Land Titles and Deeds

AMPP Land Titles and Deeds Based on the Lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel

Notes 1st Semester SY 2017-2018

June 19 – Peroy common parlance that is called

the red ribbon. There is a ribbon
[Enumeration of topics to be covered under the in the document that would
subject] indicate that it was sworn before
the consular office or the
Book Sources: embassy.
Peña; Aquino; or Agcaoili (recommended) • If it’s a corporation, we know
that corporations can own
Grading System: property. To execute a deed of
2 Exams – 2/3 sale, there must be a proper
Recitation and Quizzes– 1/3 board resolution.
[Discussion of class policy] Issuance of Title Transaction:

1. CAR – Certificate authorizing
Land Titles is basically with the Land registration
Registration Authority (LRA). That is the certification from the BIR that
appropriate taxes were paid. When you
Newly appointed administrator comes from go to taxation, when there is a transfer of
Davao, Judge Bermejo of Matina. LRA capital asset, you have to pay Capital
supervises all the register of deeds all over the Gains Tax. What is that? 6% + 1.5% for
Philippines. documentary stamp tax. First you have it
assessed. After you assess it, online na
In this subject, this is an opportunity for you to ngayon, print nyo yung payment form.
make money. Land registration, processing of You pay to the bank, don’t pay sa BIR.
titles, making of deed of sale, etc. Chances are, After that you get the receipt, submit that
when you become lawyers, I will bet that within to BIR with the documents
the first few months, that will be your first three aforementioned (deed of sale, certified
transaction, a deed of absolute sale. true copy of title, tax declaration,
certificate of […] improvement. After that
What do you need to submit when you make you will be given a certificate authorizing
a land registration or when you transfer title? registration. 15 to 20 days.
1. Original deed or instrument.
What is the deed? What is the 2. Real Property Tax Clearance
instrument? Real property taxes are paid yearly. If you
• The deed of sale. pay that before March 15, you get a 20%
• If it is a donation, the deed of discount. You pay that in the municipal or
donation. city treasurer’s office.
• When somebody dies, you
submit an extra-judicial. The 3. Proof of Payment of Transfer Tax
deed is the document that is Levied by the city or municipality. Under
made by the parties. the NIRC, you can levy up to 1%. In
2. Certified copy of the Tax Declaration Davao, you only levy, under this local
of the Property government taxation, they only 8% of 1%
3. Title itself (0.08%). It varies from municipality/city to
4. Other Documents [depending on another as provided for by the local
circumstances enumerated below]: government unit. But it cannot be above
• You could also execute a the 1% threshold provided by the Local
document by virtue of a special Government Code.
power of attorney. You know
that already. I can make a sale 4. If the land is covered by CARP, DAR
to myself. I’m the vendee and clearance and Affidavit of
also the vendor may give me an Landholding of Transferee
SPA to sell the property to me. It is covered by CARP if it is agricultural
• But if the person giving the SPA land. If it is an agricultural land, there is a
is not within the country, there need for a DAR clearance.
must be a consularized SPA. In
Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 1

Contributors: Murray, Rodriguez, Andit


There is also this title called Certificate of

Land Ownership Award (CLOA). Remaining Steps in Obtaining a Title
Meaning, it went through DAR. Meaning, Approach the registration information officer. You
it was awarded to you because you are have to submit the documents. He will check kung
the tenant. And that CLOA property has kumpleto yung documents, may checklist yan.
a 10-year prohibition of conveyance, After all has been complied with, it will entered,
mortgage, and lease. But after 10 years and after that the title will be produced. It will take
you can convey the same property. But 6-8 months at the register of deeds. It does not
prior to conveying the property, you need include you going to the BIR; and kung
the property documentation. If you sell agricultural lands, yung pagkuha ng clearance.
that before the 10-year prohibition
expires, that is a void transfer. Computerization Program
The computerization program of the LRA is in
Additional requirements for specific types of partnership with the LARES program. This
issuance transaction: LARES program is in partnership with an Indian
1. Extrajudicial settlement corporation.
2. Judicial settlement • The purpose is to protect land titles from
3. Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage loss through fire, theft, natural disasters,
4. Consolidation of ownership because it has a cybernetworking. It is
5. Judicial foreclosure of mortgage scanned, it won’t be lost unless the
6. Execution sale system will crash.
Under Civil Procedure, how do you • It prevents fraudulent and inaccurate
execute? The is someone who has a service by using modern digital copy
money claim. You file a money claim remedies.
someone and that person has no money • It uses GPS.
but you win. As a last resort, you • It takes online information on titles. If I
execute upon the property. have inherited a property in Ifugao and
7. Registration sale of subdivision project I’m located in Davao City, through the
system, I can get a certified true copy of
Annotation the title here in Davao instead of going
What is annotation? There is a title and it would to Ifugao. Nationwide na yung coverage
form certain limitations to it. and it will lower the cost.
Example: SPA, lease contract, mortgage. • Implements streamline and standardized
Kumbaga, it’s a memorandum of encumbrance processing of […] irrefutable land
upon a property because the registration process registration procedure
rd
provides a warning to 3 persons who will buy the • Increased revenue collection of the
same property. Inscribed there is the nitty-gritty government.
details about the life of that particular property. If you check the receipt, majority of the
amount goes to the joint venture partner
Subdivision and consolidation transaction of the government.
Basically, you will have a PSS, a private
subdivision survey. You will subdivide and Sources of Title:
consolidate. Like now, there are lots of 1. Court
subdivisions. Developers will acquire lands at the In this subject, we will focus on the
very least 10-20 hectares. What they usually do judicial registration of title.
is they buy from different owners. They merge 2. Department of Environment and
that into one big property – they consolidate it into Natural Resources (DENR) formerly
one big title. Then they develop that and put Department of Agriculture and Natural
roads, facilities and amenities. After that they Resources (DANR)
subdivide because they will sell it to you by fixed This pertains to administrative
areas. registration
3. Department of Agriculture
Condominium Transactions Where you will get CLOA, Certificate of
Condominium is a condominium corporation. Land Ownership Award. That is what we
Those particular spaces have titles, condominium have been saying for tenants.
certificate of title.



4. National Commission on Indigenous have their own separate registration system

People (NCIP) inside their own tribal groups.
The government recognizes ancestral
domains and for the issuance of title for CCT
ancestral domains. Because of NCIP, Condominium Certificate of Title. Even the
there are now applications pertaining to parking lots they have their own title.
ancestral domains which includes bodies
of waters, forests, mineral lands. We will Deed of Conveyance
later on know that only agricultural lands Very important. This is the basis of the attorney’s
can be the subject of title. fees, as the case may be.
[Sir shows sample documents/titles] Tax Declaration

In Davao this is the design.
Original Certificate of Title
You were the one that was awarded the title first. Certificate Authorizing Registration
This is the original. But now we have the E-CAR already. But this was
the manual file indicating lawyer’s name, roll
Court number, etc. Dito sa baba ang may may-ari.
It is by virtue of a judgment that this particular
title was awarded. [Short history lesson]
DENR/Minister of Natural Resources William the Conqueror introduced the concept of

That is when the title is when the title is awarded private land ownership and title that must
to a particular person. That is by administrative emanate from the state. Dun na papasok yung
award. kingdom, and the king provides the lands.
DAR July 10 – Alcomendras

Certificate of Land Ownership Award
Legal Title
Transfer Certificate of Title This means that you have ownership of the
It was derived from an OCT. Is the subsequent property
transfer. This is important as there are cases that Equitable Title
have prescriptive periods, and these documents By virtue of a contract, you are allowed to have
show when the transfer was made. If the case possession of the property
was filed after the prescriptive period, then it has Example: Lease Contract, Usufractuary
to be dismissed. It shows the history of the title,
going back to the OCT. Land Title
Usually, when corporations buy a particular refers to that upon which ownership is based. It is
property, for township or anything, they usually the evidence of the right of the owner or the extent
hire a lawyer to conduct a thorough investigation of his interest, and by which means he can
as to the history of the title. If there are
maintain control, and as a rule, assert right to
annotations, may nag-away ba dyan dati. Yan na
ang itsura ng TCT, color blue na, hindi na red. exclusive possession and enjoyment of the
It may taken from you by virtue of the inherent property.
power of the government, namely eminent
domain.
So what is possession? It’s the holding of the
thing or the enjoyment of a right. It may signify the
NCIP
outward evidence of title but it’s not necessarily
Certificate of Land Transfer. Madalang pa yung
the title itself.
CALT, kasi how can you provide title for bodies of
water, timberland. But those are the things being Color of title
applied for the the IPs. What they can do is they
Semblance of ownership. It seems that you are
have a communal system, they will have a title. It
the property owner. But if you check the title, it
will be awarded to a group of these IPs. They will
does not mean that it’s yours



any time.
Estate
Represents the nature, extent, degree and A grantor can convey no greater estate than
quantity of a person’s interest in land. what he has or in which he has an alienable title
or interest. The spring cannot rise higher from
Types of Estate:
the source.
1. Freehold estate - indicates title of ownership
**According to Atty. Coronel, don’t concern
2. Less than freehold estate - signifies some sort
yourself with this because this is for succession.
of a right short of title
Deed
3. Fee simple - absolute title. It is an absolute
Written instrument executed in accordance with
estate in perpetuity. It is where title to land is
law, wherein a person grants or conveys to
conferred upon a man and his heirs absolutely
another certain land, tenements or
and without any limitation imposed upon the
hereditaments. A deed must as a rule have a
estate.
grantor, a grantee, words of grant, description of
4. Fee tail - designed to pass title from the grantee the property involved, signature of the grantor,
to his heirs, the intent of the grantor being to keep and, as required specifically under the Philippine
the property in the grantee’s line of issue. law, we may add also at least two witnesses and
a notarial acknowledgment.
5. Life estate - one held for the duration of the life
of the grantee.
Kinds of Property:
6. Estate for years - in the nature of a lease, and
therefore is short of title. The grantee or lessee 1. Real Property
takes over the possession of the land for a period
2. Personal Property
agreed upon but the grantor retains the legal title
to the property. Ownership and other real rights over property are
acquired by modes provided by law. For example
7. Tenancy from period to period - in the nature of
succession, donation, prescription. In this subject
a lease which may run from month to month or
we will be talking about acquisitive prescription.
from year to year, with the peculiarity of automatic
renewal from time to time, unless expressly SPS DALION V. CA (1990)
terminated by either party. However, if by the
terms of the lease the period can only be
A land in Southern Leyte was declared in the
extended by written consent of the parties, no name of Segundo Dalion. Sabesaje sued to
right for extension can arise, without such written recover ownership this land based on a private
consent. document of absolute sale, allegedly executed by
Segundo Dalion.
8. Tenancy at will - is another form of lease Dalion, however, denied the sale, saying
agreement where a person is permitted to that: The document aws fictitious , his signature
occupy the land of another without any was a forgery, and that the land is conjugal
property, which he and his wife acquired in 1960
stipulation as to period, but either party reserves
from Saturnina Sabesaje as evidenced by the
the right to terminate the occupation at will or at "Escritura de Venta Absoluta. "



validity. Upon perfection of the contract, the

The spouses denied the claims of Sabesaje that parties may reciprocally demand performance
after executing a deed of sale over the parcel of (CCN 1475, NCC), i.e., the vendee may compel
land, they had pleaded with Sabesaje to be transfer of ownership of the object of the sale, and
allowed to administer the land because Dalion did the vendor may require the vendee to pay the
not have livelihood. thing sold (NCC 1458.)
Spouses Dalion admitted, however, The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered
administering 5 parcels of land in Southern Leyte, Dalion to deliver to Sabesaje the parcel of land
which belonged to Leonardo and to execute corresponding formal deed of
Sabesaje, grandfather of Sabesaje, who died in conveyance in a public document.
1956.
Under NCC 1498, when the sale is made through
The Dalions never received their agreed 10% and a public instrument, the execution is equivalent to
15% commission on the sales of copra and the delivery of the thing. Delivery may either be
abaca . actual (real) or constructive. Thus delivery of a
parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee
Sabesaje's suit, they say, was intended merely to in control and possession of the land (real) or by
harass and forestall Dalion's threat to sue for embodying the sale in a public instrument
these unpaid commissions. (constructive).
TC decided in favor of Sabesaje and ordered the The authenticity of the signature of Dalion was
Dalions to deliver the parcel of land in a public proven by the testimony of several witness
document. including the person who made the deed of sale.
Dalion never presented any evidence or witness
CA affirmed. to prove his claim of forgery. Dallion’s claim that
the sale is invalid because it was not made in a
ISSUE: Was the contract of sale valid? YES public document is of no merit. This argument is
Is a public document needed for transfer of misplaced. The provision of Art. 1358 on the
ownership? NO necessity of a public document is only for
convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is
HELD: RE: VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT not a requirement for the validity of a contract of
People who witnessed the execution of the deed sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a
positively testified on its authenticity. public instrument. Sale is perfected upon meeting
of the minds of both parties.
They stated that it had been executed and signed
by the signatories.
RE: PUBLIC DOCUMENT Comments: If the sale is in a private document,

The provision of NCC 1358 on the necessity of a the remedy of the buyer is to file an action for
public document is only for convenience, not for specific performance to compel the vendor to
validity or enforceability .
make a public document evidencing the sale or to
That this be embodied in a public instrument is surrender the title.
not a requirement for the validity of a contract of
sale of a parcel of land Registration of Title
The government provides a public record of the
Dalion argued that the sale is invalid because it is
embodied in a private document. That "acts and title itself upon which a prospective purchaser or
contracts which have for their object the creation, someone else interested may rely.
transmission, modification or extinction of
real rights over immovable property must appear
in a public instrument." (NCC 1358 par. 1) A Recording of Evidence of Title
contract of sale is a consensual contract, which Provide for the recording of deeds of conveyance
means that the sale is perfected by mere and other instruments, without guaranteeing the
consent. No particular form is required for its



title, leaving to the prospective purchasers or Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the
partition case and for the reconveyance of the lots
other persons interested to examine the
to its rightful owner – the conjugal regime.
instruments in the records and formulate their
own conclusions as to their effect on the title. To protect the interest of the conjugal regime
during the pendency of the case, PR caused the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT
Note: Registration of title is preferred to recording 8278.
or registration of evidence of title, for the former
Petitioner moved for the cancellation of said
aims at presenting the prospective purchaser or
annotation but it was denied by RTC on the
mortgagee the net result of all the previous grounds that: (a) the notice was not for the
dealings with the property, while the latter purpose of molesting or harassing petitioner and
presents the dealings themselves before such (b) also to keep the property within the power of
the court pending litigation. CA affirmed the
prospect who is left to investigate for himself. decision. Hence this petition.
Remember in cases of double sale, he who first Petitioner’s contention: The resolution of an
registers is the winner. incidental motion for cancellation of the notice of
lis pendens was improper to thresh out the issue
of ownership of the disputed lots since ownership
**A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer cannot be passed upon in a partition case and
knows the judge** that it would amount to a collateral attack of his
title obtained more than 28 years ago.
Land Registration
Private respondent’s contention: The evidence of
It is a judicial proceeding whereby a person’s ownership is admissible in a partition case as this
claim of ownership over a particular land is is not a probate or land registration proceedings
determined and confirmed or recognized so that when the court’s jurisdiction is limited.
such land and the ownership thereof may be
ISSUE: WON the annotation of a notice of lis
recorded in a public registry. It is an in re pendens is valid.
proceeding.
HELD: Yes. Petitioner’s claim is not legally
tenable. The annotation of a notice of lis pendens
Purpose of land registration is to issue a does not in any case amount nor can it be
certificate of title to the land owner which is the considered as equivalent to a collateral attack of
best title of ownership. the certificate of title for a parcel of land.
What cannot be collaterally attacked is the

LEE TEK SHENG VS. CA
certificate of title and not the title. Placing a parcel
of land under the mantle of the Torrens system
FACTS: After his mother’s death, petitioner
does not mean that ownership thereof can no
Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng filed a complaint against
longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a
his father (private respondent) for the partition of
certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof
the conjugal properties of his parents.
of ownership of a piece of land. Besides, the
certificate cannot always be considered as
The private respondent alleged that the 4 parcels
conclusive evidence of ownership.
of land registered in petitioner’s name are
conjugal properties.
Registration is not the equivalent of title, but is
only the best evidence thereof. Title as a concept
The PR contends that the lots were registered
of ownership should not be confused with the
under Leoncio’s name only as a trustee because
certificate of title as evidence of such ownership
during the registration, Leoncio was the only
although both are interchangeably used. In this
Filipino in the family.
case, contrary to petitioner’s fears, his certificate
of title is not being assailed by private respondent.



What the latter disputes is the former’s claim of now Quezon City, are registered in the name of
sole ownership. Thus, although petitioner’s the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The
certificate of title may have become originals of those titles are on file in the registry of
incontrovertible one year after issuance, yet deeds in Pasig, Rizal. They were not destroyed
contrary to his argument, it does not bar private during the war. Even the originals of the
respondent from questioning his ownership. preceding cancelled titles for those two lots are
intact in the registry of deeds.
A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled only on
two grounds: The reconstitution proceeding started when
(1) If the annotation was for the purpose of Fructuosa Laborada, a widow residing at 1665
molesting the title of the adverse party Interior 12 Dart Street, Paco, Manila, filed in the
(2) When the annotation is not necessary to Court of First Instance of Rizal at Caloocan City a
protect the title of the party who caused it to be petition dated November, 1967 for the
recorded. reconstitution of the title covering the above-
Neither ground for cancellation of the notice was mentioned Lot No. 915. She alleged that she was
convincingly shown to concur in this case. the owner of the lot and that the title covering it,
the number of which she could not specify, was
It must be emphasized that the annotation of a "N.A." or not available. The petition was sworn to
notice of lis pendens is only for the purpose of on November 16, 1967 before Manila notary
announcing “to the whole world that a particular Domingo P. Aquino.
real property is in litigation, serving as a warning
that one who acquires an interest over said On April 2, 1968, the lower court issued an order
property does so at his own risk, or that he setting the petition for hearing on June 14, 1968.
gambles on the result of the litigation over said The notice of hearing was published in the Official
property.” Gazette. Copies thereof were posted in three
conspicuous places in Caloocan City and were
On the contention that ownership cannot be furnished the supposed adjoining owners. The
passed upon in partition case, suffice it to say that registers of deeds of Caloocan City and Rizal
until and unless ownership is definitely resolved, were not served with copies of the petition and
it would be premature to effect partition of the notice of hearing.
property. For purposes of annotating a notice of
lis pendens, there is nothing in the rules which State Prosecutor Enrique A. Cube, as supposed
requires the party seeking annotation to prove counsel for the Government, did not oppose the
that the land belongs to him. Besides, an action petition. Laborada presented her evidence before
for partition is one case where the annotation of a the deputy clerk of court. Judge Serafin Salvador
notice of lis pendens is proper. in his "decision" dated July 6, 1968 granted the
petition.
He found that Lot No. 915 was covered by a

Comments: There are other causes of action transfer certificate of title which was not available
against you even if you have a title under your and which was issued to Maria Bueza who sold
name. It is only the certificate of title which is the lot to Laborada. The transfer certificate of title
covering the lot was allegedly destroyed during
indefeasible. However, your ownership over the the war. The plan and technical description for the
property can still be challenged. lot were approved by the Commissioner of Land
Registration who recommended favorable action
REPUBLIC VS CA on the petition.
These two cases are about the cancellation and The lower court directed the register of deeds of
annulment of reconstituted Torrens titles whose Caloocan City to reconstitute the title for Lot No.
originals are existing and whose reconstitution 915 in the name of Laborada. The order of
was, therefore, uncalled for. reconstitution was not appealed. It became final
and executory.
2 lots of the Tala Estate, with areas of more than
twenty-five and twenty-four hectares, Acting on the court's directive, the register of
respectively, located at Novaliches, Caloocan, deeds issued to Laborada on August 14, 1968



