LAND TITLES AND DEEDS  “when, as far back as testimony or memory goes,
(Registration, Issues and Remedies)
Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili
Philippine Judicial Academy, Supreme Court
(Author: Property Registration Decree and Related Laws (Land
Titles and Deeds); Environmental Reforms and Rules of
Procedure for
Environmental Cases; and Reviewer in Property Registration)
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
• The Regalian doctrine dictates that all lands of the
public domain belong to the State. (Leonidas v. Vargas,
GR No. 201301, Dec. 14, 2017; Republic v. Bantigue, GR
No. 162322, March 14, 2012)
 The doctrine has been consistently adopted
under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions; it
espouses that all lands of the public domain
belong to the State, and that, as a consequence
thereof, any asserted right of ownership over
land necessarily traces back to the State.
(Republic v. 218418, Nov. 8, 2017; See also:
Agcaoili, Property Registration Decree and
Related Laws)
• Doctrine reflected Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:
 “Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils,
all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With
the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated.”
 Simply stated, “all lands of the public domain as well as
all natural resources enumerated therein, whether on
public or private land, belong to the State.” (CJ Puno)
 Exception
• An exception to the rule would be any land in
possession of an occupant and of his
predecessors in interest since time immemorial,
for such possession would justify the
presumption that the land had never been part
of the public domain or that it had been a
private property even before the Spanish
conquest. (Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, G.R. No.
48321, Aug. 31, 1946; Carino vs. Insular
Government, 212 U.S., 449; 53 Law. ed., 594.)
• In Cruz v. DENR Secretary (G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6,
2000), seven (7) Justices said that the Regalian theory
does not negate native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial, citing Carino v.
Insular Government where the US Supreme Court,
through Justice Holmes, held that:
the land has been held by individuals under a
claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to
have been held in the same way from before the
Spanish conquest, and never to have been public
land.”
REGISTRATION IS A PROCEEDING IN REM
 Registration is a proceeding in rem
 Being in rem, such proceedings require
constructive seizure of the res (land) as against all
persons, including the state, through (a)
publication, (b) posting and (c) service of notice.
 The purpose of publication is to (a) confer
jurisdiction upon the court over the res, and (b)
apprise the whole world of the pending
registration case so that they may assert their
rights or interests in the land applied for.
(Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals and
Abistado, GR No. 102858, July 28, 1997; Sec. 23,
PD No. 1529)
PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION
• The dominant objectives of land registration are:
 to establish and certify to the ownership of an
absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and to
simplify its transfer;
 to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
ownership is established and recognized;
 to quiet title to land;
 to put a stop forever to any question of the
legality of the title;
 to decree land titles that shall be final,
irrevocable, and indisputable;
 to relieve the land of the burden of known as
well as unknown claims;
 To minimize conflicting claims and stabilize land
ownership
REGISTRATION NOT A MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP BUT
ONLY A PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
• Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is
merely a procedure to establish evidence of title over
realty.
 Registration does not vest title.
 It does not give the holder any better title than
what he actually has. (Solid State Multi-Products
Corporation v. Development Bank of the
Philippines, GR No. 83383, May 6, 1991).
 But the Torrens system does not furnish a shield for
fraud
• A certificate of title cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner or be used as a
shield for fraud.
• Registration merely creates a prima facie
presumption of the validity of the registration
and must give way to evidence to the contrary.
(Jarantilla v. Jarantilla, GR No. 154586, Dec. 1.
2010; Vagilidad v. Vagilidad, GR No. 161136,
Nov. 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 94)
JURISDICTION OVER LAND REGISTRATION CASES AND
SUBSEQUENT PETITIONS
• Regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction over land
registration cases and all petitions after original
registration. (Sec. 2, PD No. 1529)
 However, first level courts may be assigned by
the SC to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering:
(a) Lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or
(b) Contested lots the value of which does
not exceed P100,000. (Republic v. Bantigue, G.R.
No. 162322, March 14, 2012)
 Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals.
 The value of the property is ascertained in three ways:
 First, by the affidavit of the claimant;
 Second, by agreement of the respective
claimants, if there are more than one; or,
 Third, from the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property. (Sec. 34, BP 129)
• Facts:
• Bantigue Corp. filed with the RTC an
application for registration over Lot 8060
with an assessed value of P14,920. The RTC
motu proprio remanded the case to the
MTC since the assessed value of the land
was only P14,920. After hearing, the MTC
granted the application. On appeal,
Republic argued that the MTC did not
acquire jurisdiction since the selling price of
the property per deed of sale attached to
the application was P160,000.
• Issue:
• Did the MTC properly acquire jurisdiction
over the case?
• Ruling:
 Yes. The value of the land should be determined,
not from the selling price, but from the tax
declaration which stated that the assessed value
of the land was only P14,920, or below the
jurisdictional amount of P100,000 pertaining to
first level courts. (Republic v. Bantigue, GR No.
162322, March 14, 2012)
• Facts:
• In 1959, Leonor filed an application for
registration with the CFI (RTC) of Rizal. The
Director of Lands (DL) opposed. Notices
were given and the case was set for hearing
on May 27, 1960. On Sept. 18, 1961, the
court issued an order dismissing the
application based on a report from the LRC
that a “homestead patent was already
issued to Julio by the DL during the
pendency of the registration proceedings.”
• Issue:
• Was the court divested of its jurisdiction by
a subsequent administrative act consisting
in the issuance of a homestead patent by
the DL over the same land subject of the
registration case?
 Ruling:
• No. A land registration court which has
validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of
land for registration of title thereto cannot
be divested of said jurisdiction by a
subsequent administrative act consisting in
the issuance by the Director of Lands of a
homestead patent covering the same parcel
of land.
• Proceedings for land registration are in rem,
whereas proceedings for acquisition of
homestead patent are not. A homestead
patent, therefore, does not finally dispose
of the public or private character of the land
as far as courts acting upon proceedings in
rem are concerned . (De los Angeles v.
Santos, GR No. L-19615, Dec. 24, 1964)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE COURT’S GENERAL AND LIMITED
JURISDICTION NOW ELIMINATED
 Sec. 2 of PD No 1529 provides:
• “Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial
Courts) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of titles to
lands, including improvements and interest
therein and over all petitions filed after original
registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising upon such
applications or petitions.”
• Sec. 2, PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction between
the court’s general and limited jurisdiction.
 Thus, a regional trial court has the authority to
hear not only applications for original registration
 but also on all petitions filed after original
registration of title. The amendment aims to
avoid multiplicity of suits and simplify registration
proceedings.
 The court can now hear and decide not only non-
controversial cases but even contentious issues
which before were beyond its competence.
(Lopez v. Querubin, GR No. 155405, March 18,
2015; Lozada v. Bracewell, G No. 179155, April 2,
2014; Averia v. Caguioa, GR No. L-65129, Dec. 29,
1986)
 However, in Bagayas v. Bagayas, GR No. 187308, Sept.
18, 2013, the Court clarified:
“(T)he prevailing rule is that proceedings
under Section 108 of PD 1529 are summary in
nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of
mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not
controversial issues. Relief under said legal
provision can only be granted if there is unanimity
among the parties, or that there is no adverse
claim or serious objection on the part of any party
in interest. This is now the controlling precedent,
and the Court should no longer digress from such
ruling.”
LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (LRA)
• Functions of the LRA Administrator:
 Issues decrees of registration
 Resolves cases elevated en consulta
 Exercises supervision and control over all clerks
of court in relation to land registration
 Implements orders or decisions of registration
courts
 Verifies and approves subdivision and
consolidation survey plans
 Extends assistance to the DAR in the
implementation of the land reform program;
 Extends assistance to registration courts in
ordinary and cadastral registration cases; and
 Acts as central repository of records relative to
original registration, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands.
• But the more important functions of the LRA are:
(1) Issues decrees of registration pursuant to final
judgments of the courts in land
registration proceedings and cause the
issuance by the Register of Deeds of the
corresponding certificates of title;
(2) Is the central repository of records relative to
original registration of lands titled under
the Torrens system, including subdivision
and consolidation plans of titled lands.
(Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
184589, June 13, 2013)
 LRA: issuance of decree ministerial
 It is ministerial only in the sense that they act
under the orders of the court and the decree
must be in conformity with the decision of the
court. (Gomez v. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 503)
 Exception:
 But the duty ceases to be ministerial where the
issuance of decree would result in duplication of
titles over the same parcel of land, and thereby
destroy the integrity, of the Torrens system of
registration. (Rodriguez v. CA, supra; Angeles v.
Sec. of Justice, GR No. 142549, March 9, 2010)
OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
 There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each
province and city. (Sec. 11, PD 1529)
 Registration means the entry of instruments or
deeds in book or public registry. Registration
affects and binds the land and operates as
constructive notice to the world. (Aznar Brothers
Realty Co. v. Aying, GR No. 144773, May 16,
2005)
 Registration of instruments affecting registered
land must be done in the proper registry to affect
the land and bind third persons. (Aznar Brothers
v. Aying, 458 SCRA 496; Guaranteed Homes, Inc.
v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)
• Constructive notice
“SEC. 52. Constructive notice upon registration. —
Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien,
attachment, order, judgment, instrument or
entry affecting registered land shall, if registered,
filed or entered in the Office of the Register of
Deeds for the province or city where the land to
which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all
persons from the time of such registering, filing,
or entering.”
• Property registered under the Torrens system remains
the property of the person in whose name it is
registered, notwithstanding the execution of any deed
of conveyance, unless the corresponding deed is
registered.
 Thus, if a sale is not registered, it is binding only
between the seller and the buyer, but it does not
affect innocent third persons.
 Registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where
the land lies. (Sec. 51, PD 1529; Bulaong v.
Gonzalez, GR No. 156318, Sept. 5, 2011)
• One of the principal features of the Torrens system of
registration is that all encumbrances on the land shall be
shown, or at least intimated upon the certificate of title
and a person dealing with the owner of the registered
land is not bound to go behind the certificate and
inquire into transactions, the existence of which is not
there intimated.
 The act of registration shall be the operative act
to convey or affect the land insofar as third
persons are concerned, and in all cases the
registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where
the land lies. (Sec. 51, PD 1529)
• The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned. (Sec. 51, PD 1529)
 Thus, the preference given to a duly registered
levy on attachment or execution over a prior
unregistered sale is well settled. (Chua v.
Gutierrez, GR No. 172316, Dec. 8, 2010)
 A levy on attachment, duly registered, takes
preference over a prior unregistered sale. This
preference is not diminished even by the
subsequent registration of the prior sale (Uy v.
Medina, GR No. 172541, Aug. 9, 2010)
• But registration does not add to validity of document
 While registration operates as a notice of the
instrument to others, it does not add to its
validity nor conveys an invalid instrument into a
valid one as between the parties. (Pascua v.
Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 350)
 Neither does registration amount to a
declaration that the instrument recognizes a
valid and subsisting interest in the land.
(Agricultural Credit v. Yusay, 107 Phil. 791)
 A levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference
over a prior unregistered sale. (Vilbar v. Opinion, GR No.
176043, Jan. 15, 2014)
 But where a party has knowledge of a prior existing
interest, as here, which is unregistered at the time
he acquired a right to the same land, his
knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has
the effect of registration as to him. Knowledge of
an unregistered sale is equivalent to registration.
(Ching v. Enrile, GR No. 156076, Sept. 17, 2008)
• Between two buyers of the same land, priority is given
to:
• the first registrant in good faith;
• then, the first possessor in good faith; and
• finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the
oldest title. (Art. 1544, CC)
• This rule, however, does not apply if the property is not
registered under the Torrens system. (Abrigo v. De Vera,
432 SCRA 544)
DUTY OF REGISTER OF DEEDS TO REGISTER MINISTERIAL
• When all the requirements for registration of annotation
has been complied with, it is ministerial upon the
Register of Deeds to register the annotation. The Register
of Deeds is not authorized "to make an appraisal of
proofs outside of the documents sought to be
registered." (Limso v. PNB, GR No. 158622, Jan. 27, 2016)
• The Register of Deeds may not validly refuse to register a
deed of sale presented to him for registration.
• Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the
Register of Deeds to determine; this function
belongs properly to a court of competent
jurisdiction.
• Indeed, a RD is entirely precluded by Section 117 of
PD No. 1529 from exercising his personal judgment
and discretion when confronted with the problem
of whether to register a deed or instrument on the
ground that it is invalid.” (Almirol v. RD of Agusan,
GR No. L-22486, March 20, 1968)
• The law on registration does not require that only valid
instruments shall be registered.
 If the purpose of registration is merely to give
notice, then questions regarding the effect or
invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided
after, not before, registration.
 It must follow as a necessary consequence that
registration must first be allowed, and validity or
effect litigated afterwards. (Gurbax Singh v. Reyes,
GR No. L-3970. October 29, 1952)
WHEN ISSUE MAY BE ELEVATED BY THE RD
TO THE LRA
• However, when the RD is in doubt as to the proper step
to be taken with respect to any deed or other
instrument presented to him for registration, he shall
submit the question to the LRA Administrator who shall,
after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the
step to be taken on the issue.
 Any party in interest who does not agree with
the RD may also submit the question for
 resolution to the Administrator, whose decision
on the matter shall be binding upon all Registers
of Deeds. This administrative remedy must be
resorted to before recourse to the courts. (Sec.
117, PD 1529; Almirol v. RD, id.)
INSTANCES WHERE THE REGISTER OF DEEDS MAY DEFER
REGISTRATION
 Where there are several copies of the title (as in co-
ownership) but only one is presented.
 Every copy of the duplicate original must contain
identical entries of the transactions, particularly
voluntary ones, otherwise the whole Torrens
system would cease to be reliable.
 The integrity of the Torrens system may be
adversely affected if an encumbrance, or outright
conveyance, is annotated on only one copy and not
on the others. (Ligon v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
107751, June 1, 1995)
 Where there is a pending case involving the character of
the land or validity of the conveyance.
• In such case, registration may well await the
outcome of the case; meantime the rights of the
interested parties could be protected by the filing
of a notice of lis pendens. (Balbin v. Register of
Deeds, GR No. L-20611, May 8, 1969)
 Where required certificates or documents are not
submitted, such as –
 DAR clearance, copy of latest tax declaration,
certificate of payment of documentary stamp tax
and capital gains tax, BIR certificate authorizing
registration (CAR), tax clearance certificate of
real estate taxes, certificate of payment of
transfer tax, secretary’s certificate and articles of
incorporation (in case of a corporation), HLURB
registration papers and license to sell (in case of
a subdivision project), TIN, etc.
PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS OF
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
• The 1987 Constitution classifies lands of the public
domain into:
 Agricultural lands,
 Forest or timberlands,
 Mineral lands, and
 National parks.
• Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands.
 Classification of lands under the 1935, 1973 and
1987Constitutions
 The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the
public domain into agricultural, forest or timber.
 The 1973 Constitution provided the following
divisions: agricultural, industrial or commercial,
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or
forest and grazing lands, and such other classes
as may be provided by law.
 The 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935
Constitution classification - agricultural, forest or
timber, with one addition: national
parks.(Republic v. AFP Retirement and Separation
Benefits System, GR No. 180463, Jan. 16, 2013)
SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
 The Public Land Act (CA 141) remains the existing
general law governing the classification and disposition
of lands of the public domain. For purpose of
administration and disposition, A and D lands may be
further classified according to the use or purpose to
which they may be devoted into:
 Agricultural;
 Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
purposes
 Educational, charitable, or other similar
purposes; and
 Reservations for townsites and for public and
quasi-public uses. (Sec. 9, CA No. 141).
CATEGORIES OF ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS
 Alienable and disposable (A and D) lands of the State fall
into two categories, to wit:
(a) patrimonial lands of the State, or those
classified as lands of private ownership
under Article 425 of the Civil
Code, without limitation; and
(b) lands of the public domain, or the public
lands as provided by the Constitution,
but with the limitation that the lands
must only be agricultural.
 Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber,
mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of
alienation or disposition unless they are
reclassified as agricultural.
• The classification of public lands is an exclusive
prerogative of the executive department, and not the
courts.
 The President has the exclusive prerogative to
classify or reclassify public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest lands. (DENR
Secretary v. Yap, GR No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008)
 In the absence of classification, the land remains
as unclassified land until it is released for
disposition. (Republic v. Fabio, GR No. 159589,
Dec. 23, 2008)
  The DENR Secretary, as the alter ego of the
President, is the only other official authorized to
approve a land classification.
 Thus, until the Executive Department exercises its
prerogative to classify or reclassify lands, or until
Congress or the President declares that the State no
longer intends the land to be used for public service or
for the development of national wealth, the Regalian
Doctrine is applicable. (Republic v. Nicolas, GR No.
181435, Oct. 2, 2017)
• To show that the land is A and D, the application for
original registration must be accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that the land is
A and D; and
(2) Certified true copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary .
(Republic v. Ocol, GR No. 208350, Nov. 14, 2016;
La Tondeña v. Republic, GR No. 194617, Aug. 5,
2015; Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322,
March 14, 2012; Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, GR
No. 154953, June 26, 2008)
• Absent such classification, land remains unclassified
until released and rendered open to disposition. (DENR
Secretary v.Yap, GR No. 154953, June 26, 2008):
 PUBLIC LAND DISTINGUISHED FROM GOVERNMNENT
LAND
 Public land is equivalent to public domain and includes
only such land as may be the subject of disposition.
 Government land and public land are not synonymous
– the first includes not only the second but also other
lands already reserved or devoted to public use or
subject to a private right.
 In sum, the government owns real estate which is part
of “public lands” and other real estate which is not a
part thereof. (Montano v. Insular Government, 12 Phil.
572)
NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES
 Lands for public use or public service
 Those intended for public use, such as
roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and
bridges, etc.;
 Those which, without being for public use,
are intended for some public service or for
the development of the national wealth.
(Art. 420, CC)
• These properties are outside the commerce of men and
therefore not subject to private appropriation.
(Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 647)
•CAVITE EXPRESSWAY
•SAN JUANICO BRIDGE
 Rivers, waters
 Rivers and their natural beds, lakes, all categories
of surface waters, atmospheric or subterranean
ground waters, and seawater all belong to the
State.
 Waters found, or rain water falling, on private
lands also belong to the State. (PD 1067, Water
Code)
 ILOILO RIVER – CLEANEST RIVER
IN THE PHILIPPINES
 LOBOC RIVER CRUISE (BOHOL)
 INATULA ISLAND, BACUIT BAY
• Forests:
• It is "a mass of lands of the public domain which
has not been the subject of the present system of
classification for the determination of which
lands are needed for forest purpose and which
are not.“ (Sec. 3(a), PD 705; DENR v. Yap, GR No.
167707, Oct. 8, 2008)
• Unless the land is released as A and D, the rules
on confirmation of title do not apply.
(Amunategui v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-
27873, Nov. 29, 1983)
 Mangrove swamps:
 Mangrove swamps or manglares are forestal and
not alienable agricultural land.
 BFAR has no jurisdiction to dispose of
swamplands or mangrove lands while such lands
are still classified as forest lands.
 Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests
and therefore not subject to disposition until they
are first classified as alienable agricultural land.
(Director of Forestry v. Villareal, 170 SCRA 598)
 Importance of mangroves:
•help to build up land
• are a nursery for fish, crabs, birds and many other
animals
• protect seagrasses and coral reefs from being
smothered by too much sand.
• buffer the coast and protect it from wave action
and storms
• are the source of important fisheries
 Mineral lands:
 Mineral land means any area where mineral
resources are found.
 Mineral lands and resources are owned by
the State and their exploration,
development and utilization is subject to
the full control and supervision of the State.
 (Republic v. CA and Dela Rosa, 160 SCRA
228; La Bugal-B’laan v. Ramos, 445 SCRA 1)
 Possession of mineral land, no matter how
long, does not confer possessory rights.
(Atok Big Wedge v. CA, 193 SCRA 71)
 National parks:
 Land reserved for a national park cannot be
registered.
 Where a certificate of title covers a portion
of land within the area reserved for park
purposes, the title should be annuled with
respect to that portion. (Palomo v. CA, 266
SCRA 392)
 For instance, any portion of the Tiwi Hot
Spring National Park cannot be disposed of
under the Public Land Act or Property
Registration Decree.
PUERTO PRINCESA SUBTERRANEAN RIVER
NATIONAL PARK
MT. KANALON NATIONAL PARK
 Military or naval reservation:
 Land inside a military (or naval) reservation, like
the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, cannot
be the object of registration.
 Unless it had been withdrawn from the
reservation, reclassified and declared as
disposable public land, its status as part of a
military reservation remains, even if
incidentally it is devoted for a purpose
other than as a military camp or for
defense. (Republic v. Southside
Homeowners Association, 502 SCRA 587)
PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY
SUBIC BAY NAVAL PORT
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
 Foreshore lands:
 A foreshore land is that “strip of land that lies
between the high and low water marks and that
is alternately wet and dry according to the flow
of the tide,” or "that part of the land adjacent to
the sea which is alternately covered and left dry
by the ordinary flow of the tides.” Foreshore
lands are inalienable unless declared to be A and
D portions of the public domain. (Republic v. CA
and RREC, GR No. 105276, Nov. 25, 1998)
• Land invaded by the sea is foreshore land
and becomes part of the public domain.
(Republic v. CA and Morato, 281 SCRA 639)
 To qualify as foreshore land, it must be shown that the
land lies between the high and low water marks and is
alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide.
(Republic v. Leonor, G.R. No. 161424, 23 December 2009)
 The land's proximity to the waters alone does not
automatically make it a foreshore land. The land
remained dry even during high tide, hence, it is
private land. (Almagro v. Kwan, GR No.
175806,Oct. 20, 2010)
EL NIDO, PALAWAN
 Puno, J., concurring opinion in Republic v. RREC:
“The CCP Complex is the only area in the
Philippines that is fully devoted to the
growth and propagation of arts and culture.
Indeed, it has indeed emerged as a dynamic
force in the promotion of the country's
artistic and cultural heritage and the
development of new and modern art forms.
Through the years, it has helped raise the
Filipino consciousness to our nationhood,
and in the process, inculcated love for our
country.”
 Lakes:
 Lakes are neither agricultural nor disposable
lands of the public domain; hence, free patents
and certificates of title covering portions of the
lake are a nullity.
 But areas beyond its natural bed, or the
ground covered by the waters at their
highest ordinary depth during the dry
season, may be registered. (Republic v. CA
and Del Rio, 131 SCRA 532)
 The LLDA has exclusive authority to issue
permits for the use of the waters of the
Laguna de Bay.
 LAKE PINATUBO
 LAGUNA DE BAY
 Rivers and creeks
 Rivers and creeks are parts of the public domain
for public use and not capable of appropriation
or acquisition by prescription.
 The ownership of a stream may not be
acquired under a public land patent and the
issuance of the corresponding certificate of
title does not change its public character.
(Mateo v. Moreno, 28 SCRA 796)
 A dried up creek is property of public
dominion. (Fernando v. Acuña, GR No.
161030, Sept. 14, 2011)
 PASIG RIVER FERRY
 Protected areas:
 RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and
management of a national integrated protected
areas system referred to as the “National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act
of 1992”.
 Protected areas are necessary to maintain
essential ecological processes and life-
 support systems, to preserve genetic
diversity, to ensure sustainable use of
resources found therein.
 A protected area, like the Bataan Natural
Park, is inalienable.
EL NIDO PROTECTED AREA
TUBBATAHA REEF MARINE SANCTUARY
MINALUNGAO NATIONAL PATK
 Reservations for public and semi-public purposes
 The President may designate by proclamation
any tract of land of the public domain for the use
of the Republic or its branches, e.g., public or
semi-public uses like highways, hydroelectric
sites, railroads, irrigation systems, etc. which
shall be inalienable.
 The reserved land shall thereafter remain until
otherwise provided by law or proclamation.
(Republic, rep. by Mindanao Medical Center v.
CA, 73 SCRA 146)
 National parks
• National Parks of Philippines (Filipino:
Pambansang Liwasan ng Pilipinas) are places of
natural or historical value designated for
protection and sustainable utilization by the
DENR under the National Integrated Protected
Areas System Act (1992).
• As of 2012, there are 240 protected areas in the
Philippines, of which 35 have been classified as
National Parks.
•HUNDRED ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
•MALACAÑANG OF THE NORTH AND PAOAY LAKE
NATIONAL PARK
•PAOAY CHURCH, UNESCO HERITAGE SITE
 Reclaimed lands:
 Submerged areas form part of the public domain;
only when reclaimed from the sea can these
submerged areas be classified as agricultural
lands.
 Once reclaimed the government may then
officially classify these lands as A and D, and
declare these lands no longer needed for
public service. Only then can these lands be
considered as A and D lands and within the
commerce of men. (Chavez v. PEA, 384
SCRA 152)
• Absent two official acts – (a) a classification that
submerged areas are A and D, and (b) a declaration that
they are not needed for public service - lands reclaimed
from the sea are inalienable.
 The Public Estates Authority (PEA), renamed as
Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), is the
agency authorized to undertake reclamation
projects.
 Protected areas:
 RA No. 7586 provides for the establishment and
management of a national integrated protected
areas system referred to as the “National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act
of 1992”.
• Protected areas are necessary to maintain
essential ecological processes and life-
support systems, to preserve genetic
diversity, to ensure sustainable use of
resources found therein.
• A protected area, like the Bataan Natural
Park, is inalienable.
•EL NIDO PROTECTED AREA
•PUERTO PRINCESA UNDERGROUND RIVER
•CHOCOLATE HILLS, BOHOL
•TUBBATAHA REEF MARINE SANCTUARY
•MAYON VOLCANO SPEWING ASHES
•MAYON VOLCANO
•MAYON VOLCANO AND THE PALE BLUE MOON
•PAOAY CHURCH, UNESCO HERITAGE SITE
•THE GREAT PHILIPPINE EAGLE
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY THE STATE
• The State possesses not only the right to determine (1)
what lands may or may not be the subject of disposition,
(2) the size thereof and (3) procedure for the acquisition
of title to land. (Sec. 3-4, Art. XII, Constitution)
 For the purpose, the State has adopted the policy
of multiple land use to the end that the country’s
natural resources may be rationally explored,
developed, utilized and conserved, and to
maintain a rational and orderly balance between
socio-economic growth on one hand and
environmental protection on the other.
• Sec. 4, Art. XII, Constitution, provides:
 “The Congress shall, as soon as possible,
determine by law the specific limits of forest
lands and national parks, marking clearly their
boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such
forest lands and national parks shall be
conserved and may not be increased nor
diminished, except by law. The Congress shall
provide, for such period as it may determine,
measures to prohibit logging in endangered
forests and watershed areas.” (Sec. 4, id.)
 Sec. 5, Art. XII, Constitution, provides:
 “The State, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution and national development policies
and programs, shall protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social,
and cultural well-being.
 The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary laws governing property rights or
 relations in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domain.” (Sec. 5, id.)
• Sec. 3, Art. XII of the Constitution provides:
 “Taking into account the requirements of
conservation, ecology, and development, and
subject to the requirements of agrarian reform,
the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of
lands of the public domain which may be
acquired, developed, held, or leased and the
conditions therefor.”
 “Private corporations or associations may not
hold such alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area.
 Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more
than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more
than twelve hectares thereof by purchase,
homestead, or grant.” (Sec. 3, id.)
• Area limitations apply only to public lands
 As can be clearly gleaned from its language,
Section 3, Article XII applies only to lands of the
public domain. Private lands are, therefore,
outside of the prohibitions and limitations stated
therein. Thus, the 12-hectare limitation on the
acquisition of lands under Section 3, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution has no application to
private lands. (Republic v. Rovency Realty and
Development Corporation, GR No. 190817, Jan.
10, 2018)
LAND REGISTRATION:
HISTORICAL FLASHBACK
 (First) Public Land Act (Act No. 926)
 Passed pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902.
 Prescribed rules for homesteading, selling and
leasing portions of the public domain.
 Provided for the issuance of patents to native
settlers, for the establishment of townsites, and
for confirmation of Spanish concessions and
grants.
 Operated on the assumption that the
government’s title to public land sprung from the
Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United
States.
 (Second) Public Land Act (Act No. 2874)
 Passed in 1919 under the Jones Law.
 It was more comprehensive in scope but limited
the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos
and Americans and citizens of other countries
which gave Filipinos the same privileges.
