LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

(Registration, Issues and

Remedies)
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philippine Judicial Academy, Supreme Court
(Author: Property Registration Decree and Related
Laws (Land Titles and Deeds); Environmental
Reforms and Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases; and Reviewer in Property
Registration)
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
 The Regalian doctrine dictates that all lands of the
public domain belong to the State. (Leonidas v.
Vargas, GR No. 201301, Dec. 14, 2017; Republic v.
Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012)
 The doctrine has been consistently adopted under the
1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions; it espouses that
all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and
that, as a consequence thereof, any asserted right of
ownership over land necessarily traces back to the
State. (Republic v. 218418, Nov. 8, 2017; See also:
Agcaoili, Property Registration Decree and Related
Laws)
 Doctrine reflected Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:
 “Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the
exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated.”
 Simply stated, “all lands of the public domain as well
as all natural resources enumerated therein, whether
on public or private land, belong to the State.” (CJ
Puno)
 Exception
 An exception to the rule would be any land in
possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in
interest since time immemorial, for such possession
would justify the presumption that the land had
never been part of the public domain or that it had
been a private property even before the Spanish
conquest. (Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, G.R. No.
48321, Aug. 31, 1946; Carino vs. Insular
Government, 212 U.S., 449; 53 Law. ed., 594.)
 In Cruz v. DENR Secretary (G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6,
2000), seven (7) Justices said that the Regalian theory
does not negate native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial, citing Carino v.
Insular Government where the US Supreme Court,
through Justice Holmes, held that:
 “when, as far back as testimony or memory goes,
the land has been held by individuals under a claim
of private ownership, it will be presumed to have
been held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public land.”
 REGISTRATION IS A
PROCEEDING IN REM
 Registration is a proceeding in rem
 Being in rem, such proceedings require constructive
seizure of the res (land) as against all persons,
including the state, through (a) publication, (b)
posting and (c) service of notice.
 The purpose of publication is to (a) confer
jurisdiction upon the court over the res, and (b)
apprise the whole world of the pending registration
case so that they may assert their rights or interests in
the land applied for. (Director of Lands v. Court of
Appeals and Abistado, GR No. 102858, July 28,
1997; Sec. 23, PD No. 1529)
 PURPOSE OF
REGISTRATION
 The dominant objectives of land registration are:
 to establish and certify to the ownership of an
absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and to
simplify its transfer;
 to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
ownership is established and recognized;
 to quiet title to land;
 to put a stop forever to any question of the legality
of the title;
 to decree land titles that shall be final, irrevocable,
and indisputable;
 to relieve the land of the burden of known as well
as unknown claims;
 To minimize conflicting claims and stabilize land
ownership
 REGISTRATION NOT A MODE OF
ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP BUT ONLY
A PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN
EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
 Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but
is merely a procedure to establish evidence of title
over realty.
 Registration does not vest title.
 It does not give the holder any better title than what
he actually has. (Solid State Multi-Products
Corporation v. Development Bank of the
Philippines, GR No. 83383, May 6, 1991).
 But the Torrens system does not furnish a shield for
fraud
• A certificate of title cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner or be used as a shield
for fraud.
• Registration merely creates a prima facie
presumption of the validity of the registration and
must give way to evidence to the contrary.
(Jarantilla v. Jarantilla, GR No. 154586, Dec. 1.
2010; Vagilidad v. Vagilidad, GR No. 161136, Nov.
16, 2006, 507 SCRA 94)
JURISDICTION OVER LAND
REGISTRATION CASES AND
SUBSEQUENT PETITIONS
 Regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction over
land registration cases and all petitions after original
registration. (Sec. 2, PD No. 1529)
 However, first level courts may be assigned by the
SC to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering:
(a) Lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or
(b) Contested lots the value of which does not
exceed P100,000. (Republic v. Bantigue, G.R. No.
162322, March 14, 2012)
 Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals.
 The value of the property is ascertained in three
ways:
 First, by the affidavit of the claimant;
 Second, by agreement of the respective claimants, if
there are more than one; or,
 Third, from the corresponding tax declaration of the
real property. (Sec. 34, BP 129)
 Facts:
• Bantigue Corp. filed with the RTC an application
for registration over Lot 8060 with an assessed
value of P14,920. The RTC motu proprio
remanded the case to the MTC since the assessed
value of the land was only P14,920. After
hearing, the MTC granted the application. On
appeal, Republic argued that the MTC did not
acquire jurisdiction since the selling price of the
property per deed of sale attached to the
application was P160,000.
• Issue:
• Did the MTC properly acquire jurisdiction over
the case?
 Ruling:
 Yes. The value of the land should be determined,
not from the selling price, but from the tax
declaration which stated that the assessed value of
the land was only P14,920, or below the
jurisdictional amount of P100,000 pertaining to
first level courts. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No.
162322, March 14, 2012)
 Facts:
• In 1959, Leonor filed an application for registration
with the CFI (RTC) of Rizal. The Director of Lands
(DL) opposed. Notices were given and the case was
set for hearing on May 27, 1960. On Sept. 18, 1961,
the court issued an order dismissing the application
based on a report from the LRC that a “homestead
patent was already issued to Julio by the DL during
the pendency of the registration proceedings.”
• Issue:
• Was the court divested of its jurisdiction by a
subsequent administrative act consisting in the
issuance of a homestead patent by the DL over the
same land subject of the registration case?
 Ruling:
• No. A land registration court which has validly
acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land for
registration of title thereto cannot be divested of said
jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act
consisting in the issuance by the Director of Lands of
a homestead patent covering the same parcel of land.
• Proceedings for land registration are in rem, whereas
proceedings for acquisition of homestead patent are
not. A homestead patent, therefore, does not finally
dispose of the public or private character of the land
as far as courts acting upon proceedings in rem are
concerned . (De los Angeles v. Santos, GR No. L-
19615, Dec. 24, 1964)
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
COURT’S GENERAL AND LIMITED
JURISDICTION NOW ELIMINATED
 Sec. 2 of PD No 1529 provides:
 “Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Courts) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of titles to
lands, including improvements and interest therein
and over all petitions filed after original registration
of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or
petitions.”
 Sec. 2, PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction
between the court’s general and limited jurisdiction.
 Thus, a regional trial court has the authority to hear not
only applications for original registration but also on all
petitions filed after original registration of title. The
amendment aims to avoid multiplicity of suits and
simplify registration proceedings.
 The court can now hear and decide not only non-
controversial cases but even contentious issues which
before were beyond its competence. (Lopez v.
Querubin, GR No. 155405, March 18, 2015; Lozada v.
Bracewell, G No. 179155, April 2, 2014; Averia v.
Caguioa, GR No. L-65129, Dec. 29, 1986)
 However, in Bagayas v. Bagayas, GR No. 187308, Sept.
18, 2013, the Court clarified:
“(T)he prevailing rule is that proceedings under
Section 108 of PD 1529 are summary in nature,
contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes
which are only clerical but certainly not controversial
issues. Relief under said legal provision can only be
granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that
there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part
of any party in interest. This is now the controlling
precedent, and the Court should no longer digress from
such ruling.”
LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY (LRA)
 Functions of the LRA Administrator:
 Issues decrees of registration
 Resolves cases elevated en consulta
 Exercises supervision and control over all clerks of
court in relation to land registration
 Implements orders or decisions of registration
courts
 Verifies and approves subdivision and
consolidation survey plans
 Extends assistance to the DAR in the
implementation of the land reform program;
 Extends assistance to registration courts in ordinary
and cadastral registration cases; and
 Acts as central repository of records relative to
original registration, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands.
 But the more important functions of the LRA are:
(1) Issues decrees of registration pursuant to final
judgments of the courts in land registration
proceedings and cause the issuance by the
Register of Deeds of the corresponding
certificates of title;
(2) Is the central repository of records relative to
original registration of lands titled under the
Torrens system, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands. (Rodriguez v.
Court of Appeals, GR No. 184589, June 13,
2013)
 LRA: issuance of decree ministerial
 It is ministerial only in the sense that they act under
the orders of the court and the decree must be in
conformity with the decision of the court. (Gomez
v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 503)
 Exception:
 But the duty ceases to be ministerial where the
issuance of decree would result in duplication of
titles over the same parcel of land, and thereby
destroy the integrity, of the Torrens system of
registration. (Rodriguez v. CA, supra; Angeles v.
Sec. of Justice, GR No. 142549, March 9, 2010)
 OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
 There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each
province and city. (Sec. 11, PD 1529)
 Registration means the entry of instruments or deeds in
book or public registry. Registration affects and binds
the land and operates as constructive notice to the
world. (Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Aying, GR No.
144773, May 16, 2005)
 Registration of instruments affecting registered land
must be done in the proper registry to affect the land
and bind third persons. (Aznar Brothers v. Aying, 458
SCRA 496; Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Valdez, 577
SCRA 441)
 Constructive notice
“SEC. 52. Constructive notice upon registration. —
Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien,
attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry
affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or
entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for
the province or city where the land to which it
relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons
from the time of such registering, filing, or
entering.”
 Property registered under the Torrens system remains
the property of the person in whose name it is
registered, notwithstanding the execution of any deed
of conveyance, unless the corresponding deed is
registered.
 Thus, if a sale is not registered, it is binding only
between the seller and the buyer, but it does not
affect innocent third persons.
 Registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
land lies. (Sec. 51, PD 1529; Bulaong v. Gonzalez,
GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)
 One of the principal features of the Torrens system of
registration is that all encumbrances on the land shall
be shown, or at least intimated upon the certificate of
title and a person dealing with the owner of the
registered land is not bound to go behind the
certificate and inquire into transactions, the existence
of which is not there intimated.
 The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons
are concerned, and in all cases the registration shall
be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for
the province or city where the land lies. (Sec. 51,
PD 1529)
 The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned. (Sec. 51, PD 1529)
 Thus, the preference given to a duly registered levy
on attachment or execution over a prior
unregistered sale is well settled. (Chua v. Gutierrez,
GR No. 172316, Dec. 8, 2010)
 A levy on attachment, duly registered, takes
preference over a prior unregistered sale. This
preference is not diminished even by the
subsequent registration of the prior sale (Uy v.
Medina, GR No. 172541, Aug. 9, 2010)
 But registration does not add to validity of document
 While registration operates as a notice of the
instrument to others, it does not add to its validity
nor conveys an invalid instrument into a valid one
as between the parties. (Pascua v. Court of Appeals,
401 Phil. 350)
 Neither does registration amount to a declaration
that the instrument recognizes a valid and
subsisting interest in the land. (Agricultural Credit
v. Yusay, 107 Phil. 791)
 A levy on attachment, duly registered, takes
preference over a prior unregistered sale. (Vilbar v.
Opinion, GR No. 176043, Jan. 15, 2014)
 But where a party has knowledge of a prior existing
interest, as here, which is unregistered at the time he
acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that
prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration
as to him. Knowledge of an unregistered sale is
equivalent to registration. (Ching v. Enrile, GR No.
156076, Sept. 17, 2008)
 Between two buyers of the same land, priority is
given to:
• the first registrant in good faith;
• then, the first possessor in good faith; and
• finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the
oldest title. (Art. 1544, CC)
 This rule, however, does not apply if the property is
not registered under the Torrens system. (Abrigo v. De
Vera, 432 SCRA 544)
DUTY OF REGISTER OF
DEEDS TO REGISTER
MINISTERIAL
• When all the requirements for registration of
annotation has been complied with, it is ministerial
upon the Register of Deeds to register the annotation.
The Register of Deeds is not authorized "to make an
appraisal of proofs outside of the documents sought to
be registered." (Limso v. PNB, GR No. 158622, Jan.
27, 2016)
• The Register of Deeds may not validly refuse to register
a deed of sale presented to him for registration.
• Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the
Register of Deeds to determine; this function belongs
properly to a court of competent jurisdiction.
• Indeed, a RD is entirely precluded by Section 117 of
PD No. 1529 from exercising his personal judgment
and discretion when confronted with the problem of
whether to register a deed or instrument on the ground
that it is invalid.” (Almirol v. RD of Agusan, GR No.
L-22486, March 20, 1968)
• The law on registration does not require that only
valid instruments shall be registered.
 If the purpose of registration is merely to give
notice, then questions regarding the effect or
invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided
after, not before, registration.
 It must follow as a necessary consequence that
registration must first be allowed, and validity or
effect litigated afterwards. (Gurbax Singh v. Reyes,
GR No. L-3970. October 29, 1952)
WHEN ISSUE MAY BE
ELEVATED BY THE RD
TO THE LRA
 However, when the RD is in doubt as to the proper
step to be taken with respect to any deed or other
instrument presented to him for registration, he shall
submit the question to the LRA Administrator who
shall, after notice and hearing, enter an order
prescribing the step to be taken on the issue.
 Any party in interest who does not agree with the RD
may also submit the question for resolution to the
Administrator, whose decision on the matter shall be
binding upon all Registers of Deeds. This
administrative remedy must be resorted to before
recourse to the courts. (Sec. 117, PD 1529; Almirol v.
RD, id.)
INSTANCES WHERE THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS MAY DEFER
REGISTRATION
Where there are several copies of the title (as in co-
ownership) but only one is presented.
 Every copy of the duplicate original must contain
identical entries of the transactions, particularly
voluntary ones, otherwise the whole Torrens system
would cease to be reliable.
 The integrity of the Torrens system may be adversely
affected if an encumbrance, or outright conveyance, is
annotated on only one copy and not on the others.
(Ligon v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 107751, June 1,
1995)
Where there is a pending case involving the character of
the land or validity of the conveyance.
• In such case, registration may well await the
outcome of the case; meantime the rights of the
interested parties could be protected by the filing of
a notice of lis pendens. (Balbin v. Register of Deeds,
GR No. L-20611, May 8, 1969)
Where required certificates or documents are not
submitted, such as –
 DAR clearance, copy of latest tax declaration,
certificate of payment of documentary stamp tax and
capital gains tax, BIR certificate authorizing
registration (CAR), tax clearance certificate of real
estate taxes, certificate of payment of transfer tax,
secretary’s certificate and articles of incorporation (in
case of a corporation), HLURB registration papers
and license to sell (in case of a subdivision project),
TIN, etc.
PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION
OF LANDS OF
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
 The 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public
domain into:
 Agricultural lands,
 Forest or timberlands,
 Mineral lands, and
 National parks.
• Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited
to agricultural lands.
 Classification of lands under the 1935, 1973 and
1987Constitutions
 The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public
domain into agricultural, forest or timber.
 The 1973 Constitution provided the following
divisions: agricultural, industrial or commercial,
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and
grazing lands, and such other classes as may be
provided by law.
 The 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935
Constitution classification - agricultural, forest or
timber, with one addition: national parks.(Republic v.
AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System, GR
No. 180463, Jan. 16, 2013)
 SECONDARY
CLASSIFICATION OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
 The Public Land Act (CA 141) remains the existing
general law governing the classification and disposition of
lands of the public domain. For purpose of administration
and disposition, A and D lands may be further classified
according to the use or purpose to which they may be
devoted into:
 Agricultural;
 Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
purposes
 Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; and
 Reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-
public uses. (Sec. 9, CA No. 141).
 CATEGORIES OF
ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE LANDS
 Alienable and disposable (A and D) lands of the State fall
into two categories, to wit:
(a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those classified as
lands of private ownership under Article 425
of the Civil Code, without limitation; and
(b) lands of the public domain, or the public lands as
provided by the Constitution, but with the
limitation that the lands must only be agricultural.
 Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber,
mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of
alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified as
agricultural.
 The classification of public lands is an exclusive
prerogative of the executive department, and not the
courts.
 The President has the exclusive prerogative to classify
or reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable,
mineral or forest lands. (DENR Secretary v. Yap, GR
No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008)
 In the absence of classification, the land remains as
unclassified land until it is released for disposition.
(Republic v. Fabio, GR No. 159589, Dec. 23, 2008)
 The DENR Secretary, as the alter ego of the President,
is the only other official authorized to approve a land
classification.
 Thus, until the Executive Department exercises its
prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until
Congress or the President declares that the State no
longer intends the land to be used for public service or
for the development of national wealth, the Regalian
Doctrine is applicable. (Republic v. Nicolas, GR No.
181435, Oct. 2, 2017)
 To show that the land is A and D, the application for
original registration must be accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that the land is A
and D; and
(2) Certified true copy of the original classification
approved by the DENR Secretary . (Republic v. Ocol,
GR No. 208350, Nov. 14, 2016; La Tondeña v.
Republic, GR No. 194617, Aug. 5, 2015; Republic v.
Bantigue, GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012; Republic v.
T.A.N. Properties, GR No. 154953, June 26, 2008)
• Absent such classification, land remains unclassified until
released and rendered open to disposition. (DENR
Secretary v.Yap, GR No. 154953, June 26, 2008):
 PUBLIC LAND DISTINGUISHED FROM
GOVERNMNENT LAND
 Public land is equivalent to public domain and includes
only such land as may be the subject of disposition.
 Government land and public land are not synonymous
– the first includes not only the second but also other
lands already reserved or devoted to public use or
subject to a private right.
 In sum, the government owns real estate which is part
of “public lands” and other real estate which is not a
part thereof. (Montano v. Insular Government, 12 Phil.
572)
NON-REGISTRABLE
PROPERTIES
Lands for public use or public service
 Those intended for public use, such as roads,
canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges, etc.;
 Those which, without being for public use, are
intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth. (Art. 420,
CC)
• These properties are outside the commerce of men
and therefore not subject to private appropriation.
(Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 647)
CAVITE EXPRESSWAY
SAN JUANICO BRIDGE
Rivers, waters
 Rivers and their natural beds, lakes, all categories
of surface waters, atmospheric or subterranean
ground waters, and seawater all belong to the
State.
 Waters found, or rain water falling, on private lands
also belong to the State. (PD 1067, Water Code)
ILOILO RIVER – CLEANEST RIVER
IN THE PHILIPPINES
LOBOC RIVER CRUISE (BOHOL)
INATULA ISLAND, BACUIT BAY
• Forests:
• It is "a mass of lands of the public domain which
has not been the subject of the present system of
classification for the determination of which lands
are needed for forest purpose and which are not.“
(Sec. 3(a), PD 705; DENR v. Yap, GR No. 167707,
Oct. 8, 2008)
• Unless the land is released as A and D, the rules on
confirmation of title do not apply. (Amunategui v.
Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-27873, Nov. 29,
1983)
t
Mangrove swamps:
 Mangrove swamps or manglares are forestal and
not alienable agricultural land.
 BFAR has no jurisdiction to dispose of swamplands
or mangrove lands while such lands are still
classified as forest lands.
 Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests
and therefore not subject to disposition until they
are first classified as alienable agricultural land.
(Director of Forestry v. Villareal, 170 SCRA 598)
 Importance of mangroves:
• help to build up land
• are a nursery for fish, crabs, birds and many other
animals
• protect seagrasses and coral reefs from being
smothered by too much sand.
• buffer the coast and protect it from wave action and
storms
• are the source of important fisheries
Mineral lands:
 Mineral land means any area where mineral
resources are found.
 Mineral lands and resources are owned by the
State and their exploration, development and
utilization is subject to the full control and
supervision of the State. (Republic v. CA and
Dela Rosa, 160 SCRA 228; La Bugal-B’laan v.
Ramos, 445 SCRA 1)
 Possession of mineral land, no matter how long,
does not confer possessory rights. (Atok Big
Wedge v. CA, 193 SCRA 71)
National parks:
Land reserved for a national park cannot be
registered.
Where a certificate of title covers a portion of
land within the area reserved for park purposes,
the title should be annuled with respect to that
portion. (Palomo v. CA, 266 SCRA 392)
For instance, any portion of the Tiwi Hot Spring
National Park cannot be disposed of under the
Public Land Act or Property Registration Decree.
PUERTO PRINCESA SUBTERRANEAN
RIVER NATIONAL PARK
MT. KANALON NATIONAL PARK
Military or naval reservation:
 Land inside a military (or naval) reservation, like
the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, cannot be
the object of registration.
 Unless it had been withdrawn from the
reservation, reclassified and declared as
disposable public land, its status as part of a
military reservation remains, even if incidentally
it is devoted for a purpose other than as a military
camp or for defense. (Republic v. Southside
Homeowners Association, 502 SCRA 587)
PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY
SUBIC BAY NAVAL PORT
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
Foreshore lands:
 A foreshore land is that “strip of land that lies
between the high and low water marks and that is
alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the
tide,” or "that part of the land adjacent to the sea
which is alternately covered and left dry by the
ordinary flow of the tides.” Foreshore lands are
inalienable unless declared to be A and D portions
of the public domain. (Republic v. CA and RREC,
GR No. 105276, Nov. 25, 1998)
 Land invaded by the sea is foreshore land and
becomes part of the public domain. (Republic v.
CA and Morato, 281 SCRA 639)
 To qualify as foreshore land, it must be shown that the
land lies between the high and low water marks and is
alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the
tide. (Republic v. Leonor, G.R. No. 161424, 23
December 2009)
 The land's proximity to the waters alone does not
automatically make it a foreshore land. The land
remained dry even during high tide, hence, it is
private land. (Almagro v. Kwan, GR No.
175806,Oct. 20, 2010)
COCOLOCO BORACAY B EACH RESORTc
EL NIDO, PALAWAN
 Puno, J., concurring opinion in Republic v. RREC:
“The CCP Complex is the only area in the
Philippines that is fully devoted to the growth and
propagation of arts and culture. Indeed, it has
indeed emerged as a dynamic force in the
promotion of the country's artistic and cultural
heritage and the development of new and modern
art forms. Through the years, it has helped raise
the Filipino consciousness to our nationhood, and
in the process, inculcated love for our country.”
Lakes:
 Lakes are neither agricultural nor disposable lands
of the public domain; hence, free patents and
certificates of title covering portions of the lake are
a nullity.
 But areas beyond its natural bed, or the ground
covered by the waters at their highest ordinary
depth during the dry season, may be registered.
(Republic v. CA and Del Rio, 131 SCRA 532)
 The LLDA has exclusive authority to issue
permits for the use of the waters of the Laguna de
Bay.
LAKE PINATUBO
LAGUNA DE BAY
Rivers and creeks
 Rivers and creeks are parts of the public domain for
public use and not capable of appropriation or
acquisition by prescription.
 The ownership of a stream may not be acquired
under a public land patent and the issuance of the
corresponding certificate of title does not change
its public character. (Mateo v. Moreno, 28 SCRA
796)
 A dried up creek is property of public dominion.
(Fernando v. Acuña, GR No. 161030, Sept. 14,
2011)
PASIG RIVER FERRY
Protected areas:
 RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and
management of a national integrated protected
areas system referred to as the “National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992”.
 Protected areas are necessary to maintain
essential ecological processes and life-support
systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure
sustainable use of resources found therein.
 A protected area, like the Bataan Natural Park, is
inalienable.
EL NIDO PROTECTED AREA
TUBBATAHA REEF MARINE SANCTUARY
MINALUNGAO NATIONAL PATK
Reservations for public and semi-public purposes
 The President may designate by proclamation any
tract of land of the public domain for the use of the
Republic or its branches, e.g., public or semi-public
uses like highways, hydroelectric sites, railroads,
irrigation systems, etc. which shall be inalienable.
 The reserved land shall thereafter remain until
otherwise provided by law or proclamation.
(Republic, rep. by Mindanao Medical Center v. CA,
73 SCRA 146)
National parks
• National Parks of Philippines (Filipino: Pambansang
Liwasan ng Pilipinas) are places of natural or
historical value designated for protection and
sustainable utilization by the DENR under the
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act
(1992).
• As of 2012, there are 240 protected areas in the
Philippines, of which 35 have been classified as
National Parks.
HUNDRED ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
MALACAÑANG OF THE NORTH AND
PAOAY LAKE NATIONAL PARK
PAOAY CHURCH, UNESCO HERITAGE SITE
Reclaimed lands:
 Submerged areas form part of the public domain;
only when reclaimed from the sea can these
submerged areas be classified as agricultural lands.
 Once reclaimed the government may then
officially classify these lands as A and D, and
declare these lands no longer needed for public
service. Only then can these lands be considered
as A and D lands and within the commerce of
men. (Chavez v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152)
 Absent two official acts – (a) a classification that
submerged areas are A and D, and (b) a declaration
that they are not needed for public service - lands
reclaimed from the sea are inalienable.
 The Public Estates Authority (PEA), renamed as
Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), is the
agency authorized to undertake reclamation
projects.
SOLAR CITY AT MANILA BAY
Protected areas:
 RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and
management of a national integrated protected
areas system referred to as the “National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992”.
 Protected areas are necessary to maintain
essential ecological processes and life-support
systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure
sustainable use of resources found therein.
 A protected area, like the Bataan Natural Park, is
inalienable.
EL NIDO PROTECTED AREA
PUERTO PRINCESA UNDERGROUND RIVER
CHOCOLATE HILLS, BOHOL
TUBBATAHA REEF MARINE SANCTUARY
MAYON VOLCANO SPEWING ASHES
MAYON VOLCANO
MAYON VOLCANO AND THE PALE
BLUE MOON
PAOAY CHURCH, UNESCO HERITAGE SITE
THE GREAT PHILIPPINE EAGLE
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY
BY THE STATE
 The State possesses not only the right to determine (1)
what lands may or may not be the subject of
disposition, (2) the size thereof and (3) procedure for
the acquisition of title to land. (Sec. 3-4, Art. XII,
Constitution)
 For the purpose, the State has adopted the policy of
multiple land use to the end that the country’s
natural resources may be rationally explored,
developed, utilized and conserved, and to maintain
a rational and orderly balance between socio-
economic growth on one hand and environmental
protection on the other.
 Sec. 4, Art. XII, Constitution, provides:
 “The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine
by law the specific limits of forest lands and
national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on
the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and
national parks shall be conserved and may not be
increased nor diminished, except by law. The
Congress shall provide, for such period as it may
determine, measures to prohibit logging in
endangered forests and watershed areas.” (Sec. 4,
id.)
 Sec. 5, Art. XII, Constitution, provides:
 “The State, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution and national development policies and
programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands to
ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-
being.
 The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary laws governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent
of ancestral domain.” (Sec. 5, id.)
 Sec. 3, Art. XII of the Constitution provides:
 “Taking into account the requirements of
conservation, ecology, and development, and
subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the
Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands
of the public domain which may be acquired,
developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor.”
 “Private corporations or associations may not hold
such alienable lands of the public domain except by
lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
 Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than
five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or
grant.” (Sec. 3, id.)
 Area limitations apply only to public lands
 As can be clearly gleaned from its language,
Section 3, Article XII applies only to lands of the
public domain. Private lands are, therefore, outside
of the prohibitions and limitations stated therein.
Thus, the 12-hectare limitation on the acquisition of
lands under Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution has no application to private lands.
(Republic v. Rovency Realty and Development
Corporation, GR No. 190817, Jan. 10, 2018)
 LAND REGISTRATION:
HISTORICAL FLASHBACK
 (First) Public Land Act (Act No. 926)
 Passed pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902.
 Prescribed rules for homesteading, selling and
leasing portions of the public domain.
 Provided for the issuance of patents to native
settlers, for the establishment of townsites, and for
confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants.
 Operated on the assumption that the government’s
title to public land sprung from the Treaty of Paris
between Spain and the United States.
(Second) Public Land Act (Act No. 2874)
 Passed in 1919 under the Jones Law.
 It was more comprehensive in scope but limited the
exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos and
Americans and citizens of other countries which
gave Filipinos the same privileges.
 After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, Act No.
2874 was amended in 1936 by CA No. 141, the
present Public Land Act which is essentially the
same as Act No. 2874.
(Present) Public Land Act (CA No. 141)
 Approved on November 7, 1936, it applies to all
lands of the public domain that have been officially
delimited and classified.
 Provides for the different modes of government
grant, e.g., homestead, sale, free patent
(administrative legalization), and reservations for
public and semi-public purpose.
 A certificate of title issued pursuant to a public land
patent has the same validity and efficacy as a
certificate of title issued through ordinary
registration proceedings.
Land Registration Act (Act No. 496)
 Approved on November 6, 1902, but became
effective on January 1, 1903, it established the
Torrens system.
 The “Court of Land Registration” had exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for registration.
 Registration under the system did not create a title;
it simply confirmed a title already vested.
 Proceedings under the Act were in rem,
 Final decrees were regarded as indefeasible and
could not be reopened except upon a petition for
review within one year after entry of decree.
Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259)
 Enacted on February 11, 1913, it is a compulsory
registration proceeding initiated by the government
to “settle and adjudicate” title to lands.
 The Director of Lands gives notice to all persons
of the date of survey for them to inform the
surveyors of the boundaries of their claims.
 Only unregistered lands may be the subject of
survey.
 All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the
court and in the absence of successful claimants,
the property is declared public land.
Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529)
 Approved June 11, 1978, the Decree supersedes
and codifies all laws relative to land registration.
 It substantially incorporates the substantive and
procedural requirements of Act No. 496 but
includes judicial confirmation of imperfect titles
under its Section 14(1).
 It provides remedies for fraudulent registration,
including an Assurance Fund to answer for
damages.
WHO MAY APPLY
REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(1), PD 1529
 WHO MAY APPLY
Under Sec. 14(1), PD 1529
 “Those who by themselves or their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier.”
 Requisites
• The land is an agricultural land already classified as
alienable and disposable (A and D) land “at the time
the application for registration is filed.” (Malabanan v.
Republic, GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009 and Sept. 3.
2013; Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines, GR No.
141019, Nov. 23, 2011; Victoria v. Republic, GR No.
179673, June 8, 2011)
• The applicant must have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
(OCENPO) of the land, under a bona fide claim of
ownership.
• Since June 12, 1945, or earlier (Espiritu v. Republic,
GR No. 219070, June 21, 2017; Republic v. Local
Superior, GR No. 185603, Feb.10,2016)
 Rationale of the rule that the land need be classified as
A and D already at the time the application is filed:
“ If the State, at the time the application is made, has
not yet deemed it proper to release the property for
alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership
in the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even in good faith.” (Malabanan v.
Republic, supra).
 Possession prior to classification of land as A and D is
counted in determining length of possession
“Although adverse, open, continuous, and notorious
possession in the concept of an owner is a conclusion
of law to be determined by courts, it has more to do
with a person's belief in good faith that he or she has
just title to the property that he or she is occupying. It
is unrelated to the declaration that land is alienable or
disposable. A possessor or occupant of property may,
therefore, be a possessor in the concept of an owner
PRIOR to the determination that the property is
alienable and disposable agricultural land.” (Republic
v. Roasa, supra)
BASIC PRINCIPLES UNDER
SEC. 14(1)
• Requisites for original registration
(a) Declaration that the (agricultural) land is alienable and
disposable at the time of the application for
registration, and
(b) Open and continuous possession in the concept of an
owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• The computation of the period may include the period of
adverse possession prior to the declaration that land is
alienable and disposable. (Republic v. Roasa, GR No.
176022, Feb. 2, 2015)
• The fixed date of June 12, 1945 qualifies possession and
occupation, not land classification, as alienable and
disposable.
• The agricultural land subject of the application needs
only to be classified as alienable and disposable as of the
time of the application, provided the applicant's
possession and occupation of the land dates back to June
12, 1945, or earlier.” (Republic v. Sogod Development
Corp., GR No. 175760, Feb. 17, 2016; Malabanan v.
Republic, supra)
 Proof to show that land is A and D
 Applicant must conclusively establish the existence of
a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive order, or an
administrative action, investigation reports of the
Bureau of Lands investigator or a legislative act or
statute. Specifically, he must submit the following:
• CENRO certification that the land is A and D; and
• Certified copy of the original classification
approved by the DENR Secretary. (Gaerlan v.
Republic, GR No. 192717, March 12, 2014)
• The rule is that the above-cited proof must be
submitted during the trial. (Republic v. T.A,N.
Properties, supra)
• Exceptions
• In Republic v. Serrano, GR No. 183063, Feb. 24, 2010,
Court held that a DENR Regional Technical Director's
certification, which is annotated on the subdivision plan
submitted in evidence, constitutes substantial
compliance with the legal requirement.
• In Republic v. Vega, GR No. 177790, Jan. 17, 2011, the
Court emphasized that the present ruling on substantial
compliance applies pro hac vice, i.e., the exception shall
only apply to applications for registration pending before
the trial court PRIOR to its decision in this case.
• Note: In Espiritu v. Republic, GR No. 219070, June 21,
2017, the Court stressed that he rule on strict compliance
enunciated in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties REMAINS to
be the governing rule in land registration cases.
 In Llanes v. Republic, GR No. 177947, Nov. 27, 2008, the
Court accepted the corrected CENRO Certification even
though it was submitted by the Spouses Llanes only during
the appeal in the CA.
 In Republic v. San Mateo, GR No. 203560, Nov. 10,
2014, the Court allowed the application of substantial
compliance because there was no opportunity for the
registrant to comply with the Court's ruling in T.A.N.
Properties, the trial court and the CA already having
decided the case prior to the promulgation of T.A.N.
Properties.
 Possession is -
 Open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and
not clandestine;
 Continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not
intermittent or occasional;
 Exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation
of it to his own use and benefit; and
 Notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally
known and talked of by the public or the people in the
neighborhood. (Bienvenido v. Gabriel, GR No. 175763,
April 11, 2012)
REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(2), PD 1529
Under Sec. 14(2)
 “Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands by prescription under the provisions of
existing laws”

