LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

CHAPTER V: KINDS OF
REGISTRATION
2020-2021 Cases
Atty. Voltaire San Pedro
Saturday, 8AM-10AM, Sec. 22

Submitted by:
Group 1
Albito, Joshua
Gańo, Cheryl
Guieb, Paul Jason
Rivera, Fredelyn
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. SAN LORENZO
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SLDC), RESPONDENT (G.R. No. 220902, February
17, 2020)

The Facts

SLDC is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws and qualified to
acquire and own lands in the Philippines. On September 25, 1998, it filed an Application5 for
registration of two parcels of l and- Lot No. 1 (identical to Lot No. 11324, Pls-982) with an area
of 74,488 square meters; and Lot No. 2 (identical to Lot No. 11325, Pls-982 with an area of 529
square meters - situated in Barangay Buluang, Compostela, Cebu, under Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree.

SLDC's claim that through its predecessors-in-interest, it has been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject parcels of land for more than
30 years. Aside from these testimonies, SLDC likewise presented pieces of documentary
evidence to support its claims, (1) copy of the approved tracing cloth plan of the subject lots; (2)
blue print copies of said plan; (3) approved technical description of the subject lots; (4)
Certification as to the non-availability of the Surveyor's Certificate; (5) Certification from the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that the subject parcels of
land are within the alienable and disposable block; (6) Certification from the Lands Management
Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that the subject lots
are outside the resurveyed boundaries of the Cotcot-Lusaran Watershed Forest dated September
2, 1997; (7) copies of the Deeds of Absolute Sale for the purchase of the subject lots; and (8)
copies of some of the tax declarations covering the subject lots.

The RTC Ruled in favor of SLDC and the Republic through Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) argued that SLDC failed to prove by well-nigh incontrovertible evidence that it has been
in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious occupation of the subject parcels of land since June
12, 1945 or earlier to establish its registrable title under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529.12.

In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the grant of SLDC's application for registration.

The Issue

Whether or not the CA is correct in granting SLDC's application under Section 14(2) of P.O. No.
1529?

The Court's Ruling

By virtue of the SLDC's emphatic assertion that its application was based on Section 14(2) of
P.D. No. 1529 and not Section 14(1) thereof, the reasonable conclusion is that its claim of having
acquired an imperfect title over the subject properties is premised on its supposed compliance
with the requirements of Section 14(2), which states:
SEC. 14. Who may apply. - The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance
an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:

(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription on under the
provisions of existing laws.

The applicant must primarily prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and
disposable land of the public domain. This is because, by virtue of the Regalian Doctrine, lands
which do not clearly appear to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
To overcome such presumption, the applicant must prove by clear and incontrovertible evidence
that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain.

The Court has consistently ruled that the applicant must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy of the original land
classification approved by the legal custodian of such official records to establish that the land
for registration is alienable and disposable. In ruling in this wise, the Court explained that the
CENRO or the PENRO are not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the
DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. As such, the certifications
they issue relating to the character of the land cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the
facts stated therein.

In this case, the required copy of original land classification of the subject lands was not
presented. Evidently SLDC failed to discharge such burden and thus failed to comply with the
primary requisite of proving the alienability and disposability of the subject lands.
 PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONER, v. THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF BENGUET, RESPONDENT. (G.R. No. 222958, March
11, 2020)

The Facts

On January 28, 2011, PBCOM filed a petition for issuance of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT
No. 21320 in lieu of the lost one. PBCOM claimed to be the registered owner of the subject
property, having acquired it on March 2, 1985 through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The
property was allegedly not included in PBCOM's inventory of assets because the bank's La
Union branch failed to forward all the pertinent records of its acquisition to the Makati head
office. It allegedly exerted all possible efforts to locate the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No.
21320, but to no avail. It then filed an affidavit of loss with the Registry of Deeds of Benguet.

After PBCOM's ex parte presentation of evidence, the RTC dismissed the first petition for
insufficiency of evidence. It held that PBCOM failed to prove that it had "exerted all efforts to
determine the actual whereabouts of TCT No. 21320 from all its available records and the bank's
past and present officers or employees and legal counsel who could and should have knowledge
of the bank's acquired property and the documents relative thereto." Noting the testimony of one
(1) of PBCOM's witnesses that it is possible that the previous accountable officer did not turn
over the title to the property or the lawyer who handled the foreclosure proceeding failed to
include the owner's copy of TCT No. 21320 in the documents forwarded to their main office.
The RTC stressed that PBCOM should have exerted efforts to verify from these persons the
whereabouts of the missing title because if any other person is known or suspected to be in
possession of the copy of the title, either lawfully or unlawfully, the petition would not be the
appropriate legal remedy.

