Land Titles and Deeds
Purpose of registration
III. LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
A. TORRENS SYSTEM; GENERAL PRINCIPLES
In this system, title by registration takes the place of
"title by deeds" of the system under the "general"
law. A sale of land is effected by a registered
transfer, upon which a certificate of title is issued.
The certificate is guaranteed by statute, and, with
certain exceptions, constitutes indefeasible title to
the land mentioned therein. (Agcaoili, 2011)
The system generally means those systems of
registration of transactions with interest in land
whose declared object, under governmental
authority, to establish and certify to the ownership
of an absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and
simplify the transfer. (Ibid.)
Under the old system the same sale would be
effected by a conveyance, depending for its validity,
apart from intrinsic flaws, on the correctness of a
long series of prior deeds, wills, etc. The object of the
Torrens system, then, is to do away with the delay,
uncertainty, and expense of the old conveyancing
system. (Alba v. Dela Cruz G.R. No. 5246, 16 Sept.
1920)
NOTE: Registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership but is merely a procedure to establish
evidence of title over realty. It does not give the
holder any better title than what he actually has.
(Solid State Multi-Products Corp. v. Development
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 83383, 06 May 1991)
However, 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. (Vagilidad v. Vagilidad, G.R. No. 161136, 16
Nov. 2006)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
The following are the purpose of Registration under
Torrens System:
1. To quiet title to land;
2. To establish and certify to the ownership of
an absolute and indefeasible title to realty,
and to simply its transfer;
3. To guarantee the integrity of land titles, and
to protect their indefeasibility once the
claim of ownership is established and
recognized;
4. To put a stop forever to any question of the
legality of the title;
5. To minimize conflicting claims and stabilize
land ownership;
6. To relieve the land of burden of known, as
well as unknown claims; and
7. To decree land titles that shall be final,
irrevocable, and indisputable. (Agcaoili,
2017)
NOTE: The government has adopted the Torrens
system due to its being the most effective measure
to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
ownership is established and recognized. (Casimiro
Development Corporation v. Mateo, G.R. No. 175485,
27 July 2011)
Advantages of Torrens System
1. It has substituted security for insecurity;
2. It has reduced the cost of conveyances from
pounds to shillings, and the time occupied
from months to days
3. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for
obscurity and verbiage;
4. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that
he who has mastered the ‘three R’s’ can
transact his own conveyancing
5. It affords protection against fraud;
6. It has restored to their just value many
estates, held under good holding titles, but
depreciated in consequence of some blur or
technical defect, and has barred the
reoccurrence of any similar faults.
(Agcaoili, 2018)
772
 Civil Law
Nature land registration proceedings under the
Torrens System
The Torrens system is judicial in character and not
merely administrative. Judicial proceedings for the
registration of lands throughout the Philippines
shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
(Sec. 2, P.D. 1529)
Registration being a proceeding in rem requires
constructive seizure of the res (land) as against all
persons inluding the State, through publication,
posting, and service of notice. (Agcaoili, 2018)
Accordingly, all other interested persons are
notified of the proceedings by publication of the
notice of initial hearing. They also and have the right
to appear in opposition to such application.
A decree of registration that has become final shall
be deemed conclusive not only on the questions
actually contested and determined but also upon all
matters that might be litigated or decided in the
land registration proceedings.
Q: In the application for registration of title filed
by Sps. Franco over three (3) parcels of land
situated at Almanza, Las Piñas City. Republic of
the Philippines, through the OSG filed a Notice of
Appearance authorizing the City Prosecutor of
Las Piñas to appear in its behalf. Oppositors-
appellants Phil-Estate Management, Inc.,
Peaksun Enterprises and Export Corporation,
Megatop Realty Development, Inc., Arturo Dy
and Elena Dy Jao entered their Opposition.
Despite the opposition, the application for title
was granted by the court a quo. CA held that
spouses Franco failed to prove (1) that the land
applied for is alienable public land; and (2) they
openly, continuously, exclusively and
notoriously possessed and occupied the same
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. CA noted that the
tax declarations presented by them show that
the earliest payment was made only in
1991. Petitioners claim that the CA ruling which
categorized the lands applied for by Sps. Go as
public lands, effectively took away portions of
the property covered by their titles without due
773
notice and hearing. Petitioners further argue
that CA unwittingly sanctioned a collateral
attack on their TCTs when the CA ruled that all
lands applied for by Sps. Go belonged to the
public domain. Accordingly, to petitioners, the
CA Decision has raised a cloud over their
Torrens titles. Did the CA err in its ruling?
A: NO. Sec. 25 of P.D. No. 1529 provides that "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, 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." It is
discretionary on the part of the land registration
court to require the parties to submit a subdivision
plan duly approved by the appropriate government
agency. Regardless of how the said court exercises
its discretion, the burden remains with the
oppositor or adverse claimant to convince by
preponderance of evidence the land registration
court that there is an overlapping of boundaries. In
this case, petitioners failed.
The arguments of petitioners that CA allowed a
collateral attack on their Torrens titles, created a
cloud thereon and deprived them thereof without
due process are sheer speculations. The RTC as well
as the CA did not make any categorical ruling on the
validity of petitioners' Torrens titles. Nor did they
declare that the areas covered by petitioners'
Torrens titles are inalienable lands of the public
domain. (Fil-Estate Management, Inc. v. Republic,
G.R. No. 192393, 27 Mar. 2019, J. Caguioa)
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. (Sec. 52,
P.D. 1529)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies covering land
registration under the Torrens system
1. Courts;
GR: RTCs have plenary jurisdiction over land
registration cases. Regional Trial Courts have
exclusive jurisdiction over land registration
cases and all petitions after original registration
of title, with the power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or
petitions. (Sec. 2, P.D. 1529)
NOTE: 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,
G.R. No. 155405, 18 Mar. 2015)
XPN: MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs have
delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases in the
following instances:
a. Where the lot sought to be registered is not
the subject of controversy or opposition; or
b. Where the lot is contested but the value
thereof does not exceed P100,000.00,
(Republic v. Bantigue, G.R. No. 162322, 14
Mar. 2012) such value to be ascertained by
the affidavit of the claimant or by the
agreement of the respective claimants, if
there be more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real
property. (Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. 129, as amended
by Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7691)
NOTE: Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals.
2. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR);
3. Department of Justice (DOJ) through the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) and its
Register of Deeds;
4. Department of Land Reform (DLR); and
5. Department of Agriculture (DA)
Q: The Quesadas filed a Petition to Surrender
TCT No. 27090 pursuant to Sec. 107 of P.D. No.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
1529. The Quesadas are the owners of a parcel
of land situated in Quezon City under TCT No.
27090. TCT No. 27090 as originally registered in
the name of the Quesadas' predecessors-in-
interest and it was donated to them sometime in
1997. The original copy of TCT No. 27090, on file
with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, was
destroyed as it was gutted by fire.
The said original TCT, which has not been
reconstructed, may be reconstituted on the
basis of the owner's copy thereof. However, the
said owner's copy of the TCT is presently in the
possession of PMO. PMO got hold of the said
owner's copy of the TCT because it was
delivered in 1983 to Golden Country Farms, a
defunct private corporation, to secure the
performance by the Quesadas' predecessors-in-
interest of their obligation in a Growership
Agreement.
Several demands were made to PMO to
surrender the said title but the same were not
favorably acted upon by the said office. The
Quesadas were constrained to file the instant
petition to surrender the withheld duplicate
certificates pursuant to Sec. 107 of P.D. No. 1529.
1. Does the RTC, as a land registration court,
have jurisdiction to hear and decide
contentious and substantial issues over the
original petition for surrender of withheld
duplicate certificate of title?
A: YES. Sec. 107 contemplates ONLY two situations
when a petition for surrender of withheld duplicate
certificate of title may be availed of. These are:
1. where it is necessary to issue a new
certificate of title pursuant to
any involuntary instrument which divests
the title of the registered owner against his
consent, and
2. where a voluntary instrument cannot be
registered by reason of the refusal or
failure of the holder to surrender the
owner's duplicate certificate of title.
774
 Civil Law
Inasmuch as the original petition before the RTC
seeks the surrender of the owner's duplicate copy of
TCT No. 27090 in the possession of PMO so that
a voluntary instrument—a Deed of Donation—can
be registered but the registration cannot be made
by reason of the refusal of PMO, the holder, to
surrender the same, a cause of action under Sec. 107
of P.D. No. 1529 has been sufficiently alleged in the
original petition.
Sec. 2 of P.D. 1529 confers a broad jurisdiction upon
the RTC "with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such [petition]." RTCs now
have the power to hear and determine all questions,
even contentious and substantial ones, arising from
applications for original registration of titles to
lands and petitions filed after such registration. The
matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the
exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of
procedure and has nothing to do with the question
of jurisdiction. Indeed, the land registration court
can now hear and decide controversial and
contentious cases and those involving substantial
issues. (Privatization and Management Office v.
Quesada, G.R. No. 224507, 20 Sept. 2017, J. Caguioa)
Q: The DAR placed portions of two lots owned by
Ella under the coverage of the CARP and R.A. No.
6657. Land Bank of the Philippines
subsequently valued said portions accordingly.
DAR offered to pay the LBP-assessed amounts to
petitioner, but the latter rejected the same. After
Ella failed to reply to DAR's Notice of Land
Valuation and Acquisition within the prescribed
period, the DAR instituted before the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD)
two summary administrative proceedings for
the determination of just compensation. The
PARAD found the LBP's basis for its assessment
of just compensation for the subject lots proper.
Aggrieved, Ella appealed before the DARAB.
Petitioner mainly alleged that the PARO erred
(1) since the subject property should not have
been placed under the CARP coverage, and (2)
grave abuse of discretion was committed when
the two summary proceedings were heard and
decided despite the fact that the subject
775
property was not yet clearly and particularly
identified. DARAB denied the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. It held that since the action filed by
the DAR with the PARO was for the preliminary
determination of just compensation, Ella’s
remedy from an adverse decision therefrom was
to file an original action for judicial
determination of just compensation with an RTC
sitting as a Special Agrarian Court. Is the DARAB
correct?
A: YES. There is nothing contradictory between the
provision of Sec. 50 granting the DAR primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian
reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction
over "all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform," which includes the determination
of questions of just compensation, and the provision
of Sec. 57 granting RTCs "original and exclusive
jurisdiction" over (1) all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowner,
and (2) prosecutions of criminal offenses under R.A.
No. 6657. The first refers to administrative
proceedings, while the second refers to judicial
proceedings. Under R.A. No. 6657, Land Bank of the
Philippines is charged with the preliminary
determination of the value of lands placed under
land reform program and the compensation to be
paid for their taking. Within 30 days from receipt of
notice, the landowner shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer.
In the event the landowner rejects the offer, a
summary administrative proceeding is held by the
provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the
central (DARAB) adjudicator, as the case may be,
depending on the value of the land, for the purpose
of determining the compensation for the land. The
landowner, the Land Bank, and other interested
parties are then required to submit evidence as to
the just compensation for the land. The DAR
adjudicator decides the case within 30 days after it
is submitted for decision. If the landowner finds the
price unsatisfactory, he may bring the matter
directly to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.
(Marasigan, Jr. v. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer,
G.R. No. 222882, 02 Dec. 2020, J. Caguioa)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

rendered its judgment granting aforesaid

B. REGALIAN DOCTRINE application. The Director of Lands appealed said
Decision to the CA on the basis that the trial
court erred in not dismissing the application for
registration because of applicants' failure to
All lands of whatever classification and other
overthrow the presumption that the land
natural resources not otherwise appearing to be
applied for is public land belonging to the State.
clearly within private ownership are presumed to
CA dismissed for lack of merit the appeal
belong to the State which is the source of any
interposed by the Director of Lands. Supreme
asserted right to ownership of land. (Republic v. Sin,
Court rendered its judgment and granted the
G.R. No. 157485, 26 Mar. 2014)
petition of the Director of Lands and reaffirmed
the decision of the RTC. Six years after, sisters
Jura regalia means that the State is the original
Maria and Lourdes filed for the second time an
proprietor of all lands and the general source of all
application for registration of title covering the
private titles. All claims of private title to land, save
same parcel of land and presented a
those acquired from native title, must be traced
Certification issued by CENRO of Odiongan,
from some grant, whether express or implied, from
Romblon.
the State. Absent a clear showing that the land had
been into private ownership through the State’s
Should the Court grant their petition for
imprimatur, such land is presumed to belong to
registration over the parcel of land?
State. (Republic v. Santos, G.R. No. 180027, 18 July
2012)
A: NO. There are two documents that must be
presented to prove that the land subject of the
The capacity of the State to own or acquire property
application for registration is alienable and
is the State’s power of dominium. (Agcaoili, 2018)
disposable:
1. A copy of the original classification
NOTE: To prove that the subject property is
approved by the DENR Secretary and
alienable and disposable land of the public domain,
certified as a true copy by the legal
applicant must:
custodian of the official records, and
1. Present a Community Environment and Natural
2. A certificate of land classification status
Resources Office Certificate (CENRO);
issued by the CENRO or the Provincial
2. Prove that the DENR Secretary had approved
Environment and Natural Resources Office
the land classification and released the land of
(PENRO) based on the land classification
the public domain as alienable and disposable;
approved by the DENR Secretary.
and
3. That the land subject of the application for
A CENRO or PENRO certification is not enough to
registration falls within the approved area per
prove the alienable and disposable nature of the
verification through survey by the PENRO or
property sought to be registered because
CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land
the only way to prove the classification of the land
registration must present a copy of the original
is through the original classification approved by
classification approved by the DENR Secretary
the DENR Secretary or the President himself. Given
and certified as a true copy by the legal
that the proof which Maria and Lourdes presented
custodian of the official records. (Republic v.
in this case to prove the alienable and disposable
Malijan-Javier, G.R. No. 214367, 04 Apr. 2018)
character of the Subject Land proceed mainly from
a Certification dated issued by the CENRO of
Q: Sisters Maria and Lourdes Sicat applied for
Odiongan, Romblon, which is insufficient, their
registration over a parcel of land with the RTC of
second attempt to register the Subject Land under
Romblon. Republic of the Philippines through
the Torrens system must suffer the same fate as
the Director of Lands opposed the application
for registration. Land Registration Court