Transfer Certificate of Title No. (N.A.) 3-(R). reconstitution of the title.
Lot No. 915 was later subdivided into seven lots, The lower court ordered the register of deeds to
Lots Nos. 915-A to 915-G. The Acting reconstitute the missing title of Lot No. 918 in the
Commissioner of Land Registration approved the name of Bombast. Acting on that directive, the
subdivision plan. The register of deeds cancelled register of deeds issued to Bombast Transfer
TCT No. (N.A.) 3-(R) and issued on October 15, Certificate of Title No. N.A. 4(R).
1968 seven titles to Laborada.
Five months before the issuance of the
In another and later case, one Francisco S. reconstituted title, Francisca Bombast, now
Bombast, single, residing at 2021 San Marcelino Identified as single (not widow) and a resident of
Street, Malate, Manila filed in the lower court a 1665 Interior 12 Dart Street Paco, Manila, which
petition dated November 16, 1967 for the was the same address used by Fructuosa
reconstitution of the title of another lot, the Laborada (Bombast used first the address 2021
aforementioned Lot No. 918. San Marcelino Street) sold Lot No. 918 to
Herculano M. Deo allegedly for P249,880.
She could not specify the number of the title. She Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34146R was
alleged that the title was "N.A" or not available. issued to Deo.
She claimed to be the owner of the lot and that
the title covering it was destroyed during the war. On October 28, 1969, Deo sold the lot to A & A
Like the first petition, the second petition was Torrijos Engineering Corporation allegedly for
sworn to on the same date, November 16, 1967, P250,000. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34147-
before Manila notary Domingo P. Aquino. Why it R was issued to the corporation.
was not filed simultaneously with Laborada's
petition was not explained. On May 25 and 26, 1970, the State filed two
petitions for the cancellation and annulment of the
The lower court set the second petition for reconstituted titles and the titles issued
hearing on January 31, 1969. As in Laborada's subsequent thereto. Judge Salvador, who had
petition, the notice of hearing for Bombast's ordered the reconstitution of the titles and to
petition was published in the Official Gazette. It whom the two cases for cancellation were
was posted in three conspicuous places in assigned, issued restraining orders enjoining the
Caloocan City and copies thereof were sent to the register of deeds, city engineer and
supposed adjoining owners. But no copies of the Commissioner of Land Registration from
petition and notice of hearing were served upon accepting or recording any transaction regarding
the registers of deeds of Caloocan City and Rizal, Lots Nos. 915 and 918.
the officials who would be interested in the
reconstitution of the supposed lost title and who The respondents in the two cases, through a
could certify whether the original of the title was common lawyer, filed separate answers
really missing. containing mere denials. The Commissioner of
Land Registration filed pro forma answers
Bombast's petition was assigned also to Judge wherein he interposed no objection to the
Salvador. It was not opposed by the government issuance of the preliminary injunction sought by
lawyers, Enrique A. Cube and Conrado de Leon; the State.
Judge Salvador in his order of April 3, 1969
granted the petition. After a joint trial of the two cases, respondents
corporation and Laborada filed amended
The court found from the evidence that the answers wherein they pleaded the defense that
allegedly missing or "not available" title was they were purchasers in good faith and for value.
issued to Regino Gollez who sold the land to
petitioner Bombast. The owner's duplicate of On June 22, 1972, Judge Salvador (who did not
Gollez's title was supposedly destroyed during bother to inhibit himself) rendered a decision in
the war. Taxes were paid for that land by Gollez the two cases holding that the State's evidence
and Bombast. The technical description of the was insufficient to establish its ownership and
land the plan were approved by the possession of Lots Nos. 915 and 918 and that
Commissioner of Land Registration who Laborada and A & A Torrijos Engineering
submitted a report recommending the Corporation were purchasers in good faith and for



value and, consequently, their titles are not ipso facto nullified the reconstitution proceedings
cancellable and annullable. and signified that the evidence in the said
proceedings as to the alleged ownership of
Judge Salvador further held that the titles, whose Laborada and Bombast cannot be given any
reconstitution he had ordered allegedly in credence. The two proceedings were sham and
conformity with law, could not be attacked deceitful and were filed in bad faith. Such
collaterally and, therefore, "the reconstituted titles humbuggery or imposture cannot be
and their derivatives have the same validity, force countenanced and cannot be the source of
and effect as the originals before the legitimate rights and benefits.
reconstitution". The State appealed.
Republic Act No. 26 provides for a special
CA affirmed RTC and held that the reconstitution procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens
can no longer be set aside and that if there were certificates of title that are missing and not
irregularities in the reconstitution, then, as fictitious titles or titles which are existing.
between two innocent parties, the State, as the
party that made possible the reconstitution, It is a patent absurdity to reconstitute existing
should suffer the loss. The Court of Appeals cited certificates of title that are on file and available in
section 101 of Act 496 to support its view that a the registry of deeds. The reconstitution
registered owner may lose his land "by the proceedings are void because they are contrary
registration of any other person as owner of such to Republic Act No. 26 and beyond the purview of
land". that law since the titles reconstituted are actually
subsisting in the registry of deeds and do not
ISSUE: W/N the reconstituted titles were valid require reconstitution at all.
HELD: NO. We hold that the appeal is justified. As a rule, acts executed against the provisions of
The Appellate Court and the trial court grievously mandatory laws are void (Art. 5, Civil Code).
erred in sustaining the validity of the reconstituted
titles which, although issued with judicial To sustain the validity of the reconstituted titles in
sanction, are no better than spurious and forged these cases would be to allow Republic Act No.
titles. 26 to be utilized as an instrument for landgrabbing
or to sanction fraudulent machinations for
In all candor, it should be stated that the depriving a registered owner of his land, to
reconstitution proceedings were simply devices undermine the stability and security of Torrens
employed by petitioners Laborada and Bombast titles and to impair the Torrens system of
for landgrabbing or for the usurpation and illegal registration.
appropriation of fifty hectares of State-owned
urban land with considerable value. The theory of A & A Torrijos Engineering
Corporation that it was a purchaser in good faith
The crucial and decisive fact is that two valid and and for value is indefensible because the title of
existing Torrens titles in the name of the the lot which it purchased unmistakably shows
Commonwealth of the Philippines were that such title was reconstituted. That
needlessly reconstituted in the names of circumstance should have alerted its officers to
Laborada and Bombast on the false or perjurious make the necessary investigation in the registry
assumption that the two titles were destroyed of deeds of Caloocan City and Rizal where they
during the war. could have found that Lot 918 is owned by the
State.
That kind of reconstitution was a brazen and
monstrous fraud foisted on the courts of justice. It Republic is held as the owner.
was a stultification of the judicial process.
One and the same judge (1) allowed the

reconstitution and then (2) decided the two MARIA CONSUELO FELISA ROXAS VS
subsequent cases for the cancellation and RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ
annulment of the wrongfully reconstituted titles.
FACTS: Maria Consuelo applied for a registration
The existence of the two titles of the Government of title of 4 parcels of land in 1906. The only one



of said parcels to which attention need be given general default to be recorded and the application
in the present appeal is Parcel A. The adjoining (petition) be taken for confessed.
owners of the land were informed of such
application, but no one went to question it so they By the description in the notice "To all whom it
were declared in default. The same application may concern," all the world are made parties
was published in two newspapers. The record defendant and shall be concluded by the default
shows that each of said persons received a copy and order. The court shall not be bound by the
of said notice, including the representative of the report of the examiner of titles, but may require
heirs of Antonio Enriquez (Hartigan, Rohde & other and further proof."
Gutierrez). The record further shows, by the
certificate of James J. Peterson, sheriff of the city The provisions of section 35 seem to be directly
of Manila, that said notice was posted upon the contrary to the contention of the appellants. It
land in question. The record further shows that seems to directly contradict the requirements of
said notice had been published in two daily personal notice as an absolute prerequisite to the
newspapers of the city of Manila. The Manila granting of a valid title under the Torrens system.
Times and La Democracia.
The same idea is further confirmed by the
The City of Manila questioned in court the borders provisions of section 38 of said Act No. 496. Said
of Parcel A. The Court ordered the correction but section 38 provides that: "Every decree of
none was executed. The court approved the registration shall bind the land and quite the title
application and Consuelo was given the titles. In thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in
1912, the City of Manila applied for the correction the following section. It shall be conclusive upon
of the title because it covered a public road. It was and against all persons, including the Insular
also in 1912 the Consuelo went to court to ask for Government, and all the branches thereof,
a correction of the title because there were 2 whether mentioned by name in the application,
buildings which were not included in the title, notice or citations, or included in the general
although it was in the application. She sold the description 'To all whom it may concern.'"
same to Masonic Temple Assoc. During the
hearing, the heirs of Antonio Enriquez, owners of It will be noted also that the petitioner in
the adjoining land, appeared in court questioning registration cases is not by law required to give
the title. any notice to any person. The law requires the
clerk of the court to give the notices. (Sections 31
The Court granted the motions of the City of and 32 of Act No. 496.) It is true that "the court
Manila and Consuelo. may also cause other or further notice of the
application to be given in such a manner and to
ISSUE: Whether or not personal notice to all of such persons as it may deem proper." Thus it is
the persons interested in an action for the seen that the applicant is by express provision of
registration of real property under the Torrens law relieved from any obligation whatsoever to
system, is an absolute prerequisite to the validity give motive to any person of the pendency of his
of said registration. application to have his land registered under the
Torrens system.
HELD: NO. Personal notice of the pendency of
the original petition had been given and that a Section 101 and 102 (Act No. 496) seem to
publication of the same had been made in contain a remedy for persons who have suffered
accordance with the provisions of sections 31 and damages for the failure on the part of court
32 of Act No. 496. officials to comply with the law. His remedy is not
to have the registration and certificate annulled,
The record also shows that the clerk of the Land unless he comes within the provisions of section
Court made a certificate showing that that notice 38, and even then he is without a remedy against
had been issued and published in accordance the applicant unless he can show, within a period
with the law. of one year after the decree of registration and
the granting of the certificate, at he has been
Section 35 of Act No. 496 provides: "If no person "deprived of land or any estate or interest
appears and answer within the time allowed, the therein," by fraud, and not even then, if an
court may at once, upon motion of the applicant, "innocent purchaser for the value has acquired
no reason to the contrary appearing, order a and interest." In the present case five years and



a half had transpired and negotiations for the sale rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the
of the land to an innocent purchaser had been portals of the court, or sitting in the “mirador de su
terminated. There is not intimation that the casa,” to avoid the possibility of losing his land.
petitioner is guilty of fraud, in the slightest degree.
The law guarantees the title of the registered
The proceedings for the registration of land, owner once it has entered into the Torrens
under Act No. 496, are in rem and not in system.
personam. A proceeding in rem, dealing with a
tangible res, may be instituted and carried to TIBURCIO VS PHHC
judgment without personal service upon the
claimants within the state or notice by name to FACTS: Tiburcio et al filed an action alleging that
those outside of it. for many years prior to March 25, 1877 and up to
the present they and their ancestors have been in
In addition, notice was served to the heirs of actual, adverse, open, public, exclusive and
Enriquez: Records show that the counsel of continuous possession as owners of the land in
Enriquez received a notice. Even if it is denied by litigation; that they have been cultivating the land
the party, personal notification is not a and enjoying its fruits exclusively; that from time
requirement of the law. Registration is a immemorial up to the year 1955, they have been
proceeding in rem and not in personam. It is the paying the land taxes thereon; that in 1955
only practical way that allows the Torrens system defendant People’s Homesite & Housing
to fulfill its purpose.) Corporation began asserting title thereto claiming
that its title embraces practically all of plaintiffs’
property, while the other defendant University of
the Philippines began also asserting title thereto
LEGARDA VS SALEEBY claiming that its title covers the remaining portion;
that PHHC are not innocent purchasers for value,
FACTS: A stonewall stands between the having had full notice of Tiburcio et al’s actual
adjoining lot of Legarda and Saleeby. The said possession and claim of ownership thereof; and
wall and the strip of land where it stands is that the inclusion their property within the
registered in the Torrens system under the name technical boundaries set out in PHHC and UP’s
of Legarda in 1906. Six years after the decree of titles was a clear mistake and that at no time had
registration is released in favor of defendants’ predecessors-in-interest exercised
Legarda, Saleeby applied for registration of his lot dominical rights over their property.
under the Torrens system in 1912, and the decree
issued in favor of the latter included the stonewall (Plaintiffs are the sole heirs of Eladio Tiburcio who
and the strip of land where it stands. died intestate in 1910; that upon his death Eladio
Tiburcio left to plaintiffs as his sole heirs a tract of
ISSUE: Who should be the owner of a land and land located in Quezon City; that said plaintiffs
its improvement which has been registered under have always been in actual, open, notorious and
the name of two persons? exclusive possession of the land as owners pro-
indiviso; that sometime in 1955 defendants began
HELD: For the issue involved, The Land asserting title to the land claiming that the same
Registration Act (Act 496) affords no remedy. is embraced and covered by their respective
However, it can be construed that where two certificates of title; that defendants acquired their
certificates purports to include the same respective titles with full notice of the actual
registered land, the holder of the earlier one possession and claim of ownership of plaintiffs
continues to hold title and will prevail. and as such they cannot be considered innocent
purchasers for value.)
The real purpose of the Torrens system of
registration is to quiet title to land; to put a stop It appears, however, that the land in question has
forever to any question of the legality of the title, been placed under the operation of the Torrens
except claims which were noted at the time of system since 1914 when it has been originally
registration, in the certificate, or which may arise registered in the name of defendant’s
subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of predecessor-in- interest. It further appears that
the law, once a title is registered the owner may sometime in 1955 People’s Homesite & Housing
Corporation acquired from the original owner a



parcel of land embracing practically all of

petitioners’ property, while defendant University There is nothing in the complaint to show that
of the Philippines likewise acquired from the when it acquired the property said defendant
same owner another portion of land which knew of any defect in the title appearing on its
embraces the remainder of the property. face in the form of any lien or incumbrance. The
same thing is true with regard to defendant
ISSUE: University of the Philippines. Said defendants are
W/N petitioners’ right to file the present action has therefore, presumed to be purchasers for value
prescribed; YES and in good faith and as such are entitled to
W/N they are guilty of laches; YES protection under the law.
HELD: The foregoing finds support in the following well-

PHHC and UP own the subject property; settled principle: "A person dealing with
Petitioners guilty of laches-assuming arguendo registered land is not required to go behind the
that their action for reconveyance had not yet register to determine the condition of the
prescribed. property. He is only charged with notice of the
burdens on the property which are noted on the
It is, therefore, clear that the land in question has face of the register or the certificate of title. To
been registered in the name of defendant’s require him to do more is to defeat one of the
predecessor-in-interest since 1914 under the primary objects of the Torrens system”.
Torrens system and that notwithstanding what
they now claim that the original title lacked the Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs’ action for
essential requirements prescribed by law for their reconveyance had not yet prescribed, their right
validity, they (Petitioners) have never taken any however to bring the instant action may be
step to nullify said title until 1957 when they considered barred by laches for not having taken
instituted the present action. the action seasonably after title to the property
had been issued under the Torrens system. It
In other words, they allowed a period of 43 years appears that the property in question was
before they woke up to invoke what they now originally registered on May 3, 1914 and it was
claim to be erroneous when the court decreed in only on October 11, 1957 that appellants
1914 the registration of the land in the name of asserted their claim thereto when they brought
defendants’ predecessor-in-interest. the present action.virtua1aw library
Evidently, this cannot be done for under our law Appellants finally claim that the lower court erred
and jurisprudence, a decree of registration can in dismissing the complaint on the ground of res
only be set aside within one year after entry on judicata by taking judicial notice of its own records
the ground of fraud provided no innocent in Land Registration Case No. L-3 invoking in
purchaser for value has acquired the property support of their contention the principle that a
(Section 38, Act No. 496) court cannot take judicial notice of the contents of
the records of other cases even when such cases
On the other hand, our law is clear that upon the had been tried by the same court and
expiration of the one-year period within which to notwithstanding the facts that both cases may
review the decree of registration, the decree as have been tried before the same judge. While the
well as the title issued in pursuance thereof principle invoked is considered to be the general
becomes incontrovertible (Section 38, Act No. rule, the same is not absolute. There are
496). exceptions to this rule.
The purpose of the law in limiting to one year the "In some instance, courts have taken judicial
period within which the decree may be reviewed notice of proceedings in other causes, because of
is to put a limit to the time within which a claimant their close connection with the matter in
may ask for its revocation. If after title to property controversy.
is decreed an action may be instituted beyond the
one-year period to set aside the decree, the Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous
object of the Torrens system which is to cases to determine whether or not the case
guarantee the indefeasibility of the Title would be pending is a moot one or whether or not a
defeated. previous ruling is applicable in the case under



consideration."
RTC and CA ruled in favor or respondent.
Petitioners do not dispute the fact that appellant
Marcelino Tiburcio, who instituted the present ISSUES:
case, is the same person who filed the application 1. WON an action for partition precludes a
in Land Registration Case No. L-3 for the settlement on the issue of ownership.
registration of the same parcel of land which 2. Would a resolution on the issue of ownership
application was denied by the court. It appears subject the Torrens title issued over the disputed
that in that registration case the oppositors were realties to a collateral attack?
the People’s Homesite & Housing Corporation,
Tuason and Co., and the Bureau of Lands. HELD:
Although the University of the Philippines was not 1. No. While it is true that the complaint involved
an oppositor in that case, in effect it was here is one for partition, the same is premised on
represented by its predecessor-in-interest, the existence or non-existence of co-ownership
Tuason and Co. from which it acquired the between the parties. Until and unless this issue of
property. It may therefore be said that in the two co-ownership is definitely and finally resolved, it
cases there is not only identity of subject-matter would be premature to effect a partition of the
but identity of parties and causes of action. disputed properties. More importantly, the
Indeed, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint will not even lie if the claimant, or
complaint on the ground of res judicata. petitioner in this case, does not even have any
rightful interest over the subject properties.
A careful perusal of the contents of the so-called

LACBAYAN VS. SAMOY Partition Agreement indicates that the document
involves matters which necessitate prior
FACTS: Betty Lacbayan (petitioner) and Bayani settlement of questions of law, basic of which is a
S. Samoy (respondent) had an illicit determination as to whether the parties have the
relationship. During their relationship, they, right to freely divide among themselves the
together with three more incorporators, were able subject properties.
to establish a manpower services company. The
company acquired five parcels of land were 2. No. There is no dispute that a Torrens
registered in petitioner and respondent’s names, certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked,
allegedly as husband and wife. When their but that rule is not material to the case at bar.
relationship turned sour, they decided to divide What cannot be collaterally attacked is the
the said properties and terminate their business certificate of title and not the title itself. The
partnership by executing a Partition Agreement. certificate referred to is that document issued by
the Register of Deeds known as the TCT. In
Initially, respondent agreed to petitioner’s contrast, the title referred to by law means
proposal that the properties in Malvar St. and Don ownership which is, more often than not,
Enrique Heights be assigned to the latter, while represented by that document.
the ownership over the three other properties will
go to respondent. However, when Lacbayan Moreover, placing a parcel of land under the
wanted additional demands to be included in the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that
partition agreement, Samoy refused. ownership thereof can no longer be disputed.
Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for name of any person does not foreclose the
judicial partition of the said properties. possibility that the real property may be under co-
ownership with persons not named in the
Petitioner’s contention: She claimed that they certificate, or that the registrant may only be a
started to live together as husband and wife in trustee, or that other parties may have acquired
1979 without the benefit of marriage and worked interest over the property subsequent to the
together as business partners, acquiring real issuance of the certificate of title. Needless to say,
properties amounting to P15,500,000.00. registration does not vest ownership over a
property, but may be the best evidence thereof.
Respondent’s contention: He purchased the
properties using his own personal funds. Whether respondent is estopped from repudiating



co-ownership over the subject realties. crown. It was a penal colony. The bad guys will
be brought to Australia.
YES. Petitioner herself admitted that she did not
assent to the Partition Agreement after seeing the They (the bad guys) could have challenged the
need to amend the same to include other matters. constitutionality of their right to travel (LACSON
Petitioner does not have any right to insist on the vs …) yung mayor ng Manila dinala ang mga
contents of an agreement she intentionally prostitutes sa Davao.
refused to sign.
Nonetheless, that is what happened. Torrens was
Moreover, to follow petitioner’s argument would assigned there where he was working for the
be to allow respondent not only to admit against English crown (Ireland). He developed the
his own interest but that of his legal spouse as system by applying the principles of registration
well, who may also be lawfully entitled co- and administration of ships. Recording of
ownership over the said properties. conveyance over ships.
If you trace the history of navigation, system of

registration of land was adopted from navigation.
A certificate of title is only the best evidence of It you can take a step further … corporation. It
ownership. If you register something that is not also pertains to sea commerce because before
yours, it produced no legal effect. Hence it is they have to limit the liability of the person. If ikaw
ang napalayag ng barko and something happens
considered mere surplusage. to that ship where it carries gold and silver and
travel the orient and trade it for spices, opium,
Two kinds of Torrents title: silk. Then they will bring it back from where they
came from.
1. Original Certificate of Title – refers to the first
(discusses about Treaty of Tordesillas)
2. Transfer Certificate of Title – subsequent Since not all the ships can come back due to
transfers reasons outside of the control of man like
calamities and pirates, so that gave birth of
Is the registration system in the Philippines incorporation. If the ship will sink, the liability will
sink with it.
constitutional? Yes. It does not deprive you of
your property. Since this is the industry and trade there is now a
need. You will have to find and create a market
for your need.
July 17, 2017
So TORRENS SYSTEM was introduced in the
What is Torrens System? Philippines in January 1903 brought here by the
- It is a system for registration of land after Americans. Why not Spaniards? Because they
application, the court may after have a different system which is JURA REGALIA.
appropriate proceedings direct the
Registry of Deeds to issue a certificate of Soon we have now PD1529 Land Registration
title. This pertains to the judicial Act.
acquisition of a title
The concept of Torrens System.
TWO MODES OF REGISTERING A TITLE
1. JUDICIAL – from courts The person for instance, who claims to be the fee-
2. ADMINISTRATIVE – DENR, DAR, NCIP simple owner (because there is a consideration)
files an application to have the land placed in his
Torrens System was developed by “SIR name on the register of titles. His application is
ROBERT RICHARD TORRENS” who was an then submitted for scrutiny to examiners of titles.
Irish man. He was lost in South Australia. He was Then it is determined whether the application
supposed to be in New York but was in Australia passes certain tests, namely:
because at that time it was a colony of the English



2. Land is relieved from all claims except

1. Basically, it should be determined that those noted thereon and provided by law
the description of the land sought to be (if it is not noted, it will not bind third
registered is definite and clear. Meaning persons)
there is the metes and bounds of the In land titles, there is a concept of
property. It could be scientifically CUTTING OFF that if there is a problem
determined. in your title and X the whole time never
2. Then the applicant has undisputed had it annotated and eventually I would
possession thereof convey it to Y, then I can no longer have
3. And rightfully entitled thereto a claim over the property from Y. I only
4. provided with evidence of title submitted have a remedy against X. Unless, there
is bad faith on that person.
it can be safely concluded that no other
3. Title to the land become non-
person may be prejudiced by the grant of
prescriptable (if it is registered, It can
the property to the applicant. (OCENPO)
never be acquired by acquisitive
The person applying must be in OCENPO prescription)
thereof. 4. The land become incontrovertible and
indefeasible
1. OPEN (everybody knows) 5. The certificate of title is not subject to
2. CONTINUOUS (uninterrupted for more collateral attack.
than 30 years)
3. EXCLUSIVE (to the prejudice of another, Registration was never intended as a means of
everyone recognizes you are in acquiring ownership. Registration is not
possession) equivalent to legal title. (Republic vs CA)
4. NOTORIOUS (everybody knows)
5. POSSESSION AND OCCUOPATION Torrens System of System of Recording
Land Registration of evidence of title
The applicant when the application is approved, Is a system for the What is recorded is
a certificate of title must be issued which is an registration of the title the deed of
INDEFEASIBLE TITLE. The indefeasible title to the land which conveyance. Hence,
refers to the certificate of title. Is indefeasible and gives validity to the the owner’s title
you cannot question that. However, you can still transfer about the emanated and not the
question as to who really owns the property. land and confers title. title itself
Torrens system of System of recording is
PURPOSES OF TORRENS SYSTEM land registration is merely the registration
1. To avoid possible conflicts of title that which is of evidence of
regarding real property (i.e double prescribed in Act 496 acquisitions of the
registration of the stone wall in the case (now PD 1529) which land with the ROD,
of Saleeby) so the one who registers first is either judicial or who annotates the
is the owner. quasi judicial. same on the existing
2. To facilitate transactions relative thereto title. Cancels the old
by giving the public the right to rely upon and issues the new
document.
the face of the Torrens certificate of title
and to dispense with the need of inquiring
further. Except when the party concerned
has actual knowledge of facts and LU vs MANIPON
circumstances that should imply a
reasonably cautious man to make such ISSUE: WoN the petitioner is a buyer in bad
further inquiry. (MIRROR and CURTAIN faith.
PRINCIPLE)
HELD: Lu is in bad faith. Although Lu was able
EFFECTS OF ISSUANCE OF TITLE to register the land, Lu already had knowledge
1. The land is placed under the operation of even before the sale that spouses Manipon
the Torrens System. already constituted their house on the land in



question. SC said registration is not

equivalent to title and it is not a means of In 1926, Jose Benares again mortgaged the
acquiring title or ownership over the land Hacienda, including said Lot 378, on the PNB,
because it merely confirms but does not subject to the first mortgage held by the
confer ownership although it may be the Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. These transactions
best evidence of ownership. It is in this case, were duly recorded in the office of the ROD of
there is a requirement of good faith in order that Negros Occidental and annotated on the
Lu can be rightfully held to acquire the land in corresponding certificate of title, including said
question. TCT No. 6295, covering Lot 378. The
mortgage in favor of the Bank was
Lu was in bad faith because although a buyer subsequently judicially foreclosed, and the
need not go beyond the face of the certificate Bank acquired the Hacienda, including Lot
of title, if there are facts that would show that 378, as purchaser at the foreclosure sale.
there is a defect to the title, then he is in bad Accordingly, said TCT No. 6295 was cancelled
faith if he does not make further inquiry. It was and, in its stead, TCT No. 17166 0151 —
evident that Lu was in bad faith because Lu which, owing to its subsequent loss, had to be
was the neighbor of spouses Manipon. reconstituted as TCT No. RT-1371 — in the
name of the Bank, was issued in 1934.
Soon, later, or on November 1935, the Bank

