V.

CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS

1. Citizenship Requirement
2. Individuals
3. Filipino Citizens
4. Former Natural-Born Filipino Citizens

Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Sec. 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be
further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. 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.

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.

Section 5 of Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution reads as follows:

SEC. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be

transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.

Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution (the JVA was signed in 1977), provided:

"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."

32.1 This provision is the same as Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

32.2 Under the Public Land Act, corporations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain are
corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipino citizen

[A]liens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes.
Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a
lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they desire to remain here forever and
share our fortunes and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
But 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 (jus possidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi and jus
abutendi) but also of the right to dispose of it (jus disponendi) — rights the sum total of which make up
ownership. It is just as if today the possession is transferred, tomorrow, the use, the next day, the
disposition, and so on, until ultimately all the rights of which ownership

6.Corporations; limitations

• JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124293. Jan. 31, 2005

The prohibition in the Constitution applies only to ownership of land.48 It does not extend to immovable
or real property as defined under Article 415 of the Civil Code.

No law disqualifies a person from purchasing shares in a landholding corporation even if the latter will
exceed the allowed foreign equity, what the law disqualifies is the corporation from owning land.

• RD of Rizal v. Ung Siu Temple, G.R. No. L-6776. May 21, 1955

The Register of Deeds for the province of Rizal refused to accept for record a deed of
donation executed by Jesus Dy, a Filipino citizen, conveying a parcel of residential land
in favor of the unregistered religious organization "Ung Siu Si Temple", operating
through three trustees all of Chinese nationality.

Constitution makes no exception in favor of religious associations.

The sections 1 and 2 of Article XIII, restricting the acquisition of public agricultural lands
and other natural resources to "corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
the capital of which is owned by such citizens" (of the Philippines). The fact that the
appellant religious organization has no capital stock does not suffice to escape the
Constitutional inhibition, since it is admitted that its members are of foreign nationality.

The purpose of the sixty per centum requirement is obviously to ensure that
corporations or associations allowed to acquire agricultural land or to exploit natural
resources shall be controlled by Filipinos; and the spirit of the Constitution demands that
in the absence of capital stock, the controlling membership should be composed of
Filipino citizens.

• Republic v. T.A.N. Properties Inc., G.R. NO. 154953. June 26, 2008

Application for Original Registration of Title filed by T.A.N. Properties, Inc. —

DENIED
The 1987 Constitution absolutely prohibits private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

Under the 1935 Constitution, there was no prohibition against private

corporations from acquiring agricultural land.

The 1973 Constitution limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to
individuals who were citizens of the Philippines. Under the 1973 Constitution,
private corporations, even if wholly owned by Filipino citizens, were no
longer allowed to acquire alienable lands of the public domain.

The present 1987 Constitution continues the prohibition against private

corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

To enable a corporation to file for registration of alienable and disposable

land, the corporation must have acquired the land when its transferor had
already a vested right to a judicial confirmation of title to the land by virtue
of his open, continuous and adverse possession of the land in the concept of
an owner for at least 30 years since 12 June 1945.

In applying for land registration, a private corporation cannot have any right
higher than its predecessor-in-interest from whom it derived its right. This
assumes, of course, that the corporation acquired the land, not exceeding 12
hectares, when the land had already become private land by operation of
law.

In the present case, respondent has failed to prove that any portion of the
land was already private land when respondent acquired it from Porting in
1997.

• Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao v. Land Registration Commission, G.R. No. L-
8451. December 20, 1957

Filipino citizen sold parcel of land in favor of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator
of Davao Inc., s corporation organized by a Canadian citizen. When the deed of sale
was presented to Register of Deeds of Davao for registration, the latter required said
corporation sole to submit a similar affidavit declaring that 60 per cent of the members
thereof were Filipino citizens.

A religious corporation sole, has no citizenship, and is not an alien.

It is not enough that the acquirer of agricultural land be not an alien; he must be a Filipino or
controlled by Filipinos.

(1) That the capacity of religious corporations sole to acquire agricultural land depends upon 60 per
cent Filipino membership of the group or body exercising control of the corporation; lawphi1.net

(2) That if control of any such corporation should be vested in a single person, then such person
must be a Filipino citizen;
1awphi1.net

(3) That in the absence of evidence on these points, the order appealed from, denying registration of
the conveyance, should be affirmed.

