Module 2: Goals

1. Read lectures, journal articles and/or view videos for each individual page in sequence.
2. Post  in Module 2 Discussion.
3. Post a reply to at least one student in the Module 2 Discussion
4. Take the Module 2 Quiz.

Module 1: Objectives

1. To enumerate the two systems of registration under PD 1529;

2. To identify the laws governing land registration in the Philippines;
3. To explain the nature of land registration as a proceeding in rem;
4. To identify who are qualified to apply for ordinary land registration under Section 14, PD 1529;
5. To enumerate the different requisites under each of the grounds in Section 14, PD 1429.

Module 1: Mandatory Reading

Module 2/Week 2. August 24-28, 2020 Text Book Reference Chapter No./Pages
Property Registration Decree & Related Laws
(Land Titles and Deeds), Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, Chapter 3 , pp. 56-89
2018 Ed.

Cases for mandatory reading:

 Republic v. Villanueva and Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 55289, 29 June 1982, 11 SCRA 875
 Albano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144708. August 10, 2001
 Republic vs. IAC & ACME, GR No. 73002, 29 December 1986, 146 SCRA 509
 Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441 (2008)
 Republic vs. Diloy, GR No. 174633, 26 August 2008, 563 SCRA 413 (2008)
 Malabanan vs. Republic, GR No. 179987, 29 April 2009 and the resolution on the MR, 3 September 2013
 Diaz-Enriquez vs. Director of Lands, GR No. 168065, 6 September 2017
 City Mayor of Paranaque v. Ebio, GR No. 178411, 3 June 2010, 621 SCRA 555

  Overview of the registration process-2

The premise of land titling is to bring all unregistered lands within the fold of the Torrens system with the issuance of a certificate of title. A Torrens
title is therefore conclusive proof of ownership.
Let us go to this problem:

problem (Links to an external site.)

In the above problem, how may the buyer obtain a certificate of title over the portion he bought?  This will be answered in the following discussion.

Systems of registration
In a general sense, registration is the act of making an entry in the books of the registry including cancellation, annotation and even the making of
marginal notes. 
1. There are two systems of registration. One for registered lands; and two, for unregistered lands. Differentiate the two. (Read: Mactan Cebu
International Airport Authority vs. Tirol, GR No. 171535, 5 June 2009)

 
 
Laws governing land registration-2
State the primary sources of legislation governing the registration of private lands.

 Read and have a working knowledge of the salient provisions of the following:

a. CA 141
b. PD 1529
c. Act 2259
d. RA 8371

Registration under PD 1529-2

Recall that under Section 2, PD 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.

 Incidentally, it may be asked: In a proceeding in rem, where the court had to deal with a tangible res or subject matter, how does it acquire
jurisdiction? READ: Republic v. Dayaoen, G.R. No. 200773. July 8, 2015
 Who may apply for a Torrens title?  MEMORIZE SECTION 14, PD. 1529.
 Each paragraph of Section 14 refers to a distinct type of application, governed by its own set of legal principles. 

Thus, in applying for registration, an applicant must first identify the exact legal ground on which to base his application for land registration. 

Who may apply

 When land sold under pacto de retro. READ: Priolo vs. Priolo Puerto, GR No. 37698, 71 Of. Gaz. 48, 1 December 1975
 Land grants effected through presidential proclamations. READ: Republic vs. CA, 73 SCRA 146; Sec. 103, PD 1529.
 A public land sales applicant cannot be a proper party to file original registration of the same land covered by his sales application.
READ: Palawan Agricultural and Industrial Company vs. Director of Lands, 44 SCRA 15; Exception: Successor who acquired by prescription a
land previously subject to free patent application of his predecessor-in-interest may file registration. READ: Director of Land Management vs. CA,
205 SCRA 486
 A mortgagee or his successor in interest cannot be proper applicants as failure to redeem by the mortgagor does not automatically vest
ownership over the land. READ: Reyes vs. Sierra, 93 SCRA 472
 An antichretic creditor cannot acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him by the debtor. READ: Ramirez vs. CA, 144 SCRA 292
 Applicants who were previously denied claims of ownership in reivindicatory actions cannot file for registration of same land involved.
READ: Kidpales vs. Baguio Mining, 14 SCRA 913.
 Only the Government through the Solicitor General, has the personality to file a case challenging the capacity of a person to acquire or to own
land based on non-citizenship. READ: Balais-Mabanag vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, GR No. 153142, 29 March 2010.

Registration under Section 14(1)-2

IMPT. Each paragraph of Section 14 refers to a distinct type of
application depending on the applicable legal ground.

