LTD REVIEW: UPDATES,

ISSUES AND REMEDIES

(WITH MCQs)

Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili

Philippine Judicial Academy
Supreme Court

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

• All lands of whatever classification and other natural resources not otherwise appearing to be
clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.

• To overcome the presumption of State ownership, the applicant must establish through
incontrovertible evidence that the land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable based
on a positive act of the government. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012; See
also: Agcaoili, Property Registration Decree and Related Laws, 2011 ed.)

• The doctrine is reflected Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:

• Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.”

• But in Cariño v. Insular Government, 41 Phil. 935 (1909), cited in Cruz v. DENR Sec.,
347 SCRA 128, the US Supreme Court granted an Igorot's application for registration of
a piece of land in Benguet based on the latter's possession of the land from time
immemorial, ratiocinating thus:

• “when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals
under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same
way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.”

NATURE OF REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

• Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely a procedure to establish evidence
of title over realty, a system of registration of titles to lands. The Torrens certificate of title is
merely an evidence of ownership or title in property. (Casimiro Development Corporation v.
Mateo, GR No. 175485, July 27, 2011)

• Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands shall be in rem and based on generally accepted
principles underlying the Torrens system.

• Jurisdiction in rem is acquired by the constructive seizure of the land through publication, service
of notice and posting.

• The purpose of registration is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the
legality of the title, except claims which were noted in the certificate at the time of registration, or
which may arise subsequent thereto; to decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable, and
indisputable; and to relieve the land of the burden of known as well as unknown claims. (Legarda
v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590; Ching v. CA, GR No. 59731, Jan. 11, 1990)

• But the Torrens system does not furnish a shield for fraud, nor permit one to enrich himself at the
expense of others. (Rodriguez v. Lim, 459 SCRA 412; Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
125585, June 8, 2005)
 • While registration operates as a notice of the instrument to others, it does not add to its
validity nor conveys an invalid instrument into a valid one as between the parties.
(Pascua v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 350)

• Neither does registration amount to a declaration that the instrument recognizes a valid
and subsisting interest in the land. (Agricultural Credit v. Yusay, 107 Phil. 791)

JURISDICTION

• Regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction over land registration cases and all petitions after
original registration. (Sec. 2, PD No. 1529)

 However, first level courts may be assigned by the SC to hear and determine cadastral or
land registration cases:

 (a) Where there is no opposition, or

 (b) Over contested lots, the value of which does not exceed P100,000. (Republic
v. Bantigue, supra)

 Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals.

• The value of the property is ascertained in three ways:

 First, by the affidavit of the claimant;

 Second, by agreement of the respective claimants, if there are more than one; or,

 Third, from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. (Sec. 34, BP 129)

• Sec. 2, PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction between the court’s general jurisdiction and limited
jurisdiction.

 Thus, a regional trial court has the authority to hear not only applications for original
registration but also on all petitions filed after original registration of title. The amendment
aims to avoid multiplicity of suits and simplify registration proceedings.

 The court can now hear and decide not only non-controversial cases but even
contentious issues which before were beyond its competence.

 Initially, the land registration court has jurisdiction over the land applied for at the time of
the filing of the application.

• At the trial, the court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, determines whether the land applied for is
registerable, and the title thereto, confirmed.

• If the land turns out to be inalienable public land, then it has no jurisdiction to order its registration
and the court must perforce dismiss the application. (Yujuico v. Republic, 537 SCRA 513; City of
Dumaguete v. Phil. Ports Authority, GR No. 168973, Aug. 24, 2011).

 A registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over land subject of registration
cannot be divested of said jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in
the issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of
land.

 Reason: proceedings for land registration are in rem, whereas proceedings for acquisition
of homestead patents are not; thus, a homestead patent is not conclusive as far as courts
acting on proceedings in rem are concerned. (De los Angeles v. Santos, 12 SCRA 622)
LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (LRA)

• Functions of the LRA Administrator:

• Issues decrees of registration

• Resolves cases elevated en consulta

• Exercises supervision and control over all clerks of court in relation to land registration

• Implements orders or decisions of registration courts

• Verifies and approves subdivision and consolidation survey plans

• Functions of the LRA:

• Extends assistance to the DAR in the implementation of the land reform program;

• Extends assistance to registration courts in ordinary and cadastral registration cases; and

• Acts as central repository of records relative to original registration, including subdivision

and consolidation plans of titled lands.

• LRA: issuance of decree ministerial

• It is ministerial only in the sense that they act under the orders of the court and the
decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court. (Gomez v. Court of Appeals,
168 SCRA 503)

• But the duty ceases to be ministerial where the issuance of decree would result in double
titling of lands. (Angeles v. Sec. of Justice, GR No. 142549, March 9, 2010)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN “TITLE” AND “CERTIFICATE OF TITLE”

• Title may be defined as that which constitutes a just cause of exclusive possession, or
which is the foundation of ownership of property.

• Certificate of title, on the other hand, is a mere evidence of ownership; it is not the title to
the land itself. (Castillo v. Escutin, GR No. 171056, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 258)

• All claims to a parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of the certificate. (Decaleng v.
Phil. Episcopal Church, GR No. 171209, June 27, 2012)

• The law does not require a person dealing with the owner of registered land to go beyond
the certificate of title as he may rely on the notices of the encumbrances on the property
annotated on the title.

• Registration affords legal protection such that the claim of an innocent purchaser for value is
recognized as valid despite a defect in the title of the vendor. (PCSO v. New Dagupan Metro Gas
Corp., GR No. 173171, July 11, 2012)

• Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The certificate serves as proof of ownership.

• But mere issuance of a certificate of title does not foreclose the possibility that the property may
be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only
be a trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to the
issuance of the certificate of title. (Lacbayan v. Samoy, GR No. 165427, March 21, 2011)

OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

 • There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each province and city.

• Registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry
to affect the land and bind third persons. (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496). V

• A property registered under the Torrens system is, for all legal purposes, unencumbered
or remains to be the property of the person in whose name it is registered,
notwithstanding the execution of any conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, order or
judgment unless the corresponding deed is registered.

. Aying, 458 SCRA 496

Registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry in order to affect
and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496) and is notice to the whole world. (Guaranteed
Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

Registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry in order to affect
and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496) and is notice to the whole world. (Guaranteed
Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

• Registration of instruments affecting registered land must be done in the proper registry in order
to affect and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496) and is notice to the whole
world. (Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

• order to affect and bind the land (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496) and is notice to the
whole world. (Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

• Constructive notice

• SEC. 52. Constructive notice upon registration. — Every conveyance, mortgage, lease,
lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if
registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city
where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time
of such registering, filing, or entering.

• Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world. (Guaranteed

Homes v. Valdez (577 SCRA 441) Thus, between two buyers of the same land,
priority is given to:

 The first registrant in good faith;

• then, the first possessor in good faith; and

• finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. (Art. 1544, CC)

• This rule, however, does not apply if the property is not registered under the Torrens system.
(Abrigo v. De Vera, 432 SCRA 544)

• Property registered under the Torrens system remains, for all legal purposes, the
property of the person in whose name it is registered, notwithstanding the execution of
any deed of conveyance, unless the corresponding deed is registered.

• If a sale is not registered, it is binding only between the seller and the buyer, but it does not affect
innocent third persons. (Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)

• The order of entries in the Primary Entry Book of the RD determines the priority in registration.
(Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)
 • Under the Torrens system of registration, all encumbrances on the land shall be shown, or at
least intimated upon the certificate of title and a person dealing with the owner of the registered
land is not bound to go behind the certificate and inquire into transactions, the existence of which
is not there intimated.

• The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third
persons are concerned, and in all cases, the registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies. (Sec. 51, PD 1529; Bulaong v.
Gonzalez, supra.)

DUTY OF REGISTER OF DEEDS TO REGISTER MINISTERIAL

• Duty of RD to register ministerial

• Whether the document is valid or not is not for the RD to decide but for the court to
determine. (Gurbax Singh v. Reyes, 92 Phil. 182; Almirol v. Register of Deeds of Agusan,
22 SCRA 1152)

• Registration must first be allowed and the validity or effect thereof litigated afterwards

• If the RD is in doubt as to the action taken, or where the interested party does not agree
with the action taken by him, the RD shall certify the question to the LRA via consulta for
resolution. (Sec. 117, PD 1529)

• INSTANCES WHERE RD MAY HOLD REGISTRATION

• Where there are several copies of the title (as in co-ownership) but only one is presented.

• Every copy of the duplicate original must contain identical entries of the
transactions, particularly voluntary ones, otherwise the whole Torrens system
would cease to be reliable.

• The integrity of the Torrens system may be adversely affected if an

encumbrance, or outright conveyance, is annotated on only one copy and not on
the others.

 Where the property is presumed conjugal but the document bears the signature of only one
spouse.

• Under Art. 166 of the CC, the alienation of conjugal property by the husband without the
wife’s consent is voidable. The wife may ask for annulment of the contract within 10
years.

• But where the title is solely in the name of the husband, and there is no showing that the
land was acquired during the marriage, the presumption of conjugality does not obtain.
(Assoc. Insurance v. Banzon, 26 SCRA 268)

• Dela Peña v. Avila, GR No. 187490, Feb. 8, 2012

• Under Art. 160 of the CC, all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to
the wife. While it is not necessary to prove that the property was acquired with funds of
the partnership, proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the
operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.
 • Where there is no showing as to when the property was acquired, the fact that the title is
in the name of “Antonia Dela Peña, married to Antegono Dela Peña” is determinative of
its nature as paraphernal, i.e., belonging exclusively to the wife.

• Under the Family Code (Aug. 3, 1988), the sale of a conjugal property requires the
consent of both the husband and the wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the
sale null and void, while the vitiation (e.g., mistake, violence, intimidation, undue
influence or fraud, Art. 1390, CC) thereof makes it merely voidable.

• Only in the latter case can ratification cure the defect. Doctrinally and clearly, a void
contract cannot be ratified. (Guiang v. CA, GR No. 125172, June 26, 1998)

• Where there is a pending case involving the character of the land or validity of the
conveyance

• In such case, registration may well await the outcome of the case; meantime the
rights of the interested parties could be protected by the filing of a notice of lis
pendens. (Balbin v. Register of Deeds, 28 SCRA 12)

 Where required certificates or documents are not submitted, such as –

• DAR clearance, copy of latest tax declaration, certificate of payment of documentary

stamp tax and capital gains tax, BIR certificate authorizing registration (CAR), tax
clearance certificate of real estate taxes, certificate of payment of transfer tax, secretary’s
certificate and articles of incorporation (in case of a corporation), HLURB registration
papers and license to sell (in case of a subdivision project), TIN, etc.

PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

• The 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public domain into:

• Agricultural lands,

• Forest or timberlands,

• Mineral lands, and

• National parks.

• Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

• Classification of lands under the 1935, 1973 and 1987Constitutions

• The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or
timber.

• The 1973 Constitution provided the following divisions: agricultural, industrial or

commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands, and
such other classes as may be provided by law, giving the government great leeway for
classification.

• The 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with one addition:
national parks. Of these, only agricultural lands may be alienated. . . .(Republic v. AFP
Retirement and Separation Benefits System, GR No. 180463, Jan. 16, 2013)

• Pursuant to Secs. 6 and 7 of the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), the President,
upon recommendation of the proper department head, has the authority to classify lands
of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands.
 • The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the executive department.
In the absence of classification, the land remains as unclassified land until it is released
for disposition. (Republic v. Fabio, 575 SCRA 511)

• The President through a proclamation or executive order can classify or reclassify lands of the
public domain. (Sec. of DENR v. Yap, 568 SCRA 164) The DENR Secretary is the only other
official authorized to approve a land classification.

• DENR Sec. v. Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008

• This case illustrates the classification by Presidential fiat of Boracay Island in Malay,
Aklan. On May 22, 2006, during the pendency of the case, President Arroyo issued
Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island into 400 hectares of reserved forest
land (protection purposes) and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land, declaring it as
alienable and opening it for private ownership.

SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS

• For purpose of administration and disposition, A and D lands may be further classified according
to the use or purpose to which they may be devoted:

• Agricultural;

• Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar purposes

• Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; and

• Reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-public uses. (Sec. 9, CA No. 141).

• “Public land” distinguished from “government land”

• Public land is equivalent to public domain and includes only such land as may be the
subject of disposition.

• Government land and public land are not synonymous – the first includes not only the
second but also other lands already reserved or devoted to public use or subject to a
private right.

• In sum, the government owns real estate which is part of “public lands” and other real
estate which is not a part thereof. (Montano v. Insular Government, 12 Phil. 572)

NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES

 Lands for public use or public service

• Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and
bridges, etc.;

• Those which, without being for public use, are intended for some public service
or for the development of the national wealth. (Art. 420, CC)

• These properties are outside the commerce of men and therefore not subject to private
appropriation. (Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 647)

• Property of public dominion, when no longer needed for public use or for public service, form part
of the patrimonial (or private) property of the State.

• Property devoted for public service cannot be sold until there is a formal declaration by the
government withdrawing it from being such. (Laurel v. Garcia, 17 SCRA 797
• Patrimonial property may be acquired by private persons through prescription. (Malabanan v.
Republic, 587 SCRA 172; Sec. 14(2), PD 1529)

• Property of public dominion, which generally includes property belonging to the State, is
beyond the commerce of man. (Art. 420, CC)

• The Iloilo fishing port which was constructed by the State for public use and/or public
service falls within the term "port" under Art. 420 of the CC. As such, it cannot be subject
to execution or foreclosure sale. In like manner, the reclaimed land on which the IFPC is
built cannot be the object of a private or public sale without Congressional authorization.
(City of Pasig v. Republic, GR No. 185023, Aug. 24, 2011)

• Waters:

• Rivers and their natural beds, lakes, all categories of surface waters, atmospheric or
subterranean ground waters, and seawater all belong to the State.

• Waters found, or rain water falling, on private lands also belong to the State. (PD 1067,
Water Code)

• PD 1067 (Water Code, 1976) repealed Arts. 502 to 518 of the Civil Code on Waters.

• The following belong to the State:

• Rivers and their natural beds; continuous or intermittent waters of springs and
brooks; natural lakes and lagoons, all categories of surface waters; atmospheric
water; subterranean or ground waters; and sea water.

• The following waters found on private lands belong to the State:

• Continuous or intermittent waters rising on such lands; lakes and lagoons

naturally occurring on such lands; rain water falling on such lands; subterranean
or ground waters; and water in swamps and marshes.

• Forests:

• Forest is a large tract of land covered with a natural growth of trees and underbrush.

• The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. (DENR Sec. v. Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct.
8, 2008)

• Unless and until the land classified as forest is released as A and D, the rules on
confirmation of title do not apply. (Amunategui v. Director of Forestry, 126 SCRA 69)

• Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which
the State regulates the utilization of forest resources. (Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.,
606 SCRA 444)

• They merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities and do not vest
in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right.

• They are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process clause. (Oposa v.
Factoran, GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

 Watersheds:
 • Watershed is an area drained by a river and enclosed by a boundary which separates it
from adjacent watersheds. It is not susceptible of occupancy, disposition, or alienation.
(Collado v. CA, GR No. 107764, Oct. 4, 2002)

• The protection of watershed ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations
and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but also cause loss of lives.
(Tan v. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302)

 Mangrove swamps:

• Mangrove swamps or manglares are forestal and not alienable agricultural land.

• BFAR has no jurisdiction to dispose of swamplands or mangrove lands while such lands
are still classified as forest lands.

• Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests and therefore not subject to disposition
until they are first classified as alienable agricultural land. (Director of Forestry v. Villareal,
170 SCRA 598)

 Mineral lands:

• Mineral land means any area where mineral resources are found.

• Mineral lands and resources are owned by the State and their exploration, development
and utilization is subject to the full control and supervision of the State. (Republic v. CA
and Dela Rosa, 160 SCRA 228; La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1)

• Possession of mineral land, no matter how long, does not confer possessory rights. (Atok
Big Wedge v. CA, 193 SCRA 71)

 National parks:

• Land reserved for a national park cannot be registered.

• Where a certificate of title covers a portion of land within the area reserved for park
purposes, the title should be annuled with respect to that portion. (Palomo v. CA, 266
SCRA 392)

• For instance, any portion of the Tiwi Hot Spring National Park cannot be disposed of
under the Public Land Act or Property Registration Decree.

