LAND TITLE AND DEEDS – MODULE 1
NATURE AND REGISTRATION Indigenous People’s Rights Act on the ground that the
PROCEEDINGS AND JURISDICTION OF
COURTS
1. Concept of Regalian Doctrine
a. The Regalian Doctrine provides that all
lands of whatever classification and
other natural resources not otherwise
appearing to be clearly within private
ownership belong to the State.
b. This doctrine stems from a
Constitutional provision under Section
2, Article XII on ‘National Economy
and Patrimony’.
c. To overcome the presumption that the
State owns the land, there must a
showing of a title from the State or any
mode of acquisition recognized by law.
Burden rests upon the applicant for
registration.
d. Jura Regalia – the State is the original
proprietor of all lands and as such, is
the general source of all private titles. It
also means royal rights, right which the
sovereign has over anything
NOTES:
 Classification of Domains –
(1) Agricultural lands (alienable)
(2) Forest or Timber lands
(3) Mineral lands
(4) National Parks
CRUZ v. SECRETARY OF DENR
G.R. 135385| December 6, 2000
DOCTRINE:
The State recognizes and promotes the rights
of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.
(Section 22, Article II, 1987 Constitution)
FACTS:
The present case is a suit for prohibition and
mandamus filed by Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa
wherein they assail the validity of the RA 8371 or the
Gin Certeza | San Beda University
law amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as
minerals and other natural resources therein, in
violation of the Regalian Doctrine embodied in Section
2, Article XII of the Constitution.
The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights
of the indigenous people over ancestral domains which
may include natural resources. Cruz contends that by
providing for an all-encompassing definition of
‘ancestral domains’ and ‘ancestral lands’ might also
include private lands found within the said areas
thereby violating the rights of private landowners.
They further argued that customary law, the one
involving ancestral domains, violates the due process
clause of the Constitution.
The Solicitor General posits that the IPRA is
partly unconstitutional as it grants ownership over
natural resources to indigenous people. The CHR,
however, argued that the IPRA is an expression of the
principle of parens patriae in which the State protects
the rights of those who are at a disadvantage such as
indigenous people.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the IPRA law is
unconstitutional.
HELD:
The petition was dismissed.
Seven Justices voted to dismiss the petition,
sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions of
RA 8371 while seven other justices voted to grant the
petition.
The votes during the deliberation were equally
divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not
obtained despite the issue being redeliberated upon
twice. Thus, pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure,
the petition was dismissed.
NOTES:
The Regalian Doctrine as embodied under
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides that
all lands of the public domain belong to the State which
is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land.
 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS – MODULE 1
All lands not appearing to be clearly of private
dominion presumptively belong to the State.
MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST:
 Justice Kapunan – The Regalian theory does
not negate native title; used Carino v. Insular
Gov’t as precedent. Native title is exception to
Regalian theory.
 Chief Justice Puno – Used Carino as a
precedent as well; IPRA recognizes the
ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector, granting them
ownership and possession of their ancestral
domains; customary law traces back to native
title
 Justice Vitug – Carino cannot override the
collective will of the people as stated in the
Constitution. The Court must follow the
Constitution and not the other way around.
 Chief Justice Panganiban – Indigenous or
not, all Filipinos are subjected under the
Constitution and no one is exempt from its all-
encompassing provisions.
SECRETARY OF DENR v. YAP
G.R. 167707 | October 8, 2008
DOCTRINE:
There are two requisites for judicial
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title under
CA 141 namely: (1) open and continuous possession of
the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership
since time immemorial and (2) the classification of the
land as disposable and alienable land of the public
domain. Private complainants weren’t able to prove
that the land they were occupying were alienable or
disposable lands since there was no positive act from
the government classifying it as such.
