Imperfect or Incomplete

Titles
1
Notes by: Clifford Enoc

Section 14 1 of P.D. No. 1529 refers to the judicial

confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles to public land
acquired under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (C.A. No.
2
141, or the Public Land Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1073.
For purposes of land registration under Section 14 1 of P.D.
No. 1529, proof of specific acts of ownership must be
presented to substantiate the claim of open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
land subject of the application. Applicants for land registration
cannot just offer general statements which are mere
conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of possession.
Actual possession consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such a nature as a party would actually
3
exercise over his own property.

A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the

claimant does not constitute possession under claim of
ownership. Possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to
give rise to a presumptive grant from the state. The possession
of public land, however long the period thereof may have
extended, never confers title thereto upon the possessor
because the statute of limitations with regard to public land
does not operate against the state, unless the occupant can
prove possession and occupation of the same under claim of
4
ownership for the required number of years.

While tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of

5
ownership, they constitute proof of claim of ownership.

Under Section 14 1 of P.D.

No. 1529, what the applicants
must sufficiently establish for
registration of title? #BARQ

First, that the subject land forms part of the disposable

and alienable lands of the public domain;
Second, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of the same; and
Third, that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership
6
since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Respecting the third requirement, the applicant bears the

burden of overcoming the presumption of State ownership. It
must establish, through incontrovertible evidence, that the
land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable based
7
on a positive act of the government. In this connection, the
Court has held that he must present 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 of the
DENR. He must also prove that the DENR Secretary had
approved the land classification and released the land as
alienable and disposable, and that it is within the approved
area per verification through survey by the CENRO or PENRO.
Further, the applicant must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as
true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These
facts must be established by the applicant to prove that the
8
land is alienable and disposable.

What are the elements to

sufficiently prove that the
subject properties are
alienable and disposable?
In addition to the certification issued by the proper
government agency that a parcel of land is alienable and
disposable, applicants for land registration must prove that the
DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and
released the land of public domain as alienable and disposable.

They must present a copy of the original classification

approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by
9
the legal custodian of the records.
 Thus, in Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties,
10
Inc.:

“ Further, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and
disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved
the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and
that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification
through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present
a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by
the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is
alienable and disposable. Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by
respondent do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

Discuss the burden of proof

to overcome the presumption
of ownership of lands of the
public domain
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of
State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the
person applying for registration, who must prove that the land
subject of the application is alienable or disposable. To
overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be
presented to establish that the land subject of the application
11
is alienable or disposable. Accordingly, public lands not
shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable
agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State
12
remain part of the inalienable public domain.
 The responsibility to overturn by incontrovertible evidence
of the presumption that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable or disposable lies with the applicant.
13

Two modes of disposing

public lands through
confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete titles
Section 11 4 of C.A. 141 Public Land Act):

“ 4  By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:

(a)  By judicial legalization

(b)  By administrative legalization (free patent).

The substantive provisions governing the first mode are

found in Chapter VIII Sections 47 57) of the C.A. 141 P.L.A.)
while its procedural aspect is governed by Chapter III Sections
14-38) of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529 .

Section 48(b) of the C.A. 141 particularly specifies who are

entitled to judicial confirmation or completion of imperfect
titles:

“ (b) Those who by themselves or through their

predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title except when prevented by war or
force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a
Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of
title under the provisions of this chapter.

Upon compliance with the conditions of Sec. 48 (b) of the

C.A. 141 PLA , the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by
operation of law, right to a grant over the land. For all legal
intents and purposes, the land is segregated from the public
domain, because the beneficiary is conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a Government
14
grant.
 The land becomes private in character and is now beyond
15
the authority of the director of lands to dispose of.

At that point, original registration of the title, via judicial

proceedings, takes place as a matter of course; the
registration court does not grant the applicant title over the
property but merely recognizes the applicant's existing title
which had already vested upon the applicant's compliance
with the requirement of open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of the land since June
16
12, 1945.

On the other hand, Chapter VII Sections 44 46 of the

PLA substantively governs administrative legalization through
the grant of free patents. Section 44(para. 1 particularly
identifies who are entitled to a grant of a free patent:
 “ Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not
the owner of more than twenty-four hectares and who
since July fourth, nineteen hundred and twenty-six or
prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated,
either by himself or through his predecessors-in-
interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands
subject to disposition, or who shall have paid the real
estate tax thereon while same has not been occupied by
any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this
chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such
tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twenty-four
hectares.

Unlike an applicant in judicial confirmation of title who

claims ownership over the land, the applicant for a free patent
recognizes that the land applied for belongs to the
government. A patent, by its very definition, is a governmental
17
grant of a right, a privilege, or authority. A free patent x x x
is an instrument by which the government conveys a grant of
18
public land to a private person.