7. Condominiums

a) Condominium Corporation Owns the Land

Sec. 5, Condominium Act or RA 4726

Section 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or store or other space
therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the undivided interests in the common areas or,
in a proper case, the membership or shareholdings in the condominium
corporation: Provided, however, That where the common areas in the condominium project are
owned by the owners of separate units as co-owners thereof, no condominium unit therein shall be
conveyed or transferred to persons other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at least sixty percent
of the capital stock of which belong to Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession.
Where the common areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer or
conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the appurtenant membership or
stockholding in the corporation will cause the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits
imposed by existing laws.

b) Corporation Leases the Land

Sec. 4, Investors’ Lease Act or R.A. 7652

Sec. 4. Coverage. — Any foreign investor investing in the Philippines shall

be allowed to lease private lands in accordance with the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines subject to the following conditions:chan robles
virtual law library

(1) No lease contract shall be for a period exceeding fifty (50) years,
renewable once for a period of not more than twenty- five (25) years;
chan robles virtual law library
(2) The leased area shall be used solely for the purpose of the investment
upon the mutual agreement of the parties;
(3) The leased premises shall comprise such area as may reasonably be
required for the purpose of the investment subject however to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and the Local Government Code.

The leasehold right acquired under long-term lease contracts entered into
pursuant to this Act may be sold, transferred, or assigned: Provided, That
when the buyer, transferee, or assignee is a foreigner or a foreign-owned
enterprise, the conditions and limitations in respect to the use of the leased
property as provided for under this Act shall continue to apply.

c) Land is Co-owned by the Unit Owners

Sec. 5, Condominium Act or RA 4726

VI. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

1. Possession

Sec. 14 (1), P.D. 1529

A. APPLICATIONS

Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:

(1) 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.

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

(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.

(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.

Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the
original registration of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire
during the pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in
the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the
proceedings.

A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any land held in trust by him,
unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.

Sec. 48 (b), C.A. 141

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

Aranda v. Republic, G.R. No. 172331. August 24, 2011

Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009 Martinez v. CA, G.R. No. L-31271 April
29, 1974
Republic v. Hanover, G.R. No. 172102. July 2, 2010

2. Prescription

Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009

A patrimonial property of the State may be acquired through prescription.

The two modes of prescription through immovable may be acquired is by ordinary acquisitive
prescription which requires possession in good faith and with just title and the other is
completed through possession of ten years.

It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that their father has acquired
ownership over the property in question and that they own the property for the period required
by the law. Therefore, the petition is denied.

3. Non-Registrable Property
 • Bureau of Forestry v. CA, G.R. No. L-37995 August 31, 1987

Mercedes Diago, applicant for land registration, alleged that she herself occupied said
parcels of land having bought them from the testate estate of the late Jose Ma. Nava
who, in his lifetime, had bought the lands in turn from Canuto Gustilo. The Director of
Lands opposed said application on the ground that neither the applicant nor her
predecessors-in-interest have sufficient title over the lands applied for, which could be
registered under the Torrens systems, and that they have never been in open,
continuous and exclusive possession of the said lands for at least 30 years prior to the
filing of the application. The Director of Forestry on the other hand anchored his
opposition principally on the ground that certain specific portions of the lands subject
matter of the application are mangrove swamps and are within Timberland.

As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which was lifted from Act
No. 2874, the classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department of
the government and not of the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room
for doubt that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public
domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of the Government,
through the Office of the President. Hence, it was grave error and/or abuse of discretion
for the respondent court to ignore the uncontroverted facts that (1) the disputed area is
within a timberland block and (2) as certified to by the then Director of Forestry, the area
is needed for forest purposes..

Lands which are part of the public domain cannot be acquired by prescription, unless
the law expressly permits it.

The possession of forest lands cannot ripen into private ownership.

• Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga, G.R. No 146030. December 3, 2002

Under Section 14(1)[14] thereof, a petition may be granted upon compliance with the following
requisites: (a) that the... property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public
domain; (b) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and (c) that such
possession is under a... bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by
himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence,
i.e., he must prove his title and should not rely on the absence... or weakness of the evidence of
the oppositors.[23] Furthermore, the court has the bounden duty, even in the absence of any
opposition, to require the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of evidence and by positive and
absolute proof, so far as possible,... that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands which he is
attempting to register.[24] Since petitioner failed to meet the quantum of proof required by law,
the CA was correct in reversing the trial court and dismissing his application for judicial...
confirmation of title.