 After the passage of the 1935 Constitution, Act
No. 2874 was amended in 1936 by CA No. 141,
the present Public Land Act which is essentially
the same as Act No. 2874.
 (Present) Public Land Act (CA No. 141)
 Approved on November 7, 1936, it applies to all
lands of the public domain that have been
officially delimited and classified.
 Provides for the different modes of government
grant, e.g., homestead, sale, free patent
(administrative legalization), and reservations for
public and semi-public purpose.
 A certificate of title issued pursuant to a public
land patent has the same validity and efficacy as
a certificate of title issued through ordinary
registration proceedings.
 Land Registration Act (Act No. 496)
 Approved on November 6, 1902, but became
effective on January 1, 1903, it established the
Torrens system.
 The “Court of Land Registration” had exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for registration.
 Registration under the system did not create a
title; it simply confirmed a title already vested.
 Proceedings under the Act were in rem,
 Final decrees were regarded as indefeasible and
could not be reopened except upon a petition for
review within one year after entry of decree.
 Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259)
 Enacted on February 11, 1913, it is a compulsory
registration proceeding initiated by the
government to “settle and adjudicate” title to
lands.
 The Director of Lands gives notice to all persons
of the date of survey for them to inform the
surveyors of the boundaries of their claims.
 Only unregistered lands may be the subject of
survey.
 All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by
the court and in the absence of successful
claimants, the property is declared public land.
 Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529)
 Approved June 11, 1978, the Decree supersedes
and codifies all laws relative to land registration.
 It substantially incorporates the substantive and
procedural requirements of Act No. 496 but
includes judicial confirmation of imperfect titles
under its Section 14(1).
 It provides remedies for fraudulent registration,
including an Assurance Fund to answer for
damages.
 WHO MAY APPLY
REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(1), PD 1529
WHO MAY APPLY
 Under Sec. 14(1), PD 1529
 “Those who by themselves or their predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.”
• Requisites
• The land is an agricultural land already classified
as alienable and disposable (A and D) land “at
the time the application for registration is filed.”
(Malabanan v. Republic, GR No. 179987, April
29, 2009 and Sept. 3. 2013; Mercado v. Valley
Mountain Mines, GR No. 141019, Nov. 23, 2011;
Victoria v. Republic, GR No. 179673, June 8,
2011)
• The applicant must have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation (OCENPO) of the land, under a
bona fide claim of ownership.
• Since June 12, 1945, or earlier (Espiritu v.
Republic, GR No. 219070, June 21, 2017;
Republic v. Local Superior, GR No. 185603,
Feb.10,2016)
 Rationale of the rule that the land need be classified as
A and D already at the time the application is filed:
“ If the State, at the time the application is made,
has not yet deemed it proper to release the
property for alienation or disposition, the
presumption is that the government is still
reserving the right to utilize the property;
hence, the need to preserve its ownership in
the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even in good faith.” (Malabanan v.
Republic, supra).
 Possession prior to classification of land as A and D is
counted in determining length of possession
“Although adverse, open, continuous, and
notorious possession in the concept of an owner
is a conclusion of law to be determined by
courts, it has more to do with a person's belief
in good faith that he or she has just title to the
property that he or she is occupying. It is
unrelated to the declaration that land is
alienable or disposable. A possessor or
occupant of property may, therefore, be a
possessor in the concept of an owner PRIOR to
the determination that the property is alienable
and disposable agricultural land.” (Republic v.
Roasa, supra)
BASIC PRINCIPLES UNDER SEC. 14(1)
• Requisites for original registration
(a) Declaration that the (agricultural) land is alienable
and disposable at the time of the application
for registration, and
(b) Open and continuous possession in the concept of
an owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
• The computation of the period may include the period of
adverse possession prior to the declaration that land is
alienable and disposable. (Republic v. Roasa, GR No.
176022, Feb. 2, 2015)
• The fixed date of June 12, 1945 qualifies possession and
occupation, not land classification, as alienable and
disposable.
• The agricultural land subject of the application
needs only to be classified as alienable and
disposable as of the time of the application,
provided the applicant's possession and occupation
of the land dates back to June 12, 1945, or earlier.”
(Republic v. Sogod Development Corp., GR No.
175760, Feb. 17, 2016; Malabanan v. Republic,
supra)
 Proof to show that land is A and D
 Applicant must conclusively establish the
existence of a positive act of the government
such as a presidential proclamation or an
executive order, or an administrative action,
investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands
investigator or a legislative act or statute.
Specifically, he must submit the following:
• CENRO certification that the land is A and
D; and
• Certified copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR
Secretary. (Gaerlan v. Republic, GR No.
192717, March 12, 2014)
• The rule is that the above-cited proof must be
submitted during the trial. (Republic v. T.A,N.
Properties, supra)
• Exceptions
• In Republic v. Serrano, GR No. 183063, Feb. 24,
2010, Court held that a DENR Regional Technical
Director's certification, which is annotated on the
subdivision plan submitted in evidence,
constitutes substantial compliance with the legal
requirement.
• In Republic v. Vega, GR No. 177790, Jan. 17, 2011,
the Court emphasized that the present ruling on
substantial compliance applies pro hac vice, i.e.,
the exception shall only apply to applications for
registration pending before the trial court PRIOR
to its decision in this case.
• Note: In Espiritu v. Republic, GR No. 219070, June 21,
2017, the Court stressed that he rule on strict compliance
enunciated in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties REMAINS to
be the governing rule in land registration cases.
 In Llanes v. Republic, GR No. 177947, Nov. 27, 2008, the
Court accepted the corrected CENRO Certification even
though it was submitted by the Spouses Llanes only
during the appeal in the CA.
 In Republic v. San Mateo, GR No. 203560, Nov.
10, 2014, the Court allowed the application of
substantial compliance because there was no
opportunity for the registrant to comply with the
Court's ruling in T.A.N. Properties, the trial court
and the CA already having decided the case prior
to the promulgation of T.A.N. Properties.
 Possession is -
 Open when it is patent, visible, apparent,
notorious and not clandestine;
 Continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and
not intermittent or occasional;
 Exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an
appropriation of it to his own use and benefit;
and
 Notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is
generally known and talked of by the public or
the people in the neighborhood. (Bienvenido v.
Gabriel, GR No. 175763, April 11, 2012)
REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(2), PD 1529
 Under Sec. 14(2)
 “Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands by prescription under the provisions of
existing laws”
• Rule on prescription under the Civil Code:
 Ordinary prescription – 10 years in good faith
 Extraordinary prescription – 30 years
• But land must be patrimonial property for prescription
to apply. (Malabanan v. Republic, supra)
• Land of the public domain becomes private or
patrimonial property when it is -
• Classified as “alienable and disposable”
agricultural land, and
• Declared by competent authority as “no longer
intended for public use or public service.” (Art.
422, Civil Code)
• Only when such land has become patrimonial can the
prescriptive period for the acquisition of the property
begin to run. (Malabanan v. Republic, supra)
 When possession is considered in good faith and with
just title
 The good faith of the possessor consists in the
reasonable belief that the person from whom he
received the thing was the owner thereof, and
could transmit his ownership. (Art. 1127, Civil
Code)
 For purposes of prescription, there is just title
when the adverse claimant came into possession
of the property through one of the modes
recognized by law for the acquisition of
ownership or other real rights, but the grantor
was not the owner or could not transmit any
right. (Art. 1129, ibid.)
• Prescription distinguished from laches
 Prescription is concerned with the fact of delay,
laches is concerned with the effect of delay.
 Prescription is a matter of time; laches is
principally a question of inequity of permitting a
claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded
on some change in the condition of the property
or the relation of the parties.
 Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches
applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at
law.
 Prescription is based on a fixed time, laches is
not. (Lacamen v. Laruan, GR No. L-27088, July 31,
1975.
• Art. 1113 of the CC is the legal foundation for the
application of Sec. 14(2), PD No. 1529:
 “All things which are within the commerce of
men are susceptible of prescription, unless
otherwise provided.”
 “Property of the State or any of its subdivisions
not patrimonial in character shall not be the
object of prescription.”
• Concept of possession for purposes of prescription
 Possession must be that of owner, and it must be
public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Acts of a
possessory character by virtue of a license or
mere tolerance are not sufficient.
 The present possessor may complete the period
for prescription by tacking his possession to that
of his grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
 It is presumed that the present possessor who
was also the possessor at a previous time has
continued to be in possession during the
intervening time. (Art. 1138, Civil Code)
BASIC PRINCIPLES UNDER SEC. 14(2)
 Yu Chang v. Republic, GR No. 171726, Feb. 23, 2011
 "[E]ven if possession of the alienable public land
commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945,
and such possession being open, continuous and
exclusive, then the possessor may have the right
 to register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of
the Decree.”
 The 10- or 30-year period of prescription under
Section 14(2) commences to run only from the
time the land, separately from being declared
alienable and disposable, is declared as
patrimonial property of the State.
 Republic v. Gielczyk, GR No. 179990, Oct. 23, 2013
 Properties classified as alienable public land may
be converted into private or patrimonial property
by reason of open, continuous and exclusive
possession of at least 30 years.
 Such properties become patrimonial property
with a declaration that (1) these are alienable or
disposable, and (2) the property is already
patrimonial or no longer retained for public use,
public service or the development of national
wealth.
 Republic v. East Silverlane, GR No. 186961, Feb. 2012
 Sec. 14(2) covers "private property” whereas
Sec. 14(1) covers "alienable and disposable land."
 Under Sec. 14(2), the status of the property as
patrimonial must be first established.
 The period of possession preceding the
classification of the property as patrimonial
cannot be considered in determining the
completion of the prescriptive period.
 Possession for purposes of prescription must be
"in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and
uninterrupted".
 Republic v. Sese, GR No. 185092, June 4, 2014
 The 30-year period of prescription under Section
14 (2) of PD 1529 only begins to run from the
moment the property has been converted into
patrimonial .
 The period of possession preceding the
classification of the property as patrimonial
cannot be considered in determining the
completion of the prescriptive period. (See also:
Tan v. Republic, GR No.193443, April 16, 2012)
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECS. 14(1) AND 14(2) Sec. 14(1)
 Registration is based on possession
 Governed by PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree)
and CA 141 (Public Land Act)
 Period of possession is without regard to the Civil Code
 Sec. 14(2)
 Registration is based on prescription
 Governed by PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree)
and Civil Code
 30-year period involves extraordinary prescription under
the Civil Code, particularly Art. 1113 in relation to Art.
1137
• As held in Republic v. Rovency Realty, GR No. 190817,
Jan. 10, 2018:
• Sec. 14(1) refers to registration of title on the
basis of possession, while Sec. 14(2) entitles the
applicant to the registration of his property on
the basis of prescription.
• Registration under the first mode is extended
under the aegis of the PD No. 1529 and the
Public Land Act (PLA), while the second mode is
made available both by PD No. 1529 and the Civil
Code. (See also: Canlas v. Republic, GR No.
200894, Nov. 10, 2014)
 (1) Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State and are inalienable. Lands
that are not clearly under private ownership are also
presumed to belong to the State and, therefore, may
not be alienated or disposed;
 (2) The following are excepted from the general rule:
(a) If the mode is judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under Section 48 (b)
of the Public Land Act, the
agricultural land subject of the
application needs only to be
classified as alienable and
disposable as of the time of the
application, provided the applicant's
possession and occupation of the
land dated back to June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
(b) If the mode of acquisition is prescription,
whether ordinary or extraordinary,
proof that the land has been already
converted to private ownership prior to
the requisite acquisitive prescriptive
period is a condition sine qua non in
observance of the law (Article 1113,
Civil Code) that property of the State
not patrimonial in character shall not
be the object of prescription.
 Without satisfying the requisite character and period of
possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier, the land
cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private
property even upon the subsequent declaration of it as
alienable and disposable. Prescription never began to
run against the State, such that the land has remained
ineligible for registration under Section 14 (1) of the
PRD.
 Likewise, the land continues to be ineligible for land
registration under Section 14 (2) of the PRD unless
Congress enacts a law or the President issues a
proclamation declaring the land as no longer intended
for public service or for the development of the national
wealth.

REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(3), PD 1529
 Under Sec. 14(3)
• “Those who have acquired ownership of private
lands or abandoned river beds by right of
accession or accretion under the existing laws.”
• Ownership of abandoned river beds by right of
accession:
• River beds which are abandoned through the
natural change in the course of the waters ipso
facto belong to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course in proportion to the
area lost. However, the owners of the adjoining
lands shall have the right to acquire the same by
paying the value thereof. The reason is that they
are in the best position to utilize the old river bed
which is adjacent to their property. (Art. 461,
Civil Code)
• Ownership of abandoned river bed
• Q. A and B each own land on opposite sides of a
river. The river changed its course, passing
though the land of C. Who owns the abandoned
river bed?
• A. C, to compensate him for his loss.
• Q. But suppose that two owners, C and D, lost
portions of their lands, who owns the river bed?
• A. C and D, in proportion to the area lost.
 The owners of the affected lands may not compel the
government to restore the river to its former bed, nor
can they restrain the government from taking steps to
revert the river or stream to its former courts.
 But the owners may themselves undertake the
reversion of the river to its original course, but
upon a permit issued by the government. (Art.
58, PD 1067, Water Code)
 The ownership of the abandoned river bed is
transferred ipso facto to the owners whose lands
are occupied by the new course of the river “to
compensate for the loss of the land occupied by
the new bed.”
• Requisites for the application of Art. 461:
 The change must be sudden in order that the old
river may be identified;
 The change of the course must be more or less
permanent, and not temporary overflooding of
another’s land.
 The change of the river must be a natural one,
i.e., caused by natural forces (and not by artificial
means)
 There must be a definite abandonment by the
government;
 The river must continue to exist, i.e., it must not
completely disappear.
• Ownership by right of accretion along river banks
• Under Art. 457, CC, to the owners of land
adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion
which they gradually receive from the effects of
the current of the waters. Justification:
• To offset the owner’s loss for possible
erosion of his land due to the current of the
river;
• To compensate him for his burdens arising
from the subjection of his land to
encumbrances or legal easements; and
• Owner is in the best position to cultivate it.
(Cortex v. City of Manila, 10 Phil. 567)
• Requisites for the application Art. 457:
• That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
• That it be made through the effects of the
current of the water; and
• That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the banks of rivers.
• In the absence of evidence that the change in the course
of the river was sudden or that it occurred through
avulsion, the presumption is that the change was
gradual and caused by accretion and erosion.
 The increment does not automatically become
registered land just because the lot which receives such
accretion is covered by a Torrens title.
 The increment must be placed under the
operation of the Torrens system. (Cureg v. IAC,
177 SCRA 313)
 The owner must register the accretion under the
Torrens system, otherwise the alluvial property
may be subject to acquisition through
prescription by third persons. (Grande v. Court of
Appeals, 5 SCRA 524)
 A riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his
land caused by special works designed to bring about
accretion.
 Private persons cannot reclaim land from water
bodies belonging to the public domain without
permission from government authorities.
 And even if such reclamation is authorized, the
reclaimed land does not automatically belong to
the party reclaiming it as the land may still be the
subject to the terms of the authority granted.
 The alluvial deposits must NOT be:
 artificial and man-made
 the result of the transfer of the dike towards the
river and encroaching upon it
 caused by special works expressly intended or
designed to bring about accretion
  caused by special works expressly intended or
designed to bring about accretion
 portions of the bed of the river (Republic v. Court
of Appeals and Tancinco, GR No. L-61647, Oct.
12, 1984)
 As held in City Mayor of Parañaque City v. Ebio, GR No.
178411, June 23, 2010, alluvial deposits along the banks
of creeks, streams and lakes do not form part of the
public domain as the alluvial property but automatically
belongs to the owner of the estate to which it may have
been added.
 But the owner of the adjoining property must
register the same under the Torrens system;
otherwise, the alluvial property may be subject
to acquisition through prescription by third
persons.
 Alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the
public domain and, therefore, not open to acquisition by
adverse possession.
“Art. 4, Lands added to the shore by accretion
and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the
sea, form part of the public domain. When they
are no longer washed by the waters of the sea,
and are not necessary for purposes of public
utility, or for the establishment of special
industries, or for the coast-guard service, the
Government may declare them to be the
property of the owners of the estate adjacent
thereto and as an increment thereof.” (Spanish
Law of Waters)
• Until a formal declaration by the government, through
the executive or legislature, that the alluvial formation
is no longer needed for coast guard service, for public
use or for special industries, the same continues to be
part of the public domain not available for private
appropriation of ownership. The land is not subject to
ordinary prescription as it is outside the sphere of
commerce.
REGISTRATION UNDER
SECTION 14(4), PD 1529
 Under Sec. 14(4)
• “Those who have acquired ownership of land in
any other manner provided for by law.”
 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
 Registration under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(RA No. 8371)
 Under RA No. 8371 (1997), individual members
of cultural communities, with respect to their
individually-owned ancestral lands who, by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest, have been in continuous possession and
occupation of the same in the concept of owner
since time immemorial or for a period of not less
than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the
approval of the Act shall have the option to
secure title to their ancestral lands under CA No.
141(Public Land Act) or PD No. 1529 (Property
Registration Decree).
 Registration of foreshore and offshore areas through
“special patents”
 A “special patent’’ is a form of land grant
whereby the government, by an act of Congress
or executive order, conveys land in full
ownership to the grantee without regard to its
classification. PD No. 1085, issued on February 4,
1977, authorized the issuance of special land
patents for lands reclaimed from foreshore or
submerged areas by the Public Reclamation
Authority (PRA) under EO No. 380, dated October
26, 2004, like the Freedom Islands in the offshore
areas of Manila Bay.
 Reservations for a specific public purpose
 In Republic, rep. by the Mindanao Medical Center
v. Court of Appeals, Lot No. 1176-B-2, a
reservation for medical site of the Mindanao
Medical Center (MMC), was ordered registered in
favor of MMC. Respondent Alejandro de Jesus
appealed, claiming that the lot was the subject of
a sales award earlier issued to his father by the
Director of Lands which ripened into a vested
right.. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled
that Proclamation No. 350 legally effected a land
grant to the MMC validly sufficient for
registration. Such grant is constitutive of a “fee
simple” title or absolute title in favor of MMC.
REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 48(b),
PUBLIC LAND ACT (CA 141)
• Who may apply
• “Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945,
except when prevented by war or force majeure.
These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a
Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the provisions of this
chapter.” (Sec. 48[b], CA 141)
 No material differences between Sec. 14(1) of PD No.
1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141
 While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to
“agricultural lands of the public domain” and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to
“alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain,” the subject lands are of the same type
 since under the Constitution, alienable lands of
the public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands.
Sec. 14(1), PD 1529
 “Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier.”
 Sec. 48(b), CA 141
 “Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have been in the open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership,
except as against the Government, since June 12, 1945.”
 Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073, requires
possession since June 12, 1945, or prior thereto.
 But the land must already be classified as A and D
land at the time the application for registration is
filed. (Malabanan vs. CA, GR No. 179987, April
29, 2009)
 The mode of acquisition recognized by Section 48(b) of
the Public Land Act and made registrable under Section
14(1) of the Property Registration Decree is through
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title.
 Both provisions allow confirmation of an
imperfect or incomplete title only if the claimant
has been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation (OCENPO)
of alienable and disposable (A & D) lands of the
public domain since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REGISTRATION UNDER THE PRD AND
PLA
 Under the Property Registration Decree, there
already exists a title which is confirmed by the
court
 Under the Public Land Act, the presumption is
that the land applied for pertains to the State,
and that the occupants and possessors only claim
an interest in the same by virtue of their
imperfect title or open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupaion. (Limcoma
Multi-purpose Cooperative v. Republic, GR No.
167652, July 10, 2007)
 Is mere possession of land for thirty (30) years sufficient
for registration purposes?
 The first PLA, or Act 926, required a possession
and occupation for a period of ten (10) years
prior to the effectivity of Act No. 296 on July 26,
1904.
 RA 1942, dated June 22, 1957, provided for a
period of possession for only thirty (30) years.
 But PD 1073, dated Jan. 25, 1977, repealed RA
1942 and required that possession and
occupation should commence on June 12, 1945
(no longer 30 years). (Rep. v. East Silverlane, GR
No. 186961, Feb. 20, 2012; Rep. v. Espinosa, GR
No. 171514, July 18, 2012)
 Resume -
 On June 22, 1957, RA 1942 amended Sec. 48 (b)
of the PLA by providing a 30-year prescriptive
period for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
 On January 25, 1977, PD 1073 changed the
requirement for possession and occupation for
30 years to possession and occupation since June
12, 1945 or earlier.
 On June 11, 1978, PD 1529 was enacted requiring
possession and occupation since June 12, 1945.
 PD 1073 repealed RA 1942. thus applications
under Sec. 48 (b) of the PLA filed after the
promulgation of PD 1073 should allege and prove
possession and occupation since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.
 However, vested rights acquired under RA No. 1942
(which required a simple possession for 30 years)
cannot be impaired by the subsequent issuance of P.D.
No. 1073.
 Thus, an applicant who, by himself or his
predecessors-in-interest, has been, prior to the
effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977, been
in OCENPO of an agricultural land of the public
domain for at least 30 years, or at least since
January 24, 1947, may apply for judicial
confirmation of his imperfect or incomplete title
under Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act. (Republic
v. Espinosa, GR No. 171514, July 18, 2012. See
also Republic v. East Silverlane, GR No. 186961,
Feb. 20, 2012)
 When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the PLA
are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have
acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without
the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. (Herico
v. Dar, 95 SCRA 437; Republic v. Doldol, supra)
 Compliance with all requirements for a
government grant ipso jure converts land to
private property. The land ceases to be of the
public domain and is beyond the authority of the
DENR to dispose of it under any of the modes of
disposition under the Public Land Act. (Susi v.
Razon, 48 Phil. 424)
 Concurring opinion of J. Brion in Chang v. Republic, GR
No. 171726, Feb. 23, 2011:
 Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act is the law
that recognizes the substantive right of a
possessor and occupant of an alienable and
disposable land of the public domain, while
Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration
Decree recognizes this right by authorizing its
registration, thus bringing the land within the
coverage of the Torrens System.
AN ACT AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENTS TO
RESIDENTIAL LANDS
(RA NO. 10023)
 Qualifications
 Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a
residential land may apply for a free patent title
under the following conditions:
 Highly urbanized cities – not to exceed 200 sq. m.
 Other cities - not exceed 500 sq. m.
 First class and second class municipalities - not
exceed 750 sq. m.
 Other municipalities - not to exceed 1,000 sq. m.
 Lands must be zoned as residential areas or townsites
 Application shall be supported by:
 Survey plan and technical description approved
by the DENR
 Affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who are
residing in the barangay of the city or
municipality where the land is located, to the
effect that the applicant has, either by himself or
through his predecessor-in-interest, actually
resided on and continuously possessed and
occupied, under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of ownership, the land applied for at least ten
(10) years.
 Where to file application
 All applications shall be filed with the CENRO of
the DENR.
 The CENRO shall process the application within
120 days to include compliance with the required
notices and other legal requirements
 The PENRO shall have 5 days to approve or
disapprove the patent.
 The restrictions regarding encumbrances,
conveyances, transfers or dispositions imposed in
Sections 118, 119, 121, 122 and 123 of Chapter XIII,
Title VI of CA No. 141 (Public Land Act) shall not apply
to patents issued under the Act.
 What is RA No. 9176 (2002)?
 Extended the period to file an application for
judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles to December 31, 2020.
 Limited the area applied for to 12 hectares and
provided that all pending applications filed
before the effectivity of the amendatory Act shall
be treated as having been filed in accordance
with the provisions thereof.
REGISTRATION UNDER THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
RIGHTS ACT (RA 8371)
• Constitutional provisions
• “The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.”
(Sec. 2 Art. II)
• The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary law governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domain.” (Sec. 5, par. 2, Art.
XII)
 Indigenous concept of ownership
 The IPRA (RA No. 8371, Oct. 29, 1997) recognizes
the existence of the indigenous cultural
communities or indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as
a distinct sector in Philippine Society.
 It grants these people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these
lands and domains.
 The ownership given is the indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law which traces its
origin to native title.
 Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the
lands of the public domain but are private lands
belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied,
possessed and utilized their territories under claim of
ownership since time immemorial
 Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which,
as far back as memory reaches, have been held
under claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs,
have never been public lands and are thus
indisputably presumed to have been held that
way since before the Spanish Conquest. (Cruz v.
Sec. of DENR, 347 SCA 128)
 The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
has the authority to issue certificates of ancestral domain
title (CADT) or certificates of ancestral land title (CALT)
 The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of
the Register of Deeds does not result in the
issuance of Torrens certificate of title.
 The purpose of registration is simply to apprise
the public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP
of specific claims to portions of the ancestral
domains or ancestral lands.
 Modes of acquisition
 The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains
and ancestral lands may be acquired in two
modes:
 By native title over both ancestral lands and
domains; or
 By Torrens title under the Public Land Act
(CA No. 141) or the Property Registration
Decree (PD No. 1529) with respect to
ancestral lands only.
 Requisites for registration
• The applicant is a member of an indigenous
cultural group;
• He must have been in possession of an
individually-owned ancestral land for not less
than thirty (30) years;
• By operation of law, the land is already classified
as A and D, even if it has a slope of 18% or over,
hence, there is no need to submit a separate
certification that the land is A and D. (Sec. 12, RA
8371)
 The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may be
transferred subject to the following limitations:
• Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;
• In accord with customary laws and traditions;
and
• Subject to the right of redemption for a period of
fifteen (15) years if the land was transferred to a
non-member.
 Ancestral domains belong to all generations and
therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.
DISPOSITION OF
FRIAR LANDS
(ACT 1120)
DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS
(Example: Banilad Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)
 Friar lands are not public lands but private or
patrimonial property of the government.
 Friar lands were purchased by the government
for sale to actual occupants under Act 120 (Friar
Lands Act)
 The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first
issue a sales certificate to the occupant who shall
pay the purchase price in installments.
 The purchaser becomes the owner upon the issuance of
the certificate of sale, subject to cancellation in case the
price agreed upon is not paid in full
 Upon full payment, the government shall then
issue a final deed of conveyance to the purchaser
 No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by
the DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Aug. 24, 2010)
 Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public lands:
 In sale of public lands, the land is opened for
bidding; the successful bidder is given right of
entry and to cultivate and improve the land.
 Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the applicant
is given a sales patent.
 In the case of friar lands, the purchaser becomes
the owner upon issuance of the certificate of sale
in his favor.
WHO MAY APPLY: CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT
 On the basis of their capacity “to acquire or holds lands
of the public domain,” the following may acquire title to
private lands:
 Filipino citizens
 Filipino corporations and associations, 60% of
whose capital are owned by Filipinos (Ang v. Sy
So, GR No.182252, Aug. 3, 2016)
 Aliens by hereditary succession (Sec. 7, Art. XII).
 A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has
lost his Philippine citizenship, may be a
transferee of private land subject to limitations
provided by law. (Sec. 8, Id.)
• Aliens disqualified from acquiring lands of the public
domain as well as private lands
 The right to acquire lands of the public domain is
reserved only to Filipino citizens or corporations
at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by
Filipinos.
 Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are
disqualified from acquiring lands of the public
domain as well as private lands. (Donton v. Stier,
GR No. 216491, Aug. 23, 2017)
• Who are citizens of the Philippines?
• Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution;
• Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines;
• Those born before January 17, 1972, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
• Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law. (Art. IV, Constitution)
 Constitutional provisions
 Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private
lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain. (Sec. 7, Art. XII)
 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of
this Article, a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship,
may be a transferee of private lands subject to
limitations provided by law. (Sec. 8, Ibid)
 Area limitations
 Any natural born citizen who has lost his
Philippine citizenship and who has the legal
capacity to enter into a contract may be a
transferee of a private land up to a maximum
area of:
 For investment purposes
• 5,000 square meters - urban land
• 3 hectares - rural land. (RA No. 7042, as
amended by RA No. 8179)
• For residential purposes:
• 1,000 square meters – urban land
• 1 hectare – rural land (BP Blg. 185)
 Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
 “ x x x natural-born citizens of the Philippines who
have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country
are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic:
 "I _________________, solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
and obey the laws and legal orders
promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities of the Philippines, and I hereby
declare that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto;
and that I impose this obligation upon myself
voluntarily without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion." (Sec. 3, RA 9225)
 Sec. 3 further provides:
 Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who,
after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens
of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
 Sec. 5 provides:
 Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of
the Philippines.