FACTS:
These are two consolidated petitions
concerning the right of the present occupants of
Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied
lands. The first case was filed by Yap after
Proclamation No. 1801 was promulgated by then
President Marcos identifying the Boracay Island as a
tourist zone and marine reserves. He believed that the
Gin Certeza | San Beda University
proclamation raised doubts on their right to secure
titles over their occupied lands. They contended that
they had been in open, continuous and exclusive
possession over the lands since 1945. The OSG
countered saying that the Boracay Island was classified
as public forest and is therefore unavailable for
disposition. Since the Island was not alienable, the
claimant’s possession cannot ripen into ownership.
The lower courts ruled in favor of the respondent-
claimants stating that there wasn’t any mention in the
Proclamation that the Island was inalienable. The same
set of facts was the contention of the second case as
well. President Arroyo classified certain parts of the
Island as reserved forest land and agricultural land.
However, the claimants opposed stating that they were
in continuous possession of the lands and have
invested billions of pesos on it. OSG said that the
lands were public forest and thus, cannot be subject of
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the present occupants have the
right to secure titles over their occupied lands.
HELD:
No, they do not have the right to secure titles
over their occupied lands.
There are two requisites for judicial
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title under
CA 141 namely: (1) open and continuous possession of
the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership
since time immemorial and (2) the classification of the
land as disposable and alienable land of the public
domain.
Private claimant’s continuous possession under
Act No. 926 does not create a presumption that the
land is alienable. In order for a land to be considered
alienable and disposable, there must be a positive act
from the government declaring it as such like an official
proclamation declassifying inalienable public land into
disposable land. Since the lands in question were
unclassified, they cannot be presumed to be alienable
lands.
Moreover, the burden of proof in overcoming
such presumption rests upon the applicant claiming
ownership. He must establish the existence of a
 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS – MODULE 1
positive act from the government, classifying that lands
in question as alienable lands. But in the case at hand,
there was no such proclamation or order or any
positive act from the government for that matter,
showing that the lands were in fact alienable.
Except for lands already covered by existing
titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public
domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such
unclassified lands are considered public forest under
PD 705. The ongoing tourism and commercial
developments in Boracay does not negate its character
as a public forest. The classification is descriptive of its
legal nature and not what the land actually looks like.
NOTES:
1935 Constitution classified lands as:
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential,
resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing
lands, and such other classes provided by law.
1987 Constitution added national parks.
Regalian Doctrine provides that all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, that the State is
the source of any asserted right to ownership of land
and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
Private ownership of land under the
Spanish Regime can only be founded on: (1) royal
grant, (2) special grant, (3) adjustment title, (4) title by
purchase, (5) possessory information title.
Torrens system is a system of registration by
which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible,
and imprescriptible.
The assumption in the cases of Ankron and
De Aldecoa was not absolute since the Court itself
proclaimed that the classification they made was still
dependent on proof.
2. Torrens System of Registration
a. Nature and Purpose of Torrens
System
b. Background and advantages of the
Torrens system
3. A view of the past and present legislation
on land registration
a. The Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141)
Gin Certeza | San Beda University
b. The Land Registration Act (Act No.
496)
c. The Cadastral Act (Act. No. 2259)
d. The Property Registration Decree
(P.D. 1529)
e. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(R.A. No. 8371)
4. Regional Trial Courts have exclusive
jurisdiction over land registration cases
a. Jurisdiction in civil cases involving
title to property
b. Distinction between the court’s
general and limited jurisdiction
JUNIO v. DE LOS SANTOS
G.R. L-35744 | September 28, 1984
DOCTRINE:
The Regional Trial Court, as a Land
Registration Court, can hear cases otherwise litigable
only in ordinary civil actions. They could entertain and
dispose of the validity or invalidity of respondent’s
adverse claim. An adverse claim may be cancelled only
after it is adjudge invalid or unmeritorious by the Court
acting either as a land registration Court or a Court of
general jurisdiction.