• Republic v. Southside Homeowners Assoc., G.R. No. 156951. Sept. 22, 2006

The Republic has, since the filing of its underlying complaint, invoked Proclamation No.
423. In the process, it has invariably invited attention to the proclamation’s specific area
coverage to prove the nullity of TCT No. 15084, inasmuch as the title embraced a reserved
area considered inalienable, and hence, beyond the commerce of man. The October 30,
1991 Deed of Sale purportedly executed by Palad, assuming its authenticity, could not
plausibly be the requisite classifying medium converting the JUSMAG area into a disposable
parcel. And private respondent SHAI’s unyielding stance that would have the Republic in
estoppel to question the transfer to it by the LMB Director of the JUSMAG area is unavailing.
It should have realized that the Republic is not usually estopped by the mistake or error on
the part of its officials or agents.

Since the parcels of land in question allegedly sold to the private respondent are, or at least
at the time of the supposed transaction were, still part of the FBMR, the purported sale is
necessarily void ab initio. Moreover, Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution forbids
private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, except
through lease for a limited period. The interplay of compelling circumstances and
inferences deducible from the case, also cast doubt on the authenticity of such deed, if not
support a conclusion that the deed is spurious.

• Republic v. Vera, G.R. No. L-35778 January 27, 1983

Martinez filed an application for registration of title under Act 496 of one (1) parcel of land. Republic
of the Philippines filed an opposition to the application stating that the parcel of land applied for is a
portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic, not subject to private appropriation.

It was declared public land by the decision of the Cadastral Court. The lower court is
without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the application for voluntary registration
under Act 496. The lands in question can no longer be subject to registration by
voluntary proceedings, for they have already been subjected to compulsory registration
proceedings under the Cadastral Act.

Applicants, therefore, have failed to submit convincing proof actual, peaceful and
adverse possession in the concept of owners of the entire area in question during the
period required by law.

The survey plans submitted by petitioners were not approved by the Director of Lands
but by the Land Registration Commission
The Land Registration Commission has no authority to approve original survey plans in
this particular case.

Section 34-A of R.A. No. 6389 applies only to lands subject of tenancy relation which
are expropriated and sub-divided in favor of new amortizing-owner-beneficiaries.

The submission of the plan is a statutory requirement of mandatory character and

unless the plan and its technical description are duly approved by the Director of Lands,
the same are not of much value.

4. Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples

Sec. 48 (c), C.A. 141

Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of
the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of
ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b) hereof.

Sec. 12, IPRA or RA No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997)

SECTION 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title Under Commonwealth Act 141,
as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. — 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 this Act and
uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall have the option to secure title
to their ancestral lands under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or
the Land Registration Act 496.

For this purpose, said individually-owned ancestral lands, which are agricultural in
character and actually used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming
purposes, including those with a slope of eighteen percent (18%) or more, are hereby
classified as alienable and disposable agricultural lands.

The option granted under this section shall be exercised within twenty (20) years from the
approval of this Act.

5. Registration Requirements and Procedures

Secs. 17 and 18, P.D. 1529

Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed with the Court
of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file together
with the application all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land
approved by the Bureau of Lands.

The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has furnished
the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.

Section 18. Application covering two or more parcels. An application may include two or more
parcels of land belonging to the applicant/s provided they are situated within the same province or
city. The court may at any time order an application to be amended by striking out one or more of the
parcels or by a severance of the application.

6. Jurisdiction

7. Evidence

OCA Circular No. 38-97

The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 6-93-A is that only
original cadastral or land registration cases are covered. The jurisdiction of
the First Level Courts, being merely delegated, should be limited to what is
expressly mentioned in the delegation.
1. There are limits to the delegation, i.e., either the subject matter is an
uncontested lot or if contested the value of the lot should not exceed
One hundred thousand [P100,000.00] Pesos. There will be difficulty in
the determination of these limits if and when the First Level Courts are
required to exercise delegated jurisdiction over petitions subsequent to
original registration.

2. A First Level Court should not be placed in a situation where, in

disposing of a matter subsequent to registration, it will have to consult
the records of another Court, which granted the original registration.

3. To require First Level Courts to handle petitions after original

registration would unduly increase their dockets already loaded with
 cases covered by R. A. 7691, the law on their expanded
jurisdiction.cralaw
Therefore, matters subsequent to the original registration determined by
Second Level Courts, including petitions for reconstitution of lost titles, should
not be unloaded to the Firts Level Courts. The Second Level Courts are hereby
directed to take cognizance of and exercise jurisdiction over such matters.

