Aguirre, Miguel Joshua G.

– 2C
Preliminary Examination - LTD

I.
According to Section 2, PD No. 1529, “Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands
throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles
underlying the Torrens system.”
As thoroughly explained by the book of Justice Oswaldo Agcaoili entitled “Property Registration
Decree and Related Laws (2018 ed.), a proceeding is in rem when the object of the action is to
bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right
sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strength of
alleging facts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest.
Moreover, as discussed by the Court in Alba vs. CA, in proceeding in rem, such proceedings
require constructive seizure of the res or land as against all persons, as well as the state which
basically means that it is binding against the whole world. This is done through publication,
posting, and service of notice.
The publication will confer jurisdiction over the res or land, and inform the whole world of the
pending registration case so they may contest or assert their rights over the land in contention.
The ramifications thereof a final judgment of a proceeding in rem will bar any person or any
other claimants over the res or land, since they already had a constructive notice thru publication,
posting, and service of notice yet, they still failed to appear or assert their rights during the
proceeding. They could not put up the defense that they were not personally notified.
As discussed in Legarda V. Saleeby, the purpose of such registration or of the Torrens system is
to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title, except
claims which are noted in the certificate; 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.
 II.
A.
Yes.
Assuming that the 14-hectare agricultural land of Pedro is proven to be alienable and disposable,
and that his family has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and is already considered
a private land in character with an imperfect title.
According to the book of Justice Agcaoili, as well as in the case of Republic vs. T.A.N.
Properties, in order to prove that a land is alienable and disposable, the applicant or owners must
present a copy of the original classification approved by DENR Secretary and certified as a true
copy by the legal custodian of the official records. In addition, a certificate of land classification
status issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) or the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO).
As to the requirement of possession or occupation of land, Republic vs. RRD Corp discussed that
the possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious, and not clandestine; it is
continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken, not intermittent or occasional; it is 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. Applicants for land registration cannot
just offer general statements, which are mere conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of
possession. Actual possession is in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such nature as
a party would actually exercise over his own property.
First and foremost, Section 8, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution already provides that a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee
of a private land under the terms prescribed by law.
As properly discussed in Republic v. CA and Sps. Lapina and De Vega, Justice Bidin discussed
that:
“It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were natural-born
citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or acquisition of a parcel of
residential land, it is not significant whether private respondents are no longer Filipino
citizens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in question. What is
important is that private respondents were formerly natural-born citizens of the
Philippines, and as transferees of a private land, they could apply for registration in
accordance with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution. Considering
that private respondents were able to prove the requisite period and character of
possession of their predecessors-in-interest over the subject lots, their application for
registration of title must perforce be approved.”
The fundamental law explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from acquiring or holding title to private
lands, except only by way of legal succession or if the acquisition was made by a former natural-
born citizens. Thus, the land is validly transferred to Jose and since the land is already private in
character, it was already deemed registered and would only need a judicial confirmation of title.
Jose is qualified to register the title.

B.
As discussed in Justice Agcaoili’s book, the prohibition is a declaration of imperative national
policy. The constitutional intent is strongly reflected by an Act of then National Assembly
passed soon after the 1935 Constitution was approved – CA No. 141, otherwise known as the
Public Land Act – pertinent provisions of which are embedded in Sec. 122 and Sec. 133.
It is also enshrined in the 1935 Constituition as well as in the Krivenko ruling which was
reiterated in Ong Ching Po vs CA.
Such prohibitions would allow the Filipino people to harness and capitalize on the natural
resources of our country, specifically our lands. It is our birthright and hereditary right to use
these resources given by Mother Earth to help nourish and cultivate our life. Proper legislation
such as those previously discussed would safeguard us from unscrupulous and conniving foreign
persons from exploiting our precious land for profit rather than for the enjoyment and protection
of the future of the Filipino people.