 Military or naval reservation:

• Land inside a military (or naval) reservation, like the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation,
cannot be the object of registration unless it had been withdrawn from the reservation,
reclassified and declared as disposable public land. Its status as part of a military
reservation remains, even if incidentally it is devoted for a purpose other than as a
military camp or for defense. (Republic v. Southside, 502 SCRA 587)

• Moreover, the 1987 Constitution forbids private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain, except through lease for a limited period. (Ibid)

 Foreshore lands:

• Foreshore lands are inalienable unless declared to be A and D portions of the public
domain.

• A foreshore land is that “strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and
that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide,“ or "that part of the land
 adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the
tides.“ (Republic v. RREC, 299 SCRA 199)

• But land invaded by the sea is a foreshore land and forms part of the public domain.
(Republic v. CA and Morato, 281 SCRA 639)

• Puno, J., concurring opinion in Republic v. RREC:

• “The CCP is a ‘non-municipal public corporation’ established for the primary purpose of
propagating arts and culture in the Philippines. It was created to awaken the
consciousness of the Filipino people to their artistic and cultural heritage, and encourage
them to assist in its preservation, promotion, enhancement and development. The CCP
Complex was established as a worthy venue for Filipino artists to express their art and for
the people to appreciate art and the Filipino culture. But more than its peso and centavo
significance, the Decision and Amended Decision, unless reversed, will deal arts and
culture a debilitating blow.”

 Reclaimed lands:

• Submerged areas form part of the public domain; only when reclaimed from the sea can
these submerged areas be classified as agricultural lands.

• Once reclaimed the government may then officially classify these lands as A and D, and
declare these lands no longer needed for public service. Only then can these lands be
considered as A and D lands and within the commerce of men. (Chavez v. PEA, 384
SCRA 152)

• Absent two official acts –

• (a) a classification that submerged areas are A and D, and

• (b) a declaration that they are not needed for public service - lands reclaimed from the
sea are inalienable.

• The Public Estates Authority (PEA), renamed as Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), is the
agency authorized to undertake reclamation projects.

 Lakes:

• Lakes are neither agricultural nor disposable lands of the public domain; hence, free
patents and certificates of title covering portions of the lake are a nullity.

• But areas beyond its natural bed, or the ground covered by the waters at their highest
ordinary depth during the dry season, may be registered. (Republic v. CA and De Rio,
131 SCRA 532)

• The LLDA has exclusive authority to issue permits for the use of the waters of the Laguna
de Bay.

 Rivers and creeks:

• Rivers and creeks are parts of the public domain for public use and not capable of
appropriation or acquisition by prescription.

• The ownership of a stream may not be acquired under a public land patent and the
issuance of the corresponding certificate of title does not change its public character.
(Mateo v. Moreno, 28 SCRA 796)
 • A dried up creek is property of public dominion. (Fernando v. Acuña, GR No. 161030,
Sept. 14, 2011)

 Protected areas:

• RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and management of a national integrated
protected areas system referred to as the “National Integrated Protected Areas System
(NIPAS) Act of 1992”.

• Protected areas are necessary to maintain essential ecological processes and life-
support systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources
found therein.

• A protected area, like the Bataan Natural Park, is inalienable.

 Reservations for public and semi-public purposes

• The President may designate by proclamation any tract of land of the public domain for
the use of the Republic or its branches, e.g., public or semi-public uses like highways,
hydroelectric sites, railroads, irrigation systems, etc. which shall be inalienable.

• The reserved land shall thereafter remain until otherwise provided by law or
proclamation. (Republic, rep. by Mindanao Medical Center v. CA, 73 SCRA 146)

DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY THE STATE

• The State possesses not only the right to determine what lands may or may not be the subject of
disposition, the size thereof and procedure for the acquisition of title to land.

• For the purpose, the State has adopted the policy of multiple land use to the end that the
country’s natural resources may be rationally explored, developed, utilized and conserved, and to
maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth on one hand and
environmental protection on the other.

• “Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to
the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of
the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor.” (Sec. 3, Art. XII, Constitution)

• “Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines
may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof
by purchase, homestead, or grant.” (Sec. 3, id.)

• “The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and
national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and
national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The
Congress shall provide, for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging in
endangered forests and watershed areas.” (Sec. 4, id.)

• “The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and
programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to
ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.

The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.” (Sec. 5, id.)
LAND REGISTRATION: HISTORICAL FLASHBACK

 (First) Public Land Act (Act No. 926)

• Passed pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902.

• Prescribed rules for homesteading, selling and leasing portions of the public domain.

• Provided for the issuance of patents to native settlers, for the establishment of townsites,
and for confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants.

• Operated on the assumption that the government’s title to public land sprung from the
Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States.

 (Second) Public Land Act (Act No. 2874)

• Passed in 1919 under the Jones Law.

• It was more comprehensive in scope but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to
Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same
privileges.

• After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, Act No. 2874 was amended in 1936 by CA
No. 141, the present Public Land Act which is essentially the same as Act No. 2874.

• (Present) Public Land Act (CA No. 141)

• Approved on November 7, 1936, it applies to all lands of the public domain that have
been officially delimited and classified.

• Provides for the different modes of government grant, e.g., homestead, sale, free patent
(administrative legalization), and reservations for public and semi-public purpose.

• A certificate of title issued pursuant to a public land patent has the same validity and
efficacy as a certificate of title issued through ordinary registration proceedings.

 Land Registration Act (Act No. 496)

• Approved on November 6, 1902, but became effective on January 1, 1903, it established

the Torrens system.

• The “Court of Land Registration” had exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for
registration.

• Registration under the system did not create a title; it simply confirmed a title already
vested.

• Proceedings under the Act were in rem,

• Final decrees were regarded as indefeasible and could not be reopened except upon a
petition for review within one year after entry of decree.

 Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259)

• Enacted on February 11, 1913, it is a compulsory registration proceeding initiated by the

government to “settle and adjudicate” title to lands.

• The Director of Lands gives notice to all persons of the date of survey for them to inform
the surveyors of the boundaries of their claims.
 • Only unregistered lands may be the subject of survey.

• All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and in the absence of successful
claimants, the property is declared public land.

 Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529)

• Approved June 11, 1978, the Decree supersedes and codifies all laws relative to land
registration.

• It substantially incorporates the substantive and procedural requirements of Act No. 496
but includes judicial confirmation of imperfect titles under its Section 14(1).

• It provides remedies for fraudulent registration, including an Assurance Fund to answer

for damages.

REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 14, PD 1529

 Under Sec. 14(1)

• “Those 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 a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.”

• Requisites

• The applicant must be a Filipino citizen.

• The land must already be classified as alienable and disposable (A and D) land
at the time of the filing of the application (Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines, GR
No. 141019, Nov. 23, 2011; Victoria v. Republic, GR No. 179673, June 8, 2011;
Republic v. Vega, GR No. 177790, Jan. 17, 2011; Malabanan v. CA, GR No.
179987, April 29, 2009).

• Possession and occupation must be open, continuous, exclusive and notorious

under a bona fide claim of ownership (OCENCO).

• Since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

• Possession is -

• Open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine;

• Continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional;

• Exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and
an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and

• Notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public
or the people in the neighborhood. (Bienvenido v. Gabriel, GR No. 175763, April 11,
2012)

• Rationale of the rule that the land need be classified as A and D already at the time the
application is filed:
 • “If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release
the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still
reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the
State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even in good faith.”

 Under Sec. 14(2)

• “Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws”

• Rule on prescription:

 Ordinary prescription – 10 years in good faith

 Extraordinary prescription – 30 years

 But land must be patrimonial property for prescription to apply. (Malabanan v. Republic,
supra)

 Lands of the public domain shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State when
there is a declaration that:

 These lands are alienable or disposable, and

 Are no longer intended for public use or public service

 Only when such lands have become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the
acquisition of the property begin to run. (Malabanan v. CA, supra)

• Concept of possession for purposes of prescription

 Possession must be that of owner, and it must be public, peaceful and uninterrupted.
Acts of a possessory character by virtue of a license or mere tolerance are not sufficient.

 The present possessor may complete the period for prescription by tacking his
possession to that of his grantor or predecessor-in-interest.

 It is presumed that the present possessor who was also the possessor at a previous time
has continued to be in possession during the intervening time.

 Under Sec. 14(3)

• “Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.”

• Ownership of abandoned river beds by right of accession:

 Under Article 461 of the Civil Code, 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. However, the owners of the
adjoining lands shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof. The
reason is that they are in the best position to utilize the old river bed which is adjacent to
their property.

 Ownership of abandoned river bed

 Q. A and B each own land on opposite sides of a river. The river changed its course,
passing though the land of C. Who owns the abandoned river bed?
  A. C, to compensate him for his loss.

 Q. But suppose that two owners, C and D, lost portions of their lands, who owns the river
bed?

 A. C and D, in proportion to the area lost.

• The owners of the affected lands may not compel the government to restore the river to its former
bed, nor can they restrain the government from taking steps to revert the river or stream to its
former courts.

• But the owners may themselves undertake the reversion of the river to its original course, but
upon a permit issued by the government. (Art. 58, PD 1067, Water Code)

• The ownership of the abandoned river bed is transferred ipso facto to the owners whose lands
are occupied by the new course of the river “to compensate for the loss of the land occupied by
the new bed.”

• Requisites for the application of Art. 461:

 The change must be sudden in order that the old river may be identified;

 The change of the course must be more or less permanent, and not temporary
overflooding of another’s land.

 The change of the river must be a natural one, i.e., caused by natural forces (and not by
artificial means)

 There must be a definite abandonment by the government;

 The river must continue to exist, i.e., it must not completely disappear.

 Ownership by right of accretion along river banks

 Under Art. 457, CC, to the owners of land adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
Justification:

 To offset the owner’s loss for possible erosion of his land due to the current of
the river;

 To compensate him for his burdens arising from the subjection of his land to
encumbrances or legal easements; and

 Owner is in the best position to cultivate it. (Cortex v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567)

• The increment does not automatically become registered land just because the lot which receives
such accretion is covered by a Torrens title. It must be placed under the operation of the Torrens
system. (Cureg v. IAC, 177 SCRA 313)

• The owner must register the accretion under the Torrens system, otherwise the alluvial property
may be subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons. (Grande v. Court of Appeals,
5 SCRA 524)

• Requisites for the application Art. 457:

• That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;

 • That it be made through the effects of the current of the water; and

• That the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.

• In the absence of evidence that the change in the course of the river was sudden or that it
occurred through avulsion, the presumption is that the change was gradual and caused by
accretion and erosion.

• A riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his land caused by special works designed to
bring about accretion.

• Private persons cannot reclaim land from water bodies belonging to the public domain without
permission from government authorities.

• And even if such reclamation is authorized, the reclaimed land does not automatically belong to
the party reclaiming it as the land may still be the subject to the terms of the authority granted.

• Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and, therefore, not open to
acquisition by adverse possession.

“Art. 4, Lands added to the shore by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the
sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea, and are
not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coast-
guard service, the Government may declare them to be the property of the owners of the estate adjacent
thereto and as an increment thereof.” (Spanish Law of Waters)

• Until a formal declaration by the government, through the executive or legislature, that the alluvial
formation is no longer needed for coast guard service, for public use or for special industries, the
same continues to be part of the public domain not available for private appropriation of
ownership. The land is not subject to ordinary prescription as it is outside the sphere of
commerce.

 Under Sec. 14(4)

• “Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.”

• In Republic, rep. by the Mindanao Medical Center v. Court of Appeals

(GR No. L-40912, Sept. 30, 1976), the SC held that Proclamation No.
350 legally effected a land grant for medical purposes to the Mindanao
Medical Center validly sufficient for initial registration under the Land
Registration Act.

• In International Hardwood and Veneer Co. v. University of the Philippines, Proc. No. 791
withdrew from settlement and reserved a parcel of land for the experiment station of the UP,
followed by RA 3990 which “ceded and transferred (the same area) in full ownership” to the UP,
“subject to existing concessions, if any.”

• Pursuant to the reservation, the Court held that the government divested itself of its rights and
title thereto and made UP the absolute owner thereof, subject only to existing concessions.

REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 48(b), PUBLIC LAND ACT (CA 141)

• Who may apply

• “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 acquisition of
 ownership, since June 12, 1945, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These
shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
chapter.” (Sec. 48[b], CA 141)

• No material differences between Sec. 14(1) of PD No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141

• While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to “agricultural lands of the public domain” and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to “alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain,” the subject lands are of the same type since under the Constitution,
alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

• Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073, requires possession since June 12, 1945, or prior
thereto.

• But the land must already be classified as A and D land at the time the application for
registration is filed. (Malabanan vs. CA, GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009)

• Developments in the law as to requisite possession

• The first PLA, or Act 926, required a possession and occupation for a period of ten (10)
years prior to the effectivity of Act No. 296 on July 26, 1904 or on July 26, 1894.

• This was adopted in the PLA until it was amended by RA 1942 on June 22, 1957, which
provided for a period of thirty (30) years.

• It was only with the enactment of PD 1073 on Jan. 25, 1977 that it was required that
possession and occupation should commence on June 12, 1945. (Rep. v. East
Silverlane, GR No. 186961, Feb. 20, 2012; Rep. v. Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18,
2012)

• PD 1073 cannot impair vested rights

• Vested rights acquired under Sec. 48(b) prior to its amendment by PD 1073 must be
respected.

• Thus, an applicant who, prior to the effectivity of PD 1973 on Jan. 25, 1977, has
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
an agricultural land of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ownership,
for at least 30 years, or at least since Jan. 24, 1947, may apply for judicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under Sec. 48(b) of the PLA. (Rep. v.
Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18, 2012)

• When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the PLA are complied with, the possessor is
deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title being issued. (Herico v. Dar, 95 SCRA 437; Republic v. Doldol, supra)

• Compliance with all requirements for a government grant ipso jure converts land to private
property. The land ceases to be of the public domain and is beyond the authority of the DENR to
dispose of it under any of the modes of disposition under the Public Land Act. (Susi v. Razon, 48
Phil. 424)

• When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the PLA are complied with, the possessor is
deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title being issued. (Herico v. Dar, 95 SCRA 437; Republic v. Doldol, supra)
 • Compliance with all requirements for a government grant ipso jure converts land to private
property. The land ceases to be of the public domain and is beyond the authority of the DENR to
dispose of it under any of the modes of disposition under the Public Land Act. (Susi v. Razon, 48
Phil. 424)

• Concurring opinion of J. Brion in Chang v. Republic, GR No. 171726, Feb. 23, 2011:

• Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act is the law that recognizes the substantive right of a
possessor and occupant of an alienable and disposable land of the public domain, while
Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree recognizes this right by authorizing its
registration, thus bringing the land within the coverage of the Torrens System.

• The mode of acquisition recognized by Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act and made
registrable under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree is through
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title.

• Both provisions allow confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title only if the claimant has been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

REGISTRATION UNDER THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT (RA 8371)

• Constitutional provisions

• “The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within
the framework of national unity and development.” (Sec. 2 Art. II)

• The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary law governing property
rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.” (Sec. 5,
par. 2, Art. XII)

• Indigenous concept of ownership

• The IPRA (RA No. 8371) recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities
or indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine Society.

• It grants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains.

• The ownership given is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law which
traces its origin to native title.

• Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the lands of the public domain but are
private lands belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied, possessed and utilized
their territories under claim of ownership since time immemorial.

• Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far back as memory reaches, have
been held under claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands
and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish
Conquest. (Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCA 128)

• The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has the authority to issue
certificates of ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificates of ancestral land title (CALT).

• The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of the Register of Deeds does not result
in the issuance of Torrens certificate of title.
 • The purpose of registration is simply to apprise the public of the fact of recognition by the
NCIP of specific claims to portions of the ancestral domains or ancestral lands.

• Modes of acquisition

• The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in
two modes:

• By native title over both ancestral lands and domains; or

• By Torrens title under the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) of the Property
Registration Decree (PD No. 1529) with respect to ancestral lands only.