Sec. 17, P.D. 1529

Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed
with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The
applicant shall file together with the application all original muniments of titles or copies
thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands.

The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant
has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.

• De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel, G.R. No. 144103. August 31, 2005

Can plaintiffs-appellees recover the said land from defendant-appellant who

has been in peaceful possession thereof for more than 40 years and has
performed all acts consistent with her claim of ownership? chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

. . . Plaintiffs-appellees are guilty of laches for their unexplained and unreasonable

delay in asserting their right to the subject land and instituting action to recover the
same from defendant-appellant who has been in possession thereof for more than forty
years (40). There is no doubt that the plaintiffs-appellees' long inaction in asserting
their right to the subject land bar them from recovering the same from defendant-
appellant under the equitable principle of laches. The law serves those who are vigilant
and diligent and not those who sleep when the law requires them to act.

The law30 provides that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the
registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Nonetheless, while it is true that a Torrens Title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the
possession of his registered property by reason of laches.31

Laches has been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in
conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse
party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which
works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the
condition or relations of the property or parties.
Unless there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced
by a decision directing the return of the lot to petitioners, the equitable defense of
laches will not apply as against the registered owners.57 In the case at bar, there being
no intervening third persons whose rights will be affected or prejudiced if possession of
the subject lot is restored to the petitioners, the return of the same is in order.

• Director of Lands v. CA, G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997

Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 shall be followed requiring a publication once both in the Official
Gazette and newspaper of general circulation. The Land Registration Case is an in Rem
proceeding, meaning the applicant must prove his title over the land against all persons
concerned, who might have interest to right in the property and should effectively be invited
in the court to prove why the title should not be granted.

• Director of Lands v. Rivas, G.R. No. L-61539. February 14, 1986

Grazing lands and timber lands are riot alienable under section 1, Article XIII of the 1935
Constitution and sections 8, 10 and 11 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution. Section 10
distinguishes strictly agricultural lands (disposable) from grazing lands (inalienable).

Lands within the forest zone or timber reservation cannot be the object of private ownership.

• Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447. April 29, 2005

WELL-ENTRENCHED IS THE RULE THAT ONCE A CASE IS FILED WITH THE COURT, ANY
DISPOSITION OF IT RESTS ON THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT. IN THUS
RESOLVING A MOTION TO DISMISS A CASE OR TO WITHDRAW AN INFORMATION, THE
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT RELY SOLELY AND MERELY ON THE FINDINGS OF THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE.

It is the court’s bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this
assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. While the
recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not
binding on courts. By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the resolution
of the DOJ Secretary, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive
duty enjoined by law. The said Orders were thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and
violated the complainant’s right to due process. They were void, had no legal standing, and
produced no effect whatsoever. This Court must therefore remand the case to the RTC, so that
the latter can rule on the merits of the case to determine if a prima facie case exists and
consequently resolve the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information anew. (JOSEPH C.
CEREZO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 185230, JUNE 1, 2011, NACHURA, J.)
Thursday, April 24, 2014
BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES:
 Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that “burden of proof is the duty
of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.” It is then up for the plaintiff
to establish his cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense. Therefore, if the
plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of
the defendant, he has the burden of proving such negligence. It is even presumed that a
person takes ordinary care of his concerns. The quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evidence. (Dr. Genevieve L. Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., G.R.
No. 180440, December 5, 2012, Perez, J.)

• Palali v. Awisan, G.R. No. 158385. February 12, 2010

Possession, when coupled with a tax declaration, is a weighty evidence of ownership.39 It certainly is
more weighty and preponderant than a tax declaration alone.

A party seeking to recover real property must rely on the strength of her case rather than on the
weakness of the defense.41 The burden of proof rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue. For he who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove that fact. Having
failed to discharge her burden to prove her affirmative allegations, we find that the trial court rightfully
dismissed respondent’s complaint.