Who has the power to

resolve conflicting claims
over public lands
 19 20
Pursuant to the Administrative Code and the PLA,
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
exclusive jurisdiction over the management and disposition of
public lands. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the DENR has
the power to resolve conflicting claims over public lands and
determine an applicant's entitlement to the grant of a free
21
patent.

Unless it can be shown that the land subject of a free

patent had previously acquired a private character, regular
courts would have no power to conclusively resolve conflicting
claims of ownership or possession de jure owing to the public
22
character of the land, , since under C.A. No. 141, in relation
23
to Executive Order No. 192, the disposition and
management of public lands fall within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Director of Lands, subject to review by the
DENR Secretary.

The Director of Lands (ultimately, the DENR Secretary),

not the court, has jurisdiction to determine, as between two or
more applicants for a free patent, who has satisfactorily met
the requirements of the law for the issuance of a free patent.
24

Under the C.A. 141 PLA , for public land to attain a private
character by operation of law, the applicant must have openly,
continuously, exclusively, and notoriously possessed and
occupied alienable agricultural land of the public domain, in the
25
concept of an owner, since June 12, 1945.
 26
The PLA and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction render
the DENR's factual findings conclusive on the courts in the
absence of grave abuse of discretion; the doctrine of res
judicata bars Pedro from re-litigating his claim before a
27
different tribunal.

The remedy of reconveyance is only available to a

landowner whose private property was erroneously or
fraudulently registered in the name of another. It is not
available when the subject property is public land because a
private person, who is evidently not the landowner, would have
no right to recover the property. It would simply revert to the
public domain. Thus, reconveyance cannot be resorted to by a
28
rival applicant to question the State's grant of a free patent.
The exception to this rule is when a free patent was issued
over private lands that are beyond the jurisdiction of the
29
Director of Lands/DENR to dispose of.

Latest Developments
President Rodrigo Duterte has approved Republic Act No.
11573, a measure improving the confirmation process for
imperfect titles by simplifying the procedure and requirements
in granting land deeds.

First Year, Juris Doctor, University of San Jose

Recoletos School of Law. Personal website:
www.cliffordx.com ) ↩
 Republic of the Philippines v. Remman Enterprises, Inc.,
G.R. No. 199310, February 19, 2014. ↩
Ibid. ↩
Del Rosario v. Republic of the Philippines, 432 Phil. 824,
838 2002 . ↩
Aide v. Bernal, G.R. No. 169336, March 18, 2010, 616
SCRA 60, 69. ↩
See Republic v. Rizalvo, Jr., G.R. No. 172011, March 7,
2011, 644 SCRA 516, 523. ↩
See Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources v. Yap, G.R. No. 167707, October 8, 2008,
568 SCRA 164, 192 ↩
Republic of the Philippines v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846,
July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 116. ↩
Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,
578 Phil. 441 2008 ↩
Ibid. ↩
Republic v. Medida, G.R. No. 195097, August 13, 2012,
678 SCRA 317, 325 326, citing Republic v. Dela Paz, G.R.
No. 171631, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 610, 621 622.
See also Republic of the Philippines v. Remman Enterprises,
Inc., G.R. No. 199310, February 19, 2014. ↩
Republic v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15,
2010, 634 SCRA 610, 621 622. ↩
Republic of the Philippines v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209,
January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 582; Republic of the
Philippines v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15,
2010; Valio v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170757,
November 28, 2011 ↩
 Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 566 Phil. 590, 600 2008
↩
Id. ↩
De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes, G.R. No. 205711, May 30,
2016 ↩
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004 , p. 3554. ↩
Id. at 3555. ↩
Book IV, Title XIV, Chap. 1, Sec. 4, Executive Order No.
292 Administrative Code] 1987 #codal #admincodal ↩

See Commonwealth Act No. 141 SECTION 3↩

Bagunu v. Sps. Aggabao, 671 Phil. 183, 196 198 2011 .

↩
Id. at 199 200. ↩

Section 5 of E.O. No. 192 reads:

Powers and Functions

To accomplish its mandate, the Department [of
Environment and Natural Resources] shall have the
following powers and functions:
d. Exercise supervision and control over forest lands,
alienable and disposable lands, and mineral resources and
in the process of exercising such control, the Department
shall impose appropriate payments, fees, charges, rentals,
and any such form of levy and collect such revenues for the
exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such
resources;
xxx
m. Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and
disposition of all lands of the public domain and shall
continue to be the sole agency responsible for
classification, sub-classification, surveying and titling of
lands in consultation with appropriate agencies[.]

↩
Maximo v. CFI of Capiz, 261 Phil. 534, 539 1990 . ↩
See Malabanan v. Republic ↩
Commonwealth Act No. 141 SECTION 4 ↩
De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes, supra. ↩
Maximo v. CFI of Capiz, supra note 49, at 540; ↩
See the cases of Hortizuela v. Tagufa, G.R No. 205867,
February 23, 2015 and Lorzano v. Tabayag , supra note 27.
↩