• Rule on prescription under the Civil Code:

 Ordinary prescription – 10 years in good faith
 Extraordinary prescription – 30 years

• But land must be patrimonial property for

prescription to apply. (Malabanan v. Republic, supra)
• Land of the public domain becomes private or
patrimonial property when it is -
• Classified as “alienable and disposable” agricultural
land, and
• Declared by competent authority as “no longer
intended for public use or public service.” (Art. 422,
Civil Code)
• Only when such land has become patrimonial can the
prescriptive period for the acquisition of the property
begin to run. (Malabanan v. Republic, supra)
 When possession is considered in good faith and with just
title
 The good faith of the possessor consists in the
reasonable belief that the person from whom he
received the thing was the owner thereof, and could
transmit his ownership. (Art. 1127, Civil Code)
 For purposes of prescription, there is just title when the
adverse claimant came into possession of the property
through one of the modes recognized by law for the
acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the
grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any
right. (Art. 1129, ibid.)
 Prescription distinguished from laches
 Prescription is concerned with the fact of delay, laches
is concerned with the effect of delay.
 Prescription is a matter of time; laches is principally a
question of inequity of permitting a claim to be
enforced, this inequity being founded on some change
in the condition of the property or the relation of the
parties.
 Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in
equity, whereas prescription applies at law.
 Prescription is based on a fixed time, laches is not.
(Lacamen v. Laruan, GR No. L-27088, July 31, 1975.
 Art. 1113 of the CC is the legal foundation for the
application of Sec. 14(2), PD No. 1529:
 “All things which are within the commerce of men
are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise
provided.”
 “Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not
patrimonial in character shall not be the object of
prescription.”
 Concept of possession for purposes of prescription
 Possession must be that of owner, and it must be
public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Acts of a
possessory character by virtue of a license or mere
tolerance are not sufficient.
 The present possessor may complete the period for
prescription by tacking his possession to that of his
grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
 It is presumed that the present possessor who was
also the possessor at a previous time has continued
to be in possession during the intervening time.
(Art. 1138, Civil Code)
BASIC PRINCIPLES UNDER
SEC. 14(2)
 Yu Chang v. Republic, GR No. 171726, Feb. 23, 2011
 "[E]ven if possession of the alienable public land
commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, and
such possession being open, continuous and exclusive,
then the possessor may have the right to register the
land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Decree.”
 The 10- or 30-year period of prescription under Section
14(2) commences to run only from the time the land,
separately from being declared alienable and
disposable, is declared as patrimonial property of the
State.
 Republic v. Gielczyk, GR No. 179990, Oct. 23, 2013
 Properties classified as alienable public land may be
converted into private or patrimonial property by
reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of
at least 30 years.
 Such properties become patrimonial property with a
declaration that (1) these are alienable or disposable,
and (2) the property is already patrimonial or no longer
retained for public use, public service or the
development of national wealth.
 Republic v. East Silverlane, GR No. 186961, Feb. 2012
 Sec. 14(2) covers "private property” whereas
Sec. 14(1) covers "alienable and disposable land."
 Under Sec. 14(2), the status of the property as
patrimonial must be first established.
 The period of possession preceding the classification of
the property as patrimonial cannot be considered in
determining the completion of the prescriptive period.
 Possession for purposes of prescription must be "in the
concept of an owner, public, peaceful and
uninterrupted".
 Republic v. Sese, GR No. 185092, June 4, 2014
 The 30-year period of prescription under Section 14
(2) of PD 1529 only begins to run from the moment
the property has been converted into patrimonial .
 The period of possession preceding the classification
of the property as patrimonial cannot be considered
in determining the completion of the prescriptive
period. (See also: Tan v. Republic, GR No.193443,
April 16, 2012)
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECS. 14(1) AND 14(2)
Sec. 14(1)
 Registration is based on
possession
 Governed by PD 1529
(Property Registration
Decree) and CA 141 (Public
Land Act)
 Period of possession is
without regard to the Civil
Code
Sec. 14(2)
 Registration is based on
prescription
 Governed by PD 1529
(Property Registration
Decree) and Civil Code
 30-year period involves
extraordinary prescription
under the Civil Code,
particularly Art. 1113 in
relation to Art. 1137
• As held in Republic v. Rovency Realty, GR No.
190817, Jan. 10, 2018:
• Sec. 14(1) refers to registration of title on the basis
of possession, while Sec. 14(2) entitles the
applicant to the registration of his property on the
basis of prescription.
• Registration under the first mode is extended under
the aegis of the PD No. 1529 and the Public Land
Act (PLA), while the second mode is made
available both by PD No. 1529 and the Civil Code.
(See also: Canlas v. Republic, GR No. 200894,
Nov. 10, 2014)
 (1) Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands that
are not clearly under private ownership are also presumed
to belong to the State and, therefore, may not be alienated
or disposed;
 (2) The following are excepted from the general rule:
(a) If the mode is judicial confirmation of imperfect
title under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act,
the agricultural land subject of the application
needs only to be classified as alienable and
disposable as of the time of the application,
provided the applicant's possession and occupation
of the land dated back to June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(b) If the mode of acquisition is prescription, whether
ordinary or extraordinary, proof that the land has
been already converted to private ownership prior
to the requisite acquisitive prescriptive period is a
condition sine qua non in observance of the law
(Article 1113, Civil Code) that property of the State
not patrimonial in character shall not be the object
of prescription.
 Without satisfying the requisite character and period of
possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier, the land cannot
be considered ipso jure converted to private property even
upon the subsequent declaration of it as alienable and
disposable. Prescription never began to run against the
State, such that the land has remained ineligible for
registration under Section 14 (1) of the PRD.
 Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land
registration under Section 14 (2) of the PRD unless
Congress enacts a law or the President issues a
proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended for
public service or for the development of the national
wealth.
REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(3), PD 1529
Under Sec. 14(3)

• “Those who have acquired ownership of private

lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.”
• Ownership of abandoned river beds by right of accession:
• River beds which are abandoned through the natural
change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to
the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course
in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of
the adjoining lands shall have the right to acquire the
same by paying the value thereof. The reason is that
they are in the best position to utilize the old river bed
which is adjacent to their property. (Art. 461, Civil
Code)
• Ownership of abandoned river bed
• Q. A and B each own land on opposite sides of a river.
The river changed its course, passing though the land of
C. Who owns the abandoned river bed?
• A. C, to compensate him for his loss.
• Q. But suppose that two owners, C and D, lost portions
of their lands, who owns the river bed?
• A. C and D, in proportion to the area lost.
 The owners of the affected lands may not compel the
government to restore the river to its former bed, nor can
they restrain the government from taking steps to revert
the river or stream to its former courts.
 But the owners may themselves undertake the reversion
of the river to its original course, but upon a permit
issued by the government. (Art. 58, PD 1067, Water
Code)
 The ownership of the abandoned river bed is transferred
ipso facto to the owners whose lands are occupied by
the new course of the river “to compensate for the loss
of the land occupied by the new bed.”
• Requisites for the application of Art. 461:
 The change must be sudden in order that the old river
may be identified;
 The change of the course must be more or less
permanent, and not temporary overflooding of
another’s land.
 The change of the river must be a natural one, i.e.,
caused by natural forces (and not by artificial means)
 There must be a definite abandonment by the
government;
 The river must continue to exist, i.e., it must not
completely disappear.
• Ownership by right of accretion along river banks
• Under Art. 457, CC, to the owners of land adjoining the
banks of rivers belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
waters. Justification:
• To offset the owner’s loss for possible erosion of his
land due to the current of the river;
• To compensate him for his burdens arising from the
subjection of his land to encumbrances or legal
easements; and
• Owner is in the best position to cultivate it. (Cortex v.
City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567)
• Requisites for the application Art. 457:
• That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
• That it be made through the effects of the current of the
water; and
• That the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to
the banks of rivers.
• In the absence of evidence that the change in the course of
the river was sudden or that it occurred through avulsion,
the presumption is that the change was gradual and caused
by accretion and erosion.
 The increment does not automatically become registered
land just because the lot which receives such accretion is
covered by a Torrens title.
 The increment must be placed under the operation of
the Torrens system. (Cureg v. IAC, 177 SCRA 313)
 The owner must register the accretion under the Torrens
system, otherwise the alluvial property may be subject
to acquisition through prescription by third persons.
(Grande v. Court of Appeals, 5 SCRA 524)
 A riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his land
caused by special works designed to bring about
accretion.
 Private persons cannot reclaim land from water bodies
belonging to the public domain without permission
from government authorities.
 And even if such reclamation is authorized, the
reclaimed land does not automatically belong to the
party reclaiming it as the land may still be the subject to
the terms of the authority granted.
 The alluvial deposits must NOT be:
 artificial and man-made
 the result of the transfer of the dike towards the river
and encroaching upon it
 caused by special works expressly intended or designed
to bring about accretion
 caused by special works expressly intended or designed
to bring about accretion
 portions of the bed of the river (Republic v. Court of
Appeals and Tancinco, GR No. L-61647, Oct. 12, 1984)
 As held in City Mayor of Parañaque City v. Ebio, GR No.
178411, June 23, 2010, alluvial deposits along the banks
of creeks, streams and lakes do not form part of the public
domain as the alluvial property but automatically belongs
to the owner of the estate to which it may have been
added.
 But the owner of the adjoining property must register
the same under the Torrens system; otherwise, the
alluvial property may be subject to acquisition through
prescription by third persons.
 Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public
domain and, therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse
possession.
“Art. 4, Lands added to the shore by accretion and
alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form
part of the public domain. When they are no longer
washed by the waters of the sea, and are not necessary
for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of
special industries, or for the coast-guard service, the
Government may declare them to be the property of the
owners of the estate adjacent thereto and as an
increment thereof.” (Spanish Law of Waters)
• Until a formal declaration by the government, through the
executive or legislature, that the alluvial formation is no
longer needed for coast guard service, for public use or
for special industries, the same continues to be part of the
public domain not available for private appropriation of
ownership. The land is not subject to ordinary
prescription as it is outside the sphere of commerce.
REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(4), PD 1529
Under Sec. 14(4)

• “Those who have acquired ownership of land in any

other manner provided for by law.”
 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
 Registration under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA
No. 8371)
 Under RA No. 8371 (1997), individual members of
cultural communities, with respect to their individually-
owned ancestral lands who, by themselves or through
their predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous
possession and occupation of the same in the concept of
owner since time immemorial or for a period of not less
than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the
approval of the Act shall have the option to secure title
to their ancestral lands under CA No. 141(Public Land
Act) or PD No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree).
 Registration of foreshore and offshore areas through
“special patents”
 A “special patent’’ is a form of land grant whereby the
government, by an act of Congress or executive order,
conveys land in full ownership to the grantee without
regard to its classification. PD No. 1085, issued on
February 4, 1977, authorized the issuance of special
land patents for lands reclaimed from foreshore or
submerged areas by the Public Reclamation Authority
(PRA) under EO No. 380, dated October 26, 2004, like
the Freedom Islands in the offshore areas of Manila
Bay.
 Reservations for a specific public purpose
 In Republic, rep. by the Mindanao Medical Center v.
Court of Appeals, Lot No. 1176-B-2, a reservation for
medical site of the Mindanao Medical Center (MMC),
was ordered registered in favor of MMC. Respondent
Alejandro de Jesus appealed, claiming that the lot was
the subject of a sales award earlier issued to his father
by the Director of Lands which ripened into a vested
right.. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that
Proclamation No. 350 legally effected a land grant to
the MMC validly sufficient for registration. Such grant
is constitutive of a “fee simple” title or absolute title in
favor of MMC.
 REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 48(b),
PUBLIC LAND ACT (CA 141)
• Who may apply
• “Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership,
since June 12, 1945, 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.” (Sec.
48[b], CA 141)
 No material differences between Sec. 14(1) of PD No.
1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141
 While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to “agricultural
lands of the public domain” and the Property
Registration Decree (PRD) refers to “alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain,” the subject
lands are of the same type since under the Constitution,
alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands.
 Sec. 14(1), PD 1529
 “Those who by themselves
or through their
predecessors-in-interest
have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and
occupation of alienable
and disposable lands of the
public domain under a
bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier.”
 Sec. 48(b), CA 141
 “Those who by themselves
or through their
predecessors in interest
have been in the open,
continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural
lands of the public
domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or
ownership, except as
against the Government,
since June 12, 1945.”
 Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073, requires
possession since June 12, 1945, or prior thereto.
 But the land must already be classified as A and D land
at the time the application for registration is filed.
(Malabanan vs. CA, GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009)
 The mode of acquisition recognized by Section 48(b) of
the Public Land Act and made registrable under Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree is through
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title.
 Both provisions allow confirmation of an imperfect or
incomplete title only if the claimant has been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation (OCENPO) of alienable and disposable (A
& D) lands of the public domain since June 12, 1945,
or earlier.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REGISTRATION
UNDER THE PRD AND PLA
 Under the Property Registration Decree, there already
exists a title which is confirmed by the court
 Under the Public Land Act, the presumption is that the
land applied for pertains to the State, and that the
occupants and possessors only claim an interest in the
same by virtue of their imperfect title or open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupaion. (Limcoma Multi-purpose Cooperative v.
Republic, GR No. 167652, July 10, 2007)
 Is mere possession of land for thirty (30) years sufficient
for registration purposes?
 The first PLA, or Act 926, required a possession and
occupation for a period of ten (10) years prior to the
effectivity of Act No. 296 on July 26, 1904.
 RA 1942, dated June 22, 1957, provided for a period of
possession for only thirty (30) years.
 But PD 1073, dated Jan. 25, 1977, repealed RA 1942
and required that possession and occupation should
commence on June 12, 1945 (no longer 30 years). (Rep.
v. East Silverlane, GR No. 186961, Feb. 20, 2012; Rep.
v. Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18, 2012)
 Resume -
 On June 22, 1957, RA 1942 amended Sec. 48 (b) of the
PLA by providing a 30-year prescriptive period for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
 On January 25, 1977, PD 1073 changed the
requirement for possession and occupation for 30 years
to possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.
 On June 11, 1978, PD 1529 was enacted requiring
possession and occupation since June 12, 1945.
 PD 1073 repealed RA 1942. thus applications under
Sec. 48 (b) of the PLA filed after the promulgation of
PD 1073 should allege and prove possession and
occupation since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
 However, vested rights acquired under RA No. 1942
(which required a simple possession for 30 years) cannot
be impaired by the subsequent issuance of P.D. No. 1073.
 Thus, an applicant who, by himself or his
predecessors-in-interest, has been, prior to the
effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977, been in
OCENPO of an agricultural land of the public domain
for at least 30 years, or at least since January 24, 1947,
may apply for judicial confirmation of his imperfect or
incomplete title under Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land
Act. (Republic v. Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18,
2012. See also Republic v. East Silverlane, GR No.
186961, Feb. 20, 2012)
 When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the PLA
are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have
acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without
the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. (Herico
v. Dar, 95 SCRA 437; Republic v. Doldol, supra)
 Compliance with all requirements for a government
grant ipso jure converts land to private property. The
land ceases to be of the public domain and is beyond
the authority of the DENR to dispose of it under any of
the modes of disposition under the Public Land Act.
(Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424)
 Concurring opinion of J. Brion in Chang v. Republic, GR
No. 171726, Feb. 23, 2011:
 Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act is the law that
recognizes the substantive right of a possessor and
occupant of an alienable and disposable land of the
public domain, while Section 14 (1) of the Property
Registration Decree recognizes this right by authorizing
its registration, thus bringing the land within the
coverage of the Torrens System.
 AN ACT AUTHORIZING
ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENTS
TO RESIDENTIAL LANDS
(RA NO. 10023)
 Qualifications
 Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a
residential land may apply for a free patent title under
the following conditions:
 Highly urbanized cities – not to exceed 200 sq. m.
 Other cities - not exceed 500 sq. m.
 First class and second class municipalities - not exceed
750 sq. m.
 Other municipalities - not to exceed 1,000 sq. m.
 Lands must be zoned as residential areas or townsites
 Application shall be supported by:
 Survey plan and technical description approved by the
DENR
 Affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who are
residing in the barangay of the city or municipality
where the land is located, to the effect that the applicant
has, either by himself or through his predecessor-in-
interest, actually resided on and continuously possessed
and occupied, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, the land applied for at least ten (10) years.
 Where to file application
 All applications shall be filed with the CENRO of the
DENR.
 The CENRO shall process the application within 120
days to include compliance with the required notices
and other legal requirements
 The PENRO shall have 5 days to approve or disapprove
the patent.
 The restrictions regarding encumbrances, conveyances,
transfers or dispositions imposed in Sections 118, 119,
121, 122 and 123 of Chapter XIII, Title VI of CA No. 141
(Public Land Act) shall not apply to patents issued under
the Act.
 What is RA No. 9176 (2002)?
 Extended the period to file an application for judicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles to
December 31, 2020.
 Limited the area applied for to 12 hectares and
provided that all pending applications filed before the
effectivity of the amendatory Act shall be treated as
having been filed in accordance with the provisions
thereof.
REGISTRATION UNDER THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
RIGHTS ACT (RA 8371)
• Constitutional provisions
• “The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.” (Sec.
2 Art. II)
• The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary law governing property rights or relations
in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral
domain.” (Sec. 5, par. 2, Art. XII)
 Indigenous concept of ownership
 The IPRA (RA No. 8371, Oct. 29, 1997) recognizes the
existence of the indigenous cultural communities or
indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in
Philippine Society.
 It grants these people the ownership and possession of
their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines
the extent of these lands and domains.
 The ownership given is the indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law which traces its origin
to native title.
 Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the lands
of the public domain but are private lands belonging to
ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied, possessed and
utilized their territories under claim of ownership since
time immemorial
 Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far
back as memory reaches, have been held under claim
of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been
public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to
have been held that way since before the Spanish
Conquest. (Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, 347 SCA 128)
 The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
has the authority to issue certificates of ancestral domain
title (CADT) or certificates of ancestral land title (CALT)
 The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of the
Register of Deeds does not result in the issuance of
Torrens certificate of title.
 The purpose of registration is simply to apprise the
public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP of specific
claims to portions of the ancestral domains or ancestral
lands.
 Modes of acquisition
 The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands may be acquired in two modes:
 By native title over both ancestral lands and domains;
or
 By Torrens title under the Public Land Act (CA No.
141) or the Property Registration Decree (PD No.
1529) with respect to ancestral lands only.
 Requisites for registration
• The applicant is a member of an indigenous cultural
group;
• He must have been in possession of an individually-
owned ancestral land for not less than thirty (30) years;
• By operation of law, the land is already classified as A
and D, even if it has a slope of 18% or over, hence,
there is no need to submit a separate certification that
the land is A and D. (Sec. 12, RA 8371)
 The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may be
transferred subject to the following limitations:
• Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;
• In accord with customary laws and traditions; and
• Subject to the right of redemption for a period of fifteen
(15) years if the land was transferred to a non-member.
 Ancestral domains belong to all generations and therefore
cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.
DISPOSITION OF
FRIAR LANDS
(ACT 1120)
 DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS
(Example: Banilad Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)