• Requisites for registration

• The applicant is a member of an indigenous cultural group;

• He must have been in possession of an individually-owned ancestral land for not less
than thirty (30) years;

• By operation of law, the land is already classified as A and D, even if it has a slope of
18% or over, hence, there is no need to submit a separate certification that the land is A
and D. (Sec. 12, RA 8371)

• The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may be transferred subject to the following
limitations:

• Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;

• In accord with customary laws and traditions; and

• Subject to the right of redemption for a period of fifteen (15) years if the land was
transferred to a non-member.

• Ancestral domains belong to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.

DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS (ACT 1120)

• DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS

(Example: Banilad Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)

• Friar lands are not public lands but private or patrimonial property of the government.

• Friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual occupants under Act 120 (Friar
Lands Act)

• The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first issue a sales certificate to the occupant who
shall pay the purchase price in installments.

• The purchaser becomes the owner upon the issuance of the certificate of sale, subject to
cancellation in case the price agreed upon is not paid in full

• Upon full payment, the government shall then issue a final deed of conveyance to the purchaser

• No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by the DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR
No. 162335, Aug. 24, 2010)

• Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public lands:

 • In sale of public lands, the land is opened for bidding; the successful bidder is given right
of entry and to cultivate and improve the land.

• Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the applicant is given a sales patent.

• In the case of friar lands, the purchaser becomes the owner upon issuance of the
certificate of sale in his favor.

WHO MAY APPLY: CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT

• On the basis of their capacity “to acquire or holds lands of the public domain,” the following may
acquire private lands:

• Filipino citizens

• Filipino corporations and associations, 60% of whose capital are owned by Filipinos

• Aliens by hereditary succession (Sec. 7, Art. XII)

• A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship, subject to
limitations provided by law. (Sec. 8, Id.)

• Citizens of the Philippines:

• Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987
Constitution

• Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines

• Those born before January 17, 1972, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and

• Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. (Art. IV, Constitution):

• Constitutional provisions

• Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed

except to individuals, corporations, ort associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain. (Sec. 7, Art. XII)

• Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the

Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands,
subject to limitations provided by law. (Sec. 8, Ibid)

• Area limitations under RA 7042 as amended by RA 8179

• Urban land – 5,000 square meters

• Rural land – 3 hectares.

• Under RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003), a natural-born

citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship by reason of his naturalization as a citizen
of a foreign country is deemed to have “re-acquired Philippine citizenship” upon taking his
oath of allegiance to the Republic and “shall enjoy full civil and political rights” under
existing laws.

• The capacity to own land is determined at the time of its acquisition and not registration.
 • Example: Pedro, a Filipino, bought land from Jose who at the time of the sale had already
complied with the requirements for the registration of the land. Pedro later became a
naturalized Canadian citizen. Pedro’s subsequent acquisition of Canadian citizenship will
not impair his right to the land which he could have validly registered when he was yet a
Filipino citizen. He is also qualified under the terms of Sec. 8, Art. XII, Constitution.
(Republic v. CA and Lapiña, 235 SCRA 567)

• May the RD validly refuse to register a deed of donation of a residential land executed by a
Filipino in favor of an unregistered organization, the “Ung Sui Si Temple,” operating through
three trustees all of Chinese nationality?

• Yes. The SC, in Register of Deeds v. Ung Sui Si temple, GR No. L-6776, May 21, 1995,
held that in view of the absolute terms of Sec. 5, Title XIII of the 1935 Constitution (now
Sec. 8, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) that, “save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private agricultural land shall be transferred except to individuals, corporations or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain,” the Constitution
makes no exception to religious groups.

• Q. Can a Filipino vendor recover land sold to an alien?

• A. Yes. When an agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited and the
prohibition is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may recover the land, the
public policy being to preserve and maintain the land in the hands of Filipino citizens.
(Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52; Borromeo v. Descallar, 580 SCA 175;
United Church v. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446)

• Note: In Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827, the Filipino vendor was in pari delicto
with the alien vendee, hence, recovery was not allowed.

• When doctrine of pari delicto does not apply

• “The principle underlying pari delicto as known here and in the United States is not
absolute in its application. It recognizes certain exceptions one of them being when its
enforcement or application runs counter to an avowed fundamental policy or to public
interest. As stated by us in the Rellosa case, ‘This doctrine is subject to one important
limitation, namely, whenever public policy is considered advanced by allowing either
party to sue for relief against the transaction.’” (Binayug v. Ugaddan, GR No. 181623,
Dec. 5, 2012)

• Other illustrative cases on acquisition by aliens

• Where the land was now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino, there is no more public
policy to be served by allowing recovery. (Barsobia v. Cuenco , 199 Phil. 26),

• Where land is sold to a Chinese who later sold it to a Filipino, the sale can no longer be
impugned. (Herrera v. Guan, 1 SCRA 406).

• Chuck, an American, and Cory, a Filipino, acquired land which was registered in the
latter’s name. Cory sold the land to Mario without Chuck’s consent. Valid? Yes. Chuck
never acquired any right to the land, he being an alien. (Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93)

• Beumer v. Amores, GR No. 195670, Dec. 3, 2012

• “The Court had already denied a claim for reimbursement of the value of purchased
parcels of Philippine land instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former
Filipina spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut Muller cannot seek
 reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly
bought the property despite the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine land
enshrined under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. x x x Equity as
a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of
public policy, cannot be done directly. A contract that violates the Constitution and the
law is null and void, vests no rights, creates no obligations and produces no legal effect
at all.”

• Private corporations not qualified

• “Private corporations or associations may not hold (such) alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more
than 25 years, and not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area.” (Sec. 3, Art. XII, Constitution)

• Reason: to encourage economic family-sized farms by transferring ownership of only a limited

area of alienable lands of the public domain to a qualified individual. Available lands are
decreasing due to increasing population.

• Corporation sole

• A corporation sole is vested with the right to hold real estate and personal property.
(Roman Catholic Apostolic v. LRC, 102 Phil. 596)

• It is created not only to administer the temporalities of the church or religious society
where the administrator (bishop or archbishop) belongs but also to hold and transmit the
same to his successor in office.

• Upon the death of the administrator, church properties pass, by operation of law, not to
his heirs but to his successor in office.

• In Republic v. Iglesia ni Cristo, 591 SCRA 438, the Court held that a private corporation
may validly file an application for registration over a parcel of land it had acquired from a
person who had already complied with the statutory period of possession. The
possession of INC has been established not only from 1952 and 1959 when it purchased
the respective halves of the subject lot, but is also tacked to the possession of its
predecessors-in-interest who had been in possession thereof before June 12, 1945.

• Vested right

• A vested right is some right or interest in property that has been fixed and established,
and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. (Lucero v. City of Pasig, 508 SCRA 23;
Ayog v. Cusi, 204 Phil. 126)

• An open, continuous, adverse and public possession of property from time immemorial
by a private individual confers effective title on said possessor, whereby the land ceases
to be public and becomes private property. (Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424)

• Vested rights, illustrated

• In Ayog v. Cusi, 146 SCRA 15, the Court ruled that the prohibition under Sec. 11, Art. XIV
of the 1973 Constitution disqualifying for the first time a private corporation from
purchasing public lands has no retroactive application because respondent corporation
had already acquired a vested right to the land at the time the 1973 Constitution took
effect, i,e., by complying with the construction and cultivation requirements of the law and
paying the full purchase price of the land such that it now became the ministerial duty of
government to issue the sales patent to the corporation.
FORM AND CONTENTS OF APPLICATION

• The application shall be in writing, signed by the applicant or his authorized representative, and
under oath. If there is more than one applicant, the application shall be signed and sworn to by
each.

• The application shall contain a description of the land, and state the civil status of the applicant,
and the names of all occupants and adjoining owners, if known. (Sec. 15, PD No. 1529)

• The application shall be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the land lies, with a copy
furnished the Director of Lands. (Sec. 16, ibid.)

• The applicant may file a single application for two or more parcels of land in the same province

• Amendments which consist in a substantial change in the boundaries or an increase (not

decrease) in area shall be subject to publication and notice as in an original application. (Sec. 19,
ibid.; Benin v. Tuason, 57 SCRA 531)

DEALINGS WITH LAND PENDING REGISTRATION

• Pending issuance of the decree, the land may be the subject of dealings (sale, lease, mortgage)
in whole or in part, and the interested party shall submit to the court for consideration the
pertinent documents and subdivision plan in case only portions of the land are affected. The
application need not be amended. (Mendoza v. CA, 84 SCRA 67)

• The court shall order the land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance, or order that
the decree be issued to the transferee. (Sec. 22, ibid.)

• In case of transfer of a portion of the land, the corresponding should also be presented. Upon
notice, the court shall:

• (a) order the land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance created by the
instrument, or

• (b) order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom the
property has been conveyed.

PUBLICATION, MAILING AND NOTICE

• “The Court shall within 5 days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and
hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days from the
date of the order. The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land
registration by means of (a) publication; (2) mailing; and (c) posting.” (Sec. 23, PD 529)

• Purpose: (a) to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and (b) to apprise the whole world of the case
so that they may oppose the application, if minded.

• “Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the LRA shall cause a
notice of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, That the publication in the Official
Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to
all persons appearing to have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining owners so
far as known, and ‘to all whom it may concern.’” (Sec. 23, ibid.)

• Publication
 • Constructive seizure of the land is effected through publication of the notice of initial
hearing in the OG and in a newspaper of general circulation, and also the posting and
mailing thereof to affected parties. (Sec. 23, PD No. 1529)

• While the law says that publication in the OG shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon
the court, publication in a newspaper is still required to accord with the due process
requirement. (Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 309)

• But lack of personal notice does not vitiate the proceedings. (Roxas v. Enriquez, 212
SCRA 625)

• Role of the Solicitor General

• The Solicitor General represents the government in all land registration and related
proceedings.

• As a rule only court notices and processes actually served upon the SG is binding on his
office.

• Deputized officers are under the direction and control of the SG himself. (NPC v. NLRC,
GR No. 90933, May 29, 1997).

• The government may appeal an adverse decision despite not filing any opposition.
(Republic v. CA and Arquillo, 182 SCRA 290)

• Procedure where conveyance involves only a portion of land:

• No TCT shall be issued by the RD until a plan of the land showing the portions into which
it has been subdivided, together with the technical description, shall have been verified
and approved by the LRA or LMB.

• Meanwhile, the deed may only be annotated by the RD by way of memorandum on the
grantor’s certificate of title. (Sec. 58 in relation to Sec. 50, PD No. 1529).

OPPOSITION

• Any person claiming an interest or right of dominion may appear and oppose the
application for registration.

• Where no opposition is made, all the allegations in the application for registration shall be
held as confessed, and the claimant shall be deemed to have forever lost his right to the
land.

• But the absence of opposition does not justify the court into awarding the land to the
applicant; he must still submit well-nigh incontrovertible proof that he is entitled to
registration. (Director of Lands v. Agustin, 42 Phil. 227)

• Order of default

• “If no person appears and answers within the time allowed, the court shall, upon motion
of the applicant, order a default to be recorded and require the applicant to present
evidence. By the description in the notice ‘To All Whom It May Concern,’ all the world are
made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default order. Where an
appearance has been entered and an answer filed, a default order shall be entered
against persons who did not appear and answer. (Sec. 26, PD 1529)

• “If no person appears and answers within the period allowed, an order of (general)
default shall be entered and the applicant required to present evidence. When an
 appearance has been entered and an answer filed, a order of (special) default shall be
entered against persons who did not appear and answer.” (Sec. 26, PD No. 1529)

• Appeal by party in default

• A party declared in default may appeal from the judgment on the ground that the
applicant failed to prove the material allegations in his application for registration, or that
the decision is contrary to law, even without first filing a motion to set aside the order of
default. (Martinez v. Republic, 506 SCRA 601)

• Where the Director of Lands did not oppose the application and was, by order of the
court, declared in default, the order should not prejudice the government since the
Republic is usually not estopped by the mistake or error of its officials or agents.
(Republic v. Aquino, 205 Phil. 141)

• Motion to dismiss based on res judicata proper in registration proceedings

• Sec. 34, PD 1529, provides that the Rules of Court shall be applicable to registration and
cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory character.

• In Valisno v. Plan (143 SCRA 502), the Court, applying the principle of res judicata,
sustained the applicant’s motion to dismiss the opposition to his application for
registration it appearing that the land sought to be registered had been previously
litigated between the applicant and the oppositor in a civil case for recovery of
possession, resulting in a favorable judgment to the applicant.

• Applicability of res judicata

• Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all later
suits and on all points and matters determined in the previous suit.

• The principle bars a subsequent suit involving the same parties, subject matter, and
cause of action. The rationale for the rule is that "public policy requires that controversies
must be settled with finality at a given point in time.“ (Topacio v. Banco Filipino, GR No.
157644, Nov. 17, 2010)

• Elements of res judicata:

(a) former judgment must be final;

(b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(c) the judgment must be on the merits;

(d) there must be between the first and the sect=ond actions, identity of parties, subject matter and
caussers of action.

• The doctrine does not require absolute but merely substantial identity of the parties.

• The defense of res judicata may be waived if not set up in a motion to dismiss.

HEARING

• Hearing

• The court shall decide the case within 90 days from its submission.
 • The court may refer the case or part thereof to a referee who shall submit his report to
the court within 15 days after its termination.

• Applications for registration shall be heard by the regional trial court or, in proper cases,
by the first level court, in the province or city where the land is situated. (Sec. 27, PD
1529)

• The burden is on the applicant to prove his positive averments and not for the government or the
private oppositors to establish a negative proposition.

• The applicant must submit convincing proof of his and his predecessor-in-interest’s actual,
peaceful and adverse possession and occupation in the concept of owner for the length of time
and in the manner prescribed by law.

• He must show, by “well-nigh incontrovertible proof,” and even in the absence of

opposition, that he is the absolute owner of the land.

EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP

• Proof that land is A and D

• Certification of the BFD that land has been released as A and D

• LC Map showing that the land is within the A and D portion of the public domain

• Executive proclamation withdrawing a specific portion from a reservation and declaring

same open for disposition.

• Legislative or executive proclamation reserving a portion of the public domain for public
or quasi-public use.

• The application for original registration must be accompanied by:

(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that land is A and D; and

(2) Copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true
copy by the legal custodian thereof. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012; Mercado v.
Valley Mountain Mines, GR No. 141019, Nov. 23, 2011; Republic v. Dela Paz, GR No. 171631, Nov. 5,
2010; Republic v. T.A.N, 555 SCRA 477)

• Policy clarification by DENR Memorandum No. 564, dated Nov. 15, 2012

• The issuance of the certification and the certified copy of the approved LC Map to prove
that the area applied for is indeed classified as A and D is “within the competence and
jurisdiction of the CENRO.”

• A separate administrative order has been issued “delegating to the CENRO the authority
to issue the certification and the certified true copy of the approved land classification
map and the particular issuance or order which was used as basis for such
classification.”

• DENR level of authority on land classification

• Secretary: Land classification and release of lands of the public domain as alienable and
disposable (A and D)

• Secretary: Sub-classification of forest lands according to use

• PENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber land or A and D – above 50.0 has.
 • CENRO: Issuance of certificate whether timber land or A and D – below 50.0 has. (See
also: Republic v. Jaralve, GR No. 175177, Oct. 24, 2012)

• Identity of the land

• Land must be surveyed to establish its identity, location and area.

• Only the LMB Director may approve survey plans for original registration purposes. (PD
239, July 9, 1973)

• There is now no need to present the tracing cloth plan of the land. A certified blue print or
white print copy of the plan suffices for registration purposes. (Director of Lands v. CA
and Iglesia ni Cristo, 158 SCRA 586)

• What defines a piece of titled property is not the numerical data indicated as the area of the land,
but the boundaries or "metes and bounds" of the property specified in its technical description as
enclosing it and showing its limits. (Rep. v. CA and Santos, GR No. 116111, Jan. 21, 1969, 301
SCRA 366).

• What defines a piece of land is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in
the description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its
limits. (Balantakbo v. CA, GR No. 108515, Oct. 16, 1995)

• In overlapping of titles disputes, it has always been the practice for the court to appoint a surveyor
from the government land agencies — the LRA or the DENR — to act as commissioner.