 Facts: Pedro, a Filipino, bought land from Jose who at the
time of the sale had already complied with the
requirements for registration. Pedro later became a
naturalized Canadian citizen.
 Issue: What is the effect of Pedro’s Canadian citizenship
on his right to own land in th4e Philippines?
 Answer: It will not impair his vested right to the land
which he could have validly registered when he was yet a
Filipino citizen. He is also qualified under the terms of
Sec. 8, Art. XII, Constitution. (Republic v. CA and Lapiña,
GR No. 108998, Aug. 24, 1994)
 The capacity to own land is determined at the time of its
acquisition and not registration.
 May the RD validly refuse to register a deed of donation
of a residential land executed by a Filipino in favor of an
unregistered organization, the “Ung Sui Si Temple,”
operating through three trustees all of Chinese
nationality?
 Yes. The SC, in Register of Deeds v. Ung Sui Si
temple, GR No. L-6776, May 21, 1995, held that
in view of the absolute terms of Sec. 5, Title XIII
of the 1935 Constitution (now Sec. 8, Art. XII,
1987 Constitution) that, “save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private agricultural
land shall be transferred except to individuals,
corporations or associations qualified to acquire
or hold lands of the public domain,” the
Constitution makes no exception to religious
groups.
 Facts: Respondent Sio, a Chinese, bought a 682.5 square
meter land in 1944, during the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution. She registered it in the name of her 3-year
old ward, Jose. Sio subsequently acquired another lot,
likewise registered under Jose’s name. Sio kept the titles
herself.
 Unknown to her, Jose was able to obtain a second
owner’s duplicate of both titles and, thereafter, he filed
an ejectment suit against Sio for non-payment of
rentals. Meantime, Sio filed with the RTC a case for
"Transfer of Trusteeship from the Defendant Jose
Norberto Ang to the New Trustee, Tony Ang, with
Damages,” but this was dismissed by the court.
 The CA granted Sy So’s appeal. Jose filed a Rule 45
petition for review.
 Issue: Whether or not Sio is entitled to the ownership of
properties in question.
 Ruling: Under the 1935 Constitution (and also under the
1987 Constitution), aliens, like Sio, are disqualified from
acquiring lands of the public domain. Not even an
implied trust can be permitted on equity considerations.
In sales of real estate to aliens, both vendor and the
vendee are deemed in pari delicto.
 The Court directed the OSG to initiate proceedings for
the reversion of the subject property to the State.
 Q. Can a Filipino vendor recover land sold to an alien?
 A. Yes. When an agreement is not illegal per se
but is merely prohibited and the prohibition is
designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he
may recover the land, the public policy being to
preserve and maintain the land in the hands of
Filipino citizens. (Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui She, 21
SCRA 52; Borromeo v. Descallar, 580 SCA 175;
United Church v. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446)
 Note: In Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827,
the Filipino vendor was in pari delicto with the
alien vendee, hence, recovery was not allowed.
 Other illustrative cases on acquisition by aliens
 Where the land was now in the hands of a
naturalized Filipino, there is no more public
policy to be served by allowing recovery.
(Barsobia v. Cuenco , 199 Phil. 26),
 Where land is sold to a Chinese who later sold it
to a Filipino, the sale can no longer be impugned.
(Herrera v. Guan, 1 SCRA 406).
 Chuck, an American, and Cory, a Filipino,
acquired land which was registered in the latter’s
name. Cory sold the land to Mario without
Chuck’s consent. Valid? Yes. Chuck never
acquired any right to the land, he being an alien.
(Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93)
 Facts:
 Alfred (petitioner), an Australian citizen, was
married to Teresita, a Filipino. Lina (respondent),
also a Filipina, was married to Klaus, a German.
Alfred and Lina met and cohabited in a common-
law relationship, during which Alfred acquired real
properties. Since Alfred was disqualified from
owning lands in the Philippines, Lina was named in
the deeds of sale as vendee. When their
relationship turned sour, Alfred sued Lina for the
recovery of the properties registered in the name of
the latter, claiming that he (Alfred) was the real
owner.
 Issue:
 Will the action prosper?
 Ruling:
 The Court refused to declare Alfred (Australian) as
the owner because of the constitutional
prohibition. The Court added that being a party to
an illegal contract, he could not come to court and
ask to have his illegal objective carried out. One
who loses his money or property by knowingly
engaging in an illegal contract may not maintain an
action for his losses. (Frenzel v. Catito, GR No. GR
No. 143958. July 11, 2003)
 Facts:
Felix Ting Ho, a Chinese citizen, acquired a parcel of land
with the improvements thereon. Upon his death, his
heirs (the petitioners therein) claimed the properties as
part of the estate of their deceased father, and sought
the partition of said properties among themselves.
 Issue: Is partition proper?
 Ruling: The Court excluded the land and improvements
thereon from the estate of Felix Ting Ho, precisely
because he never became the owner thereof in light of
the above-mentioned constitutional prohibition. (Sec. 7,
Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) (Ting Ho. V. Teng Gui, GR No.
G.R. No. 130115, July 16, 2008)
OTHER BASIC PRINCIPLES
 Fullido v. Grilli, GR No. 215014, Feb. 29, 2016
 Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935
Constitution, natural resources shall not be
alienated, except with respect to public
agricultural lands and in such cases, the
alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. The
prohibition on the transfer of lands to aliens was
adopted in the present 1987 Constitution, under
Sections 2, 3 and 7 of Article XII thereof.
Agricultural lands, whether public or private,
include residential, commercial and industrial
lands.
 The prohibition, however, is not limited to the
sale of lands to foreigners. It also covers leases of
lands amounting to the transfer of all or
substantially all the rights of dominion. Thus, if
an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an
option to buy, a piece of land by virtue of which
the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise
dispose of his property, this to last for 50 years,
then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a
virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner
divests himself in stages not only of the right to
enjoy the land but also of the right to dispose of
it — rights which constitute ownership.
 Private corporations not qualified to acquire lands of the
public domain
 “Private corporations or associations may not
hold (such) alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, for a period not exceeding 25
years, renewable for not more than 25 years, and
not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area.” (Sec. 3,
Art. XII, Constitution)
 Reason: to encourage economic family-sized farms by
transferring ownership of only a limited area of
alienable lands of the public domain to a qualified
individual. Available lands are decreasing due to
increasing population.
 Exception to the rule
 In Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate
Court and Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., GR
No. 73002, Dec. 29, 1986, the Court held that
“where at the time the corporation acquired the
land, its predecessor-in-interest had been in
possession and occupation thereof in the manner
and for the period prescribed by law as to entitle
him to registration in his name, then the
proscription against corporations acquiring
alienable lands of the public domain except
through lease does not apply for the land was no
longer public land but private property.”
 AFP Retirementt and Separation Benefits System v.
Republic, GR No. 180086, July 2, 2014
 The type of corporation that petitioner is has
nothing to do with the grant of its application for
original registration. x x x The prohibition in
Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution applies
only to private corporations. Petitioner is a
government corporation organized under PD No.
361, as amended by PD No. 1656.
 In Republic v. Iglesia ni Cristo, 591 SCRA 438, the Court
held:
 A private corporation may validly file an application
for registration over a parcel of land it had acquired
from a person who had already complied with the
statutory period of possession. The possession of
INC has been established not only from 1952 and
1959 when it purchased the respective halves of the
subject lot, but is also tacked to the possession of
its predecessors-in-interest who had been in
possession thereof before June 12, 1945.
 Corporation sole qualified to acquire real property
 Church properties acquired by the incumbent
head of a corporation sole pass, by operation of
law, upon his death not to his personal heirs but
to his successor in office. It is created not only to
administer the temporalities of the church or
religious society where he belongs, but also to
hold and transmit the same to his successor in
said office.(Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator v. Land Registration Commission,
GR No. L-8451, Dec. 20, 1957)
 In Republic v. IAC and Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena,
GR No. 75042, Nov. 29, 1988, the Court held:
“There is no doubt that a corporation sole by the
nature of its incorporation is vested with the
right to purchase and hold real estate and
personal property. It need not therefore be
treated as an ordinary private corporation
because whether or not it be so treated as
such, the Constitutional provision involved will,
nevertheless, be not applicable. The lands
subject of this petition were already private
property at the time the application for
confirmation of title was filed in 1979.”
• The Corporation Law also contains the following
provision:
• “SEC. 159. - Any corporation sole may purchase
and hold real estate and personal property for its
church, charitable, benevolent, or educational
purposes, and may receive bequests or gifts for
such purposes. Such corporation may mortgage
or sell real property held by it upon obtaining an
order for that purpose from the Court of First
Instance of the province in which the property is
situated; x x x ” (Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator v. Land Registration Commission,
supra.)
VESTED RIGHT
 What is a vested right?
 It is a right or interest in property that has been
fixed and established, and is no longer open to
doubt or controversy. (Lucero v. City of Pasig,
508 SCRA 23; Ayog v. Cusi, GR No. L-46729, Nov.
19, 1982)
 An open, continuous, adverse and public
possession of property from time immemorial by
a private individual confers effective title on said
possessor, whereby the land ceases to be public
and becomes private property. (Susi v. Razon, 48
Phil. 424)
FORM AND CONTENTS OF APPLICATION
 “Form and contents. - The application shall be in writing,
signed by the applicant or his authorized representative,
and under oath. If there is more than one applicant, the
application shall be signed and sworn to by each.
 The application shall contain a description of the land,
and state the civil status of the applicant, and the names
of all occupants and adjoining owners, if known.” (Sec.
15, PD No. 1529)
WHAT AND WHERE
TO FILE
 “The application shall be filed with the RTC of the
province or city where the land lies, with a copy
furnished the Director of Lands. (Sec. 17, ibid.)
 The applicant may file a single application for two or
more parcels of land in the same province
 “Amendments which consist in a substantial change in
the boundaries or an increase (not decrease) in area
shall be subject to publication and notice as in an
original application.” (Sec. 19, ibid.; Benin v. Tuason, GR
No. L-26127, June 28, 1974)
DEALINGS WITH LAND
PENDING REGISTRATION
 Pending issuance of the decree, the land may be the
subject of dealings (sale, lease, mortgage) in whole or in
part, and the interested party shall submit to the court
for consideration the pertinent documents and
subdivision plan in case only portions of the land are
affected. The application need not be amended. (Sec.
22, PD 1529; Mendoza v. CA, supra)
 Section 22 of PD No. 1529 expressly allows the
disposition of lands subject matter of a registration
proceeding and the subsequent registration thereof in
the name of the person to whom the land was
conveyed.
  But the pertinent instruments of conveyance
must be presented to the court and that prior
notice is given to the parties in the land
registration case.
 Thereafter, the court shall either order the land
registered subject to the conveyance or
encumbrance, or order that the decree of
registration be issued in the name of the person
to whom the property was conveyed. (Mendoza
v. Court of Appeals, id.)
 Facts:
 Pending registration, applicant sold the land
applied for. The court issued the decree of
registration in the name of the vendee. Later,
however, alleging failure of the vendee to pay
the purchase price of the land, applicant filed a
motion for reconsideration. The court set aside
the decree holding that it had no jurisdiction to
order registration to the vendee who was neither
the applicant nor oppositor in the registration
case.
 Issue:
 Is the trial court correct? Why?
 Ruling:
 No. Section 22 of the PRD expressly authorizes
the sale (“dealt with”) of the land during the
pendency of the case and its registration in the
name of the buyer. The application need not be
amended by substituting the "buyer" for the
applicant. Neither does the law require that the
"buyer" be a party to the case. It is only required
that: (1) the corresponding instrument be
presented to the court with a motion that the
same be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) prior notice be given to the
parties to the case. (Mendoza v. Court of
Appeals, supra)
 Procedure where conveyance involves only a portion of
land:
 No TCT shall be issued by the RD until a plan of
the land showing the portions into which it has
been subdivided, together with the technical
description, shall have been verified and
approved by the LRA or LMB.
 Meanwhile, the deed may only be annotated by
the RD by way of memorandum on the grantor’s
certificate of title. (Sec. 58 in relation to Sec. 50,
PD No. 1529).
PUBLICATION, MAILING
AND NOTICE
 Setting the date and hour of initial hearing
 “The Court shall within 5 days from filing of the
the application, issue an order setting the date
and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be
earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days from
the date of the order. The public shall be given
notice of the initial hearing of the application for
land registration by means of (a) publication; (2)
mailing; and (c) posting.” (Sec. 23, PD 529)
•
Purpose:
(a) to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and
(b) to apprise the whole world of the case so that
they may oppose the application, if
minded. (Fieldman v. Republic, GR No.
147359, March 28 2008)
 Publication of the notice of initial hearing
 “Upon receipt of the order of the court setting
the time for initial hearing, the LRA shall cause a
notice of initial hearing to be published once in
the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines: Provided,
however, That the publication in the Official
Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction
upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to
all persons appearing to have an interest in the
land involved including the adjoining owners so
far as known, and ‘to all whom it may concern.’”
(Sec. 23, ibid.)
 Constructive seizure of the land effected through:
(a) publication of the notice of initial hearing in
the OG and in a newspaper of general
circulation, and
(b) posting, and
(c) mailing thereof to affected parties. (Sec. 23,
PD No. 1529)
 But lack of personal notice does not vitiate the
proceedings. (Roxas v. Enriquez, 212 SCRA 625)
Q. The law says that “the notice of initial hearing shall be
published once in the OG and once in a newspaper
of the general circulation in the Philippines;
provided, however, that the publication in the
Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the court.” If the notice was
already published in the OG, is there still a need to
publish the same in a newspaper?
A. Yes. Publication in a newspaper is still required to accord
with the due process requirement. (Roxas v. Court of
Appeals, 270 SCRA 309)
Q. The RTC failed to issue the order setting the date and hour
of the initial hearing within five (5) days from the
filing of the application for registration, as provided
in the PRD, did that affect the court's jurisdiction?
A. No. Observance of the five-day period was merely
directory, and failure to issue the order within that
 period did not deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction. To
rule that compliance with the five-day period is
mandatory would make jurisdiction over the subject
matter dependent upon the trial court. (Republic v.
Bantigue, GR No. GR No. 162322, March 14, 2012;
Republic v. Manna, GR No. 146527, Jan. 31, 2005)
Q. FATCO filed an application for registration which was set
for initial hearing on February 28. However, on
motion of FATCO’s counsel, the hearing was reset
for April 19? Was there need for the re-publication
of the notice of initial hearing?
A. No more since the Republic and all interested parties were
already fully apprised of the pendency of the
application. When the hearing was reset to April 19,
the interested parties, the Republic included, may be
deemed to have been given notice thereof. Clearly,
the avowed purpose of Section 23 had already been
accomplished. (FATCO v. Republic, GR No. 147459,
Match 28, 2008)
Q. The court set the initial hearing on September 3, 1999 and
the hearing was in fact held on that date. While the
notice of initial hearing was printed in the issue of the
Official Gazette, dated August 2, 1999, and officially
released on August 10, 1999, it was published in The
Freeman Banat News, a daily newspaper printed in
Cebu City and circulated in the province and cities of
Cebu and in the rest of Visayas and Mindanao, only
on December 19, 1999, more than three (3) months
after the initial hearing. Was there a valid
publication?
A. No. The publication of the notice, way after the date of the
initial hearing, is worthless and ineffective. Whoever
read the notice as it was published in The Freeman
Banat News and had a claim to the subject lots was
deprived of due process for it was already too late
for him to appear before the court on the day of the
initial hearing to oppose the application for
registration, and to present his claim and evidence in
support of such claim. (Republic v. Herbieto, GR No.
156117, May 26, 2005)
Q. Where additional area is included in the original
application for registration, is a new publication
necessary?
A. Yes. Publication is one of the essential bases of the
jurisdiction of the court in land registration and
cadastral cases. Where no publication has ever been
made except the initial publication, and this did not
include the additional area, the registration court
had no jurisdiction over said area and its
adjudication to the applicant is a nullity. (Philippine
Manufacturing Co. v. Imperial, GR No. 24908, March
31, 1926)
• Role of the Solicitor General in registration cases
 Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the
Solicitor General shall "[r]epresent the
Government in all land registration and related
proceedings."
 Pursuant to the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the
public domain and all other natural resources are
owned by the State.
 It is the role of the Solicitor General to defend
the interests of the government and to assure
that lands of the public domain are adjudicated
only to qualified applicants or oppositors.
• Role of the Solicitor General
 As a rule only court notices and processes
actually served upon the SG is binding on his
office.
 Deputized officers are under the direction and
control of the SG himself. (NPC v. NLRC, GR No.
90933, May 29, 1997).
 The government may appeal an adverse decision
despite its not filing any opposition. (Republic v.
Tiotioen, GR No. 167215, Oct. 8, 2008; Republic
v. CA and Arquillo, 182 SCRA 290)
OPPOSITION
 Who may properly oppose an application for
registration?
 Any person claiming an interest, whether named
in the notice or not, may appear and file an
opposition on or before the date of initial
hearing, or within such further time as may be
allowed by the court. The opposition shall state
all the objections to the application and shall set
forth the interest claimed by the party filing the
same and apply for the remedy desired, and shall
be signed and sworn to by him or by some other
duly authorized person. (Sec 25, PD 1529;
Director of Lands v. Santiago, GR No. L-41278,
April 15, 1988)
 Any person claiming an interest or right of dominion may
appear and oppose the application for registration.
 Where no opposition is made, all the allegations
in the application for registration shall be held as
confessed, and the claimant shall be deemed to
have forever lost his right to the land.
 But the absence of opposition does not justify
the court into awarding the land to the applicant;
he must still submit well-nigh incontrovertible
proof that he is entitled to registration. (Director
of Lands v. Agustin, 42 Phil. 227)
Q. Is a person who has a pending application for a parcel of
land with the Lands Management Bureau (LMB)
qualify for the registration of the same land under
the Torrens system of registration?
A. No since the applicant, by the filing of his sales application,
manifestly acknowledges the character of the land
as a public land under the administration of the
LMB. Therefore, his possession was not that of an
owner, as required by law. (Director of Lands v.
Santiago, supra.)
Q. Does the absence of any opposition by the government
justify the outright registration of the land in favor of
the applicant?
A. No. Notwithstanding the absence of opposition from the
government, the applicant is not relieved of the
burden of proving the imperfect right or title sought
to be confirmed. He must show, even though there
is no opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that
he is the absolute owner, in fee simple. (Director of
Lands v. Agustin, GR No. 16179, Oct. 6, 1921)
• Order of default
 “If no person appears and answers within the
time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the
applicant, order a default to be recorded and
require the applicant to present evidence. By the
description in the notice ‘To All Whom It May
Concern,’ all the world are made parties
defendant and shall be concluded by the default
order. Where an appearance has been entered
and an answer filed, a default order shall be
entered against persons who did not appear and
answer. (Sec. 26, PD 1529)
Q. May a party declared in default have the right to appeal
from the judgment by default?
A. Yes. A defendant party declared in default retains the right
to appeal from the judgment by default on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material
allegations of the complaint, or that the decision is
contrary to law, even without need of the prior filing
of a motion to set aside the order of default.
(Martinez v. Republic, GR No.160895, Oct. 30, 2006)
Q. What is the consequence of the government not filing any
opposition to the application for registration?
A. Where the Director of Lands did not oppose the
application and was, by order of the court, declared
in default, the order should not prejudice the
government since the Republic is usually not
estopped by the mistake or error of its officials or
agents. (Republic v. Aquino, 205 Phil. 141)
Q. Who has the burden of proof in land registration cases?
A. The burden of proof in land registration cases is incumbent
on the applicant who must show that he is the real
and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied
for. Unless the applicant succeeds in showing by
clear and convincing evidence that the property
involved was acquired by him or his ancestors by any
of the means provided for the proper acquisition of
public lands, the rule is that the property must be
held to be a part of the public domain. (Martinez v.
Republic, supra)
Q. Is a motion to dismiss based on res judicata proper in
registration proceedings?
A. Yes. In Valisno v. Plan (GR No. L-55152, Aug. 19, 1986), the
Court, applying the principle of res judicata,
sustained the applicant’s motion to dismiss the
opposition to his application for registration it
appearing that the land sought to be registered had
been previously litigated between the applicant and
the oppositor in a civil case for recovery of
possession, resulting in a favorable judgment to the
applicant. Sec. 34, PD 1529, provides that the Rules
of Court shall be applicable to registration and
cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory
character. (See also Rule 132)
 Principle of res judicata
 Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or
decree on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies, in all later suits and on all
points and matters determined in the previous
suit.
 The principle bars a subsequent suit involving the
same parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
The rationale for the rule is that "public policy
requires that controversies must be settled with
finality at a given point in time.“ (Topacio v.
Banco Filipino, GR No. 157644, Nov. 17, 2010)
 Elements of res judicata:
(a) former judgment must be final;
(b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over
the subject matter;
(c) the judgment must be on the merits;
(d) there must be between the first and the second
actions, identity of parties, subject matter
and causes of action.
• The doctrine does not require absolute but merely
substantial identity of the parties.
• The defense of res judicata may be waived if not set up
in a motion to dismiss.
HEARING
 The court shall decide the case within ninety (90) days
from its submission. The court may refer the case or part
thereof to a referee who shall submit his report to the
court within 15 days after its termination. (Sec. 27, PD
1529)
 Applications for registration shall be heard by the
regional trial court or, in proper cases, by the first level
courts.
 The applicant must show, by “well-nigh incontro- vertible
proof,” and even in the absence of opposition, that he is
the absolute owner of the land.
Q. Is a motion to dismiss proper in a registration case?
A. Yes, based, for instance, on res judicata. The PRD does not
provide for a pleading similar or corresponding to a
motion to dismiss. However, Section 34 provides
that the Rules of Court which are not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Decree shall be applicable
to land registration and cadastral cases by analogy
or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. (Valisno v. Plan, GR No.
L-55152, Aug. 19, 1986).
EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
• The burden of overcoming the presumption of State
ownership of lands of the public domain lies on the
person applying for registration.
 The government, in opposing the purported
nature of the land, need not adduce evidence to
prove otherwise.
 To overcome the presumption of State
ownership of public dominion lands, the
applicant must present incontrovertible evidence
that the land subject of the application is
alienable or disposable. (Republic v. Alaminos Ice
Plant, GR No. 189723, July 11, 2018)
 To prove the classification of the land as A and D, the
application for original registration must be
accompanied by:
(1) CENRO or PENRO Certification that land is A and
D; and
(2) Copy of the original classification approved by
the DENR Secretary and certified as a true
copy by the legal custodian thereof.
(Republic v. Bantigue, GR No. 162322,
March 14, 2012; Republic v. Dela Paz, GR
No. 171631, Nov. 5, 2010; Republic v.
T.A.N, 555 SCRA 477)
 (Note: In Gaerlan v. Republic, GR No. 192717, March 12,
2014, the Court held that the CENRO/PENRO
certification is not sufficient evidence of the facts stated
therein).
 Policy clarification by DENR Memorandum No. 564,
dated Nov. 15, 2012
 The DENR clarified that “the issuance of the
certification and the certified copy of the
approved LC Map to prove that the area applied
for is indeed classified as A and D is within the
competence and jurisdiction of the CENRO.”
 (Note: A separate administrative order was issued
“delegating to the CENRO the authority to issue the
certification and the certified true copy of the approved
land classification map and the particular issuance or
order which was used as basis for such classification.”)
• DENR level of authority on land classification
• Secretary: Land classification and release of
lands of the public domain as alienable and
disposable (A and D)
• Secretary: Sub-classification of forest lands
according to use
• PENRO: Issuance of certificate of
classification whether timber land or A
and D – above 50.0 has.
• CENRO: Issuance of certificate of
classification whether timber land or A
and D – below 50.0 has.
 What overt acts may prove possession in the concept of
owner?
 Introducing valuable improvements on the land
like fruit-bearing trees;
 Fencing the area
 Constructing a residential house thereon; and
 Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
 In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-
hectare land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
 It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years for
coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. Republic v. CA and
Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)
Q. Both Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14(1)
of the Property Registration Decree require
“possession and occupation” of the land applied for.
Explain.
A. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes
constructive possession. When, therefore, the law
adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all
encompassing effect of constructive possession.
Taken together with the words open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves
to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify,
his possession must not be a mere fiction. (Republic v.
Enciso, GR No. 160145, Nov. 11, 2005)
• Are tax declarations and tax receipts proof of
ownership?
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership but they are a
good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner. (Llanes v. Republic, 572 SCA 258) A tax
declaration merely prove payment of taxes.
• But when coupled with actual possession,
payment of taxes is evidence of great weight and
can be the basis of a claim of ownership through
prescription. (Republic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA
611)
• Taxes must be paid annually.
Q. The applicant paid all taxes for the period 1946 to 1976
only in 1976, a few months prior to the filing of the
application for registration. How does this affect the
legitimacy of applicant’s claim over the property?
A. The payment of taxes on a lump sum basis just before the
filing of the application for registration may
adversely affect the validity of the applicant’s claim
to the land as said payment, made belatedly and in
lump sum, taints the sincerity of his claim of
ownership and indicates that it was resorted only to
lend some semblance of legitimacy to such claim.
Taxes are supposed to be paid annually. (Republic v.
CA and Infante-Tayag, GR No. L-61462, July 31, 1984)
• Identity of the land
• Land must be surveyed to establish its identity,
location and area. Only the LMB Director may
approve survey plans for original registration
purposes. (PD 239, July 9, 1973)
• There is now no need to present the tracing
cloth plan of the land. A certified blue print or
white print copy of the plan suffices for
registration purposes. (Director of Lands v. CA
and Iglesia ni Cristo, 158 SCRA 586)
• Rule in determining area in case of conflict
• What defines a piece of titled property is not the
numerical data indicated as the area of the land,
but the boundaries or "metes and bounds" of
the property specified in its technical
description as enclosing it and showing its limits.
(Rep. v. CA and Santos, GR No. 116111, Jan. 21,
1969, 301 SCRA 366).
• What defines a piece of land is not the area,
calculated with more or less certainty
mentioned in the description, but the
boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the
land and indicating its limits. (Balantakbo v. CA,
GR No. 108515, Oct. 16, 1995)
 Importance of a survey plan
 One of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens
system is the absolute certainty of the identity of
a registered land.
 Consequently, the primary purpose of the
requirement that the land must be first surveyed
is to fix the exact or definite identity of the land.
 The survey plots the location, the area and the
boundaries of the property. (De Guzman v. Court
of Appeals, GR No, 185757, March2, 2016)
 Only the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) may now
verify and approve survey plans for original registration
purposes pursuant to PD No. 239, dated July 9, 1973.
 The Land Registration Authority (LRA) has no
authority to approve original survey plans nor to
check the correctness thereof. A survey plan
which is not approved by the Director of Lands
(or Regional Technical Director) is “not of much
value” for registration purposes. (Republic v.
Vera, GR No. L-35778, Jan. 27, 1983)
Q. Is the submission of the tracing cloth plan mandatory?
A. In the early case of Director of Lands v. Reyes, GR No.L-
27594, Nov. 28, 1975, the Court declared that the
submission of the tracing cloth plan is a statutory
requirement of mandatory character.
But later decisions of the Court state that the original
tracing cloth plan may be substituted with either the
white print or blue print copy of the plan, duly
certified as correct or the correctness of which has
not been overcome by convincing evidence.
(Director of Lands v. IAC and Espartinez, GR No. GR
No. 70825, March 11, 1991; Republic v. CA and
Chavez, GR No. L-62680, Nov. 9, 1988)
Q. In case of conflict between areas and boundaries, which
prevails?
A. In case of conflict between areas and boundaries, the latter
prevails. What really defines a piece of ground is not
the area, calculated with more or less certainty,
mentioned in its description, but the boundaries
therein laid down, as enclosing the land and
indicating its limits. In a contract of sale of land in a
mass, the specific boundaries stated in the contract
must control over any statement with respect to the
area. (Dichoso v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 55613,
Dec. 10, 1990)
• Possession and occupation as proof of ownership
 Possession must be under a claim of ownership.
 Acts of a possessory character by one who holds
the property by mere tolerance of the owner is
not in the concept of owner, and do not start the
period of prescription.