• Republic v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 70853. March 12, 1987

• Republic v. Guinto-Aldana, G.R. No. 175578. August 11, 2010

• South City Homes v. Republic, G.R. No. 76564. May 25, 1990

• Tottoc v. IAC, G.R. No. 69969. December 20, 1989

• Vda. De Raz v. CA, G.R. No. 120066. September 9, 1999

8. Survey

• Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594. November 28, 1975

9. Application

• Director of Lands v. Tesalona, G.R. No. 66130. September 8, 1994

• Divina vs. CA, G.R. No. 117734. February 22, 2001

a. Setting the Date of Initial Hearing

b. Transmittal of the Order of the Court to the LRA
 c. Preparation and Issuance of the Notice of Initial Hearing
d. Publication, Mailing and Posting

Secs. 3 and 24, P.D. 1529

Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The system of registration under the
Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which are
not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands.

Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may
be recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been brought under the
operation of the Torrens system.

The books of registration for unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall continue to remain in force; provided, that
all instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under Section 113 of
this Decree.

Section 24. Proof of publication and notice. The certification of the Commissioner of Land
Registration and of the sheriff concerned to the effect that the notice of initial hearing, as required by
law, has been complied with shall be filed in the case before the date of initial hearing, and shall be
conclusive proof of such fact.

• Director of Lands v. CA, G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997

• Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. L-35787 April 11, 1980

• Republic v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117. May 26, 2005

e. Opposition and Default

Sec. 25, P.D. 1529

Section 25. Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings. Any person claiming an interest,
whether named in the notice or not, may appear and file an opposition 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.

If the opposition or the adverse claim of any person covers only a portion of the lot and said portion
is not properly delimited on the plan attached to the application, or in case of undivided co-
ownership, conflicting claims of ownership or possession, or overlapping of boundaries, the court
may require the parties to submit a subdivision plan duly approved by the Director of Lands.
Sec. 26, P.D. 1529

Section 26. Order of default; effect. If no person appears and answers within the time allowed, the
court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing, 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.

• Albano v. CA, G.R. No. 144708. August 10, 2001

• City of Davao v. Monteverde-Consunji, G.R. No. 136825. May 21, 2001

• Heirs of Lopez v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 146262. January 21, 2005

• Vergel v. CA, G.R. No. 125154. September 28, 2001

• Yabut Lee vs. Punzalan, G.R. No. L-50236 August 29, 1980

f. Initial Hearing and Presentation of Evidence

• Gonzaga v. CA, G.R. No. 96259. September 3, 1996

• Ignacio v. CA, G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995

• PNB v. Intl. Corporate Bank, G.R. No. 86679. July 23, 1991
• Republic v. CA, G.R. No. L-40402. March 16, 1987

• Republic v. CA and Lapiña, G.R. No. 108998. August 24, 1994

• Santiago vs. SBMA, G. R. No. 156888. Nov. 20, 2006

g. Judgment and Decree of Registration of land issued by LRA

Sec. 39, P.D. 1529

Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title. After the judgment directing the
registration of title to land has become final, the court shall, within fifteen days from entry of
judgment, issue an order directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of
registration and certificate of title. The clerk of court shall send, within fifteen days from entry of
judgment, certified copies of the judgment and of the order of the court directing the Commissioner
to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a certificate stating that
the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has become final. Thereupon,
the Commissioner shall cause to be prepared the decree of registration as well as the original and
duplicate of the corresponding original certificate of title. The original certificate of title shall be a true
copy of the decree of registration. The decree of registration shall be signed by the Commissioner,
entered and filed in the Land Registration Commission. The original of the original certificate of title
shall also be signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's duplicate
certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated for entry in
his registration book.

• Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998

• Navarro v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-18814. July 31, 1962

h. Original Certificate of Title

10. Remedies
a. Motion for Reconsideration / New Trial
b. Petition for Relief from Judgment
c. Appeal
d. Petition for Review of the Decree of Registration

Sec. 32, P.D. 1529

Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. 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 any person, including the government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance 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
issued 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.

• Baldoz v. Papa, G.R. No. L-18150. July 30, 1965

• Cal, Jr. v. Zosa, G.R. No. 152518. July 31, 2006

• Crisolo v. CA, G.R. No. L-33093 December 29, 1975

• Fil-Estate Management v. Trono, G. R. No. 130871. Feb. 17, 2006

e. Action for Reconveyance

Article 1456, Civil Code

Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides: 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.