• Survey is the process by which a parcel of land is measured and its boundaries and contents
ascertained; also a map, plat or statement of the result of such survey, with the courses and
distances and the quantity of the land.

• A case of overlapping of boundaries or encroachment depends on a reliable, if not accurate,

verification survey. (Pabaus v. Yutiamco, GR No. 164356, July 27, 2011)

• Possession and occupation

• Possession must be under a claim of ownership.

• Acts of a possessory character by one who holds the property by mere tolerance of the
owner is not in the concept of owner, and do not start the period of prescription.

• Actual possession consists of acts of dominion of such a nature as a party would

naturally exercise over his own property

• Occupation delimits the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession.

• Rule of preference in case of conflict of possession

• The present possessor shall be preferred;

• If there two possessors, the one longer in possession;

• If the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and

• If both possessors have titles, the court shall determine the rightful possessor
and owner of the land. (Art. 538, CC)
 • Mere possession will not defeat the title of a holder of registered land. (Eduarte v. CA,
253 SCRA 391)

• Overt acts of possession may consist in:

• Introducing valuable improvements on the land like fruit-bearing trees;

• Fencing the area

• Constructing a residential house thereon; and

• Declaring the land for taxation purposes.

• In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-hectare land can be planted to 144 coconut
trees.

• It takes only 10 years for mango trees, and 5 years for coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit.
Republic v. CA and Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)

• Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; exceptions:

• (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee;

• (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth
in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Tyson’s Super Concrete v. CA, 461
SCRA 69)

• Tax declarations and tax receipts

• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership but they are
a good indicia of possession in the concept of owner. (Llanes v. Republic, 572 SCA 258)
A tax declaration merely prove payment of taxes.

• When coupled with actual possession, payment of taxes is evidence of great weight and
can be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription. (Republic v. Alconaba, 427
SCRA 611)

• Taxes must be paid annually.

• Spanish titles no longer efficacious as proof of ownership

• Pursuant to PD No. 892, dated Feb. 16, 1976, Spanish titles may no longer be used as
evidence of land ownership

• The proliferation of dubious Spanish titles have raised conflicting claims of ownership and
tended to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
 • Case study: Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals,
265 SCRA 733.

JUDGMENT

• The court shall render judgment within ninety (90) days from the date the case is submitted for
decision.

• The court may refer the case to a referee, usually the clerk of court, as hearing officer to receive
evidence, to enable the judge to devote his time to other important businesses.

• The hearing officer shall submit his report within 15 days after the termination of the hearing.

• The court may render judgment on the basis of said report or, if necessary, it may reccommit the
case to the hearing officer for the reception of additional evidence. (Sec. 27. PD 1529)

• The judgment confirms the title of the applicant or the oppositor. Partial judgment is
proper where a subdivision plan is submitted. (Sec. 28)

• Judgment becomes final after 15 days from receipt of notice of the judgment.

• Court retains jurisdiction until after the entry of the final decree of registration. (Gomez v
CA, 168 SCRA 503)

• Principle of res judicata is applicable to registration proceedings. (Aring v. Original, a6

SCRA 1021)

• Kinds of judgment

• A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such as a judgment in a land
registration case or probate of a will.

• A judgment in personam is binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest but
not upon strangers.

• A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in

personam; it is binding only against the parties and their successors-in-interest by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action.

• An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or
reconveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular
individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. (Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No.
142676, June 6, 2011)

• Motion for execution of judgment not required

• The judgment does not have to be executed by motion or enforced by action within the
purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Republic v. Nillas, GR No.
159595, Jan. 23, 2007)

• The winning party needs only to file a petition with the court for the issuance of an order
directing the LRA to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to the
Register of Deeds for inscription in the registration book, and issuance of the original
certificate of title. (Top Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR No.150462, June
15, 2011)

• Execution pending appeal not proper

• A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity.
 • The law requires that a decree shall be issued only upon the finality of the decision of the
court, and it is on the basis of said decree that the RD issues the corresponding
certificate of title. (Top Management v. Fajardo, supra)

• No period within which decree may be issued

• The fact that no decree has as yet been issued cannot divest the applicant of his title to
and ownership of the land in question. There is nothing in the law that limits the period
within which the court may issue a decree. The reason is that the judgment is merely
declaratory in character and does not need to be enforced against the adverse party. (Del
Rosario v. Limcaoco, GR No. 177392, Nov. 26, 2012)

• Notice to the Solicitor General

• Only notices of court orders or processes served on the Solicitor General bind the
government.

• Period of appeal shall be counted from date of receipt of the judgment by the SG and not
by the prosecutor.

• Belated filing of appeal by the State, or even its failure to file an opposition, because of
the mistake or error of its officials or agents, does not deprive it of its right to appeal from
the adverse judgment of the registration court. (Republic v. Tiotioen, 568 SCRA 152)

WRIT OF POSSESSION

• A writ of possession may be issued in:

• (a) land registration proceeding which is in rem;

• (b) extrajudicial foreclosure of realty;

• (c) judicial foreclosure of mortgage which is a quasi in rem; and

• (d) execution sales.

• A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person defeated in the land
registration case but also against anyone unlawfully occupying the land during the
pendency of the proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree. (Vencilao v. Vano,
182 SCRA 491

• After the registration of the land is decreed, the winning party has the right to a title and
possession of the land which is an inherent element of ownership.

• A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person or persons defeated but also
against anyone unlawfully occupying the land during the registration proceedings and up to the
issuance of the final decree. (Vencilao v. Vaño, GR No. L-25660, 1990)

• The fact that there is pending action attacking the validity of the decree is not a bar to the
issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the registered owners. (Id., citing Sorongon v.
Makalintal, GR No. L-1692, Feb. 24, 1948)

• In the implementation of the writ, the sheriff cannot remove or demolish the
improvements except upon special order of the court. (Tumibay v. Soro, GR 152016,
April 12, 2010)
 • The writ will not issue against persons taking possession after issuance of the final
decree.

• The remedy is to file a separate action for forcible entry or detainer, or a reivindicatory
action. (Bernas v. Nueva,127 SCA 399)

• In Tumibay v. Soro, supra, the Court held:

• “A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to place the
prevailing party in possession of the property. If the defendant refuses to surrender
possession to the prevailing party, the sheriff should oust him. No express order to this
effect needs to be stated in the decision; nor is a categorical statement needed in the
decision that in such event the sheriff or other proper officer shall have the authority to
remove the improvements on the property.

• The removal of the improvements is deemed read into the decision, subject only to the
issuance of a special order by the court for the removal of the improvements.”

• In a related case, De la Rosa v. Valdez, GR No. 159101, July 27, 2011, the Court ruled:

• There are ample justifications for the grant by the RTC of a writ that places the subject
property in the possession of the spouses Valdez and spouses Malvar for the duration of
the trial of Civil Case No. 00-6015. Sales Patent No. 38713, covering the subject
property, had already been issued to Juan Valdez which makes him, at the very least, the
equitable owner of the said property. There is already a request for the registration of
Sales Patent No. 38713 pending before the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City. . . . . . . .
..............

• The spouses Valdez acknowledge the transfer of the subject property to the spouses
Malvar. The spouses Dela Rosa's title is based on TCT No. 451423-A in Cristeta dela
Rosa's name, which is not registered with the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City or
Antipolo City. TCT No. 451423-A is also traced back to Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136,
which, in the Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 103727, Dec. 1, 1996, was already declared null and void, and from
which no rights could be derived.

• When separate action is necessary

• When parties against whom a writ of possession is sought entered into possession
apparently after the issuance of the final decree, and none of them had been a party in
the registration proceedings, the writ of possession will not issue.

• A person who took possession of the land after final judgment in registration proceedings
cannot be summarily ousted through a writ of possession secured by a mere motion and
that regardless of any title or lack of title of persons to hold possession of the land in
question, they cannot be ousted without giving them their day in court in proper
independent proceedings. (Bernas v. Nuevo, 127 SCRA 399)

• Failure to vacate; contempt

• Under Section 3 (d), Rule 19, Rules of Court, the writ of execution must require the sheriff
or other officer to whom it must be directed to deliver the possession of the property,
describing it, to the party entitled thereto. The sheriff must dispossess or eject the losing
party from the premises and deliver the possession thereof to the winning party.
 • If subsequent to such dispossession or ejectment the losing party enters or attempts to
enter into or upon the real property, for the purpose of exercising acts of ownership or
possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession of the person adjudged to be
entitled thereto, only then may the loser be charged with and punished for contempt .
(Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491).

DECREE OF REGISTRATION

• A decree of registration is an order issued under the signature of the LRA Administrator stating
that the land is registered in the name of the applicant (or oppositor or claimant, as the case may
be). It shall bear the date, hour and minute of its entry. A certified copy of the decree is sent to the
RD for transcription in the “Registration Book.”

• The certificate of title shall take effect upon the date of the entry of the decree. (Manotok Realty,
Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, GR No. 123346, Dec. 14, 2007)

• The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto. It shall be conclusive against
all persons, including the government and its branches. (Sec. 31, PD 1529)

• Land becomes registered land only upon the transcription of the decree in the book of the
Register of Deeds, and not on the date of the issuance of the decree. (Manotok v. CLT Realty,
supra)

• A court has no jurisdiction to decree again land already decreed in a prior case. (Laburada v.
LRA, 287 SCRA 333), otherwise that constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title. (SM
Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578 SCRA 552)

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

• Issuance of decree and certificate of title

• Within 15 days from entry of the judgment, the court shall direct the LRA Administrator to
issue the decree of registration and prepare the original and duplicate certificate of title
based thereon. The original certificate of title, signed by him, shall be a true copy of the
decree, and shall be sent, together with the owner’s duplicate, to the Register of Deeds of
the city or province where the land lies. (Sec. 39, PD 1529)

• The certificate is an indefeasible evidence of ownership of the person whose name

appears therein. (Panganiban v. Dayrit, 464 SCRA 370).

• Contents of a certificate of title

• Every certificate of title shall set forth the full names of the registered owners and their
status. If the property belongs to the conjugal partnership, it shall be issued in the names
of both spouses.

• All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it
be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. (Art. 160, CC)

• When the property is registered in the name of a spouse only and there is no showing as
to when the property was acquired, this indicates that the property belongs exclusively to
said spouse. The presumption in Art. 160 does not apply in that case especially where
the rights of innocent third parties are involved. (PNB v, Vitug, 153 SCRA 435)

• Entry of original certificate of title

 • Upon receipt by the RD of the original and duplicate copies of the title, the same shall be
entered in the day book and shall be numbered, dated, signed and sealed. Said
certificate of title shall take effect upon the entry thereof. The RD shall then send notice
by mail to the registered owner that his owner’s copy is ready for delivery to him upon
payment of legal fees.

• The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration. It shall
state the names of the registered owners and their status. If the property is conjugal the
title shall be issued in the names of both spouses. (Sec. 40, PD 1529)

• A certificate of title may be an original certificate of title, which constitutes a true copy of the
decree of registration, or a transfer certificate of title, issued subsequent to original registration.

• The title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title one year after the
issuance of the decree of registration by the LRA. (Del Prado v. Caballero, GR No. 148225,
March 3, 2010)

• A person dealing with registered land need not go beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his
predecessor. (Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

• A certificate of title issued pursuant to adminis- trative proceedings is as indefeasible as any title
issued through judicial proceedings provided the land is a disposable public land, and becomes
incontrovertible one year after the issuance of the patent. (Republic v. Carle, 105 Phil. 1227)

• A certificate of title based on an emancipation patent under PD No. 27 also enjoys the same
protection as a certificate issued judicially or administratively. (Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform,
R No. 175049, Nov. 27, 2008)

• Title earlier in date prevails

• On the assumption that there was regularity in the registration leading to the eventual
issuance of subject transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the original
certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there be
only one common original certificate of title . . . the transfer certificate issued on an earlier
date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of
registration. (Top Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR No.150462, June 15,
2011)

STATUTORY LIENS AFFECTING REGISTERED LAND

• Every registered owner holds title free from encumbrances except: (a) liens or rights not
required by law to be registered (b) unpaid real estate taxes (c) public highway (d)
limitation on the use of property under agrarian reform and public land laws (e) liability to
attachment or levy on execution (f) taking under eminent domain proceedings. (Sec. 44,
PD No. 1529)

• Purpose: to give the registered owner an absolutely clean title, not subject to
hidden defects or inchoate claims, as well as restrictions except those appearing
in the certificate or imposed by the law.

• The decree does not relieve the land or the registered owner from any rights incident to:

• The relation of husband and wife, landlord and tenant;

• From liability to attachment or levy on execution;

 • From liability to any lien of any description established by law on the land and buildings
thereon; or

• Change the laws of descent, rights of partition, or right to take the same by eminent
domain; or

• Relieve such land from liability to any assignee in insolvency or bankruptcy; or

• Change or affect other rights or liabilities created by law (Sec. 46, PD 1529)

VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LAND

• Voluntary dealings with registered lands

• Any registered owner may convey, mortgage, lease or otherwise deal with the land. (Sec.
51. PD No. 1529).

• Every conveyance or disposition of registered land, if registered, is constructive notice to

all persons from the time of registration. (Sec. 52, PD 1529; Guaranteed Homes v.
Valdez, 577 SCA 441)

• But knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to registration. (Fernandez v. CA,

189 SCRA 780)

• Contracts are obligatory in whatever form provided the essential requisites of consent,
object and cause of the obligation is established.

• Donation of real property must be in a public instrument to be valid. For a

mortgage to be validly constituted, the document must be recorded.

• Agreements mentioned in the Statute of Frauds, to be enforceable, must be in

writing and subscribed by the party charged.

• Sale of real estate is valid regardless of form but is effective against third persons
only from date of registration.

• Between two transactions concerning the same land, the registered transaction prevails over the
earlier unregistered right.

• Thus, where a purchaser files an adverse claim to registered land only after the same
was already mortgaged to the bank, upon the claim that he bought the land “long before”
the mortgage, the right of the bank to the property is superior to that of the purchaser.
(Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCA 710)

• If two certificates of title purport to include the same land, the better approach is to trace
the original certificates from which the certificates of titles were derived. (Bangis v.
Adolfo, GR No. 190875, June 13, 2012)

• Rule in case of sale of conjugal property

• Under Art. 124 of the Family Code, the sale of conjugal property requires the consent of
both husband and wife.

• The absence of consent of one renders the sale null and void, including the
portion pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. (Guiang v. Court of
Appeals, 353 Phil. 578)
 • Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the disposition of conjugal property without the wife’s
consent is not void but merely voidable, and the wife may within 10 years ask the court
for the annulment of the contract.

• Art. 161 of the Civil Code provides that the conjugal partnership shall be liable for debts
and obligations contracted by the wife for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. (Alfredo
v. Borras, 404 SCRA 145)

• In a contract of sale, title to the property passes to the vendee upon delivery of the thing
sold; in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the vendor and is not
to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price.

• Sale of real property in a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery thereof if the
contrary does not appear.

• Dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing by the debtor to the
creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of t he obligation.

• Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world.

• Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to registration. (Fernandez v. CA, 189 SCRA

780)

• Between two transactions concerning the same land, the registered transaction prevails over the
earlier unregistered right. (Fudot v. Cattleya, 533 SCRA 350)

VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY REGISTRATION

• Voluntary and involuntary registration distinguished

• Voluntary registration – the purchaser becomes the registered owner upon the filing and
entry of the deed sale in the day book, and the surrender of the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title to the RD.

• Involuntary registration – registration is complete upon filing and entry of the order (e.g.,
of attachment, levy upon execution, notice or lis pendens, etc.) in the day book of the RD,
without need of presenting the owner’s duplicate.

• In voluntary registration, such as a sale, mortgage, lease and the like,

• if the owner's duplicate certificate be not surrendered and presented, or

• if no payment of registration fees be made within fifteen (15) days,

• entry in the day book of the deed of sale does not operate to convey and affect the land
sold.