 Friar lands are not public lands but private or patrimonial

property of the government.
 Friar lands were purchased by the government for sale
to actual occupants under Act 120 (Friar Lands Act)
 The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first issue
a sales certificate to the occupant who shall pay the
purchase price in installments.
 The purchaser becomes the owner upon the issuance of
the certificate of sale, subject to cancellation in case the
price agreed upon is not paid in full
 Upon full payment, the government shall then issue a
final deed of conveyance to the purchaser
 No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by the
DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335,
Aug. 24, 2010)
 Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public lands:
 In sale of public lands, the land is opened for bidding;
the successful bidder is given right of entry and to
cultivate and improve the land.
 Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the applicant is
given a sales patent.
 In the case of friar lands, the purchaser becomes the
owner upon issuance of the certificate of sale in his
favor.
 WHO MAY APPLY:
CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT
 On the basis of their capacity “to acquire or holds lands of
the public domain,” the following may acquire title to
private lands:
 Filipino citizens
 Filipino corporations and associations, 60% of whose
capital are owned by Filipinos (Ang v. Sy So, GR
No.182252, Aug. 3, 2016)
 Aliens by hereditary succession (Sec. 7, Art. XII).
 A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost
his Philippine citizenship, may be a transferee of
private land subject to limitations provided by law.
(Sec. 8, Id.)
 Aliens disqualified from acquiring lands of the public
domain as well as private lands
 The right to acquire lands of the public domain is
reserved only to Filipino citizens or corporations at
least 60% of the capital of which is owned by
Filipinos.
 Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are
disqualified from acquiring lands of the public
domain as well as private lands. (Donton v. Stier,
GR No. 216491, Aug. 23, 2017)
• Who are citizens of the Philippines?
•Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of the 1987 Constitution;
•Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
•Those born before January 17, 1972, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
•Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
(Art. IV, Constitution)
 Constitutional provisions
 Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands
shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or
hold lands of the public domain. (Sec. 7, Art. XII)
 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this
Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who
has lost his Philippine citizenship, may be a transferee
of private lands subject to limitations provided by law.
(Sec. 8, Ibid)
 Area limitations
 Any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine
citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into
a contract may be a transferee of a private land up to a
maximum area of:
 For investment purposes
• 5,000 square meters - urban land
• 3 hectares - rural land. (RA No. 7042, as amended by
RA No. 8179)
• For residential purposes:
• 1,000 square meters – urban land
• 1 hectare – rural land (BP Blg. 185)
 Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
 “ x x x natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have
lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon
taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
 "I _________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognize and
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I
impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion." (Sec. 3, RA
9225)
 Sec. 3 further provides:
 Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the aforesaid oath.
 Sec. 5 provides:
 Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights
and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines.
 Facts: Pedro, a Filipino, bought land from Jose who at the
time of the sale had already complied with the
requirements for registration. Pedro later became a
naturalized Canadian citizen.
 Issue: What is the effect of Pedro’s Canadian citizenship
on his right to own land in th4e Philippines?
 Answer: It will not impair his vested right to the land
which he could have validly registered when he was yet a
Filipino citizen. He is also qualified under the terms of
Sec. 8, Art. XII, Constitution. (Republic v. CA and
Lapiña, GR No. 108998, Aug. 24, 1994)
 The capacity to own land is determined at the time of its
acquisition and not registration.
 May the RD validly refuse to register a deed of donation
of a residential land executed by a Filipino in favor of an
unregistered organization, the “Ung Sui Si Temple,”
operating through three trustees all of Chinese nationality?
 Yes. The SC, in Register of Deeds v. Ung Sui Si temple,
GR No. L-6776, May 21, 1995, held that in view of the
absolute terms of Sec. 5, Title XIII of the 1935
Constitution (now Sec. 8, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
that, “save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
agricultural land shall be transferred except to
individuals, corporations or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain,” the
Constitution makes no exception to religious groups.
 Facts: Respondent Sio, a Chinese, bought a 682.5 square
meter land in 1944, during the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution. She registered it in the name of her 3-year
old ward, Jose. Sio subsequently acquired another lot,
likewise registered under Jose’s name. Sio kept the titles
herself.
 Unknown to her, Jose was able to obtain a second owner’s
duplicate of both titles and, thereafter, he filed an
ejectment suit against Sio for non-payment of rentals.
Meantime, Sio filed with the RTC a case for "Transfer of
Trusteeship from the Defendant Jose Norberto Ang to the
New Trustee, Tony Ang, with Damages,” but this was
dismissed by the court.
 The CA granted Sy So’s appeal. Jose filed a Rule 45
petition for review.
 Issue: Whether or not Sio is entitled to the ownership of
properties in question.
 Ruling: Under the 1935 Constitution (and also under the
1987 Constitution), aliens, like Sio, are disqualified from
acquiring lands of the public domain. Not even an implied
trust can be permitted on equity considerations. In sales of
real estate to aliens, both vendor and the vendee are
deemed in pari delicto.
 The Court directed the OSG to initiate proceedings for the
reversion of the subject property to the State.
 Q. Can a Filipino vendor recover land sold to an alien?
 A. Yes. When an agreement is not illegal per se but is
merely prohibited and the prohibition is designed for
the protection of the plaintiff, he may recover the land,
the public policy being to preserve and maintain the
land in the hands of Filipino citizens. (Phil. Banking
Corp. v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52; Borromeo v. Descallar,
580 SCA 175; United Church v. Sebastian, 159 SCRA
446)
 Note: In Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827, the
Filipino vendor was in pari delicto with the alien
vendee, hence, recovery was not allowed.
 Other illustrative cases on acquisition by aliens
 Where the land was now in the hands of a naturalized
Filipino, there is no more public policy to be served by
allowing recovery. (Barsobia v. Cuenco , 199 Phil. 26),
 Where land is sold to a Chinese who later sold it to a
Filipino, the sale can no longer be impugned. (Herrera
v. Guan, 1 SCRA 406).
 Chuck, an American, and Cory, a Filipino, acquired
land which was registered in the latter’s name. Cory
sold the land to Mario without Chuck’s consent. Valid?
Yes. Chuck never acquired any right to the land, he
being an alien. (Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93)
 Facts:
 Alfred (petitioner), an Australian citizen, was married
to Teresita, a Filipino. Lina (respondent), also a
Filipina, was married to Klaus, a German. Alfred and
Lina met and cohabited in a common-law relationship,
during which Alfred acquired real properties. Since
Alfred was disqualified from owning lands in the
Philippines, Lina was named in the deeds of sale as
vendee. When their relationship turned sour, Alfred
sued Lina for the recovery of the properties registered
in the name of the latter, claiming that he (Alfred)
was the real owner.
 Issue:
 Will the action prosper?
 Ruling:
 The Court refused to declare Alfred (Australian) as the
owner because of the constitutional prohibition. The
Court added that being a party to an illegal contract,
he could not come to court and ask to have his illegal
objective carried out. One who loses his money or
property by knowingly engaging in an illegal contract
may not maintain an action for his losses. (Frenzel v.
Catito, GR No. GR No. 143958. July 11, 2003)
 Facts: Felix Ting Ho, a Chinese citizen, acquired a
parcel of land with the improvements thereon. Upon his
death, his heirs (the petitioners therein) claimed the
properties as part of the estate of their deceased father,
and sought the partition of said properties among
themselves.
 Issue: Is partition proper?
 Ruling: The Court excluded the land and improvements
thereon from the estate of Felix Ting Ho, precisely
because he never became the owner thereof in light of
the above-mentioned constitutional prohibition. (Sec. 7,
Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) (Ting Ho. V. Teng Gui, GR
No. G.R. No. 130115, July 16, 2008)
 OTHER BASIC PRINCIPLES
 Fullido v. Grilli, GR No. 215014, Feb. 29, 2016
 Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935
Constitution, natural resources shall not be alienated,
except with respect to public agricultural lands and in
such cases, the alienation is limited to Filipino citizens.
The prohibition on the transfer of lands to aliens was
adopted in the present 1987 Constitution, under
Sections 2, 3 and 7 of Article XII thereof. Agricultural
lands, whether public or private, include residential,
commercial and industrial lands.
 The prohibition, however, is not limited to the sale of
lands to foreigners. It also covers leases of lands
amounting to the transfer of all or substantially all the
rights of dominion. Thus, if an alien is given not only a
lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land by
virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or
otherwise dispose of his property, this to last for 50
years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a
virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests
himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land
but also of the right to dispose of it — rights which
constitute ownership.
 Private corporations not qualified to acquire lands of the
public domain
 “Private corporations or associations may not hold
(such) alienable lands of the public domain except by
lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable
for not more than 25 years, and not to exceed 1,000
hectares in area.” (Sec. 3, Art. XII, Constitution)
 Reason: to encourage economic family-sized farms by
transferring ownership of only a limited area of alienable
lands of the public domain to a qualified individual.
Available lands are decreasing due to increasing
population.
 Exception to the rule
 In Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court
and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., GR No. 73002,
Dec. 29, 1986, the Court held that “where at the time
the corporation acquired the land, its predecessor-in-
interest had been in possession and occupation thereof
in the manner and for the period prescribed by law as to
entitle him to registration in his name, then the
proscription against corporations acquiring alienable
lands of the public domain except through lease does
not apply for the land was no longer public land but
private property.”
 AFP Retirementt and Separation Benefits System v.
Republic, GR No. 180086, July 2, 2014
 The type of corporation that petitioner is has nothing to
do with the grant of its application for original
registration. x x x The prohibition in Section 3, Article
XII of the Constitution applies only to private
corporations. Petitioner is a government corporation
organized under PD No. 361, as amended by PD No.
1656.
In Republic v. Iglesia ni Cristo, 591 SCRA 438, the Court
held:
 A private corporation may validly file an application for
registration over a parcel of land it had acquired from a
person who had already complied with the statutory
period of possession. The possession of INC has been
established not only from 1952 and 1959 when it
purchased the respective halves of the subject lot, but is
also tacked to the possession of its predecessors-in-
interest who had been in possession thereof before June
12, 1945.
 Corporation sole qualified to acquire real property
 Church properties acquired by the incumbent head of a
corporation sole pass, by operation of law, upon his
death not to his personal heirs but to his successor in
office. It is created not only to administer the
temporalities of the church or religious society where
he belongs, but also to hold and transmit the same to
his successor in said office.(Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator v. Land Registration Commission, GR
No. L-8451, Dec. 20, 1957)
 In Republic v. IAC and Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena,
GR No. 75042, Nov. 29, 1988, the Court held:
“There is no doubt that a corporation sole by the nature
of its incorporation is vested with the right to purchase
and hold real estate and personal property. It need not
therefore be treated as an ordinary private corporation
because whether or not it be so treated as such, the
Constitutional provision involved will, nevertheless,
be not applicable. The lands subject of this petition
were already private property at the time the
application for confirmation of title was filed in 1979.”
• The Corporation Law also contains the following
provision:
• “SEC. 159. - Any corporation sole may purchase and
hold real estate and personal property for its church,
charitable, benevolent, or educational purposes, and
may receive bequests or gifts for such purposes. Such
corporation may mortgage or sell real property held by
it upon obtaining an order for that purpose from the
Court of First Instance of the province in which the
property is situated; x x x ” (Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator v. Land Registration Commission,
supra.)
VESTED RIGHT
 What is a vested right?
 It is a right or interest in property that has been fixed
and established, and is no longer open to doubt or
controversy. (Lucero v. City of Pasig, 508 SCRA 23;
Ayog v. Cusi, GR No. L-46729, Nov. 19, 1982)
 An open, continuous, adverse and public possession of
property from time immemorial by a private individual
confers effective title on said possessor, whereby the
land ceases to be public and becomes private property.
(Susi v. Razon, 48 Phil. 424)
FORM AND CONTENTS OF
APPLICATION
 “Form and contents. - The application shall be in
writing, signed by the applicant or his authorized
representative, and under oath. If there is more than one
applicant, the application shall be signed and sworn to
by each.
 The application shall contain a description of the land,
and state the civil status of the applicant, and the names
of all occupants and adjoining owners, if known.” (Sec.
15, PD No. 1529)
WHAT AND WHERE
TO FILE
 “The application shall be filed with the RTC of the
province or city where the land lies, with a copy furnished
the Director of Lands. (Sec. 17, ibid.)
 The applicant may file a single application for two or
more parcels of land in the same province
 “Amendments which consist in a substantial change in the
boundaries or an increase (not decrease) in area shall be
subject to publication and notice as in an original
application.” (Sec. 19, ibid.; Benin v. Tuason, GR No.
L-26127, June 28, 1974)
 DEALINGS WITH LAND
PENDING REGISTRATION
 Pending issuance of the decree, the land may be the
subject of dealings (sale, lease, mortgage) in whole or in
part, and the interested party shall submit to the court
for consideration the pertinent documents and
subdivision plan in case only portions of the land are
affected. The application need not be amended. (Sec.
22, PD 1529; Mendoza v. CA, supra)
 Section 22 of PD No. 1529 expressly allows the
disposition of lands subject matter of a registration
proceeding and the subsequent registration thereof in the
name of the person to whom the land was conveyed.
 But the pertinent instruments of conveyance must be
presented to the court and that prior notice is given to
the parties in the land registration case.
 Thereafter, the court shall either order the land
registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance,
or order that the decree of registration be issued in the
name of the person to whom the property was
conveyed. (Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, id.)
 Facts:
 Pending registration, applicant sold the land applied
for. The court issued the decree of registration in
the name of the vendee. Later, however, alleging
failure of the vendee to pay the purchase price of
the land, applicant filed a motion for
reconsideration. The court set aside the decree
holding that it had no jurisdiction to order
registration to the vendee who was neither the
applicant nor oppositor in the registration case.
 Issue:
 Is the trial court correct? Why?
 Ruling:
 No. Section 22 of the PRD expressly authorizes the
sale (“dealt with”) of the land during the pendency
of the case and its registration in the name of the
buyer. The application need not be amended by
substituting the "buyer" for the applicant. Neither
does the law require that the "buyer" be a party to the
case. It is only required that: (1) the corresponding
instrument be presented to the court with a motion
that the same be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) prior notice be given to the
parties to the case. (Mendoza v. Court of Appeals,
supra)
 Procedure where conveyance involves only a portion of
land:
 No TCT shall be issued by the RD until a plan of the
land showing the portions into which it has been
subdivided, together with the technical description,
shall have been verified and approved by the LRA or
LMB.
 Meanwhile, the deed may only be annotated by the
RD by way of memorandum on the grantor’s
certificate of title. (Sec. 58 in relation to Sec. 50, PD
No. 1529).
PUBLICATION, MAILING
AND NOTICE
 Setting the date and hour of initial hearing
 “The Court shall within 5 days from filing of the the
application, issue an order setting the date and hour of
the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than 45
days nor later than 90 days from the date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of
the application for land registration by means of (a)
publication; (2) mailing; and (c) posting.” (Sec. 23, PD
529)
• Purpose:
(a) to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and
(b) to apprise the whole world of the case so that they
may oppose the application, if minded. (Fieldman v.
Republic, GR No. 147359, March 28 2008)
 Publication of the notice of initial hearing
 “Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the
time for initial hearing, the LRA shall cause a notice
of initial hearing to be published once in the Official
Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however,
That the publication in the Official Gazette shall be
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said
notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to
have an interest in the land involved including the
adjoining owners so far as known, and ‘to all whom it
may concern.’” (Sec. 23, ibid.)
 Constructive seizure of the land effected through:
(a) publication of the notice of initial hearing in the
OG and in a newspaper of general circulation,
and
(b) posting, and
(c) mailing thereof to affected parties. (Sec. 23, PD
No. 1529)
 But lack of personal notice does not vitiate the
proceedings. (Roxas v. Enriquez, 212 SCRA 625)
Q. The law says that “the notice of initial hearing shall be
published once in the OG and once in a newspaper of
the general circulation in the Philippines; provided,
however, that the publication in the Official Gazette
shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
court.” If the notice was already published in the OG,
is there still a need to publish the same in a
newspaper?
A. Yes. Publication in a newspaper is still required to
accord with the due process requirement. (Roxas v.
Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 309)
Q. The RTC failed to issue the order setting the date and
hour of the initial hearing within five (5) days from the
filing of the application for registration, as provided in
the PRD, did that affect the court's jurisdiction?
A. No. Observance of the five-day period was merely
directory, and failure to issue the order within that
period did not deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction. To
rule that compliance with the five-day period is
mandatory would make jurisdiction over the subject
matter dependent upon the trial court. (Republic v.
Bantigue, GR No. GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012;
Republic v. Manna, GR No. 146527, Jan. 31, 2005)
Q. FATCO filed an application for registration which was
set for initial hearing on February 28. However, on
motion of FATCO’s counsel, the hearing was reset for
April 19? Was there need for the re-publication of the
notice of initial hearing?
A. No more since the Republic and all interested parties
were already fully apprised of the pendency of the
application. When the hearing was reset to April 19,
the interested parties, the Republic included, may be
deemed to have been given notice thereof. Clearly, the
avowed purpose of Section 23 had already been
accomplished. (FATCO v. Republic, GR No. 147459,
Match 28, 2008)
Q. The court set the initial hearing on September 3, 1999
and the hearing was in fact held on that date. While the
notice of initial hearing was printed in the issue of the
Official Gazette, dated August 2, 1999, and officially
released on August 10, 1999, it was published in The
Freeman Banat News, a daily newspaper printed in
Cebu City and circulated in the province and cities of
Cebu and in the rest of Visayas and Mindanao, only on
December 19, 1999, more than three (3) months after
the initial hearing. Was there a valid publication?
A. No. The publication of the notice, way after the date of
the initial hearing, is worthless and ineffective.
Whoever read the notice as it was published in The
Freeman Banat News and had a claim to the subject
lots was deprived of due process for it was already too
late for him to appear before the court on the day of
the initial hearing to oppose the application for
registration, and to present his claim and evidence in
support of such claim. (Republic v. Herbieto, GR No.
156117, May 26, 2005)
Q. Where additional area is included in the original
application for registration, is a new publication
necessary?
A. Yes. Publication is one of the essential bases of the
jurisdiction of the court in land registration and
cadastral cases. Where no publication has ever been
made except the initial publication, and this did not
include the additional area, the registration court had
no jurisdiction over said area and its adjudication to
the applicant is a nullity. (Philippine Manufacturing
Co. v. Imperial, GR No. 24908, March 31, 1926)
 Role of the Solicitor General in registration cases
 Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the
Solicitor General shall "[r]epresent the
Government in all land registration and related
proceedings."
 Pursuant to the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the
public domain and all other natural resources are
owned by the State.
 It is the role of the Solicitor General to defend the
interests of the government and to assure that lands
of the public domain are adjudicated only to
qualified applicants or oppositors.
• Role of the Solicitor General
 As a rule only court notices and processes actually
served upon the SG is binding on his office.
 Deputized officers are under the direction and
control of the SG himself. (NPC v. NLRC, GR No.
90933, May 29, 1997).
 The government may appeal an adverse decision
despite its not filing any opposition. (Republic v.
Tiotioen, GR No. 167215, Oct. 8, 2008; Republic v.
CA and Arquillo, 182 SCRA 290)
OPPOSITION
 Who may properly oppose an application for registration?
 Any person claiming an interest, whether named in the
notice or not, may appear and file an opposition on or
before the date of initial hearing, or within such further
time as may be allowed by the court. The opposition
shall state all the objections to the application and shall
set forth the interest claimed by the party filing the
same and apply for the remedy desired, and shall be
signed and sworn to by him or by some other duly
authorized person. (Sec 25, PD 1529; Director of Lands
v. Santiago, GR No. L-41278, April 15, 1988)
 Any person claiming an interest or right of dominion
may appear and oppose the application for registration.
 Where no opposition is made, all the allegations in
the application for registration shall be held as
confessed, and the claimant shall be deemed to have
forever lost his right to the land.
 But the absence of opposition does not justify the
court into awarding the land to the applicant; he must
still submit well-nigh incontrovertible proof that he is
entitled to registration. (Director of Lands v. Agustin,
42 Phil. 227)
Q. Is a person who has a pending application for a parcel
of land with the Lands Management Bureau (LMB)
qualify for the registration of the same land under the
Torrens system of registration?
A. No since the applicant, by the filing of his sales
application, manifestly acknowledges the character of
the land as a public land under the administration of
the LMB. Therefore, his possession was not that of an
owner, as required by law. (Director of Lands v.
Santiago, supra.)
Q. Does the absence of any opposition by the government
justify the outright registration of the land in favor of
the applicant?
A. No. Notwithstanding the absence of opposition from
the government, the applicant is not relieved of the
burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought to
be confirmed. He must show, even though there is no
opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is
the absolute owner, in fee simple. (Director of Lands v.
Agustin, GR No. 16179, Oct. 6, 1921)
 Order of default
 “If no person appears and answers within the time
allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the
applicant, order a default to be recorded and require
the applicant to present evidence. By the
description in the notice ‘To All Whom It May
Concern,’ all the world are made parties defendant
and shall be concluded by the default order. Where
an appearance has been entered and an answer
filed, a default order shall be entered against
persons who did not appear and answer. (Sec. 26,
PD 1529)
Q. May a party declared in default have the right to appeal
from the judgment by default?
A. Yes. A defendant party declared in default retains the
right to appeal from the judgment by default on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material
allegations of the complaint, or that the decision is
contrary to law, even without need of the prior filing of
a motion to set aside the order of default. (Martinez v.
Republic, GR No.160895, Oct. 30, 2006)
Q. What is the consequence of the government not filing
any opposition to the application for registration?
A. Where the Director of Lands did not oppose the
application and was, by order of the court, declared in
default, the order should not prejudice the government
since the Republic is usually not estopped by the
mistake or error of its officials or agents. (Republic v.
Aquino, 205 Phil. 141)
Q. Who has the burden of proof in land registration cases?
A. The burden of proof in land registration cases is
incumbent on the applicant who must show that he is
the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land
applied for. Unless the applicant succeeds in showing
by clear and convincing evidence that the property
involved was acquired by him or his ancestors by any
of the means provided for the proper acquisition of
public lands, the rule is that the property must be held
to be a part of the public domain. (Martinez v.
Republic, supra)
Q. Is a motion to dismiss based on res judicata proper in
registration proceedings?
A. Yes. In Valisno v. Plan (GR No. L-55152, Aug. 19,
1986), the Court, applying the principle of res judicata,
sustained the applicant’s motion to dismiss the
opposition to his application for registration it appearing
that the land sought to be registered had been previously
litigated between the applicant and the oppositor in a
civil case for recovery of possession, resulting in a
favorable judgment to the applicant. Sec. 34, PD 1529,
provides that the Rules of Court shall be applicable to
registration and cadastral cases by analogy or in a
suppletory character. (See also Rule 132)
 Principle of res judicata
 Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or
decree on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or
their privies, in all later suits and on all points and
matters determined in the previous suit.
 The principle bars a subsequent suit involving the same
parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The
rationale for the rule is that "public policy requires that
controversies must be settled with finality at a given
point in time.“ (Topacio v. Banco Filipino, GR No.
157644, Nov. 17, 2010)
 Elements of res judicata:
(a) former judgment must be final;
(b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
(c) the judgment must be on the merits;
(d) there must be between the first and the second
actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes
of action.
• The doctrine does not require absolute but merely
substantial identity of the parties.
• The defense of res judicata may be waived if not set up in
a motion to dismiss.
HEARING
 HEARING
 The court shall decide the case within ninety (90) days
from its submission. The court may refer the case or part
thereof to a referee who shall submit his report to the
court within 15 days after its termination. (Sec. 27, PD
1529)
 Applications for registration shall be heard by the
regional trial court or, in proper cases, by the first level
courts.
 The applicant must show, by “well-nigh incontro-
vertible proof,” and even in the absence of opposition,
that he is the absolute owner of the land.
Q. Is a motion to dismiss proper in a registration case?
A. Yes, based, for instance, on res judicata. The PRD does
not provide for a pleading similar or corresponding to a
motion to dismiss. However, Section 34 provides that the
Rules of Court which are not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Decree shall be applicable to land
registration and cadastral cases by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient. (Valisno v. Plan, GR No. L-55152, Aug. 19,
1986).
EVIDENCE OF
OWNERSHIP
 The burden of overcoming the presumption of State
ownership of lands of the public domain lies on the
person applying for registration.
 The government, in opposing the purported nature
of the land, need not adduce evidence to prove
otherwise.
 To overcome the presumption of State ownership of
public dominion lands, the applicant must present
incontrovertible evidence that the land subject of
the application is alienable or disposable. (Republic
v. Alaminos Ice Plant, GR No. 189723, July 11,
2018)
 To prove the classification of the land as A and D, the
application for original registration must be accompanied
by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that land is A and
D; and
(2) Copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the
legal custodian thereof. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR
No. 162322, March 14, 2012; Republic v. Dela Paz,
GR No. 171631, Nov. 5, 2010; Republic v. T.A.N,
555 SCRA 477)
 (Note: In Gaerlan v. Republic, GR No. 192717, March 12,
2014, the Court held that the CENRO/PENRO
certification is not sufficient evidence of the facts stated
therein).
 Policy clarification by DENR Memorandum No. 564,
dated Nov. 15, 2012
 The DENR clarified that “the issuance of the
certification and the certified copy of the approved LC
Map to prove that the area applied for is indeed
classified as A and D is within the competence and
jurisdiction of the CENRO.”
 (Note: A separate administrative order was issued
“delegating to the CENRO the authority to issue the
certification and the certified true copy of the approved
land classification map and the particular issuance or order
which was used as basis for such classification.”)
• DENR level of authority on land classification
• Secretary: Land classification and release of lands of
the public domain as alienable and disposable (A and
D)
• Secretary: Sub-classification of forest lands according
to use
• PENRO: Issuance of certificate of classification
whether timber land or A and D – above 50.0 has.
• CENRO: Issuance of certificate of classification
whether timber land or A and D – below 50.0 has.
 What overt acts may prove possession in the concept of
owner?
 Introducing valuable improvements on the land like
fruit-bearing trees;
 Fencing the area
 Constructing a residential house thereon; and
 Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
 In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-hectare
land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
 It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years for
coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. Republic v. CA and
Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)
Q. Both Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree require
“possession and occupation” of the land applied for.
Explain.
A. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes
constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds
the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all
encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken
together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the
fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must
not be a mere fiction. (Republic v. Enciso, GR No.
160145, Nov. 11, 2005)
• Are tax declarations and tax receipts proof of ownership?
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership but they are a good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner. (Llanes v.
Republic, 572 SCA 258) A tax declaration merely prove
payment of taxes.
• But when coupled with actual possession, payment of
taxes is evidence of great weight and can be the basis of
a claim of ownership through prescription. (Republic v.
Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611)
• Taxes must be paid annually.
Q. The applicant paid all taxes for the period 1946 to 1976
only in 1976, a few months prior to the filing of the
application for registration. How does this affect the
legitimacy of applicant’s claim over the property?
A. The payment of taxes on a lump sum basis just before the
filing of the application for registration may adversely
affect the validity of the applicant’s claim to the land as
said payment, made belatedly and in lump sum, taints
the sincerity of his claim of ownership and indicates that
it was resorted only to lend some semblance of
legitimacy to such claim. Taxes are supposed to be
paid annually. (Republic v. CA and Infante-Tayag,
GR No. L-61462, July 31, 1984)
• Identity of the land
• Land must be surveyed to establish its identity,
location and area. Only the LMB Director may
approve survey plans for original registration
purposes. (PD 239, July 9, 1973)
• There is now no need to present the tracing cloth
plan of the land. A certified blue print or white print
copy of the plan suffices for registration purposes.
(Director of Lands v. CA and Iglesia ni Cristo, 158
SCRA 586)
• Rule in determining area in case of conflict
• What defines a piece of titled property is not the
numerical data indicated as the area of the land, but the
boundaries or "metes and bounds" of the property
specified in its technical description as enclosing it and
showing its limits. (Rep. v. CA and Santos, GR No.
116111, Jan. 21, 1969, 301 SCRA 366).
• What defines a piece of land is not the area, calculated
with more or less certainty mentioned in the
description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as
enclosing the land and indicating its limits.
(Balantakbo v. CA, GR No. 108515, Oct. 16, 1995)
 Importance of a survey plan
 One of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens system
is the absolute certainty of the identity of a registered
land.
 Consequently, the primary purpose of the requirement
that the land must be first surveyed is to fix the exact or
definite identity of the land.
 The survey plots the location, the area and the
boundaries of the property. (De Guzman v. Court of
Appeals, GR No, 185757, March2, 2016)
 Only the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) may now
verify and approve survey plans for original registration
purposes pursuant to PD No. 239, dated July 9, 1973.
 The Land Registration Authority (LRA) has no
authority to approve original survey plans nor to check
the correctness thereof. A survey plan which is not
approved by the Director of Lands (or Regional
Technical Director) is “not of much value” for
registration purposes. (Republic v. Vera, GR No. L-
35778, Jan. 27, 1983)
Q. Is the submission of the tracing cloth plan mandatory?
A. In the early case of Director of Lands v. Reyes, GR No.L-
27594, Nov. 28, 1975, the Court declared that the
submission of the tracing cloth plan is a statutory
requirement of mandatory character.
But later decisions of the Court state that the original
tracing cloth plan may be substituted with either the
white print or blue print copy of the plan, duly certified
as correct or the correctness of which has not been
overcome by convincing evidence. (Director of Lands v.
IAC and Espartinez, GR No. GR No. 70825, March 11,
1991; Republic v. CA and Chavez, GR No. L-62680,
Nov. 9, 1988)
Q. In case of conflict between areas and boundaries, which
prevails?
A. In case of conflict between areas and boundaries, the
latter prevails. What really defines a piece of ground is
not the area, calculated with more or less certainty,
mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein
laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.
In a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific
boundaries stated in the contract must control over any
statement with respect to the area. (Dichoso v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 55613, Dec. 10, 1990)
• Possession and occupation as proof of ownership
 Possession must be under a claim of ownership.
 Acts of a possessory character by one who holds the
property by mere tolerance of the owner is not in the
concept of owner, and do not start the period of
prescription.
 Actual possession consists of acts of dominion of such
a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his
own property.
 Occupation delimits the all-encompassing effect of
constructive possession.
 Rule of preference in case of conflict of possession
 The present possessor shall be preferred;
 If there two possessors, the one longer in possession;
 If the dates of the possession are the same, the one
who presents a title; and
 If both possessors have titles, the court shall
determine the rightful possessor and owner of the
land. (Art. 538, CC)
• Mere possession will not defeat the title of a holder of
registered land. (Eduarte v. CA, 253 SCRA 391)
 What overt acts may prove possession in the concept of
owner?
 Introducing valuable improvements on the land like
fruit-bearing trees;
 Fencing the area
 Constructing a residential house thereon; and
 Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
 In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-hectare
land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
 It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years for
coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. Republic v. CA and
Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)
Q. Both Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree require
“possession and occupation” of the land applied for.
Explain.
A. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes
constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds
the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all
encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken
together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the
fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must
not be a mere fiction. (Republic v. Enciso, GR No.
160145, Nov. 11, 2005)
• Are tax declarations and tax receipts proof of ownership?
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership but they are a good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner. (Llanes v.
Republic, 572 SCA 258) A tax declaration merely prove
payment of taxes.
• But when coupled with actual possession, payment of
taxes is evidence of great weight and can be the basis of
a claim of ownership through prescription. (Republic v.
Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611)
• Taxes must be paid annually.
Q. The applicant paid all taxes for the period 1946 to 1976
only in 1976, a few months prior to the filing of the
application for registration. How does this affect the
legitimacy of applicant’s claim over the property?
A. The payment of taxes on a lump sum basis just before the
filing of the application for registration may adversely
affect the validity of the applicant’s claim to the land as
said payment, made belatedly and in lump sum, taints
the sincerity of his claim of ownership and indicates that
it was resorted only to lend some semblance of
legitimacy to such claim. Taxes are supposed to be paid
annually. (Republic v. CA and Infante-Tayag, GR No. L-
61462, July 31, 1984)
 Are Spanish titles efficacious proof of ownership?
 Pursuant to PD No. 892, dated Feb. 16, 1976, Spanish
titles may no longer be used as evidence of land
ownership
 The proliferation of dubious Spanish titles have raised
conflicting claims of ownership and tended to
destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
 Case study: Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro
y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 733;
Dumanlag v. Blanco, A.C. No. 8825, Aug. 3, 2016;
Paraguya v. Crucillo, GR No. 200265, Dec/ 2. 2013)
 The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; exceptions:
 when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;
 when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible;
 when there is grave abuse of discretion;
 when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts;
 when the findings of facts are conflicting;
 when in making its findings the CA went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
• when the findings are contrary to the trialcourt;
• when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based;
• when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondent;
• when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record; and
• when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion.
(Tyson’s Super Concrete v. CA, 461 SCRA 69)
JUDGMENT
 What are the kinds of judgment?
 (1) A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world,
such as a judgment in a land registration case or probate
of a will; (2) a judgment in personam is binding upon
the parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon
strangers, and (3) a judgment directing a party to
deliver possession of a property to another is in
personam; it is binding only against the parties and
their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action.
 An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery
of ownership of real property, or reconveyance, is a real
action but it is an action in pe rsonam, for it binds a
particular individual only.(Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No.
142676, June 6, 2011)
 Judgment confirming title
 “All conflicting claims of ownership and interest in the
land subject of the application shall be determined by
the court. If the court, after considering the evidence
and the reports of the Commissioner of Land
Registration and the Director of Lands, finds that the
applicant or the oppositor has sufficient title proper for
registration, judgment shall be rendered confirming the
title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or
portions thereof.” (Sec. 29, PD 1529)
 The judgment confirms the title of the applicant or the
oppositor. Partial judgment is proper where a
subdivision plan is submitted. (Sec. 28)
 Judgment becomes final after fifteen (15) days from
receipt of notice of the judgment.
 Court retains jurisdiction until after the entry of the
final decree of registration. (Gomez v CA, 168 SCRA
503)
 Principle of res judicata is applicable to registration
proceedings. (Aring v. Original, a6 SCRA 1021)
 Motion for execution of judgment not required
 Upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the
winning party does not file a motion for execution as in
ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a petition with
the court for the issuance of an order directing the LRA
to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then
sent to the Register of Deeds for inscription in the
registration book, and issuance of the original
certificate of title.
 The LRA merely issues an order for the issuance of a
decree of registration and the corresponding certificate
of title in the name of such applicant. (Top
Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR
No.150462, June 15, 2011)
 No period within which decree may be issued
 The fact that no decree has as yet been issued cannot
divest the applicant of his title to and ownership of the
land in question. There is nothing in the law that limits
the period within which the court may issue a decree.
The reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory in
character and does not need to be enforced against the
adverse party. (Del Rosario v. Limcaoco, GR No.
177392, Nov. 26, 2012)
 From another perspective, the judgment does not have
to be executed by motion or enforced by action within
the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595, Jan.
23, 2007)
• A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world, such
as a judgment in a land registration case or probate of a
will; and a judgment in personam is binding upon the
parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon
strangers.
• A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a
property to another is in personam.
• An action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery
of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance, is a
real action but it is an action in personam, for it only
binds the parties impleaded although it concerns the
right to a tangible thing.(Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No.
142676, June 6, 2011)
 Execution pending appeal not required
 Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land
registration proceeding and the certificate of title
thereby issued is null and void.
 A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is
not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit
provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires
that a decree shall be issued only after the decision
adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and
it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of
Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate of
title. (Top Management v. Fajardo, supra)
 No period within which decree may be issued
 The fact that no decree has as yet been issued cannot
divest the applicant of his title to and ownership of the
land in question. There is nothing in the law that limits
the period within which the court may issue a decree.
The reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory in
character and does not need to be enforced against the
adverse party. (Del Rosario v. Limcaoco, GR No.
177392, Nov. 26, 2012)
 From another perspective, the judgment does not have
to be executed by motion or enforced by action within
the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595, Jan.
23, 2007)
WRIT OF POSSESSION
 In what instances may a writ of posession be issued?
 (a) land registration proceeding which is in rem;
 (b) extrajudicial foreclosure of realty;
 (c) judicial foreclosure of mortgage which is a quasi in
rem; and
 (d) execution sales.
 A writ of possession may be issued not only against the
person defeated in the land registration case but also
against anyone unlawfully occupying the land during the
pendency of the proceedings up to the issuance of the
final decree. (Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491
 Can the Sheriff unilaterally remove or demolish the
improvements?
 The sheriff cannot remove or demolish the
improvements except upon special order of the court.
(Tumibay v. Soro, GR 152016, April 12, 2010)
 The writ will not issue against persons taking
possession after issuance of the final decree.
 The remedy is to file a separate action for forcible entry
or detainer, or a reivindicatory action. (Bernas v.
Nueva,127 SCA 399)
 In De la Rosa v. Valdez, GR No. 159101, July 27, 2011,
the Court ruled:
 There are ample justifications for the grant by the RTC
of a writ that places the subject property in the
possession of the spouses Valdez and spouses Malvar
for the duration of the trial of Civil Case No. 00-6015.
Sales Patent No. 38713, covering the subject property,
had already been issued to Juan Valdez which makes
him, at the very least, the equitable owner of the said
property. There is already a request for the registration
of Sales Patent No. 38713 pending before the Registry
of Deeds of Marikina City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 The spouses Valdez acknowledge the transfer of the
subject property to the spouses Malvar. The spouses
Dela Rosa's title is based on TCT No. 451423-A in
Cristeta dela Rosa's name, which is not registered with
the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City or Antipolo
City. TCT No. 451423-A is also traced back to Titulo de
Propriedad No. 4136, which, in the Intestate Estate of
the late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of
Appeals, 23 was already declared null and void, and
from which no rights could be derived.
 In Tumibay v. Soro, supra, the Court held:
 “A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property
is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in
possession of the property. If the defendant refuses to
surrender possession of the property to the prevailing
party, the sheriff or other proper officer should oust
him. No express order to this effect needs to be stated
in the decision; nor is a categorical statement needed in
the decision that in such event the sheriff or other
proper officer shall have the authority to remove the
improvements on the property if the defendant fails to
do so within a reasonable period of time.
 The removal of the improvements on the land under
these circumstances is deemed read into the decision,
subject only to the issuance of a special order by the
court for the removal of the improvements.”
 When is a separate action, not writ of possession,
necessary?
 When parties against whom a writ of possession is
sought entered into possession apparently after the
issuance of the final decree, the writ of possession will
not issue.
 A person who took possession of the land after final
judgment in registration proceedings cannot be
summarily ousted through a writ of possession secured
by a mere motion and that regardless of any title or lack
of title of persons to hold possession of the land in
question, they cannot be ousted without giving them
their day in court in proper independent proceedings.
(Bernas v. Nuevo, 127 SCRA 399)
 Is failure to vacate a ground for contempt proceedings?
 Under Section 3 (d), Rule 19, Rules of Court, the writ
of execution must require the sheriff to deliver the
possession of the property to the party entitled thereto.
The sheriff must dispossess or eject the losing party
from the premises and deliver the possession thereof to
the winning party.
 If subsequent to such dispossession or ejectment the
losing party enters or attempts to enter into or upon the
real property, for the purpose of exercising acts of
ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the
possession of the person adjudged to be entitled thereto,
only then may the loser be charged with and punished
for contempt . (Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491).
Q. Does failure of the government to file opposition deprive
it of right to appeal?
A. No. In Republic v. Tiotioen, GR No. 167215, Oct. 8,
2008, the Court held:
“ x x x the 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
government of its right to appeal from a judgment of
the court.”
 DECREE OF
REGISTRATION
 A decree of registration is an order issued under the
signature of the Administrator, LRA, in the name of the
court, stating that the land described therein is registered
in the name of the applicant or oppositor or claimant as
the case may be..
 Upon issuance of the decree, the Administrator sends a
certified copy thereof, under seal of his office, to the RD
of the province or city where the land lies, and the RD
transcribes the decree in a book, called the “Registration
Book," in which a leaf, or leaves, in consecutive order
shall be devoted exclusively to each title. The entry
made by the Register of Deeds in said book constitutes
the original certificate of title and is signed by him and
sealed with the seal of his office.
The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title
thereto, subject to exceptions or liens as may be provided by
law. (Sec. 31, PD No. 1529)
It shall be conclusive against all persons, including the
government and its branches. (Ibid.)
Land becomes registered land only upon the transcription
of the decree in the book of the Register of Deeds, and
not on the date of the issuance of the decree. (Manotok v.
CLT Realty, GR No. 123346, March 31, 2009)
Q. What is the effect and importance of a decree of
registration?
A. A decree of registration bars all claims and rights which
arose or may have existed prior to the decree of
registration. By the issuance of the decree, the land is
bound and title thereto quieted, subject only to
exceptions stated in Section 44 of PD No. 1529.
The Torrens title becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible one year from the issuance of the final
decree and is generally conclusive evidence of the
ownership of the land referred to therein. (Calalang v.
Register of Deeds, GR No. 76265, March 11, 1994)
 A registration court has no jurisdiction to decree again
land already decreed in a prior case. (Laburada v.
LRA, 287 SCRA 333)
 An application for registration of a titled land
constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title.
(SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578 SCRA 552)
 Title is deemed issued upon transcription of the
decree. (Manotok Realty v. CLT, 540 SCRA 304)
 MAYSILO ESTATE CASE – “LAND OF CAVEAT
EMPTOR”
Q. When is a certificate of title deemed registered – the
date of the issuance of the decree of registration on
April 19, 1917, or the date the decree was
transcribed in the Office of the RD on May 3, 1917?
A. The original certificate of title is deemed issued on
the DATE THE DECREE OF REGISTRATION IS
TRANSCRIBED since what stands as the certificate
is the transcript of the decree of registration made
by the RD in the registry. (Manotok v. CLT Realty,
540 SCRA 304)
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
 Issuance of decree and certificate of title
 “Within 15 days from entry of the judgment, the court
shall direct the LRA Administrator to issue the decree
of registration and prepare the original and duplicate
certificate of title based thereon. The original
certificate of title, signed by him, shall be a true copy
of the decree, and shall be sent, together with the
owner’s duplicate, to the Register of Deeds of the city
or province where the land lies.” (Sec. 39, PD 1529)
 The certificate is an indefeasible evidence of
ownership of the person whose name appears therein.
(Panganiban v. Dayrit, 464 SCRA 370).
Entry of original certificate of title
“Upon receipt by the RD of the original and duplicate
copies of the title, the same shall be entered in the day
book and shall be numbered, dated, signed and sealed.
Said certificate of title shall take effect upon the entry
thereof. The RD shall then send notice by mail to the
registered owner that his owner’s copy is ready for
delivery to him upon payment of legal fees.” (Sec. 40)
“The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the
decree of registration. It shall state the names of the
registered owners and their status. If the property is
conjugal the title shall be issued in the names of both
spouses.”
 Contents of a certificate of title
 Every certificate of title shall set forth the full names of
the registered owners and their status. If the property
belongs to the conjugal partnership, it shall be issued in
the names of both spouses.
 All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to
the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it
pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. (Art.
160, CC)
 When the property is registered in the name of a spouse
only and there is no showing as to when the property
was acquired, this indicates that the property belongs
exclusively to said spouse. (PNB v, Vitug, 153 SCRA
435)
• A certificate of title may be an original certificate of
title, which constitutes a true copy of the decree of
registration, or a transfer certificate of title, issued
subsequent to original registration.
• The title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title one year after the issuance of
the decree of registration by the LRA. (Del Prado v.
Caballero, GR No. 148225, March 3, 2010)
• A person dealing with registered land need not go
beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his
predecessor. (Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577
SCRA 441)
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN
“TITLE” AND “CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE”
 Title may be defined as that which constitutes a just
cause of exclusive possession, or which is the
foundation of ownership of property.
 Certificate of title, on the other hand, is a mere
evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the land
itself. (Castillo v. Escutin, GR No. 171056, March
13, 2009, 581 SCRA 258)
 The Torrens system requires the government to issue a
certificate of title stating that the person named in the title
is the owner of the property described therein, subject to
liens and encumbrances annotated on the title or reserved
by law.
 The title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all
claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance
of the certificate. (Decaleng v. Phil. Episcopal Church,
GR No. 171209, June 27, 2012)
 The placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the
Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can
no longer be disputed.
 Ownership is different from a certificate of title, the
latter only serving as the best proof of ownership over a
piece of land.
 Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of
any person does not foreclose the possibility that the
real property may be under co-ownership with persons
not named in the certificate, or that the registrant may
only be a trustee, or that other parties may have
acquired interest over the property subsequent to the
issuance of the certificate of title. (Lacbayan v. Samoy,
GR No. 165427, March 21, 2011)
 A certificate of title issued pursuant to administrative
proceedings is as indefeasible as any title issued
through judicial proceedings –
 provided the land is a disposable public land, and
becomes incontrovertible one year after the
issuance of the patent. (Republic v. Carle, 105 Phil.
1227)
 A certificate of title based on an emancipation
patent under PD No. 27 also enjoys the same
protection as a certificate issued judicially or
administratively. (Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian
Reform, R No. 175049, Nov. 27, 2008)
 Rule: title earlier in date prevails
 On the assumption that there was regularity in the
registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject
transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to
trace the original certificates from which the certificates
of title in dispute were derived. Should there be only
one common original certificate of title, . . ., the
transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the
line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity
tainting the process of registration. (Top Management
Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR No.150462, June 15,
2011)