 Actual possession consists of acts of dominion of
such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property.
 Occupation delimits the all-encompassing effect
of constructive possession.
 Rule of preference in case of conflict of possession
 The present possessor shall be preferred;
 If there two possessors, the one longer in
possession;
 If the dates of the possession are the same,
the one who presents a title; and
 If both possessors have titles, the court shall
determine the rightful possessor and owner
of the land. (Art. 538, CC)
• Mere possession will not defeat the title of a holder of
registered land. (Eduarte v. CA, 253 SCRA 391)
 What overt acts may prove possession in the concept of
owner?
 Introducing valuable improvements on the land
like fruit-bearing trees;
 Fencing the area
 Constructing a residential house thereon; and
 Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
 In a practical and scientific way of planting, a one-
hectare land can be planted to 144 coconut trees.
 It takes only 10 years for mango trees , and 5 years for
coconuts trees, to begin bearing fruit. Republic v. CA and
Chavez, 167 SCRA 150)
Q. Both Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and Section 14(1)
of the Property Registration Decree require
“possession and occupation” of the land applied for.
Explain.
A. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes
constructive possession. When, therefore, the law
adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all
encompassing effect of constructive possession.
Taken together with the words open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves
to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify,
his possession must not be a mere fiction. (Republic
v. Enciso, GR No. 160145, Nov. 11, 2005)
• Are tax declarations and tax receipts proof of
ownership?
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership but they are a
good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner. (Llanes v. Republic, 572 SCA 258) A tax
declaration merely prove payment of taxes.
• But when coupled with actual possession,
payment of taxes is evidence of great weight and
can be the basis of a claim of ownership through
prescription. (Republic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA
611)
• Taxes must be paid annually.
Q. The applicant paid all taxes for the period 1946 to 1976
only in 1976, a few months prior to the filing of the
application for registration. How does this affect the
legitimacy of applicant’s claim over the property?
A. The payment of taxes on a lump sum basis just before the
filing of the application for registration may
adversely affect the validity of the applicant’s claim
to the land as said payment, made belatedly and in
lump sum, taints the sincerity of his claim of
ownership and indicates that it was resorted only to
lend some semblance of legitimacy to such claim.
Taxes are supposed to be paid annually. (Republic v.
CA and Infante-Tayag, GR No. L-61462, July 31, 1984)
 Are Spanish titles efficacious proof of ownership?
 Pursuant to PD No. 892, dated Feb. 16, 1976,
Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence
of land ownership
 The proliferation of dubious Spanish titles have
raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended
to destabilize the Torrens system of registration.
 Case study: Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San
Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA
733; Dumanlag v. Blanco, A.C. No. 8825, Aug. 3,
2016; Paraguya v. Crucillo, GR No. 200265, Dec/
2. 2013)
 The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; exceptions:
 when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures;
 when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible;
 when there is grave abuse of discretion;
 when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;
 when the findings of facts are conflicting;
 when in making its findings the CA went beyond
the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant
and the appellee;
• when the findings are contrary to the trialcourt;
• when the findings are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based;
• when the facts set forth in the petition as well as
in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent;
• when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by the evidence on record; and
• when the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if
properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion. (Tyson’s Super Concrete v. CA, 461
SCRA 69)
JUDGMENT
 What are the kinds of judgment?
 (1) A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole
world, such as a judgment in a land registration
case or probate of a will; (2) a judgment in
personam is binding upon the parties and their
successors-in-interest but not upon strangers,
and (3) a judgment directing a party to deliver
possession of a property to another is in
personam; it is binding only against the parties
and their successors-in-interest by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action.
 An action for declaration of nullity of title and
recovery of ownership of real property, or
reconveyance, is a real action but it is an action in
pe rsonam, for it binds a particular individual
only.(Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6,
2011)
 Judgment confirming title
 “All conflicting claims of ownership and interest
in the land subject of the application shall be
determined by the court. If the court, after
considering the evidence and the reports of the
Commissioner of Land Registration and the
 Director of Lands, finds that the applicant or the
oppositor has sufficient title proper for
registration, judgment shall be rendered
confirming the title of the applicant, or the
oppositor, to the land or portions thereof.” (Sec.
29, PD 1529)
 The judgment confirms the title of the applicant or the
oppositor. Partial judgment is proper where a subdivision
plan is submitted. (Sec. 28)
 Judgment becomes final after fifteen (15) days
from receipt of notice of the judgment.
 Court retains jurisdiction until after the entry of
the final decree of registration. (Gomez v CA, 168
SCRA 503)
 Principle of res judicata is applicable to
registration proceedings. (Aring v. Original, a6
SCRA 1021)
 Motion for execution of judgment not required
 Upon finality of judgment in land registration
cases, the winning party does not file a motion
for execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead,
he files a petition with the court for the issuance
of an order directing the LRA to issue a decree of
registration, a copy of which is then sent to the
Register of Deeds for inscription in the
registration book, and issuance of the original
certificate of title.
 The LRA merely issues an order for the issuance
of a decree of registration and the corresponding
certificate of title in the name of such applicant.
(Top Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR
No.150462, June 15, 2011)
 No period within which decree may be issued
 The fact that no decree has as yet been issued
cannot divest the applicant of his title to and
ownership of the land in question. There is
nothing in the law that limits the period within
which the court may issue a decree. The reason is
that the judgment is merely declaratory in
character and does not need to be enforced
against the adverse party. (Del Rosario v.
Limcaoco, GR No. 177392, Nov. 26, 2012)
 From another perspective, the judgment does
not have to be executed by motion or enforced
by action within the purview of Rule 39 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Republic v. Nillas,
GR No. 159595, Jan. 23, 2007)
• A judgment in rem is binding upon the whole world,
such as a judgment in a land registration case or probate
of a will; and a judgment in personam is binding upon
the parties and their successors-in-interest but not upon
strangers.
• A judgment directing a party to deliver
possession of a property to another is in
personam.
• An action for declaration of nullity of title and
recovery of ownership of real property, or re-
conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in
personam, for it only binds the parties impleaded
although it concerns the right to a tangible
thing.(Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6,
2011)
 Execution pending appeal not required
 Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a
land registration proceeding and the certificate
of title thereby issued is null and void.
 A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment
that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the
explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act
which requires that a decree shall be issued only
after the decision adjudicating the title becomes
final and executory, and it is on the basis of said
decree that the Register of Deeds concerned
issues the corresponding certificate of title. (Top
Management v. Fajardo, supra)
 No period within which decree may be issued
 The fact that no decree has as yet been issued
cannot divest the applicant of his title to and
ownership of the land in question. There is
nothing in the law that limits the period within
which the court may issue a decree. The reason is
that the judgment is merely declaratory in
character and does not need to be enforced
against the adverse party. (Del Rosario v.
Limcaoco, GR No. 177392, Nov. 26, 2012)
 From another perspective, the judgment does
not have to be executed by motion or enforced
by action within the purview of Rule 39 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Republic v. Nillas,
GR No. 159595, Jan. 23, 2007)
WRIT OF POSSESSION
 In what instances may a writ of posession be issued?
 (a) land registration proceeding which is in rem;
 (b) extrajudicial foreclosure of realty;
 (c) judicial foreclosure of mortgage which is a quasi
in rem; and
 (d) execution sales.
 A writ of possession may be issued not only against the
person defeated in the land registration case but also
against anyone unlawfully occupying the land during the
pendency of the proceedings up to the issuance of the
final decree. (Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491
 Can the Sheriff unilaterally remove or demolish the
improvements?
 The sheriff cannot remove or demolish the
improvements except upon special order of the
court. (Tumibay v. Soro, GR 152016, April 12,
2010)
 The writ will not issue against persons taking
possession after issuance of the final decree.
  The remedy is to file a separate action for
forcible entry or detainer, or a reivindicatory
action. (Bernas v. Nueva,127 SCA 399)
 In De la Rosa v. Valdez, GR No. 159101, July 27, 2011,
the Court ruled:
 There are ample justifications for the grant by
the RTC of a writ that places the subject property
in the possession of the spouses Valdez and
spouses Malvar for the duration of the trial of
Civil Case No. 00-6015. Sales Patent No. 38713,
covering the subject property, had already been
issued to Juan Valdez which makes him, at the
very least, the equitable owner of the said
property. There is already a request for the
registration of Sales Patent No. 38713 pending
before the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City. .
....................
 The spouses Valdez acknowledge the transfer of
the subject property to the spouses Malvar. The
spouses Dela Rosa's title is based on TCT No.
451423-A in Cristeta dela Rosa's name, which is
not registered with the Registry of Deeds of
Marikina City or Antipolo City. TCT No. 451423-A
is also traced back to Titulo de Propriedad No.
4136, which, in the Intestate Estate of the late
Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of
Appeals, 23 was already declared null and void,
and from which no rights could be derived.
 In Tumibay v. Soro, supra, the Court held:
 “A judgment for the delivery or restitution of
property is essentially an order to place the
prevailing party in possession of the property. If
the defendant refuses to surrender possession of
the property to the prevailing party, the sheriff or
other proper officer should oust him. No express
order to this effect needs to be stated in the
decision; nor is a categorical statement needed in
the decision that in such event the sheriff or
other proper officer shall have the authority to
remove the improvements on the property if the
defendant fails to do so within a reasonable
period of time.
 The removal of the improvements on the land
under these circumstances is deemed read into
the decision, subject only to the issuance of a
special order by the court for the removal of the
improvements.”
 When is a separate action, not writ of possession,
necessary?
 When parties against whom a writ of possession
is sought entered into possession apparently
after the issuance of the final decree, the writ of
possession will not issue.
 A person who took possession of the land after
final judgment in registration proceedings cannot
be summarily ousted through a writ of
possession secured by a mere motion and that
regardless of any title or lack of title of persons to
hold possession of the land in question, they
cannot be ousted without giving them their day
in court in proper independent proceedings.
(Bernas v. Nuevo, 127 SCRA 399)
 Is failure to vacate a ground for contempt proceedings?
 Under Section 3 (d), Rule 19, Rules of Court, the
writ of execution must require the sheriff to
deliver the possession of the property to the
party entitled thereto. The sheriff must
dispossess or eject the losing party from the
premises and deliver the possession thereof to
the winning party.
 If subsequent to such dispossession or ejectment
the losing party enters or attempts to enter into
or upon the real property, for the purpose of
exercising acts of ownership or possession, or in
any manner disturbs the possession of the
person adjudged to be entitled thereto, only then
may the loser be charged with and punished for
contempt . (Vencilao v. Vano, 182 SCRA 491).
Q. Does failure of the government to file opposition deprive it
of right to appeal?
A. No. In Republic v. Tiotioen, GR No. 167215, Oct. 8, 2008,
the Court held:
“ x x x the belated filing of an appeal by the
State, or even its failure to file an
opposition, in a land registration case
because of the mistake or error on the part
of its officials or agents does not deprive
the government of its right to appeal from a
judgment of the court.”
DECREE OF REGISTRATION
• A decree of registration is an order issued under the
signature of the Administrator, LRA, in the name of the
court, stating that the land described therein is
registered in the name of the applicant or oppositor or
claimant as the case may be..
• Upon issuance of the decree, the Administrator
sends a certified copy thereof, under seal of his
office, to the RD of the province or city where the
land lies, and the RD transcribes the decree in a
book, called the “Registration Book," in which a
leaf, or leaves, in consecutive order shall be
devoted exclusively to each title. The entry made
by the Register of Deeds in said book constitutes
the original certificate of title and is signed by him
and sealed with the seal of his office.
The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title
thereto, subject to exceptions or liens as may be provided by
law. (Sec. 31, PD No. 1529)
It shall be conclusive against all persons, including the
government and its branches. (Ibid.)
Land becomes registered land only upon the
transcription of the decree in the book of the Register
of Deeds, and not on the date of the issuance of the
decree. (Manotok v. CLT Realty, GR No. 123346,
March 31, 2009)
Q. What is the effect and importance of a decree of
registration?
A. A decree of registration bars all claims and rights which
arose or may have existed prior to the decree of
registration. By the issuance of the decree, the land
is bound and title thereto quieted, subject only to
exceptions stated in Section 44 of PD No. 1529.
The Torrens title becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible one year from the issuance of the
final decree and is generally conclusive evidence of
the ownership of the land referred to therein.
(Calalang v. Register of Deeds, GR No. 76265, March
11, 1994)
• A registration court has no jurisdiction to decree again
land already decreed in a prior case. (Laburada v. LRA,
287 SCRA 333)
 An application for registration of a titled land
constitutes a collateral attack on the existing
title. (SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578 SCRA
552)
 Title is deemed issued upon transcription of the
decree. (Manotok Realty v. CLT, 540 SCRA 304)
MAYSILO ESTATE CASE – “LAND OF CAVEAT EMPTOR”
Q. When is a certificate of title deemed registered – the date
of the issuance of the decree of registration on April
19, 1917, or the date the decree was transcribed in
the Office of the RD on May 3, 1917?
A. The original certificate of title is deemed issued on the
DATE THE DECREE OF REGISTRATION IS
TRANSCRIBED since what stands as the certificate is
the transcript of the decree of registration made by
the RD in the registry. (Manotok v. CLT Realty, 540
SCRA 304)
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
 Issuance of decree and certificate of title
 “Within 15 days from entry of the judgment, the
court shall direct the LRA Administrator to issue
the decree of registration and prepare the
original and duplicate certificate of title based
thereon. The original certificate of title, signed by
him, shall be a true copy of the decree, and shall
be sent, together with the owner’s duplicate, to
the Register of Deeds of the city or province
where the land lies.” (Sec. 39, PD 1529)
 The certificate is an indefeasible evidence of
ownership of the person whose name appears
therein. (Panganiban v. Dayrit, 464 SCRA 370).
Entry of original certificate of title
“Upon receipt by the RD of the original and duplicate
copies of the title, the same shall be entered in the
day book and shall be numbered, dated, signed and
sealed. Said certificate of title shall take effect upon
the entry thereof. The RD shall then send notice by
mail to the registered owner that his owner’s copy is
ready for delivery to him upon payment of legal fees.”
(Sec. 40)
“The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of
the decree of registration. It shall state the names of
the registered owners and their status. If the property
is conjugal the title shall be issued in the names of
both spouses.”
 Contents of a certificate of title
 Every certificate of title shall set forth the full
names of the registered owners and their status.
If the property belongs to the conjugal
partnership, it shall be issued in the names of
both spouses.
 All property of the marriage is presumed to
belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband
or to the wife. (Art. 160, CC)
 When the property is registered in the name of a
spouse only and there is no showing as to when
the property was acquired, this indicates that the
property belongs exclusively to said spouse. (PNB
v, Vitug, 153 SCRA 435)
• A certificate of title may be an original certificate of title,
which constitutes a true copy of the decree of
registration, or a transfer certificate of title, issued
subsequent to original registration.
• The title serves as evidence of an indefeasible
and incontrovertible title one year after the
issuance of the decree of registration by the LRA.
(Del Prado v. Caballero, GR No. 148225, March 3,
2010)
• A person dealing with registered land need not
go beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his
predecessor. (Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577
SCRA 441)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN “TITLE” AND “CERTIFICATE OF TITLE”
 Title may be defined as that which constitutes a
just cause of exclusive possession, or which is the
foundation of ownership of property.
 Certificate of title, on the other hand, is a mere
evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the
land itself. (Castillo v. Escutin, GR No. 171056,
March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 258)

 The Torrens system requires the government to issue a
certificate of title stating that the person named in the
title is the owner of the property described therein,
subject to liens and encumbrances annotated on the
title or reserved by law.
 The title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and
all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon
issuance of the certificate. (Decaleng v. Phil.
Episcopal Church, GR No. 171209, June 27, 2012)
 The placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the
Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof
can no longer be disputed.
 Ownership is different from a certificate of title,
the latter only serving as the best proof of
ownership over a piece of land.
 Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the
name of any person does not foreclose the
possibility that the real property may be under
co-ownership with persons not named in the
certificate, or that the registrant may only be a
trustee, or that other parties may have acquired
interest over the property subsequent to the
issuance of the certificate of title. (Lacbayan v.
Samoy, GR No. 165427, March 21, 2011)
• A certificate of title issued pursuant to administrative
proceedings is as indefeasible as any title issued through
judicial proceedings –
 provided the land is a disposable public land, and
becomes incontrovertible one year after the
issuance of the patent. (Republic v. Carle, 105
Phil. 1227)
 A certificate of title based on an emancipation
patent under PD No. 27 also enjoys the same
protection as a certificate issued judicially or
administratively. (Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian
Reform, R No. 175049, Nov. 27, 2008)
 Rule: title earlier in date prevails
 On the assumption that there was regularity in
the registration leading to the eventual issuance
of subject transfer certificates of title, the better
approach is to trace the original certificates from
which the certificates of title in dispute were
derived. Should there be only one common
original certificate of title, . . ., the transfer
certificate issued on an earlier date along the line
must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity
tainting the process of registration. (Top
Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, GR
No.150462, June 15, 2011)
STATUTORY LIENS AFFECTING REGISTERED LAND
• Every registered owner holds title free from
encumbrances except: (a) liens or rights not required by
law to be registered (b) unpaid real estate taxes (c)
public highway (d) limitation on the use of property
under agrarian reform and public land laws (e) liability to
attachment or levy on execution (f) taking under eminent
domain proceedings. (Sec. 44, PD No. 1529)
• Purpose: to give the registered owner an absolutely
clean title, not subject to hidden defects or
inchoate claims, as well as restrictions except those
appearing in the certificate or imposed by the law.
 The decree does not relieve the land or the registered
owner from any rights incident to:
 The relation of husband and wife, landlord and
tenant;
 From liability to attachment or levy on execution;
 From liability to any lien of any description
established by law on the land and buildings
thereon; or
 Change the laws of descent, rights of partition, or
right to take the same by eminent domain; or
 Relieve such land from liability to any assignee in
insolvency or bankruptcy; or
 Change or affect other rights or liabilities created
by law (Sec. 46, PD 1529)
VOLUNTARY DEALINGS
WITH REGISTERED LAND
 Any registered owner may convey, mortgage, lease or
otherwise deal with the land. (Sec. 51. PD No. 1529).
 Every conveyance or disposition of registered
land, if registered, is constructive notice to all
persons from the time of registration. (Sec. 52,
PD 1529; Guaranteed Homes v. Valdez, 577 SCA
441)
 But knowledge of an unregistered sale is
equivalent to registration. (Fernandez v. CA, 189
SCRA 780)
 Contracts are obligatory in whatever form provided the
essential requisites of consent, object and cause of the
obligation is established
 Donation of real property must be in a public
instrument to be valid. For a mortgage to be
validly constituted, the document must be
recorded.
 Agreements mentioned in the Statute of
Frauds, to be enforceable, must be in writing
and subscribed by the party charged.
 Sale of real estate is valid regardless of form
but is effective against third persons only from
date of registration.
 Between two transactions concerning the same land,
the registered transaction prevails over the earlier
unregistered right
 Thus, where a purchaser files an adverse claim to
registered land only after the same was already
mortgaged to the bank, upon the claim that he
bought the land “long before” the mortgage, the
 right of the bank to the property is superior to
that of the purchaser. (Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCA
710)
 If two certificates of title purport to include the
same land, whether wholly or partly, the better
approach is to trace the original certificates from
which the certificates of titles were derived.
(Bangis v. Adolfo, GR No. 190875, June 13, 2012)
 Registration of instrument affecting registered land is
ministerial on the part of the RD
 The law on registration does not require that
only valid instruments shall be registered.
(Autocorp v. Court of Appeals, GR 175553, Sept.
8, 2004)
 Questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
instruments are expected to be decided after,
not before, registration.
 Thus, registration must first be allowed, and the
matter of validity or effect litigated afterwards.
 But if the RD is in doubt as to the proper action
to take, he shall elevate the matter en consulta
to the LRA for resolution. (Sec. 117, PD 1529)
• Rule in case of sale of conjugal property
• Under Art. 124 of the Family Code, the sale of
conjugal property requires the consent of both
husband and wife.
• The absence of consent of one renders the sale
null and void, including the portion pertaining to
the spouse who contracted the sale. (Guiang v.
Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 578)
• Under Art. 173 of the Civil Code, the disposition
of conjugal property without the wife’s consent is
not void but merely voidable, and the wife may
within 10 years ask the court for the annulment
of the contract.
 Art. 161 of the Civil Code provides that the conjugal
partnership shall be liable for debts and obligations
contracted by the wife for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership. (Alfredo v. Borras, 404 SCRA 145)
 In a contract of sale, title to the property passes
to the vendee upon delivery of the thing sold; in
a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement,
reserved in the vendor and is not to pass to the
vendee until full payment of the purchase price.
 Sale of real property in a public instrument is
equivalent to the delivery thereof if the contrary
does not appear.
 Dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission of
ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as an
accepted equivalent of the performance of t he
obligation.
 Registration in the public registry is notice to the
whole world.
 Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent
to registration. (Fernandez v. CA, 189 SCRA 780)
 Between two transactions concerning the same
land, the registered transaction prevails over the
earlier unregistered right. (Fudot v. Cattleya, 533
SCRA 350)
VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY REGISTRATION
 Voluntary and involuntary registration distinguished
 Voluntary registration – the purchaser becomes
the registered owner upon the (a) filing and entry
of the deed sale in the day book, (b) surrender of
the owner’s duplicate certificate of title to the RD
and (c) payment of registration fees.
 Involuntary registration – registration is complete
upon filing and entry of the order (e.g., of
attachment, levy upon execution, notice or lis
pendens, etc.) in the day book of the RD, without
need of presenting the owner’s duplicate.
 In voluntary registration, such as a sale, mortgage, lease
and the like,
 if the owner's duplicate certificate be not
surrendered and presented, or
 if no payment of registration fees be made within
fifteen (15) days, entry in the day book of the
deed of sale does not operate to convey and
affect the land sold.
 In involuntary registration, such as an attachment, levy
upon execution, lis pendens and the like, entry thereof
in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of
such adverse claim. (Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR No.
156318, Sept. 5, 2011)
JURISDICTION INVOLVING
“TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY”
 Regional Trial Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction:
 In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the
property involved exceeds Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000,00) or for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible
entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts. (Sec. 19(2), BP 129, amended by RA No.
7691)
 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
 Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the
 assessed value of the property or interest therein
does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs. (Ibid)
 Example
 Actions for cancellation of title and reversion
belong to the class of cases that "involve the title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein" and where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00, fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC. (Republic v. Roman
Catholic Archbishop, GR No. 192975, Nov. 12,
2012; Santos v. CA, 214 SCRA 162)
REMEDIES
REVIEW OF DECREE
• The remedies are:
(1) Petition for review of decree under Section 32;
(2) Action for reconveyance under Sections 53 and
96;
(3) Action for damages under Section 32; and
(4) Claim for compensation against the Assurance
Fund under Section 95.
 Other remedies include:
(1) Action for cancellation and reversion instituted
by the government, through the
Solicitor General, under Section 101 of
the Public Land Act (CA No. 141);
(2) Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court; and
(3) Criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal
Code.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECREE
 Explain – what is the remedy of a petition for review?
 In Eland Philippines v. Garcia, GR No. 173289, Feb.
17, 2010, the Court, citing Agcaoili, “Property
Registration Decree and Related Laws”, held that:
 courts may reopen the proceedings where a
petition for review is filed within one year from
the issuance of the decree of registration,
based on actual or extrinsic fraud, and the
property has not yet passed to a innocent
purchaser for value.
 Requisites:
(a) petitioner must have an interest in land;
(b) petition is based on actual or extrinsic
fraud;
(c) petition is filed within one year fro the
issuance of the decree of registration; and
(d) property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value. (Walstrom v. Mapa, 314
Phil. 527)
 Sec. 32, PD No. 1529. Review of Decree provides:
 “The decree of registration shall not be reopened
or revised by reason of absence, minority, or
other disability of any person adversely affected
thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for
reversing judgments, subject, however, to the
right of zany person, including the government
and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of
any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication of confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper Regional Trial
Court a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year
from and after the date of the entry of such
decree of registration, but in no case shall such
petition be entertained by the court where an
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the
land or an interest therein, whose rights may be
prejudiced. Whenever the phrase ‘innocent
purchaser for value’ or an equivalent phrase
occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to
include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of
said period of one year, the decree of
registration and the certificate of title shall
become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved
by such decree of registration in any case may
pursue his remedy by action for damages against
the applicant or any other persons responsible
for the fraud.”
Q. Distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud
A. Extrinsic fraud is the fraudulent act of the successful party
committed outside the trial of a case against the
defeated party which prevented the latter from
fairly presenting his case.
Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in a litigation
during the trial, such as the use of forged
instruments or perjured testimony, which did not
affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a
fair and just determination of the case. (Palanca v.
American Food Manufacturing, 24 SCRA 819)
 Illustrative instances of fraud: Palanca v. American,
supra:
 “Where the unsuccessful party had been
prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud
or deception practiced on him by his opponent,
as by keeping him away from court; a false
promise of a compromise; or where the
defendant never had knowledge of the suit,
being kept in ignorance by the acts of the
plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or
without authority assumes to represent a party
and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney
regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's
interest to the other side - these, and similar
cases, x x x are reasons for which a new suit may
be sustained to set aside and annul the former
judgment or decree, and open the case for a new
and fair hearing.”
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE
• What is an action for reconveyance?
• It is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the
rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or
erroneously registered in the name of another,
to compel the registered owner to transfer or
reconvey the land to him.
• The action respects the decree of registration as
incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of
property, wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another person’s name, to its rightful owner or a
person who has a better right. (Alde v. Bernal, GR
No. 169336, March 18, 2010; Ybañez v. IAC, 194
SCRA 793; Gonzales v. IAC, 157SCRA 587)
• An action for reconveyance is an action in personam
• It is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts
and not with the land registration court. A notice of
lis pendens may be annotated on the certificate of
title immediately upon the institution of the action
in court. (Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676, June 6,
2011).
• Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to
successfully maintain an action to recover the
ownership of a real property, the person who claims
a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first,
the identity of the land claimed; and second, his
title thereto.
• Requisites:
 The action is brought by the party in interest
after one year from issuance of decree;
 The registration was procured through actual
fraud;
 The property has not yet passed to innocent
purchaser for value.
• A party may file an action for reconveyance of the
property of which he has been illegally deprived even
before the issuance of the decree. (Mun. of Hagonoy v.
Secretary, 73 SCRA 507)
• If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the
person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a
trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person
from whom the property comes.
 An action for reconveyance based on implied
trust prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation
created by law, to be counted from the date of
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
 This rule, however, applies only when the
plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is not in
possession of the property. (PNB v. Jumanoy, GR
No. 169901, Aug. 3, 2011)
Q. May an action for reconveyance be filed even before the
issuance of the decree of registration?
A. Yes. In Municipality of Hagonoy v. Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, GR No.L-27595, Oct. 26,
1976, the Court explained: “The petition for
reopening of the decree which may be filed within
one (1) year from the issuance of the said decree is
not the exclusive remedy of, and does not bar any
other remedy to which the aggrieved party may be
entitled.
• Prescription of action for reconveyance
 Action based on fraud – 4 years
 Action based on implied trust – 10 years
 Action based on void contract – imprescriptible
 Action to quiet title where plaintiff is in
possession – imprescriptible
• But laches may bar recovery. (Lucas v. Gamponia, 100
Phil. 277)
• Elements of laches
 Conduct of defendant giving rise to a situation of
which complaint is made and for which the
complainant seeks a remedy;
 Delay in asserting complainant’s rights despite
opportunity to do so;
 Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of
defendant that complainant would assert his
right; and
 Injury or prejudice to defendant if relief is
accorded complainant, or the suit is not held to
be barred.
 Illustrative cases of laches
 Petitioner’s action to recover title and possession
of the disputed lot was made only after 12 years
from the registration of the sale to defendant.
(De la Calzada-Cierras v. CA, 212 SCRA 390)
 The claimed owner of a lot failed to appear
during the cadastral proceedings, and brought
 action to question the judgment only 10 years
later. (Gonzales v. Director of Lands, 52 Phil. 895)
 Plaintiff did not present his claim against the
estate of the deceased wife but did so only four
years later against the widower. (Yaptico v. Yulo,
57 Phil. 818)
• An action for reconveyance under a constructive implied
trust in accordance with Article 1456 does not prescribe
unless the land is registered or the instrument affecting
the same is inscribed in the registry.