REGISTRATION – guarantess the title agreed to sell the Hacienda to Carlos Benares,
RECORDING – does not guarantee the title; son of Jose Banares, for the sum of P400K,
need to examine other documents payable in annual installments, subject to the
condition that, until full payment thereof, title
CONCEPT: TO CERTIFY AND SIMPLIFY would remain in the Bank (CTS). Thereafter,
The Torrens System is the system of Carlos Benares transferred his rights, under
registration of transaction with the interest in land this contract with the Bank, to Capitol Subd.
whose object is, under governmental authority, to (plaintiff), which completed the payment of the
ESTABLISH and CERTIFY to the ownership of installments due to the Bank in 1949.
an absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and to
SIMPLIFY its transfer. Hence, on September 1949, the Bank
executed the corresponding deed of absolute
Case: Capitol Subd. V Province of Negros sale to Capitol Subd. and TCT No. 1798,
CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC., plaintiff- covering 378 was issued, in lieu of TCT No.
appellant, vs. PROVINCE OF NEGROS 17166 (or reconstituted TCT RT-1371), in
OCCIDENTAL, defendant-appellee. Capitol Subd’s name. On September 1949,
(G.R. No. L-16257, January 31, 1963) Capitol Subd. took steps to take possession
the Hacienda, but it was discovered that Lot
FACTS: 378 was the land occupied by the Provincial
Hospital of Negros Occidental. Immediately,
Lot 378 in controversy is part of Hacienda thereafter, Capitol Subd. made
Mandalagan, in Bacolod, Negros Occidental, representations with the proper officials to
originally registered in the name of Agustin clarify the status of said occupation and, not
Amenabar and Pilar Amenabar. Lot 378 was being satisfied with the explanations given by
covered by OCT No. 1776, issued on August said officials, it brought an action on June
25, 1916, in the name of the Amenabars. On 1950. Capitol Subdivision, Inc., now seeks to
November 30, 1920, the Amenabars sold the recover from defendant, the Province of
aforementioned hacienda to Jose Benares for Negros Occidental, the possession of Lot 378
P300k, payable installments, as set forth in the and a reasonable compensation for the use
deed of sale. On February 8, 1924, said OCT and occupation of said lot by the defendant
No. 1776 was cancelled and Jose Benares from November 1935.
obtained, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 6295 in his
name. Meanwhile, or on March 12, 1921, the The province of Negros maintained that it had
Hacienda, including Lot 378, had been acquired Lot 378 in the year 1924-1925,
mortgaged by Jose Benares to the Bacolod - through expropriation proceedings; that
Murcia Milling Co. for the sum of P27k+. immediately after the commencement of said



proceedings in 1924, it took possession of said 1949 that the land on which the provincial
lot and began the construction thereon of the hospital stood was Lot 378.
provincial hospital, which was completed in
1926; that since then it had occupied said lot Furthermore, since the year 1921, or before
publicly, adversely, notoriously and the expropriation case for the hospital site had
continuously as owner thereof; that, "for some begun, said lot was mortgaged to the Bacolod-
reason or other and for cause beyond Murcia Milling Co., and the mortgage, duly
comprehension of the province’s title thereto registered, as well as annotated on the
was never transferred in the name of said corresponding certificate of title, was not
province of Negros"; that Capitol Subd. had cancelled until September 1935. Prior to this
acted in bad faith in purchasing said lot from date, in 1926, Lot 378 was subjected to a
the Bank in 1935, for it knew then that the second mortgage in favor of the Bank, which
provincial hospital was where it is up to the acquired title thereto, thru foreclosure
present, and did not declare said lot in its name proceedings, in 1934. When the Bank agreed
for assessment purposes until 1950. on November 1935, to sell the property to
Carlos Benares and the latter, subsequently
ISSUE: WON Capitol Subd is a purchaser in conveyed his rights to Capitol Subd, as well as
good faith of Lot 378. YES when the bank executed the deed of absolute
sale in Capitol Subd's favor on September
HELD: 1949, the title to the property was in the name
of the Bank.
Capitol Subd.'s president did not know until
1949 that lot 378 was the very land occupied Considering that sugar centrals as well as
by the provincial hospital. Moreover, there is a banks are known to have an array of
total absence of evidence that this fact was experienced and competent lawyers, it
known to Carlos Benares before 1949. Neither cannot be said that Capitol Subd was not
may such knowledge be deduced from the justified in assuming that said institutions
circumstances that he is a son of its former had scrutinized the background of Lot 378
owner, Jose Benares, for even the latter and were satisfied that the same belonged to
appears not to be wellposted on the status of the mortgagor when said mortgages were
his properties. Indeed, Jose Benares did not constituted, and to the Bank when said deed of
apparently know that there were two (2) sale was executed. In short, Capitol Subd is a
expropriation proceedings effecting said purchaser in good faith and for value.
properties: that the P12,000 received by him
from the Government was not meant for Lot
378; and that this lot was one of the properties
mortgaged by him to the Bank. 3 CARDINAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TORRENS
SYSTEM
Torrens System; Capitol Subd. Is a
purchaser in good faith because it had no 1. Mirror Principle
actual knowledge that the provincial a. register reflects accurately and
hospital was on Lot 378 until 1949 " completely the current facts
about a person’s title. This
Upon the other hand, the main purpose of the means that, if a person sells an
Torrens System is to avoid possible conflicts of
estate, the new title must be
title in and to real estate, and to facilitate
identical to the old one in terms
transactions relative thereto giving the public
the right to rely upon the face of Torrens of description of lands, except for
certificate of title and to dispense with the of the owner’s name
inquiring further, EXCEPT when the party b. The register would be a “mirror”
concerned has actual knowledge of facts and of the actual state of the
circumstances that should impel a reasonably proprietor’s title, and disclose
cautious man to make such further inquiry. In any benefits or encumbrances
the case at bar Capitol Subd had NO SUCH associated with the title. Under
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, it being an this principle, a buyer or
established fact that he was not aware until mortgagee has the right to rely



on what appears on the institutions are really required to go

certificate of title, and in the beyond the certificate of title because
absence of anything to excite of the nature of their business.
suspicion, is under no obligation
to look beyond the certificate and 2. Curtain Principle
investigate the seller or a. A person dealing with registered
mortgagor’s title. land need not worry that he is
dealing in property with hidden
Basically, what you see is what you get. trusts and equitable interests. He
A common misunderstanding is if a copy of need not go beyond the “curtain”
the owner is lost, you don’t file for a
as he need only concern himself
reconstitution. You file for a reissuance of
with the legal title to the land.
the certificate of title. If what is lost is the copy
of the ROD then that is the time you file for With this, he can therefore rely
reconstitution. on the certificate of title without
“overreaching” behind the
EXCEPTIONS TO MIRROR PRINCIPLE: curtain.
a. Where a person deals with registered 3. Insurance Principle

land through someone who is not the a. If a title is duly registered, it is
registered owner. (Can someone guaranteed by the State. This
sell the property aside from the guarantee is supported by a
owner? Yes. By virtue of Special system of statutory indemnity for
powers of Attorney) In this case, then any person who suffers loss by
you have to make further inquiry. You reason of the conclusive nature
need to make sure that the SPA is of the register.
validly made.
b. When the party has actual What is Assurance Fund? (Distinct feature of
Torrens system compared to recording and
knowledge of facts that would impel
registration)
a reasonably cautious man to make
It only covers properties that are
such inquiry or when the purchaser placed under the Torrens system for the first time
has knowledge of a defect or the lack or those with Original Certificate of Title. It does
of title in his vendor. (like LU vs not include subsequent titles or TCT. Example is
MANIPON. So when you become when there was a mistake when I applied for the
lawyers, you need to suggest to your property because it was named to another
client if they would like to buy a person. If cutting off principle has sink in, you
property that they get OCT of the title cannot claim the property. The assurance fund is
from the ROD and also go the area if used if you are unlawfully deprived of your
there is someone else there. And an property provided you are not in bad faith.
extra step for the property to be
surveyed to determine the metes and ADVANTAGES OF TORRENS SYSTEM
1. It abolishes endless fees
bounds)
2. It eliminates repeated examination of
Atty Coronels side story:
When he surveyed the land, it titles
was found out that portions of the 3. It reduces records enormously
land were eaten by the river. As a 4. It instantly reveals ownership
result, they were able to negotiate for 5. It protects against encumbrances not
a lower purchase price. noted on the Torrens certificate
6. It makes fraud almost impossible
c. In the case of banking and financing (emphasis on ALMOST)
institutions (Homebankers vs CA 7. It assures without adding a burden of
GR No. 128354 and GSIS vs DELA taxation
MERCED GR No. 140398) These 8. It provides protection from the State



9. It furnishes state title insurance instead of

private title insurance PURPOSE OF PD1529
10. It makes possible the transfer of titles or 1. There is a need to update the Land
of loans within the compass of ours Registration Act and to codify the various
instead of a matter of days and weeks. laws relative to registration of property, in
order to facilitate effective
implementation of said laws.
STABILITY OF TORRENS SYSTED OWED TO 2. The decrees promulgated relative to the
BAKING OF GOVERNMENT registration of certificates of land transfer
The stability of Torrens System is owed to the
and emancipation patents issued
backing of the Government. It is imposed by a law
pursuant to PD No. 27 to hasten the
(PD1529). Likewise, the existence of the
assurance fund created by the State for the implementation of the land reform
compensation of such persons as may be injured program of the country from an integral
by the divesting and cutting off of rights and part of the property registration laws.
interest under this statutory declaration.
What are the agencies implementing the MODES OF REGISTERING TITLE
Torrens System? 1. Judicial
1. Courts 2. Administrative
2. Dept of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR)
REGISTRABLE LANDS
3. Dept of Justice (DOJ)
1. Alienable public agricultural lands
4. Dept of Land Reform (DLR)
2. Private Lands
5. Dept of Agriculture (DAR)
NON-REGISTRABLE LANDS
BAR QUESTION 1. Forest Lands
Ceasar bought a condominium unit. However, the
2. Mineral Lands
condominium building was mortgaged and
3. Mangrove swamps
foreclosed. The bank was the highest bidder.
Ceasar filed an action to annul the foreclosure 4. Foreshore land and seashore
sale in so far as to his unit. The Bank set up the 5. Navigable rivers, streams and creeks
defense that it relied on the Condominium 6. Lakes
certificate of titles presented. Hence, the bank is 7. Military reservations
a buyer in good faith. Is this defense tenable? 8. Watershed
Why or why not? 9. Grazing lands
Answer: No. It is not tenable. The bank is an 10. Previously titled land
exception to the general rule of the MIRROR 11. Alluvial deposit along river when man-
PRINCIPLE. Thus, the bank is not a buyer in made
good faith as they are required to go beyond the
condominium titles presented.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1529
PURPOSE OF TORRENS LAW
1. Quiet title to land AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS
2. To put a stop forever to any question of RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF
the legality of the registration, in the PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
certificate, or which may arise
subsequent thereto Section 1. Title of Decree. This Decree shall be
known as the PROPERTY REGISTRATION
DECREE.
PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION
1. Serve as constructive notice Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings;
2. Prevent fraudulent claims jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the
3. Protect interest of strangers to registration of lands throughout the Philippines
transaction shall be in rem and shall be based on the



generally accepted principles underlying the the real property. Their decisions in these cases
Torrens system. shall be appealable in the same manner as
decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (as
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive amended by R.A. No. 7691)
jurisdiction over all applications for original
registration of title to lands, including Atty Coronel’s comment:
improvements and interests therein, and over all
petitions filed after original registration of title, Pero if ako yan class, I will not petition to delegate
with power to hear and determine all questions the case. I will instead ask if the clerk of court can
arising upon such applications or petitions. The receive evidence. Di ibig sabihin class when you
court through its clerk of court shall furnish the know the rules you would really apply them
Land Registration Commission with two certified because some of the rules are impractical. Kung
copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and sabagay, kung na delegate, Malaki appearance
decisions filed or issued in applications or fee mo kay mag appear ka pa sa RTC tsaka sa
petitions for land registration, with the exception MTC. But of course diskarte lang yan class.
of stenographic notes, within five days from the
filing or issuance thereof
. ADMINISTRATION OF THE TORRENS

SYSTEM
Atty Coronel’s note:
Nature of the proceeding brought before
We have
the RTC (as a land registration court) to
determine title or ownership of land on the basis
of an application for registration or answer/ 1. Land Registration Authority (LRA) under
opposition by a claimant in a cadastral this is the ROD.
registration. Take note that there are RTC that are 2. Registry of Deeds (ROD)
also designated as a Family Court, Drugs Court,
Land Registration Court, Environmental Court,
Corporation Court etc. Meaning they are the ones
that should try relating to respective cases. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
The jurisdiction of RTC is plenary in
nature. It can even be delegated to MTC. PD 1529
Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In
order to have a more efficient execution of the
BATAS PAMBANSA Blg. 129 laws relative to the registration of lands, geared
to the massive and accelerated land reform and
AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, social justice program of the government, there is
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND created a commission to be known as the Land
FOR OTHER PURPOSES Registration Commission under the executive
supervision of the Department of Justice.
Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral
and land registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Section 5. Officials and employees of the
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Commission. The Land Registration Commission
Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be
Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral known, respectively, as the Commissioner and
or land registration cases covering lots where the Deputy Commissioner of Land Registration
there is no controversy or opposition, or who shall be appointed by the President. The
contested lots the where the value of which does Commissioner shall be duly qualified member of
not exceed One hundred thousand pesos the Philippine Bar with at least ten years of
(P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by practice in the legal profession, and shall have the
the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of same rank, compensation and privileges as those
the respective claimants if there are more than of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of Deputy Commissioner, who shall possess the
same qualifications as those required of the



Commissioner, shall receive compensation which (1) The Commissioner of Land

shall be three thousand pesos per annum less Registration shall have the following
than that of the Commissioner. He shall act as functions:
Commissioner of Land Registration during the
absence or disability of the Commissioner and (a) Issue decrees of registration
when there is a vacancy in the position until pursuant to final judgments of
another person shall have been designated or the courts in land registration
appointed in accordance with law. The Deputy proceedings and cause the
Commissioner shall also perform such other issuance by the Registers of
functions as the Commissioner may assign to Deeds of the corresponding
him. certificates of title;
They shall be assisted by such number of division (b) Exercise supervision and
chiefs as may be necessary in the interest of the control over all Registers of
functioning of the Commission, by a Special Deeds and other personnel of
Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief the Commission;
Geodetic Engineer who shall each receive
compensation at the rate of three thousand four
(c) Resolve cases elevated en
hundred pesos per annum less than that of the
consulta by, or on appeal from
Deputy Commissioner.
decision of, Registers of Deeds;
All other officials and employees of the Land

(d) Exercise executive
Registration Commission including those of the
supervision over all clerks of
Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein
court and personnel of the
provided, shall receive salaries corresponding to
Courts of First Instance
the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges throughout the Philippines with
as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget respect to the discharge of their
Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof
duties and functions in relation to
across the board, notwithstanding the maximum
the registration of lands;
salary allowed for their respective civil service
eligibilities.
(e) Implement all orders,
decisions, and decrees
The salaries of officials and employees provided
promulgated relative to the
in this Decree shall be without prejudice to such
registration of lands and issue,
benefits and adjustments as may from time to
subject to the approval of the
time be granted by the President or by the
Secretary of Justice, all needful
legislature to government employees.
rules and regulations therefor;
All officials and employees of the Commission

(f) Verify and approve
except Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by
subdivision, consolidation, and
the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of
consolidation-subdivision survey
the Commissioner of Land Registration. plans of properties titled under
Act No. 496 except those
The composition based on Sec. 5 covered by P.D. No. 957.
a. Commissioner (2) The Land Registration Commission

b. Deputy Commissioner shall have the following functions:
c. Division Chiefs
d. Special Assistant
(a) Extend speedy and effective
e. Chief Geodetic Engineer assistance to the Department of
Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank,
Section 6. General Functions. and other agencies in the
implementation of the land



reform program of the which complies with all the requisites for
government; registration. He shall see to it that said instrument
bears the proper documentary and science
(b) Extend assistance to courts stamps and that the same are properly canceled.
in ordinary and cadastral land If the instrument is not registerable, he shall
registration proceedings; forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the
presentor of such denial in writing, stating the
ground or reason therefor, and advising him of his
(c) Be the central repository of
right to appeal by consulta in accordance with
records relative to original
registration of lands titled under Section 117 of this Decree.
the Torrens system, including
subdivision and consolidation FUNCTION: To immediately register and
plans of titled lands. instrument presented for registration dealing with
real or personal property which complies with all
Section 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. There the requisite for registration
shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each
province and one for each city. Every Registry Atty Coronel’s comment:
with a yearly average collection of more than sixty
thousand pesos during the last three years shall The ROD cannot say “I don’t want to register this
have one Deputy Register of Deeds, and every land in your name because I do not believe that
Registry with a yearly average collection of more you are the owner” because the duty of ROD is
than three hundred thousand pesos during the ministerial in nature.
last three years, shall have one Deputy Register
of Deeds and one second Deputy Register of CASE: Baranda vs. Gustillo
Deeds. G.R. No. 81163 September 26, 1988
The Secretary of Justice shall define the official FACTS:

station and territorial jurisdiction of each Registry
upon the recommendation of the Commissioner Ø A petition for reconstitution of title was filed
of Land Registration, with the end in view of with the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo involving a
making every registry easily accessible to the parcel of land known as Lot No. 4517 of the
people of the neighboring municipalities. Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered by OCT No.
6406 in the name of Romana Hitalia.
The province or city shall furnish a suitable space
or building for the office of the Register of Deeds The OCT was cancelled and TCT No. 106098
until such time as the same could be furnished was issued in the names of petitioners
out of national funds. Baranda and Hitalia. The Court issued a writ of
possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria P.
Gotera and Susana Silao refused to honor on
the ground that they also have TCT No. 25772
over the same Lot No. 4517. The Court found
PD1529 out that TCT No. 257772 was fraudulently
acquired by Perez, Gotera and Susana.
REGISTRY OF DEEDS
Thereafter, the court issued a writ of demolition
Section 10. General functions of Registers of which was questioned by Perez and others so
Deeds. The office of the Register of Deeds a motion for reconsideration was filed. Another
constitutes a public repository of records of case was filed by Baranda and Hitalia (GR.
instruments affecting registered or unregistered NO. 62042) for the execution of judgement in
lands and chattel mortgages in the province or the resolutions issued by the courts.
city wherein such office is situated.
In the meantime, the CA dismissed a civil case
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to (GR. NO. 00827) involving the same
immediately register an instrument presented for properties. (NOTE: This time three cases na
registration dealing with real or personal property ang involve excluding the case at bar.)



the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.