 STATUTORY LIENS
AFFECTING REGISTERED
LAND
• Every registered owner holds title free from encumbrances
except: (a) liens or rights not required by law to be
registered (b) unpaid real estate taxes (c) public highway
(d) limitation on the use of property under agrarian reform
and public land laws (e) liability to attachment or levy on
execution (f) taking under eminent domain proceedings.
(Sec. 44, PD No. 1529)
• Purpose: to give the registered owner an absolutely clean
title, not subject to hidden defects or inchoate claims, as
well as restrictions except those appearing in the
certificate or imposed by the law.
 The decree does not relieve the land or the registered
owner from any rights incident to:
 The relation of husband and wife, landlord and tenant;
 From liability to attachment or levy on execution;
 From liability to any lien of any description established
by law on the land and buildings thereon; or
 Change the laws of descent, rights of partition, or right
to take the same by eminent domain; or
 Relieve such land from liability to any assignee in
insolvency or bankruptcy; or
 Change or affect other rights or liabilities created by
law (Sec. 46, PD 1529)
VOLUNTARY DEALINGS
WITH REGISTERED LAND
 Any registered owner may convey, mortgage, lease or
otherwise deal with the land. (Sec. 51. PD No. 1529).
 Every conveyance or disposition of registered land, if
registered, is constructive notice to all persons from
the time of registration. (Sec. 52, PD 1529; Guaranteed
Homes v. Valdez, 577 SCA 441)
 But knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to
registration. (Fernandez v. CA, 189 SCRA 780)
 Contracts are obligatory in whatever form provided the
essential requisites of consent, object and cause of the
obligation is established
 Donation of real property must be in a public
instrument to be valid. For a mortgage to be validly
constituted, the document must be recorded.
 Agreements mentioned in the Statute of Frauds, to be
enforceable, must be in writing and subscribed by the
party charged.
 Sale of real estate is valid regardless of form but is
effective against third persons only from date of
registration.
 Between two transactions concerning the same land, the
registered transaction prevails over the earlier unregistered
right
 Thus, where a purchaser files an adverse claim to
registered land only after the same was already
mortgaged to the bank, upon the claim that he bought
the land “long before” the mortgage, the right of the
bank to the property is superior to that of the purchaser.
(Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCA 710)
 If two certificates of title purport to include the same
land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to
trace the original certificates from which the certificates
of titles were derived. (Bangis v. Adolfo, GR No.
190875, June 13, 2012)
 Registration of instrument affecting registered land is
ministerial on the part of the RD
 The law on registration does not require that only
valid instruments shall be registered. (Autocorp v.
Court of Appeals, GR 175553, Sept. 8, 2004)
 Questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
instruments are expected to be decided after, not
before, registration.
 Thus, registration must first be allowed, and the
matter of validity or effect litigated afterwards.
 But if the RD is in doubt as to the proper action to
take, he shall elevate the matter en consulta to the
LRA for resolution. (Sec. 117, PD 1529)
• Rule in case of sale of conjugal property
• Under Art. 124 of the Family Code, the sale of conjugal
property requires the consent of both husband and wife.
• The absence of consent of one renders the sale null and
void, including the portion pertaining to the spouse
who contracted the sale. (Guiang v. Court of Appeals,
353 Phil. 578)
• Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the disposition of
conjugal property without the wife’s consent is not void
but merely voidable, and the wife may within 10 years
ask the court for the annulment of the contract.
 Art. 161 of the Civil Code provides that the conjugal
partnership shall be liable for debts and obligations
contracted by the wife for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership. (Alfredo v. Borras, 404 SCRA 145)
 In a contract of sale, title to the property passes to the
vendee upon delivery of the thing sold; in a contract to
sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the vendor
and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of
the purchase price.
 Sale of real property in a public instrument is
equivalent to the delivery thereof if the contrary does
not appear.
 Dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission of
ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as an
accepted equivalent of the performance of t he obligation.
 Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole
world.
 Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to
registration. (Fernandez v. CA, 189 SCRA 780)
 Between two transactions concerning the same land,
the registered transaction prevails over the earlier
unregistered right. (Fudot v. Cattleya, 533 SCRA 350)
VOLUNTARY AND
INVOLUNTARY
REGISTRATION
 Voluntary and involuntary registration distinguished
 Voluntary registration – the purchaser becomes the
registered owner upon the (a) filing and entry of the
deed sale in the day book, (b) surrender of the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title to the RD and (c) payment
of registration fees.
 Involuntary registration – registration is complete upon
filing and entry of the order (e.g., of attachment, levy
upon execution, notice or lis pendens, etc.) in the day
book of the RD, without need of presenting the
owner’s duplicate.
 In voluntary registration, such as a sale, mortgage, lease
and the like,
 if the owner's duplicate certificate be not surrendered
and presented, or
 if no payment of registration fees be made within
fifteen (15) days, entry in the day book of the deed of
sale does not operate to convey and affect the land sold.
 In involuntary registration, such as an attachment, levy
upon execution, lis pendens and the like, entry thereof in
the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such
adverse claim. (Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No. 156318,
Sept. 5, 2011)
JURISDICTION INVOLVING
“TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION
OF, REAL PROPERTY”
 Regional Trial Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction:
 In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts. (Sec. 19(2), BP 129, amended by RA No. 7691)
 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
 Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property
or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs. (Ibid)
 Example
 Actions for cancellation of title and reversion belong to
the class of cases that "involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein" and
where the assessed value of the property exceeds
P20,000.00, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
(Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, GR No.
192975, Nov. 12, 2012; Santos v. CA, 214 SCRA 162)
REMEDIES
REVIEW OF DECREE
 The remedies are:

(1) Petition for review of decree under Section 32;

(2) Action for reconveyance under Sections 53 and 96;
(3) Action for damages under Section 32; and
(4) Claim for compensation against the Assurance Fund
under Section 95.
 Other remedies include:
(1) Action for cancellation and reversion instituted by
the government, through the Solicitor General,
under Section 101 of the Public Land Act (CA No.
141);
(2) Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules
of Court; and
(3) Criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal Code.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
A DECREE
 Explain – what is the remedy of a petition for review?
 In Eland Philippines v. Garcia, GR No. 173289,
Feb. 17, 2010, the Court, citing Agcaoili, “Property
Registration Decree and Related Laws”, held that:
 courts may reopen the proceedings where a
petition for review is filed within one year from
the issuance of the decree of registration, based on
actual or extrinsic fraud, and the property has not
yet passed to a innocent purchaser for value.
 Requisites:
(a) petitioner must have an interest in land;
(b) petition is based on actual or extrinsic fraud;
(c) petition is filed within one year fro the issuance
of the decree of registration; and
(d) property has not yet passed to innocent purchaser
for value. (Walstrom v. Mapa, 314 Phil. 527)
 Sec. 32, PD No. 1529. Review of Decree provides:
 “The decree of registration shall not be reopened or
revised by reason of absence, minority, or other
disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor
by any proceeding in any court for reversing
judgments, subject, however, to the right of zany
person, including the government and the branches
thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest
therein by such adjudication of confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Regional
Trial Court a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and
after the date of the entry of such decree of registration,
but in no case shall such
petition be entertained by the court where an innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest
therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the
phrase ‘innocent purchaser for value’ or an equivalent
phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to
include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value. 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 of registration in any
case may pursue his remedy by action for damages
against the applicant or any other persons responsible
for the fraud.”
Q. Distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud
A. Extrinsic fraud is the fraudulent act of the successful
party committed outside the trial of a case against the
defeated party which prevented the latter from fairly
presenting his case.
Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in a litigation
during the trial, such as the use of forged instruments or
perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation
of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination
of the case. (Palanca v. American Food Manufacturing,
24 SCRA 819)
 Illustrative instances of fraud: Palanca v. American, supra:
 “Where the unsuccessful party had been prevented
from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception
practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him
away from court; a false promise of a compromise; or
where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit,
being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or
where an attorney fraudulently or without authority
assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat;
or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly
sells out his client's interest to the other side - these,
and similar cases, x x x are reasons for which a new
suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former
judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and
fair hearing.”
 ACTION FOR
RECONVEYANCE
 What is an action for reconveyance?
 It is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the
rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or
erroneously registered in the name of another, to
compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey
the land to him.
 The action respects the decree of registration as
incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property,
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
person’s name, to its rightful owner or a person
who has a better right. (Alde v. Bernal, GR No.
169336, March 18, 2010; Ybañez v. IAC, 194
SCRA 793; Gonzales v. IAC, 157SCRA 587)
• An action for reconveyance is an action in personam
• It is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts
and not with the land registration court. A notice of
lis pendens may be annotated on the certificate of
title immediately upon the institution of the action in
court. (Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6,
2011).
• Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to
successfully maintain an action to recover the
ownership of a real property, the person who claims
a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first,
the identity of the land claimed; and second, his title
thereto.
 Requisites:
 The action is brought by the party in interest after
one year from issuance of decree;
 The registration was procured through actual fraud;
 The property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value.
 A party may file an action for reconveyance of the
property of which he has been illegally deprived even
before the issuance of the decree. (Mun. of Hagonoy
v. Secretary, 73 SCRA 507)
 If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the
person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a
trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person
from whom the property comes.
 An action for reconveyance based on implied trust
prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation created
by law, to be counted from the date of issuance of
the Torrens title over the property.
 This rule, however, applies only when the plaintiff
or the person enforcing the trust is not in possession
of the property. (PNB v. Jumanoy, GR No. 169901,
Aug. 3, 2011)
Q. May an action for reconveyance be filed even before
the issuance of the decree of registration?
A. Yes. In Municipality of Hagonoy v. Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, GR No.L-27595,
Oct. 26, 1976, the Court explained: “The petition for
reopening of the decree which may be filed within
one (1) year from the issuance of the said decree is
not the exclusive remedy of, and does not bar any
other remedy to which the aggrieved party may be
entitled.
 Prescription of action for reconveyance
 Action based on fraud – 4 years
 Action based on implied trust – 10 years
 Action based on void contract – imprescriptible
 Action to quiet title where plaintiff is in possession
– imprescriptible
 But laches may bar recovery. (Lucas v. Gamponia,
100 Phil. 277)
 Elements of laches
 Conduct of defendant giving rise to a situation of
which complaint is made and for which the
complainant seeks a remedy;
 Delay in asserting complainant’s rights despite
opportunity to do so;
 Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of
defendant that complainant would assert his right;
and
 Injury or prejudice to defendant if relief is accorded
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
 Illustrative cases of laches
 Petitioner’s action to recover title and possession of
the disputed lot was made only after 12 years from
the registration of the sale to defendant. (De la
Calzada-Cierras v. CA, 212 SCRA 390)
 The claimed owner of a lot failed to appear during
the cadastral proceedings, and brought action to
question the judgment only 10 years later.
(Gonzales v. Director of Lands, 52 Phil. 895)
 Plaintiff did not present his claim against the estate
of the deceased wife but did so only four years later
against the widower. (Yaptico v. Yulo, 57 Phil. 818)
 An action for reconveyance under a constructive
implied trust in accordance with Article 1456 does not
prescribe unless the land is registered or the
instrument affecting the same is inscribed in the
registry.
 Thus, where the land is unregistered, it is from the
date of actual notice of the fraudulent sale that
prescription began to toll. (Cabacungan v. Laigo,
GR No. 175073, Aug. 15, 2011)
 Q. Cite the provision on quieting of title.
 A. “Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein, by reason of any
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is, in truth
and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an
action may be brought to remove such cloud or to
quiet the title. An action may also be brought to
prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real
property or any interest therein.”
 Q. What is a cloud on title?
 A. A "cloud on title" is an outstanding instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
actually invalid or inoperative, but which may
nevertheless impair or affect injuriously the title to
property. The matter complained of must have a prima
facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. The
cloud on title is a semblance of title which appears in
some legal form but which is in fact unfounded. The
invalidity or inoperativeness of the instrument is not
apparent on the face of such instrument, and it has to
be proved by extrinsic evidence. (Aquino v. Quiazon,
GR No. 201248, March 11, 2015)
 Q. What kind of proceeding is an action to quiet title?
 A. It is characterized as a proceeding quasi in rem. In an
action quasi in rem, an individual is named a defendant
and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests to the obligation or loan burdening the property.
Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or
liability of a particular property but which are intended to
operate on these questions only as between the particular
parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off
the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The
judgment therein is binding only upon the parties who
joined in the action. (Phil-Ville Development and Housing
Corporation v. Bonifacio, GR No. 167391, June 8, 2011).
 An action for reconveyance has sometimes been
treated as an action to quiet title. Requisites:
 Plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest in
the property
 The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be
shown to be invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity. (Philville
Development and Housing Corporation v.
Bonifacio, GR No. 167391, June 8, 2011)
 Quieting of title, illustration:
 Jose who is an agent, in representation of Pedro,
sells the latter’s house to Mario. The deed of sale is
executed in a public instrument and there is no
indication that the authority of the agent is not in
writing. The deed of sale appears to be valid and
effective on its face.
 As the authority of Jose to sell is not in writing, the
sale is void (Art. 1874, CC). Pedro can file a suit
against the buyer Mario to quiet his title. (Pineda,
Property)
Q. For an action to quiet title to prosper, what
indispensable requisites must concur?
A. (1) The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an
equitable title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and
(2) The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
(Aquino v. Quiazon, GR No. 201248, March
11,2015; Diaz v. Virata, GR No. 162037, Aug. 7,
2006)
ACTION FOR
DAMAGES
• After one year from the issuance of the decree, the
sole remedy of the aggrieved party is not to set aside
the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no
longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in
the ordinary court for reconveyance. But if the
property has passed into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, the remedy is an action for
damages. (Gonzales v. IAC, 157 SCRA 587)
• Action for damages must be brought within 10 years
from issuance of the questioned certificate of title.
(Art.1144, CC)
Q. When may an action for damages arising from
fraudulent registration lie?
A. When an action for reconveyance is no longer
feasible because the property has already passed to
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the
aggrieved party can file an action for damages
against the persons responsible for depriving him of
his right or interest in the property. (Gonzales v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, GR No. L-69622, Jan.
29, 1988, 157 SCRA 587; Sanjorjo v. Quijano, GR
No. 140457, Jan. 19, 2005, 449 SCRA 15)
Q. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the
registrant, claiming that he is the true owner of the
property registered in the name of the latter.
However, petitioner did not file any opposition to the
application for registration. Will the action prosper?
A. No. A person who has not challenged 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 or pretend to have any right to such
land. (Esconde v. Barlongay, GR No. L-67583, July
31, 1987)
ACTION FOR
REVERSION
 Reversion is an action filed by the government,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, to restore
public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to
private individuals or corporations to the mass of the
public domain. (Yujuico v. Republic, GR No. 168661,
Oct. 26, 2007, citing Agcaoili, “Property Registration
Decree”)
 Grounds for reversion
 An action for reversion may be instituted by the
government, through the Solicitor General, in all
cases where lands of the public domain and the
improvements thereon and all lands are held in
violation of the Constitution (Sec. 35, Chapter XII,
Title III, EO No. 292), or in cases of fraudulent or
unlawful inclusion of land in patents or certificates
of title. (Republic v. Guerrero, GR No. 133168,
March 28, 2006)
 Reversion suits are utilized to annul titles or patents
administratively issued by the Lands Management
Bureau (LMB).
 Actions for cancellation of title and reversion
belong to the class of cases that "involve the title to,
or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein" and where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00 Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Sec. 19 (2), fall under the jurisdiction of the
RTC. (Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, GR
No. 192975, Nov. 12, 2012Santos v. CA, 214
SCRA 162)
 All actions for the reversion to the government of
lands of the public domain or improvements thereon
shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the
officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. (Sec. 101,
PLA)
 Unless and until the land is reverted to the State by
virtue of a judgment of a court of law in a direct
proceeding for reversion, the Torrens certificate of
title thereto remains valid and binding against the
whole world. (Tolentino v. Laurel, GR No. 181368,
Feb.22, 2012)
• State not bound by prescription
 Under Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act (CA No.
141), the LMB Director has continuing authority to
conduct investigation to determine whether or not
public land has been fraudulently awarded or titled
to the end that the corresponding certificate of title
be cancelled and the land reverted to the mass
public domain. (Piñero v. Director of Lands, 57
SCRA 386)
 The indefeasibility of a title is not a bar to an
investigation by the State as to how such title has
been acquired. (Cavile v. Litania-Hong, 581 SCRA
408)
 Q. Is reversion the proper remedy where private land
had been subsequently registered?
 A. No. An action for cancellation, not reversion, is
proper where private land had been subsequently
titled, and the party plaintiff in that case is not the
government but the prior rightful owner of the
property. (Angeles v. Republic, GR No. 166281, Oct.
27, 2006)
Q. Plaintiff Republic filed a complaint to declare the
free patent and title issued to Isagani null and void
and to order the reversion of the land to the mass of
public domain on the ground that the land is a forest
land. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that
OCT No P-2508 had become indefeasible in view of
the lapse of the one-year period prescribed under
(Sec. 32, Property Registration Decree). Plaintiff
appealed. Decide.
A. The appeal is meritorious. The defense of
indefeasibility of a certificate of title issued pursuant
to a free patent does not lie against the State in an
action for reversion where the land is a part of a
public forest or of a forest reservation. A patent is
void if the officer who issued the patent had no
authority to do so. Registration should not be a
shield of fraud. Prescription cannot be invoked
against the State. (Republic v. Animas, GR No. L-
37682, March 29, 1974)
CANCELLATION OF
TITLE
 It is an action initiated by a private party usually in a
case where two titles are issued for the same lot
 Where two titles are issued for the same lot, the
earlier in date prevails. (Pajomayo v. Manipon, 39
SCRA 676)
 Land does not revert to the State but is declared as
lawfully belonging to the party whose title is
superior over the other.
 But the State is vested with personality to file this
action to protect public interest and safeguard the
Assurance Fund
Q. Differentiate an action for reversion from an ordinary
action for cancellation of title.
A. In contrast to an action for reversion which is
filed by the government, through the Solicitor
General, an ordinary action for cancellation is
initiated by a private property usually in a case
where there are two titles issued to different persons
for the same lot. The land does not “revert” to the
mass of the public domain, as in an action for
reversion, but is declared as lawfully belonging to
the party whose certificate of title is held superior
over the other. (Pajomayo v. Manipon, GR No. L-
33676, June 30, 1971)
Q. Differentiate an action for reversion from an escheat
proceeding.
A. An action for reversion is slightly different from
escheat proceeding, but in its effects they are the
same. They only differ in procedure. Escheat
proceedings may be instituted as a consequence of a
violation of the Constitution which prohibits
transfers of private agricultural lands to aliens,
whereas an action for reversion is expressly
authorized by the Public Land Act. (Rellosa v. Gaw
Chee Hun, GR No. L-1411, Sept. 29, 1953)
ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT
• This is an extraordinary remedy filed with the
Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court, where the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of
the petitioner.
• Judgments or orders of quasi-judicial bodies, e.g.,
NLRC or DARAB, are not covered by petitions for
annulment.
 Reversion suits were originally filed with the RTC to
annul titles or patents administratively issued by the
LMB
 But with the effectivity of BP Blg. 129 which gave
the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) jurisdiction
over actions for annulment judgments of RTCs, the
Rules of Court promulgated on July 1, 1997
incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or
final orders of the RTCs. (Yujuico v. Republic, 537
SCRA 513)
 Grounds for annulment:
• (a) action is based on extrinsic fraud, filed within
four years from discovery;
• (b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant/respondent or over the subject matter of
the action.
o If based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner need
not allege that the ordinary remedies of new
trial or appeal are no longer available through
no fault of his.
o If ground is lack of jurisdiction, another remedy
is certiorari under Rule 65 where the CA and
SC have concurrent jurisdiction.
 In a case for annulment of title, the complaint must
allege that the purchaser was aware of the defect in
the title so that the cause of action against him will be
sufficient.
 Failure to do so is fatal since the court cannot render
a valid judgment against the purchaser who is
presumed to be in good faith in acquiring the said
property. Failure to prove, much less impute, bad
faith on said purchaser would make it impossible for
the court to render a valid judgment thereon due to
the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of his title.
(Cabigas v. Limbaco, GR No. 175291, July 27, 2011)
 Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for
cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should
never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence
not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which
must be proved.
 In Sampaco v. Lantud, GR No. 163551, July 18, 2011, the
signatory of the certification, Datu Samra Andam,
A/Adm. Assistant II, Natural Resources District No. XII-
3, Marawi City, was not presented in court to testify on
the due issuance of the certification, and to testify on the
details of his certification, particularly the reason why the
said office had no records of the data contained in OCT
No. P-658 or to testify on the fact of fraud, if any.
• Castigador v. Nicolas, GR No. 184023, March 4, 2013:
allegations of actual fraud -
• "the auction sale of the land is null and void for lack of
actual and personal notice to herein petitioner";
• “the RTC did not comply with the procedure prescribed
in Section 71, PD No. 1529 requiring notice by the
Register of Deeds to the registered owner as to the
issuance of a certificate of sale”;
• “petitioner was not afforded due process when she was
not notified of the proceedings instituted by respondent
for the cancellation of her title.”
• Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a
trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or
where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the
judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured.
• Lack of jurisdiction, illustrative case
 Camitan v. Fidelity Investment (551 SCRA 540) –
where the owner’s duplicate has not been lost but is in
fact existing, the reconstituted title is null and void
since the court never acquired jurisdiction over the
petition for reconstitution.
• If the petition is based on extrinsic fraud, the remedy is
subject to a condition precedent, i.e., that the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition fort relief are no
longer available through no fault of petitioner.
• “Grave abuse of discretion” is not a proper ground for
petition for annulment of judgment. (Antonino v. RD, GR
No. 185663, June 20, 2012)
 The judgment of the CA shall set aside the
questioned judgment, which is void for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice to the original action
being refiled in the proper court.
 However, where the judgment or final order is set
aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA
may, on motion, order the trial court to try the
case as if a timely motion for new trial had been
granted therein. (Sec. 7, Rule 47)
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
FROM THE ASSURANCE
FUND
 Claim against the Assurance Fund
 “A person who, without negligence on his part, sustains
loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or
interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the
land under the operation of the Torrens system of
arising after original registration of land, through fraud
or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry
or memorandum in the registration book, and who by
the provisions of this Decree is barred or otherwise
precluded under the provision of any law from bringing
an action for the recovery of such land or the estate or
interest therein, may bring an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to
be paid out of the Assurance Fund.” (Sec. 95, PD 1529)
 Public policy dictates that those unjustly deprived of
their rights over real property by reason of the
operation of our registration laws be afforded
remedies.
 Thus, the aggrieved party may file a suit for
reconveyance of property or a personal action for
recovery of damages against the party who
registered his property through fraud, or in case of
his insolvency, an action against the Treasurer of
the Philippines for recovery of damages from the
Assurance Fund. (People v. Cainglet, GR No. L-
21493, April 29, 1966; RD v. Anglo, GR No.
171804, Aug. 5, 2015)
 Requisites for recovery