 Thus, where the land is unregistered, it is from
the date of actual notice of the fraudulent sale
that prescription began to toll. (Cabacungan v.
Laigo, GR No. 175073, Aug. 15, 2011)
• Q. Cite the provision on quieting of title.
• A. “Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest therein, by reason of any
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is, in truth and
in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable,
and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be
brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An
action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from
being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein.”
• Q. What is a cloud on title?
• A. A "cloud on title" is an outstanding instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
actually invalid or inoperative, but which may
nevertheless impair or affect injuriously the title to
property. The matter complained of must have a prima
facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. The cloud
on title is a semblance of title which appears in some
legal form but which is in fact unfounded. The invalidity
or inoperativeness of the instrument is not apparent on
the face of such instrument, and it has to be proved by
extrinsic evidence. (Aquino v. Quiazon, GR No. 201248,
March 11, 2015)
• Q. What kind of proceeding is an action to quiet title?
 A. It is characterized as a proceeding quasi in rem. In an
action quasi in rem, an individual is named a defendant
and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests to the obligation or loan burdening the
property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status,
ownership or liability of a particular property but which
are intended to operate on these questions only as
between the particular parties to the proceedings and
not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all
possible claimants. The judgment therein is binding only
upon the parties who joined in the action. (Phil-Ville
Development and Housing Corporation v. Bonifacio, GR
No. 167391, June 8, 2011).
 An action for reconveyance has sometimes been
treated as an action to quiet title. Requisites:
• Plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or
interest in the property
• The deed, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on
his title must be shown to be invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity. (Philville
Development and Housing Corporation v.
Bonifacio, GR No. 167391, June 8, 2011)
• Quieting of title, illustration:
 Jose who is an agent, in representation of Pedro,
sells the latter’s house to Mario. The deed of sale
is executed in a public instrument and there is no
indication that the authority of the agent is not
in writing. The deed of sale appears to be valid
and effective on its face.
 As the authority of Jose to sell is not in writing,
the sale is void (Art. 1874, CC). Pedro can file a
suit against the buyer Mario to quiet his title.
(Pineda, Property)
Q. For an action to quiet title to prosper, what indispensable
requisites must concur?
A. (1) The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable
title to or interest in the real property subject of the
action; and
(2) The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to
be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in
fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy. (Aquino v.
Quiazon, GR No. 201248, March 11,2015; Diaz v.
Virata, GR No. 162037, Aug. 7, 2006)
ACTION FOR
DAMAGES
• After one year from the issuance of the decree, the sole
remedy of the aggrieved party is not to set aside the
decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no
longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the
ordinary court for reconveyance. But if the property has
passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value, the remedy is an action for damages. (Gonzales v.
IAC, 157 SCRA 587)
• Action for damages must be brought within 10 years
from issuance of the questioned certificate of title.
(Art.1144, CC)
Q. When may an action for damages arising from fraudulent
registration lie?
A. When an action for reconveyance is no longer feasible
because the property has already passed to the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the
aggrieved party can file an action for damages
 against the persons responsible for depriving him of
his right or interest in the property. (Gonzales v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, GR No. L-69622, Jan.
29, 1988, 157 SCRA 587; Sanjorjo v. Quijano, GR No.
140457, Jan. 19, 2005, 449 SCRA 15)
Q. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the
registrant, claiming that he is the true owner of the
property registered in the name of the latter.
However, petitioner did not file any opposition to the
application for registration. Will the action prosper?
A. No. A person who has not challenged an application for
registration of land even if the appeal afterwards
interposed is based on the right of dominion over the
same land, cannot allege damage or error against the
judgment ordering the registration inasmuch as he
did not allege or pretend to have any right to such
land. (Esconde v. Barlongay, GR No. L-67583, July 31,
1987)
ACTION FOR REVERSION
 Reversion is an action filed by the government, through
the Office of the Solicitor General, to restore public land
fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private
individuals or corporations to the mass of the public
domain. (Yujuico v. Republic, GR No. 168661, Oct. 26,
2007, citing Agcaoili, “Property Registration Decree”)
• Grounds for reversion
 An action for reversion may be instituted by the
government, through the Solicitor General, in all
cases where lands of the public domain and the
improvements thereon and all lands are held in
violation of the Constitution (Sec. 35, Chapter XII,
Title III, EO No. 292), or in cases of fraudulent or
unlawful inclusion of land in patents or
certificates of title. (Republic v. Guerrero, GR No.
133168, March 28, 2006)
• Reversion suits are utilized to annul titles or patents
administratively issued by the Lands Management
Bureau (LMB).
 Actions for cancellation of title and reversion
belong to the class of cases that "involve the title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein" and where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00 Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Sec. 19 (2), fall under the jurisdiction of
the RTC. (Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop,
GR No. 192975, Nov. 12, 2012Santos v. CA, 214
SCRA 162)
• All actions for the reversion to the government of lands
of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be
instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in
his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. (Sec. 101, PLA)
 Unless and until the land is reverted to the State
by virtue of a judgment of a court of law in a
direct proceeding for reversion, the Torrens
certificate of title thereto remains valid and
binding against the whole world. (Tolentino v.
Laurel, GR No. 181368, Feb.22, 2012)
• State not bound by prescription
 Under Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act (CA No.
141), the LMB Director has continuing authority
to conduct investigation to determine whether or
not public land has been fraudulently awarded or
titled to the end that the corresponding
certificate of title be cancelled and the land
reverted to the mass public domain. (Piñero v.
Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 386)
 The indefeasibility of a title is not a bar to an
investigation by the State as to how such title has
been acquired. (Cavile v. Litania-Hong, 581 SCRA
408)
• Q. Is reversion the proper remedy where private land
had been subsequently registered?
• A. No. An action for cancellation, not reversion, is
proper where private land had been subsequently titled,
and the party plaintiff in that case is not the government
but the prior rightful owner of the property. (Angeles v.
Republic, GR No. 166281, Oct. 27, 2006)
Q. Plaintiff Republic filed a complaint to declare the free
patent and title issued to Isagani null and void and to
order the reversion of the land to the mass of public
domain on the ground that the land is a forest land.
The court dismissed the complaint, holding that OCT
No P-2508 had become indefeasible in view of the
lapse of the one-year period prescribed under (Sec.
32, Property Registration Decree). Plaintiff appealed.
Decide.
A. The appeal is meritorious. The defense of indefeasibility of
a certificate of title issued pursuant to a free patent
does not lie against the State in an action for
reversion where the land is a part of a public forest
or of a forest reservation. A patent is void if the
officer who issued the patent had no authority to do
so. Registration should not be a shield of fraud.
Prescription cannot be invoked against the State.
(Republic v. Animas, GR No. L-37682, March 29,
1974)
CANCELLATION OF
TITLE
 It is an action initiated by a private party usually in a case
where two titles are issued for the same lot
 Where two titles are issued for the same lot, the
earlier in date prevails. (Pajomayo v. Manipon, 39
SCRA 676)
 Land does not revert to the State but is declared
as lawfully belonging to the party whose title is
superior over the other.
  But the State is vested with personality to file this
action to protect public interest and safeguard
the Assurance Fund
Q. Differentiate an action for reversion from an ordinary
action for cancellation of title.
A. In contrast to an action for reversion which is filed by the
government, through the Solicitor General, an ordinary action
for cancellation is initiated by a private property usually in a
case where there are two titles issued to different persons for
the same lot. The land does not “revert” to the mass of the
public domain, as in an action for reversion, but is declared as
lawfully belonging to the party whose certificate of title is
held superior over the other. (Pajomayo v. Manipon, GR No.
L-33676, June 30, 1971)
Q. Differentiate an action for reversion from an escheat
proceeding.
A. An action for reversion is slightly different from escheat
proceeding, but in its effects they are the same.
They only differ in procedure. Escheat proceedings
may be instituted as a consequence of a violation of
the Constitution which prohibits transfers of private
agricultural lands to aliens, whereas an action for
reversion is expressly authorized by the Public Land
Act. (Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, GR No. L-1411, Sept.
29, 1953)
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
• This is an extraordinary remedy filed with the Court
of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court,
where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are
no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner.
Judgments or orders of quasi-judicial bodies, e.g., NLRC or
DARAB, are not covered by petitions for annulment.
• Reversion suits were originally filed with the RTC to
annul titles or patents administratively issued by the
LMB
 But with the effectivity of BP Blg. 129 which gave
the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)
jurisdiction over actions for annulment
judgments of RTCs, the Rules of Court
promulgated on July 1, 1997 incorporated Rule
47 on annulment of judgments or final orders of
the RTCs. (Yujuico v. Republic, 537 SCRA 513)
 Grounds for annulment:
• (a) action is based on extrinsic fraud, filed
within four years from discovery;
• (b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant/respondent or over the subject
matter of the action.
o If based on lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner need not allege that the
ordinary remedies of new trial or
appeal are no longer available through
no fault of his.
o If ground is lack of jurisdiction,
another remedy is certiorari under
Rule 65 where the CA and SC have
concurrent jurisdiction.
 In a case for annulment of title, the complaint must
allege that the purchaser was aware of the defect in
the title so that the cause of action against him will be
sufficient.
 Failure to do so is fatal since the court cannot render a
valid judgment against the purchaser who is presumed
to be in good faith in acquiring the said property.
Failure to prove, much less impute, bad faith on said
purchaser would make it impossible for the court to
render a valid judgment thereon due to the
indefeasibility and conclusiveness of his title. (Cabigas
v. Limbaco, GR No. 175291, July 27, 2011)
• Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for
cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should
never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence
not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which
must be proved.
 In Sampaco v. Lantud, GR No. 163551, July 18,
2011, the signatory of the certification, Datu
Samra Andam, A/Adm. Assistant II, Natural
Resources District No. XII-3, Marawi City, was not
presented in court to testify on the due issuance
of the certification, and to testify on the details
of his certification, particularly the reason why
the said office had no records of the data
contained in OCT No. P-658 or to testify on the
fact of fraud, if any.
• Castigador v. Nicolas, GR No. 184023, March 4, 2013:
allegations of actual fraud -
• "the auction sale of the land is null and void for
lack of actual and personal notice to herein
petitioner";
• “the RTC did not comply with the procedure
prescribed in Section 71, PD No. 1529 requiring
notice by the Register of Deeds to the registered
owner as to the issuance of a certificate of sale”;
• “petitioner was not afforded due process when
she was not notified of the proceedings instituted
by respondent for the cancellation of her title.”
• Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from
having a trial or from presenting his entire case to
the court, or where it operates upon matters
pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the
manner in which it is procured.
• Lack of jurisdiction, illustrative case
 Camitan v. Fidelity Investment (551 SCRA 540) –
where the owner’s duplicate has not been lost
but is in fact existing, the reconstituted title is
null and void since the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution.
• If the petition is based on extrinsic fraud, the remedy is
subject to a condition precedent, i.e., that the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition fort relief are no
longer available through no fault of petitioner.
• “Grave abuse of discretion” is not a proper ground for
petition for annulment of judgment. (Antonino v. RD,
GR No. 185663, June 20, 2012)
 The judgment of the CA shall set aside the
questioned judgment, which is void for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice to the original
action being refiled in the proper court.
• However, where the judgment or final order
is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud,
the CA may, on motion, order the trial court
to try the case as if a timely motion for new
trial had been granted therein. (Sec. 7, Rule
47)
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FROM THE ASSURANCE FUND
• Claim against the Assurance Fund
 “A person who, without negligence on his part,
sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or
any estate or interest therein in consequence of
the bringing of the land under the operation of
the Torrens system of arising after original
registration of land, through fraud or in
consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any
entry or memorandum in the registration book,
and who by the provisions of this Decree is
barred or otherwise precluded under the
provision of any law from bringing an action for
the recovery of such land or the estate or
interest therein, may bring an action in any court
of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of
damages to be paid out of the Assurance Fund.”
(Sec. 95, PD 1529)
• Public policy dictates that those unjustly deprived of
their rights over real property by reason of the
operation of our registration laws be afforded remedies.
 Thus, the aggrieved party may file a suit for
reconveyance of property or a personal action
for recovery of damages against the party who
registered his property through fraud, or in case
of his insolvency, an action against the Treasurer
of the Philippines for recovery of damages from
the Assurance Fund. (People v. Cainglet, GR No.
L-21493, April 29, 1966; RD v. Anglo, GR No.
171804, Aug. 5, 2015)
• Requisites for recovery
• As to any person who sustains loss or damage:
 No negligence on his part, and
 Loss or damage was through the omission or
mistake of the court personnel, or the Register of
Deeds or other employees of the Registry in the
performance of their duties.
• As to any person deprived of any land or interest in the
land:
 No negligence on his part;
 He was deprived of land or interest therein by
the registration by any other person as owner of
such land; or by mistake, omission or
misdescription in any owner’s duplicate
certificate, or in any memorandum in the
register, or by any cancellation; and
 He is barred from bringing an action for the
recovery of such land or interest therein.
• Defendants in an action against the AF
 The Register of Deeds and National Treasurer -
when the action is for recovery for loss or
damage of for deprivation of land or interest
therein through fraud, negligence, omission,
mistake or misfeasance of the court personnel,
the RD or employees of the registry;
 The Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer
and other persons – for loss or damage or
deprivation of land or interest therein through
fraud, negligence, mistake or misfeasance of
persons other than court personnel, the RD or
employees of the registry.
• The plaintiff must be the registered owner, or as to
holders of transfer certificates of title, that they are
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
 Action does not lie where the damage or
deprivation of any right or interest in the land
was caused by a breach of trust, express or
implied.
 The person who claims damages should not have
been negligent in acquiring the property or in
obtaining registration thereof in his name (as
where he is aware of a notice of lis pendens
affecting the property)
• Illustrative cases
 National Treasurer v. Perez (131 SCRA 264) –
where respondent could not be awarded
damages since the donation to him was not
executed with the formalities of a will and
therefore could not have transferred to him
ownership of the property.
 Treasurer of the Philippines v. CA (153 SCRA
3590) – where respondents acquired no land or
any interest in the land as a result of the invalid
 sale to them by the impostor Lawaan Lopez who
had no title or interest to transfer.
• Illustrative cases
 La Urbana v. Bernardo (62 Phil. 790) – where,
having knowledge of the pending litigation and
notice of lis pendens affecting the land, it
nevertheless proceeded to take the risk of
purchasing property in litigation.
 Fraginal v. Parañal (516 SCA 530) – where
property sold to petitioner was a prime land
which has been the subject of successive
transfers with “unusual haste” which should have
triggered petitioner’s curiosity.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
• The State may criminally prosecute for perjury the party
who obtains registration through fraud, such as by
stating false assertions in the application for
registration, sworn answer, or application for public land
patent.
 Sec. 91 of the PLA provides that “the statements
made in the application shall b considered as
essential conditions and parts of any concession,
title, or permit issued on the basis of such
application, and any false statement therein or
omission of facts x x x shall ipso facto produce
the cancellation of the concession, title, or
permit granted.”
INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE
• What is an innocent purchaser for value?
 An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys
the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in it,
and who pays a full and fair price at the time of
the purchase or before receiving any notice of
another person’s claim. (Rosales v. Burgos, 577
SCA 264)
 No petition for review shall be entertained by the
court where an innocent purchaser for value has
acquired the land or an interest therein. (Sec. 32,
PD 1529)
• Every person dealing with registered land has a right to
rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged to
go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of
the property. (Unchuan v. CA, 161 SCRA 710)
 In a series of transfers, it is enough that the buyer
examines the latest certificate of title and need
not scrutinize each and every title that preceded
it. (Tajonera v. CA, 103 SCRA 467)
In Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013, the Court
held:
The registered owner of realty cannot be deprived of
her property through fraud, unless a transferee
acquires the property as an innocent purchaser for
value.
But a transferee who acquires the property covered
by a reissued owner's copy of the certificate of title (1)
without taking the ordinary precautions of honest
persons in doing business and examining the records
of the proper Registry of Deeds, or (2) who fails to pay
the full market value of the property is not considered
an innocent purchaser for value.
• But under the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware),
one who buys without checking the vendor’s title takes
all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.
(Dacasin v. CA, 80 SCRA 89)
• A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an
innocent mortgagee where the title covers non-
registrable land. (LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)
• Nemo dat quod non habet
 No one can give what one does not have.
 One can sell only what one owns or is authorized
to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than
what the seller can transfer legally.
• Prior est temporae, prior est in jura
 He who is first in right is preferred in right.
 Thus, when the thing sold is an immovable, the
one who acquires it and first records it in the
Registry of Property, both made in good faith,
shall be deemed the owner.
• A certificate of title is not conclusive where it is the
product of faulty or fraudulent registration. (Widows
and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 201
SCRA 165), or where the inclusion of land in the
certificate of prior date is a mistake. (Legarda v. Saleeby,
31 Phil. 590)
 But the rule that where two certificates purport
to include the same land, the earlier in date
prevails, is valid only absent any anomaly or
irregularity tainting the process of registration.
(Mathay v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 556)
 PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH EQUALLY APPLIES TO INNOCENT
LESSEE OR MORTGAGEE FOR VALUE
• Under Sec. 32, PD No. 1529, rule of good faith equally
applies to mortgagees or other encumbrancers for value
 Thus, where the Torrens title was issued through
regular registration proceedings, a subsequent
order for the cancellation nullification of the title
is not a ground for nullifying the mortgage rights
of the bank. (St. Dominic v. IAC, 151 SCRA 577)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must
be respected even if the mortgagor obtained his
title through fraud. (Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110
Phil. 494)
 The phrase “innocent purchaser for value” in Sec. 32 of
the Property Registration Decree includes an innocent
lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
(Unchuan v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 78775, May 31,
1988, 161 SCA 710)
 Good faith, or the lack of it, is a question of
intention. In ascertaining intention, courts are
necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the
conduct and outward acts by which alone the
inward motive may, with safety, be determined.
(LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb. 25, 2013)
• What is the doctrine of “mortgagee in good faith”?
 In LBP v. Poblete, GR No. 196577, Feb. 25, 2013,
the Court explained the doctrine of “mortgagee
in good faith" as one based on the rule that
buyers or mortgagees dealing with property
covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face
of the title.
 Thus, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not
the owner of the mortgaged property, his title
being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any
foreclosure sale arising therefrom are given
effect by reason of public policy.
• Where the certificate of title is in the name of the
mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the mortgagee
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate
of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No. 69622, Jan. 29, 1988)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor
obtained his title thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v.
Esquierdo, GR No. L-15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
 PNB v. CA and Chu Kim Kit, GR No. L-43972, July 24,
1990
 "The certificate of title was in the name of the
mortgagor when the land was mortgaged to the
PNB. Such being the case, petitioner PNB had the
right to rely on what appeared on the certificate
of title, and in the absence of anything to excite
suspicion, it was under no obligation to look
beyond the certificate and investigate the title of
the mortgagor appearing on the face of the
certificate." (Citing Gonzales vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 587; Phil. Coop. Bank
vs. Carangdang, 139 SCRA 570; Penullar vs. PNB,
120 SCRA 171)
 "The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor
obtained his title through fraud. The remedy of
the persons prejudiced is to bring an action for
damages against those who caused the fraud,
and if the latter are insolvent, an action against
the Treasurer of the Philippines may be filed for
recovery of damages against the Assurance
Fund.“ (Citing Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
Q. When Pacete procured OCT No. V-16654 in 1961, the
disputed lot was already in possession of Asotigue,
whose predecessor-in-interest, Sumagad, had been
occupying it since 1958. Is reconveyance to Asotigue
proper?
A. Yes. The registration of the lot in favor Pacete, who neither
possessed nor occupied the lot, is wrongful. And
since Pacete had not yet transferred the lot to an
innocent purchaser for value, reconveyance to
Asotigue, the prior possessor, is proper.
Reconveyance is available not only to the legal
owner of a property but also to the person with a
better right. (Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188575,
Dec. 10, 2012)
• Although Art. 2085, CC, requires that the mortgagor
must be the owner of the mortgaged property, the
subsequent declaration that the title is null and void is
not a ground for nullifying the mortgage right of the
mortgagee. (Rural Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon, 175 SCRA
62)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must
be respected, even if the mortgagor obtained his
title thereto through fraud.
 The remedy of the person prejudiced is against
those who caused the fraud, or if insolvent, an
action for recovery of damages against the AF.
(Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
 In LBP v. Poblete, supra, the Court held that LBP is not a
mortgagee in good faith because it processed Maniego’s
application upon presentation of OCT No. P-12026,
which was still in the name of Poblete. It also ignored
the fact that a certain Kapantay had previously used
Poblete's title as collateral in its loan account with LBP.
“When the person applying for the loan is other than the
registered owner of the real property being mortgaged, [such
fact] should have already induced the Bank to make inquiries
into and confirm [the] authority to mortgage . . . . A person
who deliberately ignores a significant fact that could create
suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not an
innocent purchaser for value.” (Citing Bank of Commerce v.
San Pablo, GR No. 167848, 27 April 2007)
DOCTRINE OF GOOD FAITH GENERALLY NOT APPLCABLE
 TO BANKS
• But doctrine of “mortgagee in good faith” is generally
not applicable to banks
 It has been consistently held that the rule does
not apply to banks, which are required to
observe a higher standard of diligence. A bank
whose business is impressed with public interest
is expected to exercise more care and prudence
in its dealings than a private individual, even in
cases involving registered lands. A bank cannot
assume that, simply because the title offered as
security is on its face free of any encumbrances
or lien, it is relieved of the responsibility of taking
further steps to verify the title and inspect the
properties to be mortgaged. (LBP v. Poblete,
supra)
• The general rule that a mortgagee need not look beyond
the title does not apply to banks and other financial
institutions as greater care and due diligence is required
of them.
 Imbued with public interest, they "are expected
to be more cautious than ordinary individuals.“
(Alano v. Planter’s Development Bank, GR No.
171628, June 13, 2011)
 The ascertainment of the status or condition of a
property offered to it as security for a loan must
be a standard and indispensable part of its
operations. (Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino
Savings and Mortgage Bank, GR No. 140528, Dec.
7, 2011)
• Acts showing the bank’s lack of diligence
 Where the bank did not investigate the property
to ascertain its actual occupants. (It is the
standard practice of banks, before approving a
loan, to send representatives to the premises of
the land to investigate its real owners)
 Where the bank’s representative concentrated
only on the appraisal of the property and failed
to inquire as to who were the then occupants of
the property.
 Where the bank acted with haste in granting the
mortgage loan and did not ascertain the
ownership of the land being mortgaged, as well
as the authority of the supposed agent executing
the mortgage. (LBP v. Poblete, supra)
• Banks required to exercise greater care
 But unlike private individuals, banks (and other
persons engaged in lending money) are expected
to exercise greater care and prudence in their
dealings for their business is imbued with public
interest. (PNB v. Jumanoy, GR No. 169901, Aug.
3, 2011; Metrobank v. SLGT Holdings, 533 SCRA
516; Cruz v. Bancom Finance, 379 SCRA 490;
Philippine Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 150318, Nov. 2010)
 This principle equally applies to realty
corporations because of the nature of their
business. (Sunshine Finance v. IAC, GR No. 74070,
Oct. 28, 1991)
• Imbued with public interest, banks “are expected to be
more cautious than ordinary individuals.”
 Thus, before approving a loan, the standard
practice for banks and other financial institutions
is to conduct an ocular inspection of the property
offered to be mortgaged and verify the
genuineness of the title to determine the real
owner or owners thereof.
 Failure to do so makes them mortgagees in bad
faith. (Alano v. Planter’s Development Bank, GR
No. 171628, June 13, 2011)
• A deed of sale which was absolutely simulated is null
and void and does not convey any right that could ripen
into valid title; there being no valid mortgage, there
could be no valid foreclosure, and the bank cannot be
considered as a mortgagee in good faith.
 But where title was issued through regular
proceedings and was given as security for a bank
loan, the subsequent declaration of the title as
null and void is not a ground for nullifying the
mortgage rights of the bank. (St. Dominic Corp. V.
IAC, 151 SCRA 577; Blanco v. Esquierdo, 110 Phil.
494)
A FORGED DEED IS A NULLITY
 Generally, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title,
even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title. (Joaquin v. Madrid, 106 Phil. 1060)
 The registered owner does not lose his title, and
neither does the assignee or mortgagee acquire
any right to the property. (Bernales v. Sambaan,
610 SCRA 90)
 The innocent purchaser for value protected by
law is one who purchases a titled land by a virtue
of a deed executed by the registered owner
himself, not by a forged deed.
• Sec. 53 of PD No. 1529 provides that the subsequent
registration of title procured by the presentation of a
forged deed or other instrument is null and void.
 Thus, the subsequent issuance of TCT No. 195812
gave the petitioner no better right than the
tainted registration which was the basis for the
issuance of the same title. (Leoveras v. Valdez,
GR No. 169985, June 15, 2011)
 A forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title.
 When the instrument presented for registration is
forged, even if accompanied by the owner's
duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner
does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the
 mortgagee acquire any right or title to the property.
It is essential that the mortgagor be the absolute
owner of the property to be mortgaged; otherwise,
the mortgage is void. (LBP v. Poblete, GR No.
196577, Feb.25, 2013)
 Where the deed of sale states that the purchase
price has been paid but in fact has never been paid,
the deed of sale is void ab initio for lack of
consideration. Hence, the corresponding title
issued to the vendee pursuant to the same deed is
likewise void. (Id.)
 Cusi v. Domingo, GR No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013
 An impostor succeeded in tricking a court of law
into granting his petition for the issuance of a
duplicate owner's copy of the supposedly lost
TCT. The impostor then had the TCT cancelled by
presenting a purported deed of sale between him
and the registered owners, both of whom had
already been dead for some time, and another
TCT was then issued in the impostor's own name.
This issuance in the impostor's own name was
followed by the issuance of yet another TCT in
favor of a third party, supposedly the buyer of
the impostor. In turn, the impostor's transferee
(already the registered owner in his own name)
mortgaged the
 the property to Spouses Miguel and Adela
Lazaro, who then caused the annotation of the
mortgage on the TCT. All the while, the original
duplicate owner's copy of the TCT remained in
the hands of an heir of the deceased registered
owners with his co-heirs' knowledge and
consent.
 The Lazaros, as the mortgagees, claimed good
faith, and urged the Court to find in their favor.
But the Court held instead that since the the title
of the property mortgaged to the Lazaros was a
second owner's duplicate TCT, which is, in effect
a reconstituted title, this circumstance should
have alerted them to make the necessary
investigation, but they did not.
• But a forged deed may become the root of a valid title
 A forged deed may become the root of a valid
title in a bona fide purchaser if the certificate has
already been transferred from the name of the
true owner to the name of the forger or the
name indicated by the forger, and while it
remained that way, the land was subsequently
sold to an innocent purchaser for value. (Solivel
v. Francisco, 170 SCRA 218)
 For then the vendee had the right to rely upon
what appeared in the certificate. (Guaranteed
Homes v. Valdez, 577 SCRA 441)
 A void title may become the root of a valid title if the
derivative title was obtained in good faith and for value.
 Following the principle of indefeasibility of a
Torrens title, every person dealing with
registered lands may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title of the
vendor/transferor, and he is not required to go
beyond the certificate and inquire into the
circumstances culminating in the vendor's
acquisition of the property. The rights
of innocent third persons who relied on the
correctness of the certificate of title and acquired
rights over the property covered thereby cannot be
disregarded and the courts cannot order the
cancellation of such certificate for that would impair
or erode public confidence in the Torrens system of
land registration.” (Muñoz v. Yabut, GR No. 142676,
June 6, 2011. See also: Republic v. Agunoy, 492 Phil.
118 (2005), citing cases)
GENERAL INCIDENTS OF REGISTERED LAND
• “Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in
pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a
certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall hold
the same free from all encumbrances except those
noted in said certificate.” (Sec. 44, PD 1529)
• The phrase “innocent purchaser for value”
includes an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value. (Unchuan v. CA, 161
SCRA 710)
 Statutory liens
 Every registered owner and every subsequent
purchaser for value and in good faith shall hold
the same free from all encumbrances except
those noted in the certificate and any of the
following:
 liens, claims or rights under the Constitution
and laws; unpaid real estate taxes; any
public highway or private way established
by law; any disposition of the property or
limitation on the use thereof by virtue of PD
27 or any law on agrarian reform. (Sec. 44,
PD 1529)
• Meaning of lien, encumbrance
 “Lien” is a charge on property usually for the
payment of some debt or obligation. It signifies a
legal claim or charge on property, either real or
personal, as a collateral or security for the
payment of some debt or obligation.