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 776

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law
their first. (Buyco v. Republic, G.R. No. 197733, 29
Aug. 2018, J. Caguioa)
Q: In 1971, the Bureau of Lands issued Free
Patent No. 516197 in favor of Meynardo,
covering two lots (Roxas properties). On the
basis of said patent, the ROD issued Original
Certificate of Title covering both lots in
Meynardo's name. Thereafter, the Roxas
Properties was transferred to other purchasers.
DENR Final Report showed that Free Patent No.
516197 was declared null and void for having
been issued over land forming part of the public
domain (forest lands).
Republic filed against the Respondents a
complaint for the annulment and/or
cancellation of Free Patent No. 516197, OCT No.
RP-132 (P-9193), and TCT No. 16580. The
Complaint also prayed for the reversion of the
Roxas Properties in the State's favor. Is a
positive act of the government necessary to
evince the reclassification of land from alienable
and disposable to forest?
A: YES. The classification and reclassification of
public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or
forest land is the exclusive prerogative of the
Executive Department, and is exercised by the latter
through the President, or such other persons vested
with authority to exercise the same on his behalf.
Since the power to classify and reclassify land are
executive in nature, such acts, effected without
executive authority, are void, and essentially ultra
vires.
Further, owing to the nature of reversion
proceedings (as opposed to land registration
proceedings), the State bears the burden to prove
that the land previously decreed or adjudicated in
favor of the defendant constitutes land which
cannot be owned by private individuals.
The alleged reclassification of the Roxas Properties
is bereft of basis, as it was done by Engineer Mendez
on his sole account, without any prior directive from
the President, or a duly authorized officer from the
Executive Department. In fact, the annotation
appearing on LC Map 209 upon which the Republic
777
relies does not even state upon whose authority the
alleged reclassification had been made, placing the
annotation's validity, veracity and worth in serious
doubt. Ultimately, the Republic failed to prove that
the Roxas were classified as forest land when they
were decreed in Meynardo's favor in
1971. (Republic v. Heirs of Meynardo Cabrera, G.R.
No. 218418, 08 Nov. 2017, J. Caguioa)
Exception to the Regalian Doctrine
NOTE: The Regalian Doctrine does not negate
native title to lands held in private ownership since
time immemorial. (Cruz v. Secretary of Environment
and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385, 06 Dec.
2000)
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 before the Spanish conquest,
and never to have been public land. (Cariño v.
Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449, 23 Feb. 1909)
Q: On March 1980, Cornelio filed an application
for land registration of a parcel of agricultural
land. During the trial, Cornelio claimed that he
and his predecessors-in-interest had been in
open, continuous, uninterrupted, public and
adverse possession and occupation of the land
for more than 30 years. He likewise introduced
a certification, dated February 1981 citing a
presidential declaration that on June 1980, the
subject matter of the application was declared
alienable and disposable agricultural land. If
you are the judge, will you grant the application
for land registration of Cornelio? (2014 BAR)
A: NO, I will not grant the application. To be entitled
to register the parcel of land, the applicant must
show that the land being applied for is an alienable
land. At the time of the filing of the application, the
land has not yet been declared alienable by the
state. (Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 144057, 17 Jan. 2005)
Q: Can Cornelio acquire said agricultural land
through acquisitive prescription, whether
ordinary or extraordinary? (2014 BAR)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
A: Cornelio may acquire the land by acquisitive
prescription only after it was declared part of
alienable land by the state by possession for the
required number of years through ordinary
prescription, which requires ten years of possession
in good faith with just title; or extraordinary
prescription by possession for thirty years without
need of any other condition. (Art. 1134, NCC)
Q: By virtue of Free Patent No. III-12 17306
dated May 20, 1987, OCT No. P-22-C was issued
and registered on May 25, 1987, in the name of
Epifania San Pedro. It covers Lot No. 3070, Cad-
333 situated in San Juan, Balagtas, Bulacan with
an area of 12,108 square meters. After the death
of Epifania San Pedro, Pelagio Francisco, Sr.
executed an Affidavit of Self Adjudication
declaring that he was the sole surviving heir of
the patentee.
As a consequence, OCT No. P-22-C was cancelled
and Pelagio Francisco was issued TCT No. T-
7836 on October 25, 1990. Thereafter, Pelagio
Francisco sold the subject property to defendant
Tanduay Lumber. Thus, TCT No. T-7836 was
cancelled and TCT No. P-8582 was issued in the
name of Tanduay Lumber. A certain Arturo and
Teresita Mendoza wrote the OSG a petition to
request the OSG to cause the cancellation of
Patent No. P-22-C issued to Epifania San Pedro,
and all subsisting derivative titles. They alleged
that the patentee sold the lot covered by said
patent within 5 years from the issuance of the
patent, in violation of the provisions of C.A. No.
141. A Complaint for Cancellation of
Title/Reversion was filed by the Republic of the
Philippines. RTC dismissed the Complaint for
Cancellation of Title and Reversion on the
grounds of equitable estoppels and laches. Is the
complaint already barred?
A: The passage of R.A. No. 11231 or the "Agricultural
Free Patent Reform Act" has rendered this issue
moot and academic. Pursuant to David v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, a moot and academic case is one
that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by
virtue of supervening events so that a declaration
thereon would have no practical use or value.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 11231 provides that “Agricultural
public lands alienated or disposed in favor of
qualified public land applicants under Section 44 of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, shall not
be subject to restrictions imposed under Sections
118, 119 and 121 thereof regarding acquisitions,
encumbrances, conveyances, transfers, or
dispositions. Agricultural free patent shall now be
considered as title in fee simple and shall not be
subject to any restriction on encumbrance or
alienation.”
Clearly, the State's complaint for reversion is based
solely on Sec. 118 of C.A. 141. Since the restriction
on the conveyance, transfer or disposition of the
patented land subject of this case within five years
from and after the issuance of the patent pursuant
to Sec. 118 of C.A. 141 has been removed and the
title of the patentee Epifania San Pedro is, under R.A.
No. 11231, now considered as title in fee simple,
which is not subject to any restriction on alienation
or encumbrance, the Government no longer has any
legal basis to seek the reversion or reconveyance of
the subject land. (Republic v. Tanduay Lumber, Inc.,
G.R. No. 223822, 16 Oct. 2019, J. Caguioa).
Q: In his lifetime, Jose Carlos owned a 3,975
square meter parcel of land situated in Ususan,
Taguig City. Upon his death in 1948, Jose's
daughter — Maria Carlos — inherited said
property and later declared the same in her
name for taxation purposes and paid the realty
taxes due thereon. In 1968, Maria Carlos caused
the survey of the lot under a conversion plan
which was approved by the Bureau of Lands. In
1996, Maria Carlos sold subject lot to Ususan
Development Corporation (now DMCI Project
Developers, Inc.). Wanting to have said land
titled in its name, applicant-appellee filed this
instant application for registration and
confirmation of title before the RTC asserting
that the subject realty formed part of the
alienable and disposable land of the public. It
averred that, along with its predecessors-in-
interest, it has been in open, exclusive,
continuous and notorious possession and
occupation of said realty in the concept of an
owner as early as June 12, 1945. To prove such
claim, Maria Carlos' daughter, Teresita Victoria
778
 Civil Law
testified that her deceased mother used to own
and occupy said lot openly, peacefully,
exclusively and continuously since she acquired
it from her father, which realty she devoted to
planting rice and other crops as well as to her
piggery and poultry business. In addition, the
former adjacent owner Pilar Guillermo testified
that everybody in their community confirmed
and recognized Jose and Maria Carlos'
successive ownership and possession of the
subject realty. Hence, [applicant-]appellee
contended that its total length of possession of
such land, tacked with that of its predecessors-
in-interest, add up to over sixty (60) years
already. Is petitioner entitled to the registration
of the property?
A: No. In the present case, petitioner does not claim
that the subject lot is of private ownership. On the
contrary, petitioner claims that it is a land of public
dominion that has been classified as alienable and
disposable. Consequently, the burden to prove its
alienable and disposable classification rests with
petitioner. Unfortunately, petitioner was unable to
do so. The failure of petitioner to prove the alienable
and disposable status of the subject lot renders the
review of the finding of the CA that it has not
substantiated its claim that it and its predecessors-
in-interest have possessed the subject lot in the
character and for the duration required under
Section 14 (1) of PD 1529 superfluous. (Ususan
Development Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No. 209462
(Resolution), 15 July 2020, J. Caguioa)
Native title
Refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains
which, as far back as memory reaches, have been
held under a claim of private ownership by
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous
People (ICCs/IPs), have never been public lands and
are thus indisputably presumed to have been held
that way since before the Spanish Conquest. (Sec.
3(1), R.A. No. 8371)
Time immemorial possession for native title
Refers to a period when as far back as memory can
go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied,
779
possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a
defined territory devolved to them, by operation of
customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in
accordance with their customs and traditions. (Sec.
3(p), R.A. No. 8371)
Q: Socorro Orcullo was a grantee of a Free Patent
for a parcel of land in Cebu. Subsequently, the
subject lot was sold to SAAD Agro-Industries,
Inc. by one of Orcullo’s heirs. Yet, the Solicitor
General filed a complaint for the annulment of
the title and reversion of the said lot on the
ground that the issuance of the free patent and
title was irregular and erroneous, following the
discovery that the lot is allegedly part of the
timberland and forest reserve. Decide on the
case.
A: In instances where a parcel of land considered to
be inalienable land of the public domain is found
under private ownership, the Government is
allowed by law to file an action for reversion in
which the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land
to the government pursuant to the Regalian
doctrine. Nevertheless, in applying the Regalian
Doctrine, the paramount considerations of fairness
and due process must be observed in every claim of
right by the Government against one of its citizens.
Respondent Orcullo in this case failed to show that
the subject lot is part of timberland or forest reserve
it adverted to. (Saad Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic,
G.R. No. 152570, 27 Sept. 2006)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
C. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Laws that govern land registration
1. Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529, as
amended);
NOTE: P.D. 1529 amended and superseded
C.A. 496, otherwise known as the then Land
Registration Act.
2. Cadastral Act (Act. 2259, as amended);
3. Public Land Act (C.A. 141, as amended);
4. Emancipation Decree (P.D. 27, as amended);
5. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988 (R.A. No. 6657); and
6. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (R.A. No.
8371).
1. ORDINARY REGISTRATION
A proceeding filed in the MTC where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots where
the value of which does not exceed P100,000.00
(Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7691) or in the RTC (as a land
registration court) when the value exceeds
P100,000 to determine title or ownership of land on
the basis of an application for registration or
answer/opposition by a claimant in a cadastral
registration.
Kinds of original registration
1. Judicial/Voluntary/Ordinary – filing
with the proper court an application by the
private individual himself; and
2. Administrative/Involuntary/Cadastral
– compulsory registration initiated by the
government, to adjudicate ownership of
land and involuntary on the part of the
claimants, but they are compelled to
substantiate their claim or interest through
an answer.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
a. WHO MAY APPLY
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. (O-C-E-N-P-O)
NOTE: 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, G.R. No. 175763, 11 Apr. 2012)
2. Those who have acquired ownership over
private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws;
NOTE: Rule on Prescription under the Civil
Code:
a. Ordinary prescription – 10 years in good
faith and with just title; and
b. Extraordinary prescription – 30 years
Only when such land has become patrimonial
can the prescriptive period for the acquisition
of the property begin to run. (Malabanan v.
Republic, G.R. No. 179987, 03 Sept. 2013)
3. Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws;
and
780
 Civil Law
Ownership of Abandoned River Beds by
right of Accession
GR: River beds which are abandoned
through the natural change in the course of
waters ipso facto belong to the owners
whose lands are occupied by the new
course in proportion to the area lost.
XPN: The owners of the adjoining lands
shall have the right to acquire the same by
paying the value thereof, otherwise, the
alluvial property may be subject to
acquisition through prescription by third
persons. (Art. 461, NCC; City Mayor of
Parañaque City v. Ebio, G.R. No. 178411, 23
June 2010)
Ownership by right of Accretion along
River Banks
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. (Art. 457, NCC)
A riparian owner does not acquire the
additions to his land caused by special
works designed to bring about accretion.
4. Those who have acquired ownership of land by
any other manner provided for by law.
5. Where the land is owned in common, all the co-
owners shall file the application jointly. (Sec. 14,
P.D. 1529)
Q: Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership is
the owner of a parcel of land in Pasig City, whose
title was then inscribed with an encumbrance
that it was for road widening and subject to
Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or
the Property Registration Decree. After the C-5
Ortigas Avenue flyover was completed, Ortigas
filed a petition for authority to sell to the
government the unutilized portion, which was
granted by the RTC. The Republic contends that
Ortigas can only donate the property to the
government in accordance with Section 50.
781
Is the Ortigas not allowed to sell the unutilized
portion of the property to the government in
accordance with Section 50 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529?
A: NO, Ortigas is still allowed to sell the unutilized
portion of the property. Section 50 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529 does not apply in a case that is the
proper subject of an expropriation proceeding.
Respondent Ortigas may sell its property to the
government. It must be compensated because its
property was taken and utilized for public road
purposes. Section 50 contemplates roads and
streets in a subdivided property, not public
thoroughfares built on a private property that was
taken from an owner for public purpose. A public
thoroughfare is not a subdivision road or street.
More importantly, when there is taking of private
property for some public purpose, the owner of the
property taken is entitled to be compensated.
(Republic v. Ortigas and Company Limited
Partnership, G.R. No.. 171496, 03 Mar. 2014).
Object of Registration
Only real property or real rights may be the object
of registration under the existing land registration
laws.
Q: Rosario filed her application for land
registration of a rice land that she had inherited,
owning and possessing it openly, publicly,
uninterruptedly, adversely against the whole
world, and in the concept of owner since then.
This was opposed by the Republic opposed
claiming that Rosario failed to occupy and
possess the land for at least 30 years
immediately preceding the filing of the
application; and that the land applied for, being
a portion of a river control system, that could
not be subject of appropriation or land
registration. Is the land subject of application
susceptible of private acquisition?
A: NO. The land of the public domain, to be the
subject of appropriation, must be declared alienable
and disposable either by the President or the
Secretary of the DENR. Unless public land is shown
to have been reclassified or alienated to a private
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
person by the State, it remains part of the
inalienable public domain. Indeed, occupation
thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long,
cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a
title. (Republic v. De Joson, G.R. No. 163767, 10 Mar.
2014)
Q: Mario applied for registration of his land. He
claims that he bought the land from Eduardo
who also claims that his great grandfather
owned the land. Mario submitted a CENRO from
DENR stating that the land is alienable and
disposable in 1982. However, the Republic
appealed claiming that Mario did not adhere to
the requirements of time required by the law
and he failed to proof that the land is an
alienable and disposable land. The Court ruled
in favor of the Republic stating that the
possession of the land before it is declared
alienable and disposable cannot be included in
the computation of possession of the land, thus,
Mario did not adhere to the period required by
law. Can Mario register his land?
A: NO. Mario failed to present sufficient evidence to
establish that they and their predecessors-in-
interest had been in possession of the land since
June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite
character and period of possession—possession
and occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious 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 Sec. 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues to
be ineligible for land registration under Sec. 14(2)
of the Property Registration Decree 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. (Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, 03
Sept. 2013)
Q: The AFP-RSBS filed an application for
original registration of parcels of land
consisting of 48, 151 square meters in Silang,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Cavite. The parcels of land were allegedly
acquired from Narciso Ambrad, Alberto
Tibayan, and Restituto Tibayan on March 13,
1997. It was also alleged that their
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession
of the properties since June 12, 1945. Can the
AFP-RSBS acquire the land through acquisitive
prescription?
A: YES. The period of possession prior to the
declaration that land is alienable and disposable
agricultural land is included in the computation of
possession for purposes of acquiring registration
rights over a property if the land has already been
declared as such at the time of the application for
registration. Petitioner’s right to the original
registration of title over the property is, therefore,
dependent on the existence of:
a) a declaration that the 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 through itself or
through its predecessors-in-interest since
June 12, 1945 or earlier.
In this case, there is no dispute that the properties
were already declared alienable and disposable
land on March 15, 1982. Hence, the property was
already alienable and disposable at the time of
petitioner’s application for registration on July 10,
1997. Further, the open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious possession of the petitioner was proven
by testimonies and pieces of evidence. (AFP
Retirement and Separation Benefits System v.
Republic, G.R. No. 180086, 02 July 2014)
Persons qualified for registration in case the
land is subject to:
1. Pacto de retro sale
GR: Vendor a retro may apply for registration.
XPN: Vendee a retro should the period for
redemption expire during pendency of registration
proceedings and ownership to property is
consolidated in vendee a retro.
782
 Civil Law
2. Trust
GR: Trustee may apply for registration.
XPN: Unless prohibited by the instrument creating
the trust.
NOTE: Trusteeship or trust is a fiduciary
relationship with respect to property which
involves the existence of equitable duties imposed
upon the holder of the title to the property to deal
with it for the benefit of another.
3. Reserva troncal
Reservista has the right to apply for registration but
the reservable character of the property will be
annotated in the title.
NOTE: In reserva troncal, the ascendant who
inherits from his descendant any property which
the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from
another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged
to reserve such property as he may have acquired
by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who
are within the third degree and who belong to the
line from which said property came.
Eligibility of Private Corporations to hold
alienable lands of the public domain
Private corporations may not hold alienable lands of
the public domain. The word “persons” refer to
natural persons who are citizens of the Philippines.
Juridical or artificial persons are excluded. Sec. 3,
Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibits private
corporations or associations from holding alienable
lands of the public domain except by lease.
GR: Private corporations or associations may not
hold alienable lands of 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, 1987
Constitution)
XPN: Where at the time the corporation acquired
land, its predecessor-in-interest had been in
possession and occupation thereof in the manner
783
and for the period prescribed by law as to entitle
him to registration in his name, then the
proscription against corporation acquiring
alienable lands of the public domain except through
lease does not apply for the land was no longer
public land but private property. (Republic v. Iglesia
ni Cristo. G.R. No. 180067, 30 June 2009)
Q: Noynoy, Erap, Manny and Gibo are co-owners
of a parcel of land. May Manny seek registration
in his name of the land in its entirety?
A: NO. Since a co-owner cannot be considered a true
owner of a specific portion until division or
partition is effected, he cannot file an application for
registration of the whole area without joining the
co-owners as applicants.
Q: In 1998, Iglesia ni Cristo filed its application
for Registration of Title before the MCTC which
the Republic opposed. The cadastral court held
that the essential elements for judicial
confirmation of an imperfect title over the
subject lot have been complied with. The CA also
held that the INC has been in continuous, open,
and peaceful possession and occupation of the
lot for more than 40 years. Is the INC entitled to
registrable right over the subject lot?
A: YES. In Naguit, the Court held a less stringent
requirement in the application of Sec. 14(1) of P.D.
1529 that the reckoning period for possession is the
actual possession of property and it is sufficient that
the property sought to be registered is already
alienable and disposable at the time the application
for registration of title is filed.
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
on to the possession of its predecessors-in-
interest. These possessions and occupation—from
Sabuco, including those of his parents, to INC; and
from Sabuco to Badanguio to INC—had been in the
concept of owners: open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation under a bona
fide claim of acquisition of property. These had not
been disturbed as attested to by respondent’s
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
witnesses. (Republic v. Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No.
180067, 30 June 2009)
Q: Laureana and Iden's application for
registration of land title over a parcel situated in
Barangay Tranca, Talisay, Batangas filed in June
2009 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Talisay-Laurel, Batangas. The land, regarded as
Lot No. 1591, Cad. 729, Talisay Cadastre, had an
area of 9,629 square meters. The application of
Laureana and Iden was docketed as Land
Registration Case No. 09-001 (LRA Record No. N-
79691). On September 10, 2009, Republic of the
Philippines (Republic) filed an Opposition to the
application based on the following grounds: (1)
Neither the applicants nor their predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land in question in the concept
of an owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier; (2)
The tax declarations relied upon by appellees do
not constitute competent and sufficient
evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land by
the appellees; and (3) The parcel of land applied
for is a land of public domain and, as such, not
subject to private appropriation. And the
Republic further avers that a CENRO
Certification is not sufficient to prove the land's
classification as alienable and disposable. The
MTC and CA ruled in granting the Application for
registration. Whether or not Laureana is
entitled for the registration of the land in her
name?
A: NO. In this case, although respondents were able
to present a CENRO certification, a DENR-CENRO
report with the testimony of the DENR officer who
made the report, and the survey plan showing that
the property is already considered alienable and
disposable, these pieces of evidence are still not
sufficient to prove that the land sought to be
registered is alienable and disposable. Absent the
DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land
alienable and disposable, the land remains part of
the public domain. Thus, even if respondents have
shown, through their testimonial evidence, that
they and their predecessors-in-interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the property since
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
June 12, 1945, they still cannot register the land for
failing to establish that the land is alienable and
disposable. (Republic v. Javier, GR No. 214367, 04
Apr. 2018)
Q: The applicants sought the registration of their
titles over the subdivided portions of a land. The
applicants provided ample evidence to their
favor. However, the Solicitor General opposed
the application using a pro forma opposition.
Does the Solicitor General have to produce
evidence that that the land is a public domain
despite the theory that all lands belong to the
State?
A: YES. When the State has no effective opposition,
except for a pro forma opposition, to controvert an
applicant's convincing evidence of possession and
occupation, presumptions are tilted to this
applicant's favor. (Republic v. Sps. Noval, G.R. No.
170316, 18 Sept. 2017)
Adverse possession of land
Possession of land is adverse when it is open and
notorious. It is open when it is patent, visible, and
apparent and it is notorious when it is so
conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of
by public or the people in the neighborhood.
Q: An Emancipation Patent OCT was issued in
Remy’s favor. However, Madarieta filed a
complaint for annulment and cancellation of the
OCT against Remy before the DARAB, alleging
that the Department of Agrarian Reform
mistakenly included her husband’s lot as part of
Luspo’s property where Remy’s house was
constructed. What is the nature of Remy’s
possession of the subject land?
A: Remy possessed the subject land in the concept
of an owner. No objection was interposed against his
possession of the subject land and Remy did not
employ fraud in the issuance of the emancipation
patent and title. In fact, Madarieta faulted the DAR,
not him. (Rementizo v. Heirs of Vda. De Madarieta,
G.R. No. 170318, 15 Jan. 2009)
784
 Civil Law

NOTE: Jurisdiction over cases for cancellation of

Extended under the
registered emancipation patents Available both by P.D.
aegis of the P.D. 1529
1529 and the Civil
and the Public Land
With the enactment of R.A. No. 9700 (An Act Code.
Act (PLA).
Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program), the exclusive and original jurisdiction
over cases for cancellation of registered Under Sec. 48(b) of the
The 30-year period
emancipation patents now belongs to the PLA, as amended by
involves extraordinary
Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary. R.A. No. 1472, the 30-
prescription under the
In line with this, the Department of Agrarian Reform year period is in
Civil Code, particularly
has issued Administrative Order No. 07- 14, which relation to possession
Art. 1113 in relation to
outlines in Article III the procedure for the without regard to the
Art. 1137.
cancellation of registered emancipation patents, Civil Code.
certificates of land ownership awards, and other
agrarian titles. The petition for cancellation shall be
filed before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian b. DECREE OF REGISTRATION
Reform Adjudicator, which would then undertake
the case build-up before forwarding it to the It is issued by LRA after finality of judgment, and
Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary for contains technical description of the land. It is
decision. subject only to an appeal. It is conclusive evidence
of the ownership of the land referred to therein and
Thus, under Administrative Order No. 07-14, the becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible after one
Complaint for cancellation of original certificates of year from the issuance of the decree.
title and emancipation patents filed by respondents
should be referred to the Office of the Provincial Decree of Confirmation and Registration v.
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator for case buildup. Decree of Registration
Then, the case shall be decided by the Department
of Agrarian Reform Secretary. (Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform, v. Heirs of Abucay, DECREE OF
DECREE OF
G.R. No. 186432, 12 Mar. 2019) CONFIRMATION AND
REGISTRATION OF
REGISTRATION OF
TITLE
Sec. 14(1) v. Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529 TITLE

In Malabanan v. Republic, (G.R. No. 179987, 03 Sept. Issued pursuant to the Issued pursuant to the
2013), the Court clarified the difference between Public Land Act, where Property Registration
Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529. the presumption is that Decree, where there
the land applied for already exists a title
SEC. 14(1) SEC. 14(2) pertains to the State, and which is confirmed by
the occupants and the court. (Limcoma
Registration of possessors only claim an Multi-Purpose
Registration of title on
property on the basis of interest in the same by Cooperative v.
the basis of possession.
prescription. virtue of their imperfect Republic, G.R. No.
title or continuous, open, 167652, 10 July 2007)
Deals with possession Involves prescription and notorious
and occupation in the as a mode of acquiring possession.
concept of an owner. ownership.