• In involuntary registration, such as an attachment, levy upon execution, lis pendens and the like,
entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. (Bulaong
v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)

REMEDIES REVIEW OF DECREE

• In Eland Philippines v. Garcia, GR No. 173289, Feb. 17, 2010, the Court, citing Agcaoili,
“Property Registration Decree and Related Laws”, held:

• Courts may reopen the proceedings where a petition for review is filed within one
year from the issuance of the decree of registration, based on actual or extrinsic
fraud, and the property has not yet passed to a innocent purchaser for value.
 • Requisites:

(a) petitioner must have an interest in land;

(b) petition is based on actual or extrinsic fraud;

(c) petition is filed within one year fro the issuance of the decree of registration; and

(d) property has not yet passed to innocent purchaser for value. (Walstrom v. Mapa, 314 Phil.
527)

• Sec. 32, PD No. 1529. Review of Decree.

• “The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence,

minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of zany
person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by such adjudication of confirmation of title obtained by actual
fraud, to file in the proper Regional Trial Court a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such
decree of registration, but in no case shall such

Petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land
or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase ‘innocent purchaser for
value’ or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee,
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of
registration and the certificate of title shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree
of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any
other persons responsible for the fraud.”

 Extrinsic fraud is the fraudulent act of the successful party committed outside the trial of a
case against the defeated party which prevented the latter from fairly presenting his case.

 Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in a litigation during the trial, such as the use of
forged instruments or perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the
case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case. (Palanca v. American
Food Manufacturing, 24 SCRA 819)

• Examples of extrinsic fraud

 Deliberate misrepresentation that the lot is not contested when in fact it is;

 Applying for land which the applicant knows had not been alloted to him in the partition;

 Willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims to the land;

 Inducing a claimant not to oppose the application.

 The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme prevented a party from having
his day in court. The fraud is one that affects and goes into the jurisdiction of the court.

• Palanca v. American, supra:

 “Where the unsuccessful party had been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court,
a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the
suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently
or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where
 the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's interest to the other side -
these, and similar cases, x x x are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set
aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and fair
hearing.”

ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE

• An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful
landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another,
to compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land to him.

• The action respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of
property, wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its rightful
owner or a person who has a better right. (Alde v. Bernal, GR No. 169336, March 18,
2010; Ybañez v. IAC, 194 SCRA 793; Gonzales v. IAC, 157SCRA 587)

• An action for reconveyance is an action in personam and is filed as an ordinary action in the
ordinary courts of justice and not with the land registration court. A notice of lis pendens may be
annotated on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in court. (Muñoz
v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011).

• Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to successfully maintain an action to recover the
ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two (2) things:
first, the identity of the land claimed; and second, his title thereto.

• Requisites:

• The action is brought by the party in interest after one year from issuance of decree;

• registration was procured through actual fraud;

• the property has not yet passed to innocent purchaser for value.

• A party may file an action for reconveyance of the property of which he has been illegally
deprived even before the issuance of the decree. (Mun. of Hagonoy v. Secretary, 73 SCRA 507)

• If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law,
considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes.

• An action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation

created by law, to be counted from the date of issuance of the Torrens title over the property.

• This rule, however, applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is not in
possession of the property. (PNB v. Jumanoy, GR No. 169901, Aug. 3, 2011)

• An action for reconveyance under a constructive implied trust in accordance with Article 1456
does not prescribe unless and until the land is registered or the instrument affecting the same is
inscribed in accordance with law, inasmuch as it is what binds the land and operates constructive
notice to the world.

• Thus, where the land is unregistered, it is from the date of actual notice of the fraudulent
sale that prescription began to toll. (Cabacungan v. Laigo, GR No. 175073, Aug. 15,
2011)

• Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188575, Dec. 10, 2012

 • Facts: When Pacete procured OCT No. V-16654 in 1961, the disputed lot was already in
possession of Asotigue, whose predecessor-in-interest, Sumagad, had been occupying it
since 1958. Is reconveyance proper?

• Held: Yes. The registration of Asotigue's lot in favor of Pacete, who neither possessed
nor occupied the lot, is wrongful. Inasmuch as Pacete had not yet transferred the lot to an
innocent purchaser for value, an action for reconveyance is proper. Reconveyance is
available not only to the legal owner of a property but also to the person with a better
right than the person under whose name said property was erroneously registered.

• In civil actions involving title to or interest in property, jurisdiction rests with the RTC
where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 (or, P50,000 in Metro
Manila).

• An action for reconveyance is an ordinary action involving “title” to land, and should be
filed in the ordinary courts where the land or portion thereof is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4;
Latorre v. Latorre, GR No. 183026, March 20, 2010; Republic v. Mangatora, GR No.
170375, July 7, 2010)

• The action is in personam and is binding only on persons impleaded. (Ching v. CA, 181
SCRA 9)

• Quieting of title

• An action for reconveyance has sometimes been treated as an action to quiet title.
Requisites:

• Plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest in the property

• The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on

his title must be shown to be invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity. (Philville Development and Housing Corporation v.
Bonifacio, GR No. 167391, June 8, 2011)

• Quieting of title, illustration:

• Jose who is an agent, in representation of Pedro, sells the latter’s house to Mario. The
deed of sale is executed in a public instrument and there is no indication that the
authority of the agent is not in writing. The deed of sale appears to be valid and effective
on its face.

• As the authority of Jose to sell is not in writing, the sale is void (Art. 1874, CC). Pedro can
file a suit against the buyer Mario to quiet his title. (Pineda, Property)

• Prescription of action for reconveyance

• Action based on fraud – 4 years

• Action based on implied trust – 10 years

• Action based on void contract – imprescriptible

• Action to quiet title where plaintiff is in possession – imprescriptible (See: Yared v.

Tiongco, GR No. 161360, Oct. 19, 2011; Cabacungan v. Laigo, GR No. 175073, Aug. 15,
2011)

• But laches may bar recovery. (Fernando v. Acuna, GR No. 161030, Sept. 14, 2011; Lucas v.
Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277)
 • Elements of laches

• Conduct of defendant giving rise to a situation of which complaint is made and for which
the complainant seeks a remedy;

• Delay in asserting complainant’s rights despite opportunity to do so;

• Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of defendant that complainant would assert his
right; and

• Injury or prejudice to defendant if relief is accorded complainant or the suit is not held to
be barred.

• Illustrative cases of laches

• Petitioner’s action to recover title and possession of the disputed lot was made only after
12 years from the registration of the sale to defendant. (De la Calzada-Cierras v. CA, 212
SCRA 390)

• The claimed owner of a lot failed to appear during the cadastral proceedings, and brought
action to question the judgment only 10 years later. (Gonzales v. Director of Lands, 52
Phil. 895)

• Plaintiff did not present his claim against the estate of the deceased wife but did so only
four years later against the widower. (Yaptico v. Yulo, 57 Phil. 818)

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

• After one year from the issuance of the decree, the sole remedy of the aggrieved party is
not to set aside the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open to
review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court for reconveyance. But if the
property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is an
action for damages. (Gonzales v. IAC, 157 SCRA 587)

• Action for damages must be brought within ten (10 years) from issuance of the
questioned certificate of title. (Art.1144, CC)

ACTION FOR REVERSION

• Reversion is an action filed by the government, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private
individuals or corporations to the mass of the public domain. (Yujuico v. Republic, GR No.
168661, Oct. 26, 2007, citing Agcaoili, “Property Registration Decree”)

• Grounds: all cases where lands of the public domain are held in violation of the
Constitution.

• The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion suits which do not call for an annulment of
judgment of the RTC acting as a land registration court.

• Actions for cancellation of title and reversion belong to the class of cases that "involve the
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein" and where the assessed
value of the property exceeds P20,000.00 Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 19 (2), fall
under the jurisdiction of the RTC. (Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, GR No.
192975, Nov. 12, 2012; Santos v. CA, 214 SCRA 162)
 • All actions for the 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. (Sec. 101, PLA)

• Unless and until the land is reverted to the State by virtue of a judgment of a court of law in a
direct proceeding for reversion, the Torrens certificate of title thereto remains valid and binding
against the whole world. (Tolentino v. Laurel, GR No. 181368, Feb.22, 2012)

• State not bound by prescription

• Under Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act (CA No. 141), the LMB Director has continuing
authority to conduct investigation to determine whether or not public land has been
fraudulently awarded or titled to the end that the corresponding certificate of title be
cancelled and the land reverted to the mass public domain. (Piñero v. Director of Lands,
57 SCRA 386)

• The indefeasibility of a title is not a bar to an investigation by the State as to how such
title has been acquired. (Cavile v. Litania-Hong, 581 SCRA 408)

• But where the title of an innocent purchaser for value was sought to be cancelled, it was
held that “it is only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of estoppel by
laches against the government,” and also the principle of res judicata. (Yujuico v.
Republic, GR No. 168661, Oct. 26, 2007)

• Neither may the titleholder be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or
negligence of the State’s agents (in approving the subdivision plan) in the absence of
proof of complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. (Republic v. CA and
Santos, 301 SCRA 366)

ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE

• It is an action initiated by a private party usually in a case where two titles are issued for
the same lot.

• Where two titles are issued for the same lot, the earlier in date prevails. (Pajomayo v.
Manipon, 39 SCRA 676)

• Land does not revert to the State but is declared as lawfully belonging to the party whose
title is superior over the other.

• But the State is vested with personality to file this action to protect public interest and
safeguard the Assurance Fund

• If land covered by free patent was a private land, the Director of Lands has no jurisdiction over it.
Such free patent and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto are a nullity. The aggrieved
party may initiate an action for cancellation of such title.

• The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have ceased to
be public in character and have passed to private ownership. Consequently, a certificate
of title issued pursuant to a free or homestead patent partakes of the nature of a
certificate issued in a judicial proceeding only if the land covered by it is really a part of
the disposable land of the public domain. (Pabaus v. Yutiamco, GR No. 164356, July 27,
2011, citing De Guzman v. Agbagala, 546 SCRA 278)

ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
 • This is an extraordinary remedy filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court, where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

• Judgments or orders of quasi-judicial bodies, e.g., NLRC or DARAB, are not covered by
petitions for annulment.

• Reversion suits were originally filed with the RTC to annul titles or patents administratively issued
by the LMB.

• But with the effectivity of BP Blg. 129 which gave the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)
jurisdiction over actions for annulment judgments of RTCs, the Rules of Court
promulgated on July 1, 1997 incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or final
orders of the RTCs. (Yujuico v. Republic, 537 SCRA 513)

• Grounds for annulment:

• (a) action is based on extrinsic fraud, filed within four (4) years from discovery;

• (b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant/respondent or over the
subject matter of the action. (Alcazar v. Arante, GR No. 177042, Dec. 10, 2012;
Bulawan v. Aquende, GR No. 182819, June 22, 2011)

o If based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner need not allege that the

ordinary remedies of new trial or appeal are no longer available through
no fault of his.

o If ground is lack of jurisdiction, another remedy is certiorari under Rule

65 where the CA and SC have concurrent jurisdiction.

• In Cabigas v. Limbaco, GR No. 175291, July 27, 2011, it was held that:

• since the petitioners never alleged that the National Airports Corporation acted with bad
faith when it registered the lots in its name, the presumption of good faith prevails.
Consequently, the National Airports Corporation, being a registrant in good faith, is
recognized as the rightful owner of the lots in question, and the registration of the
properties in its name cut off any and all prior liens, interests and encumbrances,
including the alleged prior sale to Cobarde, that were not recorded on the titles.

• The Court further held:

• In a case for annulment of title, the complaint must allege that the purchaser was aware
of the defect in the title so that the cause of action against him will be sufficient. Failure to
do so is fatal since the court cannot render a valid judgment against the purchaser who is
presumed to be in good faith in acquiring the said property. Failure to prove, much less
impute, bad faith on said purchaser who has acquired a title in his favor would make it
impossible for the court to render a valid judgment thereon due to the indefeasibility and
conclusiveness of his title. (Cabigas v. Limbaco, supra)

• Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should
never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance
of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved.

• In Sampaco v. Lantud, GR No. 163551, July 18, 2011, the signatory of the certification,
Datu Samra Andam, A/Adm. Assistant II, Natural Resources District No. XII-3, Marawi
City, was not presented in court to testify on the due issuance of the certification, and to
 testify on the details of his certification, particularly the reason why the said office had no
records of the data contained in OCT No. P-658 or to testify on the fact of fraud, if any.

• Allegations of actual fraud

• "the auction sale of the land is null and void for lack of actual and personal notice to
herein petitioner";

• “the RTC did not comply with the procedure prescribed in Section 71, PD No. 1529
requiring notice by the Register of Deeds to the registered owner as to the issuance of a
certificate of sale”;

• “petitioner was not afforded due process when she was not notified of the proceedings
instituted by respondent for the cancellation of her title.” Castigador v. Nicolas, GR No.
184023, March 4, 2013)

• Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his
entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment
itself but to the manner in which it is procured.

• Lack of jurisdiction, illustrative case

• Camitan v. Fidelity Investment (551 SCRA 540) – where the owner’s duplicate has not
been lost but is in fact existing, the reconstituted title is null and void since the court never
acquired jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution.

• If the petition is based on extrinsic fraud, the remedy is subject to a condition precedent,
i.e., that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition fort relief are no longer
available through no fault of petitioner.

• “Grave abuse of discretion” is not a proper ground for petition for annulment of judgment.
(Antonino v. RD, GR No. 185663, June 20, 2012)

• The judgment of the CA shall set aside the questioned judgment, which is void for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court.

• However, where the judgment or final order is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud,
the CA may, on motion, order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new
trial had been granted therein. (Sec. 7, Rule 47)

RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FROM THE ASSURANCE FUND

• A person who sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of any land or interest therein by
the operation of the Torrens system after original registration, without negligence on his
part, is entitled to recover damages from the Assurance Fund. (Sec. 95, PD No. 1529)

• But the plaintiff who holds a certificate of title must be an innocent purchaser for
value.

• The action must be brought within 6 years from the time right of action accrues

• Requisites for recovery as to any person who sustains loss or damage:

• No negligence on his part, and

• Loss or damage was through the omission or mistake of the court personnel, or the
Register of Deeds or other employees of the Registry in the performance of their duties.

• Requisites for recovery as to any person deprived of any land or interest in the land:
 • No negligence on his part;

• He was deprived of land or interest therein by the registration by any other person as
owner of such land; or by mistake, omission or misdescription in any owner’s duplicate
certificate, or in any memorandum in the register, or by any cancellation; and

• He is barred from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or interest therein.

• Defendants in an action against the AF

• The Register of Deeds and National Treasurer -when the action is for recovery for loss or
damage of for deprivation of land or interest therein through fraud, negligence, omission,
mistake or misfeasance of the court personnel, the RD or employees of the registry;

• The Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer and other persons – for loss or damage or
deprivation of land or interest therein through fraud, negligence, mistake or misfeasance
of persons other than court personnel, the RD or employees of the registry.

• The plaintiff must be the registered owner, or as to holders of transfer certificates of title, that they
are innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.

• Action does not lie where the damage or deprivation of any right or interest in the land
was caused by a breach of trust, express or implied.

• The person who claims damages should not have been negligent in acquiring the
property or in obtaining registration thereof in his name (as where he is aware of a notice
of lis pendens affecting the property)

• Illustrative cases

• National Treasurer v. Perez (131 SCRA 264) – where respondent could not be awarded
damages since the donation to him was not executed with the formalities of a will and
therefore could not have transferred to him ownership of the property.

• Treasurer of the Philippines v. CA (153 SCRA 3590) – where respondents acquired no

land or any interest in the land as a result of the invalid sale to them by the impostor
Lawaan Lopez who had no title or interest to transfer.

• Illustrative cases

• La Urbana v. Bernardo (62 Phil. 790) – where, having knowledge of the pending litigation
and notice of lis pendens affecting the land, it nevertheless proceeded to take the risk of
purchasing property in litigation.

• Fraginal v. Parañal (516 SCA 530) – where property sold to petitioner was a prime land
which has been the subject of successive transfers with “unusual haste” which should
have triggered petitioner’s curiosity.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

• The State may criminally prosecute for perjury the party who obtains registration through fraud,
such as by stating false assertions in the application for registration, sworn answer, or application
for public land patent.