• Almarza v. Arguelles, G.R. No. L-49250 December 21, 1987

• Bautista-Borja v. Bautista, G.R. No. 136197. December 10, 2008

• Esconde v. Barlongay, G.R. No. L-67583. July 31, 1987

• Heirs of Labiste v. Heirs of Labiste, G.R. No. 162033. May 8, 2009

• Joaquin v. Cojuangco, G.R. No. L-18060. July 25, 1967

• Khemani v. Heirs of Trinidad, G.R. No. 147340. December 13, 2007

• Lopez v. CA, G.R. No. 157784. December 16, 2008

• Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-55935 July 30, 1986

• Municipality of Victorias v. CA, G.R. No. L-31189 March 31, 1987

• Naval v. CA, G.R. No. 167412. February 22, 2006

• Rementizo v Heirs of Vda. De Madarieta, G.R. No. 170318. January 15, 2009

• Salao v. Salao, G.R. No. L-26699 March 16, 1976

• Spouses Santos v. Heirs of Lustre, G.R. No. 151016. Aug. 6, 2008

f. Action for Damages

• Pino v. CA, G.R. No. 94114. June 19, 1991

g. Action against the Assurance Fund

h. Quieting of Title

• Cañero v. UP, G.R. No. 156380. September 8, 2004

• Faja v. CA, G.R. No. L-45045. February 28, 1977

• Realty Sales Enterprise v. IAC, G.R. No. L-67451. Sept. 28, 1987
 • Spouses Mamadsual v. Moson, G.R. No. 92557. Sept. 27, 1990

• Sps. Rumarate v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 168222. April 18, 2006

i. Cancellation involving Double Title

• Pajomayo v. Manipon, G.R. No. L-33676. June 30, 1971

j. Action for Reversion

• Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 104296. March 29, 1996

• Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 100709. November 14, 1997

VIII. CADASTRAL REGISTRATION

1. Nature and Purpose

• Heirs of Luzuriaga vs. Republic, G.R. No. 168848. June 30, 2009
• Republic v. Vera, G.R. No. L-35778 January 27, 1983
• Sps. Veranga vs. Republic, G.R. No. 149114. July 21, 2006

2. Jurisdiction

• Duran vs. Olivia, G.R. No. L-16589. September 29, 1961

• Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corp., G.R. No.
• 123346. November 29, 2005

3. When Filed?

Secs. 35 (a) and 36, P.D. 1529

CADASTRAL REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

A. ORDER FOR SPEEDY SETTLEMENT AND ADJUDICATION; SURVEY; NOTICES

Section 35. Cadastral Survey preparatory to filing of petition.

(a) When in the opinion of the President of the Philippines public interest so requires that title
to any unregistered lands be settled and adjudicated, he may to this end direct and order the
Director of Lands to cause to be made a cadastral survey of the lands involved and the plans
and technical description thereof prepared in due form.
B. PETITION; LOT NUMBERS

Section 36. Petition for registration. When the lands have been surveyed or plotted, the Director of
Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, shall institute original registration proceedings by filing
the necessary petition in the Court of First Instance of the place where the land is situated against
the holders, claimants, possessors, or occupants of such lands or any part thereof, stating in
substance that public interest requires that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated and
praying that such titles be so settled and adjudicated:

The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by a plan thereof, and
may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full notice to the occupants of the lands and to
all persons who may claim any right or interest therein.

Where the land consists of two or more parcels held or occupied by different persons, the plan shall
indicate the boundaries or limits of the various parcels as accurately as possible. The parcels shall
be known as "lots" and shall on the plan filed in the case be given separate numbers by the Director
of Lands, which numbers shall be known as "cadastral lot numbers". The lots situated within each
municipality shall, as far as practicable, be numbered consecutively beginning with number "one",
and only one series of numbers shall be used for that purpose in each municipality. However in cities
or townsites, a designation of the landholdings by blocks and lot numbers may be employed instead
of the designation by cadastral lot numbers.

The cadastral number of a lot shall not be changed after final decision has been entered decreasing
the registration thereof, except by order of court. Future subdivisions of any lot shall be designated
by a letter or letters of the alphabet added to the cadastral number of the lot to which the respective
subdivisions pertain. The letter with which a subdivision is designated shall be known as its
"cadastral letter": Provided, however, that the subdivisions of cities or townsites may be designated
by blocks and lot numbers.