785 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
Doctrine of Non-Collateral Attack of a Decree or
Title
A decree of registration or a registered title cannot
be impugned, enlarged, altered, modified, or
diminished either in collateral or direct proceeding,
after the lapse of one year from the date of its entry.
XPN: Fake or non-existent titles.
NOTE: An oppositor cannot simply invoke the
nullity of the title as a defense as it partakes the
nature of a collateral attack. The opponent claiming
that the applicant’s OCT is fake must file a
counterclaim, and that such counterclaim partakes
the nature of a direct attack.
Reason: Fake titles do not enjoy indefeasibility.
Well-settled is the rule that the indefeasibility of a
title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. However, every certificate of
title is presumed to have been validly issued. If an
opponent claims that it is fake, he has the burden of
proving it.
Effect: It was as if no title was ever issued in this
case to the petitioner and therefore this is hardly the
occasion to talk of collateral attack against a title.
(Heirs of Leoncio C. Oliveros v. San Miguel Corp., G.R.
No. 173531, 01 Feb. 2012)
Q: In a case for recovery of possession based on
ownership, is a third-party complaint to nullify
the title of the third-party defendant considered
a direct attack on the title?
A: YES. If the object of the third-party complaint is
to nullify the title of the third-party defendant, the
third-party complaint constitutes a direct-attack on
the title because the same is in the nature of an
original complaint for cancellation of title.
Q: If an attack is made thru a counterclaim,
should it be disregarded for being a collateral
attack?
A: NO. A counterclaim is also considered an original
complaint, and as such, the attack on the title is
direct and not collateral.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Q: Mr. and Mrs. Roman and Mr. and Mrs. Cruz
filed an application for registration of a parcel of
land which after due proceedings was granted
by the RTC acting as a land registration court.
However, before the decree of registration could
be issued, the spouses Roman and the spouses
Cruz sold the lot to Juan. In the notarized deed of
sale, the sellers expressly undertook to submit
the deed of sale to the land registration court so
that the title to the property would be directly
issued in Juan's name.
a. Is such stipulation valid?
b. Distinguish a direct attack from a
collateral attack on a title.
c. If the title in (a) is issued in the names of
the original sellers, would a motion filed
by Juan in the same case to correct or
amend the title in order to reflect his
name as owner considered be collateral
attack? (2015 BAR)
A:
a. YES, because when one who is not the owner of
the property sells or alienates it and later the
seller or grantor acquires title, such title passes
by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.
(Art. 1434, NCC)
b. A direct attack on a title is one where the action
filed is precisely for the purpose of pointing out
the defects in the title with a prayer that it be
declared void. A collateral attack is one where
the action is not instituted for the purpose of
attacking the title, but the nullity of the title is
raised as a defense in a different action.
c. NO, because Juan is not attacking the title but
merely invoking his right as transferee. Hence,
it does not involve a collateral attack on the
title.
Q: The Cascayan Heirs alleged that by virtue of a
free patent application, they were co-owners of
a parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 20028.
The Cascayan Heirs affirmed that the Spouses
Gumallaoi bought Lot No. 20029, an adjacent lot.
The Spouses Gumallaoi built a residential house
on Lot No. 20029 which the Cascayan Heirs
alleged encroached on Lot No. 20028 after
786
 Civil Law
renovations and improvements. The Spouses
Gumallaoi ignored the notifications that they
had encroached into Lot No. 20028. On May 31,
2001, the Spouses Gumallaoi applied for a
Building Permit. Due to renovations on their
residential house, they further encroached on
Lot No. 20028. Thus, the Cascayan Heirs prayed
that the Spouses Gumallaoi be directed to vacate
Lot No. 20028 and to restore it to their
possession. They likewise prayed that the
municipal engineer of Bangui issue the
necessary demolition permit as well as cause
the demolition of the portion of the house that
encroached on Lot No. 20028. Finally, they
prayed to be paid damages.
In response, and by way of counterclaim, the
Spouses Gumallaoi maintained that they were
the true owners of both Lot Nos. 20029 and
20028. They claimed that the Cascayan Heirs
secured a free patent to Lot No. 20028 through
manipulation. They asserted that the
supporting affidavits for the Cascayan Heirs'
free patent application were obtained through
fraud and deception.
Were the Spouses Gumallaoi the legal owners of
Lot No. 20028?
A: YES. In this case, Spouses Gumallaoi presented
sufficient evidence to show that the Heirs of
Cascayan obtained their title through fraud and
misrepresentation. Moreover, the evidence did not
sufficiently prove the heirs' claims of possession or
ownership over Lot No. 20028. The only basis for
their claim of possession was tax declarations.
The spouses, on the other hand, sufficiently
identified Lot No. 20028 and proved their title
thereto. Hence, considering the foregoing, it is
proper to say that Spouses Gumallaoi are the lawful
owners of the subject property. (Heirs Of Cayetano
Cascayan v. Sps. Gumallaoi, G.R. No. 211947, 03 July
2017)
Q: Years after the issuance of TCT or CLOA to
Diopenes and Villanueva, Padillo filed before
the Agrarian Reform Regional Office a Petition
for Inclusion a Farmer-Beneficiary over the
787
subject lots. The Regional Director granted the
petition and declared Padillo a qualified
beneficiary. A Writ of Execution was
subsequently issued. Thus, Padillo filed a
Petition for Cancellation of Diopenes’ and
Villanueva’s Certificates of Land Ownership
Award before the Provincial Adjudicator. The
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board ordered the cancellation of the TCT and
CLOA. It ruled that the Regional Director had
jurisdiction to order Padillo's inclusion as
farmer-beneficiary. On appeal, the CA annulled
the Decision on the ground of indefeasibility of
title.
Is the cancellation of the registered Certificates
of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) or Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) four (4) years after
their issuance proper?
A: NO, under Sec. 48 of P.D. 1529, a registered
certificate of land ownership award may be altered,
modified, or canceled only through an action for
annulment of the certificate itself. The petition
incidentally questioned the validity of the TCT
issued in Diopenes’ and Villanueva’s favor in an
action seeking a different relief—purportedly for
petitioner to be included as farmer-beneficiary in
the subject lots. This is a collateral attack on the title,
and as such, prohibited by law. Similar to a
certificate of title issued in registration proceedings,
the registration of a CLOA places the subject land
under the operation of the Torrens system. Once
under the Torrens system, a CLOA becomes
indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the
expiration of one year from the date of registration
with the Office of the Registry of Deeds. It may only
be attacked through a direct proceeding before the
court.
Moreover, Regional Director has no jurisdiction in a
Petition for Inclusion as farmer-beneficiary over
lots covered by the Certificates of Title or registered
Certificates of Land Ownership Award. Thus, all
subsequent proceedings are void for lack of
jurisdiction. Under B.P. Blg. 129, or the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, an action for annulment
of a registered certificate of land ownership award,
like the annulment of a certificate of title, involves
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
title to or possession of real property or any interest
therein. This falls under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of either the Regional Trial Court or the
Municipal Trial Court, depending on the assessed
value. (Padillo v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 209661, 03 Oct.
2018)
c. REVIEW OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION;
INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE
Available remedies to question the validity of
judgment in a registration case
1. New trial or reconsideration; (Rule 37, ROC)
2. Appeal to the CA or SC in the manner as
ordinary actions; (Sec. 33, P.D. 1529)
3. Relief of judgment; (Rule 38, ROC)
4. Annulment of judgment; (Rule 37, Ibid.)
5. Claim under Assurance Fund; (Sec. 95, P.D.
1529)
6. Review of Decree of Registration; (Sec. 32,
Ibid.)
7. Reversion; (Sec. 101, C.A. 141)
8. Action for reconveyance;
9. Cancellation of title;
10. Quieting of Title;
11. Criminal prosecution under the Revised
Penal Code.
PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND 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.
While good faith is presumed, bad faith must be
established by competent proof by the party
alleging the same. Sans such proof, the purchasers
of property are deemed to be purchasers in good
faith, and their interest in the subject property must
not be disturbed. (Agcaoili, 2018)
A purchaser of a registered property can rely on the
guarantee afforded by pertinent laws on
registration that he can take and hold it free from
any and all prior liens and claims except those set
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
forth in or preserved against the certificate of title.
(PCSO v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation, et al.;
G.R. No. 173171, 11 July 2012)
NOTE: An innocent purchaser for value includes a
lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrances for value.
Purchaser in good faith and for value is the same as
a purchaser for value.
Determination of Good Faith
Good faith, or the lack of it, is in its last analysis a
question of intention; but, in ascertaining the
intention by which one is actuated on a given
occasion, we are necessarily controlled by the
evidence as to the conduct and outward acts by
which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be
determined. So it is that “the honesty of intention,”
“the honest lawful intent,” which constitutes good
faith, implies freedom from knowledge and
circumstances which ought to put a person on
inquiry,” and so it is that proof of such knowledge
that overcomes the presumption of good faith in
which the courts always indulge in the absence of
proof to the contrary.
Good faith is satisfied with the concurrence of
the following conditions:
1. The seller is the registered owner of the
land;
2. He is in possession thereof; and
3. At the time of the sale, the buyer was not
aware of any claim or interest of some
other person in the property, or of any
defect or restriction in the title of the seller
or in his capacity to convey title to the
property. (Agcaoili, 2018)
Purchaser in Good Faith
It has been held that a purchaser in good faith is one
who buys the property of another without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest on
such property and pays a full and fair price for the
same at the time of such purchase or before he has
notice of the claim or interest of some other person
in the property.
788
 Civil Law
Q: Sindophil anchors its right to the Tramo
property on Transfer Certificate of Title, which
was purportedly issued by the Register of Deeds
of Pasay City. The Republic alleged that the
Tramo property was initially registered under
the name of Teodoro. Despite the issuance of
certificates of title over the Tramo property, the
Republic claimed that the TCT in the name of
Teodoro was "spurious or of doubtful
authenticity." Sindophil countered that the
Republic was estopped from questioning the
transfers considering that it had allowed the
series of transfers and even accepted the
"tremendous amounts paid" as capital gains tax.
Is Sindophil a purchaser in good faith?
A: NO, Sandophil is not a purchaser in good faith.
The presumption of good faith and that a holder of a
title is an innocent purchaser for value may be
overcome by contrary evidence. These annotations
show that the Tramo property is controversial and
has been the subject of several adverse claims,
belying Sindophil's contention that it acquired the
property in good faith. With Sindophil failing to
prove that it was a buyer in good faith, it cannot
recover damages. (Sindophil Inc. v. Republic, G.R. No.
204594, 07 Nov. 2018)
A Forged Deed may be the root of a Valid Title
GR: A forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and
conveys no title.
XPN: If the certificate of title 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. (Muoz
v. Yabut, G.R. No. 142676, 06 June 2011)
Q: If the land subject of the dispute was not
brought under the operation of the Torrens
system, will the concept of an innocent
purchaser for value apply?
A: NO. If the land in question was not brought under
the operation of Torrens system because the
original certificate of title is null and void ab initio,
789
the concept of an innocent purchaser for value does
not apply.
NOTE: Good faith and bad faith is immaterial in case
of unregistered land. One who purchases an
unregistered land does so at his peril. (Caldito v.
Obado, G.R. No. 181596, 30 Jan. 2017)
Q: Nestor applied for and was granted a Free
Patent over a parcel of agricultural land in
General Santos City. He presented the Free
Patent to the Register of Deeds, and he was
issued a corresponding Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 375. Subsequently, Nestor sold
the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was
submitted to the Register of Deeds and on the
basis thereof, OCT No. 375 was cancelled and
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4576 was
issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986, the
Director of Lands filed a complaint for
annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No. 4576 on
the ground that Nestor obtained the Free Patent
through fraud. Eddie filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground that he was an innocent purchaser
for value and in good faith and as such, he has
acquired a title to the property which is valid,
unassailable and indefeasible. Decide the
motion. (2000 BAR)
A: Nestor’s motion to dismiss the complaint for
annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No. 4576 should
be denied for the following reasons:
1. Eddie cannot claim protection as an innocent
purchaser for value nor can he interpose the
defense of indefeasibility of his title, because
his TCT is rooted on a void title. Under Sec. 91,
C.A. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the
Public Land Act, statements of material facts in
the applications for public land must be under
oath. Sec. 91 of the same act provides that such
statements shall be considered as essential
conditions and parts of the concession, title, or
permit issued, any false statement therein, or
omission of facts shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession. The patent
issued to Nestor in this case is void ab initio
not only because it was obtained by fraud but
also because it covers 30 hectares which is far
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
beyond the maximum of 24 hectares provided
by the free patent law.
2. The government can seek annulment of the
original and transfer certificates of title and
the reversion of the land to the State. Eddie's
defense is untenable. The protection afforded
by the Torrens System to an innocent
purchaser for value can be availed of only if
the land has been titled thru judicial
proceedings where the issue of fraud becomes
academic after the lapse of one year from the
issuance of the decree of registration. In public
land grants, the action of the government to
annul a title fraudulently obtained does not
prescribe such action and will not be barred
by the transfer of the title to an innocent
purchaser for value.
Q: Heirs of Kusop, filed for application of sales
patents for Lot X, a lot reserved for recreation
and health purposes under Proclamation No.
168. The DENR approved such application and
conveyed 16 titles to Kusop, who subsequently
transferred it to AFP-RSBS. Republic filed a
complaint for reversion, and annulment of AFP-
RSBS’ titles since the Lot X is classified as
inalienable and non-disposable public land. Is
the Republic correct?
A: YES. Certificates of title issued covering
inalienable and non-disposable public land, even in
the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for
value, should be cancelled. The Heirs of Kusop didn’t
acquire any right to Lot X. The sales patents over Lot
X are null and void, for at the time the sales patents
were applied for and granted, the land had lost its
alienable and disposable character. (Republic v. AFP
Retirement and Separation Benefits System, G.R. No.
180463, 13 Jan. 2013)
Q: Mahilum entrusted the owner’s duplicate
copy of her land to Perez, real estate broker,
who claimed that she can assist the latter in
obtaining a loan, with the title serving as
collateral. Mahilum demanded the return of the
title but Perez failed to produce the same
alleging that it was lost. Thereafter Mahilum was
informed by the RD that the title was not lost but
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
was presented by Sps. Ilano who claimed that
the property was sold to them and showed
Mahilum a notarized Agreement and a Deed of
Absolute Sale containing Mahilum’s forged
signature. However, the spouses did not register
the title in their names. Mahilum then sought the
annulment of the Agreement and the Deed of
Absolute Sale. Spouses Ilano prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint arguing that Mahilum
failed to allege that they were purchasers in bad
faith and in the absence of such an allegation,
the presumption that respondents are
purchasers in good faith prevails. Can the
Spouses Ilano claim that they are purchasers in
good faith?
A: NO. Since the title of the property remained with
Mahilum, there is no new title to annul. Indeed, if the
agreement and deed of sale are forgeries, then they
are a nullity and convey no title. The underlying
principle is that no one can give what one does not
have. Moreover, in order for the holder of a
certificate for value issued by virtue of the
registration of a voluntary instrument may be
considered a holder in good faith for value, the
instrument registered should not be forged. When
the instrument presented 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 assignee in the forged
deed acquire any right or title to the property.
(Mahilum v. Sps. Ilano, G.R. No. 197923, 22 June 2015)
Q: Spouses Rufloe acquired a parcel of land
located at Muntinlupa. However, in 1978 Delos
Reyes forged the signatures of the spouses in
Deed of Sale to make it appear that the disputed
property was sold to her by the former. On the
basis of the said deed of sale, Delos Reyes
succeeded in obtaining title in her name. Hence,
the Rufloes filed a complaint for damages
against Delos Reyes alleging that the Deed of
Sale was falsified as their signatures appearing
thereon was forged.
During the pendency of the case, Delos Reyes
sold the subject property to the Burgos siblings
who then sold the same to their aunt, Leonarda
Burgos. However, the sale in favor of Leonarda
790
 Civil Law
was not registered. Thus, no title was issued in
her name. The subject property remained in the
name of the Burgos siblings who also continued
paying the real estate taxes thereon.
a. Are the sales of the subject property by
Delos Reyes to the Burgos siblings and
the subsequent sale to Leonarda valid
and binding?
b. Are the respondents considered as
innocent purchasers in good faith and
for value despite the forged deed of sale
of their transferor Delos Reyes?
A:
a. The forged deed of sale was null and void and
conveyed no title. It is a well-settled principle
that no one can give what one does not have,
nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only
what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the
buyer can acquire no more right than what the
seller can transfer legally. Due to the forged
deed of sale, Delos Reyes acquired no right over
the subject property which she could convey to
the Burgos siblings. All the transactions
subsequent to the falsified sale between the
spouses Rufloe and Delos Reyes are likewise
void, including the sale made by the Burgos
siblings to their aunt, Leonarda.
b. The evidence shows that the Rufloe caused a
notice of adverse claim to be annotated on the
title of Delos Reyes as early as November 5,
1979. The annotation of an adverse claim is a
measure designed to protect the interest of a
person over a piece of real property, and serves
as a notice and warning to third parties dealing
with said property that someone is claiming an
interest on the same or may have a better right
than the registered owner thereof. Despite the
notice of adverse claim, the Burgos siblings still
purchased the property in question. Equally
significant is the fact that Delos Reyes was not
in possession of the subject property when she
sold the same to the Burgos siblings. Leonarda
cannot be categorized as a purchaser in good
faith. Since it was the Rufloes who continued to
have actual possession of the property,
Leonarda should have investigated the nature
791
of their possession. (Rufloe v. Burgos G.R. No.
143573, 30 Jan. 2009)
Q: Cipriano, one of Pablo’s heirs, executed an
extrajudicial settlement of a sole heir and
confirmation of sales, declaring himself as the
only heir and confirmed the sales made in favor
of the spouses Rodolfo. Consequently, a
certificate of title was issued in the name of the
spouses, who then sold the property to
Guaranteed Homes. Pablo’s other descendants
seek reconveyance of the property sold to the
spouses alleging that the extrajudicial
settlement was forged. Who is the rightful
owner of the property?
A: Guaranteed Homes is the rightful owner, even
assuming that the extrajudicial settlement was a
forgery. Generally, a forged or fraudulent deed is a
nullity and conveys no title. There are, however,
instances when such a fraudulent document may
become the root of a valid title. One such instance is
where the certificate of title was already transferred
from the name of the true owner to the forger, and
while it remained that way, the land was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For
then, the vendee had the right to rely upon what
appeared in the certificate.
Also, the extrajudicial settlement was recorded in
the Register of Deeds. Registration in the public
registry is notice to the whole world. (Guaranteed
Homes, Inc. v. Heirs of Valdez, G.R. No. 171531, 30 Jan.
2009)
Q: Spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of
registered land to A, delivering as well the OCT
to the latter, but they continued to possess and
cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of each harvest to
A in partial payment of their loan to the latter. A
however, without the knowledge of X and Y,
forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in
favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and then
sold the land to B.
B bought the land relying on A's title, and
thereafter got a TCT in his name. It was only then
that the spouses X and Y learned that their land
had been titled in B's name. May said spouses
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
file an action for reconveyance of the land in
question against B? Reason. (1999 BAR)
A: The action of X and Y against B for reconveyance
of the land will not prosper because B has acquired
a clean title to the property being an innocent
purchaser for value.
A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no
title. The fact that the forged deed was registered
and a certificate of title was issued in his name, did
not operate to vest upon A ownership over the
property of X and Y. The registration of the forged
deed will not cure the infirmity. However, once the
title to the land is registered in the name of the forger
and title to the land thereafter falls into the hands of
an innocent purchaser for value, the latter acquires a
clean title thereto. A buyer of a registered land is not
required to explore beyond what the record in the
registry indicates on its face in quest for any hidden
defect or inchoate right which may subsequently
defeat his right thereto. This is the "mirror principle"
of the Torrens system which makes it possible for a
forged deed to be the root of a good title.
Q: The Revilla spouses faced financial
difficulties in raising funds for Alfredo Revilla’s
travel to Saudi Arabia, so Paz Castillo-Revilla
borrowed money from Amada Cotoner-Zacarias
(Amada). By way of security, the parties verbally
agreed that Amada would take physical
possession of the property, cultivate it, then use
the earnings from the cultivation to pay the loan
and realty taxes. Upon full payment of the loan,
Amada would return the property to the Revilla
spouses. Unknown to the Revilla spouses,
Amada presented a fictitious document entitled
"Kasulatan ng Bilihanng Lupa" before the
Provincial Assessor. This document was
executed on with the Revilla spouses as sellers
and Amada as buyer of the property. Amada
then sold the property. Was there a valid
transfer?
A: NO. Well-settled is the rule that "conveyances by
virtue of a forged signature are void ab initio as the
absence of the essential requisites of consent and
cause or consideration in these cases rendered the
contract inexistent. Doctrines of equity such as
laches apply only in the absence of statutory law.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
The Civil Code clearly provides that “the action or
defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a
contract does not prescribe.” (Zacarias v. Sps.
Alfredo, G.R. No. 190901, 12 Nov. 2014)
Q: Gatmaytan purchased a parcel of land from
Garcia covered by a TCT. Armed with the
original owner's duplicate copy of the TCT,
Gatmaytan attempted to register the
corresponding DOAS with the RD. He was
successful in having the DOAS annotated, but he
was not able to transfer the Torrens title in his
name due to the lack of a DAR clearance.
19 years later, when Gatmaytan resumed
processing the transfer of the title to his name,
he discovered that the lot had been consolidated
by MLI pursuant to a purchase from Garcia. He
thus filed a complaint with the RTC for the
alternative causes of action of nullity of the sale
to MLI or quieting of title. RTC dismissed the
complaint on the ground of prescription stating
that the complaint is an action for reconveyance
based on implied constructive trust, which
prescribes in 10 years. Was the dismissal
correct?
A: NO. Petitioners' action should be characterized
primarily as one for reconveyance based on a void
contract, and thus, imprescriptible. The above
allegations show that the recovery of ownership is
predicated on the nullification of the underlying
mode of transfer of title of the disputed lot — the
issuance of the Torrens titles to MLI being merely
the result of the DOAS sought to be nullified.
In any case, even if the Complaint were to be treated
as an action for reconveyance based solely on an
implied constructive trust, it should still be allowed
to proceed, having been timely filed. In all cases of
registration procured by fraud, the owner may
pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against
the parties to such fraud and that registration
procured by the presentation of a forged deed or
other instrument shall be null and void.
A Torrens title issued without prior presentation
and cancellation of the existing owner's duplicate
title does not bind the property to which it pertains.
792
 Civil Law
The title so issued does not produce the effects of a
Torrens title contemplated under P.D. No. 1529,
including the effects of constructive notice.
(Gatmaytan v. Misibis Land, Inc., G.R. No. 222166, 10
June 2020, J. Caguioa)
Reliance on a title which appears valid on its
face
Q: The Spouses Victor and Filomena Andres own
a 4,634-square-meter parcel of land. After
Victor’s death, Filomena, and six of their
children — Onofre, Roman, Juana, Guillermo,
Felisa, and Maxima — agreed in an extrajudicial
partition with sale to adjudicate one half of the
land to each of them pro indiviso. This
document also provides that, they all sold,
transferred, and conveyed to Roman Andres
their respective rights and participation to the
one-half portion of the property. This was
annotated on the title. Consequently, a new title
was issued in the name of Roman Andres and his
wife, Lydia Andres, under TCT No. NT-
57731. Spouses Roman and Lydia Andres
mortgaged the property to PNB for
3,000.00. PNB alleged that the Nueva Ecija
Regional Trial Court cancelled the guardianship
issued in favor of the Security Bank and Trust
Company and transferred ownership of the
properties of the deceased, Spouses Roman and
Lydia Andres, to their only living heir, Reynaldo
Andres.
TCT No. NT-57731 was consequently cancelled,
and title was transferred to the Spouses
Reynaldo Andres and Janette de Leon on
December 27, 1994. On September 4, 1995, the
Spouses Reynaldo Andres and Janette de Leon
used this title and mortgaged the property to
PNB for a 1.2 million loan. This was without the
consent of Onofre Andres.
Onofre Andres, claiming ownership over the
property, filed a complaint for cancellation of
title, reconveyance of property and damages,
with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction against his nephew Reynaldo Andres
and Reynaldo’s wife, Janette de Leon, PNB, Lydia
Andres, and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.
793
The complaint alleged that Reynaldo Andres
was in collusion with his mother, Lydia Andres,
in executing a falsified document denominated
as "Self-Adjudication of Sole Heir."
PNB denied the material allegations in the
complaint. It argued that it conducted an
investigation on the property. The title
presented to PNB by Reynaldo Andres and his
wife was clear and free from adverse claims. Is
PNB an innocent mortgagee for value and in
good faith?
A: YES. A bank that accepts a mortgage based upon
a title which appears valid on its face and after
exercising the requisite care, prudence, and
diligence appropriate to the public interest
character of its business can be deemed a
mortgagee in good faith. The subsequent
consolidation of title in its name after a valid
foreclosure shall be respected notwithstanding
later proof showing that the title was based upon a
void transaction.
The standard operating practice for banks when
acting on a loan application is “to conduct an ocular
inspection of the property offered for mortgage and
to verify the genuineness of the title to determine
the real owner(s) thereof.” PNB complied with the
standard operating practice of banks, which met the
requisite level of diligence, when it sent Gerardo
Pestano to conduct an ocular inspection of the
property and verify the status of its ownership and
title. Consequently, PNB is a mortgagee in good
faith. The title resulting from the foreclosure sale,
therefore, is to be protected. The bank is an innocent
purchaser for value. (Onofre Andres v PNB, G.R. No.
173548, 15 Oct. 2014)
Q: Gregorio, Enrique, Simplicio and Severino
Lopez inherited a 2734-square-meter property
in Bustos, Bulacan originally owned by their
grandmother Gregoria Lopez, over which a tax
declaration was issued under the name, “Heirs
of Lopez.” On 29 November 1990, Enrique Lopez
executed an affidavit of self-adjudication
declaring himself to be the sole heir of Gregoria,
and sold the property to Marietta Yabut
(“Yabut”). In 1993, Yabut obtained a loan from
Development Bank of the Philippines (“DBP”)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
and mortgaged the property to DBP as security.
At the time of the loan, the property was covered
by Tax Declaration No. 18727 under Yabut’s
name, but subsequently on 26 July 1993, an
original certificate of title was issued in Yabut’s
favour and the mortgage was annotated
thereon.
Petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional
Trial Court (“RTC”) for the annulment of
Enrique’s affidavit of self-adjudication, the deed
of sale in favour of Yabut, and the deed of real
estate mortgage in favour DBP, with a prayer for
the re-conveyance of their ¾ share in the
property. Meanwhile, foreclosure proceedings
were instituted by DBP upon Yabut’s default,
and there, DBP became the highest bidder,
eventually resulting in the title of the property
being consolidated in its favour.
Did Yabut and eventually, DBP acquire valid title
to the property under the doctrine of innocent
purchaser or mortgagee for value?
A: NO. Under Art. 493 of the NCC, Enrique had no
right to sell the undivided portions belonging to his
siblings or their respective heirs, and the sale to
Yabut should be void with respect to the shares of
the other heirs who did not consent thereto.
While as a rule, an ordinary buyer may rely on the
certificate of title issued in the name of the seller,
and need not look beyond what appears on the face
of the title, the ordinary buyer will not be
considered an innocent purchaser for value if there
is anything on the certificate of title that arouses
suspicion, and the buyer failed to inquire or take
steps to ensure that there is no cloud on the title,
right or ownership of the property being sold.
Yabut could not be an innocent purchaser for value,
because there was no certificate of title to rely on
when she purchased the property from Enrique, at
which time the only available document presented
her was a tax declaration under “Heirs of Lopez.”
The defense of having purchased the property in
good faith may be availed of only where registered
land is involved and the buyer had relied in good
faith on the clear title of the registered owner. It
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
does not apply when the land is not yet registered
with the Registry of Deeds.
Similarly, DBP could not be held to be a mortgagee
in good faith because at the time of the mortgage,
the mortgagor Yabut had yet to register the
property under her name. The rule on “innocent
purchasers or mortagees for value” is applied more
strictly when the purchaser or mortgagee is a bank
as banks are expected to exercise higher degree of
diligence in their dealings, including those involving
lands. DBP failed to exercise the degree of diligence
required of banks when it accepted the unregistered
property as security for Yabut’s loan despite
circumstances that should have aroused its
suspicion. (Heirs of Gregorio Lopez v. Development
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193551, 19 Nov.
2014)
NOTE: The maxim prior est tempore, potior est jure
(he who is first in time is preferred in right) is
followed in land registration. When a mortgagee
relies upon what appears on the face of a Torrens
title and lends money in all good faith based on the
title in the name of the mortgagor, his or her right or
lien upon the land mortgaged must be respected
and protected. (Mahinay v. Hon. Gako, Jr., G.R. No.
165338, 28 Nov. 2011)
Q: Golden Dragon is the developer of Wack-
Wack Twin Towers Condominium, located in
Mandaluyong City. On May 9, 1995, respondent
Rapanot paid Golden Dragon the amount of
P453,329.64 as reservation fee for a 41.1050-
square meter unit in said condominium. Later,
petitioner Bank extended a loan to Golden
Dragon amounting to P50,000,000.00 to be
utilized by the latter as additional working
capital. To secure the loan, Golden Dragon
executed a Mortgage Agreement in favor of the
Bank, which had the effect of constituting a real
estate mortgage over several condominium
units owned and registered under Golden
Dragon's name. Among the units subject of the
Mortgage Agreement was Unit 2308-B2. On May
21, 1996, Rapanot and Golden Dragon entered
into a Contract to Sell covering Unit 2308-B2. On
April 23, 1997, Rapanot completed payment of
the full purchase price of said unit and Golden
794
 Civil Law

