Law 617Wk 3 -4 Hearing

and Evidence
Registration under Sec.14 (1) and (2)
Evidence
The burden of proving possession and registerability belongs to applicant.

In general law and jurisprudence points to two substantive issues that must be
proven through well nigh incontrovertible evidence in a land registration
proceeding:

Whether or not the land is classified as A & D at time application is filed

Whether or not applicant has proven possession by himself or through

predecessors in interest in the manner required by law since June 12, 1945
Sec.14 of PD 1529 dictates what evidence should be
Registration based on Sec. 14(1) possession as distinguished from Sec. 14(2)

In both bases however, proof of possession is consistent . OCENPO, since June

12, 1945)

Possession must be actual, not constructive

Must be proven by acts evidencing ownership , not merely by fencing,, not merely
by clearing, but by evidence that the land is under exclusive control of the
applicant .
Art 531
1)material occupation 2) exercise of a right 3)by the fact that t is subject to our will
and 4) by the proper legal acts and formalities established for acquiring such right.
Examples :

Collection of rent , public instrument of sale of real estate, actual and continuous
cultivation, fencing and acts of dominion, possession as resident if land is
residential , introduction of improvements

Possessor does not need to have his feet on every square meter of ground.

However, planting of signs and symbols in vast tracts are insufficient .

Jurisprudence on Possession
Dir.., LMB v.CA (2000) It is not enough to declare that one’s possession and that
of predecessors in interest, has been adverse. General statements of or phrase in
the allegation that the applicant is in possession is mere conclusion of law that
requires evidence and substantiation . The applicant must show specific facts
showing nature of possession .

Rep.v Remman Enterprises 727 Phil 608 (2014) visiting the property regularly
cannot act of dominion and neither can acts to prevent any person from intruding
into saltbeds and fishponds be likewise
Dir.of Lands v. Reyes, Rep. v. Vera (120 SCRA 210 (1983) Mere casual cultivation
of portions of land by claimant is not possession under claim of ownership. In that
sense, possession is not exclusive and not notorious .

Heirs of Oclarit (1994) Tax declarations are not conclusive proof of possession.
They are good indicia of possession but any person who claims ownership by
virtue of a tax declaration must also prove that he is in actual possession .

Re. v. TAN properties June 26, 2008 dealt with 3 issues : Was TAN , a corporation
allowed under the law to own 56 hectares ? Did RTC correctly ruled there was
possession ? Did CA correctly rule that there was no evidence of A/D ?
Republic V. TAN Properties - 2008
This case laid down strict application doctrine not only in appreciating evidence of
possession but also in evaluating evidence of classification of land as alienable
and disposable

Subject of application is 56.4 hectare land in Sto Tomas Batangas filed in RTC Br
6 Tanauan City

Applicant is represented by Anthony Torres ,, Operations Manager . Witnesses

called were Primitivo Evangelista , 72 years old, resident of Bgy San Bartolome,
and the records Officer of LRA
Rep.v TAN on possession
ONly PE testified that Prospero Dimayuga (Puroy) had owned it since 1942.
When he died, he was succeeded by Antonio Dimayuga, who later donated land
to a son. Ownership ended in one of Antonio;s children Prospero Dimayuga
(Porting) . PorTing sold to TAN Properties INc. Though CA affirmed the decision
and appreciated proof of possession as sufficient, the SC did not rule favorably.

Evangelista testified that he worked on the land for three years. He did not know
however the relationship of Porting to the original owner Puroy but he was a
neighbor of Puroy. He said possession of Puroy started in 1942. His testimony
was uncorroborated . Tax declarations shown started only in 1955 not 1942 .
Rep. v.TAN on A/D
TAN failed to prove that the land is in A/D

Evidence presented were 1) certification from CENRO Batangas City is A/D under
project No. 30, LC Map No. 582 and 2) a Memo from Regional Technical Director
Forest Management services addressed to the court

SC ‘s disposition

No. 1 was issued beyond the authority of CENRO . It is authorized to issue land
classification stats for areas below 50 hectares (SeeDENR AO No. 20 s 1988 and
amended by AO no. 38 s of 1988
FMS has no authority to issue A/D and the certification has no probative value

SC’s additional dictum :

1. PENRO or CENRO s certification is not enough.Applicant must prove that the

DENR Secretary HAD APPROVED THE LAND CLASSIFICATION AS
RELEASED THE LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN and the land in the
application falls in it.
2. Applicant must present a copy of the original land classification approved by
the DENR SEcretary and certified as true copy by the LEGAL CUSTODIAN
of the official records.
Registration under Sec. 14(2)
Heirs of Malabanan v. Re, Sep.3, 2013

Distinguished between an application based on Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2) and
evidence required of each

Under 14(1) reiteration of the requisite of OCENPO since June 12, 1945

Under 14(2) - Certification that land is A & D and patrimonial in nature

Prove that possession for ten years is in good faith and 30 years in bad faith, with
just title. AND ,
Prove that the land had been converted to or declared as patrimonial … from
which date the 10 year or 30-year prescription shall be counted . A declaration of
A/D is not enough, as applicant has burden of proving that the land is no longer
intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth , or
converted already into patrimonial property.