 “Encumbrance” is a burden upon land
depreciative of its value, such as a lien,
easement, or servitude, which, though adverse to
the interest of the landowner, does not conflict
with his conveyance of the land in fee, e.g., a
mortgage, judgment lien, lease, security interest,
 easement or right of way, accrued and unpaid
taxes.
• Illustrative cases
 Alienable public lands donated, granted or held
by a branch or subdivision of the government
cannot be alienated unless authorized by
Congress. (Chavez v. PEA, 384 SCRA 152)
 Section 44 which subjects the certificate of title
to public servitudes which may be subsisting,
does not apply, say, in the case of a road
constructed subsequent to the acquisition of the
land. (Dirgran v. Auditor General, 16 SCRA 762)
 Secs. 118 and 122 of the Public Land Act provide
limitations on the right of the homestead or free
patentee to alienate the land subject of the
patent.
REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
PRESCRIPTION
 “No title to registered land in derogation of the title of
the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription
or adverse possession.” (Sec. 47, PD 1529)
 Title to land, once registered, is imprescriptible.
It may not be lost by adverse, open and
notorious possession. Prescription is unavailing
not only against the registered owner but also
against his hereditary successors.
 The right to recover possession of registered
property is equally imprescriptible since
possession is a mere consequence of ownership.
(Republic v. Mendoza, GR No. 185091, Aug. 8,
2010)
• A decree of registration is conclusive upon all persons,
including the government and all its branches, whether
or not mentioned by name in the application for
registration or its notice.
 Indeed, title to the land, once registered, is
imprescriptible. Adverse possession of real
property for the requisite period confers title as
effectually as any paper title, but such a title
cannot be acquired against a title registered
under the provisions of the Property Registration
Decree. The statute of limitations is merely a bar
to a right of action and does not operate as a
transfer of title at all. (La Corporacion de Padres
v. Crisostomo, GR No. 10031, Dec. 6, 1915)
• But a registered owner may be barred from recovering
possession by virtue of laches.
 In Panganiban v. Gamponia (100 Phil. 277),
petitioners, for 45 years, did nothing to assert
their right of ownership and were barred from
recovering possession of the property.
 In Agne v. Director of Lands (181 SCRA 7090), the
registered owner’s right to recover possession
was lost by inaction for almost 30 years.
 In Golloy v. CA (173 SCRA 26), while the lot was
registered in the name of respondent, petitioners
acquired title thereto by possession for 50 years.
• Q. What is laches?
• A. Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for
an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
that which by exercising due diligence could or should
have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it. Laches is not
concerned merely with lapse of time, unlike
prescription. While the latter deals with the fact of
delay, laches deals with the effect of unreasonable
delay. (Cotoner-Zacarias v. Revilla, GR No. 190901, Nov.
12, 2014)
• Illustrative cases of laches
• In Panganiban v. Dayrit, GR No. 151235, July 28, 2005,
the Court held that even a registered owner of property
may be barred from recovering possession of property
by virtue of laches. In this case, petitioners, for forty-five
(45) years, did nothing to assert their right of ownership
and possession over the subject property.
• In Lola v. Court of Appeals, GR No. GR No. L-46573, Nov.
13, 1986,  the Court held that petitioners acquired title
to the land by virtue of the equitable principles of laches
due to respondent’s failure to assert her claim of
ownership for 32 years.
REGISTERED LAND
NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK
 A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or
cancelled except in a direct proceeding filed with the
RTC (Sec. 48, PD 1529; Manotok v. Barque, 582 SCRA
583)
 Direct attack: when the object of the action is to
annul or set aside the judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement.
 Collateral attack: in an action to obtain a
different relief, an attack on the judgment is
nevertheless made as an incident thereto.
 A direct attack on title is proper in a counterclaim
(Leyson v. Bontuyan, 452 SCRA 94).
Q. Petitioner Gan Tan, a Chinese, bought land from the Cebu
Heights Co. and obtained TCT No. 49978 in his
name. Having lost his title, he filed a petition for
reconstitution under RA No. 26. The court denied
the since petitioner is an alien. Is the denial of the
petition for reconstitution proper?
A. A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The issue as
to whether an alien is or is not qualified to acquire
land covered by Torrens title under our Constitution
can only be raised in an action expressly instituted
for that purpose. (Director of Lands v. Gan Tan, GR
 No. L-2664, May 30, 1951; Legarda vs. Saleeby, GR
No. 8936, Oct. 2, 1915)
Q. Respondents filed a petition with the LRA for the
administrative reconstitution of the TCT No. 210177
in the name of Homer Barque. Severino Manotok
opposed alleging that the lot covered by the Barque
title is part of the land covered by his reconstituted
TCT No. RT-22481 [372302]. However, the LRA found
the Manotoc title to have been fraudulently
reconstituted, hence, it ordered the reconstitution
of TCT No. 210177 in the name of Barque, but only
after the cancellation by the proper court of the
Manotoc title. On appeal, the CA directed the
cancellation of the Manotok title and the
reconstitution of the Barque title. Was the CA
empowered to annul the Manotok title through the
petitions raised before it by the Barques and the
Manotoks?
A. No. Section 48 of PD provides that "[a] certificate of title
shall not be subject to collateral attack [[. . . and]
cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law.” The
administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is
intended for non-controversial cases. Neither the
Court of Appeals nor the LRA has jurisdiction to
cancel titles. (Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335,
Dec. 18, 2008)
 Reconstitution proceedings are not the venue for
confirmation or adjudication of title. The Court of
Appeals does not have original jurisdiction to annul
Torrens titles or to otherwise adjudicate questions over
ownership of property.
 If it appears from the records that the subject
property is already covered by an existing
Torrens title in the name of another person,
there is nothing further the LRA can do but to
dismiss the petition.
 The only remedy is an action before the RTC for
the cancellation of the existing title, whether by
the competing claimant or by the OSG on behalf
of the Republic. (Ibid)
 Author’s note: In the Court’ resolution dated Aug. 24,
2010, it held: “The petition for reconstitution of title
filed by the Barques is likewise DENIED. TCT No. RT-
22481 (372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et
al., TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque and
Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 issued to Felicitas B.
Manahan, are all hereby declared NULL and VOID. The
Register of Deeds of Caloocan City and/or Quezon City
are hereby ordered to CANCEL the said titles. The Court
hereby DECLARES that Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate,
Quezon City, legally belongs to the NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
without prejudice to the institution of REVERSION
proceedings by the State through the OSG.”
 Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known
as the Property Registration Decree, provides that "[a]
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
attack [. . . and] cannot be altered, modified, or
cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance
with law". Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title
cannot arise incidentally from the administrative
proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title even if
the evidence from that proceeding revealed the
Manotok title as fake. Nor could it have emerged
incidentally in the appellate review of the LRA's
administrative proceeding.
Q. How do you characterize an application for registration of
an already titled land?
A. The application constitutes a collateral attack on the
existing title. The title may be challenged only in a
proceeding for that purpose, not in an application
for registration of a land already registered in the
name of another person. After one year from its
registration, the title is incontrovertible and is no
longer open to review. (Wee v. Mardo, GR No.
202414, June 4, 2014)
ADVERSE CLAIM
• An adverse claim is a type of involuntary dealing
designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece
of real property by apprising third persons that there is a
controversy over the ownership of the land.
 It seeks to preserve and protect the right of the
adverse claimant during the pendency of the
controversy, where registration of such interest
or right is not otherwise provided for by the
Property Registration Decree. An adverse claim
serves as a notice to third persons that any
transaction regarding the disputed land is subject
to the outcome of the dispute. (Logarta v.
Mangahis, GR No. 213568, July 5, 2016)
• Q. May a perfected contract of sale be registered as an
adverse claim?
• No. Before a notice of adverse claim is registered, it
there must be no other provision for the registration of
the claimant's right in the property. The proper
procedure then is to register the vendee's right as
prescribed by Sections 51 (“the act of registration shall
be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar
as third persons are concerned”) and 52 of PD 1529,
and not under Section 70 which is ineffective in
protecting the vendee's right since it does not have the
effect of a conveyance. (Logarta v. Mangahis, supra)
Q. Is a deed of conditional sale registrable as an adverse
claim?
A. No. In a deed of conditional sale, ownership is transferred
after the full payment of the installments of the
 purchase price and the execution of an absolute
deed of sale. It is a dealing affecting less than the
ownership of property. The rule is tat before a notice
of adverse claim is registered, it must be shown that
there is no other provision for the registration of the
claimant's alleged right. And pursuant to Section 54
of PD 1529, all interests in registered land less than
ownership shall be registered by filing with the
Register of Deeds the instrument which creates such
interest. (Sec. 54, PD 1529; Logarta v. Mangahis,
supra)
Q. Does the registration of a notice of levy produce
constructive notice that would bind third persons
despite the failure of the RD to annotate the same in
the certificates of title?
A. Yes.The notice of levy is registered precisely to bind the
property and to serve as caution to third persons
who might potentially deal with the property. Entry
alone produces the effect of registration, whether
the transaction is a voluntary or involuntary one, so
long as the registrant had complied with all that was
required of him and nothing more remained to be
done but a duty incumbent solely on the Register of
Deeds. (Saberon v. Ventanilla, GR No. 192669, April
21, 2014)
• A person who claims an interest in registered land
adverse to the registered owner may make a statement
under oath setting forth his alleged right or interest and
how acquired, the number of the certificate of title,
name of the registered owner and a description of the
land.
 The statement shall be registered as an adverse
claim and shall be effective for 30 days.
 The annotation may be cancelled upon the filing
a of a verified petition by the party in interest.
(Sec. 70, PD 1529)
• An adverse claim is designed to protect the right or
interest of a person over a piece of real property and
serves as a notice to third persons that someone is
claiming an interest in the land or a better right thereto
than the registered owner. (Martinez v. Garcia, GR No.
166536, Feb. 4, 2010)
• An adverse claim based on prescription and adverse
possession cannot be registered because, under
Sec. 47, no title to registered land shall be acquired
by prescription or adverse possession. (Estella v.
Register of Deeds, 106 Phil. 911)
• A sale of land may not be annotated as an adverse claim
because the law prescribes the remedy of registration of
the sale and the issuance to the vendee of a transfer
certificate of title. (RD v. Nicandro, 111 Phil. 989; Sec.
57, PD 1529)
 The hereditary rights or a person registered
fraudulently in her sister’s name is registrable as
an adverse claim. (Gabriel v. Register of Deeds, 9
SCRA 136)
 A notice of levy and subsequent sale of property cannot
prevail over an existing adverse claim earlier inscribed
on the certificate of title covering it. (Martinez v. Garcia,
611 SCRA 537)
 The Register of Deeds cannot unilaterally cancel
the adverse claim. There must be a hearing for
the purpose. This is in line with the provision
“that after cancellation, no second adverse claim
shall be registered by the same claimant.
(Sanjonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79)
 That the foreclosure of mortgage was effected
after the annotation of the adverse claim is of no
moment since the foreclosure retroacts to the
date of registration of the mortgage. (Limpin v.
IAC, 166 SCRA 87)
• Adverse claim is proper where there is no other
provision of law for the registration of claimant’s alleged
right or interest in the property.
• A notice of levy cannot prevail over an existing
adverse claim inscribed in the certificate of title.
• A claim which arose prior to the date of the
original registration cannot be entered as adverse
claim.
• Where the claim is based on a perfected contract
of sale by the owner of the land, the procedure is
to register the contract so that a new transfer
certificate of title is issued to the vendee-claimant.
(Sec. 57, PD No. 1529)
 A mortgage is valid as between the parties even if
unregistered, but registration of a mortgage is
indispensable to bind third parties.
 Prior registration of an adverse claim or notice of
lis pendens creates a preference as against a
mortgage registered later. The subsequent
registration of a prior mortgage does not
diminish this preference, which retroacts to the
date of the notice of adverse claim or lis pendens.
(Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, GR No.
147788, March 19, 2002)
• An adverse claim is effective for thirty days; but it is not
ipso facto cancelled after said period - a separate
petition is necessary. (Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, GR
No. 102377, July 5, 1996)
 The RD cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse
claim. There must be a hearing for the purpose.
(Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)
• The adverse claim may be cancelled if it is frivolous
or vexatious, in which case damages may be
adjudged against the adverse claimant.

SURRENDER OF CERTIFICATE IN INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
• Court may compel surrender of withheld certificate
 If an attachment or other lien in the nature of an
involuntary dealing is registered and the
duplicate certificate is not presented, the
Register of Deeds shall, within 36 hours, request
the registered owner to produce his duplicate
certificate. If he refuses to comply within a
reasonable time, the RD shall report the matter
to the court which shall, after notice, issue an
order for the owner to produce his certificate at
the time and place stated and may enforce the
order by suitable process. (Sec. 71, PD 1529)
 In an action for specific performance with damages
based on a contract of sale, a motion may be filed by the
purchaser for the issuance of an order to compel the
holder of the duplicate certificate of title to surrender
the same to the RD. Ligon v. CA, GR No. 107751, June 1,
1995
 Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a
petition which can be filed by one who wants to
compel another to surrender the certificates of
title to the RD, this does not preclude a party to a
pending case to include as incident therein the
relief stated under Sec. 107, especially if the
subject certificates of title to be surrendered are
intimately connected with the subject matter of
the principal action. This principle is based on
expediency.
• Mortgage lien follows the property mortgaged
 Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of
title which subsists should be incorporated in or
carried over to the new transfer certificates of
title. This is true even in the case of a real estate
mortgage because pursuant to Art. 2126 of the
Civil Code it directly and immediately subjects
the property upon which it is imposed, whoever
the possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the
obligation for whose security it was constituted.
 It is inseparable from the property mortgaged as
it is a right in rem — a lien on the property
whoever its owner may be. Thus, all subsequent
purchasers must respect the mortgage whether
the transfer to them be with or without the
consent of the mortgagee, for such mortgage
until discharged follows the property. (Ligon v.
CA, supra)
SURRENDER OF WITHHELD CETIFICATE
• Sec. 107, PD 1529
 “Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate
certificates. - Where it is necessary to issue a new
certificate pursuant to any involuntary
instrument which divests the title of the
registered owner or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered because of the
refusal of the holder to surrender the owner’s
duplicate certificate, the party in interest may file
a petition the court to compel surrender of the
same to the Register of Deeds. The court, after
hearing, may order the registered owner or any
person withholding the duplicate certificate to
surrender the same, and direct
the entry of a new certificate or memorandum
upon such surrender. If the person withholding
the certificate is not amenable to the process of
the court, or if for any reason the outstanding
owner’s duplicate certificate cannot be delivered,
the court may order the annulment of the same
as well the issuance of a new certificate of title in
lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all
duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum
of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.”
• In implementing the involuntary transfer of title of real
property levied and sold on execution, is it enough for
the executing party to file a motion with the court which
rendered judgment, or does he need to file a separate
action with the Regional Trial Court?
 The proper course of action is to file a petition in
court, rather than merely move, for the issuance
of new titles. This is to afford due process to the
registered landowner. (Reyes v. Tang Soat Ing, GR
No. 185620, Dec. 14, 2011; Padilla v. Philippine
Producers’ Cooperative Marketing Association,
GR No. 141256, Sept. 18, 1995)
NOTICE OF
LIS PENDENS
• Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to
the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires
over property involved in a suit, pending the
continuance of the action, and until final judgment.
 Lis pendens is intended (1) to keep the properties
in litigation within the power of the court until
the litigation is terminated and to prevent the
defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent
alienation; and (2) to announce to the whole
world that a particular property is in litigation
and serves as a warning that one who acquires
an interest over said property does so at his own
risk, or that he gambles on the result of the
litigation over said property. (Mr Holdings, Ltd. v.
Bajar, GR No. 153478, Oct. 10, 2012)
• A notice of lis pendens is governed by Sec. 14, Rule 13,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
 “SEC. 14. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action
affecting the title or the right of possession of
real property, the plaintiff and the defendant,
when affirmative relief is claimed in his answer,
may record in the office of the registry of deeds
of the province in which the property is situated
a notice of the pendency of the action. Said
 notice shall contain the names of the parties and
the object of the action or defense, and a
description of the property in that province
affected
 thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice
for record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of
the property affected thereby, be deemed to
have constructive notice of the pendency of the
action, and only of its pendency against the
parties designated by their real names.
 The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned
may be cancelled only upon order of the court,
after proper showing that the notice is for the
purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it
is not necessary to protect the rights of the party
who caused it to be recorded."
 A notice of lis pendens is availed of mainly in real
actions. These actions are:
 (a) an action to recover possession of real estate;
 (b) an action for partition; and
 (c) any other court proceedings that directly
affect the title to the land or the building thereon
or the use or the occupation thereof.
 Additionally, the annotation of lis pendens also applies to
suits seeking to establish a right to, or an equitable
estate or interest in, a specific real property, or to
enforce a lien, a charge or an encumbrance against it.
 But it does not apply to actions involving title to or any
right or interest in, personal property, such as the subject
membership shares in a private non-stock corporation.
(Mr Holdings v. Bajar, supra)
 Lis pendens is not proper in an action for sum of money
 “A notice of lis pendens annotated on the
cancelled TCT No. 170213 and carried over to
Tan's TCT No. 10206 conferred upon RAM no
rights over the subject property as well as
petitioner, its successor-in-interest, since CC No.
67381, which RAM, predecessor-in-interest of
petitioner, instituted against Zeñarosa was for
collection of sum of money with damages — a
purely personal action.
 Hence, the subsequent levy on execution on
October 14, 2004 arising from the final money
judgment in favor of petitioner cannot prevail
over the earlier annotated attachment made by
Lorenzo on September 30, 2002 and its
subsequent notice of levy on execution and sale
of the property to respondents on January 30,
2004, who then took possession. (Gagoomal v.
Villacorta, GR No. Jan. 18, 2012)
 Purpose:
 to protect the rights of the party causing
registration, and
• to advise third persons that they deal with the
property subject to the result of the case
 A notice of lis pendens neither affects the merits of the
case nor creates a right or lien.
 Cancellation is proper when filed to molest adverse party
or is not necessary to protect the rights of the person
causing registration.
• Lis pendens is proper in the following cases:
 Action to recover possession of property;
 Action to quiet title thereto;
 Action to remove clouds thereon;
 Action for partition; and
 Any other proceedings in court directly affecting
the title to the land or the use or occupation
thereof or the buildings thereon.
• The notice need not be annotated on the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title because the notice is an
involuntary transaction. Entry in the day book is
sufficient. (Yu v. CA, 251 SCRA 509)
• Pacete v. Asotigue, GR No. 188585, Dec. 10, 2012
 As a remedy, an action for reconveyance is filed
as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of
justice and not with the land registration court.
Reconveyance is always available as long as the
property has not passed to an innocent third
person for value.
 A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated on
the certificate of title immediately upon the
institution of the action in court. The notice of lis
pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third
person for value and preserve the claim of the
real owner.
• In case of subsequent sales or transfers, the RD must
carry over the notice of lis pendens on all titles to be
issued.
 Transferees of title subject to lis pendens are
bound by the judgment against their
predecessors. (Selph v. Aguilar, 107 Phil. 443)
 Before final judgment, the notice may be
cancelled upon order of the court if the notice is
for the purpose of molesting the adverse party or
if it is not necessary for the protection of the
party who caused its registration; or by the RD
upon verified petition of the party who caused
the annotation thereof. (Sec. 77)
• Cancellation of lis pendens
 The power to cancel a notice of lis pendens is
exercised only under exceptional circumstances,
such as: where such circumstances are imputable
to the party who caused the annotation; where
the litigation was unduly prolonged to the
prejudice of the other party because of several
continuances procured by petitioner; where the
case which is the basis for the lis pendens
notation was dismissed for non prosequitur on
the part of the plaintiff; or where judgment was
rendered against the party who caused such a
 notation. (J. Casim Construction v. Registrar of
Deeds, GR No. 168655, July 2, 2010)
AMENDMENT AND ALTERATION OF CERTIFICATES
• No erasure, alteration, or amendment, shall be made
upon the registration book after the entry of a
certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon except
by order of the proper Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 108,
PD 1529)
 No amendment or alteration shall be made
except upon order of the court. (Cuyugan v. Sy
Quia, 24 Phil. A567)
 The petition shall be filed in the original case in
which the decree was entered. (OCA v. Matas,
247 SCRA 9)
• In Paz v. Republic, GR No. 157367, Nov. 23, 2011, the
Court held that the amendment and alteration of a
certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is
applicable in seven instances or situations, namely: (a)
when registered interests of any description, whether
vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have
terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests have
arisen or been created which do not appear upon the
certificate; (c) when any error, omission or mistake was
made in entering a certificate or any memorandum
thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) when the
name of any person on the certificate has been
changed; (e) when the registered owner has been
married, or, registered as married, the marriage has
been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or
creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a
corporation, which owned registered land and has
been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within
three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is
reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of
title.
• Under Sec. 108, in relation to Sec. 2, PD No. 1529, the
court may now hear both contentions and non-
contentious cases.
• Section 108 provides that, after notice to all the
interested parties, the court may (a) order the issuance
of a new certificate, (b) order the entry or cancellation
of a memorandum upon a certificate, or (c) grant any
other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring a
bond if necessary, as it may deem proper.
 But the court, sitting as a land registration court,
has no jurisdiction or authority to reopen the
original decree of registration. The court cannot
"impair the title or other interest of a purchaser
holding a certificate for value and in good faith,
or his heirs or assigns, without his or their written
consent.“ (Luzon Surety v. Mirasol, GR No. L-
29313, Jan. 21, 1977)
• The court can compel petitioner to surrender his
owner’s duplicate certificate so that a new title may be
issued to the INK despite his argument that the case
involved the “registrability “ of the document. (Ligon v.
CA, 244 SCA 693)
 Thus, the court has jurisdiction over a petition for
cancellation of encumbrances despite
respondent’s contention that the issue is
controversial. (PNB v. International Corporate
Bank, 199 SCRA 508).
• Proceedings under Sec. 108 involve only non-
controversial matters
 The enumerated instances for amendment or
alteration of a certificate of title under Section
108 are non-controversial in nature. They are
limited to issues so patently insubstantial as not
to be genuine issues. The proceedings
thereunder are summary in nature,
contemplating insertions of mistakes which are
only clerical, but certainly not controversial
issues. (Cabañez v. Solano, GR No. 200180, June ,
2016) Consequently, such issues should be
ventilated in a regular action. (Angeles v. Razon,
GR No. L-13679, Oc. 26, 1959)
• Thus, as clarified in Cabañez, supra:
 “From the foregoing, there is no question that
there is a serious objection and an adverse claim
on the part of an interested party x x x (which)
necessarily entail litigious and controversial
matters making it imperative to conduct an
exhaustive examination of the factual and legal
bases of the parties' respective positions.
Certainly, such objective cannot be accomplished
by the court through the abbreviated action
under Section 108 of PD 1529. A complete
determination of the issues in the present case
can only be achieved if petitioner and his wife are
impleaded in an adversarial proceeding.”
• In Bareng vs. Shintoist Shrine (83 SCRA 418 [1978] which
involves Secs. 111 and 112 of the Land Registration Act,
substantially similar to Secs. 107 and 108 of the Property
Registration Decree, the Court ruled:
 "Anyway, proceedings undertaken pursuant to
Section 111, as those under Section 112, are
summary in nature. They are inadequate for the
litigation of issues properly pertaining to civil
actions. In other words, controversial questions,
such as questions concerning the ownership of
registered property, questions of lapse of period
to
register of deeds (sic), or any question where the
issues involved have become controversial cannot
be threshed out in such proceedings. Where
therefore, controversial issues are raised in
proceedings brought under Section 111 or Section
112, it is the duty of the court sitting as a cadastral
court or land registration court to dismiss the
petition and the proper recourse open for the
parties would be to bring up the said questions in
an ordinary civil action, or in the proceeding where
 the incident properly belongs. (Cited in Tiongco v.
Phil. Veterans Bank, GR No. 82782, Aug. 5, 1992)
 Bareng, however, added:
 “Although the general rule is that a Land
Registration Court has no power to decide cases
involving issues properly litigable in ordinary civil
actions, yet inasmuch as in this jurisdiction it is
the courts of first instance that also functions as
courts of land registration, our jurisprudence
recognizes exceptions to said rule, where the
parties have acquiesced in submitting the issues
for determination in the registration proceedings,
and they are given full opportunity to present
their respective sides and submit their evidence.”
(Citing cases)
REPLACEMENT OF LOST
OR DESTROYED
CERRTIFICATE OF TITLE
• Upon petition of the registered owner or person in
interest, the court may, after notice and hearing, direct
the issuance of a new duplicate certificate which shall in
all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the
original duplicate. (Sec. 109, PD No. 1529)
• Where the owner’s duplicate copy is not in fact
lost or destroyed, a petition for the purpose is
unwarranted as the court has no jurisdiction over
the petition
• Procedure
 The registered owner or person in interest shall
send notice, under oath, of the loss or
destruction of the owner’s duplicate certificate
to the Register of Deeds; and
 The corresponding petition for the replacement
of the lost or destroyed certificate shall then be
filed in court and entitled in the original case in
which the decree of registration was entered.
• Unlike in a petition for reconstitution, there is no
requirement for the publication of the petition for
replacement of a lost or destroyed certificate .
RECONSTITUTION OF
LOST OR DESTROYED
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes
restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or
destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a
piece of land.
 The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to
have, after observing the procedures prescribed
by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same
way it has been when the loss or destruction
occurred.
 RA 26 presupposes that the property whose title
is sought to be reconstituted has already been
brought under the provisions of the Torrens
System. (Republic v. Tuastumban, GR No.
173210, Apri 24, 2009)
• Requisites:
 (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyed;
 (b) that the documents presented by petitioner
are sufficient and proper to warrant
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate
of title;
 (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of
the property or had an interest therein;
 (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the
time it was lost and destroyed; and
 (e) that the description, area and boundaries of
the property are substantially the same as those
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of
title. (Id.)
• Elements of Reconstitution:
• Certificate of title has been lost or destroyed;
• Petitioner is the registered owner or person who
has an interest therein (the RD is only a nominal
party); and
• Certificate of title was in force at the time it was
lost or destroyed.(Sec. 110, PD No. 1529)
• The petition shall be filed with the RTC of the province
or city where the land lies. (Sec. 12, RA No. 26)
• Judicial reconstitution partakes of a land registration
proceeding and is subject to the jurisdictional
requirements of publication, mailing and posting. This is
mandatory. (Sec. 13, RA No. 26; Pinote v. Dulay, GR No.
56694, July 2, 1990)
 The petition shall be filed with the regional trial
court of the province or city where the land lies.
Sec. 108 of PD No, 1529 provides that all
petitions or motions after original registration
shall be filed and entitled in the original case in
which the decree of registration was entered.
(See also Sec. 2, RA No. 26. Office of the Court
Administrator v. Matas, A.M. No. RTJ-92-836.
August 2, 1995).
• Administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed
certificates is governed by RA 6732
 It is available in case of substantial loss or
destruction of land titles due fire, flood or other
force majeure. Manotok v. Barque, GR No.
162335, Dec. 18,2008)
• Requirements:
 Number of certificates lost or damaged is at least
10% of the total number in possession of the RD.
 In no case shall be number of certificates be less
than 500.
• The administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is
intended for non-controversial cases,
 or especially where the subject property is not
covered by an existing title in favor of a person
other than the applicant. Such an implication is
consonant with the rule that the reconstitution
proceedings are not the venue for confirmation
or adjudication of title, but merely a means by
which a previously adjudicated title whose
original has been lost or destroyed may be
reissued to its owner.
• The LRA has no jurisdiction over a petition for
reconstitution, where the property is already covered by
a Torrens title. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)
• If it appears that the subject property is already covered
by an existing Torrens title in the name of another
person, there is nothing further the LRA can do but to
dismiss the petition.
 Upon review, the only relevant inquiry in such
appellate proceeding is on whether or not there
is a previously existing title covering that
property.