• Sec. 91 of the PLA provides that “the statements made in the application shall b
considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, or permit issued on
the basis of such application, and any false statement therein or omission of facts x x x
shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted.”
INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE

• Innocent purchaser for value

• An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at
the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim. (Yared
v. Tiongco, GR No. 161360, Oct. 19, 2011; Rosales v. Burgos, 577 SCA 264)

• No petition for review shall be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for
value has acquired the land or an interest therein. (Sec. 32, PD 1529)

• “Innocent purchaser for value” includes innocent mortgagee

• The phrase “innocent purchaser for value” in Sec. 32 of the Property Registration Decree
includes an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. (Unchuan v.
Court of Appeals, GR No. 78775, May 31, 1988, 161 SCA 710)

• Good faith, or the lack of it, is a question of intention. In ascertaining intention, courts are
necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts by which alone
the inward motive may, with safety, be determined. (LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577,
Feb. 25, 2013)

• Doctrine of “mortgagee in good faith”

• In LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb. 25, 2013, the Court explained the doctrine of
“mortgagee in good faith" as one based on the rule that buyers or mortgagees dealing
with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what
appears on the face of the title.

• Thus, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his
title being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising therefrom
are given effect by reason of public policy.

• But doctrine of “morgagee in good faith” not applicable to banks

• It has been consistently held that the rule does not apply to banks, which are required to
observe a higher standard of diligence. A bank whose business is impressed with public
interest is expected to exercise more care and prudence in its dealings than a private
individual, even in cases involving registered lands. A bank cannot assume that, simply
because the title offered as security is on its face free of any encumbrances or lien, it is
relieved of the responsibility of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the
properties to be mortgaged. (LBP v. Poblete, supra)

• In LBP v. Poblete, supra, the Court held that LBP is not a mortgagee in good faith because it
processed Maniego’s application upon presentation of OCT No. P-12026, which was still in the
name of Poblete. It also ignored the fact that a certain Kapantay had previously used Poblete's
title as collateral in its loan account with LBP.

• “When the person applying for the loan is other than the registered owner of the real
property being mortgaged, [such fact] should have already induced the Bank to make
inquiries into and confirm [the] authority to mortgage . . . . A person who deliberately
ignores a significant fact that could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is
not an innocent purchaser for value.” (Citing Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo, GR No.
167848, 27 April 2007)

• Acts showing the bank’s lack of diligence

 • Where the bank did not investigate the property to ascertain its actual occupants. (It is
the standard practice of banks, before approving a loan, to send representatives to the
premises of the land to investigate its real owners)

• Where the bank’s representative concentrated only on the appraisal of the property and
failed to inquire as to who were the then occupants of the property.

• Where the bank acted with haste in granting the mortgage loan and did not ascertain the
ownership of the land being mortgaged, as well as the authority of the supposed agent
executing the mortgage. (LBP v. Poblete, supra)

• Every person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the correctness of the title and is
not obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. (Unchuan v.
CA, 161 SCRA 710)

• But one who buys from one who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not
only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary to determine if there are
any flaws in the title of the transferor. (Cabigas v. Limbaco, GR No. 175291, July 27,
2011)

• In a series of transfers, it is enough that the buyer examines the latest certificate of title
and need not scrutinize each and every title that preceded it. (Tajonera v. CA, 103 SCRA
467)

• But under the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware), one who buys without checking the vendor’s
title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure. (Dacasin v. CA, 80 SCRA 89)

• A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an innocent mortgagee where the title covers
non-registrable land. (LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)

• In Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013, the Court held:

• Under the Torrens system of land registration, the registered owner of realty cannot be
deprived of her property through fraud, unless a transferee acquires the property as an
innocent purchaser for value.

• But a transferee who acquires the property covered by a reissued owner's copy of the
certificate of title without taking the ordinary precautions of honest persons in doing
business and examining the records of the proper Registry of Deeds, or who fails to pay
the full market value of the property is not considered an innocent purchaser for value.

• Nemo dat quod non habet

• No one can give what one does not have.

• One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no
more than what the seller can transfer legally.

• Prior est temporae, prior est in jura

• He who is first in right is preferred in right.

• Thus, when the thing sold is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in
the Registry of Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed the owner.

• A certificate of title is not conclusive where it is the product of faulty or fraudulent

registration. (Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 165)
• Where the inclusion of land in the certificate of prior date is a mistake, the mistake may be
rectified by holding the latter of two certificates to be conclusive. (Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil.
590)

• The rule that where two certificates purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails,
is valid only absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration. (Mathay v.
Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 556)

• Under Sec. 32, PD No. 1529, rule of good faith equally applies to mortgagees or other
encumbrancers for value

• Thus, where the Torrens title was issued through regular registration proceedings, a
subsequent order for the cancellation nullification of the title is not a ground for nullifying
the mortgage rights of the bank. (St. Dominic v. IAC, 151 SCRA 577)

• The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be respected even if the mortgagor
obtained his title through fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)

• PNB v. CA and Chu Kim Kit, GR No. L-43972, July 24, 1990

• "The certificate of title was in the name of the mortgagor when the land was mortgaged to
the PNB. Such being the case, petitioner PNB had the right to rely on what appeared on
the certificate of title, and in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, it was under no
obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor
appearing on the face of the certificate." (Citing Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 157 SCRA 587; Phil. Coop. Bank vs. Carangdang, 139 SCRA 570; Penullar vs.
PNB, 120 SCRA 171)

• "The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title through fraud.

• The remedy of the persons prejudiced is to bring an action for damages against those
who caused the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of
the Philippines may be filed for recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.“
(Citing Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)

• Banks required to exercise greater care

• But unlike private individuals, banks (and other persons engaged in lending money) are
expected to exercise greater care and prudence in their dealings for their business is
imbued with public interest. (PNB v. Jumanoy, GR No. 169901, Aug. 3, 2011; Metrobank
v. SLGT Holdings, 533 SCRA 516; Cruz v. Bancom Finance, 379 SCRA 490; Philippine
Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 150318, Nov. 2010)

• This principle equally applies to realty corporations because of the nature of their
business. (Sunshine Finance v. IAC, GR No. 74070, Oct. 28, 1991)

• Imbued with public interest, banks "are expected to be more cautious than ordinary individuals.“

• Thus, before approving a loan, the standard practice for banks and other financial
institutions is to conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered to be mortgaged and
verify the genuineness of the title to determine the real owner or owners thereof.

• Failure to do so makes them mortgagees in bad faith. (Alano v. Planter’s Development

Bank, GR No. 171628, June 13, 2011)
• Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013

• An impostor succeeded in tricking a court of law into granting his petition for the issuance
of a duplicate owner's copy of the supposedly lost TCT. The impostor then had the TCT
cancelled by presenting a purported deed of sale between him and the registered
owners, both of whom had already been dead for some time, and another TCT was then
issued in the impostor's own name. This issuance in the impostor's own name was
followed by the issuance of yet another TCT in favor of a third party, supposedly the
buyer of the impostor. In turn, the impostor's transferee (already the registered owner in
his own name) mortgaged the

• the property to Spouses Miguel and Adela Lazaro, who then caused the annotation of the
mortgage on the TCT. All the while, the original duplicate owner's copy of the TCT
remained in the hands of an heir of the deceased registered owners with his co-heirs'
knowledge and consent.

• The Lazaros, as the mortgagees, claimed good faith, and urged the Court to find in their
favor. But the Court held instead that since the the title of the property mortgaged to the
Lazaros was a second owner's duplicate TCT, which is, in effect a reconstituted title, and
hence, this circumstance should have alerted them to make the necessary investigation,
but they did not.

• A deed of sale which was absolutely simulated is null and void and does not convey any right that
could ripen into valid title; there being no valid mortgage, there could be no valid foreclosure, and
the bank cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith.

• But where title was issued through regular proceedings and was given as security for a bank
loan, the subsequent declaration of the title as null and void is not a ground for nullifying the
mortgage rights of the bank. (St. Dominic Corp. V. IAC, 151 SCRA 577; Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110
Phil. 494)

• Forged deed is a nullity

• Generally, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title, even if accompanied by the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title. (Joaquin v. Madrid, 106 Phil. 1060)

• The registered owner does not lose his title, and neither does the assignee or mortgagee
acquire any right to the property. (Bernales v. Sambaan, 610 SCRA 90)

• The innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by
a virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged deed.

• LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb.25, 2013

• A forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title. Where the deed of
sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been
paid, the deed of sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration. Since the deed is
void, the corresponding title issued to the vendee pursuant to the same deed is
likewise void.

• When the instrument presented for registration is forged, even if accompanied by

the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby
lose his title, and neither does the mortgagee acquire any right or title to the
property. It is essential that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the property
to be mortgaged; otherwise, the mortgage is void.
 • Sec. 53 of PD No. 1529 provides that the subsequent registration of title procured by the
presentation of a forged deed or other instrument is null and void.

• Thus, the subsequent issuance of TCT No. 195812 gave the petitioner no better right
than the tainted registration which was the basis for the issuance of the same title.
(Leoveras v. Valdez, GR No. 169985, June 15, 2011)

• But a forged deed may become the root of a valid title

• A forged deed may become the root of a valid title in a bona fide purchaser if the
certificate has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of
the forger or the name indicated by the forger, and while it remained that way, the land
was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser for value. (Solivel v. Francisco, 170
SCRA 218)

• For then the vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate.
(Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)

• Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6, 2011:

• “A void title may become the root of a valid title if the derivative title was obtained in good
faith and for value. Following the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title, every
person dealing with registered lands may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate
of title of the vendor/transferor, and he is not required to go beyond the certificate and
inquire into the circumstances culminating in the vendor's acquisition of the property. The
rights

• of innocent third persons who relied on the correctness of the certificate of title and
acquired rights over the property covered thereby cannot be disregarded and the courts
cannot order the cancellation of such certificate for that would impair or erode public
confidence in the Torrens system of land registration.” (See also: Republic v. Agunoy,
492 Phil. 118 (2005), citing cases)

GENERAL INCIDENTS OF REGISTERED LAND

• “Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration,

and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in
good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in said
certificate.” (Sec. 44, PD 1529)

• The phrase “innocent purchaser for value” includes an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value. (Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCRA 710)

• Statutory liens

• Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser for value and in good faith shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances (Casimiro Development Corp. v. Mateo, GR
No. 175485, July 27, 2011) except those noted in the certificate and any of the following:

• liens, claims or rights under the Constitution and laws; unpaid real estate taxes;
any public highway or private way established by law; any disposition of the
property or limitation on the use thereof by virtue of PD 27 or any law on
agrarian reform. (Sec. 44, PD 1529)
 • Meaning of lien, encumbrance

• “Lien” is a charge on property usually for the payment of some debt or obligation. It
signifies a legal claim or charge on property, either real or personal, as a collateral or
security for the payment of some debt or obligation.

• “Encumbrance” is a burden upon land depreciative of its value, such as a lien, easement,
or servitude, which, though adverse to the interest of the landowner, does not conflict
with his conveyance of the land in fee, e.g., a mortgage, judgment lien, lease, security
interest, easement or right of way, accrued and unpaid taxes.

• Illustrative cases

• Alienable public lands donated, granted or held by a branch or subdivision of the

government cannot be alienated unless authorized by Congress. (Chavez v. PEA, 384
SCRA 152)

• Section 44 which subjects the certificate of title to public servitudes which may be
subsisting, does not apply, say, in the case of a road constructed subsequent to the
acquisition of the land. (Dirgran v. Auditor General, 16 SCRA 762)

• Secs. 118 and 122 of the Public Land Act provide limitations on the right of the
homestead or free patentee to alienate the land subject of the patent.

REGISTERED LAND NOT SUBJECT TO PRESCRIPTION

• “No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.” (Sec. 47, PD 1529)

• Title to land, once registered, is imprescriptible. It may not be lost by adverse, open and
notorious possession. Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner
but also against his hereditary successors.

• The right to recover possession of registered property is equally imprescriptible since

possession is a mere consequence of ownership. (Repulic v. Mendoza, GR No. 185091,
Aug. 8, 2010)

• But a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession by virtue of laches.

• In Panganiban v. Gamponia (100 Phil. 277), petitioners, for 45 years, did nothing to
assert their right of ownership and were barred from recovering possession of the
property.

• In Agne v. Director of Lands (181 SCRA 7090), the registered owner’s right to recover
possession was lost by inaction for almost 30 years.

• In Golloy v. CA (173 SCRA 26), while the lot was registered in the name of respondent,
petitioners acquired title thereto by possession for 50 years.

REGISTERED LAND NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK

 • A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct
proceeding filed with the RTC (Sec. 48, PD 1529; Manotok v. Barque, 582 SCRA 583)

• Direct attack: when the object of the action is to annul or set aside the judgment, or
enjoin its enforcement.

• Collateral attack: in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is

nevertheless made as an incident thereto.

• A direct attack on title is proper in a counterclaim (Leyson v. Bontuyan, 452 SCRA 94).

• Collateral attack, illustrative cases

• Director of Lands v. Gan Tan (89 Phil. 184) - where the decision of the lower court
denying reconstitution because petitioner is allegedly an alien was reversed, the
Supreme Court holding that the issue is a collateral attack on the title and should be
raised only a direct action.

• Oño v. Lim (614 SCRA 514) – where it was held that there is no collateral attack when
respondent asserted that the title in the name of petitioner’s predecessor had become
inoperative due to the prior conveyance of the land in favor of respondent’s mother.

• Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335, Dec.18, 2008

• Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration
Decree, provides that "[a] certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack [. . .
and] cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law". Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title cannot arise
incidentally from the administrative proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title
even if the evidence from that proceeding revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor could
it have emerged incidentally in the appellate review of the LRA's administrative
proceeding.

ADVERSE CLAIM

• Adverse claim

• “Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner,
arising subsequent to the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this
Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his
alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number
of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and
a descritpion of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.” (Sec. 70, PD 1529)

• A person who claims an interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner may make a
statement under oath setting forth his alleged right or interest and how acquired, the number
of the certificate of title, name of the registered owner and a description of the land.

• The statement shall be registered as an adverse claim and shall be effective for 30 days.
• The annotation may be cancelled upon the filing of a verified petition by the party in interest.
(Sec. 70, PD 1529)

• An adverse claim is designed to protect the right or interest of a person over a piece of real
property and serves as a notice to third persons that someone is claiming an interest in the land
or a better right thereto than the registered owner. (Martinez v. Garcia, GR No. 166536, Feb. 4,
2010)

• An adverse claim based on prescription and adverse possession cannot be registered

because, under Sec. 47, no title to registered land shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession. (Estella v. Register of Deeds, 106 Phil. 911)

• A sale of land may not be annotated as an adverse claim because the law prescribes the
remedy of registration of the sale and the issuance to the vendee of a transfer
certificate of title. (RD v. Nicandro, 111 Phil. 989; Sec. 57, PD 1529)

• The hereditary rights or a person registered fraudulently in her sister’s name is registrable as an
adverse claim. (Gabriel v. Register of Deeds, 9 SCRA 136)

• A notice of levy and subsequent sale of property cannot prevail over an existing adverse claim
earlier inscribed on the certificate of title covering it. (Martinez v. Garcia, 611 SCRA 537)

• The Register of Deeds cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse claim. There must be a hearing for
the purpose. This is in line with the provision “that after cancellation, no second adverse claim
shall be registered by the same claimant. (Sanjonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79)

• That the foreclosure of mortgage was effected after the annotation of the adverse claim is of no
moment since the foreclosure retroacts to the date of registration of the mortgage. (Limpin v.
IAC, 166 SCRA 87)

• Adverse claim is proper where there is no other provision of law for the registration of
claimant’s alleged right or interest in the property.

• A notice of levy cannot prevail over an existing adverse claim inscribed in the
certificate of title.

• A claim which arose prior to the date of the original registration cannot be
entered as adverse claim.

• Where the claim is based on a perfected contract of sale by the owner of the
land, the procedure is to register the contract so that a new transfer certificate
of title is issued to the vendee-claimant. (Sec. 57, PD No. 1529)

• A mortgage is valid as between the parties even if unregistered, but registration of a mortgage is
indispensable to bind third parties.