The petitioners prayed that an order be ... ."
released to cancel No.T- 25772. Likewise to
cancel No.T-106098 and once cancelled to The function of ROD is ministerial in nature.
issue new certificates of title to each of The function of a Register of Deeds with
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia To reference to the registration of deeds
cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T- encumbrances, instruments and the like is
106098 and once cancelled to issue new ministerial in nature.
certificates of title to each of Eduardo S.
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia. The respondent Acting Register of Deeds
did not have any legal standing to file a
In compliance with the order or the RTC, the motion for reconsideration of the
Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso respondent Judge's Order directing him to
annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772 cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated
null and void, cancelled the same and issued in the certificates of titles of the petitioners
new certificate of titles in the name of over the subject parcel of land.
petitioners. However, by reason of a separate
case pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice In case of doubt as to the proper step to be
of lis pendens was annotated in the new taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other
certificate of title. This prompted the petitioners instrument presented to him, he should have
to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land
pendens in the new certificates. Judge Tito Registration now, the Administrator of the
Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of National Land Title and Deeds Registration
Deeds for the cancellation of the notice of lis Administration in accordance with Section 117
pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
a motion for reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of
PD 1529. No room for construction for the laws on
functions of ROD
ISSUE: What is the nature of the duty of a The elementary rule in statutory construction is
Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice that when the words and phrases of the statute
of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title. are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must
be determined from the language employed
HELD: and the statute must be taken to mean exactly
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 what it says. The statute concerning the
states that "It shall be the duty of the Register function of the Register of Deeds to register
of Deeds to immediately register an instrument instruments in a torrens certificate of title is
presented for registration dealing with real or clear and leaves no room for construction.
personal property which complies with all the
requisites for registration. ... If the instrument is Just in case Sir asks:
not registrable, he shall forthwith deny The purpose of notice of lis pendens is to
registration thereof and inform the presentor of serve as a warning Lis pendens has been
such denial in writing, stating the ground or conceived to protect the real rights of the party
reasons therefore, and advising him of his right causing the registration thereof With the lis
to appeal by consulta in accordance with pendens duly recorded, he could rest secure
Section 117 of this Decree." Section 117 that he would not lose the property or any part
provides that "When the Register of Deeds is of it. For, notice of lis pendens serves as a
in doubt with regard to the proper step to be warning to a prospective purchaser or
taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance incumbrancer that the particular property
of any deed, mortgage or other instrument
presented to him for registration or where any is in litigation; and that he should keep his
party in interest does not agree with the action hands off the same, unless of course he
taken by the Register of Deeds with reference intends to gamble on the results of the
to any such instrument, the question shall be litigation. The judge here is partly liable
submitted to the Commission of Land
Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by In the ultimate analysis, however, the
responsibility for the delays in the full



implementation of this Court's already final Deeds shall be three thousand four
resolutions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. hundred pesos per annum less than
64432 which includes the cancellation of the those of their corresponding Registers of
notice of lis pendens annotated in the Deeds and Deputy Registers of Deeds,
certificates of titles of the petitioners over Lot respectively.
No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre falls on
the respondent Judge. He should never have The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation
allowed himself to become part of dilatory of the Commissioner of Land Registration, shall
tactics, giving as excuse the wrong impression cause the reclassification of Registries based
that Civil Case No. 15871 filed by the private either on work load or the class of province/city,
respondents involves another set of parties whichever will result in a higher classification, for
claiming Lot No. 4517 under their own Torrens purposes of salary adjustments in accordance
Certificate of Title. with the rates hereinabove provided.
The petition here was granted. Section 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds

and Deputy Registers of Deeds. No person shall
be appointed Register of Deeds unless he has
been admitted to the practice of law in the
Philippines and shall have been actually engaged
Section 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds
in such practice for at least three years or has
and their Deputies and other subordinate
been employed for a like period in any branch of
personnel; salaries. Registers of Deeds shall be
government the functions of which include the
appointed by the President of the Philippines
registration of property.
upon recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice. Deputy Registers of Deeds and all other
subordinate personnel of the Registries of Deeds The Deputy Register of Deeds shall be a member
shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice of the Philippine Bar. Provided, however, that no
upon the recommendation of the Commissioner Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Deeds
of Land Registration. holding office as such upon the passage of this
Decree shall by reason hereof, be removed from
office or be demoted to a lower category or scale
The salaries of Registers of Deeds and their
of salary except for cause and upon compliance
Deputies shall be at the following rates:
with due process as provided for by law.
(1) First Class Registries The salaries of
Registers of Deeds in first class
July 24 – Rodriguez
Registries shall be three thousand four
hundred pesos per annum less than that
We start now with the law that pertains to the land
of the Deputy Commissioner.
registration which is pd 1529, so Pd 1529 pertains
to amending and quantifying the law on … and
(2) Second Class Registries The salaries registration of property and for other purposes.
of Registers of Deeds in second class The very purpose of the same is to quantify
Registries shall be three thousand four various of laws relative to the registration of
hundred pesos per annum less than property in order to facilitate effective
those of Registers of Deeds in first class implementation of the laws. Because there are
Registries. various laws already in existence PD 1529 tries
to consolidate the same just like the RPC
(3) Third Class Registries The salaries of everything there is quantified, here all laws
Registers of Deeds in third class pertaining to property registration. Likewise it
Registries shall be three thousand four aims to instill the torrens system as part and
hundred pesos per annum less than parcel of the registration system in our country.
those of Registers of Deeds in second
class Registries. What is the purpose of the same? Well, to prevent
anomalous titlings of property and to streamline
(4) The salaries of Deputy Registers of and simplify registration proceedings and the
Deeds and Second Deputy Registers of issuance of certificates of title. It also cover PD 27



the precursor of our 6657 which is the agrarian these issues (e.g drugs) but you are not limited
reform law. from that, RTC has plenary and vast powers.
So this is known as the Property Registration Nature of the same is to determine title or
Decree. ownership of land basis of application for
registration, or answer of position of claimant in a
cadastral legislature(?) that is the land
Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; registration authority. So, it has plenary
jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the jurisdiction and it has no limit.
registration of lands throughout the Philippines
shall be in rem and shall be based on the Jurisdiction? Of course where the property is
generally accepted principles underlying the located. Diba you cant file a case for land
Torrens system. registration if the property is located in manila
and you file it in davao. It should be the situs of
the property that determines jurisdiction,
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive
because it’s an in rem proceeding particularly in
jurisdiction over all applications for original
title. But if it is in personam case you file it either
registration of title to lands, including
the address of the parties.
improvements and interests therein, and over all
petitions filed after original registration of title, We have a delegated jurisdiction. When we say
with power to hear and determine all questions
delegated the regional trial court can delegate
arising upon such applications or petitions. The
the presentation of evidence, but you still file it in
court through its clerk of court shall furnish the
the RTC, but the reception of evidence can be
Land Registration Commission with two certified
delegated to MTC if:
copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and
decisions filed or issued in applications or
1) no controversy over the land, or
petitions for land registration, with the exception
2) value less than 100k
of stenographic notes, within five days from the
filing or issuance thereof.
RICARDO CHENG vs RAMON GENATO and
If you could recall what are the modes acquiring SPS. DA JOSE
title? Judicial and Administrative. Judicial through G.R. NO. 129760, December 29, 1998
the courts, Administrative to agencies such as
DENR, DAR. PD 1529 focuses on judicial. In rem FACTS: Ramon Genato is the owner of two
anong kabaliktaran? “In Personam”. parcels of land located at Paradise Farms, San
Jose del Monte, Bulacan. On September 6, 1989:
What is the distinction? In Personam it affects one Genato entered into an agreement with the Da
person against the other. In Rem it is binding as Jose Spouses over said land. The agreement
against the whole world. culminated in the execution of a contract to sell
gor which the purchase price was P80.00 per
So the court of first instance (RTC), shall have sq.m. It was in a public instrument and contained
exclusive jurisdiction over applications for original the stipulation that: “after 30 days, after having
registrations of title to land. These are the satisfactorily verified and confirmed the truth and
cadastral courts they are denominated as such. authenticity of documents… vendee shall pay the
In the Philippines you can see what we have is vendor the full payment of the purchase price.”
regional trial courts, it does not say there The Da Jose Spouses asked for an extension of
cadastral court or land registration court, take it a 30 days when it failed to verify the said titles on
step further family courts, dangerous drugs courts the condition that a new set of documents be
etc, but if your look under bp 129 it does not made seven days after.
distinguish the same, it says RTC. The SC nag
determine sa different courts. So hypothetically,
these cadastral courts are designated per region, Pending effectivity of said extension period, and
per territory. What does it mean if your are without due notice to Spouses Da Jose, Genato
designated by the supreme court as drugs court, executed an affidavit to annul the Contract to Sell.
does it mean na all cases are involving drugs? This was not annotated at the back of his titles
No, it just means you have the capacity to act on right away. On October 24, 1989: Ricardo Cheng



went to Genato’s residence and expressed giving of a notice, verbal or written, to the Da Jose
interest in buying the subject properties. Genato spouses for his decision to rescind their contract.
showed Cheng the copies of his titles and the
annotations at the back thereof of his contract to 2. IT WAS A CONTRACT TO SELL. The Court
sell with the Da Jose Spouses. He likewise ruled that if it was assumed that the receipt is to
showed Cheng the affidavit to annul contract to be treated as a conditional contract of sale, it did
sell. Despite these, Cheng still issued a check for not acquire any obligatory force since it was
P50,000 upon the assurance that the previous subject to suspensive condition that the earlier
contract will be annulled. contract to sell between Genato and the Da Jose
spouses should first be cancelled or rescinded —
The Da Jose Spouses met Genato at the Office a condition never met, as Genato, to his credit,
of the Resgistry of Deeds by coincidence, and upon realizing his error, redeemed himself by
were later shocked of Genato’s decision to annul respecting and maintaining his earlier contract
the contract and protested regarding the matter. with the Da Jose spouses.
They reminded Genato that the 30 day extension
period was still in effect and they are willing to pay Art.1544 should apply because for not only was
the downpayment. the contract between herein respondents first in
Genato later continued with their contract, time, it was also registered long before
informed Cheng of hi decision and returned to the petitioner's intrusion as a second buyer (PRIMUS
latter, the downpayment paid. Cheng however TEMPORE, PORTIOR JURE). (Spouses made
contended that their contract to sell said property annotation on the title of Genato). Since Cheng
had already been perfected. was fully aware, or could have been if he had
chosen to inquire, of the rights of the Da Jose
ISSUES: spouses under the Contract to Sell duly
1. W/N the contact to sell between Genato annotated on the transfer certificates of titles of
and Spouses Da Jose was validly Genato, it now becomes unnecessary to further
rescinded. elaborate in detail the fact that he is indeed in bad
2. W/N Cheng’s own contract with Genato faith in entering into such agreement.
was not just a contract to sell but of a
conditional contract of sale. "Registration", as defined by Soler and Castillo,
means any entry made in the books of the
HELD: registry, including both registration in its ordinary
1. NO. In a Contract to Sell, the payment of the and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation,
purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, and even marginal notes. In its strict acceptation,
the failure of which is not a breach, casual or it is the entry made in the registry which records
serious, but a situation that prevents the solemnly and permanently the right of ownership
obligation of the vendor to convey title from and other real rights.
acquiring an obligatory force. Article 1191 of the
New Civil Code cannot be made to apply to the
REPUBLIC VS BENJAMIN GUERRERO
situation in the instant case because no default
G.R. No. 133168, March 28, 2006
can be ascribed to the Da Jose spouses since the
30-day extension period has not yet expired.
FACTS: On December 1964: Benjamin
The contention of the Da Jose spouses that no Guerrerro filed with the Bureau of Lands a
further condition was agreed when they were Miscellaneous Sales Application covering a
granted the 30-day extension period from parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin, Quezon
October 7, 1989 in connection with clause 3 of City. This application was approved and
their contract to sell should be upheld. Also, Miscellaneous Sales Patent was issued
Genato could have sent at least a notice of such subsequent thereto.
fact, and there being no stipulation authorizing
him for automatic rescission, so as to finally clear
Angelina Bustamante later filed a protest with the
the encumbrance on his titles and make it
Bureau of Lands claiming that Guerrero obtained
available to other would be buyers, it bolstered
the sales patent through fraud, false statement of
that there was no default on the part of the Da
facts and/or omission of material facts. This was
Jose Spouses. Genato is not relieved from the
however dismissed by the Director of lands and
further affirmed by then Minister of Natural



Resources. Through a MFR, an ocular registration obtained by actual fraud. However,

investigation and relocation survey found out that the Republic in this case failed to prove that there
83 sq. m. of the titled property of Guerrero is is actual and extrinsic fraud to justify a review of
under actual physical possession of Marcelo the decree. It has not adduced adequate
Bustamante, husband of Angeluna. Thus, upon evidence that would show that respondent
the directive of the Office of The President, the employed actual and extrinsic fraud in procuring
Director of Lands instituted a petition for the the patent and the corresponding certificate of
amendment of plan and technical description. title. Petitioner miserably failed to prove that it
was prevented from asserting its right over the lot
Guerrero opposed said motion through a motion in question and from properly presenting its case
to dismiss but however was dismissed thereafter. by reason of such fraud.
However, the RTC ruled in favor of Guerrero
stating that the Republic failed to prove its 2. YES. Guerrero’s title, having been registered
allegation that Guerrero obtained the sales patent under the Torrens system, was vested with the
and certificate of title through fraud and garment of indefeasibility.
misrepresentation. RTC also ruled that the
original certificate of title in the name of Guerrero NB: The Torrens system was adopted in this
acquired the characteristics of indefeasibility after country because it was believed to be the most
the expiration of 1 year from the entry of the effective measure to guarantee the integrity of
decree of registration. On appeal, the CA affirmed land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once
the trial court. the claim of ownership is established and
ISSUES: recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land
on the assurance that the seller’s title thereto is
1. W/N the Republic has proven by clear and valid, he should not run the risk of being told later
convincing evidence that Guerrero procured that his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This
Miscellaneous Sales Patent and OCT through would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is
fraud and misrepresentation. that if this were permitted, public confidence in the
system would be eroded and land transactions
2. W/N Guerrero’s title acquired the would have to be attended by complicated and
characteristic of indefeasibility. not necessarily conclusive investigations and
proof of ownership. The further consequence
HELD: would be that land conflicts could be even more
1. NO. The property in question, while once part abrasive, if not even violent. The government,
of the lands of the public domain and disposed of recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens
via a miscellaneous sales arrangement, is now system, should be the first to accept the validity
covered by a Torrens certificate. Grants of public of titles issued thereunder once the conditions
land were brought under the operation of the laid down by the law are satisfied.
Torrens system by Act No. 496, or the Land
Registration Act of 1903. Under the Torrens While the Torrens system is not a mode of
system of registration, the government is required acquiring titles to lands but merely a system of
to issue an official certificate of title to attest to the registration of titles to lands, justice and equity
fact that the person named is the owner of the demand that the titleholder should not be made to
property described therein, subject to such liens bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or
and encumbrances as thereon noted or what the negligence of the State’s agents, in the absence
law warrants or reserves. of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest
damage to third persons. The real purpose of the
Upon its registration, the land falls under the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a
operation of Act No. 496 and becomes registered stop forever to any question as to the legality of
land. Time and again, we have said that a Torrens the title, except claims that were noted in the
certificate is evidence of an indefeasible title to certificate at the time of the registration or that
property in favor of the person whose name may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the
appears thereon. integrity of the Torrens system shall forever be
sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land
However, Section 38 of Act No. 496 recognizes registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed
the right of a person deprived of land to institute to have regularly performed their duties.
an action to reopen or revise a decree of



Comments: Can the title still be attacked? No compensation at the rate of three thousand four
more because Bustamantes failed to prove hundred pesos per annum less than that of the
actual or extrinsic fraud. Moreover even if such Deputy Commissioner.
fraud was proven the action still could not
prosper b/c it has prescribed /c the action can be All other officials and employees of the Land
brought only within 1 year (talks about the Registration Commission including those of the
certificate of title ha). But as to the ownership of Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein
guerrero such can be questioned, but must file a provided, shall receive salaries corresponding to
separate action b/c here the issue is won ma the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges
amend not ownership. as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget
Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof
The doctrine in this case- This is the very across the board, notwithstanding the maximum
essence of the torrens system is a effective salary allowed for their respective civil service
measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles eligibilities.
and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim
of ownership is established and recognized. The salaries of officials and employees provided
in this Decree shall be without prejudice to such
Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In benefits and adjustments as may from time to
order to have a more efficient execution of the time be granted by the President or by the
laws relative to the registration of lands, geared legislature to government employees.
to the massive and accelerated land reform and
social justice program of the government, there is All officials and employees of the Commission
created a commission to be known as the Land except Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by
Registration Commission under the executive the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of
supervision of the Department of Justice. the Commissioner of Land Registration.
Section 5. Officials and employees of the Section 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. There
Commission. The Land Registration Commission shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each
shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be province and one for each city. Every Registry
known, respectively, as the Commissioner and with a yearly average collection of more than sixty
the Deputy Commissioner of Land Registration thousand pesos during the last three years shall
who shall be appointed by the President. The have one Deputy Register of Deeds, and every
Commissioner shall be duly qualified member of Registry with a yearly average collection of more
the Philippine Bar with at least ten years of than three hundred thousand pesos during the
practice in the legal profession, and shall have the last three years, shall have one Deputy Register
same rank, compensation and privileges as those of Deeds and one second Deputy Register of
of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The Deeds.
Deputy Commissioner, who shall possess the
same qualifications as those required of the The Secretary of Justice shall define the official
Commissioner, shall receive compensation which station and territorial jurisdiction of each Registry
shall be three thousand pesos per annum less upon the recommendation of the Commissioner
than that of the Commissioner. He shall act as of Land Registration, with the end in view of
Commissioner of Land Registration during the making every registry easily accessible to the
absence or disability of the Commissioner and people of the neighboring municipalities.
when there is a vacancy in the position until
another person shall have been designated or The province or city shall furnish a suitable space
appointed in accordance with law. The Deputy or building for the office of the Register of Deeds
Commissioner shall also perform such other until such time as the same could be furnished
functions as the Commissioner may assign to out of national funds.
him.
They shall be assisted by such number of division

chiefs as may be necessary in the interest of the ALMIROL V. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
functioning of the Commission, by a Special AGUSAN
Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968
Geodetic Engineer who shall each receive



belongs properly to a court of competent

FACTS: On June 28, 1961 Teodoro Almirol jurisdiction.
purchased from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land
situated in the municipality of Esperanza, A register of deeds is entirely precluded by
province of Agusan, and covered by original section 4 of Republic Act 1151 from exercising his
certificate of title P-1237 in the name of "Arcenio personal judgment and discretion when
Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo." Sometime confronted with the problem of whether to register
in May, 1962 Almirol went to the office of the a deed or instrument on the ground that it is
Register of Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to invalid. For under the said section, when he is in
register the deed of sale and to secure in his doubt as to the proper step to be taken with
name a transfer certificate of title. respect to any deed or other instrument
presented to him for registration all that he is
Registration was refused by the Register of supposed to do is to submit and certify the
Deeds upon the following grounds: question to the Commissioner of Land
Registration who shall, after notice and hearing,
That Original Certificate of Title No. P-1237 is enter an order prescribing the step to be taken on
registered in the name of Arcenio Abalo, married the doubtful question.
to Nicolasa M. Abalo, and by legal presumption,
is considered conjugal property; Comments: Is it really ministerial? Mandamus is
to compel a person to do. When you say that in
That in the sale of a conjugal property acquired sec 10, it is in the part of the regustry of deeds to
after the effectivity of the New Civil Code it is proceed with the registration. So in this instance,
necessary that both spouses sign the document; this Almirol,, they have survived. They wanted a
but registration for a property they own.
Since, as in this case, the wife has already died So what did they do? They filed an action in court
when the sale was made, the surviving husband to compel the register of deeds to register the
cannot dispose of the whole property without land by mandamus. Was the action correct? No.
violating the existing law. Administrative remedies shall be resorted first. So
what is this administrative remedy? They should
In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Court have filed a consulta pertaining to the sale. The
of First Instance of Agusan on a petition for claim of the petitioner i
mandamus to compel the Register of Deeds to
register the deed of sale and to issue to him the Why do they need to consult? What was the
corresponding transfer certificate of title. In its problem? Why is the land not registered?
resolution of October 16, 1963 the lower court, A:as alleged by the register of deeds, the said
declaring that “the Mandamus does not lie… property is conjugal property.
because the adequate remedy is that provided by Q: and if it is conjugal property?
Section 4 of Rep. Act 1151” dismissed the A: both spouses shall sign the deed of sale for it
petition, with costs against the petitioner. Hence, to be valid.
this present appeal. Okay. Diba? There was a missing signature. So
ikaw, if you are the lawyer of almelor, what would
ISSUE: Whether or not the Register of Deeds you do knowing that the sale would not be
was justified in refusing to register the transaction registered? How about the fact that they should
appealed to by the petitioner. resort to administrative remedies? What would
you advise?
HELD: No. Although the reasons relied upon by
the respondent show a sincere desire on his part What is the objective of your client? To register
to maintain inviolate the law on succession and the deed of sale under his name. If we go to
transmission of rights over real properties, these appealing to the LRA, what will the commission
do not constitute legal grounds for his refusal to discover? That there is really lacking of consent
register the deed. (?) and chances are, it will really be, again,
denied. So what will you do after you file this
Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the case? You file mandamus. So it will prolong
register of deeds to determine; this function everything.



Actually, tama ka na man sa sinabi mo kanina. Pwede ba yun na ang property subject ng deed
Why wouldn't you just execute extrajudicial of sale is in manila tapos it is executed here?
settlement? And comply the same. After that it will Territory title pwede ba yun? Of course.
be registered. So mag file ka ng mandamus,
alam mo naman na ma deny yun. So ano ang Pwede ba mag appear ang sa QC court ang
solusyon? You go back to the basics. And lawyer who is at the same time notary public in
execute the extrajudicial settlement. Number 1, Davao? Of course. That pertains to the practice
you save your client so many expenses. Number of law and not as to his duty as notary public. He
2, instead of focusing on this case and f your is a notary public in the area where he has
client which is very simple, you could (inaudible jurisdiction. But he is also a lawyer.
joke). Yes it will pay but you will eventually look
stupid in the mind of your client. And chances are, Section 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds
if your client goes to my office, kataw-an nako na and their Deputies and other subordinate
*laughss* personnel; salaries. Registers of Deeds shall be
So the supreme court here held that because appointed by the President of the Philippines
there is a fact that there is a requisite for the upon recommendation of the Secretary of
signatures of the heirs of the spouse, and at Justice. Deputy Registers of Deeds and all other
matter is not subject part to the ministerial of subordinate personnel of the Registries of Deeds
registration. Dalawa man yan. May ministerial at shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice
may discretionary. upon the recommendation of the Commissioner
of Land Registration.
INSTANCES WHERE REGISTRATION HAS
TO BE DENIED (other than that case): The salaries of Registers of Deeds and their
Deputies shall be at the following rates:
1. Where the document is not verified of
notarized (1) First Class Registries The salaries of
Registers of Deeds in first class Registries shall
2. Where there is more than copy of owner's be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum
certificate of title and nit all copies are less than that of the Deputy Commissioner.
presented
(2) Second Class Registries The salaries of
Explanation: Meron kasing titles na maraming Registers of Deeds in second class Registries
issued titles. . Especially agrarian reform. Sakit sa shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per
ulo yan, class.isipin. O 1986 naka title yang 10 annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in
hectares tapos lima kayo nakapangalan tapos di first class Registries.
kayo magkakamag-anak. Hindi na delineate.
Usually kasi ipapatitle yna sa inyo pero di yan na (3) Third Class Registries The salaries of
delienate. But of course after how many years, Registers of Deeds in third class Registries shall
alam mo naman na mawawala ang mga bagay be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum
bagay. So yun yung mga ibang bagay dun. less than those of Registers of Deeds in second
Now, Sige, tapos na yung 10 period, then I can class Registries.
sell it. When the buyer buyer buys it, ibigay mo na
ang title. pagdating sa ROD, hihingiin nila yung (4) The salaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds
ibang titles. Lalo na pag hindi na delineate. and Second Deputy Registers of Deeds shall be
three thousand four hundred pesos per annum
3. Where there is a pending case in court where less than those of their corresponding Registers
the character of the land and validity of the of Deeds and Deputy Registers of Deeds,
conveyance are in issue (from book kay di respectively
masabtan si sir)
Usually you an go around this by saying that you The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation
just carry over. Gi-carry over lang nimo ang land of the Commissioner of Land Registration, shall
registration. cause the reclassification of Registries based
either on work load or the class of province/city,
------- whichever will result in a higher classification, for
Deed of sale -place where it is executed. It should purposes of salary adjustments in accordance
be in davao. with the rates hereinabove provided.