 
 
What are the requirements for registration under Section 14(1)?
These are:
(1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
(2) that the applicants by themselves or thru their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and
occupation; and
(3) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. In short, the property sought to be registered is
already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed.
READ: Republic vs. Diloy, GR No. 174633, 26 August 2008, 563 SCRA 413 (2008)

Registration under Section 14(2)-2

1. What is the legal foundation for the application of Section 14(2)?
READ: Art. 1137, Civil Code;
2. Does PD 1529 prevent the application for registration of alienable lands of the public domain, possesion over which commenced only after 12 June
1945?
READ: Malabanan vs. Republic, GR No. 179987, 29 April 2009
3. Differentiate the applicability and scope of original registration proceedings under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of PD No. 1529.  RE-READ:
Malabanan vs. Republic, GR No. 179987, 29 April 2009 and the resolution on the MR, 3 September 2013

Registration under Section 14(3)-2

 Section 14(3), PD 1529
o READ: Art. 457, Civil Code of the Philippines. Accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the lot which
receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens Title. There must be a separate action for the registration thereof. READ: City Mayor of
Paranaque v. Ebio, GR No. 178411, 3 June 2010, 621 SCRA 555; Grande vs. Court of Appeals, 5 SCRA 524;
o Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and is not open to acquisition by adverse possession, unless
subsequently declared as no longer needed for coast guard service, for public use or for special industries. READ: Ignacio vs. Director of
Lands, 108 Phil. 335;
o READ: Art. 461, Civil Code;

Registration under Section 14(4)-2

Section 14(4), PD 1529
 Section 14(4), PD 1529 refers to acquisition in any other manner provided for by law. This includes the following:
o Acquisition of land through a Presidential Proclamation. READ the following:
 International Hardwood and Veneer Inc. vs. UP, GR No. G.R. No. L-52518, 13 August 1991.
 Republic vs CA, G.R. No. L-40912, 30 September 1976

Land acquisition by private corporations-2

 Private corporations. What is the general rule? Private corporations are disqualified from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain.
o What is the purpose of the prohibition? The constitutional intent is to transfer ownership only of a limited area of alienable land of the
public domain to a qualified individual. READ: Chavez vs. PEA, GR No. 133250, 9 July 2002
o Patrimonial Property of the State (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
 Only by lease for 25 years, renewable for the same period.
 Under the 1935 Constitution, private corporations can still acquire public agricultural lands within the limited area
prescribed.
 A private corporation may not hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares.
READ: Sec. 3, Art. XIII, Constitution;
o Exception? READ: Suzi vs Razon, GR No. 24066, 9 December 1925; Director of Lands vs. IAC and Acme, 73002, 29 December 1986.
 Since respondent corporation "acquired the land on 8 August 1997 from Porting, who, along with his predecessors-in-interest,
has not shown to have been, as of that date, in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the land for 30 years since 12 June 1945. In
short, when respondent acquired the land from Porting, the land was not yet private property." READ: Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,
578 Phil. 441 (2008)
o Private lands
 At least 60% Filipino (Sec. 7, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
 Restricted as to extent reasonably necessary to enable it to carry out purpose for which it was created
 If engaged in agriculture, it is restricted to 1,024 hectares
 The rule does not apply where at the time of the corporation acquired the land, the same was already private land as
when it was possessed by its predecessor in the manner and for such length of time as to entitle the latter to registration. "The land
was already private land when Acme acquired it from its owners in 1962 and, thus, Acme acquired a registrable title READ: Republic
vs. IAC & ACME, GR No. 73002, 29 December 1986, 146 SCRA 509;
 Corporation Sole. A religious corporation sole, which has no nationality, is disqualified to acquire or hold alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease. READ: Republic v. Villanueva and Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 55289, 29 June 1982, 11 SCRA 875.
o For one, they argue that as between the State and the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI), the disputed property is still public land and
the latter, as a corporation sole, is disqualified to own the property in view of the prohibition imposed by the Constitution. Be that as it may,
there is still an obstacle to the view advanced by petitioners which must be recognized. If it is petitioners' opinion that ownership of the
disputed parcel of land is still vested in the State, then it is the State, and the State alone, that is entitled to question the occupation by IFI of
the subject property. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that an opposition against a party's claim over a property must be based
on the right of dominion, whether it be limited or absolute; and if the oppositor claims no right over the property, whatever it may be, then
certainly he has no basis to question such claim. READ: Albano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144708. August 10, 2001

The doctrine of vested rights-2

What is the doctrine of vested rights when applied to land ownership? Can the State impair a vested right by passing legislation taking it away?
READ: Republic vs. CA and Baloy, GR No. L-46145, 26 November 1986
READ also: Ayog vs. Cusi, GR No. L-46729, 19 November 1982