Dragon executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in if Unit 2308-B2 already had a buyer, given that the
favor of Rapanot. Thereafter, Rapanot made nature of the latter's business inherently involves
several verbal demands for the delivery of Unit the sale of condominium units on a commercial
2308-B2. Hence, Golden Dragon sent a letter to scale. (Prudential Bank v. Rapanot, G.R. No. 191636,
the Bank requesting for a substitution of 16 Jan. 2017, J. Caguioa)
collateral for the purpose of replacing Unit
2308-B2 with another unit with the same area.
However, the Bank denied Golden Dragon's
request due to the latter's unpaid
accounts. Because of this, Golden Dragon failed
to comply with Rapanot's verbal demands. Is the
Mortgage Agreement between the Bank and
Golden Dragon valid as against Rapanot? May it
be enforced against the latter?

A: No, the mortgage agreement is null and void as

against Rapanot. First of all, under Presidential
Decree No. 957 (PD 957), no mortgage on any
condominium unit may be constituted by a
developer without prior written approval of the
National Housing Authority, now HLURB. PD
957 further requires developers to notify buyers of
the loan value of their corresponding mortgaged
properties before the proceeds of the
secured loan are released. Thus, the Mortgage
Agreement cannot have the effect of curtailing
Rapanot's right as buyer of Unit 2308-B2, precisely
because of the Bank's failure to comply with PD 957.

Moreover, contrary to the Bank's assertions, it

cannot be considered a mortgagee in good faith. The
Bank failed to ascertain whether Golden Dragon
secured HLURB's prior written approval as
required by PD 957 before it accepted Golden
Dragon's properties as collateral. It also failed to
ascertain whether any of the properties offered as
collateral already had corresponding buyers at the
time the Mortgage Agreement was executed. The
Bank cannot harp on the fact that the Mortgage
Agreement was executed before the Contract to Sell
and Deed of Absolute Sale between Rapanot and
Golden Dragon were executed, such that no amount
of verification could have revealed Rapanot's right
over Unit 2308-B2. The Court particularly notes
that Rapanot made his initial payment for Unit
2308-B2 as early as May 9, 1995, four (4) months
prior to the execution of the Mortgage Agreement.
Surely, the Bank could have easily verified such fact
if it had simply requested Golden Dragon to confirm

795 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

Types of certificates of title

D. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
1. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) – The first
title issued in the name of the registered owner
by the Register of Deeds covering a parcel of
It is the transcript of the decree of registration made
land which had been registered under the
by the Register of Deeds in the registry. It
Torrens system by virtue of a judicial or
accumulates in one document a precise and correct
administrative proceeding. It consists of one
statement of the exact status of the fee simple title
original copy filed in the Register of Deeds, and
which an owner possesses.
the owner’s duplicate certificate delivered to
the owner; and
Registration is the operative act which gives validity
to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. A
NOTE: The original certificate of title shall be a
certificate of title serves as evidence of an
true copy of the decree of registration (Sec. 39,
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the
P.D. 1529).
property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. (Sps. Vilbar v. Opinion, G.R. No. 176043, 15
2. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) – The title
Jan. 2014). The titleholder is entitled to all the
issued by the Register of Deeds in favor of a
attributes of ownership of the property, including
transferee to whom the ownership of a
possession (Endaya v. Villaos, G.R. No. 202426, 27
registered land has been transferred by any
Jan. 2016)
legal mode of conveyance.
Every registered owner receiving a certificate of
Who has right to possess owner’s duplicate
title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and
certificate
every subsequent purchaser of registered land
taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith,
The owner’s duplicate certificate shall be issued by
shall hold the same free from all encumbrances
the Register of Deeds in the name of the person in
except those noted in said certificate and any of the
whose favor the land was decreed, and further
encumbrances which may be subsisting as provided
disposes that said duplicate shall be delivered to the
for under the law (Sec. 44, P.D. 1529)
registered owner. (Sec. 41, Act 496, as amended by
P.D. 1529)
NOTE: A certificate of title is different from a title.
Title constitutes a just cause of exclusive possession
Differences between title over land, land title,
or the foundation of ownership of property. A
certificate of title and deed
certificate of title is merely evidence of ownership
and not the title to the land itself. (Castillo v. Escutin,
G.R. No. 171056, 13 Mar. 2009) TITLE LAND TITLE

Evidentiary value of certificate of title A juridical act or deed The evidence of the
which is not sufficient owner’s right or extent
A certificate of title is conclusive evidence with by itself to transfer of interest, by which he
respect to the ownership of the land described ownership but can maintain control,
therein, and other matters which can be litigated provides only for a and as a rule, assert
and decided in land registration proceedings juridical justification to right to exclusive
(Sampaco v. Lantud, G.R. No. 163551, 18 July 2011) effect the acquisition or possession and
transfer ownership. enjoyment of property.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 796

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law

Q: St. Jude’s Enterprise, Inc. is the registered

CERTIFICATE OF owner of a parcel of land. It subdivided the said
DEED
TITLE land which was later on found to have expanded
with an increase of 1,421 sqm. St. Jude sold the
The transcript of the The instrument in lots to several individuals. Thus, the Solicitor
decree of registration writing, by which any General filed an action seeking the annulment
made by the Register of real estate or interest and cancellation of the TCT issued in the name
Deeds in the registry. It therein is created, of St. Jude. Is the government estopped from
accumulates in one alienated, mortgaged questioning the approved subdivision plan
document a precise and or assigned, or by which expanded the areas covered by the TCTs
correct statement of the which title to any real in question?
exact status of the fee estate may be affected
simple title which an in law or equity. A: YES, estoppel against the public is less
owner possesses. favored. They should not be invoked except in rare
and unusual circumstances, nor if it would operate
Ownership as distinguished from title to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted
to protect the public. They must be applied with
circumspection and only in those special cases
OWNERSHIP TITLE
where the interests of justice clearly require it. In
the case at bar, St. Jude failed to correct and recover
An independent right of
the alleged increase in the land area for nearly 20
exclusive enjoyment
years. Its prolonged inaction strongly militates
and control of the thing
The cause for against its cause, as it is tantamount to laches.
for the purpose of
acquisition of
deriving therefrom all
ownership Verily, all persons dealing with registered land may
advantages required by
safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of
the reasonable needs of
e.g., sale = title; title issued therefor, and the law or the courts do not
the owner and the
delivery = mode of oblige them to go behind the certificate in order to
promotion of the
acquisition of investigate again the true condition of the property.
general welfare but
ownership. (Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 116111, 21 Jan. 1999)
subject to the
restrictions imposed by
law and the rights of Modes of acquiring title over land
others. (Art. 427, NCC)
1. By possession of land since time
immemorial;
NOTE: Registration under the Torrens system, not 2. By possession of alienable and disposable
being a mode of acquiring ownership, does not public land; and
create or vest title. The Torrens certificate of title is
merely evidence of ownership or title in the NOTE: Under the Public Land Act (C.A. 141),
particular property described therein. In that sense, citizens of the Philippines, who by themselves
the issuance of the certificate of title to a particular or through their predecessors-in-interest
person does not preclude the possibility that have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
persons not named in the certificate may be co- notorious possession and occupation of
owners of the real property therein described with alienable and disposable agricultural land of
the person named therein, or that the registered the public domain under a bona fide claim of
owner may be holding the property in trust for ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier,
another person. (Casimiro Development Corporation (except when prevented by war or force
v. Mateo, G.R. No. 175485, 27 July 2011) majeure), shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to

797 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

a government grant and shall be entitled to a ameliorate the sad plight of the tenant-
certificate of title. farmers; (Gonzales v. CA, G.R. No. 110335, 18
June 2001)
3. By sale, donation, and other modes of
acquiring ownership. Lands acquired by beneficiaries may not be
sold, transferred or conveyed except
Modes of acquiring ownership over land through hereditary succession, or to the
government, or the LBP, or to other
1. Occupation; qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten
2. Law; (10) years; (Sec. 27. R.A. No. 6657)
3. Donation;
4. Tradition; 3. Reclamation – filling of submerged land by
5. Intellectual creation; deliberate act and reclaiming title thereto;
6. Prescription; and (Noblejas, 2007)
7. Succession.
4. Adverse possession / acquisitive
NOTE: Registration of a piece of land under the prescription – if the person has been in
Torrens System does not create or vest title, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. possession for a period prescribed by law;
Thus, notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the a. Ordinary Prescription – possession in
Torrens title, the registered owner may still be good faith and with just title for 10
compelled to reconvey the registered property to its years; (Art. 1134, NCC)
true owners. (Heirs of Tanyag v. Gabriel, et. al., G.R. b. Extraordinary Prescription –
No. 175763, 11 Apr. 2012) uninterrupted adverse possession for
30 years without need of title or good
Possession v. Occupation faith; (Art. 1137, NCC)

POSSESSION OCCUPATION 5. Private grant or voluntary transfer – the

transfer of title to land by the owner
Applies to a property Applies only to a himself or his duly authorized
with or without an property without an representative to another by mutual
owner. owner. consent is recognized by law; (Noblejas,
2007)
By itself does not confer Confers ownership by
ownership. itself. 6. Accretion – To the owners of lands
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
There can be no
There can be possession accretion which they gradually receive
occupation without
without ownership. from the effects of the current of the
ownership.
waters; (Art. 457, NCC)

Acquisition of land titles 7. Involuntary alienation – may be acquired

1. Public grant – by administrative process,
the government transfers land to a private
individual by the issuance of sales patent or
special patent; (C.A. 141)
2. Emancipation patent or grant – Under
P.D. 27, tenant-farmers are deemed owners
of the land they till. The purpose is to
against the express will of the owner.
Transfers may not require the consent of
the owner of the land. Some examples are
exercise of power of eminent domain or
escheat proceedings;