ISSUE: Whether or not Josephine is a buyer in

good faith of the property.
JOSEFINA V. NOBLEZA VS. SHIRLEY B. RULING: We deny the petition. Petitioner is not a
NUEGA buyer in good faith.
G.R. NO. 193038, MARCH 11, 2015
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys
FACTS: In 1988, when Shirley and Rogelio were the property of another, without notice that some
still engaged, Shirley (respondent, then working other person has a right or interest in the property,
as a domestic helper in Israel, sent money to for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer
Rogelio, upon his request, for the purchase of a at the time of the purchase or before receipt of
residential lot in Marikina which they will use as any notice of claims or interest of some other
1
their residence when they eventually marry each person in the property. It is the party who claims
other. On September 13, 1989, Rogelio to be an innocent purchaser for value who has the
purchased the house and lot. Upon her arrival in burden of proving such assertion, and it is not
1989, Shirley settled the balance of the equity enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of
2
through SSS financing and paid the succeeding good faith. To successfully invoke and be
monthly amortisation. On October 31, 1989, TCT considered as a buyer in good faith, the
No. 171963 was issued by the Registry of Deeds presumption is that first and foremost, the “buyer
in Rogelio’s name. They were married in 1990 in good faith” must have shown prudence and due
and lived on the same property. Shirley then diligence in the exercise of his/her rights. It
returned to Israel for work; thereat, she received presupposes that the buyer did everything that an
information that Rogelio brought home another ordinary person would do for the protection and
woman in the conjugal house, and she also defense of his/her rights and interests against
learned that Rogelio introduced the woman as prejudicial or injurious concerns when placed in
her wife. She then filed two cases against such a situation. The prudence required of a
Rogelio, one for Concubinage, and one for Legal buyer in good faith is “not that of a person with
Separation and Liquidation of Property; the latter training in law, but rather that of an average man
she withdrew but later re-filed on January 29, who ‘weighs facts and circumstances without
1993. In between, she learned of Rogelio’s resorting to the calibration of our technical rules
3
intention to sell the property. She thus advised of evidence of which his knowledge is nil.'” A
the interested buyers, including Josephine buyer in good faith does his homework and
Nobleza of the pendency of the cases she filed verifies that the particulars are in order such as
against Rogelio. Still, Rogelio sold the property the title, the parties, the mode of transfer and the
to Josephine Nobleza (petitioner) thru a Deed of provisions in the deed/contract of sale, to name a
Absolute Sale on December 29, 1992, without few. To be more specific, such prudence can be
Shirley’s consent in the deed. In a Decision shown by making an ocular inspection of the
rendered on May 16, 1994, the RTC of Pasig City property, checking the title/ownership with the
rendered a decision granting the petition for legal proper Register of Deeds alongside the payment
separation and the dissolution of the community of taxes therefor, or inquiring into the minutiae
property of Shirley and Rogelio. On August 27, such as the parameters or lot area, the type of
1996, Shirley filed a Complaint for Rescission of ownership, and the capacity of the seller to
Sale and REconveyance against Josephine dispose of the property, which capacity
before the RTC to reconvey the property the latter necessarily includes an inquiry into the civil status
bought from Rogelio. After trial, the RTC of the seller to ensure that if married, marital
rendered judgment in favour of Shirley, consent is secured when necessary. In fine, for a
rescinding the Deed of Absolute Sale dated purchaser of a property in the possession of
December 29, 1992 between Rogelio and another to be in good faith, he must exercise due
Josephine, and for Josephine to reconvey the diligence, conduct an investigation, and weigh the
property to Shirley. Josephine appealed to the surrounding facts and circumstances like what
4
Court of Appeals, but the latter affirmed with any prudent man in a similar situation would do.
modification the RTC judgment. Hence,
Josephine sought recourse with the Supreme In the case at bar, petitioner claims that she is a
Court via petition for review on certiorari. buyer in good faith of the subject property which
is titled under the name of the seller Rogelio A.
Nuega alone as evidenced by TCT No. 171963



and Tax Declaration Nos. D-012-04723 and D- precaution required of a prudent man, the Court
5
012-04724. Petitioner argues, among others, held that Arrofo was not an innocent purchaser
that since she has examined the TCT over the for value, viz.:
subject property and found the property to have
been registered under the name of seller Rogelio In the present case, the records show that Arrofo
alone, she is an innocent purchaser for value and failed to act as a prudent buyer. True, she asked
“she is not required to go beyond the face of the her daughter to verify from the Register of Deeds
title in verifying the status of the subject property if the title to the Property is free from
at the time of the consummation of the sale and encumbrances. However, Arrofo admitted that
6
at the date of the sale.” the Property is within the neighborhood and that
she conducted an ocular inspection of the
We disagree with petitioner. Property. She saw the house constructed on the
Property. Yet, Arrofo did not even bother to
A buyer cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser inquire about the occupants of the house. Arrofo
for value by merely relying on the TCT of the also admitted that at the time of the sale, Myrna
seller while ignoring all the other surrounding was occupying a room in her house as her lessee.
circumstances relevant to the sale. The fact that Myrna was renting a room from
Arrofo yet selling a land with a house should have
In the case of Spouses Raymundo v. Spouses put Arrofo on her guard. She knew that Myrna
7
Bandong, petitioners therein – as does petitioner was not occupying the house. Hence, someone
herein – were also harping that due to the else must have been occupying the house.
indefeasibility of a Torrens title, there was nothing
in the TCT of the property in litigation that should Thus, Arrofo should have inquired who occupied
have aroused the buyer’s suspicion as to put her the house, and if a lessee, who received the
on guard that there was a defect in the title of rentals from such lessee. Such inquiry would
therein seller. The Court held in the Spouses have led Arrofo to discover that the lessee was
Raymundo case that the buyer therein could not paying rentals to Quino, not to Renato and Myrna,
11
hide behind the cloak of being an innocent who claimed to own the Property.
purchaser for value by merely relying on the TCT
which showed that the registered owner of the An analogous situation obtains in the case at bar.
land purchased is the seller. The Court ruled in
this case that the buyer was not an innocent The TCT of the subject property states that its
purchaser for value due to the following attendant sole owner is the seller Rogelio himself who was
circumstances, viz.: therein also described as “single”. However, as in
the cases of Spouses Raymundo and Arrofo,
In the present case, we are not convinced by the there are circumstances critical to the case at bar
petitioners’ incessant assertion that Jocelyn is an which convince us to affirm the ruling of both the
innocent purchaser for value. To begin with, she appellate and lower courts that herein petitioner
is a grandniece of Eulalia and resides in the same is not a buyer in good faith.
locality where the latter lives and conducts her
principal business. It is therefore impossible for First, petitioner’s sister Hilda Bautista, at the time
her not to acquire knowledge of her grand aunt’s of the sale, was residing near Rogelio and
business practice of requiring her biyaheros to Shirley’s house – the subject property – in
surrender the titles to their properties and to sign Ladislao Diwa Village, Marikina City. Had
the corresponding deeds of sale over said petitioner been more prudent as a buyer, she
properties in her favor, as security. This alone could have easily checked if Rogelio had the
should have put Jocelyn on guard for any capacity to dispose of the subject property. Had
possible abuses that Eulalia may commit with the petitioner been more vigilant, she could have
8
titles and the deeds of sale in her possession. inquired with such facility – considering that her
sister lived in the same Ladislao Diwa Village
9
Similarly, in the case of Arrofo v. Quiño, the where the property is located – if there was any
Court held that while “the law does not require a person other than Rogelio who had any right or
person dealing with registered land to inquire interest in the subject property.
further than what the Torrens Title on its face
10
indicates,” the rule is not absolute. Thus, finding To be sure, respondent even testified that she
that the buyer therein failed to take the necessary had warned their neighbors at Ladislao Diwa



Village – including petitioner’s sister – not to repeatedly claimed that Rogelio is “single” under
engage in any deal with Rogelio relative to the TCT No. 171963 and Tax Declaration Nos. D-
purchase of the subject property because of the 012-04723 and D-012-04724, his civil status as
cases she had filed against Rogelio. Petitioner seller was not stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale
denies that respondent had given such warning – further creating a cloud on the claim of petitioner
to her neighbors, which includes her sister, that she is an innocent purchaser for value.
therefore arguing that such warning could not be
construed as “notice” on her part that there is a As to the second issue, we rule that the appellate
person other than the seller himself who has any court did not err when it modified the decision of
right or interest in the subject property. the trial court and declared that the Deed of
Nonetheless, despite petitioner’s adamant denial, Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1992 is void
both courts a quo gave probative value to the in its entirety.
testimony of respondent, and the instant petition
failed to present any convincing evidence for this The trial court held that while the TCT shows that
Court to reverse such factual finding. To be sure, the owner of the subject property is Rogelio
it is not within our province to second-guess the alone, respondent was able to prove at the trial
courts a quo, and the re-determination of this court that she contributed in the payment of the
factual issue is beyond the reach of a petition for purchase price of the subject property. This fact
review on certiorari where only questions of law was also settled with finality by the RTC of Pasig
12
may be reviewed. City, Branch 70, and affirmed by the CA, in the
case for legal separation and liquidation of
Second, issues surrounding the execution of the property docketed as JDRC Case No. 2510. The
Deed of Absolute Sale also pose question on the pertinent portion of the decision reads:
claim of petitioner that she is a buyer in good faith.
As correctly observed by both courts a quo, the Xxx
Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and dated Clearly, the house and lot jointly acquired by the
on December 29, 1992. However, the Community parties prior to their marriage forms part of their
Tax Certificates of the witnesses therein were community property regime,
13
dated January 2 and 20, 1993. While this xxx
irregularity is not a direct proof of the intent of the
parties to the sale to make it appear that the Deed From the foregoing, Shirley sufficiently proved
of Absolute Sale was executed on December 29, her financial contribution for the purchase of the
1992 – or before Shirley filed the petition for legal house and lot covered by TCT 171963. Thus, the
separation on January 29, 1993 – it is present lot which forms part of their community
circumstantial and relevant to the claim of herein property should be divided equally between them
petitioner as an innocent purchaser for value. upon the grant of the instant petition for legal
separation. Having established by
That is not all. preponderance of evidence the fact of her
husband’s guilt in contracting a subsequent
In the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 29, marriage xxx, Shirley alone should be entitled to
1992, the civil status of Rogelio as seller was not the net profits earned by the absolute community
15
stated, while petitioner as buyer was indicated as property.
“single,” viz.:
However, the nullity of the sale made by Rogelio
ROGELIO A. NUEGA, of legal age, Filipino is not premised on proof of respondent’s financial
citizen and with postal address at 2-A-2 Ladislao contribution in the purchase of the subject
Diwa St., Concepcion, Marikina, Metro Manila, property. Actual contribution is not relevant in
hereinafter referred to as the VENDOR determining whether a piece of property is
And community property for the law itself defines what
JOSEFINA V. NOBLEZA, of legal age, Filipino constitutes community property.
citizen, single and with postal address at No. L-2-
A-3 Ladislao Diwa St., Concepcion, Marikina, Article 91 of the Family Code thus provides:
Metro Manila, hereinafter referred to as the Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter
14
VENDEE. or in the marriage settlements, the community
property shall consist of all the property owned by
It puzzles the Court that while petitioner has the spouses at the time of the celebration of the



marriage or acquired thereafter. marriage. Under Article 96 of Executive Order No.

The only exceptions from the above rule are: (1) 209, otherwise known as The Family Code of the
those excluded from the absolute community by Philippines, the said disposition of a communal
the Family Code; and (2) those excluded by the property is void, viz.:
marriage settlement.
Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the
Under the first exception are properties community property shall belong to both spouses
enumerated in Article 92 of the Family Code, jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s
which states: decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the
Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must
community property: be availed of within five years from the date of the
(1) Property acquired during the marriage by contract implementing such decision.
gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as
well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
expressly provided by the donor, testator or otherwise unable to participate in the
grantor that they shall form part of the community administration of the common properties, the
property; other spouse may assume sole powers of
(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of administration. These powers do not include the
either spouse; however, jewelry shall form part of powers of disposition or encumbrance without the
the community property; authority of the court or the written consent of the
(3) Property acquired before the marriage by other spouse. In the absence of such authority or
either spouse who has legitimate descendants by consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be
a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the void. However, the transaction shall be construed
income, if any, of such property. as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting
spouse and the third person, and may be
16
As held in Quiao v. Quiao: perfected as a binding contract upon the
When a couple enters into a regime of absolute acceptance by the other spouse or authorization
community, the husband and the wife becomes by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either
17
joint owners of all the properties of the marriage. or both offerors.
Whatever property each spouse brings into the
marriage, and those acquired during the marriage It is clear under the foregoing provision of the
(except those excluded under Article 92 of the Family Code that Rogelio could not sell the
Family Code) form the common mass of the subject property without the written consent of
couple’s properties. And when the couple’s respondent or the authority of the court. Without
marriage or community is dissolved, that common such consent or authority, the entire sale is void.
mass is divided between the spouses, or their As correctly explained by the appellate court:
respective heirs, equally or in the proportion the
parties have established, irrespective of the value In the instant case, defendant Rogelio sold the
each one may have originally owned. entire subject property to defendant-appellant
Josefina on 29 December 1992 or during the
Since the subject property does not fall under any existence of Rogelio’s marriage to plaintiff-
of the exclusions provided in Article 92, it appellee Shirley, without the consent of the latter.
therefore forms part of the absolute community The subject property forms part of Rogelio and
property of Shirley and Rogelio. Regardless of Shirley’s absolute community of property. Thus,
their respective contribution to its acquisition the trial court erred in declaring the deed of sale
before their marriage, and despite the fact that null and void only insofar as the 55.05 square
only Rogelio’s name appears in the TCT as meters representing the one-half (1/2) portion of
owner, the property is owned jointly by the plaintiff-appellee Shirley. In absolute community
spouses Shirley and Rogelio. of property, if the husband, without knowledge
and consent of the wife, sells (their) property,
Respondent and Rogelio were married on such sale is void. The consent of both the
September 1, 1990. Rogelio, on his own and husband Rogelio and the wife Shirley is required
without the consent of herein respondent as his and the absence of the consent of one renders
spouse, sold the subject property via a Deed of the entire sale null and void including the portion
Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1992 – or of the subject property pertaining to defendant
during the subsistence of a valid contract of Rogelio who contracted the sale with defendant-



appellant Josefina. Since the Deed of Absolute (3) Those who have acquired ownership of
Sale x x x entered into by and between private lands or abandoned river beds by right of
defendant-appellant Josefina and defendant accession or accretion under the existing laws.
Rogelio dated 29 December 1992, during the
subsisting marriage between plaintiff-appellee (4) Those who have acquired ownership of land
Shirley and Rogelio, was without the written in any other manner provided for by law.
consent of Shirley, the said Deed of Absolute
Sale is void in its entirety. Hence, the trial court
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-
erred in declaring the said Deed of Absolute Sale
owners shall file the application jointly.
as void only insofar as the 1/2 portion pertaining
18
to the share of Shirley is concerned.
Where the land has been sold under pacto de
Finally, consistent with our ruling that Rogelio retro, the vendor a retro may file an application
solely entered into the contract of sale with for the original registration of the land, provided,
petitioner and acknowledged receiving the entire however, that should the period for redemption
consideration of the contract under the Deed of expire during the pendency of the registration
Absolute Sale, Shirley could not be held proceedings and ownership to the property
accountable to petitioner for the reimbursement consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter
of her payment for the purchase of the subject shall be substituted for the applicant and may
property. Under Article 94 of the Family Code, the continue the proceedings.
absolute community of property shall only be
“liable for x x x [d]ebts and obligations contracted A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for
by either spouse without the consent of the other original registration of any land held in trust by
to the extent that the family may have been him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating
benefited x x x.” As correctly stated by the the trust.
appellate court, there being no evidence on
record that the amount received by Rogelio Where the land has been sold under pacto de
redounded to the benefit of the family, respondent retro. What is pacto de retro? Right to
cannot be made to reimburse any amount to repurchase. The vendor a retro may file an

petitioner. application for the original registration of the land,
provided, however, that should the period for
redemption expire during the pendency of the
August 7 - Manligoy registration proceedings and ownership to the
property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the
We go back to original registration. We left off with latter shall be substituted for the applicant and
Section 13. may continue the proceedings.
Section 14. Who may apply. The following A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for
persons may file in the proper Court of First original registration of any land held in trust by
Instance an application for registration of title to him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating
land, whether personally or through their duly the trust.
authorized representatives:
So, modes of acquiring land titles. To enforce
Section 14, how do we convey titles?
(1) Those who by themselves or through their
1. Public grant
predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
2. Prescription
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
3. Accretion
and occupation of alienable and disposable
4. Reclamation
lands of the public domain under a bona fide
5. Voluntary transfer
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
6. Involuntary alienation
earlier.
7. Descent or devise
8. Emancipation patent
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands by prescription under the provision A. Public Grant
of existing laws.



No public land can be acquired by private present recourse to have the compromise
persons without any grant, express or implied agreement annulled as being patently void
from government. What are the lands that and rendered in excess of jurisdiction or
can be granted? They are the alienable and with grave abuse of discretion. The
disposable lands of the public domain. We go Solicitor General contends that—
back to Section 14 which provides the
alienable and disposable lands of public 1)no evidence whatever was adduced by
domain. What are those lands? We go back the parties in support of their petitions for
to the concept of Regalian Doctrine. What is registration;
this Regalian Doctrine?
2)neither the Director of Lands nor the
REPUBLIC vs SAYO Director of Forest Development had legal
G.R. No. L-60413 October 31, 1990 authority to enter into the compromise
agreement;
The spouses, Casiano Sandoval and Luz
Marquez, filed an original application for The respondents maintain, on the other
registration of a tract of land and having an hand, that the Solicitor General’s
area of 33,950 hectares. The land was a arguments are premised on the
part of Nueva Vizcaya in virtue of Republic proposition that Lot 7454 is public land, but
Act No. 236. it is not. According to them, as pointed out
in the application for registration, the
Oppositions were filed by the Government, private character of the land is
through the Director of Lands and the demonstrated by the following
Director of Forestry, and some others, circumstances, to wit:
including the Heirs of Liberato Bayaua.1
1)the possessory information title of the
The case dragged on for about twenty (20) applicants and their predecessors-in-
years until March 3, 1981 when a interest;
compromise agreement was entered into.
The Heirs of Casiano Sandoval (as 2)the fact that Lot 7454 was never claimed
applicants) renounced their claims and to be public land by the Director of Lands
ceded— in the proper cadastral proceedings;
1)in favor of the Bureau of Lands, an area 3)the pre-war certification of the National
of 4,109 hectares; 2)in favor of the Bureau Library dated August 16, 1932 to the effect
of Forest Development, 12,341 that the Estadistica de Propiedades of
hectares; 3)in favor of the Heirs of Isabela issued in 1896 and appearing in
Liberato Bayaua, 4,000 hectares; and 4)in the Bureau of Archives, the property in
favor of Philippine Cacao & Farm question was registered under the
Products, Inc., 8,000 hectares. ‘Spanish system of land registration as
private property owned by Don Liberato
The remaining area of 5,500 hectares was, Bayaua, applicants’ predecessors-in-
under the compromise agreement, interest;
adjudicated to and acknowledged as
owned by the Heirs of Casiano Sandoval, 4)the proceeding for registration, brought
but out of this area, 1,500 hectares were under Act 496 (the Torrens Act)
assigned by the Casiano Heirs to their presupposes that there is already a title to
counsel, Jose C. Reyes, in payment of his be confirmed by the court, distinguishing it
attorney’s fees. In consideration of the from proceedings under the Public Land
areas respectively allocated to them, all Act where the presumption is always that
the parties also mutually waived and the land involved belongs to the State.
renounced all their prior claims to and over
Lot No. 7454 of the Santiago Cadastre. HELD: Under the Regalian Doctrine,2 all
lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
The Solicitor General has taken the within private ownership are presumed to



belong to the State. Hence it is that all absence of evidence of title required of the
applicants in land registration proceedings private respondents.
have the burden of overcoming the
presumption that the land thus sought to As to the informacion posesoria invoked by
be registered forms part of the public the private respondents, it should be
domain.3Unless the applicant succeeds in pointed out that under the Spanish
showing by clear and convincing evidence Mortgage Law, it was considered a mode
that the property involved was acquired by of acquiring title to public lands, subject to
him or his ancestors either by composition two (2) conditions: first, the inscription
title from the Spanish Government or by thereof in the Registry of Property, and
possessory information title, or any other second, actual, public, adverse, and
means for the proper acquisition of public uninterrupted possession of the land for
lands, the property must be held to be part twenty (20) years (later reduced to ten [10]
of the public domain.4 years); but where, as here, proof of
fulfillment of these conditions is absent, the
The the principal document relied upon informacion posesoria cannot be
and presented by the applicants for considered as anything more than prima
registration, to prove the private character facieevidence of possession.7
of the large tract of land subject of their
application, was a photocopy of a
certification of the National Library dated
August 16, 1932 (already above
mentioned) to the effect that according to
the Government’s Estadistica de Who are parties again? The heirs made an
Propiedades of Isabela issued in 1896, the application for the registration of land and
property in question was registered under there were other claimants to said property.
the Spanish system of land registration as Subsequently after many years of trial, …
private property of Don Liberato Bayaua. there was a compromise agreement. There
But, that Spanish document, the was a judicially approved compromise
Estadistica de Propiedades, cannot be agreement. However, the SolGen questioned
considered a title to property, it not being such compromise agreement. How do you
one of the grants made during the Spanish prove that the land is alienable and
regime, and obviously not constituting disposable? You prove that by a submitting a
primary evidence of ownership. certification from the Bureau of Lands
particularly saying that the land is alienable
And, of course, to argue that the initiation and disposable as per their … survey.
of an application for registration of land
under the Torrens Act is proof that the land REPUBLIC vs IAC
is of private ownership, not pertaining to G.R. No. 71285 | November 5, 1987
the public domain, is to beg the question.
It is precisely the character of the land as FACTS:
private which the applicant has the
obligation of establishing. For there can be On December 18, 1968, a petition was filed
no doubt of the intendment of the Land by Esteban Mendoza and Leon Pasahol
Registration Act, Act 496, that every with the then Court of First Instance of
applicant show a proper title for Bataan, Branch I, alleging ownership of the
registration; indeed, even in the absence land in question (Lot 444) by purchase
of any adverse claim, the applicant is not from its original owners and thereafter,
assured of a favorable decree by the Land actual, continuous, public and adverse
Registration Court, if he fails to establish a possession by them tacked on to their
proper title for official recognition. predecessors-in-interest for a period
exceeding 30 years.
The assent of the Directors of Lands and
Forest Development to the compromise Petitioners' predecessors-in-interest failed
agreement did not and could not supply the to answer in the cadastral court for lack of
knowledge of the existence of an ongoing