FACTS:
Junio is the registered owner of a parcel of land
in Pangasinan. By virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
allegedly executed by petitioner over the parcel of land,
an Affidavit of Adverse Claim was executed by
respondent claiming one-third undivided portion of
the petitioner’s property, which was annotated on
petitioner’s title. Petitioner now files a Petition for the
Cancellation of the Adverse Claim contending that
under the Land Registration Act, such inscription may
only be resorted when there is no other means of
registering an interest or right; and that Section 57
provides for the registration of a documented sale
involving a titled property. Respondent, however,
argues that he tried to avail of the remedy under
Section 57 but the petitioner refused to surrender his
owner’s duplicate title hence he was compelled to
 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS – MODULE 1
present an adverse claim pursuant to Section 110 of the
Land Registration Act.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Petition for the
Cancellation of the Adverse Claim must be granted.
HELD:
No, the petition was denied.
The Court held that respondent was correct in
availing the remedy under Section 110 since it was
stated in that provision that an annotation for an
adverse claim can only be resorted to if no other
provision for registering the same was made in the act.
That provision being Section 57, which does require
the presentation of the owner’s duplicate certificate,
one that Junio refused to provide.
However, despite such ruling, Junio further
argued that when a claim is based on a perfected
contract of sale, the remedy under Section 110 would
be ineffective since the Land Registration Act
specifically provides for Section 57 to be the correct
procedure for registration. This was likewise ruled to
be bereft of merit since this was only applicable to
perfected contract of sale, as oppose to the present case
at hand, where the sale between the parties is
contested.
The Court remanded the case back to the
Regional Trial Court for it to decide on the validity of
the adverse claim.
NOTES:
Section 111 of Act No. 496 was likewise
presented by petitioner where it states that if the
duplicate title was not presented when requested, the
clerk shall not enter a new certificate but the claimant
may apply to court for the owner to surrender such
duplicate title. Once again, this was only applicable in
cases wherein the genuineness and due execution of
the sale is not in controversy, which in this case it is.
ARCEO v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. 81401 | May 18, 1990
DOCTRINE:
Gin Certeza | San Beda University
Act No. 496 has eliminated the distinction
between the general jurisdiction vested in the Regional
Trail Court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon
it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral
court. This was pronounced in order to avoid the
multiplicity of suits. Where the issue, say of ownership,
is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of
registration, the cadastral court commits no error in
assuming jurisdiction over it.
FACTS:
Abdon Arceo and Escolastica Geronimo were
the owners of four parcels of unregistered land. They
had one son, Esteban, who had five children, Jose,
Pedro, Lorenzo, Antonio and Sotera. Eventually,
Abdon, Escolastica and Esteban died but not until the
spouses Arceo’s executed deed of donations inter vivos
(Exhibit J & T) in favor of Jose. Just as when the
Arceos were about to die, they signed a deed of
donation (Exhibit I) revoking Exhibit J and giving
away the properties to all of their grandchildren,
including Jose.
Virginia filed for an application for registration
in their names of the lots in question on the strength
of Exhibits J and T. The other grandchildren, however,
contested the application on claims that they were
entitled to one-third thereof. The cadastral court
rejected all three documents and distributed the
properties according to the law on intestate succession,
to which Virginia appealed from. Virginia questioned
the power of the cadastral court to determine
conflicting claims of ownership.
ISSUE:
Who has the right over the lots in question?
HELD:
Virginia has the right over the lots in question.
The Court upheld the valid donation inter
vivos made by the Spouses Arceo towards Jose.
Exhibit I could not have validly revoked Exhibit J. It
was ruled upon that a valid donation, once accepted,
becomes irrevocable except on account of
officiousness, failure by the done to comply with the
charges imposed in the donation or by reason of
ingratitude.
 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS – MODULE 1
NOTES:
c. Delegated jurisdiction of inferior
courts in cadastral and land
registration cases
THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION
AND REGISTRIES OF DEEDS
1. The Land Registration Authority
a. Functions of the Authority
b. Functions of the Administrator
2. Office of the Register of Deeds
a. The Registry of Property
b. Effect of registration
c. General functions of Register of
Deeds
BARANDA v. GUSTILO
G.R. 81163 | September 26, 1988
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of
the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo covered by
original certificate of title no. 6406 is the land subject
of the dispute between petitioner (Eduardo S. Baranda
and Alfonso Hitalia) and respondents(Gregorio Perez,
Maria Gotera and Susan Silao). Both parties claimed
ownership and possession over the said land. However
during the trial, it was found that the transfer certificate
of title held by respondents was fraudulently acquired.
