Article 12.

Cases/Mainpoint
Section 3.

Lee Hong Kok v. David

- F: Petitioners Lee Hong Hok et al. claim that the Torrens Title of Respondent David over the disputed land
should be declared null and void. The CA found no legal justification for nullifying the right of David over
the disputed land arising from the grant made in his favor by the appropriate public officials.
- I: W/N the state can dispose of lands which have not passed into private ownership.
- R: No. It is well-settled “that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express
or implied, from the government.” It is indispensable then that there be a showing of a title from the state
or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.

Carino v. Insular Government

- F: The plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership, under the mortgage law, and the lands were registered
to him, that process, however, establishing only a possessory title.
- I: W/N the plaintiff owns the land
- R: Yes. In this case, the plaintiff and his ancestors held the land as owners. They all had been recognized as
owners. They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and he had inherited or received the land
from his father in accordance with Igorot custom.

Laurel v. Garcia
- F: Petitioners seek to stop the Philippine Government to sell the Roppongi Property, which is located in
Japan. It is one of the properties given by the Japanese Government as reparations for damage done by
the latter to the former during the war.
- I: WON the subject property cannot be alienated.
- R: Under Philippine Law, there can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown
that the property has become patrimonial. This, the respondent have failed to do so. As property of public
dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated.

Almeda v. CA
- F: The petitioners filed for the registration of the land which was originally owned by their parents. The
only opposition of the contention that the applicants have not met the statutory requirement on
possession mainly because the land applied for was alienable forest land
- R: The land here was already forest land when occupied by the petitioners In other words, the petitioners
here occupied forest land before it was released as alienable and disposable.

Director of Lands v. Kalahi Investments

- F: Kalahi presented evidence to support perfected mining rights over the 123 mineral claims. Kalahi
thus contends that these mineral lands are now segregated from the government lands and its
mining claims.
- R: The right of a locator of a mining claim is a property right, “this right is not absolute”. Mere
location does not mean absolute ownership over the affected land or the located claim. It merely
segregates the located land or area from the public domain by barring other would-be locators from
locating the same and appropriating for themselves the minerals found therein.

Land Mgt. Bureau v. CA

- F: Respondent Aquilino Cariño filed a petition for registration for lot which is a sugar land claimed to
be owned by his mother, he became the sole owner of the property.
- The petitioner contends that the respondent failed to submit proof of his fee simple title and has not
overthrown the presumption that the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the state.
- R: His mere allegation that his mother was in possession of the land since 1911 is self-serving and
hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence. The tax receipts and tax declaration he offered as evidence
do not substantiate clear proof of ownership.
Republic v. Deguzman
- F: Court of Appeals ruled that when De Guzman obtained Original Certificate of Title, the land ceased
to be part of the public domain, converted into a private registered land. Being a private land, the
Director of Lands had neither control nor jurisdiction over the land.
- I: W/N Director of lands has jurisdiction
- R: The director of lands still has authority over the land the moment an original certificate of title is issued
if the purpose of such investigation is to determine whether or not fraud had been committed in
securing such title, in order that the appropriate action for reversion may be filed by the
Government.

PUA v. CA
- F: Pepito S. Pua being her eldest son, she placed the land in question in his name, but she continued
to exercise rights of dominion over said property together with the building. On April 27, 1981, the
sale of the twelve square meters was registered.
- I: Whether the petitioner violated the Anti-Dummy Law
- citizen of the Philippines for the purpose of evading any constitutional or legal provision requiring
Philippine citizenship.
- In the instant case, the trial court based its recommendation on its finding that the alleged buyer,
Leoncia Coloma, was married to a Chinese citizen.
- The trial court thus concluded that "as her husband is an alien disqualified under the Constitution of
the Philippines to acquire the land in question, to circumvent this law, she placed the title of the
property in the name of Johnny P. Uy who, because of the latter’s close affinity with her husband
could be her trustee.

Cruz v. Sec. of DENR

- F: Petitioners filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, The petitioners assail certain
provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the
State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources.
- I: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
- R: No. Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They are
private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State.

Chavez v. PEA
- The Public Estates Authority is the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects
nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR. PEA sought the transfer to AMARI,
a private corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands.
- Whether or not the transfer is valid.
- No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands
will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.