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 798

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law
8. Descent or devise;
a. Acquired by descent – heir succeeds
the deceased owner in intestacy or by
reasons of certain relationship which
entitles him to succeed by operation of
law;
b. Succeeds by devise – acquires land
from one who may not be a relative, if
he is named by the latter in his last will
and testament to succeed as such.
Q: Soriano filed before the Office of the PARAD a
petition for maintenance of possession, with
prayer for issuance of status quo order and/or
injunction against San Pedro family and
respondents Sofronio Sariente and
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc.
Soriano averred that Rolando, Sr., with the
consent of the rest of the San Pedro family,
instituted him as tenant farmer of the Disputed
Lot, and that he had been tilling it since then.
Soriano further alleged that he had been
remitting a portion of the proceeds of the
harvest to San Pedro, Sr. as part of the tenurial
arrangement. Soriano alleged that the San Pedro
family later mortgaged the Disputed Lot in favor
of Metrobank without his consent, in order to
secure an P8,000,000.00 loan. San Pedro family
defaulted, leading to the foreclosure of the
mortgage and the consolidation of title in
Metrobank's name.
Subsequently, San Pedro family directed
Soriano to vacate the Disputed Lot. Rolando, Sr.
denied that Soriano had been instituted as
tenant farmer and claimed that he was merely
employed as bulldozer and street roller
operator. Rolando, Sr. assailed the PARAD's
jurisdiction, claiming that the Disputed Lot had
already been classified as residential property,
as stated in tax declaration issued in favor of San
Pedro family.
PARAD issued a Decision declaring Soriano as
lawful tenant. CA held that the
Pagpapatunay and Sinumpaang Salaysay
presented by Soriano do not suffice to establish
a tenancy relationship, for while these
documents confirm that he worked on the
799
Disputed Lot, they do not prove that such work
was in the nature of personal cultivation, or that
San Pedro family agreed to merely share in the
harvest arising therefrom. Thus, CA held that
working on another's landholding, without
more, "does not raise a presumption of the
existence of agricultural tenancy.” Did the CA err
in holding that Soriano failed to establish his
status as a de jure tenant of the Disputed Lot?
A: YES. The CARL of 1988 was enacted to facilitate
"a more equitable distribution and ownership of
land, with due regard to the rights of landowners to
just compensation and to the ecological needs of the
nation." CARL implements the CARP of the Republic.
CARP covers not only alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain, but also those lands
owned by the government in its private capacity and
lands owned by private individuals, provided they
are devoted to or suitable for agriculture.
The fact that the Disputed Lot is agricultural in
nature is clearly established by the evidence on
record. The Tax Declaration presented by San Pedro
family to show that the Disputed Lot had already
been re-classified for residential use was shown to
have been forged. One of the modes by which DAR
implements the distribution of agricultural lands
under the CARP is through the issuance of a CLOA.
The issuance of CLOA No. T-2165 in Soriano's favor
thus confirms his right to retain possession over the
portion of the Disputed Lot identified thereunder,
such possession being an attribute of ownership
granted in his favor. Until duly cancelled in
accordance with the prescribed procedure, CLOAs
issued by the DAR shall remain valid and subsisting
and enjoy the same respect accorded to those issued
through other modes of acquisition of title. (Dalit v.
Balagtas Sr., G.R. No. 202799, 27 Mar. 2019, J.
Caguioa)
Torrens Title
A certificate of ownership issued under the Torrens
system of registration by the government, through
the Register of Deeds (RD) naming and declaring the
owner in fee simple of the real property described
therein, free from all liens and encumbrances,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
except as may be expressly noted there or otherwise
reserved by law.
Q: Filomena allegedly bought a parcel of
unregistered land from Hipolito. When she had
the property titled and declared for tax
purposes, she sold it. The Mapili’s question the
transfer, saying that Filomena falsely stated in
her Affidavit that Hipolito sold it to her in 1949,
since by that time, he is already dead. Filomena
maintains that she is the lawful owner of the
land by virtue of the issuance of the Torrens
certificate and tax declarations in her name. Is
Filomena the lawful owner of such property?
A: NO. A Torrens certificate does not create or vest
title, but is merely an evidence of an indefeasible
and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of
the person whose name appears therein. Land
registration under the Torrens system was never
intended to be a means of acquiring ownership.
Neither does the existence of tax declarations create
or vest title. It is not a conclusive evidence of
ownership, but a proof that the holder has a claim of
title over the property. (Larena v. Mapili, G.R. No.
146341, 07 Aug. 2003)
NOTE: A Torrens title is not a conclusive evidence
of ownership when the land or a portion covered
thereof was illegally or erroneously included
thereto. The certificate of title cannot be used to
protect a usurper from the true owner. (Sps.
Valenzuela v. Sps. Mano, G.R. No. 172611, 09 July
2010)
Torrens title NOT subject to Prescription.
No title to registered land in derogation to that of
the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. (Sec. 47, P.D.
1529)
Torrens title NOT subject to Collateral Attack.
Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud, within
one year after the date of the issuance of the decree
of registration. Such attack must be direct, and not
by a collateral proceeding. The title represented by
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
the certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified,
enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding.
(Wee v. Mardo, G.R. No. 202414, 04 June 2014)
Q: In 1929, an OCT covering the lot in
controversy was issued in the name of Maria
Ramos, Heirs of Maligaso’s aunt. In 1965, Maria
sold it to the Spouses Encinas which led to the
issuance of a TCT in favor of the latter.
30 years from the time they purchased the lot,
Spouses Encinas issued two demand letters to
the Heirs of Maligaso asking them to vacate the
contested area but they refused to leave. Hence,
the Spouses Encinas filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against them. According to
the Heirs, however, their occupation remained
undisturbed for more than 30 years and the
Spouses’ failure to detail and specify the Heirs’
supposedly tolerated possession suggest that
they are aware of their claim over the subject
area. Decide with reason.
A: The validity of Spouses’ certificate of title cannot
be attacked by the Heirs in this case for ejectment.
Under Sec. 48 of P.D. 1529, a certificate of title shall
not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct
proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law.
Whether or not petitioner has the right to claim
ownership over the property is beyond the power of
the trial court to determine in an action for unlawful
detainer.
As ruled in Sps. Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants
Association, Inc., laches does not operate to deprive
the registered owner of a parcel of land of his right
to recover possession thereof. (Heirs of Jose
Maligaso, Sr. v. Sps. Encinas, G.R. No. 182716, 20 June
2012)
Probative value of a Torrens title
A Torrens title may be received as evidence in all
courts of the Philippines and shall be conclusive as
to all matters contained therein, principally as to the
identity of the land owner, except so far as provided
in the Land Registration Act (LRA).
800
 Civil Law
A Torrens certificate is an evidence of indefeasible
title of property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein–such holder is entitled to the
possession of the property until his title is nullified.
(Heirs of Mariano v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 197743, 12
Mar. 2018)
Q: Hadji Serad filed an action to quiet title with
damages with the RTC. Accordingly, Datu Kiram
with several armed men, forcibly and unlawfully
entered his property and destroyed the nursery
buildings, cabbage seedlings and other
improvements. Datu Kiram however denied the
material allegations of Hadji Serad, asserting
that he and his predecessors-in-interest are the
ones who had been in open, public, continuous,
and exclusive possession of the property in
dispute. He also alleged that he inherited the
land in 1952 from his father and had been in
adverse possession and ownership of the
subject lot, cultivating and planting trees and
plants. He also declared the land for taxation
purposes and paid real estate taxes. Who is the
rightful owner of the subject property?
A: Hadji Serad is the rightful owner.
The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with
respect to the ownership of the land described
therein, and other matters which can be litigated
and decided in land registration proceedings. Tax
declarations and tax receipts cannot prevail over a
certificate of title which is an incontrovertible proof
of ownership. An original certificate of title issued
by the Register of Deeds under an administrative
proceeding is as indefeasible as a certificate of title
issued under judicial proceedings. Thus, Hadji
Serad’s Torrens title is a valid evidence of his
ownership of the land in dispute. (Datu Kiram
Sampaco v. Hadji Serad Mingca Lantud, G.R. No.
163551, 18 July 2011)
Q: Ruben filed a complaint against Spouses
Agustin alleging that he is the registered owner
of two parcels of land. Accordingly, his father
bought it from Elias and then allowed spouses
Agustin to occupy the subject properties.
Despite demand to vacate, the Agustins refused
to leave the premises.
801
Ruben alleged that he has better right to possess
the property having acquired the same from his
father through a Deed of Quitclaim in 1971.
Spouses Agustin however contends that they are
the rightful owners as evidenced by a Deed of
Absolute Sale in their favor. Decide who
between the parties has the right to possession
of the disputed properties.
A: Ruben has the right to possession. A title
issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all
the attributes of property ownership, which
necessarily includes possession. Ruben is correct
that as a Torrens title holder over the subject
properties, he is the rightful owner and is entitled to
possession thereof. In this case, the Quitclaim
executed by the elder Corpuz in favor of Ruben was
executed made ahead of the Deed of Sale of Spouses
Agustin. Thus, the sale of the subject properties by
Ruben’s father to Spouses cannot be considered as a
prior interest at the time Ruben came to know of the
transaction. (Corpuz v. Sps. Agustin, G.R. No. 183822,
18 Jan. 2012)
Q: OCT P-61499 which covered a parcel of land
was issued in Gerald’s favor. Gerald’s father,
Julio, representing Gerald who was then still a
minor, filed before the RTC an action for
recovery of ownership, possession with
damages with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction and TRO against Joshua.
Joshua, in his Answer with Motion to Dismiss,
interposed the special and affirmative defenses
of his actual possession and cultivation of the
subject parcel of land in an open, adverse and
continuous manner. He likewise asked for the
reconveyance of the property, considering that
Gerald and his father fraudulently had the
subject property titled in Gerald's name.
Gerald's counsel repeatedly failed to attend the
scheduled hearings, and as a consequence, the
heirs of Joshua were eventually allowed to
present their evidence after Gerald was deemed
to have waived his right to cross-examine the
witness of the heirs of Joshua. The RTC ruled in
favor of the heirs of Joshua. Gerald then filed
with the CA a petition for annulment of
judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud and
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
lack of jurisdiction. The CA initially dismissed
the petition but reinstated the same upon
Dominic's motion for reconsideration. Is the CA
correct?
A: YES. In an accion publiciana, the defense of
ownership will not trigger a collateral attack on the
plaintiffs Torrens or certificate of title because the
resolution of the issue of ownership is done only to
determine the issue of possession. In the present
case, the Answer of Joshua raised, as "special and
affirmative defenses" to Gerald's accion publiciana,
the issue of fraud in obtaining Gerald's certificate of
title on the ground that "neither he nor his father
had been in actual possession and cultivation of the
subject parcel of land" and that Gerald was not
qualified as he was then a minor.
There is no dispute that Gerald was awarded a
patent on May 10, 1995 and Original Certificate of
Title No. (OCT) P-61499 was issued in his name
pursuant to the said patent on May 17, 1995.
Joshua's Answer questioned the OCT issued in
Gerald's name. At that time, Gerald's OCT had
already become incontrovertible upon the lapse of
the one-year period to question it by reason of
actual fraud as provided in Section 32 of P.D. No.
1529.
Gerald has a better right of possession because his
right is based on ownership recognized by OCT P-
61499 registered and titled under his name. The
age-old rule that the person who has a Torrens title
over the land is entitled to possession thereof
squarely applies in his favor.
Thus, RTC was clearly without jurisdiction in ruling
that Joshua had become the owner of the land in
controversy "through the medium of acquisitive
prescription" having been in possession by himself
and with his wife for 36 years and that Gerald must
reconvey the land in favor of the heirs of Joshua.
While the RTC could have resolved the issue of
ownership provisionally to determine the "better
right of possession," which is allowed in an accion
publiciana, it was without any power or jurisdiction
to order the reconveyance of the land in dispute
because that can be done only upon a definitive
ruling on the said issue - something that cannot be
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
done in an accion publiciana. (Heirs of Cullado v.
Gutierrez, G.R. No. 212938, 30 July 2019, J. Caguioa)
Rules regarding the Indefeasibility and
Incontrovertibility of Torrens Title
1. The certificate of title serves as evidence of
an indefeasible title to the property in favor
of the person whose name appears therein;
2. After the expiration of the one-year period
from the issuance of the decree of
registration upon which it is based, it
becomes incontrovertible; and
3. Decree of registration and the certificate of
title issued pursuant thereto may be
attacked on the ground of actual fraud
within one year from the date of its entry
and such an attack must be direct and not
by a collateral proceeding. The validity of
the certificate of title in this regard can be
threshed out only in an action expressly
filed for the purpose (Melquiades v. IAC, G.R.
No. L-68291, 06 Mar. 1991)
NOTE: The defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens
title does not extend to a transferee who takes it
with notice of a flaw in the title of his transferor. To
be effective, the inscription in the registry must
have been made in good faith. A holder in bad faith
of a certificate of title is not entitled to the
protection of the law, for the law cannot be used as
a shield for fraud. (Rufloe v. Burgos, G.R. No. 143573,
30 Jan. 2009)
The principle that the earlier title prevails over a
subsequent one applies only when there are two
apparently valid titles over a single property.
Without a title, one cannot invoke the principle of
indefeasibility of Torrens titles nor can he assert
priority or presumptive conclusiveness. (Oliveros v.
San Miguel Corp., G.R. No. 173531, 01 Feb. 2012)
Q: There is no specific provision in the Public
Land Law (C.A. 141, as amended) or the Land
Registration Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing
the one-year period within which the public land
patent is open to review on the ground of actual
fraud as in Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act,
now Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529, and clothing a public
802
 Civil Law
land patent certificate of title with
indefeasibility. What is the effect of such
absence?
A: NONE. The rule on indefeasibility of certificates
of title was applied by the Court in Public Land
Patents because such application is in consonance
with the spirit and intent of homestead laws.
The pertinent pronouncements in cases clearly
reveal that Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act, now
Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 was applied by implication to
the patent issued by the Director of Lands duly
approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources,
under the signature of the President of the
Philippines in accordance with law.
The date of issuance of the patent, therefore,
corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree
in ordinary registration cases because the decree
finally awards the land applied for registration to
the party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the
Director of Lands equally and finally grants, awards,
and conveys the land applied for to the applicant.
NOTE: A certificate of title issued under an
administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead
patent is as indefeasible as a certificate of title
issued under a judicial registration proceeding,
provided the land covered by said certificate is a
disposable public land within the contemplation of
the Public Land Law (Republic v. Roxas, G.R. No.
157988, 11 Dec. 2013).
Mirror Doctrine
GR: If a land is registered and is covered by a
certificate of title, any person may rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title, and he or she is
not obliged to go beyond the four (4) corners of the
certificate to determine the condition of the
property (Amoguis v. Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, 20
Aug. 2018)
Where there is nothing on the certificate of title to
indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the
property, or any encumbrance thereon, the
purchaser is not required to explore further than
what the Torrens title upon its face indicates in
803
quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that
may defeat his right thereto. (Chua v. Soriano, G.R.
No. 150066, 13 Apr. 2007)
XPN: When the party has actual knowledge of facts
and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry or when the
purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of
title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of
the title of the property in litigation (Amoguis v.
Ballado, G.R. No. 189626, 20 Aug. 2018)
Application of mirror doctrine
GR: Mirror Doctrine applies when title over a land
is registered under the Torrens system.
XPN: Mirror Doctrine cannot be invoked where:
1. The purchaser or mortgagee is a
bank/financing institution; (Homebankers
Saving & Trust Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 128354, 26
Apr. 2005)
2. The owner still holds a valid and existing
certificate of title covering the same
property, because the law protects the
lawful holder of a registered title over the
transfer of a vendor bereft of any
transmissible right; (Tomas v. Tomas, G.R.
No. L-36897, 25 June 1980)
3. The purchaser is in bad faith; (Egao v. CA,
G.R. No. 79787, 29 June 1989)
4. The purchaser purchases land with a
certificate of title containing a notice of lis
pendens;
5. There are sufficiently strong indications to
impel closer inquiry into the location,
boundaries and condition of the lot;
(Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. L-30162, 31Aug.
198)
6. The purchaser had full knowledge of flaws
and defects in the title; (Bernales v. IAC, G.R.
Nos. 71490-91, 28 June 1988) or
7. A person buys land not from the registered
owner but from whose rights to the land has
been merely annotated on the certificate of
title. (Quiñiano v. CA, G.R. No. L-23024, 31
May 1971)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

Q: Cipriana Delgado was the registered owner of

the lot in controversy. She and her husband sold E. SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
the property to Cecilia where it was agreed that
the latter shall make partial payments from time
to time and pay the balance when the Spouses
It is where incidental matters after original
are ready to execute the deed of sale and
registration may be brought before the land
transfer title to her. After paying the total
registration court by way of motion or petition filed
amount and being ready to pay the balance,
by the registered owner or a party in interest.
Cecilia demanded the execution of the deed
which was refused. Cecilia learned of the sale of
Necessity and Effects of Registration
the property to the Dys and its subsequent
mortgage to petitioner Philippine Banking
Q: After registering his land, what conveyances
Corporation (Philbank). Thus, a complaint for
may the registered owner do?
annulment of the Certificate of title and for
specific performance and/or reconveyance with
A: An owner of registered land may convey,
damages was filed against Spouses Delgado, the
mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the
Dys and Philbank. However, Philbank contends
same in accordance with existing laws. He may use
that it is a mortgagee in good faith. Is the bank’s
such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other
contention correct?
voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. (Sec.
51, P.D. 1529)
A: NO. Primarily, it bears noting that the doctrine of
“mortgagee in good faith” is based on the rule that
GR: Such deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
all persons dealing with property covered by a
instrument shall operate only as a contract between
Torrens Certificate of Title are not required to go
the parties and as evidence of authority to the
beyond what appears on the face of the title. In the
Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act
case of banks and other financial institutions,
of registration which shall operate to convey or
however, greater care and due diligence are
affect the land insofar as third persons are
required since they are imbued with public interest,
concerned, and in all cases, the registration shall be
failing which renders the mortgagee in bad faith.
made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
Thus, before approving a loan application, it is a
province or city where the land lies.
standard operating practice for these institutions to
conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered
The act of registration creates a constructive notice
for mortgage and to verify the genuineness of the
to the whole world of such voluntary or involuntary
title to determine the real owner(s) thereof. The
instrument or court writ or process. (Sec. 52, Ibid.)
apparent purpose of an ocular inspection is to
protect the “true owner” of the property as well as
XPN: A will purporting to convey or affect
innocent third parties with a right, interest or claim
registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or
thereon from a usurper who may have acquired a
bind the land, not merely as a contract or evidence
fraudulent certificate of title thereto. (Philippine
of authority of the RD to make registration. (Sec. 51,
Banking Corporation v. Dy, et al., G.R. No. 183774, 14
Ibid.)
Nov. 2012)

1. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS

Mortgages and Leases

GR: The mortgagor should be the absolute owner of

the property to be mortgaged; otherwise, the
mortgage is considered null and void.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 804

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law
XPN: Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith. All
persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens
Certificate of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face of
the title. This is the same rule that underlies the
principle of innocent purchasers for value.
The prevailing jurisprudence is that a mortgagee
has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of
title of the mortgagor to the property given as
security and in the absence of any sign that might
arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake
further investigation. Hence, even if the mortgagor
is not the rightful owner of, or does not have a valid
title to, the mortgaged property, the mortgagee in
good faith is, nonetheless, entitled to protection.
(Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 140528, 07 Dec. 2011)
NOTE: The subsequent nullification of the
mortgagor’s title will not nullify the mortgage.
(Gonzales v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69622, 29 Jan. 1988)
Q: Corona is the registered owner of a lot
covered by TCT No. RT-122097 (126876). Her
children are petitioners Danilo and Sonia,
respondent Damian, and the Jimenez siblings
(Vilma, Federico, and Chona Jimenez). Corona
died on January 16, 2002. During the settlement
of the estate, Jimenez siblings discovered a Deed
of Donation allegedly executed by Corona in
favor of Damian on August 31, 2000 over the 532
sq.m. property. By virtue of the Deed, TCT No.
RT-122097 was cancelled and TCT No. N-
217728 was issued in the name of Damian on
September 7, 2000.
On May 21, 2001, Damian mortgaged the
property to Calubad and Keh in consideration of
a P7,000,000.00-loan. On the same day, the
mortgage was annotated on TCT No. N-217728.
Jimenez siblings learned about the mortgage,
but only Sonia registered her Affidavit of
Adverse Claim, which was annotated at the back
of TCT No. N-217728 on July 12, 2002. On
October 12, 2002, Sonia was informed that the
property was scheduled for auction on October
24, 2002. This prompted the Jimenez siblings to
file a complaint for the annulment of the Deed of
805
Donation and TCT No. N-217728, as well as the
cancellation and annulment of the Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage, with prayer for preliminary
injunction before the RTC of Quezon City.
RTC denied the prayer for injunction, hence, the
extrajudicial sale pushed through as scheduled.
Calubad and Keh emerged as the highest
bidders. Consequently, a Certificate of Sale
dated November 3, 2002 was issued. The title to
the property was consolidated and TCT No. N-
257432 was issued in favor of Calubad and Keh.
Danilo argues that while Calubad and Keh may
be mortgagees in good faith, they are not
purchasers in good faith as they were aware of
Sonia's adverse claim when they purchased the
property during the public auction on October
24, 2002. As such, they have no right over the
disputed property. Calubad and Keh contend
that that any subsequent adverse claim will not
prejudice the mortgagee's right as a purchaser
in the foreclosure sale. Are Calubad and Keh's
title as purchasers in the foreclosure sale are
valid?
A: YES. There is a situation where, 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.” The doctrine applies when the following
requisites concur, namely:
a. the mortgagor is not the rightful owner of,
or does not have valid title to, the property;
b. the mortgagor succeeded in obtaining a
Torrens title over the property;
c. the mortgagor succeeded in mortgaging the
property to another person;
d. the mortgagee relied on what appears on
the title and there exists no facts and
circumstances that would compel a
reasonably cautious man to inquire into the
status of the property; and
e. the mortgage contract was registered.
All these requisites were satisfied in this case, viz.:
(a) Damian was found to have no valid title to the
property as his title was derived from a forged Deed
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
of Donation; (b) he was able to obtain TCT No. N-
217728; (c) he succeeded in mortgaging the
property to Calubad and Keh; (d) Calubad and Keh
found nothing on TCT No. N-217728 that would
have notified them of Damian's invalid title. In fact,
Calubad and Keh even went beyond the title and
conducted an ocular inspection, whereby they
confirmed that Damian was in possession and
occupation of the property; and (e) the mortgage
contract was registered. Thus, the courts a quo did
not err in ruling that Calubad and Keh were
mortgagees in good faith.
Jurisprudence dictates that a subsequent lien or
encumbrance annotated at the back of a certificate
of title of a foreclosed property will not affect the
rights of a purchaser in a foreclosure sale because
such sale retroacts to the date of the registration of
the mortgage, making the sale prior in time to the
lien or encumbrance. The foreclosure sale retroacts
to the date of registration of the mortgage because
it is incidental to the fulfilment of the mortgagor's
obligation in the mortgage contract upon his
default. In turn, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale
essentially derives his right from the previously
registered mortgage. To rule otherwise would be to
render nugatory the purpose of the mortgage as
security.
Furthermore, the nullity of the mortgagor's
certificate of title does not automatically carry with
it the nullity of a registered mortgage if the
mortgagee acted in good faith. Once the mortgagor
defaulted in the fulfillment of his obligation, the
mortgagee in good faith can still cause the
foreclosure of the mortgage. In such case, the
purchaser in the foreclosure sale acquires the right
of the mortgagee in good faith, making the sale prior
in time as against any subsequent lien or
encumbrance. Accordingly, Sonia's adverse claim,
which was annotated after the registered mortgage
in favor of Calubad and Keh, cannot prevail over
Calubad and Keh's rights as mortgagees in good
faith and purchasers in the foreclosure sale. Being
mortgagees in good faith, they have a superior lien
over that of Sonia, and their right to foreclose is
reserved. (Jimenez v. Jimenez, Jr., G.R. No. 228011, 10
Feb. 2021)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Effects of Registration of voluntary dealings
1. Creates a lien that attaches to the property
in favor of the mortgagee; and
2. Constitutes constructive notice of his
interest in the property to the whole world.
Rule on Carry-Over of Encumbrances
Mortgage lien is a right in rem which follows the
property. 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. (Sec. 59, P.D. 1529)
It is inseparable from the property mortgaged as it
is a right in rem — a lien on the property whoever
its owner may be. It subsists notwithstanding a
change in ownership; in short, the personality of the
owner is disregarded. (Ligon v. CA, GR No. 107751,
01 June 1995)
Q: If the property that was the subject of
mortgage was subsequently foreclosed, must a
new certificate of title be automatically issued in
favor of the purchaser?
A: The answer must be qualified.
1. No right of redemption – The certificate
of title of the mortgagor shall be canceled,
and a new certificate issued in the name of
the purchaser; and
2. There is right of redemption – The
certificate of title of the mortgagor shall
NOT be cancelled, but the certificate of
sale and the order confirming the sale
shall be registered by a brief
memorandum thereof made by the
Register of Deeds upon the certificate of
title.
In the event the property is redeemed, the
certificate or deed of redemption shall be filed with
the Register of Deeds, and a brief memorandum
thereof shall be made by the Register of Deeds on
the certificate of title of the mortgagor.
806
 Civil Law