So the transfer certificate of title was ordered to be put
in the name of petitioners. In compliance with the
order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito
Saclauso annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772
null and void, cancelled the same and issued new
certificate of titles in the name of petitioners. However,
by reason of a separate case pending in the Court of
Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the
new certificate of title. This prompted the petitioners
to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis
pendens in the new certificates. Judge Tito Gustilo
Gin Certeza | San Beda University
then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but the Acting
Register of Deeds filed a motion for reconsideration
invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.
ISSUE:
What is the nature of the duty of the Register
of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens
in a Torrens certificate of title?
HELD:
Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in
sustaining the Acting Register of Deed’s stand that the
notice of lis pendens cannot be cancelled on the
ground of pendency of the case in the Court of
Appeals. The function of the Register of Deeds with
reference to the registration of deeds, encumbrances,
instrument and the like is ministerial in nature. The
acting register of deeds did not have any legal standing
to file a motionfor reconsideration of the Judge’s
Order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens.
Sec. 10 of PD 1529 states that: “It shall be the duty of
the register of deeds to immediately register an
instrument presented for registration dealing with real
orpersonal property which complies with all the requi
sites for registration.
If the instrument is not registerable, he shall
forthwith deny registration thereof and in form the
presentor or such denial in writing, stating the ground
and reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to
appeal by consulta in accordance with Sec 117 of this
decree.” On the other hand, Sec 117 of PD 117 states
that: “When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with
regard to the proper step to be taken or memoranda to
be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other
instrument presented to him for registration or where
any party in interest does not agree with the action
taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any
such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the
Commission of Land Registration by the Register of
Deeds, or by the party in interest through the Register
of Deeds.”
NOTES:
 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS – MODULE 1

ALMIROL v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF

AGUSAN NOTES:
G.R. L-22486 | March 20, 1968 Whether a document is valid or not, it is not
up to the register of deeds to determine as such
DOCTRINE: belongs properly to a court of competent
Whether a document is valid or not, it is not jurisdiction. When he is in doubt as to the proper step
up to the register of deeds to determine as such to be taken, he must submit and certify the question to
belongs properly to a court of competent the Commissioner of Land registration who shall, after
jurisdiction. notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step
to be taken to the doubtful question.
FACTS:
Teodoro Almirol purchased from Arcenio 3. Instances when Register of Deeds may
Abalo a parcel of land situated in Agusan. However, deny registration
when he went to the Register of Deeds in Butuan City
to register the deed of sale as well as to secure in his
name a transfer certificate title, such application was
refused for the reason that the property sold to Almirol
was in fact conjugal property and thus requires the
signature of both spouses in order for it to be disposed.
Almirol then filed a petition for Mandamus, praying for
the Court to compel the respondent to register the
deed of sale and to issue him the corresponding
transfer certificate title. He asserted that it was the
ministerial duty of the ROD and that he has no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to resort to. The
Respondent contended that the adequate remedy
must’ve been to appeal that decision to the Honorable
Commissioner of Land Registration. The lower courts
ruled in favor of the respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Mandamus will lie to compel
the respondent to register the deed of sale in question.

HELD:
No, the Mandamus will not lie because it is not
the proper remedy to be resorted to.
The Court held that the lower court correctly
dismissed the petition for Mandamus because herein
Petitioner should’ve appealed the decision of the
Register of Deeds to the Commissioner of Land
Registration who will thereafter enter an order
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be
made which will be binding upon all register of Deeds.
An administrative remedy must be resorted to by the
petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts.

Gin Certeza | San Beda University