 Neither the LRA nor the CA at that point may
inquire into the validity of the title or the
competing claims over the property. The only
remedy is an action before the RTC for the
cancellation of the existing title, whether by the
competing claimant or by the OSG on behalf of
the Republic. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)
• Sec. 48 of PD No. 1529 provides that "[a] certificate of
title shall not be subject to collateral attack [. . . and]
cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law".
 Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title
cannot arise incidentally from the administrative
proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title
even if the evidence from that proceeding
revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor could it
have emerged incidentally in the appellate
review of the LRA's administrative proceeding.
 Neither the CA nor the LRA has the power to
cancel titles. (Manotok v. Barque, supra)
• There is no collateral attack on the title (OCT No. 239)
when the reconstiution case (LRC Case No. B-1784) was
dismissed by court precisely because the invalidity of
said certificate of title was already determined with
finality by the Supreme Court.
 The decision of the Court declaring OCT No. 239
fake, forged, and spurious already bars the
reconstitution of said title under the doctrine of
res judicata, in the concept of conclusiveness of
judgment. (Layos v. Fil-Estate, GR No. 150470,
Aug. 6, 2008)
• Sources of reconstitution
 Sec. 2, RA No. 26 - for reconstitution of an
original certificate of title
 Sec. 3, RA No. 26 – for reconstitution of a transfer
certificate of title.
 “Any other document” as a source of
reconstitution refers to documents similar to
those previously enumerated in the law under
the principle of ejusdem generis. (Republic v. IAC
and Kiram, 157 SCRA 62
• The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed
in Sections 12 (contents of petition) and 13
(requirements of notice and hearing) of R.A. No. 26 is
fatal.
 These requirements and procedure are
mandatory. The petition for reconstitution must
allege certain specific jurisdictional facts; the
notice of hearing must be published in the
Official Gazette and posted in particular places
and the same sent or notified to specified
persons. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act provide
specifically the mandatory requirements and
procedure to be followed. (Castillo v. Republic,
GR No. 182980, Jun 22, 2011)
 Liberal construction of the Rules of Court does not apply
to land registration cases. Indeed, to further underscore
the mandatory character of these jurisdictional
requirements, the Rules of Court do not apply to land
registration cases. (Sec. 4, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure)
 In all cases where the authority of the courts to
proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the
manner of obtaining jurisdiction is prescribed by
a statute, the mode of proceeding is mandatory,
and must be strictly complied with, or the
proceeding will be utterly void. When the trial
court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a
case, it lacks authority over the whole case and
all its aspects. (Castillo v. Republic, GR No.
182980, June 22, 2011)
CONSULTA
• When the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what action
should be taken on an instrument presented for
registration, or where ay party does not agree with the
action taken by the Register of Deeds, the question shall
be elevated to the LRA Administrator via en consulta for
determination. (Sec. 117, PD 1529)
 The consulta shall be cancelled (a) upon final
resolution of the case by the LRA Administrator,
or (b) if the consulta is withdrawn by the
petitioner.
• The ruling of the LRA shall be conclusive and binding on
all RDs, without prejudice to an appeal to the Court of
Appeals.
 A party who does not agree with the action taken
by the LRA is to appeal to the CA, via Rule 43 -
and not by certiorari or prohibition - within 15
 days from notice of the decision or resolution.
(Calalang v. RD of QC, 231 SCRA 88)
 The administrative remedy must be resorted to
by petitioner before he can have recourse to the
courts. (Almirol v. RD of QC, 22 SCRA 1152)
MORTGAGES AND LEASES
 The mortgagor must be the owner of the property
mortgaged.
 A mortgage lien is a right in rem which follows property.
 A notice of lis pendens cannot prejudice mortgage
previously registered.
 A mortgage is invalid even in the hands of an innocent
mortgagee where the title covers non-registrable land.
(LBP v. Republic,543 SCRA 453)
• Where the certificate of title is in the name of the
mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the mortgagee
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate
of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No. 69622, Jan. 29, 1988)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor
obtained his title thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v.
Esquierdo, GR No. L-15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
• Where the certificate of title is in the name of the
mortgagor when the land is mortgaged, the mortgagee
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate
of title. (Gonzales v. IAC, GR No. 69622, Jan. 29, 1988)
 The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor
obtained his title thereto thru fraud. (Blanco v.
Esquierdo, GR No. L-15182,Dec. 29, 1960).
• The general rule that a mortgagee need not look beyond
the title does not apply to banks and other financial
institutions as greater care and due diligence is required
of them. Imbued with public interest, they "are
expected to be more cautious than ordinary
individuals.“ (Alano v. Planter’s Development Bank, GR
No. 171628, June 13, 2011)
• The ascertainment of the status or condition of a
property offered to it as security for a loan must be a
standard and indispensable part of its operations.
(Duque-Rosario v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank, GR No. 140528, Dec. 7, 2011)
• Although Art. 2085, CC, requires that the mortgagor
must be the owner of the mortgaged property, the
subsequent declaration that the title is null and void is
not a ground for nullifying the mortgage right of the
mortgagee. (Rural Bank of Sariaya v. Yacon, 175 SCRA
62)
• The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee must be
respected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title
thereto through fraud.
• The remedy of the person prejudiced is against those
who caused the fraud, or if insolvent, an action for
recovery of damages against the AF. (Blanco v.
Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494)
 Effect of a forged deed of mortgage
 A forged power of attorney is without force and
effect, and the mortgage constituted by virtue
thereof is also null and void and could not
prejudice the rights of the registered owner.
(Veloso v. La Urbana, a58Phil. 681)
 An absolutely simulated contract of sale is void
and transfers no ownership right; hence, the
purported buyer, not being the owner, cannot
validly mortgage the property and neither does
the buyer at foreclosure sale acquire any title
thereto. (Cruz v. Bancom, 379 SCRA 490)
• Redemption
 The mortgagor has one year within which to
redeem the property from the registration of
sale.
 If no redemption is made within said period, the
right of the purchaser to the possession of the
foreclosed property becomes absolute. He is
entitled to possession following the consolidation
of ownership in his name.
 The writ of possession becomes a matter of right
and its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure is merely a ministerial function.
• Writ of possession
 Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, a writ of possession
may be issued either (a) within the one-year
period, upon the filing of a bond, or (b) after the
lapse of the redemption period, without need of
a bond.
 The proceeding for the issuance of the writ is ex
parte and is ministerial duty of the court, unless a
third party is actually holding the property
adversely to the judgment debtor, or where the
bid price is unjustifiably higher than the real
amount of the obligation.
• In extrajudicial foreclosures, the purchaser becomes the
absolute owner when no redemption is made.
 Thus, after consolidation of ownership and
issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in
the name of the purchaser, he is entitled to
possession of the property as a matter of right
under Section 7 (Act 3135), and its issuance by
the RTC is a mere ministerial function.
• But pursuant to Sec. 33, Rule 39, Rules of Court, the
possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed property
shall be withheld from the purchaser if a third-party is
actually holding the same adversely to the
mortgagor/debtor. (Madriaga v. China Banking Corp., G
No. 192377, July 2, 2012)
• The issuance of the writ may not be stayed by a pending
action for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure
itself, without prejudice, of course, to the eventual
outcome of the pending annulment case. (Bank of the
 Philippine Islands v. Tarampi, GR No. 174988, Dec. 10,
2008)
• Issuance of the writ is ex parte, summary and and
ministerial. The order of the RTC granting the petition
for a writ of possession is final which can only be
questioned on appeal. (San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc. v.
Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation, GR No.
168088, April 4, 2007)
REGISTRATION VIA ISSUANCE OF
PUBLIC LAND PATENTS
 Registration of Patents
 Public lands suitable for agriculture can be
disposed of by (a) homestead, (b) sale, (c) lease,
and (d) confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
titles by (1) judicial legalization or (2)
administrative legalization (free patent)
 Public land patents when duly registered are
veritable Torrens titles, entitled to all the
safeguards relative thereto
 Homestead patent
 Any citizen of the Philippines may apply for a
homestead of not exceeding 12 hectares.
 The applicant must have cultivated and improved
at least one-fifth of the land and resided in the
municipality (or adjacent municipality) where the
land is located for at least one year.
 Once the applicant has complied with all the
conditions essential to a government grant, he
acquires not only a right to a grant but a grant of
the land from the government.
 Sales patent
 A Filipino citizen or lawful age or the head of a
family may apply for the purchase of an
agricultural public land not to exceed 12
hectares.
 The land shall be sold through public bidding, and
the land awarded to the highest bidder.
 The purchase price may be paid in full or in 10
installments.
 The applicant must cultivate at least one-fifth of
the land within 5 years from the date of award.
 Direct sale (RA No. 730)
 RA No. 730 permits the private sale of not more
than 1,000 square meters for residential
purposes. The applicant:
• Is a Filipino citizen;
• Is not the owner of a home lot in the city or
municipality;
• Has established in good faith his residence
on land not needed for public service;
• Has constructed his house and actually
resided therein.
 Free patent
 Applicant is a natural-born citizen who is not the
owner of not more than 12 hectares of
agricultural public land.
 He has occupied and cultivated the land for at
least 30 years, by himself of his predecessors-in-
interest;
 He has paid the real estate taxes while the same
has not been occupied by any other person.
ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENT TO RESIDENTIAL LANDS (RA NO.
10023)
 Requirements for a residential free patent:
 Applicant must be a Filipino citizen
 In actual occupation, residence and continuous
possession and occupation of a residential land
 Identified and zoned through an ordinance and not
needed for public use or public service
 For at least 10 years prior to the filing of the
application
 Area limitation:
 Highly urbanized cities – 200 sq. m.
 Other cities – 500 sq. m.
 1st and 2nd class municipalities – 750 sq. m.
 Other municipalities – 1,000 sq. m.
 Requirements for application:
 Approved plan and technical description
 Affidavit of two (2) witnesses confirming
possession of applicant for at least 10 years
• Special patents
 A special patent is issued upon the promulgation
of a special law or act of Congress or by the DENR
Secretary as authorized by an EO of the
President.
 Example: Freedom Islands in the Manila Bay area
to which TCTs were issued to PEA.
 However, the lands so titled shall not be disposed
unless with the approval of Congress if owned by
the national agency, or by the sanggunian
concerned through an approved ordinance if
owned by LGUS.
 Prohibited alienations
 Sec. 118 of CA 141 proscribes the alienation or
encumbrance of land acquired under a free
patent or homestead patent within 5 years from
the grant of the patent. The policy is to give
patentee a place where to live with his family
 After 5 years but before 25 years from the
issuance of the patent, a homestead may be
disposed of subject to the approval of the DENR
Secretary; but land covered by a free patent may
be disposed of after 5 years.
  REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 48(B) OF THE PUBLC LAND
ACT (CA NO. 141)
“Sec. 48. x x x (b) Those who by themselves or through
their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership;, since June 12, 1945, except when prevented
by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential
to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under provisions of this chapter.”
• There are no material differences between Sec. 14(1) of
PD No. 1529 and Sec. 48(b) of CA No. 141.
 While the Public Land Act (PLA) refers to
“agricultural lands of the public domain” and the
Property Registration Decree (PRD) refers to
“alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain,” the subject lands are of the same type
since under the Constitution, alienable lands of
the public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands.
• Sec. 48(b), CA 141, as amended by PD 1073, requires
possession since June 12, 1945, or prior thereto
• But land need be classified as A and D land at the time
of the filing of the application for registration (
Malabanan vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 179987, April
29, 2009)
• When the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the PLA
are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have
acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, without
the necessity of a certificate of title being issued.
• Compliance with all requirements for a government
grant ipso jure converts land to private property.
• The land ceases to be of the public domain and beyond
the authority of the DENR to dispose of.
• Registration under Sec. 48(b) of the PLA presumes that
the land was originally public agricultural land but
because of adverse possession since June 12, 1945, the
land has become private.
• A certificate of title is void when it covers non-
registrable lands (e.g., forest or timber or mineral lands).
• Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands
of an alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be
cancelled.
REGISTRATION UNDER THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS
ACT
• Constitutional provisions
“The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework
of national unity and development.” (Sec. 2 Art. II)
“The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution
and national development policies and programs shall
protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to
their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social,
and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary law governing property rights or relations in
determining the ownership and extent of ancestral
domain.”
 Indigenous concept of ownership
 The IPRA recognizes the existence of the
indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in
Philippine Society.
 It grants these people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these
lands and domains.
 The ownership given is the indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law which traces its
origin to native title.
• Ancestral lands/domains are not deemed part of the
lands of the public domain but are private lands
belonging to ICCs/IPs who have actually occupied,
possessed and utilized their territories under claim of
ownership since time immemorial.
• Native title refers to pre-conquest rights which, as far
back as memory reaches, have been held under claim of
private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public
lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been
held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.
• The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
has the authority to issuer certificates of ancestral
domain title (CADT) or certificates of ancestral land title
(CALT).
• The recording of CADT and CALT in the Office of the
Register of Deeds does not result in the issuance of
Torrens certificate of title.
• The purpose of registration is simply to apprise the
public of the fact of recognition by the NCIP of specific
claims to portions of the ancestral domains or ancestral
lands.
• Modes of acquisition
 The rights of ICCsIPs to their ancestral domains
and ancestral lands may be acquired in two
modes:
 By native title over both ancestral lands and
domains; or
 By Torrens title under the Public Land Act (CA No.
141) of the Property Registration Decree (PD No.
1529) with respect to ancestral lands only.
• Requirements for registration
 The applicant is a member of an indigenous
cultural group;
  He must have been in possession of an
individually-owned ancestral land for not less
than thirty (30) years;
 By operation of law, the land is already classified
as A and D, even if it has a slope of 18% or over,
hence, there is no need to submit a separate
certification that the land is A and D.
• Transfer of land or property rights
The rights of ownership over ancestral lands may be
transferred subject to the following limitations:
 Only to members of the same ICCs/IPs;
 In accord with customary laws and traditions;
and
 Subject to the right of redemption for a period of
fifteen (15) years if the land was transferred to a
non-member.
• Ancestral domains belong to all generations and
therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed.
 CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
• The purpose is to serve the public interest by requiring
that the titles to any unregistered lands “be settled and
adjudicated.”
• The government initiates the proceeding so that all
private lands in the town are registered in one single
proceeding.
• Government surveyors give advance notice to survey
claimants of date of survey to afford them to indicate
their claims during the survey.
• After survey, the government files the petition with the
RTC so that all claimants and possessors shall be heard
on their claims.
• Jurisdiction of cadastral court over previously titled
lands limited to correction of technical errors in the
description of the land.
• Decision declaring land as public land not a bar to a
subsequent action for confirmation of title over the
same land.
DISPOSITION OF FRIAR LANDS
(Example: Banila Estate, Piedad Estate, Tala Estate, etc.)
• Friar lands are not public lands but private or
patrimonial property of the government.
• Friar lands were purchased by the government for sale
to actual occupants under Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands Act)
• The Lands Management Bureau (LMB) shall first issue a
sales certificate to the occupant who shall pay the
purchase price in installments.
• The purchaser becomes the owner upon the issuance of
the certificate of sale, subject to cancellation in case the
price agreed upon is not paid in full
• Upon full payment, the government shall then issue a
final deed of conveyance to the purchaser
• No lease or sale shall be valid until approved by the
DENR Secretary (Manotok v. Barque, GR No. 162335,
Aug. 24, 2010)
• Sale of friar lands is different from sale of public lands:
 In sale of public lands, the land is opened for
bidding; the successful bidder is given right of
entry and to cultivate and improve the land.
 Upon cultivation of 1/5 of the land, the applicant
is given a sales patent
In the case of friar lands, the purchaser
becomes the owner upon issuance of the
certificate of sale in his favor.
SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM BUYER’S DECREE (PD 957)
• Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective
Decree (PD 957)
 Policy: to afford inhabitants the requirements of
decent human settlement with ample
opportunities for improving their quality of life.
 Real estate and condominium businesses must be
closely supervised and regulated, and penalties imposed
on fraudulent practices and manipulations.
• PD No. 957 implements the state policy of providing
decent human settlement to improve the quality of life.
• Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB),
formerly NHA and HSRC, has exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate real estate and trade business.
• HLURB is a quasi-judicial body with original and
exclusive authority to hear and decide cases of the
following nature:
 Unsound real estate business practice
 Claims for refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer
against the project owner, developer or dealer
 Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
• Subdivisions are mandated to maintain and provide
adequate water facilities for their communities. Without
a provision for an alternative water source, the
subdivision developer's alleged sale of the lot where the
community's sole water source was located constituted
a violation of this obligation. Thus, this allegation makes
out a case for an unsound real estate business practice
of the subdivision owner and developer. Clearly, the
case at bar falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
HLURB. (Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop )
• Decision of HLURB appealable to the OP whose decision
may be elevated to the CA via a petition for review.
 HLURB has jurisdiction over cases for collection
of unpaid installments and damages
 It has no jurisdiction over issues involving ownership or
possession of property
• Registration of projects, requirements
• License to sell, requirements
 Absence of license to sell does not render sale
void
  But developer may be held civilly and criminally
liable
 Determination of criminal liability lies with the
courts
• A license to sell and performance bond is not required in
the following transactions:
 Sale of a subdivision lot resulting from the
partition of the land among co-owners-heirs
 Sale of a subdivision lot by the original. purchaser
and any subsequent sale of the same lot.
 Sale of a subdivision lot or condominium unit by
or for account of a mortgagee when necessary to
liquidate a bona fide debt.
• Foreigners may purchase condominium units and shares
in the condominium corporations up to not more than
40-% of the total and outstanding capital stock of a
Filipino-owned or controlled corporation.
• The land is owned by the corporation and the unit
owner is simply a member in the corporation.
• The ownership of the land is legally separated from the
unit itself.
• Registration of dealers, brokers and salesmen
• Revocation of registration
• Procedure:
 Hearing
 Decision
 Cease and desist order
• Registration of contracts
• Mortgages
 With written approval of the HLURB
 With notice to the buyer
 Mortgage without knowledge or buyer and
approval of HLURB is null and void
• Illustrative cases
 Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Marquez
 DBP v. Capulong
• Advertisements
• Time of completion
 Consequence of delay
 Failure to develop a subdivision may justify non-
payment of amortizations by lot buyer
 Failure of seller to deliver condominium unit
entitles buyer to cancel contract
• Issuance of title
 Duty of owner to deliver title
 Duty of owner to redeem outstanding mortgage
 Certificate of title not subject to collateral attack
 Right of way to public road
 Roads, alleys, sidewalks and open spaces (non-
alienable and non-buildable)
 Donations of parks and playgrounds to the city or
municipality mandatory; may in turn be donated
to the homeowners association
 In Lalicon v. NHA, GR No. 185440, July 13, 2011, the
Court held:
 The Lalicons claim that the NHA unreasonably
ignored their letters that asked for consent to the
resale of the subject property. But the NHA had
no obligation to grant the Lalicons' request for
exemption from the five-year restriction as to
warrant their proceeding with the sale when
such consent was not immediately forthcoming.
And the resale without the NHA's consent is a
substantial breach. The essence of the
government's socialized housing program is to
preserve the beneficiary's ownerships for a
reasonable length of time, here at least within
five years from the time he acquired it free from
any encumbrance.
• Foreigners are allowed to purchase condominium units
• Any mortgage of the unit or lot requires approval of
HLURB, otherwise mortgage is void
• Failure to develop a subdivision may justify non-
payment of amortizations by lot buyer
• Buyer may not be ousted for non-payment due to failure
of subdivision owner to put up required improvements
• Owner or developer shall:
 Deliver title to buyer upon full payment of lot or
unit
 Redeem outstanding mortgage
 Secure a right of way to a public road
 Initiate the organization of a homeowners
association among buyers and residents
 Provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks
 Donate roads and open spaces to city or
municipality where project is located
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
 The real purpose of the Torrens system of
registration is
(a) to quiet title to land.
(b) to recognize a valid and subsisting
interest in land.
 (c) to bar innocent third parties from
claiming an interest in the land.
(d) to furnish a shield for fraud.
 The Regalian doctrine embodies the concept that:
(a) all alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain belong to the State.
(b) all lands not clearly within private
ownership presumptively belong to the State.
(c) all lands not covered by Spanish titles
presumptively belong to the State.
(d) the King is regarded as the true and only
source of title.
• In what instances may first level courts exercise
jurisdiction to hear land registration cases?
(a) Where the application is not the subject
of any adverse claim.
(b) Where the assessed value of the land
does not exceed P500,000 as shown by the
affidavit of the applicant or corresponding tax
declaration.
(c) Where the land is not contested, or even
if contested, has an assessed value not exceeding
P100,000.
(d) Where its exercise is delegated by the
Supreme Court.
 The following may properly interpose an
opposition to the application for registration:
(a) a homesteader who has not yet been
issued his title but has fulfilled all the conditions.
required by law for the issuance of patent.
(b) a foreshore lease applicant.
(c) a sales applicant pending issuance of the
order of award.
(d) the holder of timber license agreement
duly approved by the DENR.
 What is the prescriptive period for an action for
compensation against the Assurance Fund?
(a) 4 years.
(b) 6 years.
(c) 10 years.
(d) imprescriptible.
• PD No. 892, dated February 16, 1976, has
outlawed Spanish titles as evidence of ownership
in registration cases. However,
(a) such a title may still be presented in
evidence if accompanied by a survey plan
executed prior to February 16, 1976.
(b) such a title may still be presented if it is
in the nature of a possessory information title.
(c) such a title is absolutely barred without
if’s or but’s.
(d) such a title may still be presented in
evidence if accompanied by its English translation.
 The basis of the rule that the land sought to be
registered is already A and D “at the time the
application for registration is filed” is that:
(a) it is only when the land is classified as A
and D that the State is deemed to have abdicated
its exclusive prerogative over the land.
(b) it is hardly possible to look for witnesses
who could testify as to the status and condition of
the land on or before June 12, 1945.
(c) prior to the classification of the land as A
and D, the land still remains part of the forest
zone, hence, inalienable.
(d) previous rulings of the Supreme Court
requiring that the land be declared A and D as of
June 12, 1945 are merely obiter dicta.
 Which of the following is incorrect: A Presidential
proclamation reserving land for a specific public purpose
(a) is valid if already classified as A and D.
(b) is a matter of judicial notice.
(c) is an asseveration of Regalian right.
(d) is issued in the exercise of the State’s
dominical authority.
 The function of the Register of Deeds to register
instruments affecting registered land is
ministerial. Accordingly,
(a) his duty is compellable by mandamus.
(b) he has no discretion to determine the
intrinsic validity of the instrument provided that it
is in due form.
(c) his duty is to register the instrument
without prejudice to a determination of its
validity before the proper forum afterwards.
(d) his duty is to register the instrument
unless enjoined by the LRA.
 Registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. It is simply a procedure
(a) to ensure that third parties may not
assert any claim or interest in the land thereafter.
(b) to establish proof of one’s claim of
ownership in the land.
(c) to remove all liens and encumbrances in
the land.
(d) to assure the claimant a better title than
what he actually has.
• Lot X is registered in the name of “Pedro, married
to Maria.” Pedro sells the land to Jose without the
written consent of Maria. May the Register of
Deeds refuse registration?
(a) No, the land belongs solely to Pedro, the
registered owner.
 (b) Yes, there is nothing in the deed of sale
to show that Pedro alone acquired the land in his
own right.
(c) No, the lack of consent of Maria is fatal,
there being no showing that she is incapacitated
to give her consent to the sale.
(d) Yes, the deed of sale does not bear the
signature of Maria who is presumed co-owner of
the land.
• Registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in
rem. This means that
(a) all interested persons are notified of the
proceedings and have a right to appear in opposition to
the application for registration.
(b) the proceeding is against all known occupants
and adjoining owners of the land.
(c) the proceeding aims generally to bar some
individual claim or objection so that certain persons who
claim an interest in the land are entitled to be heard.
(d) the proceeding shall be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
 The court, in an order dated June 13, 2009, set the initial
hearing of the case on September 25, 2009. Judgment
was for the applicant. OSG contends that the notice of
initial hearing is defective and/or it did not vest the trial
court with jurisdiction over the case. Is the OSG correct?
(a) Yes for the initial hearing should have been set
not later than September 11, 2009, or 90 days from
June 13, 2009.
(b) No since the issuance and publication of the
notice of initial hearing involved a process in which the
applicant has had no participation.
(c) No since the publication of the notice is
jurisdictional.
(d) No since the notice, as published, already gave
sufficient notice to all interested parties of the actual
date of hearing.
• Which of the following may be considered
sufficient to show the prior classification of the
land as A and D?
(a) Cadastral survey of a municipality
preparatory to the filing of the petition for
cadastral proceedings.
(b) Titling of properties around the land
subject of registration.
(c) Report and recommendation of the
District Forester for the release of the property
from the unclassified region.
(d) Executive proclamation withdrawing
from a reservation a specific area and declaring
the same open for entry, sale or other mode of
disposition.
• Foreshore and submerged areas belong to the public
domain and remain inalienable unless:
(a) reclaimed by appropriate authority
(b) declared no longer needed for public service
(c) declared as alienable lands and no longer
needed for public service
(d) reclaimed, classified as A and D and further
declared no longer needed for public service.
• To show the identity of the land for purposes of
registration, and in line with prevailing rule,
(a) the submission of the tracing cloth plan
is mandatory.
(b) the survey plan and technical description
must be approved by the LRA.
(c) the submission of a certified copy of the
blueprint or whiteprint plan as approved by the
DENR Regional Executive Director will suffice.
(d) the submission of a certified copy of the
blueprint or whiteprint plan will suffice if the area
does not exceed the Constitutional limit.
 When is a right to property deemed vested?
(a) When the right to its enjoyment, present
or prospective, has become the property of a
particular person.
(b) When it is no longer subject to question
in any proceeding.
(c) When the property was already released
from the forest zone at the start of possession in
the concept of owner.
(d) When it is fixed by a legislative
enactment or municipal ordinance.
 If publication of the notice of initial hearing in the
OG “shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon
the court” (Sec. 23, PD 1529), is there still a need
to publish the notice in a newspaper?
(a) No more since the law expressly
provides that publication in the OG is sufficient.
(b) Yes because practically no one reads the
OG anyway.
(c) No more since it is not fair that the
applicant should be unduly burdened by
additional expenses for publication.
(d) Yes because publication in the
newspaper is part of procedural due process.
• Amendments to the application for registration
may be allowed. However,
(a) it is not permissible to make
amendments after the registration of the
property has been decreed except upon order of
the court.
 (b) the amendment is proper only when the
inclusion of additional area is very negligible, or
smaller than the original area.
(c) the amendment must bear the
conformity of the Solicitor General as counsel for
the government in all land registration
proceedings.
(d) the amended survey plan must first be
approved by the LRA.
 In order that additional area may be included in
the original area subject of registration, the
applicant should:
(a) withdraw his original application and file
a new one to include the additional area.
(b) file a separate application for the
additional area.
(c) amend his application to include the
additional area subject to the requirements of
publication.
(d) file a separate application for the
additional area and move for the consolidation of
said application with the original application for
registration.
 Petitioner bought registered land on July 5, 2009. At the
time he registered the sale on January 5, 2010, a writ of
attachment was already inscribed on the vendor’s title
on August 5, 2009. Which of the following is false?
(a) the levy on attachment lost its efficacy by the
subsequent registration of the prior sale.
(b) the levy subordinated the right of petitioner
as purchaser.
(c) the attachment remained valid until
discharged.
(d) the execution sale should be upheld because
it retroacts to the date of levy.
• Overt acts of possession may consist in introducing
valuable improvements on the property like fruit-
bearing trees. In Republic v. Court of Appeals and
Chavez (GR No. L-62680, Nov. 9, 1988), the Court held
that in a practical and scientific way of planting,
(a) it takes only 5 years for coconut trees and 3 years
for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(b) it takes only 10 years for mango trees and 5 years
for coconut trees to begin bearing fruit.
(c) it takes only 3 years for coconut trees and 5 years
for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
(d) it takes only 10 years for coconut trees and 5
years for mango trees to begin bearing fruit.
 The capacity to acquire private land is determined
by the capacity
(a) to convert the land to its maximum
productivity.
(b) to acquire public land.
(c) to proffer well-nigh incontrovertible
proof of possession since June 12, 1945 or prior
thereto.