• Prior registration of an adverse claim or notice of lis pendens creates a preference as against a
mortgage registered later. The subsequent registration of a prior mortgage does not diminish
 this preference, which retroacts to the date of the notice of adverse claim or lis pendens. (Cruz v.
Bancom Finance Corporation, GR No. 147788, March 19, 2002)

• An adverse claim is effective for thirty days; but it is not ipso facto cancelled after said period - a
separate petition is necessary. (Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 102377, July 5, 1996)

• The RD cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse claim. There must be a hearing for the purpose.
(Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)

• The adverse claim may be cancelled if it is frivolous or vexatious, in which case damages
may be adjudged against the adverse claimant.

SURRENDER OF CERTIFICATE IN INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS

• Court may compel surrender of withheld certificate

• If an attachment or other lien in the nature of an involuntary dealing is registered and

the duplicate certificate is not presented, the Register of Deeds shall, within 36 hours,
request the registered owner to produce his duplicate certificate. If he refuses to
comply within a reasonable time, the RD shall report the matter to the court which
shall, after notice, issue an order for the owner to produce his certificate at the time and
place stated and may enforce the order by suitable process. (Sec. 71, PD 1529)

• Ligon v. CA, GR No. 107751, June 1, 1995

• In an action for specific performance with damages based on a contract of sale, a

motion may be filed by the purchaser for the issuance of an order to compel the holder
of the duplicate certificate of title to surrender the same to the RD.

• Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition which can be filed by one who
wants to compel another to surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does not
preclude a party to a pending case to include as incident therein the relief stated under
Sec. 107, especially if the subject certificates of title to be surrendered are intimately
connected with the subject matter of the principal action. This principle is based on
expediency.

• Voluntary and involuntary registration

• In voluntary registration, such as a sale, mortgage, lease and the like, if the owner's
duplicate certificate be not surrendered and presented or if no payment of registration
fees be made within fifteen (15) days, entry in the day book of the deed of sale does not
operate to convey and affect the land sold.

• In involuntary registration, such as an attachment, levy upon execution, lis pendens and
the like, entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse
claim. (Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)

• Mortgage lien follows the property mortgaged

• Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title which subsists should be
incorporated in or carried over to the new transfer certificates of title. This is true even
 in the case of a real estate mortgage because pursuant to Art. 2126 of the Civil Code it
directly and immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the
possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was
constituted.

• It is inseparable from the property mortgaged as it is a right in rem — a lien on the

property whoever its owner may be. Thus, all subsequent purchasers must respect the
mortgage whether the transfer to them be with or without the consent of the
mortgagee, for such mortgage until discharged follows the property. (Ligon v. CA, supra)

SURRENDER OF WITHELD CETIFICATE

• Sec. 107, PD 1529

• “Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates. - Where it is necessary to issue a

new certificate pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of the
registered owner or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered because of the
refusal of the holder to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate, the party in interest
may file a petition the court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds.
The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or
memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the certificate is not
amenable to the process of the court, or if for any reason the outstanding owner’s
duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the
same as well the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new
certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of
the outstanding duplicate.”

• In implementing the involuntary transfer of title of real property levied and sold on execution, is
it enough for the executing party to file a motion with the court which rendered judgment, or
does he need to file a separate action with the Regional Trial Court?

• The proper course of action is to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, for the
issuance of new titles. This is to afford due process to the registered landowner. (Reyes
v. Tang Soat Ing, GR No. 185620, Dec. 14, 2011; Padilla v. Philippine Producers’
Cooperative Marketing Association, GR No. 141256, Sept. 18, 1995)

NOTICE OF
LIS PENDENS

• Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which
a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and
until final judgment.

• Lis pendens is intended (1) to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the
court until the litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or
decree by subsequent alienation; and (2) to announce to the whole world that a
particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an
 interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of
the litigation over said property. (Mr Holdings, Ltd. v. Bajar, GR No. 153478, Oct. 10,
2012)

• A notice of lis pendens is governed by Sec. 14, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

• “SEC. 14. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action affecting the title or the right of
possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative relief is
claimed in his answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in
which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice shall
contain the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a
description of the property in that province affected

• Thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or
encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive notice
of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the parties designated
by their real names.

• The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only upon order of
the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the
adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it
to be recorded."

• A notice of lis pendens is availed of mainly in real actions. These actions are:

• (a) an action to recover possession of real estate;

• (b) an action for partition; and

• (c) any other court proceedings that directly affect the title to the land or the building
thereon or the use or the occupation thereof.

• Additionally, the annotation of lis pendens also applies to suits seeking to establish a
right to, or an equitable estate or interest in, a specific real property, or to enforce a
lien, a charge or an encumbrance against it.

• But it does not apply to actions involving title to or any right or interest in, personal
property, such as the subject membership shares in a private non-stock corporation. (Mr
Holdings v. Bajar, supra)

• Lis pendens is not proper in an action for sum of money

• “A notice of lis pendens annotated on the cancelled TCT No. 170213 and carried over to
Tan's TCT No. 10206 conferred upon RAM no rights over the subject property as well as
petitioner, its successor-in-interest, since CC No. 67381, which RAM, predecessor-in-
interest of petitioner, instituted against Zeñarosa was for collection of sum of money
with damages — a purely personal action.

• Hence, the subsequent levy on execution on October 14, 2004 arising from the final
money judgment in favor of petitioner cannot prevail over the earlier annotated
 attachment made by Lorenzo on September 30, 2002 and its subsequent notice of levy
on execution and sale of the property to respondents on January 30, 2004, who then
took possession. (Gagoomal v. Villacorta, GR No. Jan. 18, 2012)

• Purpose:

• to protect the rights of the party causing registration, and

• to advise third persons that they deal with the property subject to the result of
the case

• A notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits of the case nor creates a right or lien.

• Cancellation is proper when filed to molest adverse party or is not necessary to protect
the rights of the person causing registration.

• Lis pendens is proper in the following cases:

• Action to recover possession of property;

• Action to quiet title thereto;

• Action to remove clouds thereon;

• Action for partition; and

• Any other proceedings in court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or
occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.

• The notice need not be annotated on the owner’s duplicate certificate of title because
the notice is an involuntary transaction. Entry in the day book is sufficient. (Yu v. CA, 251
SCRA 509)

• Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188585, Dec. 10, 2012

• As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary

courts of justice and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always
available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value.

• A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on the certificate of title immediately
upon the institution of the action in court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to
an innocent third person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.

• In case of subsequent sales or transfers, the RD must carry over the notice of lis pendens on all
titles to be issued.

• Transferees of title subject to lis pendens are bound by the judgment against their predecessors.
(Selph v. Aguilar, 107 Phil. 443)

• Before final judgment, the notice may be cancelled upon order of the court if the notice is for
the purpose of molesting the adverse party or if it is not necessary for the protection of the
 party who caused its registration; or by the RD upon verified petition of the party who caused
the annotation thereof. (Sec. 77)

• Cancellation of lis pendens

• The power to cancel a notice of lis pendens is exercised only under exceptional
circumstances, such as: where such circumstances are imputable to the party who
caused the annotation; where the litigation was unduly prolonged to the prejudice of
the other party because of several continuances procured by petitioner; where the case
which is the basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed for non prosequitur on the
part of the plaintiff; or where judgment was rendered against the party who caused
such a notation. (J. Casim Construction v. Registrar of Deeds, GR No. 168655, July 2,
2010)

AMENDMENT AND ALTERATION OF CERTIFICATES

• No erasure, alteration, or amendment, shall be made upon the registration book after the entry
of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon except by order of the proper Regional Trial
Court. (Sec. 108, PD 1529)

• No amendment or alteration shall be made except upon order of the court. (Cuyugan v. Sy Quia,
24 Phil. A567)

• The petition shall be filed in the original case in which the decree was entered. (OCA v. Matas,
247 SCRA 9)

• In Paz v. Republic, GR No. 157367, Nov. 23, 2011, the Court held that the amendment and
alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable in seven
instances or situations, namely: (a) when registered interests of any description, whether
vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests
have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (c) when any error,
omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any
duplicate certificate; (d) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (e)
when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been
terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a
corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same
within three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is reasonable ground for the
amendment or alteration of title.

• Under Sec. 108, in relation to Sec. 2, PD No. 1529, the court may now hear both contentions and
non-contentious cases.

• Section 108 provides that, after notice to all the interested parties, the court may (a) order the
issuance of a new certificate, (b) order the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a
certificate, or (c) grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring a bond if
necessary, as it may deem proper.

• But the court, sitting as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction or authority to reopen the
original decree of registration. The court cannot "impair the title or other interest of a purchaser
 holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs or assigns, without his or their
written consent.“ (Luzon Surety v. Mirasol, GR No. L-29313, Jan. 21, 1977)

• Thus, the court has jurisdiction over a petition for cancellation of encumbrances despite
respondent’s contention that the issue is controversial. (PNB v. International Corporate Bank,
199 SCRA 508).

• The court can compel petitioner to surrender his owner’s duplicate certificate so that a new title
may be issued to the INK despite his argument that the case involved the “registrability “of the
document. (Ligon v. CA, 244 SCA 693)

REPLACEMENT OF LOST OR DESTROYED CERRTIFICATE OF TITLE

• Upon petition of the registered owner or person in interest, the court may, after notice and
hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate which shall in all respects be entitled
to like faith and credit as the original duplicate. (Sec. 109, PD No. 1529)

• Where the owner’s duplicate copy is not in fact lost or destroyed, a petition for the purpose is
unwarranted as the court has no jurisdiction over the petition

• Procedure

• The registered owner or person in interest shall send notice, under oath, of the loss or
destruction of the owner’s duplicate certificate to the Register of Deeds; and

• The corresponding petition for the replacement of the lost or destroyed certificate shall
then be filed in court and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration
was entered.

• Unlike in a petition for reconstitution, there is no requirement for the publication of the
petition for replacement of a lost or destroyed certificate.

RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

• The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition
of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land.

• The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures
prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the
loss or destruction occurred.

• RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is sought to be reconstituted has

already been brought under the provisions of the Torrens System. (Republic v.
Tuastumban, GR No. 173210, Apri 24, 2009)

• The lost or destroyed document referred to is the one that is in the custody of the
Register of Deeds. When reconstitution is ordered, this document is replaced with a
new one — the reconstituted title — that basically reproduces the original.
• After the reconstitution, the owner is issued a duplicate copy of the reconstituted title. (Sec. 1,
RA No. 26; Republic v. Vergel de Dios, GR No. 170459, Feb. 9, 2011)

• Requisites:

• (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed;

• (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title;

• (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein;

• (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyed; and

• (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same
as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Id.)

• Judicial reconstitution partakes of a land registration proceeding and is subject to the

jurisdictional requirements of publication, mailing and posting. This is mandatory. (Sec. 13, RA
No. 26; Pinote v. Dulay, GR No. 56694, July 2, 1990)

• The petition shall be filed with the regional trial court of the province or city where the land lies.
Sec. 108 of PD 1529 provides that all petitions or motions after original registration shall be filed
and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered. (See also Sec. 2,
RA No. 26. Office of the Court Administrator v. Matas, A.M. No. RTJ-92-836. August 2, 1995).

• In Manotok v. Barque, (supra), the Court held that if it appears that the subject property is
already covered by an existing Torrens title in the name of another person, the LRA should
dismiss the petition. The dismissal is subject to judicial review, but the only inquiry in such
appellate proceeding is on whether or not there is a previously existing title covering the land.

• Neither the LRA nor the CA at that point may inquire into the validity of the title or the
competing claims over the property. The only remedy is an action before the RTC for the
cancellation of the existing title, whether by the competing claimant or by the OSG on behalf of
the Republic.

• The cancellation of the previous (Manotok) title cannot arise incidentally from the
administrative proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title even if the evidence from that
proceeding revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor could it have emerged incidentally in the
appellate review of the LRA's administrative proceeding. Sec. 48 of PD 1529 provides that "[a]
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack [. . . and] cannot be altered, modified,
or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law".

• Neither the CA nor the LRA has the power to cancel titles. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)

• But there is no collateral attack on the title (OCT No. 239) when the reconstitution case (LRC
Case No. B-1784) was dismissed by court precisely because the invalidity of said certificate of
title was already determined with finality by the Supreme Court.
• The decision of the Court declaring OCT No. 239 as fake, forged, and spurious already bars the
reconstitution of said title under the doctrine of res judicata, in the concept of conclusiveness of
judgment. (Layos v. Fil-Estate, GR No. 150470, Aug. 6, 2008)

• Sources of reconstitution

• Sec. 2, RA No. 26 - for reconstitution of an original certificate of title

• Sec. 3, RA No. 26 – for reconstitution of a transfer certificate of title.

• “Any other document” as a source of reconstitution refers to documents similar to those

previously enumerated in the law under the principle of ejusdem generis. (Republic v.
IAC and Kiram, 157 SCRA 62

• Meaning of “any other document”

• The term "any other document" in paragraph (f) refers to reliable documents of the kind
described in the preceding enumerations and that the documents referred to in Section
2 (f) may be resorted to only in the absence of the preceding documents in the list.

• The party praying for the reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in fact, sought
to secure such documents and failed to find them before presentation of "other
documents" as evidence in substitution is allowed. (Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338,
Dec. 10, 2012)

• The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in Sections 12 (contents of petition) and
13 (requirements of notice and hearing) of R.A. No. 26 is fatal.

• These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The petition for reconstitution must
allege certain specific jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must be published in the
Official Gazette and posted in particular places and the same sent or notified to
specified persons. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act provide specifically the mandatory
requirements and procedure to be followed. (Castillo v. Republic, GR No. 182980, Jun
22, 2011. See also: Republic v. Domingo, GR No. 197315, Oct. 10, 2012)

• Examples of incompetent proof

• A survey plan, technical description, certification issued by the LRA, lot data
computation, and tax declarations (which are not similar to those mentioned in
subparagraphs (a) to (e) of Sec. 2 of RA 26, as pertaining to documents issued or are on
file with the Registry of Deeds).

• A survey plan and technical description (where the petition is based on Sec. 2 (f) of RA
26) which are mere additional documentary requirements.

• A certification that Decree No. 190622 was issued for Lot 54, without stating the
number and date of the title, and to whom issued.

• A tax declaration (which is not a reliable document). (Republic v. Ramos, GR No. 169481,
Feb. 22, 2010)
• Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not apply to land registration cases. Indeed, to
further underscore the mandatory character of these jurisdictional requirements, the Rules of
Court do not apply to land registration cases. (Sec. 4, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

• In all cases where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the
manner of obtaining jurisdiction is prescribed by a statute, the mode of proceeding is
mandatory, and must be strictly complied with, or the proceeding will be utterly void. When the
trial court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks authority over the whole case
and all its aspects. (Castillo v. Republic, GR No. 182980, June 22, 2011)

• As held in Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012:

• “the term ‘any other document’ in paragraph (f) refers to reliable documents of the kind
described in the preceding enumerations and that the documents referred to in Section
2 (f) may be resorted to only in the absence of the preceding documents in the list.
Therefore, the party praying for the reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in
fact, sought to secure such documents and failed to find them before presentation of
"other documents" as evidence in substitution is allowed.”

• Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012

• “This Court has reiterated time and again that the absence of opposition from
government agencies is of no controlling significance because the State cannot be
estopped by the omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents. Neither is the
Republic barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for reconstitution if, on
the basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no merit.”

• As held in Republic v. Lorenzo, GR No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012, the following must be shown:

• (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed;

• (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title;

• (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein;

• (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed; and

• (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same
and those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

• Administrtative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates is governed by RA 6732.

• It is available in case of substantial loss or destruction of land titles due fire, flood or other force
majeure. Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335, Dec. 18,2008)

• Requirements:

• Number of certificates lost or damaged is at least 10% of the total number in possession
of the RD.
 • In no case shall be number of certificates be less than 500.

• The administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is intended for non-controversial cases, or

especially where the subject property is not covered by an existing title in favor of a person
other than the applicant. Such an implication is consonant with the rule that the reconstitution
proceedings are not the venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but merely a means by
which a previously adjudicated title whose original has been lost or destroyed may be reissued
to its owner.

• The LRA has no jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution, where the property is already
covered by a Torrens title. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)

CONSULTA

• When the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what action should be taken on an instrument
presented for registration, or where ay party does not agree with the action taken by the
Register of Deeds, the question shall be elevated to the LRA Administrator via en consulta for
determination. (Sec. 117, PD 1529)

• The consulta shall be cancelled (a) upon final resolution of the case by the LRA Administrator, or
(b) if the consulta is withdrawn by the petitioner.