4. Judgment and Decree

Sec. 38, P.D. 1529

HEARING; JUDGMENT; DECREE

Section 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. The trial of the case may occur at any convenient place
within the province in which the lands are situated and shall be conducted, and orders for default
and confessions entered, in the same manner as in ordinary land registration proceedings and shall
be governed by the same rules. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and
decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or to parts thereof and such decrees
shall be the basis for issuance of original certificates of title in favor of said persons and shall have
the same effect as certificates of title granted on application for registration of land under ordinary
land registration proceedings.

5. Subsequent Registration
6. Nature and Effects

Secs. 51, 52, 56 and 59, P.D. 1529

Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An owner of registered land may
convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws.
He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient
in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to
convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate
only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration.

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 under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.

Section 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.

Section 59. Carry over of encumbrances. If, at the time of any transfer, subsisting encumbrances or
annotations appear in the registration book, they shall be carried over and stated in the new
certificate or certificates; except so far as they may be simultaneously released or discharged.

• Campillo v. CA, G.R. No. L-56483. May 29, 1984

• Heirs of Marasigan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69303. July 23, 1987
• Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 133140. August 10, 1999
• Mingoa v. Land Registration Administrator, G.R. No. 97282.
• August 16, 1991
• Rodriguez v. CA, G.R. No. L-29264. August 29, 1969

IX-2. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS

Sec. 53, P.D. 1529

Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument
shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented
with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the
court, for cause shown.

The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented
for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to
enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such
instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and
upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.
 • Spouses Chu v. Benelda Estate Devt. Corp, G.R. No. 142313. March 1, 2001

• DBP vs Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK No. 7671 June 23, 1988

• Dela Merced vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 140398. September 11, 2001

[2] A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a

particular real property is in litigation, serving 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 the said property. It is not disputed that
petitioners caused the annotation of lis pendens on TCT No. 23554 of the lots in
question. The current holders of the derivative titles to these lots were aware of
such annotation when the individual titles were issued to them. Ineluctably, both
were bound by the outcome of the litigation.

• Egao v. CA, G.R. No. L-79787 June 29, 1989

• Fule v. Legare, G.R. No. L-17951. February 28, 1963

• Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 119745. June 20, 1997

• Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 100709. November 14, 1997

IX-2. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS

• Sajonas v. CA, G. R. No. 102377. July 5, 1996

• Diaz-Duarte vs. Ong, G.R. No. 130352. November 3, 1998

• Heirs of Marasigan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69303. July 23, 1987

A party who bought the property with a notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of
her title has NO better right over the party in whose favor the notice of lis pendens was
made.

… the filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with a notice of the particular
litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire on the
property is subject to the eventuality of the suit. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded
upon reason of public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject
matter of the litigation within the power of the Court until the judgment or decree shall
have been entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the litigation, its
judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution. … (Laroza
v. Guia, 134 SCRA 34 1)

• Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Maulit, G.R. No. 136283. February 29, 2000

X. ATTACHMENTS

XI. SUITS, JUDGMENTS, DECREES

XII. FORECLOSURE

XIII. ADVERSE CLAIM

Sec. 70, P.D. 1529

Section 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the
registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other
provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth
fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of the
certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the
land in which the right or interest is claimed.

The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant's residence, and a
place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as
an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty
days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may
be canceled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided, however, that
after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the
same claimant.

Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the Court of First
Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall
grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render
judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration
thereof shall be ordered canceled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall find that
the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than
one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty
days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn
petition to that effect.

• Alfredo v. Borras, G.R. No. 144225. June 17, 2003

• Arrazola v. Bernas, G.R. No. L-29740 November 10, 1978
• Ching v. Enrile, G.R. No. 156076. September 17, 2008
• Leonardo v. Maravilla, G.R. No. 143369. November 27, 2002
 • Sajonas v. CA, G.R. No. 102377. July 5, 1996

XIV. LIS PENDENS

1. Non-Registrable Properties
a. Inalienable Lands of the Public Domain
b. Lands already registered under the Torrens System.
c. Innocent Purchaser For Value (IPV)

Sec. 32, P.D. 1529

Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. 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 any person, including the government and the branches thereof,
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance 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.