cadastral proceeding because of which Lot dispute is no longer part of the military
No. 444 was declared public land by CFI reservation on the basis of a mere
Bataan. proposal to classify the saze as alienable
and disposable land of the public domain.
On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate A proposal cannot take the place of a
Court affirmed the trial court's decision formal act declaring forest land released
which granted the private respondents' for disposition as public agricultural land.
petition to reopen the cadastral registration To sustain the appellate ruling would be to
proceeding of the lot in dispute and pre-empt the executive branch of the
ordering its registration in the names of the government from exercising its prerogative
respondents. in classifying lands of the public domain.
In this instant petition, the petitioner It was ruled in the case of Director of Lands
challenges the decision of the appellate v. Court of Appeals, (129 SCRA 689, 692-
court as being contrary to law on the 693) that:
ground that it held that the subject land is
agricultural and alienable land of the public The classification of public lands is an
domain and that the same can be subject exclusive prerogative of the Executive
to acquisitive prescription of thirty (30) Department of the Government and not of
years of open, continuous and the Courts. In the absence of such
uninterrupted possession. The petitioner classification, the land remains as
maintains that unless the President upon unclassified land until it is released
the recommendation of the Secretary of therefrom and rendered open to
Natural Resources, reclassifies and disposition, This is also in consonance with
declares a particular land as agricultural or the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the
disposable, its status as military public domain belong to the State (Secs. 8
reservation or forest land remains & 10, Art. XIV, 1973 Constitution), and that
unaltered and no amount of physical the State is the source of any asserted
occupation and cultivation thereof can right to ownership in land and charged with
change it to agricultural land and bring it the conservation of such patrimony
within the provisions of the Public Land (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA
Act. 648 [1979])
ISSUE: Since the subject property is still

unclassified, whatever possession
Whether or not respondents have a bona Applicant may have had, and, however
fide claim of ownership as to entitle them long, cannot ripen into private ownership.
to registration and title over the subject
land. Was the petition for registration granted? NO.
How many years did they say they have been
NO in possession of the property? Why was it not
granted?
HELD:
Spanish… introduced the concept of
The Supreme Court held that the fact Regalian Doctrine. That all natural resources
remains that the subject land has not yet belong to the State. The state owns
been released from its classification as everything. It was introduced by particular
part of the military reservation zone and laws. We have the Royal cedulas and the
still has to be reclassified as alienable laws of the …. Likewise, we have the
public land with the approval of the Mortgage Law of 1893… that all lands belong
President of the Philippines as required by to the State or the King. Initially, it was the
the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act King but eventually the King died. Eventually,
No. 141) and Republic Act No. 1275. it is now the State. So all lands now belong to
the State. So, after the State, what happened
Therefore, the SC cannot sustain the next? Came the Americans. When the
appellate court's ruling that the land in Americans came, that is the time where there



was doubt on whether they will continue the As to ownership of land, is it a sovereign
concept that all lands belong to the State concept or a proprietary concept? When we
becase the mindset of the Spaniards that it exploit or use land or other natural resources,
will benefit tha masses, then that will bring the what we reap out is commercial value.
revolution. But the Americans changed that Hence, it will be in the concept of proprietary.
mindset. We will educate them so that they
will not kills us. They introduced the American CARINO vs INSULAR GOVERNMENT
Public School Education. OF THE PHIL.
212 US 449, 41 PHIL | G.R. No. L-2746
So, there was doubt on the Regalian Doctrine
but eventually, the introduction to the … December 6, 1906 JUSTICE HOLMES
government under the 1935 Constitution and
eventually the 1973 Constitution adopted the HOW IT REACHED THE COURT:
REgalian Doctrine. This time, substituting the
state in lieu of the King. Meron talaga yan. Plaintiff applied for registration of a certain
That forms part of the Article 12, Section 2 of land. Initially it was the government of the
the 1987 Constitution which states that all United States appealed to the Court of first
lands of the public domain, waters, minerals instance of Benguet (they were taking the
… and other minerals are owned by the property for public and military purposes.
State. With the exception of agricultural land, The CFI dismissed the application (for
all other natural resources shall not be registration) and this was affirmed by the
alienated. That’s why class gold and other Philippine Supreme Court. This was
minerals are owned by the State. brought to the US Supreme court by writ of
error.
During the deliberation of the 1935
constitution, there was really a clamor of FACTS: Plaintiff, an Igorot, possessed the
nationalism. The … that the said natural land for more than 30 years before the
resources indeed belong to the State treaty of Paris. He and his ancestors had
because sabi nga nila, what is the point of held the land for years. The local
having a State if your soul belong to other community recognizes them as the owners
entities. They made it a point that the said of the said land. His grandfather lived upon
Regalian doctrine be upheld. There is then it and maintained fences around the
EDU – exploration, development and property. His father raised cattle on the
utilization which belongs to the State. property and he had inherited the land
according to Igorot custom. There was no
The concept of Imperium and Dominuum. So document of title issued for the land when
basically, after the Spanish … subsequently he applied for registration. The
CA 141 pertaining to administrative government contends that the land in
ownership over land. Imperium and question belonged to the state. Under the
Dominuum, if you could recall, these pertains Spanish Law, all lands belonged to the
to the sovereign capacity and the proprietary Spanish Crown except those with permit
ability of the State to own the land. What private titles. Moreover, there is no
subjects did you meet these subjects? Consti prescription against the Crown. He tried
1. What particular topic? It pertains to the twice to have it registered during the
sovereignty of the State. If you could recall in Spanish occupation but to no avail. In 1901
sovereign cases where there was a he filed a petition alleging ownership of the
construction of the ducts and somebody land but he was only granted a possessory
questioned them, the Supreme Court said title.
NO because the maintenance of ducts
requires the sovereign capacity of the State PREMILINARY ISSUES:
because it is a necessary component of
national interest. That even if Carino was able to have a title
over the land, he could not have it
As a general rule, if it is proprietary in nature, registered because Benguet was one of
the State be sued but if its for the furtherance the excluded provinces in the Philippine
of the sovereign powers, it cannot be sued. Commission’s act no. 926 (AN ACT



PRESCRIBING RULES AND ceremony (of registration) many of the

REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE people of the land may have not even
HOMESTEADING, SELLING, AND heard of.
LEASING OF PORTIONS OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE PHILIPPINE Although in sec. 14 of the organic act, it is
ISLANDS...). But that law dealt with said that the Philippine commission may
acquisition of new titles and perfecting of prescribe rules and regulations for
titles begun under the Spanish law. Carino perfecting titles to public lands, it should be
argued that he could register the land noted that this section refers to those
under Philippine Commissions Act no. 496 cases where the land was admitted to be
which covered the entire Philippine public land. The US SC hesitates to
archipelago. Holmes held that he could suppose that it was intended to declare
register the land if ownership can be every native who had not a paper title, a
maintained. trespasser. The question still remains:
what property and rights did the US
MAIN ISSUE: WON the land in question acquire?
belonged to the Spanish Crown under the
Regalian Doctrine. In cases like this one, the presumption
would and should be against the
Government’s argument: Spain had title to government. As far back as memory goes,
all the land in the Philippines except those the land has been held by individuals
it saw fit to permit private titles to be under a claim of private ownership, it was
acquired. That there was a decree issued never public land. It would not be proper to
by Spain that required registration within a just let the conqueror to dictate how to deal
limited time. Carino’s land wasn’t with the Philippine tribes if it really meant
registered and so in effect it became public to use the rights acquired by them “for the
land. benefit of the inhabitants thereof”.
HELD: No. Law and justice require that the The natives were recognized by the
applicant should be granted title to his Spanish laws to own some lands,
land. irrespective of any royal grant. They didn’t
intend to turn all the inhabitants into
USSC: Whatever the position of Spain was trespassers. Principle of prescription was
on the issue, it does not follow that the US admitted: that if they weren’t able to
would view plaintiff to have lost all his produce title deeds, it is sufficient if they
rights to the land – this would amount to a show ancient possession, as a valid title by
denial of native titles throughout Benguet prescription.
just because Spain would not have
granted to anyone in the province the Although there was a decree in June 25,
registration of their lands. 1880 that required everyone to get a
document of title or else lose his land, it
Organic act of July 1, 1902 provides that does not appear that it meant to apply to
all the property and rights acquired there all but only those who wrongfully occupied
by the US would be for the benefit of the royal lands. IT doesn’t appear that the land
inhabitants thereof. This same statute of Carino was considered as Royal land
made a bill of rights embodying the nor was it considered to have been
safeguards of the constitution, it provides wrongfully occupied. Two articles of the
that “'no law shall be enacted in said same decree provided that titles would be
islands which shall deprive any person of attributed to those who may prove
life, liberty, or property without due process possession for the necessary time. There
of law, or deny to any person therein the were indications that registration was
equal protection of the laws”. It would be expected but it didn’t mean that ownership
hard to believe that that “any person” didn’t actually gained would be lost. The effect of
include the inhabitants of Benguet. Nor it the proof was not to confer title to them but
meant “property” to refer only to those to establish it.
lands which had become such under a



“Law and justice require that the applicant No. 510 was issued by the Register of
should be granted what he seeks and Deeds of Naga City on October 21, 1959.
should not be deprived of what, by the
practice and belief of those among whom Land in question is not a private property
he lived, was his property, through a as the Director of Lands and the Secretary
refined interpretation of an almost of Agriculture and Natural Resources have
forgotten law of Spain. “ Judgment always sustained the public character for
reversed. having been formed by reclamation (as
opposed to peittioners contention that it is
How did the Supreme Court defended that accretion)
position that that land has been held since
time immemorial and that the concept of jura X
regalia does not apply to that particular parcel
of land? That means that those lands did not The only remedy: action for reconveyance
form part of lands under the Spanish concept. on the ground of fraud - But there was no
The Supreme Court held that the Spanish fraud in this case.
influence is not all over the country. The
Supreme Court recognized that not ISSUES:
everything is unde the Spanish rule. During
the Treaty of Paris, everything came under W/N Lee Hong Kok can question the grant.
the American Rule. However, how can Spain - NO X W/N David has original acquisition
cede something which it had no total control of title. - YES
of. The Supreme Court reiterated that not the
entire Philippines is subject to Spanish HELD: Court of Appeals Affirmed. (no legal
authority. Diba? But then The treaty of Paris justification for nullifying the right of David
conceded everything to American for pieces to the disputed lot arising from the grant
of gold. Yun yung mindset dun sa how they made in his favor by respondent officials)
justified the jura regalia concept of naked title.
Only the Government, represented by the
Would you still apply that now? You have to Director of Lands, or the Secretary of
undertstand that even if there is a statement Agriculture and Natural Resources, can
that everything belongs to the State, you still bring an action to cancel a void certificate
have to harmonize it because there are of title issued pursuant to a void patent.
fragments of the Constitution which stipulates The legality of the grant is a question
that there are rights of indigenous people. As between the grantee and the government.
a matter of fact, they enacted a law which is Private parties like the plaintiffs cannot
the indigenous people’s rights act. claim that the patent and title issued for the
land involved are void since they are not
LEE HONG KOK V. DAVID the registered owners thereof nor had they
G.R. NO. L-30389 | DECEMBER 27, been declared as owners in the cadastral
1972 proceedings of Naga Cadastre after
claiming it as their private property.
FACTS: Aniano David acquired lawful title
pursuant to his miscellaneous sales Well-settled Rule: no public land can be
application in accordance with which an acquired by private persons without any
order of award and for issuance of a sales grant, express or implied, from the
patent (*similar to public auction) was government.
made by the Director of Lands on June 18,
1958, covering Lot 2892. Cabacug v. Lao: holder of a land acquired
under a free patent is more favorably
On the basis of the order of award of the situated than that of an owner of registered
Director of Lands the Undersecretary of property. Not only does a free patent have
Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a force and effect of a Torrens Title, but in
on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous Sales addition the person to whom it is granted
Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to which OCT has likewise in his favor the right to
repurchase within a period of 5 years.



Amunategui himself took the trouble to ask

Imperium v. Dominium for a license to cut timber within the area.
It was only sometime in 1950 that the
Imperium - government authority property was converted into fishpond but
possessed by the state which is only after a previous warning from the
appropriately embraced in the concept of District Forester that the same could not be
sovereignty done because it was classified as "public
forest”.
Dominium - capacity to own or acquire
property. The use of this term is A forested area classified as forest land of
appropriate with reference to lands held by the public domain does not lose such
the state in its proprietary character. In classification simply because loggers or
such capacity, it may provide for the settlers may have stripped it of its forest
exploitation and use of lands and other cover. "Forest lands" do not have to be on
natural resources, including their mountains or in out of the way places.
disposition, except as limited by the Swampy areas covered by mangrove
Constitution. trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing
in brackish or sea water may also be
How did the Court distinguish Imperium and classified as forest land. The possession of
Dominuum? forestlands, no matter how long, cannot
ripen into private ownership. Therefore,
HEIRS OF AMUNATEGUI VS the lot in question never ceased to be
DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY classified as forestland of public domain.
FACTS:
What was the actual use of the land? This
There were two petitions for review on case emphasizes that even if the actual use
certiorari questioning the decision of the of the land is no longer as a forest land as the
Court of Appeals which declared the case may be, the legal classification still
disputed property as forest land, not subsists. There must be a postivie act from
subject to titling in favor of private persons, the government re-classifying the same.
Borre and Amunategui. The Director of
Forestry, through the Provincial Fiscal of Regalian Doctrine vis-à-vis IPRA, RA 8371 is
Capiz, also filed an opposition to the an act to recognize and protect the rights of
application for registration of title claiming the indigenous people. The IPRA recognizes
that the land was mangrove swamp which the existence of indigenous people as a
was still classified as forest land and part distinct section in the …. As a mater of fact,
of the public domain. in our local government unit we have a
councilor that represents the indigenous
Another oppositor, Emeterio Bereber filed communities.
his opposition insofar as a portion of Lot
No. 885 containing 117,956 square meters What is this concept of naked title?
was concerned and prayed that title to said
portion be confirmed and registered in his ISAGANI CRUZ V. DEPT. OF ENERGY
name. AND NATURAL RESOURCES
G.R. NO. 135385 | DECEMBER 6, 2000
ISSUE: WON the lot in question can be
subject of registration and confirmation of FACTS:
title in the name of the private person.
Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the
HELD: validity of the RA 8371 or the Indigenous
People’s Rights Act on the ground that the
The opposition of the Director of Forestry law amount to an unlawful deprivation of
was strengthened by the appellate court's the State’s ownership over lands of the
finding that timber licenses had to be public domain as well as minerals and
issued to certain licensees and even Jose other natural resources therein, in violation



of the regalian doctrine embodied in application on the ground that they have
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. not been in continuous, uninterrupted,
The IPRA law basically enumerates the open, public, adverse possession of the
rights of the indigenous peoples over same, in the concept of owner, but the
ancestral domains which may include RTC ruled in favour of the Respondents.
natural resources. Cruz et al content that, The Republic interposed an Appeal to the
by providing for an all-encompassing CA, but it was also denied, the court
definition of “ancestral domains” and reasoning that Respondents have
“ancestral lands” which might even include established their right to the parcel of land.
private lands found within said areas,
Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law violate Petitioner then appeals to the Supreme
the rights of private landowners. Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is ISSUE:

unconstitutional.
1. Whether or not the continuous,
HELD: uninterrupted, open, public and adverse
possession was sufficiently established by
The SC deliberated upon the matter. After evidence.
deliberation they voted and reached a 7-7
vote. They deliberated again and the same 2. Whether the land is part of the alienable
result transpired. Since there was no part of public domain.
majority vote, Cruz’s petition was
dismissed and the IPRA law was HELD:
sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may
include natural resources –somehow No. It has not been sufficiently established.
against the Regalian doctrine.
Civil Law: Land Registration
If you could see, the IPRA law recognizes, it 1st Issue:

does not award. It recognizes the ownership
of the indigenous people/communities Respondents need to prove that (1) the
because of their naked title. The ownership land forms part of the alienable and
was granted to them since time immemorial disposable land of the public domain; and
and the state cannot grant something that it (2) they, by themselves or through their
did not own. There’s already a basis of the predecessors-in-interest, have been in
same in the concept of liberal judgment in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
case of Cariño. These properties, these possession and occupation of the subject
parcels of land, already belong to the IPs land under abona fideclaim of ownership
prior to the … government. from June 12, 1945 or earlier.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
AVELINO R. DELA PAZ Respondents have not presented tangible
proof to establish this kind of possession.
PERALTA, J.: At best, they have only given a tax
declaration on 1949, but this is merely
FACTS: indicia of ownership.
Respondents filed a case to register a 2nd Issue:

parcel of land covering almost 25,800
square kilometres situated in Taguig. They To overcome this presumption,
alleged that they came into the possession incontrovertible evidence must be
of the land thru their parents who have established that thelandsubject of
been continuous, uninterrupted, open, theapplication (or claim) isalienable
public, adverse possession of the same, in ordisposable. To support this,
the concept of owner since 1987. The Respondents have merely relied on the
Republic (Petitioner) opposed the survey plan of a geodetic engineer. This is



insufficient under the law. Respondents and develop, subdivide, sell, mortgage,
failed to submit a certification from the exchange, lease and hold for investment
proper government agency to establish or otherwise, real estate of all kinds.
that the subject land are part of the
alienable and disposable portion of the He also testified that the subject properties
public domain. in this case were purchased by Tabangao
Realty as evidenced by Deed of Sale and
What happened in the case of Republic vs that the taxes of the properties were
CA? properly paid by the corporation.
REPUBLIC VS. CA AND TABANGAO Marasigan corroborated the testimony of

REALTY Romeo Geron with regard to the
ownership, possession and the status of
FACTS: the lots subject of the application.
On January 8, 1991, Tabangao Realty, Loida Maglinao (from the Bureau of Forest
Inc. filed an application for Original Development) testified that the subject
Registration of Title over three parcels of properties are within the alienable and
land. disposable area of the public domain and
no forestry interest is adversely interposed
Applicant Tabangao Realty, Inc. alleged in by the Bureau of Forest Development.
its application that it acquired the above-
mentioned lots by purchase from its RTC and CA granted the petition of
previous owners as evidenced by the Tabangao. Hence, this appeal by the
corresponding Deeds of Sale; that it is the Republic.
owner of all adjoining lots; that it had been
in actual possession of the lots since the ISSUE: WON Tabangao Realty, Inc. has
time it acquired the same from the previous registerable title over three (3) parcels of
owners up to the present; and that its land situated in Tabangao, Batangas City
possession and occupation as owners applied for.
including that of its predecessor-in-interest
has been open, peaceful, continuous, HELD: NO. The ruling of the CA was
adverse to the whole world and in the erroneous. There is a presumption that all
concept of an owner. lands belong to the public domain of the
State.
Tabangao Realty alleged that the plant of
the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) An applicant seeking to establish
Company is partly erected on the subject ownership over land must conclusively
lots which improvements are owned by it show that he is the owner thereof in fee
(applicant). {There is a lease contract simple, for the standing presumption is that
between LPG and Tabangao} all lands belong to the public domain of the
State, unless acquired from the
Should the property registration decree Government either by purchase or by
invoked not be allowed, the applicant in the grant, except lands possessed by an
alternative applied for the benefits under occupant and his predecessors since time
CA No. 141 as amended and thus alleged immemorial, for such possession would
that together with its predecessors-in- justify the presumption that the land had
interest it had been in open, continuous, never been part of the public domain or
public, peaceful and adverse possession that it had been private property even
of the subject lots for more than 30 years. before the Spanish conquest.
Geron (Tabango’s witness) testified that The land in question is admittedly public.
the applicant-corporation was duly The applicant has no title at all. Its claim of
organized and registered with the acquisition of ownership is solely based on
Securities and Exchange Commission and possession. In fact, the parcels of land
is authorized to acquire land by purchase applied for were declared public land by



decision of the Cadastral Court. Such This case involves 2 cases, which prior to
being the case, the application for being decided by the SC were
voluntary registration under P. D. No. 1529 consolidated. The first case was a
(Property Registration Decree) is barred complaint for recovery of possession and
by the prior judgment of the Cadastral damages against Ocampo, Buhain, and
Court. Dela Cruz. In the complaint, it was alleged
that the defendants (Ocampo - Dela Cruz)
The land having been subjected to were able to secure from the Registry of
compulsory registration under the Deeds of Quezon City titles to a portions of
Cadastral Act and declared public land can the claimed estate. In the end, the lower
no longer be the subject of registration by courts ruled in favor of Ocampo - Dela
voluntary application under Presidential Cruz, declaring that the Torrens titles of the
Decree No. 1529. The second application defendants cannot be defeated by the
is barred by res-judicata. As previously alleged Spanish title, Titulo Propriedad no.
held, "[W]here the applicant possesses no 4316.
title or ownership over the parcel of land,
he cannot acquire one under the Torrens The 2nd case is a petition for letters of
System of registration." adiministration over the intestate estate of
the late Mariano San Pedro Y Esteban.
There is no sufficient evidence that This involves a prayer to be declared as
Tabangao Realty was in open, continuous, administrator. This case eventually ended
exclusive and notorious possession of the in the same manner as the first case - the
lands for 30 years. Titulo de Prorpriedad was declared void
and of no legal force, therefore the lands
Applicant failed to prove specific acts covered by the Titulo are not within the
showing the nature of its possession and estate of the deceased.
that of its predecessors in interest. "The
applicant must present specific acts of ISSUE:
ownership to substantiate the claim and
cannot just offer general statements which W/N the Titulo de Propriedad is null and
are mere conclusions of law than factual void and therefore the lands covered or
evidence of possession." "Actual claimed under such title are not included in
possession of land consists in the the estate of the deceased.
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of
such a nature as a party would naturally HELD:
exercise over his own property."
The Titulo is null and void. It has been
In other words, facts constituting defeated by the title of the defendants
possession must be duly established by under the Torrens system. It is settled that
competent evidence. Hence, the by virtue of Pd no 892 which tool effect on
application for registration of the properties Feb 16 1976 the syte of registration under
must be denied. the Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished
(Ruled in favor of the Republic.) and all holders of Spanish titles or grants
should cause their lands coverd thereby to
INTESTATE ESTATE OF DON be registered under the Land Registration
MARIANO SAN PEDRO V. COURT OF Act within 6mos from date of effectivity of
APPEALS the said decree.
FACTS: Proof of compliance (Certificate of Title)

with the said decree should have been
This is a claim of a huge parcel of land presented during trial.
covering lands in the provinces Nueva
ecija, Bulacan, and in cities including What was the basis of the claim of title over
Quezon City. (The most fantastic land the property?
claim ..)
B. By prescription



they gradually receive from the effects of the

By this method, a possessor of land who may current of the waters.
not be the owner, after the lapse of a certain
period prescribed in the law, may assert So, accretion is not automatically registered.
ownership thereof as against anyone except You have to register. You have to make an
the true owner or one with a better title based application. It is thus essential that the land
on an earlier possession which he had not where the accretion takes place be adjacent
abandoned. to the banks of rivers, and that the accretion
is due to the gradual action of the current of
There are two types, acquisitive and the rivers. Where the land is not formed solely
extinctive. In this particular mode, we are by the natural effect of the water current of
talking about acquisitive prescription. There the river bordering the land but is also the
was a lapse of time and you are in consequence of the direct and deliberate
possession of said property, by possession of intervention of man, i.e., it is artificially
a public land. … Laches is always extinctive. induced by the erection of bamboo stakes
and later on by an adobe retaining wall for the
Laches vs Prescription purpose of holding the garbage and other
refuse being deliberately dumped everyday
Laches should not be confused with into the bank of the river, it is a man-made
prescription. Laches is different from, and accretion and a part of the public domain.
applies independently of, prescription. While
prescription is concerned with the fact of Why is it different from the riparian owner?
delay, laches is concerned with the effect of What is a riparian owner? You have to
delay. Prescription is a matter of time; laches understand that the riparian owner here
is principally a question of inequity of suffers the loss. Nagkaroon ng accretion sa
permitting a claim to be enforced, this isa tapos sa unahan meron ding nawalan.
inequity being founded on some change in
the condition of the property or the relation of August 14 – Pahayahy
the parties. Prescription is statutory; laches is
not. Laches applies in equity, whereas Continuation on Modes of Acquiring Land
prescription applies at law. Prescription is Titles
based on a fixed time; laches is not.
D. Title by Reclamation
Ordinary prescription requires possession in It is the filling of submerged land by deliberate act
good faith and with just title for ten (10) years. of the Government. In the Philippines, there
In extraordinary prescription, ownership and exists no such grant, express or implied, to
other real rights over immovable property are private landowners. It is only the government that
acquired through uninterrupted adverse can assert title to reclaimed land. However,the
possession thereof for 30 years without need government may declare it property of the
of title or of good faith. adjoining owners and as an increment thereto
only when it is no longer necessary for public use.
C. By accretion
You have to understand, similar to the lands of
When soil and earth, weeds and other the public domain, in reclaimed areas, similarly, it
deposits are washed away from other places should be owned by the government first and sold
and gradually settle down and attach to a private individual.
themselves to one’s land that used to border
on a stream or local body of water, the owner PD No. 1084, or the Philippine Estate Authority.
of this land becomes the owner of the Now this time, what we have is the Philippine
additional area thus formed by accretion. Reclamation Authority.
The law in point is Article 457 of the New Civil E. Title by Voluntary Transfer
Code which provides that: Is a mode of acquisition whereby the landowner
and the beneficiary enter into a voluntary
Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining arrangement for the direct transfer of the lands to
banks of rivers belongs the accretion which the latter.