PBCOM filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration of the July 29, 2011 Order and prayed that
it be allowed to present additional evidence to prove the allegations in its first petition. The RTC,
gave PBCOM five (5) days to file a supplemental motion but failed to comply and did not bother
to set its foregoing motions for hearing. Thus, in its February 9, 2012 Order, the RTC, Branch 62
considered the omnibus motion for reconsideration as well [as] the Manifestation as abandoned.

Instead of filing an appeal from the July 29, 2011 Order, PBCOM filed the second petition. The
allegations in the second petition were essentially the same as that contained in the first petition.

The Issue

Whether a registered owner who fails to prove the loss or destruction of his/her owner's duplicate
certificate of title may be barred from refiling a new petition to replace the same.

The Court's Ruling

A registered owner who fails to prove the loss or destruction of his/her owner's duplicate
certificate of title may not be barred from refiling a new petition to replace the same.

It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of
an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein.35 It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described
therein.36 In The Heirs of Alfredo Cullado v. Gutierrez,37 the Court explained: Indeed, the
bedrock of the Torrens system is the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of a land title where
there can be full faith reliance thereon. Verily, the Government has adopted the Torrens system
due to its being the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect
their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized.

In other words, ownership of registered land is evidenced by the certificate of title, which is
indefeasible and incontrovertible. Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 152939 or the ''Property
Registration Decree" mandates the issuance of this certificate of title in duplicates — the original
certificate of title, which is either an original certificate of title or TCT to be kept by the Register
of Deeds and an owner's duplicate certificate of title to be kept by the registered owner.

There is no doubt that the owner's duplicate certificate of title is a fundamental aspect of the
Torrens system. While a registered owner is free to exercise and enjoy all manner of rights over
his/her property does not affect the validity of said acts as between the parties, no voluntary
transaction affecting the land will be registered without the presentation of the owner's duplicate
certificate of title as mandated by P.D. 1529.

The RTC dismissed the first petition because PBCOM failed to show that it exerted its best
efforts to locate the title. This dismissal is obviously without prejudice to the right of PBCOM, as
the undisputed registered owner, to subsequently and sufficiently prove that the owner's
duplicate of TCT No. 21320 has indeed been lost.
 Heirs of Tunged v. Sta. Lucia Realty Development Inc. and Baguio Properties Inc.

G.R. No. 231737

March 6, 2018

Doctrine: the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs
only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. When such claims
and disputes arise between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP, i.e., parties
belonging to different ICC/IPs or where one of the parties is a non-ICC/ IP, the case shall fall
under the jurisdiction of the proper Courts of Justice, instead of the NCIP.

Facts: The subject land was alleged by petitioner as an ancestral land. They also alleged that the
developers injured their right as indigenous peoples as stated in the IPRA Law. Baguio
Properties invoked that the land was under their ownership, arguing that the petition was a
collateral attack to their Torrens Title.

Upon petition, the RTC as an environmental court, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, stating that they do not seek recognition of their
CADT, but merely for recognizing their complaint as an IP. NCIP however dismissed the case
stating that they are not real parties-in-interest on the case.

Issues: Which among the RTC and the NCIP has the power to resolve the dispute?

Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the case.

Ruling: The court held that since the IPRA law provides for dispute resolution mechanisms for
IPs and ICCs, since the parties on the case do not belong in the same tribe, with the respondent
being a non-IP, the jurisdiction shall fall under the RTC. The NCIP’s powers, as stated in the
case of Unduran vs. Aberasturi, shall only have the jurisdiction to decide on IP cases when IPs in
the case belong to the same ethnicity.

In this case, since the heirs are the indigenous people and the developers being a private
individual, the RTC shall have jurisdiction.

On the issue of the RTC erring in dismissing the case filed by the petitioners, the court ruled in
the affirmative, stating that the RTC erred in referring to the NCIP instead as it was already
stated in an administrative matter that the RTC shall have the jurisdiction in environmental cases.