Acquisitive prescription cannot run against public property

Art. 422 Civil Code- Property of public dominion, when no longer i intended for
use or public service, shall form part of patrimonial property of the Sate .
Rep v. Michael Santos July 18, 2012

Followed the seminal case of Malabanan

Santos filed application for consolidated lands in Indang Cavite . Presented

testimony and affidavit of Generosa who sold the land to Santos, that she
inherited the land from her father,Valentin, who she knew had OCENPO before
the outbreak of WWII . She herself had been in possession 30 years prior to
selling to Santos. TD s - 1948 . RTC granted, CA affirmed, SC dismissed
Reiteration of Malabanan doctrine
SOLGEN cited in its Memo that the DENR CENRO certification was dated on
March 3, 1982. If application cn be presumed to be under 14(2) there is still no
30-year prescription or possession in good faith with just title .

If applicant applied under 14(1) proof must be that the land is A/D, that applicants
have been in possession … and that such possession had been since June 2,
1945. Applicant failed in No. 3. Generosa said Valentin had been in possession
prior to WWII, with no specificity. Other witnesses did not specify what other acts
of dominion or ownership were exercised by applicant and other predecessors in
interest. Tax Dec, 1948 is still not sufficient as it covered only portion of the lot.
Rep v. Michael Santos on Sec. 14(2)
Because the applicant alleged that he had been in possession for thirty years, SC
considered same as alternative plea for the application to be evaluated under
requisites of Sec. 14(2)

All arguments denied:

Only those patrimonial in character are susceptible to acquisitive prescription ,

hence under 14(2) . In order that the land can be considered patrimonial, there
must be an express declaration of the State that it is no longer intended for public
service or for the development of the national wealth or that the property has been
converted into patrimonial property .
The period of acquisitive prescription will run only after the date of such express
declaration from the state . The declaration is distinct from a mere classification
of the land as falling under the A/D . Thus despite the presentation of the CENRO
certification that the lot falls under A/D , the requisite evidence for applications
based on 14(2) is absent. The applicant was not able to prove that the
prescriptive period has begun .

OSG s contention that the prescriptive period may be reckoned from date of the
A/D classification in March 1982 is not correct.
Registration under 14(3)
Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by
right of accession or accretion under existing laws.

1. Abandoned river beds belong to owners whose lands are occupied by the
new course of the river ( proportionate to area lost) Art. 461 Civil Code
2. To owners of land adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which
they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters (Art. 457)

Note: Gov v. Cabangis 1929 - City Mayor v Ebio . Accretion must be gradual and
imperceptible; a result of current of river or sea, land where accretion takes place
is adjacent, no human intervention
Registration under Sec. 14 (4)
Those who have acquired ownership of lands in any other manner provided by law

Voluntary transfer - private grant, sales transaction ,

Descent and devise

Emancipation patent, CLOA

Involuntary alienation - expropriation

Role of NAMRIA
Rep v TAN refined and restricted evidence on A& D . It pronounced that the
DENR Secretary or the President, had approved the land classification and
released the land as alienable and disposable and that the area applied for falls
within it.The DENR is not the custodian of original land classification documents.
Only a true copy is extant in the DENR official records .

Custodian of original LC is National Mapping and Resource Information Authority

Lawton Avenue, Fort Bonifacio Taguig City. Present practice borne by TAN case is
to Subpoena - Land Classification Division , for representative to bring
appropriate LC Map and to testify thereon.
Final NOte on Tax Declarations -

Tax declarations by themselves are NOT CONCLUSIVE evidence of ownership of

real property. They are a good indicia of possession , when coupled with
OCENPO but do not consist in well nigh incontrovertible evidence of possession .

Tax declarations must date back to June 12, 1945 . Recent tax deeds not
conclusive if there are no other proof of possession since 1945.
Wk 5 JUDGMENT AND DECREE
Authority of court to refer or delegate hearing to a referee .To expedite hearing, the
Branch Clerk of Court may be allowed to receive evidence on behalf of the
Presiding Judge, and said officer is directed to submit a report and
recommendation and such will be made as if presented before the judge. The
report is not binding and the court may set it aside and hear the rest of the
evidence through further proceedings.

See Sec. 27 PD 1529

Decision or judgment
It can be partial or judgment over the entire lot applied for . Partial judgment
occurs when there is a contest on a lot specifically delineated in the approved
plan and the contestant can successfully prove that the contest is genuine .