We have PD No. 27, or the Decree of

So there are two types: Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the
1. Onerous - when there is valuable consideration Soil, Transferring to them the Ownership of the
(sale, barter, etc.) land they till. This decree the origin of the
2. Gratuitous - Deed of Donation emancipation patent. Basta panahon ni Marcos,
emancipation patent, yan ang tandaan ninyo.
The only thing you need to understands in a Deed
of Donation, there is this 'acceptance'. Meron pa ba yan ngayon? Nag iissue pa ba ang
DAR niyan? Hindi na. Pero meron pa bang
F. Title by Involuntary Alienation emancipation patent? Meron pa. Buhay pa yung
This does not require the consent or cooperation may ari. Hindi kayo magtataka kung meron pang
of the owner of the land, and in fact is usually existing patent.
carried out against his will; purchases here are
generally in the rule of caveat emptor. The CARP/CARL only provides for the
acquisition.
From the book: The rule of caveat emptor
requires the purchaser to be aware of the
supposed title of the vendor and one who buys I. Lands of the Public Domain
without checking the vendor's title takes all the Section 14 of PD 1529 provides that:
risks and losses consequent to such failure.
Section 14. Who may apply. The following
Two types: persons may file in the proper Court of First
1. By government - through eminent domain Instance an application for registration of title
2. By private individual to land, whether personally or through their
duly authorized representatives:
Kinds of Original Registration
1. Voluntary - by filing through the proper court or (1) Those who by themselves or
administrative proceedings. through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open,
2. Involuntary - cadastral proceedings. continuous, exclusive and notorious
Compulsory registration initiated by the possession and occupation of
government, to adjudicate ownership of the land. alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain under a bona fide
G. Title by Descent or Devise claim of ownership since June 12,
So basically, may namatay. By descent, title may 1945, or earlier.
be acquired by virtue of hereditary succession to
the estate of the deceased owner and requires a
(2) Those who have acquired
certain degree of relationship. By devise, the
ownership of private lands by
succession need not be in favor of a relative.
prescription under the provision of
Even a stranger may acquire title if appropriate
existing laws.
disposition has been made in his favor by the
testator in the latter's will.
(3) Those who have acquired
By descent means an heir succeeds the ownership of private lands or
deceased owner by reason of certain relationship abandoned river beds by right of
which entitles him to succeed by operation of law. accession or accretion under the
existing laws.
H. Title by Emancipation Patent or Grant
By virtue of PD NO. 27, tenant-framers are (4) Those who have acquired
deemed owners of the land they till. While the ownership of land in any other
tenant-framers are given certificates of land manner provided for by law.
transfer, this does not make him the owner until
after he shall have complied with his obligations. Where the land is owned in common, all the
After full compliance, they shall be issued co-owners shall file the application jointly.
emancipation patents or grants.



Where the land has been sold under pacto de

retro, the vendor a retro may file an So alienable lands of the public domain shall be
application for the original registration of the limited to agricultural lands. Alienable lands of the
land, provided, however, that should the public domain cannot be owned by the private
period for redemption expire during the corporation. All natural resources are non-
pendency of the registration proceedings and alienable. All private lands are agricultural lands
ownership to the property consolidated in the but not all agricultural lands are private lands.
vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted
for the applicant and may continue the Let us go to the cases. Republic v. INC, GR No.
proceedings. L-55289, June 19, 1982. You can still practice
your religion even if you have not registered the
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply ownership of said property.
for original registration of any land held in trust
by him, unless prohibited by the instrument Republic v. INC
creating the trust. GR No. L-55289 | June 19, 1982
First, paragraph 1: Facts

9 Jan ’53: INC acquired Lots 568 & 569
(313sqm) located at Barrio Dampol, Plaridel,
(1) Those who by themselves or through
Bulacan from Andres Perez in exchange for a
their predecessors-in-interest have been
lot with an area of 247sqm owned by INC.
in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of
Said lost were already possessed by Perez in
alienable and disposable lands of the
1933; not included in any military reservation;
public domain under a bona fide claim of
inside an area which was certified as
ownership since June 12, 1945, or
alienable or disposable by BOF in 1927;
earlier.
planted with santol, mango, banana trees;
chapel exists on said land.
So ang public domain, hindi lahat alienable and
disposable. Merong public domain na inalienable 13 Sep ’77: INC, a corporation sole, filed with
and non-disposable. So the 1987 Constitution CFI an application for registration of 2 lots,
provides for the classification of the lands of the alleging that it & its predecessors-in-interest
public domain. Apat yan. has possessed the land for more than 30 yrs.
It invoked Sec. 48(b) of Public Land Law:
Classification of the Lands of the Public
Domain under 1987 Constitution SEC. 48. The following-described citizens of
1. Agricultural the Philippines, occupying lands of the public
2. Forest / Timber domain or claiming to own any such lands or
3. Mineral an interest therein, but whose titles have not
4. National Parks been perfected or completed, may apply to
the Court of First Instance of the province
The basis is Article 12, Section 3. The agricultural where the land is located for confirmation of
lands of the public domain can be further their claims and the issuance of a certificate
classified by law according to the Constitution. of title therefore, under the Land Register Act,
Dito na papasok yung industrial, commercial, etc. to wit: b) Those who by themselves or through
We have to go back to the Local Government their predecessors-in-interest have been in
Code, which provides the power of the LGU to open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
classify the lands. So it is the Local Government possession and occupation of agricultural
Unity through a comprehensive land use that lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
classifies the land. claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least
thirty years immediately preceding the filing of
Now, question, why does the local government the application for confirmation of title except
unit classify the land according to its use? What when prevented by war or force majeure.
is the significance? We have to understand, the These shall be conclusively presumed to
classification of the land by the LGU is ... the real have performed all the conditions essential to
property tax. Why is the LGU interested in that? a Government grant and shall be entitled to a



certificate of title under the provisions of this Pacific war. In ’47, she subsequently sold the
chapter." land to Sps. Piguing, who constructed a
house thereon. Sps. Piguing later on sold the
Republic, through DOL, opposed the lot to Meralco on 13 Aug ’76.
application on the grounds that INC, as a
private corporation, is disqualified to hold 1 Dec ’76: Manila Electric Company, a
alienable lands of public domain; that land domestic corporation & whose capital stock is
applied for is public land; that INC & owned by Filipinos (>60%), filed application in
predecessors-in-interest have not been in CFI & prayed for confirmation of its title to 2
OCEAN possession since ’45. lots located at Tanay, Rizal (165sqm).
TC ordered registration of 2 lots in name of Republic opposed contending that MEC, as a

INC. Republic appealed. private corporation, is disqualified to hold
alienable public lands; that MEC &
Issue predecessors-ininterest have not been in
WON INC may register said alienable lands OCEAN possession for at least 30 yrs.
of public domain
Province of Rizal & Municipality of Tanay filed
Held joint opposition contending that one of the
NO. INC, as a corporation sole or juridical lots, Lot 1165 of Tanay cadastre, would be
person, is disqualified to acquire or hold needed for widening & improvement of Jose
alienable lands of public domain. Said church Abad Santos & E. Quirino Streets in Tanay.
is not entitled to avail itself of the benefits of
Sec. 48(b) which applies only to Filipino LC rendered decision dismissing the
citizens or natural persons. A corporation sole application, ruling Meralco is not qualified to
(an "unhappy freak of English law") has no apply for registration under Sec. 48(b) of
nationality. Public Land Law, being a juridical person. TC
assumed the land is public land.
INC is incorrect when it argued that said lots
are private lands. They are still public lands. Issue
A land registration proceeding under Sec. WON Meralco is disqualified to register said
48(b) "presupposes that the land is public.” All land
lands that were not acquired from the
Government, either by purchase or by grant, Held
belong to the public domain. An exception to Yes. Said land is still public land. It would
the rule would be any land that should have cease to be public land only upon the
been in the possession of an occupant and of issuance of the certificate of title to any
his predecessors-in-interest since time Filipino citizen claiming it under Sec. 48(b).
immemorial, for such possession would justify Because it is still public land and Meralco is a
the presumption that the land had never been juridical person, it is disqualified to apply for
part of the public domain or that it had been a registration.
private property even before the Spanish There was no possession since time
conquest. But this was not present in this immemorial of the predecessors-in-interest in
case. the present case to warrant registration or an
exception. In fact, Meralco does not pretend
The case of Manila Electric Company v. that the Piguing spouses and their
Republic of the Philippines, GR No. L-49623, predecessor had been in possession of the
June 29, 1982. Compare this with the case of land since time immemorial.
Republic v. INC.
Until the certificate of title is issued, a pice of
Manila Electric Company v. Republic of land, over which an imperfect title is sought to
the Philippines, be confirmed, remains public land. For that
GR No. L-49623 | June 29, 1982 same reason, lands over which an imperfect
title is sought to be confirmed are governed
Facts by the Public Land Law. Such lands would not
Olimpia Ramos possessed a land before be covered by the Public Land Law if they



were already private lands. 29 Oct ’62: Acme filed for a registration
proceeding, alleging that the subject land was
Argument: if the Piguing spouses could ask ancestrally acquired from Mariano Infiel &
for the confirmation of their imperfect title to Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe. It
the said lands, then why should the Meralco, alleged that the 1935 Constitution applies
as their transferee, be denied the same right because the sale took place on said date; that
to register the said land in its name, there possession of the Infiels over the land dates
being no legal prohibition for the Piguing back before PH was discovered by Magellan;
spouses from selling the land to the Meralco? that possession of Acme is OCEAN from
1962 to present & by way of tacking
The benefits provided in the Public Land Act possession of the Infiels, its possession is
for applicant's immediate predecessors-in- already considered from time immemorial;
interest are or constitute a grant or that the land is a private land pursuant to RA
concession by the State; and before they 3872 granting absolute ownership to
could acquire any right under such benefits, members of non-Christian Tribes on land
the applicant's immediate predecessors-in- occupied by them; that Acme introduced
interest should comply with the condition more than P45M worth of improvements.
precedent for the grant of such benefits. The
condition precedent is to apply for the DOL contested the applicability of the 1935
registration of the land of which they had been Consti, asserting that registration
in possession at least since July 26, 1894. proceedings have been commenced only on
17 Jul ’81 hence, 1973 Consti applies. And
This the applicant's immediate predecessors- since Sec. 11, Art. XIV prohibits private
in-interest (meaning the Piguing spouses in corporations from alienable lands of the
the instant case) failed to do. They did not public domain, except by lease not exceeding
have any vested right in the lot amounting to 1k hec.
title which was transmissible to the applicant.
The only right, if it may thus be called, is their Issue
possession of the lot which, tacked to that of WON Acme may register the land
their predecessors-in-interest, may be availed
of by a qualified person to apply for its Held
registration but not by a person as the Yes. To answer, the character of the lands at
applicant who is disqualified. the time of the institution of the registration
proceedings must be determined. If they were
Finally, the constitutional prohibition makes then still part of the public domain, it must be
no distinction between (on one hand) answered in the negative. If, on the other
alienable agricultural public lands as to which hand, they were then already private lands,
no occupant has an imperfect title and (on the the constitutional prohibition against their
other hand) alienable lands of the public acquisition by private corporations or
domain as to which an occupant has an associations obviously does not apply.
imperfect title subject to judicial confirmation.
Land was already private land to which the
What happened in the case of Director of Lands Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable
v. IAC, GR No. L-73002, December 29, 1986. title on 1962 when Acme acquired it. Also, the
Compare this with the Meralco case. 1935 Consti applies. Hence, Acme had a
perfect right to make such acquisition, there
Director of Lands v. IAC being nothing in the 1935 Constitution then in
GR No. L-73002 | December 29, 1986 force prohibiting corporations from acquiring
and owning private lands.
Facts
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., Even on the proposition that the land
represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario, is a remained technically "public" land, despite
corporation duly organized in accordance immemorial possession of the Infiels and their
with the law of the Republic & registered with ancestors, until title in their favor was actually
Securities and Exchange Commission. confirmed in appropriate proceedings under
the Public Land Act, there can be no serious



question of Acme’s right to acquire the land at de Ocsio filed answer to the petition, alleging
the time it did, there also being nothing in the that she was the owner, by purchase of 2
1935 Consti that might be construed to parcels of land; that she had been in
prohibit corporations from purchasing or possession for 15 yrs & her predecessors-in-
acquiring interests in public land to which the interest for 60 yrs.
vendor had already acquired that type of so-
called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title. The Religious of the Virgin Mary, however,
only limitation then extant was claimed title to the same parcels of land,
that corporations could not acquire, hold or alleging that it had bought the lots from
lease public agricultural lands in excess of Victoria Ong de Ocsio & had been in
1,024 hectares. The purely accidental possession as owner for over 4 yrs & its
circumstance that confirmation proceedings possession & that of its predecessors was
were brought under the aegis of the 1973 immemorial.
Constitution which forbids corporations from
owning lands of the public domain cannot However, evidence revealed that Victoria
defeat a right already vested before that law Ong de Ocsio had in truth sold Lot 1272 to the
came into effect, or invalidate transactions Religious of the Virgin Mary by virtue of a
then perfectly valid and proper. This Court DOS dated 12 Apr ’56 & Lot 1273 was a road
has already held, in analogous right of way granted to Iligan. CA affirmed this
circumstances, that the Constitution cannot decision.
impair vested rights.
Victoria asserts that Religious of the Virgin
Note: The Court reconsiders the majority Mary is a religious corporation hence,
ruling in Meralco & is no longer deemed to be disqualified to obtain judicial confirmation of
a binding precedent. Alienable public land an imperfect title under Sec. 48(b) of PLA.
held by a possessor, personally or through his
predecessors-in-interest, openly, Issue
continuously and exclusively for the WON Religious of the Virgin Mary acquired
prescribed statutory period (30 years under title over the lot.
The Public Land Act) is converted to private
property by the mere lapse or completion of Held
said period, ipso jure. Yes. The ruling in Meralco vs. Bartolome no
longer controls. The current doctrine is that
The land subject of this appeal was already open, continuous and exclusive possession
private property at the time it was acquired of alienable public land for at least 30 yrs in
from the Infiels by Acme. Acme thereby accordance with the Public Land Act ipso jure
acquired a registrable title, there being at the converts the land to private property, and a
time no prohibition against said corporation's juridical person who thereafter acquires the
holding or owning private land. The objection same may have title thereto confirmed in its
that, as a juridical person, Acme is not name.
qualified to apply for judicial confirmation of
title under Sec. 48(b) of PLA is technical, A private corporation purchased the land
rather than substantial. originally of the public domain from parties
who had, by themselves and through their
De Ocsio v. CA and RVM, GR No. L-44237, predecessors-in-interest, possessed and
February 28, 1989. What is the difference in the occupied it since time immemorial. It had
case of Acme? thereafter instituted proceedings for
confirmation of title under Section 48(b) of the
De Ocsio v. CA and RVM Public Land Act. The fact that the
GR No. L-44237 | February 28, 1989 proceedings had been instituted by said
purchaser in its own name and not in the
Facts name of the transferors was "xx simply xx (an)
DOL initiated cadastral proceedings in behalf accidental circumstance, productive of a
of the Republic for the settlement & defect hardly more than procedural and in
adjudication of title to a large tract of land, nowise affecting the substance and merits of
261.5791 hec in the Iligan City. Victoria Ong the right of ownership sought to be confirmed.



The prohibitions in the 1973 and 1987 7 May ’74: Carmen & Sps. Ignacio & Trinidad
Constitutions against acquisition or Palomo filed an action for injunction against
registration of lands by or in behalf of private Faustino Perfecto et.al. who are all
corporations do not apply to public lands employees of Bureau of Forest Development
already converted to private ownership by who entered land & cut down bamboos.
natural persons under the provisions of the
PLA. 11 Oct ’74: Republic filed for annulment &
cancellation of the certificates of title involving
Case at bar: Virginia Ong de Ocsio and her the 15 parcels of land registered in the name
predecessors-in-interest have possessed Lot of the Palomos.
No. 1272 for the period and under the
conditions prescribed by law for acquisition of Issue
ownership of disposable public land prior to WON the titles issued to Palomos for
the sale of the property to the Religious of the reconstitution are valid
Virgin Mary.
Held
Palomo v. CA (1997). What did the SC say about No. Before the Treaty of Paris in April 11,
these tax receipts? Tax receipts are best 1899, our lands, whether agricultural, mineral
evidence that you are paying taxes. or forest were under the exclusive patrimony
and dominion of the Spanish Crown. Hence,
Palomo v. CA (1997) private ownership of land could only be
acquired through royal concessions which
Facts were documented in various forms. There
13 Jun ’13: Governor-General of PH William was no proof presented that Palomo’s
Cameron Forbes issued EO 40 which predecessors derived title from an old
reserved 440,530sqm of land in Barrio Naga, Spanish grant or that their predecessors were
Municipality of Tiwi, Albay for provincial park in OCEAN possession of subject lands for 20-
purposes pursuant to Act 648 of PH 50 yrs. Also, the decisions of the CFI were not
Commission. Subsequently, CFI of Albay signed by
ordered registration of 15 parcels of land the judge but were merely certified copies of
covered by EO 40 in the name of Diego notification to Diego
Palomo. He donated these parcels to his
heirs, Ignacio & Carmen Palomo 2mos before Palomo bearing the signature of the clerk of
his death. court. Moreover, despite claims by the
petitioners that their predecessors in interest
30 Mar ’50: Ignacio Palomo filed petition for were in open, adverse and continuous
reconstitution, claiming that the OCTs were possession for 20-50 yrs, the lands were
lost during Japanese occupation. ROD Albay surveyed only in December 1913, the very
issued TCTs in his favor. same
year they were acquired by Diego Palomo.
10 Jul ’54: Pres. Magsaysay issued Curiously, in February 1913 or 10 months
Proclamation 47, converting the area before the lands were surveyed for Diego
embraced by EO 40 into the Tiwi Hot Spring Palomo, the government had already
National Park. Area was never released as surveyed the area in preparation for its
alienable and disposable portion of the public reservation for provincial park purposes.
domain & hence, not susceptible to
disposition under PLC or LRA. Palomos, As to contention that government is now
however, continued to be in possession of the estopped from questioning validity of the
property, paid real estate taxes & introduced certificates of title: principle of estoppel does
improvements. not operate against the Government for the
act of its agents.
8 Apr ’71: Carmen vda. de Buenaventura &
Sps. Ignacio Palomo & Trinidad Pascual Even assuming the decree of the CFI were
mortgaged the 3 parcels of land to guarantee really issued, the lands are still not capable of
a loan of P200k from BPI. appropriation. The adverse possession which



may be the basis of a grant of title in that Bernabes do not have registerable title to
confirmation of imperfect title cases applies the land.
only to alienable lands of the public domain.
But the lands in this case were not alienable Issue
lands of the public domain. In fact, they were WON the lots claimed by Bernabes could
never declared as alienable and disposable legally be the subject of a judicial confirmation
and subject to private alienation prior to 1913 of title under PLA
up to the present. Moreover, as part of the
reservation for provincial park purposes, they Held
form part of the forest zone. Forest land No. A decision was rendered before the last
cannot be owned by private persons. It is not war in Cadastral Case No. 19 LRC Cadastral
registrable and possession thereof, no matter Record No. 1097, declaring the lot in question
how lengthy, cannot convert it into private as public land. Said lot was declared public
property. land by virtue of a court decision which has
become final and as held by the Supreme
Republic v. Bernabe, Sr., GR No. L-40402, Court aforesaid decision is res judicata. TC
March 16, 1987. Was the application for had not jurisdiction to reopen the cadastral
registration granted? No. Why? proceeding. Furthermore, it is undisputed that
aforesaid Lot No. 622 was released as an
Republic v. Bernabe, Sr. agricultural land for disposition under Public
GR No. L-40402 | March 16, 1987 Land Act only on July 6, 1965.
Facts Sec. 48(b) of CA 141 applies exclusively to