If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of Distinctions between Voluntary and Involuntary
sale executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser Dealings
at a foreclosure sale shall be registered with the
Register of Deeds; whereupon the title of the VOLUNTARY INVOLUNTARY
mortgagor shall be canceled, and a new certificate DEALINGS DEALINGS
issued in the name of the purchaser. (Sec. 63, P.D. As to Registration
1529) Requires registration
to create a constructive
Q: Does non-registration of property after Does not require notice to the whole
judicial foreclosure and sale have the effect of registration. world of such
invalidating the foreclosure proceedings, such instrument or court
that ownership reverts to the original owner? writ.
As to Kinds
A: NO. The effect of the failure to obtain the judicial
confirmation was only to prevent the title to the 1. Attachment
1. Sale
property from being transferred. For sure, such 2. Mandamus
2. Real property
failure did not give rise to any right in favor of the 3. Sale on execution
mortgage
mortgagor or the respondents as his successors-in- of judgment or
3. Lease
interest to take back the property already validly sales for taxes
4. Pacto de retro sale
sold through public auction. Nor did such failure 4. Adverse claims
5. Extra-judicial
invalidate the foreclosure proceedings. To maintain 5. Notice of lis
settlement
otherwise would render nugatory the judicial pendens
6. Free patent /
foreclosure and foreclosure sale, thus unduly 6. Expropriation
homestead
disturbing judicial stability. After all, under the 7. Forfeiture
7. Powers of
applicable rule earlier cited, the judicial 8. Auction sale on
attorney
confirmation operated only “to divest the rights of foreclosure of
8. Trusts
all the parties to the action and to vest their rights mortgage
in the purchaser, subject to such rights of As to Entry
redemption as may be allowed by law.” (Robles v. Entry in the day book is An entry thereof in the
Yapcinco et al., G.R. No. 169569, 22 Oct. 2014) insufficient. There is a day book is sufficient
need to present title to notice to all persons.
2. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS record the deed in (Garcia v. CA, G.R. Nos.
registry and to make L-48971 & 49011, 22
Necessity of Registration of involuntary dealings memorandum on title. Jan. 1980)

Involuntary dealings, unlike the voluntary dealings, Involuntary dealings that must be registered
requires the registration. It is the act of registration
which creates a constructive notice to the whole 1. Attachment; (Sec. 69, P.D. 1529)
world of such instrument or court writ or process 2. Adverse claim; (Sec. 70, P.D. 1529)
and is the operative act that conveys ownership or 3. Sale on execution or levy for taxes or for
affects the land insofar as third persons are any assessment; (Sec. 74, P.D. 1529) and
concerned. (Saberon v. Ventanilla, Jr. G.R. No. 4. Notice of lis pendens. (Sec. 76, P.D. 1529)
192669, 21 Apr. 2014)
Writ of Attachment

Attachment is the legal process of seizing another’s

property in accordance with a writ or judicial order
for the purpose of securing satisfaction of a
judgment yet to be rendered. It is used primarily to

807 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
seize the debtor’s property in order to secure the
debt or claim of the creditor in the event that a
judgment is rendered (Agcaoili, 2018)
Effect of the Non-Recording of a Writ of
Attachment
An attachment levied on real state not duly
recorded in the Registry of Property is not an
encumbrance on the attached property, nor can
such attachment unrecorded in the registry, serve
as a ground for decreeing the annulment of the sale
of the property at the request of another creditor.
(Siari Valley Estates, Inc. v. Lucasan, G.R. No. L-13281,
31 Aug. 1960)
a. ADVERSE CLAIM
It is a notice to third persons that any transaction
regarding the disputed land is subject to the
outcome of the dispute. (Arrazola v. Bernas, G.R. No.
L-29740, 10 Nov. 1978)
Purpose of Annotating the adverse claim
The purpose of annotating the adverse claim on the
title of the disputed land is to apprise third persons
that there is a controversy over the ownership of the
land and to preserve and protect the right of the
adverse claimant during the pendency of the
controversy. It is a notice to third persons that any
transaction regarding the disputed land is subject to
the outcome of the dispute. (Ibid.)
Instances when a claim of interest is adverse
1. Claimant’s right or interest in registered
land is adverse to the registered owner;
2. Such right or interest arose subsequent to
the date of original registration; or
3. No other provision is made in the decree for
the registration of such right or claim. (Sec.
110, Act 496)
Formal requisites of an adverse claim for
purposes of registration
1. Adverse claimant must state the following
in writing:
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
a. His alleged right or interest;
b. How and under whom such alleged
right of interest is acquired;
c. Description of the land in which the
right or interest is claimed; and
d. Certificate of title number.
2. Such statement must be signed and sworn
to before a notary public or other officer
authorized to administer oath; and
3. Claimant shall state his residence or place
to which all notices may be served upon
him. (Agcaoili, 2018)
Registration of adverse claim
By filing a sworn statement with the Register of
Deeds of the province where the property is located,
setting forth the basis of the claimed right together
with other data pertinent thereto. The duty of the
Register of Deeds to record the same on the title is
ministerial. (Paz Ty Sin Sei v. Jose Lee Dy Piao, G.R.
No. L-11271, 28 May 1958)
NOTE: Entry of the adverse claim filed on the day
book is sufficient without the same being annotated
at the back of the corresponding certificate of title.
(Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594, 28 Nov.
1975)
Effect of the registration of an adverse claim
It renders the adverse claim effective and any
transaction regarding the disputed land shall be
subject to the outcome of the dispute.
Effect of non-registration of an adverse claim
The effect of non-registration or invalid registration
of an adverse claim renders it ineffective for the
purpose of protecting the claimant’s right or
interest on the disputed land, and could not thus
prejudice any right that may have arisen thereafter
in favor of third parties.
Limitations to the registration of an adverse
claim
1. No second adverse claim based on the same
ground may be registered by the same
claimant; (Sec. 70, P.D. 1529) and
808
 Civil Law
2. A mere money claim cannot be registered
as an adverse claim. (Sanchez v. CA, G.R. No.
L-40177, 12 Feb. 1976)
Q: May an adverse claim exist concurrently with
a subsequent annotation of a notice of lis
pendens?
A: YES, an adverse claim may exist concurrently
with a subsequent annotation of a notice of lis
pendens. When an adverse claim exists concurrently
with a notice of lis pendens, the notice of adverse
claim may be validly cancelled after the registration
of such notice, since the notice of lis pendens also
serves the purpose of the adverse claim.
Lifespan of a registered adverse claim
The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of
30 days from the date of registration and it may be
cancelled.
Effect of the expiration of the period of
effectivity of an adverse claim
The expiration does not ipso facto terminate the
claim. The cancellation of the adverse claim is still
necessary to render it ineffective; otherwise, the
inscription will remain annotated and shall
continue as a lien to the property.
Q: May the RD cancel an adverse claim?
A: NO. The RD cannot, on its own, automatically
cancel the adverse claim.
NOTE: Before the lapse of 30-day period, the
claimant may file a sworn petition withdrawing his
adverse claim, or a petition for cancellation of
adverse claim may be filed in the proper Regional
Trial Court.
Q: What must an interested party do if he seeks
the cancellation of a registered adverse claim?
A: The interested party must file with the proper
court a petition for cancellation of adverse claim,
and a hearing must also first be conducted.
809
Sale on execution or for taxes or for any
assessment
Whenever registered land is solved on execution, or
taken or sold for taxes or for any assessment or to
enforce a lien of any character, or for any costs and
charges incident to such liens, any execution or copy
of execution, any officer's return, or any deed,
demand, certificate, or affidavit, or other instrument
made in the course of the proceedings to enforce
such liens and required by law to be recorded, shall
be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province
or city where the land lies and registered in the
registration book, and a memorandum made upon
the proper certificate of title in each case as lien or
encumbrance. (Sec. 74, P.D. 1529)
b. NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
Lis pendens literally means a pending suit. The
doctrine of lis pendens 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. (Sps. Po Lam
v. CA, G.R. No. 116220, 06 Dec. 2000)
It merely creates a contingency and not a lien. It
does not produce any right or interest which may be
exercised over the property of another. It only
protects the applicant’s rights which will be
determined during trial.
NOTE: It is not a lien or encumbrance under our
civil law. It is mere cautionary notice to prospective
buyers of certain property that said property is
under litigation. The annotation of a notice of lis
pendens at the back of the original copy of the
certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds
is sufficient to constitute constructive notice to
purchasers or other persons subsequently dealing
with the same property. One who deals with
property subject of a notice of lis pendens cannot
invoke the right of a purchaser in good faith neither
can he acquire better rights that those of his
predecessors-in-interest. (Tanchoco v. Aquino, G.R.
No. 30670, 17 Jan. 1990)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

Purposes of a notice of lis pendens judgment or decree that the court will
promulgate subsequently.
1. Protect the rights of the party causing the
registration of the lis pendens; and However, the filing of a notice of lis pendens does not
2. Advise third persons who purchase or create a right or lien that previously did not exist.
contract on the subject property that they Without a notice of lis pendens, a third party who
do so at their peril and subject to the result acquires the property after relying only on the
of the pending litigation. (Agcaoili, 2006) certificate of title is a purchaser in good faith. (Lopez
v. Enriquez, GR No. 146262, 21 Jan. 2005)
NOTE: A notice of lis pendens may involve actions
that deal not only with title or possession of a Notice of lis pendens negates good faith
property, but also with the use or occupation of a
property. The litigation must directly involve a One who deals with property subject of a notice of
specific property which is necessarily affected by lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in
the judgment. (Agcaoili, 2018) good faith—neither can he acquire better rights
than those of his predecessor-in-interest.
Q: When may a notice of lis pendens be made and
when may it not be resorted to? Q: When may a notice of lis pendens be
cancelled?
A: (Ibid.)
A: A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled in the
following cases before final judgment upon order of
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
the court:
1. When it is shown that the notice is for the
When applicable When inapplicable
purpose of molesting the adverse party;
1. Recover possession 1. Preliminary 2. Where the evidence so far presented by the
of real estate; attachments; plaintiff does not bear out the main
2. Quieting of title; 2. Levy or execution; allegations of the complaint;
Remove clouds 3. Proceedings on 3. When it is shown that it is not necessary to
upon title; probate or wills; protect the right of the party who caused
3. For partition; or 4. Administration of the registration thereof;
4. Any other the real estate of 4. Where the continuances of the trial are
proceeding of any deceased person; unnecessarily delaying the determination
kind in court or of the case to the prejudice of the
directly affecting 5. Proceedings for defendant;
title to the land or its the recovery of 5. Upon verified petition of the party who
use or occupation or money caused the registration thereof; or
the building judgments. 6. It is deemed cancelled after final judgment
thereon. in favor of defendant, or other disposition
of the action, such as to terminate all rights
of the plaintiff to the property involved.
Effects of the Annotation of notice of lis pendens (Sec. 77, P.D. 1529; Valderama v. Arguelles,
G.R. No. 223660, 02 Apr. 2018)
1. It keeps the subject matter of litigation
within the power of the court until the Q: When is a notice of lis pendens deemed
entry of the final judgment to prevent the cancelled?
defeat of the final judgment by successive
alienation; and A: Under Sec. 77 of P.D. 1529, a notice of lis
2. It binds a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the pendens shall be deemed cancelled only upon the
land subject of the litigation to the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 810

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law
registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in
which the action or proceeding was pending stating
the manner of disposal thereof if there was a final
judgment in favor of the defendant or the action was
disposed of terminating finally all rights of the
plaintiff over the property in litigation. (Cunanan v.
Jumping Jap Trading Corp. G.R. No. 173834, 24 Apr.
2009)
NOTICE OF LIS
ADVERSE CLAIM
PENDENS
As to definition
Literally means
pending suit. It
operates as a notice to
the whole world that a
particular real
Notice to third persons property is in
that any transaction litigation. The
regarding the disputed inscription serves as a
land is subject to the warning that one who
outcome of the dispute. acquires interest over
litigated property does
so at his own risk, or
that he gambles on the
result of the litigation
over the property.
As to purpose
Its purpose is to
Its purpose is to protect the rights of the
apprise third persons party causing the
that there is a registration of the lis
controversy over the pendens and to advise
ownership of the land third persons who
and to preserve and purchase or contract
protect the right of the on the subject property
adverse claimant that they do so at their
during the pendency of peril and subject to the
the controversy. result of the pending
litigation.
811
F. NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES
Non-registrable lands
These are properties of public dominion which,
under existing legislation, are not the subject of
private ownership and are reserved for public
purposes.
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. (Sec. 2, Art. XII,
1987 Constitution)
NOTE: The properties of public dominion are not
susceptible to acquisitive prescription and only
properties of the State that are no longer earmarked
for public use, otherwise known as patrimonial, may
be acquired by prescription. In Heirs of Malabanan
v. Republic, the Supreme Court, in observance of the
foregoing, clarified the import of Sec. 14(2) and
made the following declarations:
1. The prescriptive period for purposes of
acquiring an imperfect title over a property of
the State shall commence to run from the date
an official declaration is issued that such
property is no longer intended for public
service or the development of national wealth;
and
2. Prescription will not run as against the State
even if the property has been previously
classified as alienable and disposable as it is
that official declaration that converts the
property to patrimonial. (Republic v. Metro
Index Realty and Development Corp., G.R. No.
198585, 02 July 2012)
Reason behind their non-registrability
Property of the public domain is beyond the
commerce of man and not susceptible of private
appropriation and acquisitive prescription.
Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and What is the effect of the act of Gov. Gen Forbes in
be registered as a title. (Valiao v. Republic, G.R. No. reserving the land for provincial park purposes?
170757, 28 Nov. 2011)
A: As part of the reservation for provincial park
Non-Registrable Lands purposes, they form part of the forest zone. It is
elementary in the law governing natural resources
1. Property of public domain or those that forest land cannot be owned by private
intended for public use, public service or persons. It is not registrable and possession thereof,
development of the national wealth; (Art. no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into
420, NCC) private property, unless such lands are reclassified
2. Forest or timber lands; and considered disposable and alienable. (Sps.
3. Water sheds; Palomo, et. al. v. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 95608, 21 Jan.
4. Mangrove swamps; 1997)
5. Mineral lands;
6. National parks and plazas; Q: Does land classified as forest loses its
classification because it has been stripped of it
NOTE: Where the certificate of title covers forest cover?
a portion of land within the area reserved
for park purposes, the title should be A: NO. A forested area classified as forest land of the
annuled with respect to that portion. public domain does not lose such classification
(Palomo v. CA, G.R. No. 95608. 21 Jan. 1997) simply because loggers or settlers may have
stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land
7. Military or naval reservations; classified as forest land may actually be covered
8. Foreshore lands; with grass or planted with crops
9. Reclaimed lands; by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. Forest lands
10. Submerged areas; do not have to be on mountains or in out-of-the-way
11. River banks; places. The classification of land is descriptive of its
12. Lakes, rivers, creeks and lagoons; legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
NOTE: Areas beyond a lake’s natural bed, (Heirs of Jose Amunategui v. Director of Forestry, G.R.
or the ground covered by the waters at No. L-27873, 09 Nov. 1983)
their highest ordinary depth during the dry
season, may be registered. (Republic v. CA, Forest lands
G.R. No. L-43105, 31 Aug. 1984)
It is defined as “a large tract of land covered with a
A dried-up creek is property of public natural growth of trees and underbrush; a large
dominion. (Fernando v. Acuña, G.R. No. wood.” If the land forms part of the public forest,
161030, 14 Sept. 2011) possession thereof, however long, cannot convert it
into private property as it is within the exclusive
13. Reservations for public and semi-public jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forest Development
purposes; and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the
14. Protected areas; registration court. (Agcaoili, 2018; Director of Lands
15. Resources within ancestral domains; and v. Abanzado, G.R. No. L-21814, 15 July 1975)
16. Others of similar character. Unless the land is released as A and D, the rules on
confirmation of title do not apply. (Heirs of Jose
Q: In 1913, Gov. Gen. Forbes reserved a parcel of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-27873,
land for provincial park purposes. Sometime 09 Nov. 1983)
thereafter, the court ordered said land to be
registered in Ignacio & Carmen Palomo’s name.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 812

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law
Foreshore land
A strip of land that lies between the high and low
water marks and is alternately wet and dry
according to the flow of tide. It is that part of the
land adjacent to the sea, which is alternately
covered by the ordinary flow of tides. (Republic v.
CA, G.R. No. 126316, 25 June 2004)
Foreshore lands are inalienable unless reclaimed by
the government and classified as agricultural lands
of the public domain. (Chavez v. Public Estates
Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 11 Nov. 2003)
NOTE: Seashore, foreshore land, and/or portions of
the territorial waters and beaches, cannot be
registered. Even alluvial formation along the
seashore is part of the public domain and, therefore,
not open to acquisition by adverse possession by
private persons unless subsequently declared as no
longer needed for public use. (Aranas De Buyser v.
Director of Lands, G.R. no. l-22763, 18 Mar. 1983)
Mangrove swamps
These are mud flats, alternately washed and
exposed by the tide, in which grows various kindred
plants which will not live except when watered by
the sea, extending their roots deep into the mud and
casting their seeds, which also germinate there.
These constitute the mangrove flats of the tropics,
which exist naturally, but which are also, to some
extent, cultivated by man for the sake of the
combustible wood of the mangrove and like trees as
well as for the useful nipa palm propagated thereon.
(Director of Forestry v. Villareal, G.R. No. 32266, 27
Feb. 1989)
Q: Are mangrove swamps disposable?
A: NO. Mangrove swamps or manglares are forestall
and not alienable agricultural land.
Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests
and, therefore, not subject to disposition until and
unless they are first released as forest land and
classified as alienable agricultural land. (Ibid.)
813
Mineral lands
Mineral land means any land where mineral
resources are found. Mineral resources, on the
other hand, mean any concentration of
mineral/rocks with potential economic value. (Sec.
3, R.A. No. 7942)
NOTE: Mineral resources are owned by the State
and the exploration, development, and processing
thereof shall be under its full control and
supervision. The State may directly undertake such
activities or it may enter into mineral agreements
with contractors. (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7942)
NOTE: Possession of mineral land, no matter how
long, does not confer possessory rights. Thus, a
certificate of title is void when it covers property of
public domain classified as mineral lands. Any title
issued over non-disposable lots, even in the hands
of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be
cancelled. (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v.
Dumyung, G.R. No. L-31666, 20 Apr. 1979)
NOTE: Ownership of land does not extend to
mineral underneath. The Regalian doctrine reserves
to the State all minerals that may be found in public
and even private land devoted to “agricultural,
industrial, commercial, residential, or (for) any
purposes other than mining.” (Republic v. CA, G.R.
No. 45859, 28 Sept. 1938)
Q: Can land be partly mineral and partly
agricultural?
A: NO. The rights over the land are indivisible and
that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and
half mineral. The classification of land must be
categorical; the land must be either completely
mineral or completely agricultural. (Republic v. CA,
G.R. No. L-43938, 15 Apr. 1988)
Watershed
It is a land area drained by a stream or fixed body of
water and its tributaries having a common outlet for
surface runoff. (Sec. 3(m), P.D. No. 705)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

Watershed reservation
G. DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LAND
It is a forest land reservation established to protect
or improve the conditions of the water yield thereof
or reduce sedimentation. (Sec. 3(l), P.D. 705)
No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other
voluntary instrument affecting land not registered
Q: Public Reclamation Authority (formerly
under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as
Philippine Estate Authority or PEA) reclaimed
between the parties thereto, unless such instrument
several portions of the foreshore and offshore
shall have been recorded in the manner herein
areas of Manila Bay. In 2003, the Parañaque City
prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for
Treasurer issued Warrants of Levy on PRA’s
the province or city where the land lies (Sec. 113,
reclaimed property. PRA filed a petition for
P.D. 1529)
prohibition with prayer for TRO but was denied
by the RTC on the ground that PRA was not
NOTE: Where registered land has been the subject
exempt from payment of real property taxes as
of a transaction and this was recorded under Act No.
it was organized as a stock corporation. Is PRA
3344, such recording does not bind third persons
exempted from the payment of real property tax
since registration thereunder refers to properties
for its reclamation project?
not registered under the Land Registration Act, and,
hence, not effective for purposes of Art. 1544 of the
A: YES. The subject lands are reclaimed lands,
Civil Code on double sales. Registration of
specifically portions of the foreshore and offshore
instruments, in order to affect and bind the land,
areas of Manila Bay. As such, these lands remain
must be done in the proper registry (Soriano v.
public lands and form part of the public domain. It
Magali, G.R. No. L-15133, 31 July 1953)
is clear from Sec. 234 of the LGC that real property
owned by the Republic of the Philippines is exempt
Purpose of registration
from real property tax unless the beneficial use
thereof has been granted to a taxable person. In the
A transaction affecting unregistered lands covered
case of Chavez v. Public Estates Authority and AMARI
by an unrecorded contract may be valid and binding
Coastal Development Corporation, the Court held
on the parties themselves, but not on third parties.
that the fact that alienable lands of the public
In the case of third parties, it is necessary for the
domain were transferred to the PEA (now PRA) and
contract to be registered. (Dadizon v. CA, G.R. No.
issued land patents or certificates of title in PEA’s
159116, 30 Sept. 2009)
name did not automatically make such lands
private. Supreme Court also held therein that
Section 113 contemplates instruments created
reclaimed lands retained their inherent potential as
by agreement of the parties
areas for public use or public service. (Republic v.
City of Parañaque; G.R. No. 191109, 18 July 2012)
The opening paragraph of Section 113 cannot be
interpreted to include conveyances made by
ministerial officers, such as sheriff’s deeds. It
contemplates only such instruments as may be
created by agreement of the parties. (Agcaoli, 2018)

Recording shall be without prejudice to a third

party with ‘Better Right’

Sec. 113(b) states that any recording made

thereunder shall be without prejudice to a third
party with a ‘better right’. Thus, a mortgage of
unregistered property which is recorded under Act

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 814

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law

No. 3344 is valid as against everybody except a third certification that he has recorded the same. (Sec.
person having a better right. (Mota v. Concepcion, 113, P.D. 1529)
G.R. No. 34581, 31 Mar. 1932)

NOTE: Under Sec. 113(d), a tax sale, attachment and

levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim and other
instruments in the nature of involuntary dealing
with respect to unregistered lands, if made in the
form sufficient in law, may be recorded.

