Repupne ¥. Court of Appeals, 483 SCRA 620[1990]; Republic v. Mina, tid SCRA 945[1982]; Director of Lands v. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358[1983}). Appropriately, actions for reversion may be instituted under Section 124 of the Public Land Act, thus Sec. 124. Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the provisions of sections one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and twenty two, and one hundred and twenty-three of this Act shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall produce the effect of annulling and canceling the grant, title, patent, or permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or presumptively, and cause the reversion of the property and its improvements to the State. (Inclusion of this provision suggested by Sol. Ramolete) The acquisition of lands in violation of the pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act is null and void and entitles the government, thru the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, to file or initiate reversion proceedings. On the other hand, @ cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff's ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such fee patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant's fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefore is consequently void ab initio. The real party-in-interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant (Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut, 378 SCRA 206, 214-215[2002], cited in Evangelista v. Santiago, 457 SCRA 744, 764[2005]). The line of distinction having been drawn, OSG lawyers should be able to discriminate between requests for reversion and requests for cancellation or declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title. In the former, the relief sought is the return of the land back to the government. In the latter, it is the recognition of ownership of the private party suing as plaintiff over the subject land.II. Reason for backlog of DENR requests for reversion and cancellation of titles Going to the backlog of DENR requests of the filing of reversion and cancellation of title cases, it has been observed that the tedious work of OSG lawyers is further stymied by the following factors: (1) many of the requests have incomplete documentation: (2) the DENR requests are not accompanied by a list of lawyers to be deputized to prosecute the cases; (3) many reversion and cancellation of title cases filed by the OSG in court are dismissed for failure to prosecute, on account of the inability of OSG deputized DENR lawyers to appear and prosecute the cases in court. III, OSG lawyers should require complete documentation of requests for reversion and cancellation of titles For the documentation to be complete, the OSG lawyer should look for: 1. A formal endorsement from the DENR Secretary or his duly-designated Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary, or the Lands Management Bureau Director. 2. Investigation report by the LMB Director (Pisero v, Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 386, 392[1974]; Republic v. Lozada, 90 SCRA 502, 511[1979}), or the DENR investigator upon authority of the DENR Regional Executive Director or CENRO, cf. Lands Office Circular No. 68, cited in Manual on Settlement of Land Disputes) 3. Such investigation report should provide: (a) clear and convincing evidence and not merely preponderance of evidence of fraud and misrepresentation committed against the government in securing the title sought to be cancelled, explaining the details attending the issuance of title over the alleged inalienable land, and (b) that the intended complaint for reversion is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the public domain to the government, explaining why such the issuance of title deprived the State of the claimed property (see SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, 530 SCRA 522, 528- 529[2006]).IV. Proper subjects of reversion. a, When the lands ore titled in violation of Sections 118, 120) 121, 122 and 123 of the Public Land Act (Section 124, CA No. 141, as amended). 2, Fraudulently titled non-registrable properties, such as the following: a. forest or timberland, public forest, forest reserves (Director of Lands vs. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296, 304[1990]; Director of Lands vs. Rivas, 141 SCRA 329, 334 [1986]; Section 3, Article XI, 1987 Constitution), including natural resources like watershed reservations or areas (Director of Land Management v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 455, 458, 463-464; Collado v. Court of Appeals, 390 SCRA 343, 359, 364, 372[2002] in rel. to Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution). b. mineral lands (Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. Vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 71, 75-76 [1991]; Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution) c. military reservations (Republic vs. Marcos, 52 SCRA 238, 242 [1973])- d. other kinds of reservations, such as for park purposes (Palomo vs. CA, 266 SCRA 392, 400-401 [1997]; Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution); medical center site (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 146, 152-153 [1976]); Baguio Townsite Reservation, where all lands within the reservation, save those excepted from the effect of the 1922 decision in Civil reservation Case No. 1, are no longer registrable under the Land Registration Act (Republic vs. Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515, 520 [1988]). e. foreshore land or seashore (Cagampang vs. Morano, 22 SCRA 1040, 1042[1968]). f. navigable rivers, streams and creeks (Republic vs. Lozada, 90 SCRA 503, 510 [1979]); Maneclang vs. IAC, 161 SCRA 469, 471 [1985]) and man-made alluvial deposit along a river, moreso if it Is part of the river bed (Republic vs. CA,132 SCRA 514, 520-522 [1984]), g. lakes (Art. 502 [4], New Civil Code). h. mangrove swamps (Director of Forestry vs. Villareal, 170 SCRA 598, 602[1980}). i. public market, public plaza, municipal streets or public buildings (Municipality of Antipolo vs. Zapanta, 133 SCRA 820, 824 [1984]). (adopted with modification from the enumeration of non-registrable properties by justice Magdangal M. De Leon, citing Aquino, Land Registration and Related Proceedings, 2002 Rev. Ed., andNoblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1992 Rev Ed.). 3. When land is titled on the basis of false statements by the patentee or grantee (Section 91, CA No. 141, as amended; Pifero v. Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 386, 391-392[1974]; Republic v. Lozada, 90 SCRA 503, 509-511[1979). 4. When the acquisition is in violation of the Constitution (Sec. 35 [5], Chapter XII, Title III, Book IV, E.0. No. 292), as when a private corporation acquires title to land of the public domain in violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Vv. Recommended courses of action OSG lawyers through their ASGs must: (1) return to the DENR all requests for the filing of reversion and cancellation of title cases with incomplete documentation, together with their records; (2) reject requests for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title although they are couched as requests for reversion and cancellation of title, where the intended beneficiary is a private party; (3) reject requests where no DENR lawyers have been designated to handle and prosecute the cases to be filed by the OSG; and (4) return to the DENR the records of terminated or dismissed reversion cases. (5) in case the request is properly endorsed and fully documented, the reversion complaint may be filed and said complaint should be verified by the DENR Secretary or his duly-designated official. Lastly, the ASGs must inform the OSG Docket Division of the lawyers to which the DENR requests for reversion are presently assigned, for it to update its records. Respectfully submitted. Hara @ Ma RENAN E. RAMOS Assistant Solicitor General