Lot 622 of the Mariveles Cadastre was public agricultural land. Forest lands or areas
declared as public land in a decision rendered covered with forests are excluded. They are
in Cadastral Case 19, LRC Cadastral Record incapable of registration and their inclusion in
1097. 6 Jul ’65: Lot 622 was segregated from a title, whether such title be one issued during
the forest and released and certified by the the Spanish sovereignty or under the present
BOF as an agricultural land for disposition Torrens system of registration, nullifies the
under PLA. 26 Apr ’67: Bernabes filed in CFI title. Thus, possession of forest lands,
Bataan a petition to reopen Cadastral Case however long, cannot ripen into private
19, concerning portion of Lot 622 and of Lot ownership.
324, alleging that they have acquired
ownership & possession of the parcels by Thus, even if the reopening of the cadastral
purchase from the original owners thereof & proceedings was at all possible, Bernabes
that they have been in OCEAN possession & have not qualified for a grant under Sec. 48(b)
in the concept of owners for more than 30 yrs. of CA 141, the facts being that Bernabes
could only be credited with 1 year, 9 months
DOF filed an opposition, alleging that area and 20 days possession and occupation of
involved is within timberland & therefore, the lots involved, counted from July 6, 1965,
inalienable under the Constitution. Upon the date when the land area in sitio San Jose,
verification, however, DOF found that the barrio Cabcaban, Mariveles, Bataan, known
area to be the timberland already released by as Bataan PMD No. 267, which includes the
the government from the mass of public lots claimed by Bernabes, had been
forests & segregated from the forest zone and released
promptly withdrew his Opposition. by the Bureau of Forestry as an agricultural
land for disposition under the Public Land Act.
1 Sep ’67: Acting Provincial Fiscal of Bataan,
in behalf of DOL, filed opposition, alleging that Republic v. De Guzman, GR No. 137887,
land is still public land. LC found that February 28, 2000. So you count the possession
Bernabes have complied with all the terms & from the declassification of the land. So
conditions which would entitle them to a regardless of the fact that you are there for 100
grant. So Republic filed petition for review on years, if it is only declassified today, then you do
the grounds that the entire proceeding was not count the years prior, you start today.
vitiated by lack of notice to the SolGen; that
parcels of land are portions of public domain; Republic v. De Guzman



GR No. 137887 | February 28, 2000 declassification prior to the possession and
cultivation in good faith by Republic, the
Facts property occupied by him remained classified
Norma Almanzor filed application for as forest or timberland, which he could not
confirmation of imperfect title over parcels of have acquired by prescription.
land in Silang, Cavite. Salvador de Guzman
also filed application for confirmation of Then we go to OCENPO.
imperfect title over the same parcels. The applicant and his predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
LC rendered judgment in favor in De notorious possession and occupation of the
Guzman. CA affirmed & petition for subject land.
registration of De Guzman was approved.
Possession and occupation must be:
Issue 1. Open - visible;
WON De Guzman overthrew the presumption 2. Continuous - uninterrupted;
that the lands are portions of the public 3. Exclusive - possession to the exclusion of
domain. others; and
4. Notorious - known to the public.
Held
No. Not disputed that the subject parcels of We proceed to the second paragraph of Section
land were released as agricultural land only in 14.
1965 while the petition for confirmation of
imperfect title was filed by De Guzman only in (2) Those who have acquired ownership
1991. of private lands by prescription under the
provision of existing laws.
Thus the period of occupancy of the subject
parcels of land from 1965 until the time the
Ownership and other real rights over immovable
application was filed in 1991 was only 26 yrs
property acquired by ordinary prescription is 10
or 4 yrs short of the required 30 year period
years. Extraordinary is 30 years.
possession requirement.
The property subject of De Guzman’s Possession - is the manifestation of facts of

application was only declared alienable in dominion over lands. Possession is not by mere
1965. Prior to such date, the same was forest tolerance.
land incapable of private appropriation. It was
not registrable and possession thereof, no So we ask ourselves, what must an applicant
matter how lengthy, could not convert it into prove during the petition. The applicant must
private property, unless and until such lands prove that the land applied for ishas been
were reclassified and considered disposable declassified as alienable and disposable.
and alienable. Hence, prior to its declaration
as alienable land in 1965, any occupation or The applicant must prove the identity of the land
possession thereon cannot be considered in and must prove that he has been in OCENPO.
the counting of the 30 year possession
requirement. What are those evidence?
1. The applicant must prove that the subject land
Although De Guzmans & their predecessors- forms part of the disposable and alienable lands
in-interest have been in possession of the of the public domain.
land for 63 yrs at the time of the application, 2. The applicant must present a certification from
the fact remains that from the time the land the DENR that certifies that the land is alienable
was declared alienable until the time of their and disposable.
application, their occupation thereof was only 3. The land applied for has been declassified as
26 yrs. public agricultural land.
Hence, their 37 yrs of possession prior to the What are the evidence that you can submit?
release of the land as alienable cannot be 1. Presidential proclamation
considered because absent the fact of



2. Executive Order The respondents alleged that they are the owners
3. Administrative Order issued by the Secretary pro indiviso and in fee simple of the subject
of DENR parcels of land; that they have acquired the
4. Bureau of Forest Development Land subject parcels of land by purchase or
Classification Map assignment of rights; and that they have been in
5. Certification by Director of Forestry actual, open, public, and continuous possession
6. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands of the subject land under claim of title exclusive of
7. Legislative act or by statute any other rights and adverse to all other claimants
8. Technical description of the land by themselves and through their predecessors-in-
9. Tax declaration interest since time immemorial. In support of their
10. Boundaries and area applications, the respondents submitted blueprint
plans of Lot 3857 and Lot 3858, technical
Next Requisite: As to the identity of the land descriptions, certifications in lieu of lost geodetic
What do you mean identity of the land? How do engineers certificates, declarations of real
you prove identity of the land? property tax, official receipts of payment of taxes,
real property tax certifications, and deeds of
Proof of Identity of Land absolute sale.
1. Survey plan in general
2. Tracing cloth plan and blue print copies of plan The OSG opposed the petition, alleging, among
in application for judicial confirmation of titles, the others, that the respondents have not proven
submission of original tracing cloth plan of the actual, open, public, and continuous possession
land approved by the Director of Lands is a of the land from June 12, 1945 or earlier. Moldex
statutory requirement of MANDATORY character Realty also opposed, stating that a part of one of
(Director of Lands v. Reyes, November 28, 1975) the parcels of the land overlapped with lands it
3. Tax declaration owned.
Statutory requirement cannot be waived either The RTC handed down its Judgment granting
expressly or impliedly. the respondents application for registration ofthe
first lot but deferred the approval of registration
of the second lot pending the segregation of
September 9 – Murray 4,243 square meter portion thereof which was
found to belong to Moldex. It rendered an
FIRST REQUISITE amended judgment later, granting registration of
First that it has been declassified as a public the second lot. The OSG and Moldex appealed
agricultural land that is alienable and disposable. with the CA, which reinstated the earlier RTC
How can we prove that? decision. The OSG appealed.
We have: ISSUE: Did the CA err in reinstating the earlier

1. presidential proclamations RTC decision, or whether or not the respondents
2. executive order had a valid claim over the two parcels of land?
3. certification from the Bureau of Land
HELD: Applicants for registration of title under
Management, Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 in relation to
4. Certification from CENRO Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141, as
amended by Section 4 of P.D. No. 1073 must
VICTORIA VS REPUBLIC sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land
forms part of the disposable and alienable lands
of the public domain; (2) that the applicant and his
REPUBLIC VS MATIMTIM predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
FACTS: Respondents filed with the RTC two and occupation of the same; and (3) that it is
applications for registration and confirmation of under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
their title over two (2) parcels of land located in 12, 1945, or earlier. These the respondents must
Barangay Sungay, Tagaytay City. prove by no less than clear, positive and
convincing evidence.



The respondents best evidence to prove Transfer datedDecember 31, 1962, and that he is
possession and ownership over the subject currently in possession of the land.In support of
property were the tax declarations issued in their his claim, he presented, among others, Tax
names. Unfortunately, these tax declarations Declaration No. 22206for the year 1994 in his
together with their unsubstantiated general name, and Proof of Payment of real property
statements and mere xerox copies of deeds of taxes beginning in 1952 up to the time of filing of
sale are not enough to prove their rightful the application.
claim.Well settled is the rule that declarations and
receipts are not conclusive evidence of OnApril 20, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor
ownership or of the right to possess land when General (OSG) filed an Opposition alleging that
not supported by any other evidence.The fact that neither respondent nor his predecessors-in-
the disputed property may have been declared for interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive
taxation purposes in the names of the applicants and notorious possession and occupation of the
for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest subject property sinceJune 12, 1945or earlier and
does not necessarily prove ownership. They are that the tax declarations and tax payment receipts
merely indicia of a claim of ownership. did not constitute competent and sufficient
evidence of ownership.The OSG also asserted
GRANTED that the subject property was a portion of public
domain belonging to the Republic of
Comments: Okay, in this situation class you will thePhilippinesand hence not subject to private
come to think, ay hindi pala pwede photocopy. If acquisition.
you look at the Rules of Evidence, photocopy is
allowed. But if you will submit a photocopy, you The Land Investigator/Inspector Dionisio L. Picar
will have to provide reasons why the original of the Community Environment and Natural
cannot be obtained. So if you will be asked “why Resources Office (CENRO) ofSan Fernando, La
photocopy?” “Because your honor, we cannot Union thereafter certified that the subject parcel
obtain the original because of valid reasons blah of land was within the alienable and disposable
blah blah (literally said by Sir), but we are zone and that the applicant was in actual
presenting those persons who executed the occupation and possession of the land.
aforesaid document, oh diba? In this case, they
failed to do the same to prove that the said parcel The MTC, acting as a land registration court,
of land is A and D. approved the application for registration, which
the OSG appealed.
In this case, they also presented tax
declarations. How did the Supreme Court ruled ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was in
as to these tax declarations? open, continuous, adverse, and public
possession of the land in question in the manner
Xxxxxx and length of time required by law as to entitle
What does this tax declarations prove? They are respondent to judicial confirmation of imperfect
not the best evidence of ownership of the land, title
they are complementary but they are not the
primary proof of ownership. HELD: The petition is granted.
CIVIL LAW: Requisites for registrability of title.

REPUBLIC VS RIZALVO
Under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration
FACTS: On December 7, 2000, respondent Decree, applicants forregistrationof title must
Teodoro P. Rizalvo, Jr. filed before the MTC of sufficiently establishfirst,that the subject land
Bauang, La Union, acting as a land registration forms part of the disposable and alienable lands
court, an application for the registration of a of the public domain;second,that the applicant
parcel of land referred to in Survey Plan Psu- and his predecessors-in-interest have been in
200706, located inBauang, La Union. open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
Respondent alleged that he is the owner in fee possession and occupation of the same; and
simple of the subject parcel of land, that he third,that it is under abona fideclaim of ownership
obtained title over the land by virtue of a Deed of since June 12, 1945, or earlier.



The first requirement was satisfied in this case. So there is no express declaration of the state?
The certification and reportdatedJuly 17, What does the certification provide?
2001submitted by Special Investigator IDionisio Assuming that it is provided for? OK, there was
L. Picar of the CENRO of San Fernando City, La a certification, however, the time lapsed at the
Union, states that the entire land area in question application is not sufficient to satisfy the period
is within the alienable and disposable zone. for acquisitive prescription as provided for in the
law. OK.
Respondent has likewise met the second
requirement as to ownership and possession.The
MTC and the CA both agreed that respondent has SECOND REQUISITE: identity of the land
presented sufficient testimonial and documentary
evidence to show that he and his predecessors- Best proof of the identity of the land:
in-interest were in open, continuous,exclusive 1. The survey plan
and notorious possession and occupation of the 2. the tracing cloth plan
land in question. Said findings are binding upon 3. the blue print copies
this Court absent any showing that the lower 4. the technical description
courts committed error. 5. the tax declaration in itself
6. boundaries of the area
However, the third requirement has not been
satisfied.Respondent only managed to iF you look at the tax declaration class it will
presentoral and documentary evidence of his and show you the boundaries, sa left side si Madam
his mothers ownership and possession of the ganito, sa right side si madam ganyan…ok there
land since 1958 through a photocopy of the Deed is identification sa right side public road, ganyan
of Absolute Sale datedJuly 8, 1958between ok?
Eufrecina Navarro and Bibiana P. Rizalvo.He
presented Tax Declaration No. 11078 for the year DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS REYES
1948 in the name ofEufrecina Navarro and real
property tax receipts beginning in 1952. What is Facts: Alipio Alinsurin, later substituted by
required by law is open, continuous, exclusive, Parañaque Investment and
and notorious possession and occupation under DevelopmentCorporation, sought to register
abona fideclaim of ownership sinceJune 12, under Act 496, a parcel of land indisputably
1945or earlier. includedwithin the area reserved for military
purposes under Presidential Proclamation
Under Section 14(2) applicant is likewise not No.237, dated December 19, 1955. Applicant
entitled to registration of title through prescription, claimed that his predecessors acquiredthe land
since the 30-year period will only commence from by virtue of a possessory information title issued
the moment the State expressly declaresthat the during the SpanishRegime on March 5, 1895.
public dominion property is no longer intended for The application was opposed by the Government.
public service or the development of the national
wealth or that the property has been converted The lower court adjudicated (a) 2/3 portion of the
into patrimonial. There was no such declaration in land in favor of the corporation,subject to the
this case. rights of one Ariosto Santos per a manifestation
submitted in court,and (b) 1/3 portion to Roman
Petition is GRANTED. Tamayo.Within the extended period, the
Government filed the corresponding record on
Comments: In this case, I want you to do appeal, copy of which was duly served upon the
discuss whether or not the land is already corporation and Tamayo.
alienable and disposable did they present proof
that the land is the same? Pending approval of the Record on Appeal, and
on motion of the corporation and of Tamayo, the
So how did the SC ruled, is the land A and D? lower court directed the issuance of a registration
Do you agree that there is a certification? decree of the entireparcel applied for, 1/3 pro-
Correct. But do they recognize this certification? indiviso in favor of Tamayo, and 2/3 pro-indiviso
Why? in favorof the corporation, and declared that as to
Tamayo's share, the court's decision had become
final, but as to the share of the corporation, the



registration shall be subjectto the final outcome of purpose of the aforesaid requirement is to fix the
the appeal. exact or definite identity of the land as shown in
the plan and technical descriptions. Hence, the
Hence, the Government instituted this Special applicant is not relieved of his duty of submitting
Civil Action for certiorari and mandamus and the the acreage.
Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary
injunction restraining the lower court from issuing Comments: Was the identity of the land
a writ of possession, the corporation and Tamayo sufficiently established in this case? No. Why?
from exercising acts of ownership over the What is the consequence if you don’t submit the
property, and the register of deeds from original tracing cloth plan? That is the proof of the
accepting for registration documents on the land identity of the land. What is the effect if you will
until the government shall have filed a notice of lis not submit the same? Then your application for
pendens. registration will be denied.
During the pendency of the appeal in the ***Even if a land is not classified as alienable and
registration case, a certain Honofre A. Andrada disposable, it can be a subject of a survey. Can
and others filed with the Court of First Instance a you survey Mt. Apo? Yes you can. But for what
complaint against the corporation and Tamayo for purposes? I don’t know.
reconveyance of a portion of the land in question.
The trial court assumed jurisdiction over, and So this statutory requirement, this general
decided, the case in favor of Andrada. Pursuant principle is staturorily mandatory, you have to
thereto, but in violation of the Supreme Court's present this (original tracing cloth plan), because
injunction (in L-27594), the corporation executed the courts cannot proceed, because if you do not
a subdivision plan of the parcel subject of the have that, that is a very vital, important piece of
landregistration, and the trial court ordered the document that you need to submit to court for the
Register of Deeds to cancel the origina lcertificate purposes of registration because it will determine
of title and to issue new titles to Andrada, et al., the metes and bounds of your property.
"free from all liens andencumbrances."
THIRD REQUISITE: OCENPO
Issue: W/N the identity of the land was sufficiently
established WAYS TO PROVE:
1. Tax declaration
Ruling: No. The original tracing cloth plan of the 2. tax payment
land applied for, approved by the Director of 3. presidential issuance
Lands, must be submitted in evidence. In this 4. legislative acts
case, the same was not submitted. The
5. other proofs
submission of such plan is a statutory
6. testimonial evidence
requirement of mandatory character. And unless
a plan and its technical description are duly 7. barangay certification
approved by the Director of Lands, the same are the barangay captain will issue a certificate that
not of much value. you have been an occupant of the land since 19
The applicant may not justify the non-submission chuchu diba? How can you prove that your lolo
of the original tracing cloth plan by claiming that has been in possession of a land because he is
the same may be with the Land Registration 70 years old? Then you submit a barangay
Commission (LRC) which checked or verified the certification that your lolo had been in possession
survey plan and the technical descriptions of the land since 1920s.
thereof, for it is not the function of the LRC to
check the original survey plan as it has no Tacking of possession - Diba sinabi nga natin
authority to approve original survey plans. na privity of contract? Or relationship between
previous and present possessor. Relationship,
The applicant is not relieved from submitting in halimbawa si lolo ninyo napamana sa anak nya,
evidence the original tracing cloth plan approved napamana sa inyo. To be able to comply with the
by the Director of Lands as required by law. One period like 30 years, then you can tack ang
of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens System possession ng lolo, ng grandma, etc. And at the
is the absolute certainty of the identity of a same time, rights can be transmitted, here rights
registered land. Consequently the primary



can be transmitted pertaining to the possession provided, however, that

of the property. should the period for
redemption expire during the
So if you become lawyers? Marinig mo ang pendency of the registration
waiver of rights? Sale of rights? Puro lang rights, proceedings and ownership
you cannot sell lefts, but you can sell rights. Of to the property consolidated
course, if that land is not alienable and in the vendee a retro, the
disposable, part of the public domain, then it is a latter shall be substituted for
titled property, you cannot sell your rights to the the applicant and may
same. Diba? Kaya mahilig kayo sa mga continue the proceedings.
assume2x, i-assume ko na lang yang property.
So the first thing that you ask – sigurado bay an? Do you understand the term pacto de retro? It
Lalo na kung makahanap ka ng mura, tingnan mo pertains to the right to repurchase. In your study
muna kung bakit mura. Kasi kung mura, may of Obligations and Contracts where the sale is
problema, walang mura na walang problema. with a right to repurchase, what is your defense?
(further jokes about lawyering) Ano man yan, pacto de retro sale man yan, and
he did not exercise his right to repurchase within
So what is the significance of June 12, 1945? As the period provided for that is why the property is
we said, we do not know. mine. Ganyan man yan usually, mangungutang
ako, what will happen is I make a deed of sale
QUESTION: Erich filed an application for original with you with the right to repurchase in two years.
registration of title to land. She avers that she has After two years, wala pa rin akong pambayad sa
been in possession of the land since June 12, iyo, nangutang nga ako eh. Ah hindi ko nay an
1946. She filed her application on August 15, ibabalik sa iyo. Pero, ui lugi man ako ditto I have
1976. Assuming other requisites had been 1 hectare only for 20 pesos. What is the defense?
complied with:
(a) Erich cannot be issued a certificate of EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. Diba? Equitable
title. The law requires possession and mortgage yan. To cancel the same.
occupation since June 12, 1945.
(b) Erich cannot be issued a certificate of A trustee on behalf of his
title. Registration is barred by laches principal may apply for
(c) Erich can be issued a certificate of title original registration of any
land held in trust by him,
but under cadastral registration
unless prohibited by the
(d) Erich can be issued a certificate of title
instrument creating the trust.
but by virtue of prescription
The correct answer is D (in extraordinary Diba there are two types of trusts? Express and
acquisitive prescription, the 30 years period was Implied.
complied with) Ok, so all this persons must be natural born
Filipino citizens, however by way of exception,
CONTINUATION OF SECTION 14 OF PD 1529 juridical persons may apply registration (?) of
lease of agricultural lands not exceeding 1,000
Okay continue natin ang section 14. hectares. Alam naman natin na juridical persons
cannot apply for registration but can only lease
Where the land is owned in the same. OK?
common, all the co-owners shall
file the application jointly. Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. Those
who by themselves or through their
Oh diba? Dapat Jointly. Sabay-sabay. predecessors-in-interest have been, in
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
Where the land has been sold and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
under pacto de retro, the domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or
vendor a retro may file an ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
application for the original preceding the filing of the application for
registration of the land, confirmation of title, except when prevented by
war of force majeure. Those shall be conclusively



presumed to have performed all the conditions

essential to a government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions
of this chapter.
(inaudible)…may constitute confirmation of title

under Section 48(b) of Public Land Act, but
provided that the land is already private at the
time of the proceedings. If you recall the IPs, the
infieles. Because at that time, the lands of the
public domain has been converted into private
lands, by virtue of the fact that the person has
been in OCENPO of the property and all the other
requirements has been duly complied with. OK?
PD 1529 pertains to judicial. CA 141, dapat RA

1942 pero kasi the amendment only changes the
year of until when to apply. So now, it is until
2020. Diba? Ilang tulog na. Lalo na kung ber
months diba mapansin nyo parang mabilis nay
an.
Ok, natural-born citizen of the Philippines who

has lost his Philippine citizenship and has legal
capacity to enter into a contract in the Philippines
may be a transferee of private lands up to 5,000
square meters. Mga former filipinos ha,
hanggang 5 hectares lang.
OK, to review these are the things that are

needed to be proven for application:
1. The property is an alienable and
disposable land of the public domain
2. Identity of the land
3. OCENPO
So that would be the coverage of our first

exam, hanggang OCENPO.


Land Titles and Deeds

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Land Titles and Deeds

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AMPP Land Titles and Deeds Based on the Lectures of

1st Exam Atty. Jeffrey Jefferson Coronel

June 19 – Peroy common parlance that is called

[Discussion of class policy] Issuance of Title Transaction:

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 1

There is also this title called Certificate of

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 2

4. National Commission on Indigenous have their own separate registration system

[Sir shows sample documents/titles] Tax Declaration

DENR/Minister of Natural Resources William the Conqueror introduced the concept of

DAR July 10 – Alcomendras

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 3

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 4

validity. Upon perfection of the contract, the

RE: PUBLIC DOCUMENT Comments: If the sale is in a private document,

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 5

What cannot be collaterally attacked is the

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 6

He found that Lot No. 915 was covered by a

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 7

Transfer Certificate of Title No. (N.A.) 3-(R). reconstitution of the title.

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 8

One and the same judge (1) allowed the

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 9

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 10

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 11

parcel of land embracing practically all of

HELD: The foregoing finds support in the following well-

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 12

A careful perusal of the contents of the so-called

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 13

If you trace the history of navigation, system of

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 14

2. Land is relieved from all claims except

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 15

question. SC said registration is not

Soon, later, or on November 1935, the Bank

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 16

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 17

on what appears on the institutions are really required to go

a. Where a person deals with registered 3. Insurance Principle

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 18

9. It furnishes state title insurance instead of

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 19

. ADMINISTRATION OF THE TORRENS

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 20

Commissioner, shall receive compensation which (1) The Commissioner of Land

All other officials and employees of the Land

All officials and employees of the Commission

a. Commissioner (2) The Land Registration Commission

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 21

The Secretary of Justice shall define the official FACTS:

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 22

the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 23

The petition here was granted. Section 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 24

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 25

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 26

Resources. Through a MFR, an ocular registration obtained by actual fraud. However,

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 27

They shall be assisted by such number of division

Alcomendras | Manligoy | Pahayahay | Peroy 28