Sec 24.
Proof of Publication and Notice  To give a person a legal standing to object to the
 The certification of the
(1) Commissioner of Land Registration; and
(2) the sheriff concerned
..to the effect that the notice of the initial hearing has
been complied with shall be filed in the case BEFORE
THE DATE OF THE INITIAL HEARING, and shall be
CONCLUSIVE PROOF of such fact.
 This provision should therefore require even more than
than a superficial examination by the court of the
evidence to show compliance with the requirements of
publication, mailing, and posting to ensure that
jurisdiction is validly acquired by the court over the res
and that the public is assuredly apprised, even if only
constructively, of the pending registration case so that
appropriate measure may be taken to protect their
interest.
Sec 25. Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings
 Any person claiming an interest (whether named in the
notice or not), may appear and file an opposition..
(1) on or before the date of initial hearing; or
(2) within such further time as may be allowed by the
court.
 The opposition shall:
(1) state all the objections to the application;
(2) shall set forth the interest claimed by the party
filing the same; and
(3) apply for the remedy desired
 shall be signed and sworn to by him or by some other
duly authorized person.
 If the opposition / adverse claim of any person covers
only a portion of the lot and said portion is NOT
properly delimited on the plan attached to the
application, or in case of undivided co-ownership,
conflicting claims of ownership or possession, or
overlapping of boundaries, the COURT MAY REQUIRE
THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A SUBDIVISION PLAN DULY
APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
 For an opposition to be considered, the ff requisites
must occur:
a. The oppositor must have an interest in the land
applied for;
b. He should state the grounds for his objection as
well as the nature of his claimed interest;
c. He should indicate the desired relief; and
d. The opposition should be signed and sworn to by
him or by his duly authorized representative.
 Unverified oppositions in land registration proceedings
are nevertheless sufficient to confer standing in court to
oppositors who may be allowed to verify their
oppositions later on.
Nicolas v Director of Lands
Written appearance with opposition presented by petitioner
in this case was considered VALID and SUFFICIENT to give
him a legal standing in court and entitle him to notice, as a
matter of right. It was a substantial compliance with the law
that required a formal answer.
Nature of interest to support opposition
 based on the right of dominion or some other real right
opposed to the adjudication or recognition of the
ownership of the applicant, whether it be limited or
absolute.
application of the registration, HE MUST MAKE SOME
CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY.
 Opponent in a LRP cannot show title in himself? This
DOES NOT discapacitate him from opposing registration
of the property in the name of the applicant.
 Nor is it even material for the opponent to have the
legal character necessary to enable him to maintain a
registration proceedings cannot show title
 All that is necessary to enable one to exert the faculty of
opposition is that he should appear to have an interest
in the property.
De Castro v Marcos
It is immaterial whether this interest is in the character of legal
owner or is of a purely equitable nature as where he is the
beneficiary in a trust.
 All claims of third persons to the property must be
asserted in the registration proceedings.
 If claim is upheld, that portion is segregated from the
property applied for.
 If it is included, the claim is deemed adversely resolved
with finality, subject only to a petition for review of the
decree within one year from its issuance on the ground
of fraud.
 A MERE CLAIM CANNOT DEFEAT A REGISTERED TITLE.
 The Rule: the owner of buildings and improvements
should claim them during the proceedings for
registration and the fact of ownership, if upheld by the
court, must be noted on the face of the certificate.
 “claim of ownership” – the possession of a piece of
property with the intention of claiming it in hostility to
the true owner; a party’s manifest intention to take over
land, regardless of title or right.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION – all the allegations
contained in the application = be held as confessed by reason of
the absence of denial on the part of the opponent.
 A person who has not challenged the an application for
registration of land even if the appeal afterwards
interposed is based on the right of dominion over the
same land, CANNOT ALLEGE DAMAGE OR ERROR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ORDERING THE
REGISTRATION INASMUCH AS HE DID NOT ALLEGE /
PRETEND TO HAVE ANY RIGHT TO SUCH LAND.
 A claimant having failed to present his answer /
objection w/in a period of 1 year, is deemedto have
FOREVER LOST HIS RIGHT IN SAID LAND EVEN
GRANTING THAT HE HAD ANY RIGHT THEREIN.
 Persons deemed to have legal standing to file
opposition:
a. HOMESTEADER – who has not yet been issued his
title but has fulfilled all the conditions required by
law for the issuance of patent
b. PURCHASER OF FRIAR LAND - who is deemed to
have an equitable title to the land even before the
issuance of the patent
c. AWARDEE in a slaes app – who (by virtue of the
award) is authorized to take possession of the land
to enable him to comply with the requirements for
the issuance of patent.
d. PERSON CLAIMING TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE
LAND AND HAS APPLIED WITH THE LMB FOR ITS
PURCHASE
 Private persons may not oppose an application on
behalf of the gov’t bec the land belongs to the gov’t.