Recording by Register of Deeds is Ministerial

The Register of Deeds does not exercise a judicial or

quasi-judicial power in the registration of sheriff’s
deeds or certificates of sale. His duty with respect to
the notation or recording of these instruments, so
far at least as relates to unregistered property, is
ministerial only’ and the registration of such
instrument adds nothing to their intrinsic effect.
Registration in such cases is required merely as a
means of notification of the purchaser’s rights to the
public. If the Register of Deeds refuses to register
the instrument, he shall advise the party in interest
in writing of the grounds for his refusal, and the
latter may elevate the matter to the Administrator,
Land Registration Authority, en consulta pursuant
to Section 117 of the Property Registration Decree.
(Hermanos v. Register of Deeds, G.R. No. 274349, 10
Sept. 1927).

How recording is effected

Register of Deeds shall keep a Primary Entry Book

and a Registration Book. The Primary Entry Book
shall contain, among other particulars, the entry
number, the names of the parties, the nature of the
document, the date, hour and minute it was
presented and received. The recording of the deed
and other instruments relating to unregistered
lands shall be effected by any of annotation on the
space provided therefor in the Registration Book,
after the same shall have been entered in the
Primary Entry Book.

After recording, the Register of Deeds shall endorse

on the original of the instrument the file number
and the date as well as the hour and minute when
the instrument was received, returning to the
registrant the duplicate of the instrument with a

815 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

Register of Deed, G.R. No. 224678, 03 July 2018; 2019

H. ASSURANCE FUND BAR)

Who must file

1. ACTION FOR COMPENSATION

It is a condition sine qua non that he be the
FROM ASSURANCE FUND
registered owner, and, as to holders of a TCT, that
they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for
A person may bring an action in any court of
value. Moreover, there must be a showing that there
competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages
is no negligence on the part of the party sustaining
to be paid out of the Assurance Fund if:
the loss or damage or deprivation of any land or
interest therein. (La Urbana v. Bernardo, G.R. No.
Requisites for recovery:
41915, 08 Jan. 1936)
1. Said person sustains loss or damage, or is
deprived of any estate or interest in land;
When may the action be properly brought
2. On account of the bringing of land under
the operation of the Torrens system arising
An action against the Assurance Fund on the ground
after original registration;
of “fraudulent registration under the Torrens
3. Through fraud, error, omission, mistake,
system after the land’s original registration” may be
misdescription in any certificate of title or
brought only after the claimant’s property is
in any entry or memorandum in the
registered in the name of an innocent purchaser for
registration book;
value. This is because it is only after the registration
4. Without negligence on his part; and
of the innocent purchaser for value’s title (and not the
5. Is barred or precluded from bringing an
usurper’s title which constitutes a breach of trust)
action for the recovery of such land or
can it be said that the claimant effectively “sustains
estate or interest therein. (Sec. 95, P.D.
loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or
1529)
interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the
land under the operation of the Torrens system.” The
NOTE: Any action for compensation against the
registration of the innocent purchaser for value’s
Assurance Fund by reason of any loss, damage or
title is therefore a condition sine qua non in order to
deprivation of land or any interest therein shall be
properly claim against the Assurance Fund. (Sps.
instituted within a period of six (6) years from the
Esperanza, et al., v. Register of Deed, G.R. No. 224678,
time the right to bring such action first occurred.
03 July 2018)
(Sec. 102, P.D. 1529)

Against whom
Purpose

1. The Register of Deeds of the province or city

Act 496 provides for an Assurance Fund to pay for
where the land lies and the National
the loss or damage sustained by any person who,
Treasurer – If the action is brought for the
without negligence on his part, is wrongfully
recovery of loss or damage or for
deprived of any land or interest therein on account
deprivation of land or of any estate or
of the bringing of the same under the Act or
interest therein arising through fraud,
registration of any other persons as owner of the
negligence, omission, mistake or
land. (Agcaoili, 2015)
misfeasance of the court personnel, the
Register of Deeds or other employees of the
The Assurance Fund is a long-standing feature of
registry in the performance of their duties.
our property registration system which is intended
2. The action shall be brought against the
to relieve innocent persons from the harshness of
Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer
the doctrine that a certificate is conclusive evidence
and such other persons – If the action is
of an indefeasible title to land. (Sps. Esperanza v.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 816

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law
brought for the recovery of loss or damage
or for deprivation of land or of any estate or
interest therein arising through fraud,
negligence, omission, mistake or
misfeasance of persons other than the
court personnel, the Register of Deeds or
other employees of the Registry. (Sec. 96,
P.D. 1529)
Limitation on the Amount to be recovered
The plaintiff cannot recover as compensation more
than the fair market value of the land at the time he
suffered the loss, damage, or deprivation thereof.
(Sec. 97, P.D. 1529)
2. LIMITATION OF ACTION
GR: Any action for compensation against the
Assurance Fund shall be instituted within a period
of six (6) years from the time the right to bring such
action first occurred.
XPN: The proper action may be instituted by the
person entitled to bring such or anyone claiming
from, by or under him at any time within two (2)
years after his or her disability (being a minor,
insane, imprisoned, or otherwise under legal
disability) has been removed, notwithstanding the
expiration of the original period of six years first
above provided (Sec. 102, P.D. 1529).
Amendment or Cancellation of title
In the event the Assurance Fund is held liable on
account of the unlawful or erroneous issuance of a
certificate of title, the Register of Deeds, upon
authority of the LRA Administrator, shall file the
necessary action to amend or cancel the title or
perform any other act as may be directed by the
court. Such action may pre-empt any action against
the Assurance Fund. (Agcaoili, 2015)
Prescriptive period
The action must be brought within 6 years from the
time the right to bring the action first occured. (Sec.
102, P.D. 1529)
817
NOTE: An action for compensation against the
Assurance Fund is separate and distinct remedy,
apart from review of decree of registration or
reconveyance of title, which can be availed of when
there is an unjust deprivation of property. This is
evidence from the various provisions of Chapter VII
of P.D. 1529 which provide for specific parameters
that govern the action. (Sps. Esperanza v. Register of
Deed, G.R. No. 224678, 03 July 2018)
Q: Alfredo V. de Ocampo (de Ocampo) filed an
application before the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental to register two parcels of
prime sugar land, Lot No. 2509 of the cadastral
survey of Escalante and Lot No. 817 of the
cadastral survey of Sagay. The registration was
contested by the Republic of the Philippines'
Bureau of Education (the Republic). According
to the Republic, the lots de Ocampo sought to
register were bequeathed to the Bureau of
Education by the late Esteban Jalandoni. Due to
the donation, the Bureau of Education owned
the lots as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 6014.
While registration proceedings were pending,
de Ocampo entered into an agreement with
Oscar Anglo, Sr. (Anglo, Sr.). Their agreement,
denominated as a Deed of Conditional Sale,
included an undertaking that de Ocampo would
cede, transfer, and convey Lot No. 2509 and part
of Lot No. 817 under certain conditions. Anglo,
Sr. and Anglo Agricultural Corporation filed a
Complaint for Recovery of Damages from the
Assurance Fund against the Register of Deeds of
Negros Occidental and the National Treasurer of
the Republic of the Philippines before the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Negros
Occidental. According to their Complaint, Anglo,
Sr. acquired the lots in good faith and for value
without any negligence on his part.
Considering that de Ocampo passed away and
left no property to his heirs before the finality of
the Court of Appeals' Decision, the only available
remedy for Anglo, Sr. and Anglo Agricultural
Corporation was to recover the value of the lots
from the Assurance Fund as provided for under
Act No. 496 and P.D. 1529. Are the respondents
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

Oscar Anglo, Sr. and Anglo Agricultural

Corporation entitled to an award of damages
from the Assurance Fund under Sec. 95 of P.D.
1529?

A: NO. We rule that respondent Anglo, Sr. in the sale

transaction on January 6, 1966 acted in good faith.
However, he no longer had an interest over the lots
after he had transferred these to respondent Anglo
Agricultural Corporation in exchange for shares of
stock. Hence, he no longer has a claim from the
Assurance Fund. On the other hand, respondent
Anglo Agricultural Corporation cannot be
considered a transferee in good faith, considering it
was aware of the title's notices of lis pendens.
Hence, it also has no right to claim damages from the
Assurance Fund.

The Torrens system is not infallible. It is possible

that through fraud or error, a person who is not the
owner acquires a certificate of title over property.
The law thus created an Assurance Fund to address
this possibility. Under P.D. 1529, for every
certificate of title issued to a registered owner of the
property, building, or other improvements, the
registered owner contributes "one-fourth of one
percent of the assessed value of the real estate on
the basis of the last assessment for taxation
purposes, as contribution to the Assurance Fund." If
the property has not yet been assessed for taxation
purposes, the contribution will be based on the
value determined by two disinterested persons.
These collections are pooled together under the
custody of the National Treasurer. This court
further explained that "the Assurance Fund is
intended to relieve innocent persons from the
harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is
conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land."

An individual who relied on the validity of a

certificate of title should not be prejudiced by fraud
committed during the original registration, nor
should he or she be prejudiced by the error,
omission, mistake, or misdescription in the
certificate of title caused by court personnel or the
Register of Deeds, his or her deputy, or other
employees of the Registry. (Register Of Deeds of
Negros Occidental v. Anglo, Sr., G.R. No. 171804, 05
Aug. 2015)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 818

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law

register under the Torrens system. (Republic v. De

I. CADASTRAL SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION Guzman, G.R. No. 137887, 28 Feb. 2000)
(ACT 2259, AS AMENDED)
Under C.A. 141, the Director of Lands, primarily, and
the DENR Secretary, ultimately, have the authority
to dispose of and manage public lands. While the
It is a proceeding in rem, initiated by the filing of a
DENR’s jurisdiction over public lands does not
petition for registration by the government, not by
negate the authority of the courts to resolve
the persons claiming ownership of the land subject
questions of possession, the DENR’s decision would
thereof, and the latter are, on the pain of losing their
prevail with regard to the rights of public land
claim thereto, in effect compelled to go to court to
claimants. Thus, regular courts have no jurisdiction
make known their claim or interest therein, and to
to inquire into the validity of the award of the public
substantiate such claim or interest.
land. (Sps. Tabino v. Tabino, G.R. No. 196219, 30 July
2014)
Purpose of cadastral registration

Period of Filing
The principal aim is to settle as much as possible all
disputes over land and to remove all clouds over
Extended up to December 31, 2020. (Sec. 2, R.A. No.
land titles, as far as practicable, in a community.
9176)
(Agcaoili, 2006)

Procedure
Here, the government does not seek the registration
of land in its name. The objective of the proceeding
1. Determination of the President that public
is the adjudication of title to the lands or lots
interest requires title to unregistered lands
involved in said proceeding. Furthermore, it is to
be settled and adjudicated. The president
serve public interest by requiring that the titles to
may direct and order the Director of Lands
the lands be settled and adjudicated. (Sec. 1, Act. No.
to cause to be made a cadastral survey of
2259)
the lands involved; (Sec. 35(a), P.D. 1529)

Extent of authority of cadastral courts

2. Notice by the Director of Lands to persons
claiming any interest in the lands as well as
The cadastral court is not limited to merely
to the general public of the day on which
adjudication of ownership in favor of one or more
such survey will begin. It shall be published
claimants. If there are no successful claimants, the
once in the Official Gazette, and a copy of
property is declared public land. (Republic v. Vera,
the notice shall be posted in a conspicuous
G.R. No. L-35778, 27 Jan. 1983)
place on the bulletin board of the municipal
building of the municipality in which the
Cadastral courts do not have the power to
lands or any portion thereof is situated;
determine and adjudicate title to a lot already
(Sec. 35(b), P.D. 1529)
covered by homestead patent to a person other than
a patentee. (Manalo v. Lukban, G.R. No. 22424, 08
NOTE: A copy of the notice shall also be
Sept. 1924)
sent to the mayor of such municipality,
barangay captain, Sangguniang
Cadastral courts possess no authority to award
Panlalawigan and Sangguniang Bayan
damages.
concerned.

NOTE: A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive

3. Cadastral survey;
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond
the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to
4. Filing of Petition (Sec. 36, P.D. 1529)

819 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
5. Publication, mailing, posting;
Publication of notice of initial hearing of the
petition to be published twice, in successive
issues of the Official Gazette, in English
language. (Sec. 7, Act No. 2259)
6. Filing of Answer; (Sec. 37, P.D. 1529
The answer shall contain:
a. Age of claimant;
b. Cadastral number of the lot or lots
claimed;
c. Name of the barrio and municipality in
which the lots are situated;
d. Names and addresses of the owners of
the adjoining lots so far as known to the
claimant;
e. If the claimant is in possession of the
lots claimed and can show no express
grant of the land by the government to
him or to his predecessors-in-interest,
the answer shall state the length of
time he has held such possession and
the manner in which it has been
acquired, and shall also state the length
of time, as far as known, during which
the predecessors, if any, held
possession;
f. If the claimant is not in possession or
occupation of the land, the answer shall
fully set forth the interest claimed by
him and the time and manner of his
acquisition;
g. If the lots have been assessed for
taxation, their last assessed value; and
h. The encumbrances, if any, affecting the
lots and the names of adverse
claimants, as far as known.
7. Hearing of the case; (Sec. 38, P.D. 1529)
8. Decision; (Sec. 38, P.D. 1529)
9. Issuance of the decree and certificate of
title. (Sec. 38, P.D. 1529)
Q: Out of six (6) parcels of land, these lots are
claimed by two (2) parties: the Heirs of Lourdes
Padayhag, and Southern Mindanao Colleges
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
(SMC). The Director of Lands, instituted with the
then CFI of Zamboanga del Sur a Cadastral Case
pursuant to the government's initiative to place
all lands under the Cadastral System. The
Padayhags claim that Sps. Federico and Lourdes
Padayhag are the original owners of the Lumbia
Lots. As for the Sta. Lucia Lots, Padayhags claim
that since 1927 they occupied 300 sq.m. of the
lots. However, when a cadastral survey was
made, they were not able to object as they were
not informed of such survey. On the other hand,
SMC argued that it bought Lot. No. 2102 from
Mangacop Ampato evidenced by Deeds of
Conveyance of Real Estate and Absolute Sale.
RTC, sitting as Land Registration Court,
rendered a Decision in favor of SMC. CA
dismissed SMC’s appeal and ruled that there
being no indication at all from the records that
notice of the Order for Initial Hearing was
published in the Official Gazette and in a
newspaper of general circulation, the decision
rendered by the RTC of Pagadian City is void ab
initio for having been rendered without
jurisdiction. Is the CA correct?
A: NO. Given that the initial hearing based on the
published notice was scheduled on January 16,
1967, the applicable laws were Act 496 and Act
2259 which required only the notice of initial
hearing to be published twice, in successive issues of
the Official Gazette.
Given that the Cadastral Case does not only cover
the six lots but around 1,409 lots, the copies of the
issues of the Official Gazette where the Notice of the
Order for Initial Hearing was published could have
been included in the records of the cadastral
proceedings of the other lots included therein. Thus,
it was imprudent for the CA to rule that the Decision
rendered by the RTC is void ab initio for having been
rendered without jurisdiction.
Anent the publication requirement in reconstitution
proceedings under Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26, mere
submission of the subject Official Gazette issues
would evidence only the first element —
publication in two consecutive issues of the Official
Gazette, and what must be proved is not the content
820
 Civil Law

of the Order published in the Official Gazette but the

fact of two-time publication in successive issues at J. REGISTRATION THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE
least 30 days before the hearing date. PROCEEDINGS
(C.A. 141, AS AMENDED)
The Court has consistently accepted the probative
value of certifications of the Director of the National
Printing Office in reconstitution cases. The Official
Brief Background of C.A. 141 or the Public Land
Gazette is an official publication of the government
Act
and consequently, the Court can take judicial notice
of its contents.
1. It is to govern the disposition of lands of the
public domain.
In this case, no certification from the Director of the
2. It prescribed rules and regulations for the
National Printing Office was presented. The
homesteading, selling, and leasing of
certification alone without the copy of the Notice of
portions of the public domain of the
Initial Hearing may not suffice. There is a need to
Philippine Islands.
verify the contents of the said Notice to ensure that
3. It prescribed the terms and conditions to
the subject properties and parties/claimants are
enable persons to perfect their titles to
covered thereby. The Notice of Initial Hearing was
public lands in the Islands.
not only for subject properties and
4. It worked on the assumption that the title
parties/claimants, but for 1,409 lots and numerous
to public lands in the Philippines remained
claimants. If the Notice of Initial Hearing pertained
in the government and government’s title
to a specific registered property, as in the case of the
to public land came from the Treaty of Paris
reconstitution of a title, then a certification of
and other relative treaties. (Agcaoli, 2011)
publication from the Director of the National
Printing Office in this wise would suffice. (Padayhag
Persons qualified for registration
v. Director of Lands, G.R. Nos. 202872 & 206062, 22
Nov. 2017, J. Caguioa)
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 agricultural
lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim
of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945,
except when prevented by war or force majeure.

Requisites:

1. The applicant must be a Filipino citizen;

2. He must have, by himself or through his
predecessors in-interest, possessed and
occupied an alienable and disposable
agricultural portion of the public domain;
3. Such possession and occupation must have
been open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious and in the concept of owner,
since June, 12, 1945, except when
prevented by war or force majeure; and
4. The application must be filed with the
proper court. (Agcaoili, 2006)

821 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

Public land Property of public

dominion, when no longer
The term is uniformly used to describe so much of needed for public use, or
the national domain under the legislative power of for public service, shall
the Congress as has not been subjected to private form part of the
right or devoted to public use. (Montano v. Insular patrimonial property of
Government, G.R. No. 3714, 26 Jan. 1909) the State.