• The ruling of the LRA shall be conclusive and binding on all RDs, without prejudice to an appeal
to the Court of Appeals.

• A party who does not agree with the action taken by the LRA is to appeal to the CA, via Rule 43 -
and not by certiorari or prohibition - within 15 days from notice of the decision or resolution.
(Calalang v. RD of QC, 231 SCRA 88)

• The administrative remedy must be resorted to by petitioner before he can have recourse to the
courts. (Almirol v. RD of QC, 22 SCRA 1152)

MORTGAGES AND LEASES

• The mortgagor must be the owner of the property mortgaged.

• A mortgage lien is a right in rem which follows property.

• A notice of lis pendens cannot prejudice mortgage previously registered.

• A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an innocent mortgagee where the title covers
non-registrable land. (LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)

• Where the certificate of title is in the name of the mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the
mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR
No. 69622, Jan. 29, 1988)

• The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v.
Esquierdo, GR No. L-15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
• The general rule that a mortgagee need not look beyond the title does not apply to banks and
other financial institutions as greater care and due diligence is required of them. Imbued with
public interest, they "are expected to be more cautious than ordinary individuals.“ (Alano v.
Planter’s Development Bank, GR No. 171628, June 13, 2011)

• The ascertainment of the status or condition of a property offered to it as security for a loan
must be a standard and indispensable part of its operations. (Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino
Savings and Mortgage Bank, GR No. 140528, Dec. 7, 2011)

• Although Art. 2085, CC, requires that the mortgagor must be the owner of the mortgaged
property, the subsequent declaration that the title is null and void is not a ground for nullifying
the mortgage right of the mortgagee. (Rural Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon, 175 SCRA 62)

• The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be respected, even if the mortgagor obtained
his title thereto through fraud.

• The remedy of the person prejudiced is against those who caused the fraud, or if insolvent, an
action for recovery of damages against the AF. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)

• Effect of a forged deed of mortgage

• A forged power of attorney is without force and effect, and the mortgage constituted by
virtue thereof is also null and void and could not prejudice the rights of the registered
owner. (Veloso v. La Urbana, a58Phil. 681)

• An absolutely simulated contract of sale is void and transfers no ownership right; hence,
the purported buyer, not being the owner, cannot validly mortgage the property and
neither does the buyer at foreclosure sale acquire any title thereto. (Cruz v. Bancom,
379 SCRA 490)

• In extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner when no redemption is
made.

• Thus, after consolidation of ownership and issuance of a new transfer certificate of title
in the name of the purchaser, he is entitled to possession of the property as a matter of
right under Section 7 (Act 3135), and its issuance by the RTC is a mere ministerial
function.

• But pursuant to Sec. 33, Rule 39, Rules of Court, the possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed
property shall be withheld from the purchaser if a third-party is actually holding the same
adversely to the mortgagor/debtor. (Madriaga v. China Banking Corp., G No. 192377, July 2,
2012)

• In foreclosure sale, there is no actual transfer of the mortgaged real property until after the
expiration of the one-year redemption period as provided in Act No. 3135 and title thereto is
consolidated in the name of the mortgagee in case of non-redemption. In the interim, the
mortgagor is given the option whether or not to redeem the real property.

• The issuance of the Certificate of Sale does not by itself transfer ownership. (Supreme
Transliner, Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., GR No. 165617, Feb. 23, 2011)
 • Redemption

• The mortgagor has one year within which to redeem the property from the registration
of sale, otherwise the right of the purchaser to the possession of the foreclosed
property becomes absolute.

• The writ of possession becomes a matter of right and its issuance to a purchaser in an
extrajudicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.

• Redemption is an implied admission of the regularity of the sale and would estop the
petitioner from later impugning its validity on that ground. (Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No.
156318, Sept. 5, 2011

• Writ of possession

• Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, a writ of possession may be issued either (a) within the
one-year period, upon the filing of a bond, or (b) after the lapse of the redemption
period, without need of a bond.

• The proceeding for the issuance of the writ is ex parte and is ministerial duty of
the court, unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the
judgment debtor, or where the bid price is unjustifiably higher than the real
amount of the obligation.

• Mandamus is proper remedy to compel the issuance of a writ of possession.

(Edralin v. PVB, GR No. 168523, March 9, 2011)

• Orders for the issuance of a writ of possession are issued as a matter of course upon the
filing of the proper motion and approval of the corresponding bond since no discretion
is left to the court to deny it.

• Such issuance being ministerial, its execution by the sheriff is likewise ministerial. (China Banking
Corporation v. Abel, GR No. 182457, Jan.10, 2011)

• The issuance of the writ may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of the mortgage
or the foreclosure itself, without prejudice, of course, to the eventual outcome of the pending
annulment case. (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Tarampi, GR No. 174988, Dec. 10, 2008)

• Issuance of the writ is ex parte, summary and ministerial. The order of the RTC granting the
petition for a writ of possession is final which can only be questioned on appeal. (San Fernando
Rural Bank, Inc. v. Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation, GR No. 168088, April 4, 2007)

REGISTRATION VIA ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC LAND PATENTS

• Registration of Patents

• Public lands suitable for agriculture can be disposed of by (a) homestead, (b) sale, (c)
lease, and (d) confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles by (1) judicial legalization or
(2) administrative legalization (free patent)
 • Public land patents when duly registered are veritable Torrens titles, entitled to all the
safeguards relative thereto

• Homestead patent

• Any citizen of the Philippines may apply for a homestead of not exceeding 12 hectares.

• The applicant must have cultivated and improved at least one-fifth of the land and
resided in the municipality (or adjacent municipality) where the land is located for at
least one year.

• Once the applicant has complied with all the conditions essential to a government grant,
he acquires not only a right to a grant but a grant of the land from the government.

• Sales patent

• A Filipino citizen or lawful age or the head of a family may apply for the purchase of an
agricultural public land not to exceed 12 hectares.

• The land shall be sold through public bidding, and the land awarded to the highest
bidder.

• The purchase price may be paid in full or in 10 installments.

• The applicant must cultivate at least one-fifth of the land within 5 years from the date of
award.

• Direct sale (RA No. 730)

• RA No. 730 permits the private sale of not more than 1,000 square meters for
residential purposes. The applicant:

• Is a Filipino citizen;

• Is not the owner of a home lot in the city or municipality;

• Has established in good faith his residence on land not needed for public
service;

• Has constructed his house and actually resided therein.

• Free patent

• Applicant is a natural-born citizen who is not the owner of not more than 12 hectares of
agricultural public land.

• He has occupied and cultivated the land for at least 30 years, by himself of his
predecessors-in-interest;

• He has paid the real estate taxes while the same has not been occupied by any other
person.
ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENT TO RESIDENTIAL LANDS (RA NO. 10023)

• Requirements for a residential free patent:

• Applicant must be a Filipino citizen

• In actual occupation, residence and continuous possession and occupation of a

residential land

• Identified and zoned through an ordinance and not needed for public use or
public service

• For at least 10 years prior to the filing of the application

• Area limitation:

• Highly urbanized cities – 200 sq. m.

• Other cities – 500 sq. m.

• 1st and 2nd class municipalities – 750 sq. m.

• Other municipalities – 1,000 sq. m.

• Requirements for application:

• Approved plan and technical description

• Affidavit of two (2) witnesses confirming possession of applicant for at least 10 years

• Special patents

• A special patent is issued upon the promulgation of a special law or act of Congress or
by the DENR Secretary as authorized by an EO of the President.

• Example: Freedom Islands in the Manila Bay area to which TCTs were issued to PEA.

• However, the lands so titled shall not be disposed unless with the approval of Congress
if owned by the national agency, or by the sanggunian concerned through an approved
ordinance if owned by LGUS.

• Prohibited alienations

• Sec. 118 of CA 141 proscribes the alienation or encumbrance of land acquired under a
free patent or homestead patent within 5 years from the grant of the patent. The policy
is to give patentee a place where to live with his family

• After 5 years but before 25 years from the issuance of the patent, a homestead may be
disposed of subject to the approval of the DENR Secretary; but land covered by a free
patent may be disposed of after 5 years.

• REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 48(B) OF THE PUBLC LAND ACT (CA NO. 141)
 “Sec. 48. x x x (b) 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 acquisition of ownership;, since June 12, 1945,
except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title
under provisions of this chapter.”

• There are no material differences between Sec. 14(1) of PD No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No.
141.

• While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to “agricultural lands of the public domain” and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to “alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain,” the subject lands are of the same type since under the Constitution, alienable lands of
the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

• Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073, requires possession since June 12, 1945, or prior
thereto

• But land need be classified as A and D land at the time of the filing of the application for
registration ( Malabanan vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009)

• When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the PLA are complied with, the possessor is
deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title being issued.

• Compliance with all requirements for a government grant ipso jure converts land to private
property.

• The land ceases to be of the public domain and beyond the authority of the DENR to dispose of.

• Registration under Sec. 48(b) of the PLA presumes that the land was originally public agricultural
land but because of adverse possession since June 12, 1945, the land has become private.

• A certificate of title is void when it covers non-registrable lands (e.g., forest or timber or mineral
lands).

• Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for
value, shall be cancelled.

• REGISTRATION UNDER THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT

• Constitutional provisions

“The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.” (Sec. 2 Art. II)

“The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and
programs shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure
their economic, social, and cultural well-being.
 The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary law governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.”

• Indigenous concept of ownership

• The IPRA recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine Society.

• It grants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains.

• The ownership given is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law
which traces its origin to native title.

• Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the lands of the public domain but are private
lands belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied, possessed and utilized their territories
under claim of ownership since time immemorial.

• Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held
under claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus
indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.

• The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has the authority to issuer certificates of
ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificates of ancestral land title (CALT).

• The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of the Register of Deeds does not result in the
issuance of Torrens certificate of title.

• The purpose of registration is simply to apprise the public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP
of specific claims to portions of the ancestral domains or ancestral lands.

• Modes of acquisition

• The rights of ICCsIPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in
two modes:

• By native title over both ancestral lands and domains; or

• By Torrens title under the Public Land Act (CA No. 141) of the Property Registration
Decree (PD No. 1529) with respect to ancestral lands only.

• Requirements for registration

• The applicant is a member of an indigenous cultural group;

• He must have been in possession of an individually-owned ancestral land for not less
than thirty (30) years;

• By operation of law, the land is already classified as A and D, even if it has a slope of 18%
or over, hence, there is no need to submit a separate certification that the land is A and
D.
 • Transfer of land or property rights

The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may be transferred subject to the following
limitations:

• Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;

• In accord with customary laws and traditions; and

• Subject to the right of redemption for a period of fifteen (15) years if the land was
transferred to a non-member.

• Ancestral domains belong to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or
destroyed.

• CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS

• The purpose is to serve the public interest by requiring that the titles to any unregistered lands
“be settled and adjudicated.”

• The government initiates the proceeding so that all private lands in the town are registered in
one single proceeding.

• Government surveyors give advance notice to survey claimants of date of survey to afford them
to indicate their claims during the survey.

• After survey, the government files the petition with the RTC so that all claimants and possessors
shall be heard on their claims.

• Jurisdiction of cadastral court over previously titled lands limited to correction of technical
errors in the description of the land.

• Decision declaring land as public land not a bar to a subsequent action for confirmation of title
over the same land.

• DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS

(Example: Banila Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)

• Friar lands are not public lands but private or patrimonial property of the government.

• Friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual occupants under Act No. 1120
(Friar Lands Act)

• The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first issue a sales certificate to the occupant who
shall pay the purchase price in installments.

• The purchaser becomes the owner upon the issuance of the certificate of sale, subject to
cancellation in case the price agreed upon is not paid in full

• Upon full payment, the government shall then issue a final deed of conveyance to the purchaser

• No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by the DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Aug. 24, 2010)
 • Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public lands:

• In sale of public lands, the land is opened for bidding; the successful bidder is given right
of entry and to cultivate and improve the land.

• Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the applicant is given a sales patent

• In the case of friar lands, the purchaser becomes the owner upon issuance of the
certificate of sale in his favor.

SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM BUYER’S DECREE (PD 957)

• Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree (PD 957)

• Policy: to afford inhabitants the requirements of decent human settlement with ample
opportunities for improving their quality of life.

• Real estate and condominium businesses must be closely supervised and regulated, and
penalties imposed on fraudulent practices and manipulations.

• PD No. 957 implements the state policy of providing decent human settlement to improve the
quality of life.

• Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), formerly NHA and HSRC, has exclusive
jurisdiction to regulate real estate and trade business.

• HLURB is a quasi-judicial body with original and exclusive authority to hear and decide cases of
the following nature:

• Unsound real estate business practice

• Claims for refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit
buyer against the project owner, developer or dealer

• Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by

buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit

• Subdivisions are mandated to maintain and provide adequate water facilities for their
communities. Without a provision for an alternative water source, the subdivision developer's
alleged sale of the lot where the community's sole water source was located constituted a
violation of this obligation. Thus, this allegation makes out a case for an unsound real estate
business practice of the subdivision owner and developer. Clearly, the case at bar falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. (Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop )

• Decision of HLURB appealable to the OP whose decision may be elevated to the CA via a petition
for review.

• HLURB has jurisdiction over cases for collection of unpaid installments and damages

• It has no jurisdiction over issues involving ownership or possession of property

• Registration of projects, requirements

• License to sell, requirements

• Absence of license to sell does not render sale void

• But developer may be held civilly and criminally liable

• Determination of criminal liability lies with the courts

• A license to sell and performance bond is not required in the following transactions:

• Sale of a subdivision lot resulting from the partition of the land among co-owners-heirs

• Sale of a subdivision lot by the original. purchaser and any subsequent sale of the same
lot.

• Sale of a subdivision lot or condominium unit by or for account of a mortgagee when

necessary to liquidate a bona fide debt.

• Foreigners may purchase condominium units and shares in the condominium corporations up to
not more than 40-% of the total and outstanding capital stock of a Filipino-owned or controlled
corporation.

• The land is owned by the corporation and the unit owner is simply a member in the corporation.

• The ownership of the land is legally separated from the unit itself.

• Registration of dealers, brokers and salesmen

• Revocation of registration

• Procedure:

• Hearing

• Decision

• Cease and desist order

• Registration of contracts

• Mortgages

• With written approval of the HLURB

• With notice to the buyer

• Mortgage without knowledge or buyer and approval of HLURB is null and void

• Illustrative cases

• Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Marquez

• DBP v. Capulong
• Advertisements

• Time of completion

• Consequence of delay

• Failure to develop a subdivision may justify non-payment of amortizations by lot buyer

• Failure of seller to deliver condominium unit entitles buyer to cancel contract

• Issuance of title

• Duty of owner to deliver title

• Duty of owner to redeem outstanding mortgage

• Certificate of title not subject to collateral attack

• Right of way to public road

• Roads, alleys, sidewalks and open spaces (non-alienable and non-buildable)

• Donations of parks and playgrounds to the city or municipality mandatory; may in turn
be donated to the homeowners association

• In Lalicon v. NHA, GR No. 185440, July 13, 2011, the Court held:

• The Lalicons claim that the NHA unreasonably ignored their letters that asked for
consent to the resale of the subject property. But the NHA had no obligation to grant
the Lalicons' request for exemption from the five-year restriction as to warrant their
proceeding with the sale when such consent was not immediately forthcoming. And the
resale without the NHA's consent is a substantial breach. The essence of the
government's socialized housing program is to preserve the beneficiary's ownerships for
a reasonable length of time, here at least within five years from the time he acquired it
free from any encumbrance.

• Foreigners are allowed to purchase condominium units

• Any mortgage of the unit or lot requires approval of HLURB, otherwise mortgage is void

• Failure to develop a subdivision may justify non-payment of amortizations by lot buyer

• Buyer may not be ousted for non-payment due to failure of subdivision owner to put up
required improvements

• Owner or developer shall:

• Deliver title to buyer upon full payment of lot or unit

• Redeem outstanding mortgage

• Secure a right of way to a public road

• Initiate the organization of a homeowners association among buyers and residents

• Provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks

• Donate roads and open spaces to city or municipality where project is located