Fernandez v Tañada
The Court sustained the dismissal by the registration court of
petitioners’ opposition since petitioners were mere sales applicants
in the Bureau of Lands (now LMB) and whose sales applications
explicitly provided that the same conveyed no right to occupy the
land prior to their approval.
OPPOSITION BY THE GOV’T
 The gov’t, acting through the Office of the Sol Gen (OSG) is
invariably represented by
a. Director of Lands; or
b. Director of Forestry
as public oppositor in all land registration and related
proceedings.
 It is the burden of the applicant (private oppositor) to
overthrow the presumption that the land is public land by
WELL-NIGH INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF
 Only the SOL GEN can bring or defend actions on behalf of
the country. Hence, actions filed in the name of the
Republic NOT INITIATED BY SOL GEN WILL BE
DISMISSED.
 In practice, because of the numerous activities of gov’t
requiring the services of the OSG, it is now necessary to
deputize provincial / city prosecutors and special
attorneys to assist SOL GEN. Even so, SOL GEN still has full
control of the conduct of the proceedings.
(1) Absence of opposition by the gov’t DOES NOT
justify outright registration – applicant is not
relieved of the burden of proving the imperfect
right / title. A compromise agreement entered into by
the parties could not supply the absence of evidence
of title required in registration cases.
(2) Hearing necessary to determine validity of
ownership claim – pursuant to Section 1, Rule 131
of the Rules of Court, each party (whether applicant
or oppositor) must prove his own affirmative
allegations by the amount of evidence required by
law to obtain a favorable judgment. IF NECESSARY,
the court may refer the case or any part thereof to a
referee who shall hear the parties and their evidence.
This referee shall submit his report to the court
within 15 days after the termination of hearing. IN
CASE OF FAILURE OF THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS TO
OPPOSE THE APPLICATION FOR REG, the court is
NOT justified in adjudicating the land applied for as
private property. NEED EVIDENCE PA RIN.
(3) Failure to appear on the day of initial hearing is
NOT a ground for default where opposition /
answer had been filed
(4) Government may appeal despite failure of agency
to file opposition
Republic v CA and Arquillo
The failure of the gov’t agency concerned to file an opposition to
the application for registration or to appeal from the adverse
decision of the reg court is NOT FATAL. REASON: Gov’t is usually
NOT estopped by mistake or error of its officials or agents.
Republic v CA and Paredes
Principle of estoppel DOES NOT operate against the gov’t for the
act of its agents.
One who succeeds in fraudulently acquiring title to a public land
SHOULD NOT be allowed to benefit therefrom, and the State
should, therefore, have an ever existing authority, thru its duly
authorized officers, to inquire into the circumstances surrounding
the issuance of any such title, to the end that the Republic may file
the corresponding action for reversion of the land involved to the
public domain.
In other words, the indefeasibility of a title over land previously
public is NOT A BAR to an investigation by the Director of Lands.
 Belated filing of an appeal by the State, or even its failure to
file an opposition, in a land registration case because of the
mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents does
not deprive the gov’t of its right to appeal from a judgment
of the court.
MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON RES JUDICATA PROPER IN A
REG PROCEEDING
 Prop Registration Decree does not provide for a pleading
similar or corresponding to a motion to dismiss. HOWEVER,
SEC 34 PROVIDES that the RULES OF COURT WHICH ARE
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
DECREE shall be applicable to land registration & cadastral
cases in a SUPPLETORY CHARACTER.
 Doctrine of res judicata – set fourth in Section 47 of Rule 39,
ROC. This provision comprehens two distinct concepts or res
judicata:
(1) Bar by FORMER JUDGMENT, so long as the ff requisites
occur:
a. FORMER JUDGMENT = FINAL
b. PERTINENT ISSUE(s) = ADJUDGED through their
merits
c. THE COURT WHICH RENDERED THE THE DECISION
HAS JURISDICTION over subj matter and parties
d. Between the 1st and 2nd actions, there was:
 Identity of parties
 Identity of subj matter
 Causes of action
* Where no identity of causes of action but only identity
of issues exists, res judicata cones under the second
concept.
(2) CONCLUSIVENESS of judgment.
 Opposition in a reg case partakes of the nature of an answer
with a counterclaim.
 Defense of res judicata may be waives if NOT SET UP IN A
MOTION TO DISMISS. It CANNOT be pleaded for the first
time on appeal.
SUBMISSION OF SUBDIVISION PLAN
 The registration court may require the submission by the
parties of a subdivision plan, duly approved by the Director
of Lands, in the following instances:
a. The opposition or adverse claim covers only a portion
of the lot applied for which is not delimited on the plan
accompanying the application;
b. In case of undivided co-ownership, conflicting claims of
ownership or possession, or overlapping of
boundaries.