 As to any person who sustains loss or damage:

 No negligence on his part, and
 Loss or damage was through the omission or
mistake of the court personnel, or the Register of
Deeds or other employees of the Registry in the
performance of their duties.
 As to any person deprived of any land or interest in
the land:
 No negligence on his part;
 He was deprived of land or interest therein by the
registration by any other person as owner of such
land; or by mistake, omission or misdescription in
any owner’s duplicate certificate, or in any
memorandum in the register, or by any
cancellation; and
 He is barred from bringing an action for the
recovery of such land or interest therein.
 Defendants in an action against the AF
 The Register of Deeds and National Treasurer -
when the action is for recovery for loss or damage
of for deprivation of land or interest therein through
fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or
misfeasance of the court personnel, the RD or
employees of the registry;
 The Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer and
other persons – for loss or damage or deprivation
of land or interest therein through fraud,
negligence, mistake or misfeasance of persons
other than court personnel, the RD or employees of
the registry.
 The plaintiff must be the registered owner, or as to
holders of transfer certificates of title, that they are
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
 Action does not lie where the damage or
deprivation of any right or interest in the land was
caused by a breach of trust, express or implied.
 The person who claims damages should not have
been negligent in acquiring the property or in
obtaining registration thereof in his name (as where
he is aware of a notice of lis pendens affecting the
property)
 Illustrative cases
 National Treasurer v. Perez (131 SCRA 264) –
where respondent could not be awarded damages
since the donation to him was not executed with the
formalities of a will and therefore could not have
transferred to him ownership of the property.
 Treasurer of the Philippines v. CA (153 SCRA
3590) – where respondents acquired no land or any
interest in the land as a result of the invalid sale to
them by the impostor Lawaan Lopez who had no
title or interest to transfer.
 Illustrative cases
 La Urbana v. Bernardo (62 Phil. 790) – where,
having knowledge of the pending litigation and
notice of lis pendens affecting the land, it
nevertheless proceeded to take the risk of
purchasing property in litigation.
 Fraginal v. Parañal (516 SCA 530) – where
property sold to petitioner was a prime land which
has been the subject of successive transfers with
“unusual haste” which should have triggered
petitioner’s curiosity.
 CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION
 The State may criminally prosecute for perjury the
party who obtains registration through fraud, such as
by stating false assertions in the application for
registration, sworn answer, or application for public
land patent.
 Sec. 91 of the PLA provides that “the statements
made in the application shall b considered as
essential conditions and parts of any concession,
title, or permit issued on the basis of such
application, and any false statement therein or
omission of facts x x x shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession, title, or permit
granted.”
INNOCENT PURCHASER
FOR VALUE
 What is an innocent purchaser for value?
 An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys
the property of another without notice that some
other person has a right to or interest in it, and who
pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase
or before receiving any notice of another person’s
claim. (Rosales v. Burgos, 577 SCA 264)
 No petition for review shall be entertained by the
court where an innocent purchaser for value has
acquired the land or an interest therein. (Sec. 32,
PD 1529)
 Every person dealing with registered land has a right
to rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged
to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition
of the property. (Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCRA 710)
 In a series of transfers, it is enough that the buyer
examines the latest certificate of title and need not
scrutinize each and every title that preceded it.
(Tajonera v. CA, 103 SCRA 467)
In Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013, the
Court held:
The registered owner of realty cannot be deprived of her
property through fraud, unless a transferee acquires the
property as an innocent purchaser for value.
But a transferee who acquires the property covered by a
reissued owner's copy of the certificate of title (1)
without taking the ordinary precautions of honest persons
in doing business and examining the records of the
proper Registry of Deeds, or (2) who fails to pay the full
market value of the property is not considered an
innocent purchaser for value.
 But under the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware),
one who buys without checking the vendor’s title
takes all the risks and losses consequent to such
failure. (Dacasin v. CA, 80 SCRA 89)
 A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an
innocent mortgagee where the title covers non-
registrable land. (LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)
 Nemo dat quod non habet
 No one can give what one does not have.
 One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to
sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what
the seller can transfer legally.
 Prior est temporae, prior est in jura
 He who is first in right is preferred in right.
 Thus, when the thing sold is an immovable, the one
who acquires it and first records it in the Registry
of Property, both made in good faith, shall be
deemed the owner.
 A certificate of title is not conclusive where it is the
product of faulty or fraudulent registration. (Widows
and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
201 SCRA 165), or where the inclusion of land in the
certificate of prior date is a mistake. (Legarda v.
Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590)
 But the rule that where two certificates purport to
include the same land, the earlier in date prevails, is
valid only absent any anomaly or irregularity
tainting the process of registration. (Mathay v.
Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 556)
 PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH
EQUALLY APPLIES TO INNOCENT
LESSEE OR MORTGAGEE FOR VALUE
 Under Sec. 32, PD No. 1529, rule of good faith
equally applies to mortgagees or other encumbrancers
for value
 Thus, where the Torrens title was issued through
regular registration proceedings, a subsequent order
for the cancellation nullification of the title is not a
ground for nullifying the mortgage rights of the
bank. (St. Dominic v. IAC, 151 SCRA 577)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be
respected even if the mortgagor obtained his title
through fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
 The phrase “innocent purchaser for value” in Sec. 32
of the Property Registration Decree includes an
innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for
value. (Unchuan v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 78775,
May 31, 1988, 161 SCA 710)
 Good faith, or the lack of it, is a question of
intention. In ascertaining intention, courts are
necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the
conduct and outward acts by which alone the
inward motive may, with safety, be determined.
(LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb. 25, 2013)
 What is the doctrine of “mortgagee in good faith”?
 In LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb. 25, 2013,
the Court explained the doctrine of “mortgagee in
good faith" as one based on the rule that buyers or
mortgagees dealing with property covered by a
Torrens certificate of title are not required to go
beyond what appears on the face of the title.
 Thus, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the
owner of the mortgaged property, his title being
fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any
foreclosure sale arising therefrom are given effect
by reason of public policy.
 Where the certificate of title is in the name of the
mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the mortgagee
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate
of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No. 69622, Jan. 29,
1988)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value
upon the land mortgaged must be respected and
protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title
thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, GR No. L-
15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
 PNB v. CA and Chu Kim Kit, GR No. L-43972, July 24,
1990
 "The certificate of title was in the name of the
mortgagor when the land was mortgaged to the
PNB. Such being the case, petitioner PNB had the
right to rely on what appeared on the certificate of
title, and in the absence of anything to excite
suspicion, it was under no obligation to look
beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the
mortgagor appearing on the face of the certificate."
(Citing Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
157 SCRA 587; Phil. Coop. Bank vs. Carangdang,
139 SCRA 570; Penullar vs. PNB, 120 SCRA 171)
 "The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be respected
and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his
title through fraud. The remedy of the persons
prejudiced is to bring an action for damages against
those who caused the fraud, and if the latter are
insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the
Philippines may be filed for recovery of damages
against the Assurance Fund.“ (Citing Blanco v.
Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
Q. When Pacete procured OCT No. V-16654 in 1961, the
disputed lot was already in possession of Asotigue,
whose predecessor-in-interest, Sumagad, had been
occupying it since 1958. Is reconveyance to Asotigue
proper?
A. Yes. The registration of the lot in favor Pacete, who
neither possessed nor occupied the lot, is wrongful.
And since Pacete had not yet transferred the lot to an
innocent purchaser for value, reconveyance to
Asotigue, the prior possessor, is proper. Reconveyance
is available not only to the legal owner of a property
but also to the person with a better right. (Pacete v.
Asotigue, GR No. 188575, Dec. 10, 2012)
 Although Art. 2085, CC, requires that the mortgagor
must be the owner of the mortgaged property, the
subsequent declaration that the title is null and void is
not a ground for nullifying the mortgage right of the
mortgagee. (Rural Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon, 175
SCRA 62)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be
respected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title
thereto through fraud.
 The remedy of the person prejudiced is against those
who caused the fraud, or if insolvent, an action for
recovery of damages against the AF. (Blanco v.
Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
 In LBP v. Poblete, supra, the Court held that LBP is not a
mortgagee in good faith because it processed Maniego’s
application upon presentation of OCT No. P-12026,
which was still in the name of Poblete. It also ignored the
fact that a certain Kapantay had previously used Poblete's
title as collateral in its loan account with LBP.
 “When the person applying for the loan is other than the
registered owner of the real property being mortgaged, [such
fact] should have already induced the Bank to make
inquiries into and confirm [the] authority to mortgage . . . .
A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that
could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is
not an innocent purchaser for value.” (Citing Bank of
Commerce v. San Pablo, GR No. 167848, 27 April 2007)
 DOCTRINE OF GOOD FAITH
GENERALLY NOT APPLCABLE
TO BANKS
 But doctrine of “mortgagee in good faith” is generally
not applicable to banks
 It has been consistently held that the rule does not
apply to banks, which are required to observe a higher
standard of diligence. A bank whose business is
impressed with public interest is expected to exercise
more care and prudence in its dealings than a private
individual, even in cases involving registered lands. A
bank cannot assume that, simply because the title
offered as security is on its face free of any
encumbrances or lien, it is relieved of the responsibility
of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the
properties to be mortgaged. (LBP v. Poblete, supra)
 The general rule that a mortgagee need not look
beyond the title does not apply to banks and other
financial institutions as greater care and due diligence
is required of them.
 Imbued with public interest, they "are expected to be
more cautious than ordinary individuals.“ (Alano v.
Planter’s Development Bank, GR No. 171628, June 13,
2011)
 The ascertainment of the status or condition of a
property offered to it as security for a loan must be a
standard and indispensable part of its operations.
(Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, GR No. 140528, Dec. 7, 2011)
 Acts showing the bank’s lack of diligence
 Where the bank did not investigate the property to
ascertain its actual occupants. (It is the standard
practice of banks, before approving a loan, to send
representatives to the premises of the land to
investigate its real owners)
 Where the bank’s representative concentrated only on
the appraisal of the property and failed to inquire as to
who were the then occupants of the property.
 Where the bank acted with haste in granting the
mortgage loan and did not ascertain the ownership of
the land being mortgaged, as well as the authority of
the supposed agent executing the mortgage. (LBP v.
Poblete, supra)
 Banks required to exercise greater care
 But unlike private individuals, banks (and other
persons engaged in lending money) are expected to
exercise greater care and prudence in their dealings
for their business is imbued with public interest.
(PNB v. Jumanoy, GR No. 169901, Aug. 3, 2011;
Metrobank v. SLGT Holdings, 533 SCRA 516;
Cruz v. Bancom Finance, 379 SCRA 490;
Philippine Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 150318, Nov. 2010)
 This principle equally applies to realty corporations
because of the nature of their business. (Sunshine
Finance v. IAC, GR No. 74070, Oct. 28, 1991)
 Imbued with public interest, banks “are expected to be
more cautious than ordinary individuals.”
 Thus, before approving a loan, the standard practice
for banks and other financial institutions is to
conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered
to be mortgaged and verify the genuineness of the
title to determine the real owner or owners thereof.
 Failure to do so makes them mortgagees in bad
faith. (Alano v. Planter’s Development Bank, GR
No. 171628, June 13, 2011)
 A deed of sale which was absolutely simulated is null
and void and does not convey any right that could
ripen into valid title; there being no valid mortgage,
there could be no valid foreclosure, and the bank
cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith.
 But where title was issued through regular
proceedings and was given as security for a bank
loan, the subsequent declaration of the title as null
and void is not a ground for nullifying the mortgage
rights of the bank. (St. Dominic Corp. V. IAC, 151
SCRA 577; Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
A FORGED DEED IS A
NULLITY
 Generally, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no
title, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title. (Joaquin v. Madrid, 106 Phil. 1060)
 The registered owner does not lose his title, and
neither does the assignee or mortgagee acquire any
right to the property. (Bernales v. Sambaan, 610
SCRA 90)
 The innocent purchaser for value protected by law
is one who purchases a titled land by a virtue of a
deed executed by the registered owner himself, not
by a forged deed.
 Sec. 53 of PD No. 1529 provides that the subsequent
registration of title procured by the presentation of a
forged deed or other instrument is null and void.
 Thus, the subsequent issuance of TCT No. 195812
gave the petitioner no better right than the tainted
registration which was the basis for the issuance of
the same title. (Leoveras v. Valdez, GR No. 169985,
June 15, 2011)
 A forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title.
 When the instrument presented for registration is forged,
even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate
of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his
title, and neither does the mortgagee acquire any right or
title to the property. It is essential that the mortgagor be
the absolute owner of the property to be mortgaged;
otherwise, the mortgage is void. (LBP v. Poblete, GR
No. 196577, Feb.25, 2013)
 Where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has
been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of
sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration. Hence,
the corresponding title issued to the vendee pursuant to
the same deed is likewise void. (Id.)
 Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013
 An impostor succeeded in tricking a court of law into
granting his petition for the issuance of a duplicate owner's
copy of the supposedly lost TCT. The impostor then had the
TCT cancelled by presenting a purported deed of sale
between him and the registered owners, both of whom had
already been dead for some time, and another TCT was then
issued in the impostor's own name. This issuance in the
impostor's own name was followed by the issuance of yet
another TCT in favor of a third party, supposedly the buyer
of the impostor. In turn, the impostor's transferee (already
the registered owner in his own name) mortgaged the
 the property to Spouses Miguel and Adela Lazaro, who then
caused the annotation of the mortgage on the TCT. All the
while, the original duplicate owner's copy of the TCT
remained in the hands of an heir of the deceased registered
owners with his co-heirs' knowledge and consent.
 The Lazaros, as the mortgagees, claimed good faith, and
urged the Court to find in their favor. But the Court held
instead that since the the title of the property mortgaged to
the Lazaros was a second owner's duplicate TCT, which is,
in effect a reconstituted title, this circumstance should have
alerted them to make the necessary investigation, but they
did not.
 But a forged deed may become the root of a valid title
 A forged deed may become the root of a valid title
in a bona fide purchaser if the certificate has
already been transferred from the name of the true
owner to the name of the forger or the name
indicated by the forger, and while it remained that
way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser for value. (Solivel v. Francisco, 170
SCRA 218)
 For then the vendee had the right to rely upon what
appeared in the certificate. (Guaranteed Homes v.
Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)
 A void title may become the root of a valid title if the
derivative title was obtained in good faith and for
value.
 Following the principle of indefeasibility of a
Torrens title, every person dealing with registered
lands may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title of the vendor/transferor, and he
is not required to go beyond the certificate and
inquire into the circumstances culminating in the
vendor's acquisition of the property. The rights
of innocent third persons who relied on the
correctness of the certificate of title and acquired
rights over the property covered thereby cannot be
disregarded and the courts cannot order the
cancellation of such certificate for that would impair
or erode public confidence in the Torrens system of
land registration.” (Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676,
June 6, 2011. See also: Republic v. Agunoy, 492 Phil.
118 (2005), citing cases)
GENERAL INCIDENTS OF
REGISTERED LAND
• “Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title
in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a
certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances except
those noted in said certificate.” (Sec. 44, PD 1529)
• The phrase “innocent purchaser for value” includes
an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value. (Unchuan v. CA, 161
SCRA 710)
 Statutory liens
 Every registered owner and every subsequent
purchaser for value and in good faith shall hold the
same free from all encumbrances except those
noted in the certificate and any of the following:
 liens, claims or rights under the Constitution and
laws; unpaid real estate taxes; any public highway or
private way established by law; any disposition of the
property or limitation on the use thereof by virtue of
PD 27 or any law on agrarian reform. (Sec. 44, PD
1529)
 Meaning of lien, encumbrance
 “Lien” is a charge on property usually for the payment
of some debt or obligation. It signifies a legal claim or
charge on property, either real or personal, as a
collateral or security for the payment of some debt or
obligation.
 “Encumbrance” is a burden upon land depreciative of
its value, such as a lien, easement, or servitude, which,
though adverse to the interest of the landowner, does
not conflict with his conveyance of the land in fee, e.g.,
a mortgage, judgment lien, lease, security interest,
easement or right of way, accrued and unpaid taxes.
 Illustrative cases
 Alienable public lands donated, granted or held by a
branch or subdivision of the government cannot be
alienated unless authorized by Congress. (Chavez v.
PEA, 384 SCRA 152)
 Section 44 which subjects the certificate of title to
public servitudes which may be subsisting, does not
apply, say, in the case of a road constructed subsequent
to the acquisition of the land. (Dirgran v. Auditor
General, 16 SCRA 762)
 Secs. 118 and 122 of the Public Land Act provide
limitations on the right of the homestead or free
patentee to alienate the land subject of the patent.
REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
PRESCRIPTION
 “No title to registered land in derogation of the title of
the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription
or adverse possession.” (Sec. 47, PD 1529)
 Title to land, once registered, is imprescriptible. It
may not be lost by adverse, open and notorious
possession. Prescription is unavailing not only
against the registered owner but also against his
hereditary successors.
 The right to recover possession of registered
property is equally imprescriptible since possession
is a mere consequence of ownership. (Republic v.
Mendoza, GR No. 185091, Aug. 8, 2010)
 A decree of registration is conclusive upon all
persons, including the government and all its
branches, whether or not mentioned by name in the
application for registration or its notice.
 Indeed, title to the land, once registered, is
imprescriptible. Adverse possession of real property for
the requisite period confers title as effectually as any
paper title, but such a title cannot be acquired against a
title registered under the provisions of the Property
Registration Decree. The statute of limitations is merely
a bar to a right of action and does not operate as a
transfer of title at all. (La Corporacion de Padres v.
Crisostomo, GR No. 10031, Dec. 6, 1915)
 But a registered owner may be barred from recovering
possession by virtue of laches.
 In Panganiban v. Gamponia (100 Phil. 277),
petitioners, for 45 years, did nothing to assert their
right of ownership and were barred from recovering
possession of the property.
 In Agne v. Director of Lands (181 SCRA 7090), the
registered owner’s right to recover possession was
lost by inaction for almost 30 years.
 In Golloy v. CA (173 SCRA 26), while the lot was
registered in the name of respondent, petitioners
acquired title thereto by possession for 50 years.
 Q. What is laches?
 A. Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect,
for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to
do that which by exercising due diligence could or
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert
it. Laches is not concerned merely with lapse of time,
unlike prescription. While the latter deals with the fact
of delay, laches deals with the effect of unreasonable
delay. (Cotoner-Zacarias v. Revilla, GR No. 190901,
Nov. 12, 2014)
 Illustrative cases of laches
 In Panganiban v. Dayrit, GR No. 151235, July 28,
2005, the Court held that even a registered owner of
property may be barred from recovering possession of
property by virtue of laches. In this case, petitioners,
for forty-five (45) years, did nothing to assert their
right of ownership and possession over the subject
property.
 In Lola v. Court of Appeals, GR No. GR No. L-46573,
Nov. 13, 1986,  the Court held that petitioners
acquired title to the land by virtue of the equitable
principles of laches due to respondent’s failure to
assert her claim of ownership for 32 years.
 REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK
 A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or
cancelled except in a direct proceeding filed with the
RTC (Sec. 48, PD 1529; Manotok v. Barque, 582
SCRA 583)
 Direct attack: when the object of the action is to
annul or set aside the judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement.
 Collateral attack: in an action to obtain a different
relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless
made as an incident thereto.
 A direct attack on title is proper in a counterclaim
(Leyson v. Bontuyan, 452 SCRA 94).
Q. Petitioner Gan Tan, a Chinese, bought land from the
Cebu Heights Co. and obtained TCT No. 49978 in
his name. Having lost his title, he filed a petition for
reconstitution under RA No. 26. The court denied the
since petitioner is an alien. Is the denial of the
petition for reconstitution proper?
A. A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The
issue as to whether an alien is or is not qualified to
acquire land covered by Torrens title under our
Constitution can only be raised in an action
expressly instituted for that purpose. (Director of
Lands v. Gan Tan, GR No. L-2664, May 30, 1951;
Legarda vs. Saleeby, GR No. 8936, Oct. 2, 1915)
Q. Respondents filed a petition with the LRA for the
administrative reconstitution of the TCT No. 210177 in
the name of Homer Barque. Severino Manotok opposed
alleging that the lot covered by the Barque title is part of
the land covered by his reconstituted TCT No. RT-22481
[372302]. However, the LRA found the Manotoc title to
have been fraudulently reconstituted, hence, it ordered
the reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the name of
Barque, but only after the cancellation by the proper
court of the Manotoc title. On appeal, the CA directed
the cancellation of the Manotok title and the
reconstitution of the Barque title. Was the CA
empowered to annul the Manotok title through the
petitions raised before it by the Barques and the
Manotoks?
A. No. Section 48 of PD provides that "[a] certificate of
title shall not be subject to collateral attack [[. . . and]
cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law.” The
administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is
intended for non-controversial cases. Neither the
Court of Appeals nor the LRA has jurisdiction to
cancel titles. (Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335,
Dec. 18, 2008)
 Reconstitution proceedings are not the venue for
confirmation or adjudication of title. The Court of Appeals
does not have original jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles
or to otherwise adjudicate questions over ownership of
property.
 If it appears from the records that the subject property
is already covered by an existing Torrens title in the
name of another person, there is nothing further the
LRA can do but to dismiss the petition.
 The only remedy is an action before the RTC for the
cancellation of the existing title, whether by the
competing claimant or by the OSG on behalf of the
Republic. (Ibid)
 Author’s note: In the Court’ resolution dated Aug. 24,
2010, it held: “The petition for reconstitution of title filed
by the Barques is likewise DENIED. TCT No. RT-22481
(372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al., TCT
No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque and Deed of
Conveyance No. V-200022 issued to Felicitas B.
Manahan, are all hereby declared NULL and VOID. The
Register of Deeds of Caloocan City and/or Quezon City
are hereby ordered to CANCEL the said titles. The Court
hereby DECLARES that Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate,
Quezon City, legally belongs to the NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, without prejudice to the institution of
REVERSION proceedings by the State through the OSG.”
 Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known
as the Property Registration Decree, provides that "[a]
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack [.
. . and] cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in
a direct proceeding in accordance with law". Clearly, the
cancellation of the Manotok title cannot arise incidentally
from the administrative proceeding for reconstitution of
the Barque title even if the evidence from that proceeding
revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor could it have
emerged incidentally in the appellate review of the LRA's
administrative proceeding.
Q. How do you characterize an application for
registration of an already titled land?
A. The application constitutes a collateral attack on the
existing title. The title may be challenged only in a
proceeding for that purpose, not in an application for
registration of a land already registered in the name
of another person. After one year from its
registration, the title is incontrovertible and is no
longer open to review. (Wee v. Mardo, GR No.
202414, June 4, 2014)
ADVERSE CLAIM
 An adverse claim is a type of involuntary dealing
designed to protect the interest of a person over a
piece of real property by apprising third persons that
there is a controversy over the ownership of the land.
 It seeks to preserve and protect the right of the
adverse claimant during the pendency of the
controversy, where registration of such interest or
right is not otherwise provided for by the Property
Registration Decree. An adverse claim serves as a
notice to third persons that any transaction
regarding the disputed land is subject to the
outcome of the dispute. (Logarta v. Mangahis, GR
No. 213568, July 5, 2016)
 Q. May a perfected contract of sale be registered as an
adverse claim?
 No. Before a notice of adverse claim is registered, it
there must be no other provision for the registration of
the claimant's right in the property. The proper
procedure then is to register the vendee's right as
prescribed by Sections 51 (“the act of registration
shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned”) and 52 of PD
1529, and not under Section 70 which is ineffective in
protecting the vendee's right since it does not have the
effect of a conveyance. (Logarta v. Mangahis, supra)
Q. Is a deed of conditional sale registrable as an adverse
claim?
A. No. In a deed of conditional sale, ownership is
transferred after the full payment of the installments of
the purchase price and the execution of an absolute
deed of sale. It is a dealing affecting less than the
ownership of property. The rule is tat before a notice
of adverse claim is registered, it must be shown that
there is no other provision for the registration of the
claimant's alleged right. And pursuant to Section 54 of
PD 1529, all interests in registered land less than
ownership shall be registered by filing with the
Register of Deeds the instrument which creates such
interest. (Sec. 54, PD 1529; Logarta v. Mangahis,
Q. Does the registration of a notice of levy produce
constructive notice that would bind third persons
despite the failure of the RD to annotate the same in
the certificates of title?
A. Yes.The notice of levy is registered precisely to bind
the property and to serve as caution to third persons
who might potentially deal with the property. Entry
alone produces the effect of registration, whether the
transaction is a voluntary or involuntary one, so long
as the registrant had complied with all that was
required of him and nothing more remained to be done
but a duty incumbent solely on the Register of Deeds.
(Saberon v. Ventanilla, GR No. 192669, April 21,
2014)
 A person who claims an interest in registered land
adverse to the registered owner may make a statement
under oath setting forth his alleged right or interest
and how acquired, the number of the certificate of
title, name of the registered owner and a description of
the land.
 The statement shall be registered as an adverse
claim and shall be effective for 30 days.
 The annotation may be cancelled upon the filing a
of a verified petition by the party in interest. (Sec.
70, PD 1529)
• An adverse claim is designed to protect the right or
interest of a person over a piece of real property and
serves as a notice to third persons that someone is
claiming an interest in the land or a better right thereto
than the registered owner. (Martinez v. Garcia, GR
No. 166536, Feb. 4, 2010)
• An adverse claim based on prescription and adverse
possession cannot be registered because, under Sec.
47, no title to registered land shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. (Estella v.
Register of Deeds, 106 Phil. 911)
 A sale of land may not be annotated as an adverse
claim because the law prescribes the remedy of
registration of the sale and the issuance to the vendee
of a transfer certificate of title. (RD v. Nicandro, 111
Phil. 989; Sec. 57, PD 1529)
 The hereditary rights or a person registered
fraudulently in her sister’s name is registrable as an
adverse claim. (Gabriel v. Register of Deeds, 9
SCRA 136)
 A notice of levy and subsequent sale of property cannot
prevail over an existing adverse claim earlier inscribed on
the certificate of title covering it. (Martinez v. Garcia, 611
SCRA 537)
 The Register of Deeds cannot unilaterally cancel the
adverse claim. There must be a hearing for the purpose.
This is in line with the provision “that after
cancellation, no second adverse claim shall be
registered by the same claimant. (Sanjonas v. CA, 258
SCRA 79)
 That the foreclosure of mortgage was effected after the
annotation of the adverse claim is of no moment since
the foreclosure retroacts to the date of registration of
the mortgage. (Limpin v. IAC, 166 SCRA 87)
 Adverse claim is proper where there is no other
provision of law for the registration of claimant’s
alleged right or interest in the property.
• A notice of levy cannot prevail over an existing