Public lands v. Government lands

NOTE: Only lands of public domain subsequently
classified or declared as no longer intended for
GOVERNMENT public use, or removed from the sphere of public
PUBLIC LANDS
LANDS dominion are considered controverted into
patrimonial lands which may be alienated or
Includes not only the The government disposed of through any of the modes of acquisition.
government lands, but owns real estate, (Andres v. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc., G.R.
also other lands of the which is part of the No. 201405, 24 Aug. 2015)
government already “public lands,” and
reserved or devoted to other real estate, Means by which public lands may be disposed of
public use or subject to which is not a part
private right. thereof. 1. For homestead settlement;
2. By sale;
Equivalent to public 3. By lease; and
domain and does not, by 4. By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
any means, include all titles:
lands of government a. By judicial legalization; or
ownership, but only so b. By administrative legalization (free
much of said lands as are patent). (Sec. 11, C.A. 141)
thrown open to private
appropriation and A person is deemed to possess an imperfect title
settlement by homestead over property when:
and other like general
laws. (Montano v. Insular The applicant for confirmation of imperfect title has
Government, G.R. No. L- shown possession and occupation that is: (O-C-E-N-
3714, 26 Jan, 1909) P-O)

Patrimonial property v. Public land 1. Open;

2. Continuous;
PATRIMONIAL 3. Exclusive;
PUBLIC LAND 4. Notorious Possession; and
PROPERTY
5. Occupation of the land since June 12, 1945
All other property of the or earlier. (Republic v. Sogod Development
State which is not of the Corp., G.R. No. 175760, 17 Feb. 2016).
character of public
Property for public
dominion or not intended Factors to consider:
use of provinces and
for public use, public
towns.
service, or for the 1. Open – When it is patent, visible apparent
development of national notorious and not clandestine;
wealth.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 822

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law
2. Continuous – When uninterrupted,
unbroken and not intermittent or
occasional;
3. Exclusive – When the adverse possessor
can show exclusive dominion over the land
and an appropriation of it to his own use
and benefits; and
4. Notorious Possession in the concept of
an owner – When it is so conspicuous that
it is generally known and talked of by the
public or the people in the neighborhood.
(Heirs of Marcelina Azardon-Crisologo v.
Raon, G.R. No. 171068, 05 Sept. 2007)
Possession and occupation
Q: Luzviminda A. Canlas applied for the original
registration of title, under Presidential Decree
No. 1529, of the 9,751-square-meter parcel of
land located in Rizal and technically described
as Cadastral Lot No. 11566, Psu-04-006561.
There was no opposition to Canlas’ application.
Respondent Republic of the Philippines
(Republic) did not submit its comment or
opposition despite the opportunity given by the
trial court. The case was then submitted for
decision.
The Regional Trial Court granted Canlas’
application. According to the trial court, Canlas
complied with the procedural requirements and
substantiated her application. She sufficiently
proved that, through her predecessors-in-
interest, she has been in “open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession of an
alienable and disposable parcel of land of the
public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership for more than 30 years.
The Republic of the Philippines, however, filed a
notice of appeal. Acting on the Republic’s appeal,
the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the
decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals
held that Canlas was not able to prove open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of the property. According to the
Court of Appeals, Canlas failed to discharge the
823
burden of proof placed on applicants for land
registration.
Canlas comes before this court, arguing that she
has duly overcome the burden of proof by
showing open, continuous, exclusive, adverse,
and notorious possession and occupation of the
property. Is Canlas in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land described in plan Psu-04-
006561?
A: YES. To qualify as open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation, the
possession must be of the following character:
Possession is open when it is patent, visible,
apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is
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.
This court puts more premium on the findings of the
trial court that petitioner has sufficiently shown
acts of dominion before 1945 and throughout the
years. It is settled that the trial court’s appreciation
of the evidence presented is entitled to great respect
since it is in a better position to evaluate the
testimonies of witnesses.
Petitioner has sufficiently shown that she, through
her predecessors-in-interest, have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of the 9,751-square-meter parcel of
land located in Barrio Macamot, Municipality of
Binangonan, Province of Rizal, since June 12, 1945
or earlier. Documentary evidence to prove
possession was presented and substantiated by the
witnesses’ testimonies. There were sufficient pieces
of evidence to show that petitioner and her
predecessors-in-interest exercised specific acts of
ownership such as: farming activities; allowing the
excavation of land for “pulang lupa” to make clay
pots; paying realty taxes; declaring the property for
tax purposes; employing a caretaker; causing
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
corrections in entries in public documents with
regard to the land; and demanding unlawful
occupants to vacate the premises. (Canlas v.
Republic, G.R. No. 200894, 10 Nov. 2014)
Effect of possession of an Imperfect Title
When the conditions set by law are complied with,
the possessor of the land, by operation of law,
acquires a right to government grant, without the
necessity of a certificate of the title being issued.
Q: RP opposed the application for registration
filed by Manna Properties under Sec. 48(b), C.A.
141 arguing that, as a private corporation, it is
disqualified from holding alienable lands of the
public domain, except by lease, citing Sec. 3, Art.
XII, 1987 Constitution. On the other hand,
Manna Properties claims that the land in
question has been in the open and exclusive
possession of its predecessors-in-interest since
the 1940s, thus, the land was already private
land when Manna Properties acquired it from its
predecessors-in-interest. Decide.
A: Lands that fall under Sec. 48, C.A. 141 are
effectively segregated from the public domain by
virtue of acquisitive prescription. Open, exclusive
and undisputed possession of alienable public land
for the period prescribed by C.A. 141 ipso jure
converts such land into private land. Judicial
confirmation in such cases is only a formality that
merely confirms the earlier conversion of the land
into private land, the conversion having occurred in
law from the moment the required period of
possession became complete.
Under C.A. 141, the reckoning point is June 12,
1945. If the predecessors-in-interest of Manna
Properties have been in possession of the land in
question since this date, or earlier, Manna
Properties may rightfully apply for confirmation of
title to the land. Manna Properties, a private
corporation, may apply for judicial confirmation of
the land without need of a separate confirmation
proceeding for its predecessors-in-interest first.
(Republic v. Manna Properties Inc., G.R. No. 146527,
31 Jan. 2005)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
Q: Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a
1,000-square meter property where he grew up
helping his father, Michael, cultivate the land.
Michael has lived on the property since the land
was opened for settlement at about the time of
the Commonwealth government in 1935, but for
some reason never secured any title to the
property other than a tax declaration in his
name. He has held the property through the
years in the concept of an owner and his stay
was uncontested by others. He has also
conscientiously and continuously paid the
realty taxes on the land.
Michael died in 2000 and Manuel-as Michael’s
only son and heir-now wants to secure and
register title to the land in his own name. He
consults you for legal advice as he wants to
perfect his title to the land and secure its
registration in his name.
a. What are the laws that you need to
consider in advising Manuel on how he
can perfect his title and register the land
in his name? Explain the relevance of
these laws to your projected course of
action.
b. What do you have to prove to secure
Manuel's objectives and what
documentation are necessary? (2013
BAR)
A:
a. For purposes of confirmation of imperfect
title, I will consider the provisions of C.A. 141
as well as the Property Registration Decree or
P.D. No. 1529. C.A. 141 provides two
requisites for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title namely: (1) open and
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land by
himself or through his predecessor in interest
under bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945; and (2) the classification of the land
as alienable and disposable land of the public
domain. (Secretary of DENR v. Yap, G.R. No.
167707, 08 Oct. 2008)
The Property Registration Decree provides
824
 Civil Law
that 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. Since Manuel’s father
Michael had been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession of the land
since 1935, and that the land was declared
alienable in the same year, his possession has
ripened into ownership which entitles him or
his successor Manuel to file an application for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
b. I have to prove that the land was already
declared alienable at the time that Manuel or
his father Michael took possession of the land
and that their possession was open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious which
started prior to or on June 12, 1945 as
required by C.A. 141. To prove the first
requisite, the original classification of the land
as approved by the DENR Secretary (Republic
v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 154953, 26
June 2008) or in lieu thereof, a Certification by
the DENR Regional office attesting to the
alienable and disposable character of the land
must have to be submitted. (Republic v.
Serrano G.R. No. 183063, 24 Feb. 2010) I also
have to file together with the application for
registration all original muniments of title or
copies thereof and a survey plan of the land
approved by the Bureau of Lands in
accordance with Sec. 17 of P.D. 1529. Manuel
may also submit the tax declarations and tax
payment receipts which have been ruled to be
good indications of possession in the concept
of owner. (Republic v. Candy Maker, Inc., G.R.
No. 163766, 22 June 2006)
Persons qualified for judicial confirmation
1. Filipino citizens 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 public
domain under a bona fide claim of
825
acquisition since June 12, 1945 or prior
thereto or since time immemorial;
2. Filipino citizens who by themselves or their
predecessors-in-interest have been, prior
to the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25,
1977, 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 30 years, or at least
since January 24, 1947;
3. Private domestic corporations or
associations which had acquired lands
from Filipino citizens who had possessed
the same in the manner and for the length
of time indicated in paragraphs 1 & 2
above; or
4. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
who have lost their citizenship and who has
the legal capacity to enter into a contract
under Philippine laws may be a transferee
of private land up to a maximum area of
5,000 sq.m., in case of urban land, or three
hectares in case of rural land to be used by
him for business or other purposes. For
residence purposes, the maximum area is
1,000 sq. m. in case of urban lands or one
hectare in case of rural lands. (Sec. 14, P.D.
1529)
NOTE: Aliens are disqualified from acquiring public
and private lands. (Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, G.R.
No. L-630, 15 Nov. 1947)
NOTE: Extended period for filing of applications for
administrative legalization (free patent) and
judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete
titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain. – Sec. 1, R.A. No. 9176 provides in part that,
“The time to be fixed in the entire archipelago for
the filing of applications shall not extend beyond
December 31, 2020. Provided that the period shall
apply only when the area applied for does not
exceed 12 hectares.” (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 9176, amending
Sec. 45, Chapter VII, C.A. 141)
Q: Henry is the winning bidder in an auction sale
pursuant to C.A. 141 involving a parcel of land in
Baguio City. Nearly 4 years later, Miguel sought
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds
the cancellation of the Award before the Bureau
of Lands contending that he has been in actual,
continuous, open and adverse possession of the
same since 1947, and that they have already
built their houses thereon and the auction sale
over the subject property void.
DENR and Office of the President found that the
auction sale of the subject property violated Sec.
24 of C.A. 141 and was therefore void, for its
failure to comply with the statutorily required
notice. It found that contrary to the requisite
publication of the notice of sale in the Official
Gazette for six consecutive weeks, the notice of
the said auction sale was only published twice.
Did the DENR and OP err in finding that the
auction sale over the subject property void?
A: NO. According to Sec. 24 of C.A. 141, “the Director
of Lands shall announce the sale thereof by
publishing the proper notice once a week for six
consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette, and in two
newspapers one published in Manila and the other
published in the municipality or in the province
where the lands are located, or in a neighboring
province, and the same notice shall be posted on the
bulletin board of the Bureau of Lands in Manila, and
in the most conspicuous place in the provincial
building and the municipal building of the province
and municipality, respectively, where the land is
located”.
As a consequence, the failure to publish the notice of
the auction sale as statutorily required constitutes a
jurisdictional defect which invalidates the auction
sale of the subject property, as well as the Award in
favor of Henry. (Heirs of Leung v. Heirs of Madio, G.R.
No. 224991, 23 June 2021, J. Caguioa)
Q: Bracewell asserts that he has a right of title to
a parcel of land having been, by himself and
through his predecessors-in-interest, in
occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership
since 1908. Thus, he filed an application for
registration in 1963 but the land has been
classified as alienable or disposable only on May
27, 1972. May his application for confirmation
of imperfect title be granted?
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2022 GOLDEN NOTES
A: NO. The land was only classified as alienable or
disposable on May 27, 1972. Prior to said date,
when the subject parcels of land were classified as
inalienable or not disposable, the same could not be
the subject of confirmation of imperfect title. There
can be no imperfect title to be confirmed over lands
not yet classified as disposable or alienable. In the
absence of such classification, the land remains
unclassified public land until released and opened
to disposition. Indeed, it has been held that the rules
on the confirmation of imperfect title do not apply
unless and until the land classified as forest land is
released in an official proclamation to that effect so
that it may form part of the disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain. (Bracewell v. CA, G.R. No.
107427, 25 Jan. 2000)
Q: In an application for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title filed by Naguit, the OSG argues
that the property must first be alienable. Since
the subject land was declared alienable only on
1980, Naguit could not have maintained a bona
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, as
required by Sec. 14 of the Property Registration
Decree, since prior to 1980, the land was not
alienable or disposable. Is it necessary under
Sec. 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree
(now Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act) that the
subject land be first classified as alienable and
disposable before the applicant’s possession
under a bona fide claim of ownership could
start?
A: NO. Sec. 14(1) merely requires the property
sought to be registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time the application for
registration of title 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 if in good faith. However, if the
property has already been classified as alienable
and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is
already an intention on the part of the State to
abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
826
 Civil Law

(Republic v. CA and Naguit, G.R. No. 144057, 17 Jan. 2. If, however, it is the duplicate of the OCT or
2005) TCT – Replacement of lost duplicate
certificate of title.
NOTE: This case is distinguishable from Bracewell v.
CA, where the claimant had been in possession of
the land since 1908 and had filed his application in
1963, or nine years before the property was
declared alienable and disposable in 1972. Hence,
registration was denied. The Bracewell ruling will
not apply in this case because here, the application
was made years AFTER the property had been
certified as alienable and disposable.

A different rule obtains for forest lands, such as

those which form part of a reservation for provincial
park purposes, the possession of which cannot
ripen into ownership. It is elementary in the law
governing natural resources that forest land cannot
be owned by private persons.

As held in Palomo v. CA, forest land is not registrable

and possession thereof, no matter how lengthy,
cannot convert it into private property, unless such
lands are reclassified and considered disposable
and alienable. In the case at bar, the property in
question was undisputedly classified as disposable
and alienable; hence, the ruling in Palomo is
inapplicable. (Palomo v. CA, G.R. No. 95608, 21 Jan.
1997)

NOTE: The law does not require that the land

subject of registration should have been alienable
and disposable during the entire period of
possession, or since June 12, 1945. It is sufficient
that the land is already declared as alienable and
disposable land at the time the application for
registration is filed so as to entitle the possessor to
registration. (Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No.
179987, 29 Apr. 2009) It must be stressed, however,
that the applicant for land registration must have
been in possession of the land sought to be
registered since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Remedies in case a person lost his certificate of

title

1. If what is lost is the OCT or TCT –

Reconstitution of certificate of title.

827 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

However, it cannot be issued in a petition for

K. RECONSTITUTION OF TITLES reconstitution of an allegedly lost or destroyed
certificate of title. Reconstitution does not confirm
or adjudicate ownership over the property covered
by the reconstituted title as in original land
Reconstitution of certificate of title
registration proceedings where, in the latter, a writ
of possession may be issued to place the applicant-
The restoration of the instrument which is
owner in possession (Serra v. CA, G.R. No. L-34080,
supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its
22 Mar. 1991)
original form and condition, under the custody of
Register of Deeds.
Q: PBCOM filed a petition for issuance of an
owner's duplicate copy of its TCT No. 21320 in
The process involves diligent circumspect
view of a lost one. The RTC dismissed the
evaluation of the authenticity and relevance of all
petition for insufficiency of evidence. Later,
the evidence presented for fear of the chilling
PBCOM filed another petition for issuance of an
consequences of mistakenly issuing a reconstituted
owner's duplicate copy, armed with additional
title when in fact the original is not truly lost or
evidence. The RTC dismissed the second
destroyed. (Dela Paz v. Republic, G.R. No. 195726, 20
petition on the ground of res judicata, ruling
Nov. 2017)
that the dismissal for insufficiency of evidence is
a ruling on the merits. Is the RTC correct?
Purpose of reconstitution of title

A: NO. A registered owner who fails to prove the

To have the same reproduced, after proper
loss or destruction of his/her owner's duplicate
proceedings, in the same form they were when the
certificate of title may not be barred from refiling a
loss or destruction occurred. (Noblejas, 2007)
new petition to replace the same. (Philippine Bank of
Communications v. The Register of Deeds for the
The reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate
Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 222958, 11 Mar. 2020, J.
of title literally denotes restoration of the
Caguioa)
instrument which is supposed to have been lost or
destroyed in its original form and condition.
Requisites for the issuance of an order for
reconstitution
A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the
ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed
1. That the certificate of title had been lost or
title but merely determines whether a re-issuance
destroyed;
of such title is proper (Republic v. Fule, G.R. No.
2. That the documents presented by
239273, 02 Mar. 2020). Restitution is proper only
petitioner are sufficient and proper to
when it is satisfactorily shown that the title sought
warrant reconstitution of the lost or
to be reconstituted is lost or no longer available.
destroyed certificate of title;
3. That the petitioner is the registered owner
Q: May a writ of possession be issued in a
of the property or had an interest therein;
petition for reconstitution?
4. That the certificate of title was in force at
the time it was lost or destroyed; and
A: NO. In a land registration case, a writ of
5. That the description, area and boundaries
possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree
of the property are substantially the same
of registration in an original land registration
as those contained in the lost or destroyed
proceedings “not only against the person who has
certificate of title. (Republic v. Catarroja,
been defeated in a registration case but also against
G.R. No. 171774, 12 Feb. 2010)
anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion
thereof during the proceedings up to the issuance of
the decree.”

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 828

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
 Civil Law

Jurisdictional requirements in petitions for c. Petitioner must have the duplicate copy
reconstitution of title of the certificate of title.

Notice thereof shall be:
1. Published twice in successive issues of the
Official Gazette;
2. Posted on the main entrance of the
provincial building and of the municipal
building of the municipality or city, where
the land is situated; and
3. Sent by registered mail to every person
named in said notice. (Sec. 9, R.A. No. 26)
NOTE: The law provides for retroactive application
thereof to cases 15 years immediately preceding
1989. (Agcaoili, 2006)
SOURCES WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE MAY
BE RECONSTITUTED
JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION

Section 2 of R.A. No. 26 governs reconstitution of

NOTE: The above requirements are mandatory and
original certificates of title (OCT) while Section 3
jurisdictional.
governs petitions for reconstitution of transfer
certificates of title (TCT).
NOTE: Where the owner’s duplicate certificate of
title is not in fact lost or destroyed, a petition for the
For OCT (in the following order):
issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate is
unwarranted, as in fact the court has no jurisdiction
1. Owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
over the petition, and any owner’s duplicate issued
2. Co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s
pursuant to said petition is null and void. (New
duplicate of said certificate;
Durawood Co. v. CA, GR No. 111732, 20 Feb. 1996)
3. Certified copy of such certificate,
previously issued by the Register of Deeds;
Kinds of reconstitution of title
4. Authenticated copy of the decree of
registration or patent, as the case may be,
1. Judicial – Partakes the nature of a land
which was the basis of the certificate of
registration proceeding in rem. The
title;
registered owners, assigns, or any person
5. Deed or mortgage, lease or encumbrance
having an interest in the property may file a
containing description of property covered
petition for that purpose with RTC where
by the certificate of title and on file with the
property is located. RD is not the proper
Registry of Deeds, or an authenticated copy
party to file the petition.
thereof; or
6. Any other document which, in the
2. Administrative – May be availed of only in
judgment of the court, is sufficient and
case of:
proper basis for reconstitution. (Sec. 2, R.A.
a. Substantial loss or destruction of the
No. 26)
original land titles due to fire, flood, or
other force majeure as determined by
For TCT (in the following order):
the Administrator of the Land
Registration Authority.
1. Owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
b. The number of certificates of title lost or
2. Co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s
damaged should be at least 10% of the
duplicate of said certificate;
total number in the possession of the
3. Certified copy of such certificate,
Office of the Register of Deeds.
previously issued by the Register of Deeds;
In no case shall the number of
4. Deed of transfer of other document, on file
certificates of title lost or damaged be
in the registry of deeds, or an authenticated
less than 500.
copy thereof, showing that its original had
been registered, and pursuant to which the

829 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Land Titles and Deeds

lost or destroyed transfer of certificate was interest. None of the documents presented in this
issued; case fit such description. (Republic v. Catarroja, et
5. A document, on file with the Register of al., G.R. No. 171774, 12 Feb. 2010)
deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said Where reconstituted title is a nullity, the order
document, is mortgaged, leased or for reconstitution may be attacked at any time.
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of
said document showing that its original had A reconstitution of Torrens title, whether judicial or
been registered; and administrative, cannot proceed once it is shown that
6. Any other document which, in the another Torrens title has already been issued to
judgment of the court, is sufficient and another person over the same property. The
proper basis for reconstitution. (Sec. 3, R.A. reconstituting body or court has no jurisdiction to
No. 26) issue another Torrens title over the same property
to the petitioner. The existence of a prior title ipso
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION facto nullifies the reconstitution proceedings. The
proper recourse is to assail directly in a proceeding
before the regional trial court the validity of the
1. Owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title
Torrens title already issued to the other person.
(DCT); and
(Justice Carpio’s separate concurring opinion,
2. Co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s DCT
Manotok v. Barque, GR. No. 162335, 18 Dec. 2008)
(Sec. 12 in relation to Secs. 2 and 3, R.A. No.
26)
NOTE: Petition for reconstitution can be barred by
laches.
Q: Catarroja et al. filed a petition for
reconstitution of title covering two lots in Cavite
Persons entitled to a DCT:
which they inherited from their parents.
1. Registered owner; and
Allegedly, the LRA issued a certification
2. Each co-owner.
confirming that the land registration court
issued a Decree covering the lots. A copy of the
Requirements for Replacement of Lost DCT
decree however was no longer available in the
record. It was also claimed that the owner’s
1. Due notice under oath shall be sent by the
duplicate copy of the title had been lost while
owner or by someone in his behalf to the
with their parents. If you were the judge, will
Register of Deeds of the province or city
you grant the petition for reconstitution of title?
where the land lies as soon as the loss or
theft is discovered; (Sec. 109, P.D. 1529);
A: In Republic v. IAC, applied the principle
2. Petition for replacement should be filed
of ejusdem generis in interpreting Sec. 2(f) of R.A.
with the RTC of the province or city where
No. 26. “Any other document” refers to reliable
the land lies; (Sec. 109, P.D. 1529)
documents of the kind described in the preceding
enumerations. This Court is not convinced that the
3. Notice to Solicitor General by petitioner is
following documents (Microfilm printouts of Official
not imposed by law but it is the Register of
Gazette., a certification by the LRA and from the
Deeds who should request for
Register of Deeds, a Report of the LRA and an
representation by the Solicitor General;
Affidavit of Loss) of the Catarrojas fall in the same
and
class as those enumerated in paragraphs (a) to
(e). None of them proves that a certificate of title
4. A proceeding where the certificate of title
had in fact been issued in the name of their
was not in fact lost or destroyed is null and
parents. Accordingly, the documents must come
void for lack of jurisdiction and the newly
from official sources which recognize the ownership
issued duplicate is null and void.
of the owner and his predecessors-in-

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 830

2022 GOLDEN NOTES