Before the court decides, it is best for applicant to seek all reports from the DENR
and other agencies to avoid a setting aside on the basis of any objection from
these offices. Usual report required of the DENR is that the lot subject of the
application is not subject of any approved or pending application, that the plan as
examined by the LRA and the DENR offices concerned do not overlap with
adjoining properties , or that no possible duplication of the title to be issued.
Finality of judgment and appeal
See Sec. 30

30 days to be counted from the date of receipt of the notice of judgment. An

appeal may be taken from the judgment of the court as in ordinary civil cases.

Rule 41 ROC governs appeals of decisions of Regional Trial Courts

1-Ordinary appeal

2. Petition for review - Rule 42

3. Appeal by certiorari -Question of law - to SC

Rule 41 Sec. 3 - Appeal period 15 days
How to reconcile this with the appeal period in land registration cases in Sec.30
PD 1529

The appeal period observed by courts is always 30 days from notice of judgment

Ordinary appeal is initiated by Notice of Appeal filed with the court which rendered
the judgment . It must be specific as to which appellate court the decision is to be
appealed to and the final judgment or order subject of the appeal.

It is deemed perfected upon the party who appeals if filed on time, and upon
payment of appellate docket fees . Late filing is ground for outright dismissal.
Effect of perfection of appeal
Rule 41. Sec. 9 third paragraph -

- The court loses jurisdiction over the case if filed in due time and upon
expiration of other parties’ period to appeal
- Sec. 10 Court orders Clerk of Court to verify correctness of records and to
certify, take measures to complete if not complete, and then to transmit
records to the appellate court.
- Secure transcripts of stenographic notes in order of witnesses’ testimony
- Prepares transmittal with table of contents, and sends the same to appellate
court . Copy of transmittal shall be given to all parties.
Usual grounds for appeal
Judgment is not based fact and law-

Failure to comply with jurisdictional requirements

Error in identification of land applied for

Mistake in appreciation of evidence , as in no possession was proven in the

manner required by law

No competent evidence of land classification

Lack of publication in newspaper and or Official Gazette

Effect of no appeal
2nd Sec. 30 PD 1529

It shall devolve upon the court to issue an order complying with Sec. 39. Within 15
days from date of entry of judgment.

In Sec. 39 This order (OID) directs the LRA to issue the corresponding decree
of registration AND certificate of title ,

Attachments to the order - 1) Certification by Clerk of Court that the decision has
not been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed and has become final. 2) certified
copy of the decision .
No motion is needed for OID
See second paragraph , Sec. 30 for actual provision

“It shall devolve upon the the court ..”

LRA Administrator then issues the decree of registration and corresponding

certificate of title to the person adjudged entitled thereto.

The administrative process done in the LRA and the Reg of Deeds is described in
Sec. 39 -41, Chapter IV , . PD 1529. There is no limit in period to issue decree
(Rep v Claro Yap 2-07-2018) But can it be compelled by mandamus? Laburada
Section 31 PD 1529 Content and effect of decree
Date, hour and minute of its entry , civil status of owner, and if conjugal, both
names of spouses are to be indicated, if minor, minority shall be indicated,
Description of the land, as finally determined by the court, all estates, mortgages,
easements, liens, attachments and other encumbrances, including tenant farmers.

“The decree of registration binds the land and quiets title thereto, subject only to
such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon
and against all persons , including the National Government and all branches,,,
...whether mentioned by name in the application or notice , the same being
included in the general description :To all whom it may concern”
Date of entry is not date or forwarding to RD
Upon receipt of the Original Certificate of title and decree, RD shall enter the OCT
assign a number, seal it and sign it in appropriate space. The OCT shall take
effect on the date of entry. RD shall notify the owner by registered mail that the
OCT is ready for issuance.

Manotok Realty - issue was whether the date of forwarding by LRC to RD was the
date of entry. SC held that it is the date when the RD entered the OCT in the
Registry, i.e., when he signed sealed and assigned the number .
Review of decree
Sec.32 - Summary - The decree may be reviewed within a period not later than 1
year after date of entry of the decree of registration to give way to the right of any
person, including the government and branches thereof, DEPRIVED of land or of
any estate thereof, by such adjudication or confirmation obtained by actual fraud.

Such person may file petition for the reopening and review of the decree, but not
if there is an innocent purchaser for value who has acquired the land or an interest
therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. It cannot also be reopened or revised by
reason of absence, minority disability of any person adversely affected thereby or
by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments .
Cases:

Is the issuance of a decree compellable by mandamus Laburada v LRA

Does the issuance of a decree prescribe? > ” Rep. v Claro Yap

Principle of incontrovertibility
The last paragraph of Section 32 states the principle of incontrovertibiity or
indefeasibility.

“Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration AND
THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE shall become incontrovertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree … in any case may pursue his remedy by action for
damages against the applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud. “

Beyond the period and if conditions apply, even a person defrauded by his own
relatives or by any other person, even on ground of extrinsic fraud, may no longer
contest the title issue to the owner.
Ground for petition for review or reopening
Summary 1)Ground is Actual or extrinsic fraud perpetuated on any person
including the government deprived of the land or interest therein by the
confirmation of title., within 1 year of entry of decree.

2) Land has not passed to innocent purchaser for value whose rights might be
prejudiced, even if the contest on ground of extrinsic fraud is discovered and
petition is filed within one year.

The rule on incontrovertibility may be invoked only to validity of an OCT but not
when it concerns a TCT .
Extrinsic Fraud
Facts :

Alvaro Esquivel left widow and minor children , and heirs of age, some of whom
sold the entire inheritance to Frias. The latter applied for registration of land to
him as a whole and obtained a decree. Within the period of 1 year from date of
receipt of decision, widow and children filed petition to re open on ground of fraud,
alleging that Frias falsely represented to the court that he was the owner of the
entire land.

The facts and allegations distinguish extrinsic from intrinsic fraud.

If fraud was employed to deprive a party of his day
in court, thus preventing him from asserting his right
during the registration proceeding, fraud is extrinsic.
If fraud pertains to an issue involved in the original
action where the fraudulent act could be litigated
therein, fraud is intrinsic and is not ground for review.
ATTRIBUTES OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Sec. 44 . Every registered owner receiving the Certificate .. in pursuance of a
decree of registration and every subsequent purchaser of the land taking the
certificate of title FOR VALUE AND GOOD FAITH, shall hold the same free from
all liens and encumbrances except those noted on the certificate .

This is the mirror principle .See Asuncion vda de Aguilar v Alfaro July 5, 2010).It
applies to all TCT s that may be issued as a derivative of the OCT .

Note the liens which even if not recorded on the title OCT or TCT shall constitute
encumbrance in the enumeration of Sec. 44 First to Fourth paragraph.
Sec. 44 Statutory liens

1 Liens claims or rights arising or existing under the laws and the
Constitution...which are not required by law to appear of record in the RD in order
to be valid …

2.Unpaid realty taxes levied and assessed within 2 years preceding the
acquisition of any right over the land by an innocent purchaser for value , without
prejudice to the right of government to collect.

3-Any public highway or private way established or recognized by law, irrigation

Canal or lateral thereof, if the certificate does not state that the boundaries of such
highway or irrigation canal .. have been determined.

4-Any disposition of the property or limitation on the use thereof by virtue of, or
pursuant to PD 27 ….
Naawan Community Rural Bank v.CA (2003)
Who is purchaser for value in good faith ?

Comayas was owner of a previously unregistered land. He mortgaged to Naawan

and then also to Galupo. During second mortgage, Comayas was able to obtain
OCT (1984) and in that condition sold the same to Lumo (1988) who paid off
mortgage to Galupo. Title was transferred to Lumo. Meantime, Naawan foreclosed
and had the auction sale registered in 1986. Naawan has the tax declaration.
Lumo filed action for quieting of title, which RTC granted. On appeal, Naawan
argues that the registration of its foreclosure sale came ahead of the decree/OCT
of Comayas.
Certificates subsequent to OCT
Sec.43 .TCT - “The subsequent certificates of title that may be issued by the RD
pursuant to any voluntary or involuntary instrument relating to the land shall be in
like form ….”

The RD shall indicate the next previous certificate and the OCT , decree when
issued and the volume and page of the registration book in which the latter is
found.

The OCT and TCT s derived from it are competent evidence of all that is
contained and are admissible evidence without further proof.
Summary of attributes of Certificate of Title
1- Probative Value - It may be received in evidence in all courts and shall be
conclusive as to all matters contained therein, principally as to the identity of the
land and the owner thereof.

2- It is free from liens and encumbrances not noted - the mirror principle

Section 44. Every registered owner receiving the Certificate of Title in pursuance
of a decree of registration and every subsequent purchaser ….for value and in
good faith SHALL HOLD THE SAME FREE FROM ALL LIENS AND
ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT THOSE NOTED ON THE CERTIFICATE /
3- Land evidenced by certificate of title cannot be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession . Sec. 47

4- It is not subject to collateral attack. “Sec. 48. Certificate of Title. A certificate of

title shall not be subject of collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or
cancelled except nin a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
General incidents of registered land
Sec.46 refers to burdens and incidents arising by operation of law, and which do
not relieve the land from - :

Relation of husband and wife, landlord tenant, liability to attachment or levy on

execution, liability to lien established by law on the land and building , or on the
interest of the owner, or to change the laws of descent, or rights of partition
between and among co owners, or the right to take the land by eminent domain ,
or the lien created when the laws of insolvency and bankruptcy particularly
preferences and priorities .