adverse claim inscribed in the certificate of title.
• A claim which arose prior to the date of the original
registration cannot be entered as adverse claim.
• Where the claim is based on a perfected contract of
sale by the owner of the land, the procedure is to
register the contract so that a new transfer certificate
of title is issued to the vendee-claimant. (Sec. 57,
PD No. 1529)
 A mortgage is valid as between the parties even if
unregistered, but registration of a mortgage is
indispensable to bind third parties.
 Prior registration of an adverse claim or notice of
lis pendens creates a preference as against a
mortgage registered later. The subsequent
registration of a prior mortgage does not diminish
this preference, which retroacts to the date of the
notice of adverse claim or lis pendens. (Cruz v.
Bancom Finance Corporation, GR No. 147788,
March 19, 2002)
 An adverse claim is effective for thirty days; but it is
not ipso facto cancelled after said period - a separate
petition is necessary. (Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 102377, July 5, 1996)
 The RD cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse
claim. There must be a hearing for the purpose.
(Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)
 The adverse claim may be cancelled if it is
frivolous or vexatious, in which case damages may
be adjudged against the adverse claimant.
SURRENDER OF CERTIFICATE
IN INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
 Court may compel surrender of withheld certificate
 If an attachment or other lien in the nature of an
involuntary dealing is registered and the duplicate
certificate is not presented, the Register of Deeds
shall, within 36 hours, request the registered owner
to produce his duplicate certificate. If he refuses to
comply within a reasonable time, the RD shall
report the matter to the court which shall, after
notice, issue an order for the owner to produce his
certificate at the time and place stated and may
enforce the order by suitable process. (Sec. 71, PD
1529)
 In an action for specific performance with damages based
on a contract of sale, a motion may be filed by the
purchaser for the issuance of an order to compel the holder
of the duplicate certificate of title to surrender the same to
the RD. Ligon v. CA, GR No. 107751, June 1, 1995
 Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition
which can be filed by one who wants to compel another
to surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does
not preclude a party to a pending case to include as
incident therein the relief stated under Sec. 107,
especially if the subject certificates of title to be
surrendered are intimately connected with the subject
matter of the principal action. This principle is based
on expediency.
 Mortgage lien follows the property mortgaged
 Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title
which subsists should be incorporated in or carried over
to the new transfer certificates of title. This is true even in
the case of a real estate mortgage because pursuant to Art.
2126 of the Civil Code it directly and immediately
subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever
the possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation
for whose security it was constituted.
 It is inseparable from the property mortgaged as it is a
right in rem — a lien on the property whoever its owner
may be. Thus, all subsequent purchasers must respect the
mortgage whether the transfer to them be with or without
the consent of the mortgagee, for such mortgage until
discharged follows the property. (Ligon v. CA, supra)
 SURRENDER OF
WITHHELD CETIFICATE
 Sec. 107, PD 1529
 “Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates.
- Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate
pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests
the title of the registered owner or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered because of the refusal
of the holder to surrender the owner’s duplicate
certificate, the party in interest may file a petition the
court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of
Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the
registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct
the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon
such surrender. If the person withholding the certificate
is not amenable to the process of the court, or if for any
reason the outstanding owner’s duplicate certificate
cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment
of the same as well the issuance of a new certificate of
title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all
duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the
annulment of the outstanding duplicate.”
 In implementing the involuntary transfer of title of
real property levied and sold on execution, is it
enough for the executing party to file a motion with
the court which rendered judgment, or does he need to
file a separate action with the Regional Trial Court?
 The proper course of action is to file a petition in
court, rather than merely move, for the issuance of
new titles. This is to afford due process to the
registered landowner. (Reyes v. Tang Soat Ing, GR
No. 185620, Dec. 14, 2011; Padilla v. Philippine
Producers’ Cooperative Marketing Association, GR
No. 141256, Sept. 18, 1995)
 NOTICE OF
LIS PENDENS
 Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers
to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court
acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the
continuance of the action, and until final judgment.
 Lis pendens is intended (1) to keep the properties in
litigation within the power of the court until the
litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the
judgment or decree by subsequent alienation; and (2) to
announce to the whole world that a particular property
is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who
acquires an interest over said property does so at his
own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the
litigation over said property. (Mr Holdings, Ltd. v.
Bajar, GR No. 153478, Oct. 10, 2012)
 A notice of lis pendens is governed by Sec. 14, Rule
13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
 “SEC. 14. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action
affecting the title or the right of possession of real
property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when
affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record
in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in
which the property is situated a notice of the pendency
of the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the
parties and the object of the action or defense, and a
description of the property in that province affected
 thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for
record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the
property affected thereby, be deemed to have
constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and
only of its pendency against the parties designated by
their real names.
 The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may
be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting
the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect
the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded."
 A notice of lis pendens is availed of mainly in real
actions. These actions are:
 (a) an action to recover possession of real estate;
 (b) an action for partition; and
 (c) any other court proceedings that directly affect the title
to the land or the building thereon or the use or the
occupation thereof.
 Additionally, the annotation of lis pendens also applies to suits
seeking to establish a right to, or an equitable estate or interest
in, a specific real property, or to enforce a lien, a charge or an
encumbrance against it.
 But it does not apply to actions involving title to or any right or
interest in, personal property, such as the subject membership
shares in a private non-stock corporation. (Mr Holdings v.
Bajar, supra)
 Lis pendens is not proper in an action for sum of money
 “A notice of lis pendens annotated on the cancelled TCT No.
170213 and carried over to Tan's TCT No. 10206 conferred
upon RAM no rights over the subject property as well as
petitioner, its successor-in-interest, since CC No. 67381,
which RAM, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner, instituted
against Zeñarosa was for collection of sum of money with
damages — a purely personal action.
 Hence, the subsequent levy on execution on October 14,
2004 arising from the final money judgment in favor of
petitioner cannot prevail over the earlier annotated
attachment made by Lorenzo on September 30, 2002 and its
subsequent notice of levy on execution and sale of the
property to respondents on January 30, 2004, who then took
possession. (Gagoomal v. Villacorta, GR No. Jan. 18, 2012)
 Purpose:
 to protect the rights of the party causing registration,
and
 to advise third persons that they deal with the
property subject to the result of the case
 A notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits
of the case nor creates a right or lien.
 Cancellation is proper when filed to molest
adverse party or is not necessary to protect the
rights of the person causing registration.
• Lis pendens is proper in the following cases:
 Action to recover possession of property;
 Action to quiet title thereto;
 Action to remove clouds thereon;
 Action for partition; and
 Any other proceedings in court directly affecting
the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof
or the buildings thereon.
• The notice need not be annotated on the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title because the notice is an
involuntary transaction. Entry in the day book is
sufficient. (Yu v. CA, 251 SCRA 509)
 Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188585, Dec. 10, 2012
 As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed as
an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice
and not with the land registration court.
Reconveyance is always available as long as the
property has not passed to an innocent third person
for value.
 A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on
the certificate of title immediately upon the
institution of the action in court. The notice of lis
pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third
person for value and preserve the claim of the real
owner.
 In case of subsequent sales or transfers, the RD must
carry over the notice of lis pendens on all titles to be
issued.
 Transferees of title subject to lis pendens are bound by
the judgment against their predecessors. (Selph v.
Aguilar, 107 Phil. 443)
 Before final judgment, the notice may be cancelled
upon order of the court if the notice is for the purpose
of molesting the adverse party or if it is not necessary
for the protection of the party who caused its
registration; or by the RD upon verified petition of the
party who caused the annotation thereof. (Sec. 77)
 Cancellation of lis pendens
 The power to cancel a notice of lis pendens is
exercised only under exceptional circumstances,
such as: where such circumstances are imputable to
the party who caused the annotation; where the
litigation was unduly prolonged to the prejudice of
the other party because of several continuances
procured by petitioner; where the case which is the
basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed for
non prosequitur on the part of the plaintiff; or
where judgment was rendered against the party
who caused such a notation. (J. Casim Construction
v. Registrar of Deeds, GR No. 168655, July 2,
2010)
AMENDMENT AND
ALTERATION OF
CERTIFICATES
 No erasure, alteration, or amendment, shall be made
upon the registration book after the entry of a
certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon except
by order of the proper Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 108,
PD 1529)
 No amendment or alteration shall be made except
upon order of the court. (Cuyugan v. Sy Quia, 24
Phil. A567)
 The petition shall be filed in the original case in
which the decree was entered. (OCA v. Matas, 247
SCRA 9)
 In Paz v. Republic, GR No. 157367, Nov. 23, 2011,
the Court held that the amendment and alteration of a
certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529
is applicable in seven instances or situations, namely:
(a) when registered interests of any description,
whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate,
have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests
have arisen or been created which do not appear upon
the certificate; (c) when any error, omission or
mistake was made in entering a certificate or any
memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate;
(d) when the name of any person on the certificate has
been changed; (e) when the registered owner has been
 married, or, registered as married, the marriage has
been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or
creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a
corporation, which owned registered land and has
been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within
three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is
reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of
title.
 Under Sec. 108, in relation to Sec. 2, PD No. 1529,
the court may now hear both contentions and non-
contentious cases.
 Section 108 provides that, after notice to all the
interested parties, the court may (a) order the issuance
of a new certificate, (b) order the entry or cancellation
of a memorandum upon a certificate, or (c) grant any
other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring
a bond if necessary, as it may deem proper.
 But the court, sitting as a land registration court, has no
jurisdiction or authority to reopen the original decree of
registration. The court cannot "impair the title or other
interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value
and in good faith, or his heirs or assigns, without his or
their written consent.“ (Luzon Surety v. Mirasol, GR
No. L-29313, Jan. 21, 1977)
 The court can compel petitioner to surrender his
owner’s duplicate certificate so that a new title may be
issued to the INK despite his argument that the case
involved the “registrability “ of the document. (Ligon
v. CA, 244 SCA 693)
 Thus, the court has jurisdiction over a petition for
cancellation of encumbrances despite respondent’s
contention that the issue is controversial. (PNB v.
International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508).
 Proceedings under Sec. 108 involve only non-
controversial matters
 The enumerated instances for amendment or
alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108
are non-controversial in nature. They are limited to
issues so patently insubstantial as not to be genuine
issues. The proceedings thereunder are summary in
nature, contemplating insertions of mistakes which
are only clerical, but certainly not controversial
issues. (Cabañez v. Solano, GR No. 200180, June ,
2016) Consequently, such issues should be ventilated
in a regular action. (Angeles v. Razon, GR No. L-
13679, Oc. 26, 1959)
 Thus, as clarified in Cabañez, supra:
 “From the foregoing, there is no question that there is a
serious objection and an adverse claim on the part of an
interested party x x x (which) necessarily entail
litigious and controversial matters making it imperative
to conduct an exhaustive examination of the factual and
legal bases of the parties' respective positions.
Certainly, such objective cannot be accomplished by
the court through the abbreviated action under Section
108 of PD 1529. A complete determination of the issues
in the present case can only be achieved if petitioner
and his wife are impleaded in an adversarial
proceeding.”
 In Bareng vs. Shintoist Shrine (83 SCRA 418 [1978]
which involves Secs. 111 and 112 of the Land
Registration Act, substantially similar to Secs. 107
and 108 of the Property Registration Decree, the
Court ruled:
 "Anyway, proceedings undertaken pursuant to
Section 111, as those under Section 112, are
summary in nature. They are inadequate for the
litigation of issues properly pertaining to civil
actions. In other words, controversial questions,
such as questions concerning the ownership of
registered property, questions of lapse of period to
register of deeds (sic), or any question where the
issues involved have become controversial cannot
be threshed out in such proceedings. Where
therefore, controversial issues are raised in
proceedings brought under Section 111 or Section
112, it is the duty of the court sitting as a cadastral
court or land registration court to dismiss the
petition and the proper recourse open for the parties
would be to bring up the said questions in an
ordinary civil action, or in the proceeding where the
incident properly belongs. (Cited in Tiongco v. Phil.
Veterans Bank, GR No. 82782, Aug. 5, 1992)
 Bareng, however, added:
 “Although the general rule is that a Land Registration
Court has no power to decide cases involving issues
properly litigable in ordinary civil actions, yet
inasmuch as in this jurisdiction it is the courts of first
instance that also functions as courts of land
registration, our jurisprudence recognizes exceptions to
said rule, where the parties have acquiesced in
submitting the issues for determination in the
registration proceedings, and they are given full
opportunity to present their respective sides and submit
their evidence.” (Citing cases)
REPLACEMENT OF LOST
OR DESTROYED
CERRTIFICATE OF TITLE
• Upon petition of the registered owner or person in
interest, the court may, after notice and hearing,
direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate
which shall in all respects be entitled to like faith
and credit as the original duplicate. (Sec. 109, PD
No. 1529)
• Where the owner’s duplicate copy is not in fact
lost or destroyed, a petition for the purpose is
unwarranted as the court has no jurisdiction over
the petition
• Procedure
 The registered owner or person in interest shall
send notice, under oath, of the loss or destruction of
the owner’s duplicate certificate to the Register of
Deeds; and
 The corresponding petition for the replacement of
the lost or destroyed certificate shall then be filed in
court and entitled in the original case in which the
decree of registration was entered.
• Unlike in a petition for reconstitution, there is no
requirement for the publication of the petition for
replacement of a lost or destroyed certificate .
RECONSTITUTION OF
LOST OR DESTROYED
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
 The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes
restoration in the original form and condition of a lost
or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person
to a piece of land.
 The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have,
after observing the procedures prescribed by law,
the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has
been when the loss or destruction occurred.
 RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title is
sought to be reconstituted has already been brought
under the provisions of the Torrens System.
(Republic v. Tuastumban, GR No. 173210, Apri 24,
2009)
 Requisites:
 (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyed;
 (b) that the documents presented by petitioner are
sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the
lost or destroyed certificate of title;
 (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
property or had an interest therein;
 (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it
was lost and destroyed; and
 (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the
property are substantially the same as those contained
in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Id.)
• Elements of Reconstitution:
• Certificate of title has been lost or destroyed;
• Petitioner is the registered owner or person
who has an interest therein (the RD is only a
nominal party); and
• Certificate of title was in force at the time it
was lost or destroyed.(Sec. 110, PD No. 1529)
• The petition shall be filed with the RTC of the
province or city where the land lies. (Sec. 12, RA
No. 26)
 Judicial reconstitution partakes of a land
registration proceeding and is subject to the
jurisdictional requirements of publication, mailing
and posting. This is mandatory. (Sec. 13, RA No.
26; Pinote v. Dulay, GR No. 56694, July 2, 1990)
 The petition shall be filed with the regional trial
court of the province or city where the land lies.
Sec. 108 of PD No, 1529 provides that all
petitions or motions after original registration
shall be filed and entitled in the original case in
which the decree of registration was entered. (See
also Sec. 2, RA No. 26. Office of the Court
Administrator v. Matas, A.M. No. RTJ-92-836.
August 2, 1995).
 Administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed
certificates is governed by RA 6732
 It is available in case of substantial loss or
destruction of land titles due fire, flood or other
force majeure. Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Dec. 18,2008)
 Requirements:
 Number of certificates lost or damaged is at
least 10% of the total number in possession of
the RD.
 In no case shall be number of certificates be
less than 500.
 The administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is
intended for non-controversial cases,
 or especially where the subject property is not covered
by an existing title in favor of a person other than the
applicant. Such an implication is consonant with the
rule that the reconstitution proceedings are not the
venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but
merely a means by which a previously adjudicated title
whose original has been lost or destroyed may be
reissued to its owner.
 The LRA has no jurisdiction over a petition for
reconstitution, where the property is already covered
by a Torrens title. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)
 If it appears that the subject property is already
covered by an existing Torrens title in the name of
another person, there is nothing further the LRA can
do but to dismiss the petition.
 Upon review, the only relevant inquiry in such
appellate proceeding is on whether or not there is a
previously existing title covering that property.
 Neither the LRA nor the CA at that point may inquire
into the validity of the title or the competing claims
over the property. The only remedy is an action before
the RTC for the cancellation of the existing title,
whether by the competing claimant or by the OSG on
behalf of the Republic. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)
 Sec. 48 of PD No. 1529 provides that "[a] certificate
of title shall not be subject to collateral attack [. . .
and] cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except
in a direct proceeding in accordance with law".
 Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title cannot
arise incidentally from the administrative proceeding
for reconstitution of the Barque title even if the
evidence from that proceeding revealed the Manotok
title as fake. Nor could it have emerged incidentally in
the appellate review of the LRA's administrative
proceeding.
 Neither the CA nor the LRA has the power to cancel
titles. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)
 There is no collateral attack on the title (OCT No.
239) when the reconstiution case (LRC Case No. B-
1784) was dismissed by court precisely because the
invalidity of said certificate of title was already
determined with finality by the Supreme Court.
 The decision of the Court declaring OCT No. 239
fake, forged, and spurious already bars the
reconstitution of said title under the doctrine of res
judicata, in the concept of conclusiveness of
judgment. (Layos v. Fil-Estate, GR No. 150470,
Aug. 6, 2008)
 Sources of reconstitution
 Sec. 2, RA No. 26 - for reconstitution of an original
certificate of title
 Sec. 3, RA No. 26 – for reconstitution of a transfer
certificate of title.
 “Any other document” as a source of reconstitution
refers to documents similar to those previously
enumerated in the law under the principle of
ejusdem generis. (Republic v. IAC and Kiram, 157
SCRA 62
 The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed
in Sections 12 (contents of petition) and 13
(requirements of notice and hearing) of R.A. No. 26
is fatal.
 These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The
petition for reconstitution must allege certain specific
jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must be
published in the Official Gazette and posted in
particular places and the same sent or notified to
specified persons. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act
provide specifically the mandatory requirements and
procedure to be followed. (Castillo v. Republic, GR No.
182980, Jun 22, 2011)
 Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not apply
to land registration cases. Indeed, to further underscore the
mandatory character of these jurisdictional requirements,
the Rules of Court do not apply to land registration cases.
(Sec. 4, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
 In all cases where the authority of the courts to proceed
is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of
obtaining jurisdiction is prescribed by a statute, the
mode of proceeding is mandatory, and must be strictly
complied with, or the proceeding will be utterly void.
When the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take
cognizance of a case, it lacks authority over the whole
case and all its aspects. (Castillo v. Republic, GR No.
182980, June 22, 2011)
CONSULTA
 When the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what
action should be taken on an instrument presented
for registration, or where ay party does not agree
with the action taken by the Register of Deeds, the
question shall be elevated to the LRA Administrator
via en consulta for determination. (Sec. 117, PD
1529)
 The consulta shall be cancelled (a) upon final
resolution of the case by the LRA Administrator,
or (b) if the consulta is withdrawn by the
petitioner.
 The ruling of the LRA shall be conclusive and binding
on all RDs, without prejudice to an appeal to the
Court of Appeals.
 A party who does not agree with the action taken by
the LRA is to appeal to the CA, via Rule 43 - and
not by certiorari or prohibition - within 15 days
from notice of the decision or resolution. (Calalang
v. RD of QC, 231 SCRA 88)
 The administrative remedy must be resorted to by
petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts.
(Almirol v. RD of QC, 22 SCRA 1152)
 MORTGAGES AND LEASES
 The mortgagor must be the owner of the property
mortgaged.
 A mortgage lien is a right in rem which follows
property.
 A notice of lis pendens cannot prejudice mortgage
previously registered.
 A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an
innocent mortgagee where the title covers non-
registrable land. (LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)
 Where the certificate of title is in the name of the
mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the mortgagee
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate
of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No. 69622, Jan. 29,
1988)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value
upon the land mortgaged must be respected and
protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title
thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, GR No. L-
15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
 Where the certificate of title is in the name of the
mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the mortgagee
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate
of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No. 69622, Jan. 29,
1988)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value
upon the land mortgaged must be respected and
protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title
thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, GR No. L-
15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
 The general rule that a mortgagee need not look
beyond the title does not apply to banks and other
financial institutions as greater care and due diligence
is required of them. Imbued with public interest, they
"are expected to be more cautious than ordinary
individuals.“ (Alano v. Planter’s Development Bank,
GR No. 171628, June 13, 2011)
 The ascertainment of the status or condition of a
property offered to it as security for a loan must be a
standard and indispensable part of its operations.
(Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, GR No. 140528, Dec. 7, 2011)
 Although Art. 2085, CC, requires that the mortgagor must
be the owner of the mortgaged property, the subsequent
declaration that the title is null and void is not a ground
for nullifying the mortgage right of the mortgagee. (Rural
Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon, 175 SCRA 62)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be
respected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title thereto
through fraud.
 The remedy of the person prejudiced is against those who
caused the fraud, or if insolvent, an action for recovery of
damages against the AF. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil.
494)
 Effect of a forged deed of mortgage
 A forged power of attorney is without force and
effect, and the mortgage constituted by virtue
thereof is also null and void and could not
prejudice the rights of the registered owner.
(Veloso v. La Urbana, a58Phil. 681)
 An absolutely simulated contract of sale is void
and transfers no ownership right; hence, the
purported buyer, not being the owner, cannot
validly mortgage the property and neither does
the buyer at foreclosure sale acquire any title
thereto. (Cruz v. Bancom, 379 SCRA 490)
 Redemption
 The mortgagor has one year within which to
redeem the property from the registration of sale.
 If no redemption is made within said period, the
right of the purchaser to the possession of the
foreclosed property becomes absolute. He is
entitled to possession following the consolidation
of ownership in his name.
 The writ of possession becomes a matter of right
and its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.
 Writ of possession
 Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, a writ of possession
may be issued either (a) within the one-year period,
upon the filing of a bond, or (b) after the lapse of
the redemption period, without need of a bond.
 The proceeding for the issuance of the writ is ex
parte and is ministerial duty of the court, unless a
third party is actually holding the property
adversely to the judgment debtor, or where the bid
price is unjustifiably higher than the real amount of
the obligation.
 In extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser becomes
the absolute owner when no redemption is made.
 Thus, after consolidation of ownership and issuance of
a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the
purchaser, he is entitled to possession of the property
as a matter of right under Section 7 (Act 3135), and its
issuance by the RTC is a mere ministerial function.
 But pursuant to Sec. 33, Rule 39, Rules of Court, the
possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed property
shall be withheld from the purchaser if a third-party is
actually holding the same adversely to the
mortgagor/debtor. (Madriaga v. China Banking Corp.,
G No. 192377, July 2, 2012)
 The issuance of the writ may not be stayed by a
pending action for annulment of the mortgage or the
foreclosure itself, without prejudice, of course, to the
eventual outcome of the pending annulment case.
(Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Tarampi, GR No.
174988, Dec. 10, 2008)
 Issuance of the writ is ex parte, summary and and
ministerial. The order of the RTC granting the petition
for a writ of possession is final which can only be
questioned on appeal. (San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc.
v. Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation, GR
No. 168088, April 4, 2007)
 REGISTRATION VIA ISSUANCE OF
PUBLIC LAND PATENTS
 Registration of Patents
 Public lands suitable for agriculture can be
disposed of by (a) homestead, (b) sale, (c) lease,
and (d) confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles by (1) judicial legalization or (2)
administrative legalization (free patent)
 Public land patents when duly registered are
veritable Torrens titles, entitled to all the
safeguards relative thereto
 Homestead patent
 Any citizen of the Philippines may apply for a
homestead of not exceeding 12 hectares.
 The applicant must have cultivated and
improved at least one-fifth of the land and
resided in the municipality (or adjacent
municipality) where the land is located for at
least one year.
 Once the applicant has complied with all the
conditions essential to a government grant, he
acquires not only a right to a grant but a grant of
the land from the government.
 Sales patent
 A Filipino citizen or lawful age or the head of a
family may apply for the purchase of an
agricultural public land not to exceed 12
hectares.
 The land shall be sold through public bidding,
and the land awarded to the highest bidder.
 The purchase price may be paid in full or in 10
installments.
 The applicant must cultivate at least one-fifth of
the land within 5 years from the date of award.
 Direct sale (RA No. 730)
 RA No. 730 permits the private sale of not more
than 1,000 square meters for residential purposes.
The applicant:
 Is a Filipino citizen;

 Is not the owner of a home lot in the city or

municipality;
 Has established in good faith his residence on
land not needed for public service;
 Has constructed his house and actually resided
therein.
 Free patent
 Applicant is a natural-born citizen who is not
the owner of not more than 12 hectares of
agricultural public land.
 He has occupied and cultivated the land for at
least 30 years, by himself of his predecessors-
in-interest;
 He has paid the real estate taxes while the same
has not been occupied by any other person.
 ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENT TO
RESIDENTIAL LANDS (RA NO. 10023)
 Requirements for a residential free patent:
 Applicant must be a Filipino citizen
 In actual occupation, residence and continuous
possession and occupation of a residential land
 Identified and zoned through an ordinance and
not needed for public use or public service
 For at least 10 years prior to the filing of the
application
 Area limitation:
 Highly urbanized cities – 200 sq. m.
 Other cities – 500 sq. m.
 1st and 2nd class municipalities – 750 sq. m.
 Other municipalities – 1,000 sq. m.