• Cabuhat v. CA, G.R. No. 122425. September 28, 2001

• Clemente v. Razo, G.R. No. 151245. March 04, 2005
• Estate of Olaguer v. Ongjoco, G.R. No. 173312. August 26, 2008
• Estate of Yujuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 168661. October 26, 2007
• Guaranteed Homes v. Heirs of Valdez, G.R. No. 171531. January 30, 2009
• San Roque Realty and Development Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No.
• 163130. September 7, 2007

c.1. Exceptions to the IPV:

• Abad v. Guimba, G.R. No. 157002. July 29, 2005

As mortgagee of a real property, [Petitioner] Abad neglected to make the necessary inquiries and
closed his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard as to the value of the
property being presented as collateral and of any flaw... in the title of the mortgagor and of the
identity of persons being introduced to him as the owners of the property being mortgaged. By
merely relying on his belief that there was no defect in the title of the property being presented
as collateral and on the identity of... the prospective mortgagors being introduced to him without
undertaking further investigation, [Petitioner] Abad cannot be considered a mortgagee in good
faith and for value."... as a rule, the purchaser is not... required to explore further than what the
Certificate indicates on its face. This rule, however, applies only to innocent purchasers for value
and in good faith; it excludes a purchaser who has knowledge of a defect in the title of the
vendor, or of facts... sufficient to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of
the property.

Under Section 32 of PD 1529,[34] an innocent purchaser for value is deemed to include an

innocent mortgagee for value.

• Coronel v. IAC, G.R. No. 70191. October 29, 1987

• Erena v. Querrer-Kauffman, G.R. No. 165853. June 22, 2006
• Expresscredit Financing Corp. v. Velasco, G.R. No. 156033 October 20, 2005
• Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. L-30162 August 31, 1987

• Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumyung, G.R. Nos. L- 31666, L-31667 and L-31668 April
30, 1979

The lands covered by the patents and certificates of title are timber lands and mineral... lands
and, therefore, not alienable.

There is no evidence that the private respondents are members of the National Cultural
Minorities; that they have continuously occupied and cultivated either by themselves or through
their predecessors-in-interest the lands... in question... and that they are not the owner of any
land secured or disposable under the Public Land Act at the time they filed the free patent
applications. These qualifications must be... established by evidence. Precisely, the intervenor,
petitioner herein, claims that it was in possession of the lands in question when the private
respondents applied for free patents thereon.

It is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers... property of public domain
classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in
the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.

• Orduna v. Fuentebella, G.R. No. 176841. June 29, 2010

• Private Development Corp. of the Phils. v. CA, G.R. No. 136897
• November 22, 2005
• Sanchez v. Quinio, G.R. No. 133545. July 15, 2005
• Sarmiento v. CA, G.R. No. 152627. September 16, 2005
• Spouses Abrigo v. De Vera, G.R. No. 154409. June 21, 2004
• Tio v. Abayata, G.R. No. 160898. June 27, 2008
• Torres v. CA, G.R. No. L-63046. June 21, 1990

XV. EFFECTS OF CERTAIN ACTS

 1. Fraudulent Registration

• Adille v. CA, G.R. No. L-44546. January 29, 1988

• Pajarillo v. IAC, G.R. No. 72908. August 11, 1989

• Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Villalva, G.R. No. L- 28194. November 24, 1972

• Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., G.R. No. L-38387. January 29, 1990

2. Forgery

Sec. 23, P.D. 1529

PUBLICATION, OPPOSITION AND DEFAULT

Section 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court shall, within five days from filing of
the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be
earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety 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 (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.

• Torres v. CA, G.R. No. L-63046. June 21, 1990

3. Loss

• Baltazar v. CA, G.R. No. 78728. December 8, 1988

• Cabuhat v. CA, G.R. No. 122425. September 28, 2001
• Legarda vs CA, G.R. No. 94457. October 16, 1997
• Tomas vs. Tomas, G.R. No. L-36897 June 26, 1980
• Torres v. CA, G.R. No. L-63046. June 21, 1990
• Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 114299. March 9, 2000

4. Double titles

• Angeles v. Secretary of Justice G. R. No. 142549. March 9, 2010

• Garcia v. Gozon, G.R. Nos. L-48971 & 49011. January 22, 1980

5. Title from void titles

• Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G.R. No. 76265. April 22, 1992
• De Santos v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69591. January 25, 1988
• Mathay v. CA, G.R. No. 115788. September 17, 1998

6. Remedies of Persons Aggrieved in Land Registration Proceedings

• Francisco v. Puno, G.R. No. L-55694 October 23, 1981

• Serna v. CA, G.R. No. 124605. June 18, 1999
• Villanueva-Mijares v. CA, G.R. No. 108921. April 12, 2000