 Requirements for application:

 Approved plan and technical description
 Affidavit of two (2) witnesses confirming
possession of applicant for at least 10 years
• Special patents
 A special patent is issued upon the promulgation
of a special law or act of Congress or by the
DENR Secretary as authorized by an EO of the
President.
 Example: Freedom Islands in the Manila Bay area
to which TCTs were issued to PEA.
 However, the lands so titled shall not be disposed
unless with the approval of Congress if owned by
the national agency, or by the sanggunian
concerned through an approved ordinance if
owned by LGUS.
 Prohibited alienations
 Sec. 118 of CA 141 proscribes the alienation or
encumbrance of land acquired under a free
patent or homestead patent within 5 years from
the grant of the patent. The policy is to give
patentee a place where to live with his family
 After 5 years but before 25 years from the
issuance of the patent, a homestead may be
disposed of subject to the approval of the
DENR Secretary; but land covered by a free
patent may be disposed of after 5 years.
REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 48(B) OF THE
PUBLC LAND ACT (CA NO. 141)
“Sec. 48. x x x (b) Those who by themselves or through
their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership;, since June 12, 1945, 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 provisions of this chapter.”
 There are no material differences between Sec. 14(1)
of PD No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141.
 While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to
“agricultural lands of the public domain” and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to
“alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain,” the subject lands are of the same type
since under the Constitution, alienable lands of the
public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.
 Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073,
requires possession since June 12, 1945, or prior
thereto
 But land need be classified as A and D land at the
time of the filing of the application for
registration ( Malabanan vs. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 179987, April 29, 2009)
 When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the
PLA are complied with, the possessor is deemed to
have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant,
without the necessity of a certificate of title being
issued.
 Compliance with all requirements for a government
grant ipso jure converts land to private property.
 The land ceases to be of the public domain and
beyond the authority of the DENR to dispose of.
 Registration under Sec. 48(b) of the PLA presumes
that the land was originally public agricultural land
but because of adverse possession since June 12,
1945, the land has become private.
 A certificate of title is void when it covers non-
registrable lands (e.g., forest or timber or mineral
lands).
 Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the
hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall
be cancelled.
 REGISTRATION UNDER THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT
 Constitutional provisions

“The State recognizes and promotes the rights of

indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.” (Sec.
2 Art. II)
“The State, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution and national development policies
and programs shall protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands to
ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-
being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary law governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent
of ancestral domain.”
 Indigenous concept of ownership
 The IPRA recognizes the existence of the
indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine
Society.
 It grants these people the ownership and possession
of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and
defines the extent of these lands and domains.
 The ownership given is the indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law which traces its
origin to native title.
 Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the
lands of the public domain but are private lands
belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied,
possessed and utilized their territories under claim of
ownership since time immemorial.
 Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far
back as memory reaches, have been held under claim
of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been
public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to
have been held that way since before the Spanish
Conquest.
 The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP) has the authority to issuer certificates of
ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificates of
ancestral land title (CALT).
 The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of
the Register of Deeds does not result in the issuance
of Torrens certificate of title.
 The purpose of registration is simply to apprise the
public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP of
specific claims to portions of the ancestral domains or
ancestral lands.
 Modes of acquisition
 The rights of ICCsIPs to their ancestral domains
and ancestral lands may be acquired in two modes:
 By native title over both ancestral lands and
domains; or
 By Torrens title under the Public Land Act (CA No.
141) of the Property Registration Decree (PD No.
1529) with respect to ancestral lands only.
 Requirements for registration
 The applicant is a member of an indigenous cultural
group;
 He must have been in possession of an
individually-owned ancestral land for not less than
thirty (30) years;
 By operation of law, the land is already classified as
A and D, even if it has a slope of 18% or over,
hence, there is no need to submit a separate
certification that the land is A and D.
 Transfer of land or property rights
The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may be
transferred subject to the following limitations:
 Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;
 In accord with customary laws and traditions; and
 Subject to the right of redemption for a period of
fifteen (15) years if the land was transferred to a
non-member.
• Ancestral domains belong to all generations and
therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.
 CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
 The purpose is to serve the public interest by requiring
that the titles to any unregistered lands “be settled and
adjudicated.”
 The government initiates the proceeding so that all
private lands in the town are registered in one single
proceeding.
 Government surveyors give advance notice to survey
claimants of date of survey to afford them to indicate
their claims during the survey.
 After survey, the government files the petition
with the RTC so that all claimants and possessors
shall be heard on their claims.
 Jurisdiction of cadastral court over previously
titled lands limited to correction of technical
errors in the description of the land.
 Decision declaring land as public land not a bar
to a subsequent action for confirmation of title
over the same land.
 DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS
(Example: Banila Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)
 Friar lands are not public lands but private or
patrimonial property of the government.
 Friar lands were purchased by the government for sale
to actual occupants under Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands
Act)
 The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first
issue a sales certificate to the occupant who shall pay
the purchase price in installments.
 The purchaser becomes the owner upon the issuance
of the certificate of sale, subject to cancellation in case
the price agreed upon is not paid in full
 Upon full payment, the government shall then issue a
final deed of conveyance to the purchaser
 No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by the
DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Aug. 24, 2010)
 Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public
lands:
 In sale of public lands, the land is opened for
bidding; the successful bidder is given right of
entry and to cultivate and improve the land.
 Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the applicant is
given a sales patent
 In the case of friar lands, the purchaser becomes the
owner upon issuance of the certificate of sale in his
favor.
 SUBDIVISION AND
CONDOMINIUM BUYER’S
DECREE (PD 957)
 Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective
Decree (PD 957)
 Policy: to afford inhabitants the requirements of
decent human settlement with ample opportunities
for improving their quality of life.
 Real estate and condominium businesses must be
closely supervised and regulated, and penalties
imposed on fraudulent practices and manipulations.
 PD No. 957 implements the state policy of providing
decent human settlement to improve the quality of
life.
 Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB),
formerly NHA and HSRC, has exclusive jurisdiction
to regulate real estate and trade business.
 HLURB is a quasi-judicial body with original and
exclusive authority to hear and decide cases of the
following nature:
 Unsound real estate business practice
 Claims for refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against
the project owner, developer or dealer
 Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers
of subdivision lot or condominium unit
 Subdivisions are mandated to maintain and provide
adequate water facilities for their communities.
Without a provision for an alternative water source,
the subdivision developer's alleged sale of the lot
where the community's sole water source was located
constituted a violation of this obligation. Thus, this
allegation makes out a case for an unsound real estate
business practice of the subdivision owner and
developer. Clearly, the case at bar falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. (Liwag v.
Happy Glen Loop )
 Decision of HLURB appealable to the OP whose
decision may be elevated to the CA via a petition for
review.
 HLURB has jurisdiction over cases for collection
of unpaid installments and damages
 It has no jurisdiction over issues involving
ownership or possession of property
 Registration of projects, requirements
 License to sell, requirements
 Absence of license to sell does not render sale void
 But developer may be held civilly and criminally
liable
 Determination of criminal liability lies with the
courts
 A license to sell and performance bond is not required
in the following transactions:
 Sale of a subdivision lot resulting from the partition
of the land among co-owners-heirs
 Sale of a subdivision lot by the original. purchaser
and any subsequent sale of the same lot.
 Sale of a subdivision lot or condominium unit by or
for account of a mortgagee when necessary to
liquidate a bona fide debt.
 Foreigners may purchase condominium units and
shares in the condominium corporations up to not
more than 40-% of the total and outstanding capital
stock of a Filipino-owned or controlled corporation.
 The land is owned by the corporation and the unit
owner is simply a member in the corporation.
 The ownership of the land is legally separated from
the unit itself.
 Registration of dealers, brokers and salesmen
 Revocation of registration
 Procedure:
 Hearing
 Decision
 Cease and desist order
 Registration of contracts
 Mortgages
 With written approval of the HLURB
 With notice to the buyer
 Mortgage without knowledge or buyer and
approval of HLURB is null and void
 Illustrative cases
 Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Marquez
 DBP v. Capulong
 Advertisements
 Time of completion
 Consequence of delay
 Failure to develop a subdivision may justify non-
payment of amortizations by lot buyer
 Failure of seller to deliver condominium unit
entitles buyer to cancel contract
 Issuance of title
 Duty of owner to deliver title
 Duty of owner to redeem outstanding mortgage
 Certificate of title not subject to collateral attack
 Right of way to public road
 Roads, alleys, sidewalks and open spaces (non-
alienable and non-buildable)
 Donations of parks and playgrounds to the city or
municipality mandatory; may in turn be donated to
the homeowners association
 In Lalicon v. NHA, GR No. 185440, July 13, 2011, the
Court held:
 The Lalicons claim that the NHA unreasonably ignored
their letters that asked for consent to the resale of the
subject property. But the NHA had no obligation to
grant the Lalicons' request for exemption from the five-
year restriction as to warrant their proceeding with the
sale when such consent was not immediately
forthcoming. And the resale without the NHA's consent
is a substantial breach. The essence of the
government's socialized housing program is to preserve
the beneficiary's ownerships for a reasonable length of
time, here at least within five years from the time he
acquired it free from any encumbrance.

 Foreigners are allowed to purchase condominium
units
 Any mortgage of the unit or lot requires approval of
HLURB, otherwise mortgage is void
 Failure to develop a subdivision may justify non-
payment of amortizations by lot buyer
 Buyer may not be ousted for non-payment due to
failure of subdivision owner to put up required
improvements
 Owner or developer shall:
 Deliver title to buyer upon full payment of lot or
unit
 Redeem outstanding mortgage
 Secure a right of way to a public road
 Initiate the organization of a homeowners
association among buyers and residents
 Provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks
 Donate roads and open spaces to city or
municipality where project is located
MULTIPLE CHOICE
QUESTIONS
 The real purpose of the Torrens system of
registration is
(a) to quiet title to land.
(b) to recognize a valid and subsisting interest
in land.
(c) to bar innocent third parties from claiming
an interest in the land.
(d) to furnish a shield for fraud.
 The Regalian doctrine embodies the concept
that:
(a) all alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain belong to the State.
(b) all lands not clearly within private
ownership presumptively belong to the State.
(c) all lands not covered by Spanish titles
presumptively belong to the State.
(d) the King is regarded as the true and only
source of title.
 In what instances may first level courts exercise
jurisdiction to hear land registration cases?
(a) Where the application is not the subject of any
adverse claim.
(b) Where the assessed value of the land does not
exceed P500,000 as shown by the affidavit of the
applicant or corresponding tax declaration.
(c) Where the land is not contested, or even if
contested, has an assessed value not exceeding
P100,000.
(d) Where its exercise is delegated by the
Supreme Court.
 The following may properly interpose an
opposition to the application for registration:
(a) 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) a foreshore lease applicant.
(c) a sales applicant pending issuance of the
order of award.
(d) the holder of timber license agreement
duly approved by the DENR.
 What is the prescriptive period for an action for
compensation against the Assurance Fund?
(a) 4 years.
(b) 6 years.
(c) 10 years.
(d) imprescriptible.
 PD No. 892, dated February 16, 1976, has outlawed
Spanish titles as evidence of ownership in
registration cases. However,
(a) such a title may still be presented in evidence
if accompanied by a survey plan executed prior to
February 16, 1976.
(b) such a title may still be presented if it is in the
nature of a possessory information title.
(c) such a title is absolutely barred without if’s or
but’s.
(d) such a title may still be presented in evidence
if accompanied by its English translation.
 The basis of the rule that the land sought to be registered
is already A and D “at the time the application for
registration is filed” is that:
(a) it is only when the land is classified as A and D that
the State is deemed to have abdicated its exclusive
prerogative over the land.
(b) it is hardly possible to look for witnesses who could
testify as to the status and condition of the land on or
before June 12, 1945.
(c) prior to the classification of the land as A and D, the
land still remains part of the forest zone, hence,
inalienable.
(d) previous rulings of the Supreme Court requiring
that the land be declared A and D as of June 12, 1945 are
merely obiter dicta.
 Which of the following is incorrect: A
Presidential proclamation reserving land for a
specific public purpose
(a) is valid if already classified as A and D.
(b) is a matter of judicial notice.
(c) is an asseveration of Regalian right.
(d) is issued in the exercise of the State’s
dominical authority.
 The function of the Register of Deeds to register
instruments affecting registered land is
ministerial. Accordingly,
(a) his duty is compellable by mandamus.
(b) he has no discretion to determine the
intrinsic validity of the instrument provided that it
is in due form.
(c) his duty is to register the instrument without
prejudice to a determination of its validity before
the proper forum afterwards.
(d) his duty is to register the instrument unless
enjoined by the LRA.
 Registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. It is simply a procedure
(a) to ensure that third parties may not assert
any claim or interest in the land thereafter.
(b) to establish proof of one’s claim of
ownership in the land.
(c) to remove all liens and encumbrances in
the land.
(d) to assure the claimant a better title than
what he actually has.
 Lot X is registered in the name of “Pedro, married
to Maria.” Pedro sells the land to Jose without the
written consent of Maria. May the Register of
Deeds refuse registration?
(a) No, the land belongs solely to Pedro, the
registered owner.
(b) Yes, there is nothing in the deed of sale to
show that Pedro alone acquired the land in his own
right.
(c) No, the lack of consent of Maria is fatal, there
being no showing that she is incapacitated to give
her consent to the sale.
(d) Yes, the deed of sale does not bear the
signature of Maria who is presumed co-owner of
the land.
 Registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding
in rem. This means that
(a) all interested persons are notified of the
proceedings and have a right to appear in opposition
to the application for registration.
(b) the proceeding is against all known occupants
and adjoining owners of the land.
(c) the proceeding aims generally to bar some
individual claim or objection so that certain persons
who claim an interest in the land are entitled to be
heard.
(d) the proceeding shall be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
 The court, in an order dated June 13, 2009, set the initial
hearing of the case on September 25, 2009. Judgment was
for the applicant. OSG contends that the notice of initial
hearing is defective and/or it did not vest the trial court
with jurisdiction over the case. Is the OSG correct?
(a) Yes for the initial hearing should have been set not
later than September 11, 2009, or 90 days from June 13,
2009.
(b) No since the issuance and publication of the
notice of initial hearing involved a process in which the
applicant has had no participation.
(c) No since the publication of the notice is
jurisdictional.
(d) No since the notice, as published, already gave
sufficient notice to all interested parties of the actual date
of hearing.
 Which of the following may be considered
sufficient to show the prior classification of the land
as A and D?
(a) Cadastral survey of a municipality preparatory
to the filing of the petition for cadastral
proceedings.
(b) Titling of properties around the land subject of
registration.
(c) Report and recommendation of the District
Forester for the release of the property from the
unclassified region.
(d) Executive proclamation withdrawing from a
reservation a specific area and declaring the same
open for entry, sale or other mode of disposition.
 Foreshore and submerged areas belong to the public
domain and remain inalienable unless:
(a) reclaimed by appropriate authority
(b) declared no longer needed for public service
(c) declared as alienable lands and no longer
needed for public service
(d) reclaimed, classified as A and D and further
declared no longer needed for public service.
 To show the identity of the land for purposes of
registration, and in line with prevailing rule,
(a) the submission of the tracing cloth plan is
mandatory.
(b) the survey plan and technical description must
be approved by the LRA.
(c) the submission of a certified copy of the
blueprint or whiteprint plan as approved by the
DENR Regional Executive Director will suffice.
(d) the submission of a certified copy of the
blueprint or whiteprint plan will suffice if the area
does not exceed the Constitutional limit.
 When is a right to property deemed vested?
(a) When the right to its enjoyment, present or
prospective, has become the property of a
particular person.
(b) When it is no longer subject to question in
any proceeding.
(c) When the property was already released
from the forest zone at the start of possession in
the concept of owner.
(d) When it is fixed by a legislative enactment
or municipal ordinance.
 If publication of the notice of initial hearing in the
OG “shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon
the court” (Sec. 23, PD 1529), is there still a need to
publish the notice in a newspaper?
(a) No more since the law expressly provides that
publication in the OG is sufficient.
(b) Yes because practically no one reads the OG
anyway.
(c) No more since it is not fair that the applicant
should be unduly burdened by additional expenses
for publication.
(d) Yes because publication in the newspaper is
part of procedural due process.
 Amendments to the application for registration may be
allowed. However,
(a) it is not permissible to make amendments after the
registration of the property has been decreed except
upon order of the court.
(b) the amendment is proper only when the inclusion
of additional area is very negligible, or smaller than the
original area.
(c) the amendment must bear the conformity of the
Solicitor General as counsel for the government in all
land registration proceedings.
(d) the amended survey plan must first be approved
by the LRA.
 In order that additional area may be included in the
original area subject of registration, the applicant
should:
(a) withdraw his original application and file a
new one to include the additional area.
(b) file a separate application for the additional
area.
(c) amend his application to include the additional
area subject to the requirements of publication.
(d) file a separate application for the additional
area and move for the consolidation of said
application with the original application for
registration.
 Petitioner bought registered land on July 5, 2009. At
the time he registered the sale on January 5, 2010, a
writ of attachment was already inscribed on the
vendor’s title on August 5, 2009. Which of the
following is false?
(a) the levy on attachment lost its efficacy by the
subsequent registration of the prior sale.
(b) the levy subordinated the right of petitioner as
purchaser.
(c) the attachment remained valid until
discharged.
(d) the execution sale should be upheld because it
retroacts to the date of levy.
 Overt acts of possession may consist in introducing
valuable improvements on the property like fruit-
bearing trees. In Republic v. Court of Appeals and
Chavez (GR No. L-62680, Nov. 9, 1988), the Court
held that in a practical and scientific way of planting,
(a) it takes only 5 years for coconut trees and 3
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(b) it takes only 10 years for mango trees and 5
years for coconut trees to begin bearing fruit.
(c) it takes only 3 years for coconut trees and 5
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(d) it takes only 10 years for coconut trees and 5
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
 The capacity to acquire private land is
determined by the capacity
(a) to convert the land to its maximum
productivity.
(b) to acquire public land.
(c) to proffer well-nigh incontrovertible proof
of possession since June 12, 1945 or prior
thereto.
(d) to show full compliance with the residence
and cultivation requirements by oral and
documentary evidence.
 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a
registration case, the Supreme Court generally may not
re-evaluate the findings of fact of the trial and appellate
courts. The recognized exceptions are:
(a) when the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based
(b) when the appellate court, in making its findings,
went beyond the issues in the case.
(c) when the petitioner disputes the jurisdiction of
the trial court.
(d) “a” and “b”.
 The Civil Code provides that accretion belongs to
the owners of the land adjoining the banks of the
river. It is however necessary that the accretion
(a) must have taken place for such length of time
as to ipso jure convert the same into private
ownership.
(b) is made through the effects of the current of
the water.
(c) is formed by the natural change in the course
of the river.
(d) must have been formed gradually and
imperceptibly for a period of not less than 10 years.
 The primary purpose of cadastral proceedings is
(a) to determine conflicting claims of ownership
in the area subject of cadastral survey.
(b) to provide a remedy, without any expense,
for the correction of errors in the technical
description of lands already titled so as to conform
to the cadastral survey.
(c) to settle and adjudicate title to lands.
(d) to determine the priority or relative weight
of two or more certificates of title for the same
land.
 Land subject of registration may be “dealt with” after
the filing of the application and before the issuance of
decree. In case of sale, for instance, it is required that
(a) the buyer is made a party to the case.
(b) the buyer shows proof that he is qualified to
register the land in his name.
(c) the application for registration is amended by
substituting the buyer for the applicant.
(d) the instrument evidencing the transaction is
presented to the court for appropriate consideration.
 The duty of the LRA Administrator to issue a
decree of registration is ministerial, the reason
being that
(a) his refusal would subject him to contempt
of court.
(b) he is an officer, and acts upon order, of the
court.
(c) the winning party has an absolute right to
the fruits of the verdict.
(d) the issuance of the decree is an express
component of his official functions.
 Pedro applied for the registration of land. The
government opposed. Judgment was rendered in favor of
Pedro, which became final. Thereafter, Pedro sold the
land to Jose. Can the government appeal the judgment?
(a) No because a final judgment can no longer be the
subject of appeal.
(b) No because the government is already concluded
by the judgment, having interposed its opposition to the
application for registration.
(c) Yes because the government is not bound by the
mistakes or errors of its agents.
(d) No because the land is now transferred to a third
person.
 To avail of a petition for review,
(a) the petitioner must allege facts surrounding
the trial which prevented a fair and just
determination of the case.
(b) the petition must be filed within 60 days
from the finality of the decision of the court.
(c) the petitioner must await the expiration of
one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration.
(d) the property has not passed to an innocent
purchaser for value.
 An action for reversion filed by the Solicitor
General is proper where defendant’s title covers
(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits caused
by the action of the sea.
(b) land which had been previously titled
through cadastral proceedings.
(c) land subject of irregular reconstitution
proceedings.
(d) land forming part of the friar lands estate..
 What is the concept of ownership of ancestral
domains?
(a) They are part of the lands of the public
domain under the concept of jura regalia.
(b) They are the private but community
property of indigenous peoples.
(c) They, and all natural resources therein,
belong in private ownership to indigenous
cultural communities based on native title.
(d) They are owned by the State pursuant to
Section 2, Article XII which states that all lands
and all other natural resources are “owned by
the State.”
 Recovery from the Assurance Fund is possible
(a) when private defendant is insolvent.
(b) when plaintiff failed in his action for
reconveyance.
(c) when plaintiff is deprived of any interest in
land on account of bringing land under the
Torrens system.
(d) when the Register of Deeds failed to
exercise due care to forestall fraudulent
registration.
 When a deed of sale presented for registration is
forged,
(a) the registered owner does not lose his title to
the land.
(b) the transferee can recover damages from the
Assurance Fund.
(c) the transferee can ask the true owner to
execute a deed of sale in his favor.
(d) the Register of Deeds should elevate the
matter to the LRA via en consulta.
 The burden of proving the status of a purchaser
in good faith is discharged
(a) by one who asserts that status.
(b) by invoking the legal presumption of good
faith.
(c) by proof that the vendor is the true owner
of the property sold.
(d) by proof that the property was
unencumbered at the time of the sale.
 Jose forged the signature of the registered owner,
Pedro, in a deed of sale purportedly made by the
latter in favor of Mario who paid the full purchase
price thereof. Is Mario a buyer in good faith?
(a) No because as a cautious person he should have
first determined in the office of the Register of Deeds
who the true owner of the property is.
(b) No because the forged deed does not convey
any valid title.
(c) Yes because a buyer of registered land need not
go beyond the four corners of the title to determine
any flaw in the title or ownership of his vendor.
(d) Yes because he has paid the full purchase price
of the land.
 Pedro sold registered land to an alien. The sale was
not registered. Realizing that the sale is prohibited,
Pedro seeks to recover the land from the alien
vendee. Will the action prosper?
(a) Yes because the sale is not yet registered.
(b) No because both Pedro and the alien vendee
are in pari delicto.
(c) No because Pedro is estopped from
impugning the sale.
(d) Yes because the prohibition is designed for the
protection of the Filipino vendor.
 Minerals are discovered underneath Pedro’s titled
property. Who has the right to exploit the minerals?
(a) The government has the absolute right to
exploit the minerals.
(b) Pedro has the right to exploit the minerals
because he is the absolute owner of the land.
(c) Pedro does not have the right to exploit the
minerals because he owns the surface area only.
(d) The government has the right to exploit the
minerals upon prior expropriation of the property.
 The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is
(a) to fortify the claim of ownership of the party
causing the registration thereof.
(b) to prevent the owner of the property from
alienating it while the case is still pending trial.
(c) to advise third persons who purchase the
property that they do so at their peril.
(d) to put the owner on notice that he holds the
property in trust for the person causing the annotation
of the lis pendens.
 May an adverse claim of ownership, based on
prescription and adverse possession, be registered
over registered land?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to protect the
interest of the person claiming ownership of the
land.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because the adverse claim serves as a
notice that the adverse claimant has a better right to
the land than the registered owner thereof.
(d) No because prescription for the acquisition of
title is never presumed.
 Reconstitution denotes reconstruction of a lost or
destroyed original certificate of title. The term “any
other document” as a source of reconstitution may
include
(a) an order of the court for the issuance of the
decree.
(b) an approved survey plan and technical
description of the land.
(c) a certification by the LRA that a decree of
registration was in fact issued.
(d) none of the above.
 Gan Tan lost his title when his house was burned in 1995.
He filed for reconstitution in 2004. The court denied the
petition based on a BID certification submitted by the
OSG that Gan Tan is an alien. In case of appeal, how
should the case be resolved?
(a) The appeal should be denied because Gan Tan being
an alien is disqualified from owning land in the
country.
(b) Reconstitution should be ordered because a Torrens
title, as a rule, is irrevocable and indefeasible.
(c) The appeal should be dismissed since petitioner has
lost his right to the land on the ground of laches.
(d) Reconstitution should be ordered because a Torrens
title cannot be collaterally attacked.
 Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA No.
8371), registration under the Torrens system of
individually-owned ancestral land requires
(a) possession for not less than 30 years
immediately prior to the approval of the law on
October 29, 1997.
(b) possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
(c) possession for not less than ten (10) years in
good faith.
(d) possession for not less than thirty (30) years.
 OCT No. 38621 was decreed in the name of “Pedro
Valdez, married to Lita Marquez”. Because of the
loss of the original copy of the title, Pedro
petitioned the court for reconstitution. During the
pendency of the case, Lita died. Assuming that the
petition is substantiated, the court should issue an
order of reconstitution:
(a) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, widower”.
(b) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, married to Lita
Marquez, deceased”.
(c) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, married to Lita
Marquez”.
(d) in the name of “Pedro Valdez”.
 If the Register of Deeds is unsure whether or not an
instrument affecting registered land is registrable,
he should
(a) return the document to the registrant for the
reformation of the instrument.
(b) ask the registrant to elevate the matter to the
LRA for the resolution of the issue via en consulta.
(c) himself refer the matter to the LRA for the
determination of the issue.
(d) advise the registrant to file an adverse claim in
the meantime pending further study and
determination of the issue.
 Every purchaser of registered land –
(a) is charged with notice of all liens whether
or not annotated on the title,
(b) should first investigate to determine the
condition of the property.
(c) may safely rely on the validity of the title.
(d) should cautiously look behind the
certificate to determine the true owner.
 May a Dutch national validly purchase a residential unit
in a townhouse project constituted under the
Condominium Act?
(a) No because aliens, whether individuals or
corporations, are disqualified from acquiring public
lands, hence, they are also disqualified from acquiring
private lands.
(b) Yes because for as long as 60% of the members of
the condominium corporation are Filipinos, the
remaining members can be foreigners.
(c) Yes because the unit owner is simply a member of
the condominium corporation and the land remains
owned by the condominium corporation.
(d) (b) and (c).
 If only a portion of the land covered by a certificate of
title is sold by the owner, and the deed is presented for
inscription, the Register of Deeds
(a) shall annotate the deed by way of memorandum on
the grantor’s certificate of title, original and duplicate.
(b) shall not enter any transfer certificate to the grantee
until a plan of the land showing all the portions or lots
into which it has been subdivided shall have been verified
and approved.
(c) shall issue a new certificate of title to the grantee for
the portion conveyed and at the same cancel the grantor’s
certificate partially with respect only to the portion
conveyed.
(d) (a) and (b).
 Pedro decides to sell his property to Jose only to discover
the loss of his owner's duplicate certificate of title
covering it. What initial recourse should Pedro take?
(a) Report the fact of loss to the police and then file a
petition for replacement of the lost title before the court.
(b) Send a notice under oath to the Register of Deeds of
the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss
is discovered.
(c) Promptly file with the proper court a verified
petition for replacement of the lost title.
(d) Proceed with the documentation of the sale and then
file a petition for replacement of the lost title.
 In 1995, Pedro, a natural born Filipino, bought an
agricultural land from Jose who has been in possession
thereof as owner since 1942. Pedro migrated to Japan
where he acquired Japanese citizenship. He came back to
the Philippines in 2010 and applied for the registration of
the land which is now industrial in character. The
government opposed since Pedro is now an alien. Is the
opposition valid?
(a) Yes because aliens are disqualified from acquiring
lands in the Philippines.
(b) Yes because even privately owned unregistered
lands are presumed to be public lands under the
Regalian doctrine.
(c) No because the land at the time of its acquisition by
Pedro is deemed already a private land.
(d) Yes because industrial lands may only be leased to
aliens.
 To secure a loan, Pedro mortgaged his titled property
to the bank. The mortgage was annotated on the title.
Subsequently, Jose filed suit with the RTC to quiet
title and to nullify Pedro’s title. A notice of lis pendens
was annotated on Pedro’s title. For Pedro’s failure to
pay, the property was sold at auction with the bank as
successful bidder. Meantime, the RTC rendered
judgment nullifying Pedro’s title as well as the
mortgage to the bank. The bank now claims that it is
both a mortgagee and buyer in good faith. Is the bank
correct?
 (a) No because the bank is a transferee pendente
lite, subject to the results of the pending litigation.
(b) No because no valid lien can arise from a
void title as Pedro’s.
(c) Yes because the notice of lis pendens cannot
affect the mortgage previously registered.
(d) No because Pedro’s title was declared void,
and the mortgage being but an accessory contract,
is also void.
 The registration of an instrument affecting registered
land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the time
of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
(c) forecloses a judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) records an existing title.
 The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens
(a) is contingent on the existence of a final
judgment.
(b) is proper where it appears that the case has
been unnecessarily prolonged.
(c) may only be made at the instance of the
adverse party.
(d) may be made motu proprio by the Register of
Deeds if it appears that the notice was filed to
molest the adverse party.
 Mineral resources are owned by
(a) the State, subject to privates rights if any there
be.
(b) the owner of the property where they are
found.
(c) the State.
(d) the indigenous peoples when they are found
within ancestral domains.
 Which of the following statements is not correct:
(a) Because the majority of land in the country are
agricultural lands, courts have a right to presume that
lands are agricultural unless shown otherwise.
(b) By reason of the rapid growth of timber or
minerals today, lands classified as agricultural today
may be differently classified tomorrow.
(c) In classifying lands, each case must be
classified upon the proof in a particular case.
(d) When a tract of land has trees upon it, it is
sufficient to declare the legal classification of the
land as forest land.
 Private lands taken by the government for public use
through expropriation become
(a) private property.
(b) public lands.
(c) patrimonial property.
(d) part of the public domain.
 A cadastral proceeding is initiated by the government.
Relevantly,
(a) Lands subject of a cadastral survey are
deemed registrable lands.
(b) Lands cadastrally surveyed, excluding forests,
water bodies and other natural resources, are
automatically considered A and D lands.
(c) Lands inside a cadastre must be officially
declared A and D to be registrable.
(d) Lands titled through cadastral proceedings
cannot be sold within 5 years from the issuance of
the decree.
 The date of the initial hearing of a registration
case shall be not earlier than
(a) 60 days from the date of the order.
(b) 90 days from the date of the order.
(c) 120 days from the date of the order.
(d) 45 days from the date of the order.
 The remedy available to the interested party for the
Register of Deeds’ denial of his request for the
issuance of a certificate of title pursuant to a court
judgment is:
(a) To cite the RD in contempt.
(b) To file a mandamus petition versus the RD.
(c) To appeal the RD’s denial to the LRA via
consulta.
(d) To file administrative charges against the RD
with the LRA.
 Can a deed of donation of a parcel of land by a Filipino
citizen to a religious organization whose trustees are
non-Filipinos, be admitted by the RD for registration?
(a) Yes because to disqualify the corporation would
be a violation of its religious freedom.
(b) No because land tenure is not indispensable to
the free exercise of religion.
(c) Yes because the acquisition of the land is strictly
for religious purposes, i.e., upon which to build
churches and charitable institutions.
(d) Yes because the religious organization has no
capital stock, and so the Constitutional inhibition
does not apply.
 Mangrove swamps are not registrable. They are
under the jurisdiction of the
(a) Bureau of Forest Development.
(b) Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
(c) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
(d) Lands Management Bureau.
 The registration court
(a) must personally hear the parties and receive
their evidence.
(b) may refer the case to the clerk of court for the
reception of evidence.
(c) may refer the case to a referee but the court
may accept or reject his report.
(d) may not refer the case to a referee for hearing
because judicial power is vested in the court itself.
 Which statement is correct?
(a) Public land is not synonymous with public
domain.
(b) Public land includes all lands of government
ownership.
(c) Government land and public land are
synonymous terms.
(d) The government owns real estate which is part
of the public lands and other real estate which is not
a part thereof.
 Non-publication of the notice of initial hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation
(a) affects the jurisdiction of the court.
(b) does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
(c) is not consequential since jurisdiction is
acquired by the publication of the notice in the
Official Gazette.
(d) does not affect the applicant’s claim of
ownership.
 An order of general default
(a) may be modified or amended only before the
presentation of evidence by the applicant.
(b) precludes the filing of a motion for
reconsideration by the oppositor who is concluded
by the default order.
(c) may be revoked upon motion within 90 days
from the date of the default order.
(d) does not preclude the party in default from
filing a motion to set aside the default order.
 Under PD No. 1529, the registration court shall decide
the case within how many days from the date the case
is submitted for resolution?
(a) 90 days.
(b) 120 days.
(c) 1 year.
(d) 30 days.
 The certification by the LRA that publication, mailing
and posting of the notice of initial hearing have been
complied with
(a) is immaterial to the applicant’s claim of
ownership.
(b) may be considered because of the presumptive
regularity in the performance of official functions.
(c) is subject to contrary proof.
(d) is conclusive as to such fact.
 An applicant for a homestead or any other mode of
disposition under the Public Land Act
(a) may validly oppose an application for
registration because of his inchoate interest in the
land.
(b) has no legal right to oppose the application.
(c) may join cause with the Solicitor General by
filing his opposition himself .
(d) has the right to oppose if he has
improvements on the land.
 Where public land is titled by final judgment,
(a) the actual occupant is not barred from filing a
petition for relief from judgment.
(b) the Director of Lands may conduct an
investigation to determine whether fraud attended
the registration.
(c) the government cannot entertain any
administrative protests against the judgment.
(d) the government may file a petition to reopen
the proceedings for insufficient evidence to prove
the private character of the land.
 Where no person appears or answers within the time
allowed,
(a) the court shall enter an order of special
default.
(b) an order of default may likely result in a
judgment favorable to the applicant.
(c) the allegations in the application shall be held
as confessed.
(d) the court may now render judgment either
granting or dismissing the application for
registration.
 Where there is no publication of the notice of
initial hearing,
(a) the proceeding is utterly void.
(b) personal notice to known adjoining owners
may be effected to rectify the omission.
(c) lack of publication may be corrected by
publication of the notice before judgment.
(d) the proceeding is valid if not contested by
the Solicitor General.
 Which of the following is false?
(a) a judicial foreclosure of mortgage is a
quasi in rem proceeding
(b) An action to recover a parcel of land is a
real action and, hence, an action in rem.
(c) Suits to quiet title are not technically suits
in rem but are characterized as quasi in rem.
(d) An action to recover a parcel of land is an
action in personam.
 Lands invaded by the sea
(a) belong to the affected municipality as
municipal waters.
(b) belong the State as maritime waters.
(c) belong to the State as part of the public
domain.
(d) may be reclaimed by the affected private
property owner.
 The Land Registration Authority (LRA), which is
the central repository of records relative to
registered lands, is under what office?
(a) Department of Agrarian Reform.
(b) Department of Justice.
(c) Office of the President.
(d) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
• To be valid and effective, a notice of lis pendens
must be
• (a) filed simultaneously with the filing of the
action subject of the notice.
• (b) annotated on both the duplicate certificate
of title on file with the Register of Deeds and in
the possession of the registered owner.
• (c) approved by the court in the pending case.
• (d) annotated on the original duplicate
certificate of title on file with the Register of
Deeds.
 To identify and segregate a portion of the public
domain for the establishment of court houses in
the country –
(a) The Supreme Court must issue a
Resolution en banc for the purpose.
(b) The issuance by the DENR of an
Administrative Order is sufficient.
(c) The reservation must be established by a
Presidential Proclamation.
(d) There must be a resolution by joint houses
of Congress.
 Land reclaimed by the government may be sold by
the government to private parties only
(a) when it is not needed for public service.
(b) pursuant to a legislative act.
(c) pursuant to a Presidential proclamation.
(d) when no longer needed for coast guard
service.
 The registration of an instrument affecting
registered land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the
time of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
(c) forecloses any judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) puts in issue an instrument previously
registered.
 Which of the following allegations cannot be a
ground for the amendment or correction of a
certificate of title?
(a) that the registered owner has married.
(b) that new interests not appearing on the
certificate have arisen.
(c) that the corporation which is the registered
owner of the land has been dissolved.
(d) that the area should be corrected to conform
to the new survey tending to show that the
evidence introduced at the former hearing was
inaccurate.
 A Torrens certificate of title
(a) protects the true owner from the usurper.
(b) permits one to defeat the claim of another.
(c) is an effective tool against the commission
of fraud.
(d) records an existing title.
 An action for reconveyance
(a) seeks to reopen the registration
proceedings.
(b) respects the decree as incontrovertible and
no longer open to review.
(c) seeks to nullify defendant’s title to pave
the issuance of a new title to the rightful owner.
(d) confirms plaintiff’s ownership over the
property.
 Under the Administrative Code, the Solicitor General
shall “represent the government in all land registration
and related proceedings.” This means that:
(a) the SG may deputize any government prosecutor
to assist him in the case.
(b) notice of court processes, orders and decisions
received by the prosecutor is notice to the Solicitor
General.
(c) the prosecutor may himself withdraw the
government’s appeal if he finds the same to be
without any factual or legal basis.
(d) the prosecutor may enter into a stipulation of
facts or compromise with the applicant.
 The period of prescription in an action for
reconveyance is counted from the
(a) date of the issuance of the title.
(b) date of the promulgation of the judgment.
(c) discovery of the fraud.
(d) date of issuance of the decree of
registration.
 An action for reversion by the State is proper
when defendant’s title covers
(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits caused
by the action of the sea.
(b) land previously titled through cadastral
proceedings.
(c) land within a reservation for public use.
(d) (a) and (c).
 An adverse claim may be recorded in which of
the following instances?
(a) lease over land which could not be
registered because the owner’s duplicate title
was not surrendered.
(b) existing claims on the land prior to the
issuance of the certificate of title.
(c) hereditary rights of a person in the land
registered in her sister’s name.
(d) (a) and (c).
 Opposition to an application for registration must be
based on real right or dominion to property. This
means that –
(a) the oppositor must be able to show title to the
property.
(b) the oppositor must have the legal character
necessary to maintain a registration proceeding in
his own name.
(c) it is enough that the oppositor should appear
to have an interest in the property.
(d) all of the above.
 Under the Water Code, waters found on private
lands belong the State. Which of the following
is excluded?
(a) continuous or intermittent waters rising on
such lands.
(b) lakes and lagoon naturally occurring on
such lands.
(c) rain water falling on such lands.
(d) none of the above.
 Pedro files an application for registration. However,
the land applied for had been previously registered in
the name of Jose. What should Jose do?
(a) Jose should file an opposition and present his
title during the hearing.
(b) Jose should file an opposition alleging that
Pedro’s application constitutes a collateral attack
on his title.
(c) Jose should file a motion to dismiss based on
res judicata.
(d) Jose should file a suit for damages against
Pedro for fraudulently seeking to register land
which, he should know, is already titled to another.
 The presumption in Article 160 of the Civil
Code that all property of the marriage belongs
to the conjugal partnership applies when
(a) the “spouses” are legally married.
(b) the title is in the name of both husband
and wife.
(c) the spouses are living together.
(d) the property was acquired during the
marriage.
 In reconstitution proceedings, which of the
following propositions is wrong:
(a) The issuance of a reconstituted title does
not determine the issue of ownership.
(b) The LRA can motu proprio revoke the
reconstituted title if the lost or destroyed title
is subsequently found.
(c) The issuance by the LRA of a
reconstituted title is an administrative
function.
(d) The doctrine of res judicata applies to
judicial reconstitution.
 Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 requires possession
and occupation of the land applied for since June
12, 1945. Which of the following propositions is
false?
(a) Occupation is broader than possession because it
includes the latter.
(b) Occupation delimits the effect of constructive
possession.
(c) Possession means acts of dominion which a party
would naturally exercise over his own property.
(d) Occupation serves to highlight that possession
must not be a mere fiction.
 An adverse claim is effective for 30 days. To render
the adverse claim functus officio,
(a) the interested party should formally request
the Register of Deeds to cancel the same upon the
expiration of the 30-day period.
(b) no action is necessary since the adverse claim
automatically lapses upon the expiration of the 30-
day period.
(c) the interested party should file a petition in
court for the cancellation of the adverse claim.
(d) it is necessary to await the final outcome of
the case.
 Can an adverse claim of ownership over registered
land, based on acquisitive prescription, be
registered?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to protect the
interest of the person claiming ownership thereof.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because adverse claim is a notice that the
adverse claimant has a better right to the land than
the registered owner thereof.
(d) No because acquisitive prescription of title to
land can never be presumed.
 An action for reconveyance based on a void
deed of sale for lack of consent
(a) prescribes in 10 years.
(b) prescribes in 4 years
(c) is imprescriptible
(d) prescribes in 6 years.
 A corporation sole may purchase and hold real
estate because -
(a) the properties acquired by the corporation
pass upon the death of the administrator to his
heirs who are Filipino citizens.
(b) ownership of said properties fall upon the
church or congregation and not upon the
incumbent administrator.
(c) the corporation exercises ownership
independently of the nationality of its incumbent
administrator.
(d) (b) and (c).
 What is the concept of ownership of ancestral
domains?
(a) Ancestral domains are part of the lands of
the public domain under the concept of jura
regalia.
(b) Ancestral domains are the private but
community property of indigenous peoples.
(c) Ancestral domains and all natural
resources therein belong to indigenous cultural
communities based on native title.
(d) (a) and (b).
 Land already decreed in an ordinary registration
case cannot again be the subject of a subsequent
cadastral proceeding because
(a) once land is judicially decreed, the judgment
is res judicata.
(b) the registration in the name of the first
owner is constructive notice to the whole world.
(c) to declare the later title valid as against the
first would undermine the efficacy of Torrens
system.
(d) all of the above.
 To avail of a petition for review,
(a) the petitioner must allege facts
surrounding the trial which prevented a fair
determination of the case.
(b) the petition must be filed within sixty
(60) days from the finality of the decision of the
registration court.
(c) the petitioner must await the expiration
of one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration.
(d) the property has not passed to an
innocent purchaser for value.
 Pedro files a petition for administrative reconstitution of
title, but it appears that the land is already titled in the
name of Lim. Lim is a Chinese. What are the options
open to the LRA?
(a) The LRA should order outright the cancellation of
Lim’s title and proceed to act on Pedro’s petition for
reconstitution.
(b) The LRA should dismiss Pedro’s petition pending
the filing by the OSG or the competing claimant of an
action before the RTC for the cancellation of Lim’s
title.
(c) The LRA should elevate the matter to the
Secretary of Justice for advisory opinion.
(d) The LRA should defer action on Pedro’s petition
pending the results of the action to determine the
validity of Lim’s title
 Who is the proper party to file an action for
annulment or amendment of the title where it appears
that the Assurance Fund may be held liable for
damages due to the unlawful or erroneous issuance
thereof?
(a) the Solicitor General
(b) the LRA Administrator
(c) the LMB Director
(d) the Register of Deeds
 The rule that a forged deed may become the root
of a valid title
(a) does not apply where the owner still holds a
valid title over the land.
(b) applies even where the owner no longer
holds a valid title to the land.
(c) applies where the forger obtains a title to the
land and thereafter sells it to another.
(d) (a) and (c).
 The Assurance Fund is not liable for loss or
damage caused by which of the following?
(a) Breach of trust, express or implied.
(b) Mistake in the resurvey of registered land
causing expansion of the area.
(c) Error in the subdivision of the land resulting
in the increase in area.
(d) all of the above.
 A notice of lis pendens
(a) binds a bona fide purchaser of the property
in dispute.
(c) creates a right or lien that previously did not
exist.
(c) binds a purchaser, whether bona fide or not,
of the disputed property.
(d) is part of the doctrine of notice.
 An action for reconveyance of land valued at
P15,000 should be filed with what court?
(a) the second level court of the province where
the land lies.
(b) the second level court or first level court of
the place where defendant resides.
(c) the first level court of the municipality
where the land lies.
(d) the second level court of the place where
plaintiff resides.
 Where the object of the plaintiff is to recover
possession of real property as owner, the proper
action is:
(a) forcible entry and detainer.
(b) accion reivindicatoria.
(c) accion publiciana.
(d) declaratory relief.
 An action to quiet title to property in the
possession of the plaintiff is imprescriptible, the
reason being that:
(a) he has a continuing right to the aid of a court
of equity to remove a cloud on his title.
(b) he may wait until his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right.
(c) possession is a continuing right as is the
right to defend such possession.
(d) all of the above.
 A certificate of title based upon a public land
patent becomes indefeasible within what period?
(a) 5 years after the issuance of the patent.
(b) 1 year from the issuance of the patent.
(c) 1 year from the date of the order of award.
(d) 5 years from the approval of the application.
 What is the consequence of non-payment by the lot
buyer of installments due for failure of the
owner/developer to finish the project within the time
agreed upon?
(a) Installments paid shall be forfeited in favor of the
owner/developer.
(b) The buyer may ask for the reimbursement of all
amounts paid, but without interest.
(c) The owner/developer could rescind the contract.
(d) The buyer may suspend further payments until the
owner/development had fulfilled its obligations.
 A proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is a
mere incident in the transfer of title, hence, it is
impractical to award possession to a purchaser of property
with knowledge of the existence of a third-party claim
before said claim has been decided. Which of the
following does not accord with this principle?
(a) The court may not grant the writ where title is in
doubt.
(b) The prudent course of action is to hold in abeyance
proceedings for the issuance of the writ.
(c) The true owner must resort to judicial process for the
recovery of the property.
(d) The interested party should resort to mandamus since
issuance of the writ is ministerial.
 An action for reconveyance based on an implied
or constructive trust prescribes in how many years
from the issuance of the title over the property?
(a) 4 years.
(b) imprescriptible.
(c) 10 years.
(d) 6 years.
 The State may prosecute for perjury the party who obtains
registration through fraud, such as by stating false
assertions in the sworn application of applicants? Thus
premised, which of the following is false?
 (a) A judgment on the guilt of the accused would not
undermine the indefeasibility of Torrens titles.
 (b) To give immunity from prosecution to those successful
in deceiving the registration court would be putting a
premium on perjury.
 (c) The prosecution for perjury would amount to an attack
on the validity of the titles which are presumed valid.
 (d) Any judgment rendered in the criminal case would
leave the titles undisturbed.
 Laches is the failure or neglect to assert a right
within reasonable time. Which is not correct in the
following statements?
(a) Laches is concerned with the fact of delay.
(b) Laches applies in equity.
(c) Laches is concerned with the effect of delay.
(d) Laches is not based on a fixed time.
 The writ of possession may not be issued in which
of the following?
(a) in a land registration proceeding.
(b) in a petition for reconstitution.
(b) in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a realty
mortgage.
(c) in a judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
 What options are open to the mortgagee in case
the mortgagor dies?
(a) waive the mortgage and claim the entire
debt from the estate of the mortgagor as an
ordinary claim.
(b) foreclose the mortgage judicially and
prove any deficiency as an ordinary claim.
(c)Rely on the mortgage exclusively,
foreclosing the same at any time before it is barred
by prescription, without right to file a claim for
any deficiency.
(d) all of the above.
 Within what period may a judgment in a land
registration case be enforced?
(a) Upon motion within 5 years from the date
of entry.
(b) No further proceeding to enforce the
judgment is necessary.
(c) Upon motion within 10 years from the date
of entry.
(d) Upon motion after finality of judgment
praying that LRA be directed to issue the decree of
registration.
 The original certificate of title is issued on the date
(a) the decree of registration is issued by the
LRA.
(b) the title is given the corresponding number
by the Register of Deeds.
(c) the original and duplicate copies are
received by the Register of Deeds from the LRA.
(d) the decree of registration is transcribed.
 The following are sample allegations of actual fraud
which may be the basis of a petition for the review of
a decree. Which is the most serious?
(a) The Solicitor General has not been furnished
with the requisite notices and copy of the decision
granting registration of land within the forest zone.
(b) The applicant failed to show possession and
occupation of the land for the length of time
required by law.
(c) The registration court did not have jurisdiction
over the res because it is non-registrable.
(d) The prosecutor did not have the authority to
withdraw the appeal of the government.
 Section 5 of PD No. 957 prohibits the sale of a
subdivision lot without an HLURB license.
(a) The subsequent issuance of the license
erases the offense.
(b) The invocation of good faith extinguishes
criminal liability.
(c) The crime is regarded as malum prohibitum.
(d) The determination of liability rests with the
HLURB.
 Can the plaintiff in an action for specific
performance compel defendant, in the same action,
to surrender the duplicate certificate of title to the
Register of Deeds (RD) for the registration of the
sale?
(a) No. He must file a separate petition in court to
compel surrender of the same to the RD.
(b) Yes, this being a necessary incident in the
main case.
(c) No. The issue should be threshed out in an
ordinary action.
(d) Yes, to avoid multiplicity of suits.
 Which of the following (sample) allegations in a
defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint for quieting
of title does not constitute a collateral attack on
plaintiff’s title?
(a) that plaintiff is the prior registered owner of the
land.
(b) that plaintiff is disqualified to acquire the land
since he is not a Filipino citizen.
(c) that plaintiff has no cause of action because the
land had been previously sold by plaintiff to
defendant.
(d) that plaintiff’s title was improperly issued for
lack of possession of the disputed property.
 The registration of a broker engaged in selling
subdivision lots may be revoked when
(a) he has made a material false statement in his
application for registration.
(b) he has been guilty of a fraudulent act in the
sale of a subdivision lot.
(c) he has demonstrated his unworthiness as a
broker.
(d) all of the above.
 The registration of a broker engaged in selling
subdivision lots may be revoked when
(a) he has made a material false statement in his
application for registration.
(b) he has been guilty of a fraudulent act in the
sale of a subdivision lot.
(c) he has demonstrated his unworthiness as a
broker.
(d) all of the above.
 Over what cases does HLURB have no
jurisdiction?
(a) Claims for refund by a subdivision buyer.
(b) Determination of the criminal liability of a
broker selling condominium units without a
license.
(c) unsound real estate practices.
(d) cases involving specific performance of
contractual obligations filed by subdivision
buyers.
 A homesteader cannot sell the homestead within 5
years from the issuance of the patent. Which of the
following situations is not covered by the
prohibition?
(a) Sale made to the homesteader’s own son or
daughter.
(b) Sale made within the prohibitory period but
conditioned that the sale shall not take effect until
after the expiration of said period.
(c) Sale of a portion of the homestead with the
homesteader keeping a reasonable area for himself
and his family
(d) None of the above.
 Who has jurisdiction over cases involving the
cancellation of registered emancipation patents (EPs),
certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs), and
other titles issued under the agrarian reform program?
(a) The Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
(b) The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB).
(c) The ordinary courts of justice.
(d) The RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court
(SAC).
 Where a tenant farmer appears to have a claim
adverse to the applicant, who among the following
need not be served with the notice of initial hearing?
(a) Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
(b) Solicitor General.
(c) Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
(d) Mayor of the city or municipality where the
land is situated.
 No salesman shall engage is selling subdivision
lots unless registered with HLURB. His
registration shall cease when
 (a) he has made a false statement in his
application for registration.
 (b) he has demonstrated his unworthiness to
transact business as such.
 (c) he has violated any provision in his
certificate of registration.
 (d) his employment with a dealer or broker has
terminated.
 Pedro, a lot buyer, filed a complaint against Asia
Development Corporation (ADC) for mortgaging
subdivision lots (including his) without being first
informed of such fact. Which of the following
defenses of ADC is valid?
(a) that the loan to ADC was granted when the
mortgaged property was not yet subdivided.
(b) that the mortgage was constituted prior to the actual
sale of the lot to Pedro.
(c) that the knowledge or consent of the lot buyer to the
mortgage is not required.
(d) none of the above.
 THANK YOU AND
GOOD LUCK
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philippine Judicial Academy
Supreme Court