(d) to show full compliance with the
residence and cultivation requirements by oral
and documentary evidence.
 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a
registration case, the Supreme Court generally may not
re-evaluate the findings of fact of the trial and
appellate courts. The recognized exceptions are:
(a) when the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based
(b) when the appellate court, in making its findings,
went beyond the issues in the case.
(c) when the petitioner disputes the jurisdiction of
the trial court.
(d) “a” and “b”.
• The Civil Code provides that accretion belongs to
the owners of the land adjoining the banks of the
river. It is however necessary that the accretion
(a) must have taken place for such length of
time as to ipso jure convert the same into private
ownership.
(b) is made through the effects of the
current of the water.
(c) is formed by the natural change in the
course of the river.
(d) must have been formed gradually and
imperceptibly for a period of not less than 10
years.
 The primary purpose of cadastral proceedings is
(a) to determine conflicting claims of
ownership in the area subject of cadastral survey.
(b) to provide a remedy, without any
expense, for the correction of errors in the
technical description of lands already titled so as
to conform to the cadastral survey.
(c) to settle and adjudicate title to lands.
(d) to determine the priority or relative
weight of two or more certificates of title for the
same land.
• Land subject of registration may be “dealt with” after
the filing of the application and before the issuance of
decree. In case of sale, for instance, it is required that
(a) the buyer is made a party to the case.
(b) the buyer shows proof that he is qualified to
register the land in his name.
(c) the application for registration is amended by
substituting the buyer for the applicant.
(d) the instrument evidencing the transaction is
presented to the court for appropriate consideration.
 •The duty of the LRA Administrator to issue a decree
of registration is ministerial, the reason being that
(a) his refusal would subject him to
contempt of court.
(b) he is an officer, and acts upon order, of
the court.
(c) the winning party has an absolute right
to the fruits of the verdict.
(d) the issuance of the decree is an express
component of his official functions.
 Pedro applied for the registration of land. The
government opposed. Judgment was rendered in favor
of Pedro, which became final. Thereafter, Pedro sold
the land to Jose. Can the government appeal the
judgment?
(a) No because a final judgment can no longer be the
subject of appeal.
(b) No because the government is already concluded
by the judgment, having interposed its opposition to
the application for registration.
(c) Yes because the government is not bound by the
mistakes or errors of its agents.
(d) No because the land is now transferred to a third
person.
 To avail of a petition for review,
(a) the petitioner must allege facts surrounding the
trial which prevented a fair and just determination of
the case.
(b) the petition must be filed within 60 days from the
finality of the decision of the court.
(c) the petitioner must await the expiration of one
year from the issuance of the decree of registration.
(d) the property has not passed to an innocent
purchaser for value.
 An action for reversion filed by the Solicitor
General is proper where defendant’s title covers
(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits
caused by the action of the sea.
(b) land which had been previously titled
through cadastral proceedings.
(c) land subject of irregular reconstitution
proceedings.
(d) land forming part of the friar lands
estate..
 What is the concept of ownership of ancestral
domains?
(a) They are part of the lands of the public
domain under the concept of jura regalia.
(b) They are the private but community
property of indigenous peoples.
(c) They, and all natural resources therein,
belong in private ownership to indigenous
cultural communities based on native title.
(d) They are owned by the State pursuant to
Section 2, Article XII which states that all lands
and all other natural resources are “owned by the
State.”
 Recovery from the Assurance Fund is possible
(a) when private defendant is insolvent.
(b) when plaintiff failed in his action for
reconveyance.
(c) when plaintiff is deprived of any interest
in land on account of bringing land under the
Torrens system.
(d) when the Register of Deeds failed to
exercise due care to forestall fraudulent
registration.
• When a deed of sale presented for registration is
forged,
(a) the registered owner does not lose his
title to the land.
(b) the transferee can recover damages
from the Assurance Fund.
(c) the transferee can ask the true owner to
execute a deed of sale in his favor.
(d) the Register of Deeds should elevate the
matter to the LRA via en consulta.
 The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in
good faith is discharged
(a) by one who asserts that status.
(b) by invoking the legal presumption of
good faith.
(c) by proof that the vendor is the true
owner of the property sold.
(d) by proof that the property was
unencumbered at the time of the sale.
 Jose forged the signature of the registered owner,
Pedro, in a deed of sale purportedly made by the
latter in favor of Mario who paid the full purchase
price thereof. Is Mario a buyer in good faith?
(a) No because as a cautious person he
should have first determined in the office of the
Register of Deeds who the true owner of the
property is.
(b) No because the forged deed does not
convey any valid title.
(c) Yes because a buyer of registered land
need not go beyond the four corners of the title
to determine any flaw in the title or ownership of
his vendor.
(d) Yes because he has paid the full
purchase price of the land.
• Pedro sold registered land to an alien. The sale
was not registered. Realizing that the sale is
prohibited, Pedro seeks to recover the land from
the alien vendee. Will the action prosper?
 (a) Yes because the sale is not yet
registered.
(b) No because both Pedro and the alien
vendee are in pari delicto.
(c) No because Pedro is estopped from
impugning the sale.
(d) Yes because the prohibition is designed
for the protection of the Filipino vendor.
• Minerals are discovered underneath Pedro’s titled
property. Who has the right to exploit the
minerals?
(a) The government has the absolute right
to exploit the minerals.
(b) Pedro has the right to exploit the
minerals because he is the absolute owner of the
land.
(c) Pedro does not have the right to exploit
the minerals because he owns the surface area
only.
(d) The government has the right to exploit
the minerals upon prior expropriation of the
property.
• The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is
(a) to fortify the claim of ownership of the party
causing the registration thereof.
(b) to prevent the owner of the property from
alienating it while the case is still pending trial.
(c) to advise third persons who purchase the
property that they do so at their peril.
(d) to put the owner on notice that he holds the
property in trust for the person causing the annotation
of the lis pendens.
• May an adverse claim of ownership, based on
prescription and adverse possession, be
registered over registered land?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to
protect the interest of the person claiming
ownership of the land.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because the adverse claim serves as
a notice that the adverse claimant has a better
right to the land than the registered owner
thereof.
(d) No because prescription for the
acquisition of title is never presumed.
• Reconstitution denotes reconstruction of a lost or
destroyed original certificate of title. The term
“any other document” as a source of
reconstitution may include
(a) an order of the court for the issuance of
the decree.
(b) an approved survey plan and technical
description of the land.
(c) a certification by the LRA that a decree
of registration was in fact issued.
(d) none of the above.
 Gan Tan lost his title when his house was burned in
1995. He filed for reconstitution in 2004. The court
denied the petition based on a BID certification
submitted by the OSG that Gan Tan is an alien. In case
of appeal, how should the case be resolved?
(a) The appeal should be denied because Gan Tan
being an alien is disqualified from owning
land in the country.
(b) Reconstitution should be ordered because a
Torrens title, as a rule, is irrevocable and
indefeasible.
(c) The appeal should be dismissed since petitioner
has lost his right to the land on the
ground of laches.
(d) Reconstitution should be ordered because a
Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked.
 Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA No.
8371), registration under the Torrens system of
individually-owned ancestral land requires
(a) possession for not less than 30 years
immediately prior to the approval of the law on
October 29, 1997.
(b) possession since June 12, 1945 or
earlier.
(c) possession for not less than ten (10)
years in good faith.
(d) possession for not less than thirty (30)
years.
• OCT No. 38621 was decreed in the name of
“Pedro Valdez, married to Lita Marquez”.
Because of the loss of the original copy of the
title, Pedro petitioned the court for
reconstitution. During the pendency of the case,
Lita died. Assuming that the petition is
substantiated, the court should issue an order of
reconstitution:
(a) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, widower”.
(b) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, married
to Lita Marquez, deceased”.
(c) in the name of “Pedro Valdez, married to
Lita Marquez”.
(d) in the name of “Pedro Valdez”.
• If the Register of Deeds is unsure whether or not
an instrument affecting registered land is
registrable, he should
(a) return the document to the registrant
for the reformation of the instrument.
(b) ask the registrant to elevate the matter
to the LRA for the resolution of the issue via en
consulta.
 (c) himself refer the matter to the LRA for
the determination of the issue.
(d) advise the registrant to file an adverse
claim in the meantime pending further study and
determination of the issue.
 Every purchaser of registered land –
(a) is charged with notice of all liens
whether or not annotated on the title,
(b) should first investigate to determine the
condition of the property.
(c) may safely rely on the validity of the
title.
(d) should cautiously look behind the
certificate to determine the true owner.
• May a Dutch national validly purchase a
residential unit in a townhouse project
constituted under the Condominium Act?
(a) No because aliens, whether individuals
or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring
public lands, hence, they are also disqualified
from acquiring private lands.
(b) Yes because for as long as 60% of the
members of the condominium corporation are
Filipinos, the remaining members can be
foreigners.
(c) Yes because the unit owner is simply a
member of the condominium corporation and the
land remains owned by the condominium
corporation.
(d) (b) and (c).
 If only a portion of the land covered by a
certificate of title is sold by the owner, and the
deed is presented for inscription, the Register of
Deeds
(a) shall annotate the deed by way of
memorandum on the grantor’s certificate of title,
original and duplicate.
(b) shall not enter any transfer certificate to
the grantee until a plan of the land showing all
the portions or lots into which it has been
subdivided shall have been verified and approved.
(c) shall issue a new certificate of title to the
grantee for the portion conveyed and at the same
cancel the grantor’s certificate partially with
respect only to the portion conveyed.
(d) (a) and (b).
 Pedro decides to sell his property to Jose only to
discover the loss of his owner's duplicate
certificate of title covering it. What initial
recourse should Pedro take?
(a) Report the fact of loss to the police and
then file a petition for replacement of the lost
title before the court.
(b) Send a notice under oath to the Register
of Deeds of the province or city where the land
lies as soon as the loss is discovered.
(c) Promptly file with the proper court a
verified petition for replacement of the lost title.
(d) Proceed with the documentation of the
sale and then file a petition for replacement of
the lost title.
 In 1995, Pedro, a natural born Filipino, bought an
agricultural land from Jose who has been in
possession thereof as owner since 1942. Pedro
migrated to Japan where he acquired Japanese
citizenship. He came back to the Philippines in
2010 and applied for the registration of the land
which is now industrial in character. The
government opposed since Pedro is now an alien.
Is the opposition valid?
(a) Yes because aliens are disqualified
from acquiring lands in the Philippines.
(b) Yes because even privately owned
unregistered lands are presumed to be
public lands under the Regalian doctrine.
(c) No because the land at the time of its
acquisition by Pedro is deemed already a
private land.
(d) Yes because industrial lands may only
be leased to aliens.
• To secure a loan, Pedro mortgaged his titled property to
the bank. The mortgage was annotated on the title.
Subsequently, Jose filed suit with the RTC to quiet title
and to nullify Pedro’s title. A notice of lis pendens was
annotated on Pedro’s title. For Pedro’s failure to pay,
the property was sold at auction with the bank as
successful bidder. Meantime, the RTC rendered
judgment nullifying Pedro’s title as well as the mortgage
to the bank. The bank now claims that it is both a
mortgagee and buyer in good faith. Is the bank correct?
(a) No because the bank is a transferee
pendente lite, subject to the results of the
pending litigation.
(b) No because no valid lien can arise from a
void title as Pedro’s.
(c) Yes because the notice of lis pendens
cannot affect the mortgage previously registered.
(d) No because Pedro’s title was declared
void, and the mortgage being but an accessory
contract, is also void.
• The registration of an instrument affecting registered
land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the
time of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
 (c) forecloses a judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) records an existing title.
• The cancellation of a notice of lis pendens
(a) is contingent on the existence of a final
judgment.
(b) is proper where it appears that the case
has been unnecessarily prolonged.
(c) may only be made at the instance of the
adverse party.
(d) may be made motu proprio by the
Register of Deeds if it appears that the notice was
filed to molest the adverse party.
• Mineral resources are owned by
(a) the State, subject to privates rights if any
there be.
(b) the owner of the property where they
are found.
(c) the State.
(d) the indigenous peoples when they are
found within ancestral domains.
 Which of the following statements is not correct:
(a) Because the majority of land in the
country are agricultural lands, courts have a right
to presume that lands are agricultural unless
shown otherwise.
(b) By reason of the rapid growth of timber
or minerals today, lands classified as agricultural
today may be differently classified tomorrow.
(c) In classifying lands, each case must be
classified upon the proof in a particular case.
(d) When a tract of land has trees upon it, it
is sufficient to declare the legal classification of
the land as forest land.
• Private lands taken by the government for public use
through expropriation become
(a) private property.
(b) public lands.
(c) patrimonial property.
(d) part of the public domain.
• A cadastral proceeding is initiated by the government.
Relevantly,
(a) Lands subject of a cadastral survey are
deemed registrable lands.
(b) Lands cadastrally surveyed, excluding
forests, water bodies and other natural
resources, are automatically considered A and D
lands.
(c) Lands inside a cadastre must be officially
declared A and D to be registrable.
(d) Lands titled through cadastral
proceedings cannot be sold within 5 years from
the issuance of the decree.
 The date of the initial hearing of a registration case shall
be not earlier than
(a) 60 days from the date of the order.
(b) 90 days from the date of the order.
(c) 120 days from the date of the order.
(d) 45 days from the date of the order.
• The remedy available to the interested party for the
Register of Deeds’ denial of his request for the issuance
of a certificate of title pursuant to a court judgment is:
(a) To cite the RD in contempt.
(b) To file a mandamus petition versus the RD.
(c) To appeal the RD’s denial to the LRA via consulta.
(d) To file administrative charges against the RD with
the LRA.
 Can a deed of donation of a parcel of land by a
Filipino citizen to a religious organization whose
trustees are non-Filipinos, be admitted by the RD
for registration?
(a) Yes because to disqualify the
corporation would be a violation of its
religious freedom.
(b) No because land tenure is not
indispensable to the free exercise of
religion.
(c) Yes because the acquisition of the land
is strictly for religious purposes, i.e., upon
which to build churches and charitable
institutions.
(d) Yes because the religious organization
has no capital stock, and so the
Constitutional inhibition does not apply.
 Mangrove swamps are not registrable. They are under
the jurisdiction of the
(a) Bureau of Forest Development.
(b) Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
(c) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
(d) Lands Management Bureau.
• The registration court
(a) must personally hear the parties and
receive their evidence.
(b) may refer the case to the clerk of court
for the reception of evidence.
(c) may refer the case to a referee but the
court may accept or reject his report.
(d) may not refer the case to a referee for
hearing because judicial power is vested in the
court itself.
 Which statement is correct?
(a) Public land is not synonymous with
public domain.
(b) Public land includes all lands of
government ownership.
 (c) Government land and public land are
synonymous terms.
(d) The government owns real estate which
is part of the public lands and other real estate
which is not a part thereof.
• Non-publication of the notice of initial hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation
(a) affects the jurisdiction of the court.
(b) does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court.
(c) is not consequential since jurisdiction is
acquired by the publication of the notice in the
Official Gazette.
(d) does not affect the applicant’s claim of
ownership.
• An order of general default
(a) may be modified or amended only
before the presentation of evidence by the
applicant.
(b) precludes the filing of a motion for
reconsideration by the oppositor who is
concluded by the default order.
(c) may be revoked upon motion within 90
days from the date of the default order.
(d) does not preclude the party in default
from filing a motion to set aside the default
order.
• Under PD No. 1529, the registration court shall decide
the case within how many days from the date the case is
submitted for resolution?
(a) 90 days.
(b) 120 days.
(c) 1 year.
(d) 30 days.
• The certification by the LRA that publication, mailing and
posting of the notice of initial hearing have been
complied with
(a) is immaterial to the applicant’s claim of
ownership.
(b) may be considered because of the
presumptive regularity in the performance of
official functions.
(c) is subject to contrary proof.
(d) is conclusive as to such fact.
• An applicant for a homestead or any other mode of
disposition under the Public Land Act
(a) may validly oppose an application for
registration because of his inchoate interest in
the land.
(b) has no legal right to oppose the
application.
(c) may join cause with the Solicitor General
by filing his opposition himself .
(d) has the right to oppose if he has
improvements on the land.
• Where public land is titled by final judgment,
(a) the actual occupant is not barred from
filing a petition for relief from judgment.
(b) the Director of Lands may conduct an
investigation to determine whether fraud
attended the registration.
(c) the government cannot entertain any
administrative protests against the judgment.
(d) the government may file a petition to
reopen the proceedings for insufficient evidence
to prove the private character of the land.
• Where no person appears or answers within the time
allowed,
(a) the court shall enter an order of special
default.
(b) an order of default may likely result in a
judgment favorable to the applicant.
(c) the allegations in the application shall be
held as confessed.
(d) the court may now render judgment
either granting or dismissing the application for
registration.
 Where there is no publication of the notice of initial
hearing,
(a) the proceeding is utterly void.
(b) personal notice to known adjoining
owners may be effected to rectify the omission.
(c) lack of publication may be corrected by
publication of the notice before judgment.
(d) the proceeding is valid if not contested
by the Solicitor General.
 Which of the following is false?
(a) a judicial foreclosure of mortgage is a quasi in
rem proceeding
(b) An action to recover a parcel of land is a real
action and, hence, an action in rem.
(c) Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem
but are characterized as quasi in rem.
(d) An action to recover a parcel of land is an action
in personam.
 Lands invaded by the sea
(a) belong to the affected municipality as
municipal waters.
(b) belong the State as maritime waters.
 (c) belong to the State as part of the public
domain.
(d) may be reclaimed by the affected
private property owner.
 The Land Registration Authority (LRA), which is the
central repository of records relative to registered lands,
is under what office?
(a) Department of Agrarian Reform.
(b) Department of Justice.
(c) Office of the President.
(d) Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
• To be valid and effective, a notice of lis pendens must be
• (a) filed simultaneously with the filing of the action
subject of the notice.
• (b) annotated on both the duplicate certificate of title
on file with the Register of Deeds and in the possession
of the registered owner.
• (c) approved by the court in the pending case.
• (d) annotated on the original duplicate certificate of
title on file with the Register of Deeds.
 To identify and segregate a portion of the public domain
for the establishment of court houses in the country –
(a) The Supreme Court must issue a
Resolution en banc for the purpose.
(b) The issuance by the DENR of an
Administrative Order is sufficient.
(c) The reservation must be established by
a Presidential Proclamation.
(d) There must be a resolution by joint
houses of Congress.
 Land reclaimed by the government may be sold by the
government to private parties only
(a) when it is not needed for public service.
(b) pursuant to a legislative act.
(c) pursuant to a Presidential proclamation.
(d) when no longer needed for coast guard
service.
 The registration of an instrument affecting registered
land
(a) operates as a notice to all persons at the
time of registering.
(b) gives effect to the instrument.
(c) forecloses any judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
(d) puts in issue an instrument previously
registered.
 Which of the following allegations cannot be a
ground for the amendment or correction of a
certificate of title?
(a) that the registered owner has married.
(b) that new interests not appearing on
the certificate have arisen.
(c) that the corporation which is the
registered owner of the land has been
dissolved.
(d) that the area should be corrected to
conform to the new survey tending to
show that the evidence introduced at the
former hearing was inaccurate.
 A Torrens certificate of title
(a) protects the true owner from the usurper.
(b) permits one to defeat the claim of another.
(c) is an effective tool against the commission of
fraud.
(d) records an existing title.
 An action for reconveyance
(a) seeks to reopen the registration
proceedings.
(b) respects the decree as incontrovertible
and no longer open to review.
(c) seeks to nullify defendant’s title to pave
the issuance of a new title to the rightful owner.
(d) confirms plaintiff’s ownership over the
property.
 Under the Administrative Code, the Solicitor
General shall “represent the government in all
land registration and related proceedings.” This
means that:
(a) the SG may deputize any government
prosecutor to assist him in the case.
(b) notice of court processes, orders and
decisions received by the prosecutor is
notice to the Solicitor General.
(c) the prosecutor may himself withdraw
the government’s appeal if he finds the
same to be without any factual or legal
basis.
(d) the prosecutor may enter into a
stipulation of facts or compromise with
the applicant.
 The period of prescription in an action for reconveyance
is counted from the
(a) date of the issuance of the title.
(b) date of the promulgation of the judgment.
(c) discovery of the fraud.
(d) date of issuance of the decree of registration.
 An action for reversion by the State is proper
when defendant’s title covers
(a) land consisting of alluvial deposits
caused by the action of the sea.
 (b) land previously titled through cadastral
proceedings.
(c) land within a reservation for public use.
(d) (a) and (c).
 An adverse claim may be recorded in which of the
following instances?
(a) lease over land which could not be
registered because the owner’s duplicate
title was not surrendered.
(b) existing claims on the land prior to the
issuance of the certificate of title.
(c) hereditary rights of a person in the land
registered in her sister’s name.
(d) (a) and (c).
 Opposition to an application for registration must be
based on real right or dominion to property. This means
that –
(a) the oppositor must be able to show title to
the property.
(b) the oppositor must have the legal character
necessary to maintain a registration proceeding
in his own name.
(c) it is enough that the oppositor should appear
to have an interest in the property.
(d) all of the above.
 Under the Water Code, waters found on private
lands belong the State. Which of the following is
excluded?
(a) continuous or intermittent waters
rising on such lands.
(b) lakes and lagoon naturally occurring on
such lands.
(c) rain water falling on such lands.
(d) none of the above.
 Pedro files an application for registration.
However, the land applied for had been
previously registered in the name of Jose. What
should Jose do?
(a) Jose should file an opposition and
present his title during the hearing.
(b) Jose should file an opposition alleging
that Pedro’s application constitutes a
collateral attack on his title.
(c) Jose should file a motion to dismiss
based on res judicata.
(d) Jose should file a suit for damages
against Pedro for fraudulently seeking to
register land which, he should know, is
already titled to another.
 The presumption in Article 160 of the Civil Code
that all property of the marriage belongs to the
conjugal partnership applies when
(a) the “spouses” are legally married.
(b) the title is in the name of both husband
and wife.
(c) the spouses are living together.
(d) the property was acquired during the
marriage.
 In reconstitution proceedings, which of the
following propositions is wrong:
(a) The issuance of a reconstituted title
does not determine the issue of
ownership.
(b) The LRA can motu proprio revoke the
reconstituted title if the lost or destroyed
title is subsequently found.
(c) The issuance by the LRA of a
reconstituted title is an administrative
function.
(d) The doctrine of res judicata applies to
judicial reconstitution.
• Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529 requires possession
and occupation of the land applied for since June
12, 1945. Which of the following propositions is
false?
(a) Occupation is broader than possession
because it includes the latter.
(b) Occupation delimits the effect of
constructive possession.
(c) Possession means acts of dominion
which a party would naturally exercise
over his own property.
(d) Occupation serves to highlight that
possession must not be a mere fiction.
• An adverse claim is effective for 30 days. To
render the adverse claim functus officio,
(a) the interested party should formally
request the Register of Deeds to cancel the same
upon the expiration of the 30-day period.
(b) no action is necessary since the adverse
claim automatically lapses upon the expiration of
the 30-day period.
(c) the interested party should file a petition
in court for the cancellation of the adverse claim.
(d) it is necessary to await the final outcome
of the case.
 Can an adverse claim of ownership over registered land,
based on acquisitive prescription, be registered?
(a) Yes because adverse claim aims to protect the
interest of the person claiming ownership
thereof.
(b) No because title to registered land is
imprescriptible.
(c) Yes because adverse claim is a notice that the
adverse claimant has a better right to the land
than the registered owner thereof.
 (d) No because acquisitive prescription of title to
land can never be presumed.
 An action for reconveyance based on a void deed
of sale for lack of consent
(a) prescribes in 10 years.
(b) prescribes in 4 years
(c) is imprescriptible
(d) prescribes in 6 years.
 A corporation sole may purchase and hold real
estate because -
(a) the properties acquired by the
corporation pass upon the death of the
administrator to his heirs who are Filipino
citizens.
(b) ownership of said properties fall upon
the church or congregation and not upon the
incumbent administrator.
(c) the corporation exercises ownership
independently of the nationality of its incumbent
administrator.
(d) (b) and (c).
 What is the concept of ownership of ancestral
domains?
(a) Ancestral domains are part of the lands
of the public domain under the concept of jura
regalia.
(b) Ancestral domains are the private but
community property of indigenous peoples.
(c) Ancestral domains and all natural
resources therein belong to indigenous cultural
communities based on native title.
(d) (a) and (b).
 Land already decreed in an ordinary registration case
cannot again be the subject of a subsequent cadastral
proceeding because
(a) once land is judicially decreed, the judgment is res
judicata.
(b) the registration in the name of the first owner is
constructive notice to the whole world.
(c) to declare the later title valid as against the first would
undermine the efficacy of Torrens system.
(d) all of the above.
 To avail of a petition for review,
(a) the petitioner must allege facts
surrounding the trial which prevented a fair
determination of the case.
(b) the petition must be filed within sixty (60)
days from the finality of the decision of the
registration court.
(c) the petitioner must await the expiration of
one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration.
(d) the property has not passed to an innocent
purchaser for value.
 Pedro files a petition for administrative
reconstitution of title, but it appears that the land
is already titled in the name of Lim. Lim is a
Chinese. What are the options open to the LRA?
(a) The LRA should order outright the
cancellation of Lim’s title and proceed to act on
Pedro’s petition for reconstitution.
(b) The LRA should dismiss Pedro’s petition
pending the filing by the OSG or the competing
claimant of an action before the RTC for the
cancellation of Lim’s title.
(c) The LRA should elevate the matter to the
Secretary of Justice for advisory opinion.
(d) The LRA should defer action on Pedro’s
petition pending the results of the action to
determine the validity of Lim’s title
• Who is the proper party to file an action for annulment
or amendment of the title where it appears that the
Assurance Fund may be held liable for damages due to
the unlawful or erroneous issuance thereof?
(a) the Solicitor General
(b) the LRA Administrator
(c) the LMB Director
(d) the Register of Deeds
 The rule that a forged deed may become the root of a
valid title
(a) does not apply where the owner still holds a
valid title over the land.
(b) applies even where the owner no longer
holds a valid title to the land.
(c) applies where the forger obtains a title to the
land and thereafter sells it to another.
(d) (a) and (c).
 The Assurance Fund is not liable for loss or damage
caused by which of the following?
(a) Breach of trust, express or implied.
(b) Mistake in the resurvey of registered land
causing expansion of the area.
(c) Error in the subdivision of the land resulting in
the increase in area.
(d) all of the above.
 A notice of lis pendens
(a) binds a bona fide purchaser of the property in
dispute.
 (c) creates a right or lien that previously did not
exist.
(c) binds a purchaser, whether bona fide or not,
of the disputed property.
(d) is part of the doctrine of notice.
 An action for reconveyance of land valued at P15,000
should be filed with what court?
(a) the second level court of the province where
the land lies.
(b) the second level court or first level court of
the place where defendant resides.
(c) the first level court of the municipality where
the land lies.
(d) the second level court of the place where
plaintiff resides.
 Where the object of the plaintiff is to recover possession
of real property as owner, the proper action is:
(a) forcible entry and detainer.
(b) accion reivindicatoria.
(c) accion publiciana.
(d) declaratory relief.
 An action to quiet title to property in the possession of
the plaintiff is imprescriptible, the reason being that:
(a) he has a continuing right to the aid of a court
of equity to remove a cloud on his title.
(b) he may wait until his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right.
(c) possession is a continuing right as is the right
to defend such possession.
(d) all of the above.
 A certificate of title based upon a public land patent
becomes indefeasible within what period?
(a) 5 years after the issuance of the patent.
(b) 1 year from the issuance of the patent.
(c) 1 year from the date of the order of award.
(d) 5 years from the approval of the application.
• What is the consequence of non-payment by the lot
buyer of installments due for failure of the
owner/developer to finish the project within the time
agreed upon?
(a) Installments paid shall be forfeited in favor of
the owner/developer.
(b) The buyer may ask for the reimbursement of
all amounts paid, but without interest.
(c) The owner/developer could rescind the
contract.
(d) The buyer may suspend further payments
until the owner/development had fulfilled its
obligations.
 A proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is a
mere incident in the transfer of title, hence, it is
impractical to award possession to a purchaser of
property with knowledge of the existence of a third-
party claim before said claim has been decided. Which
of the following does not accord with this principle?
(a) The court may not grant the writ where title is in
doubt.
(b) The prudent course of action is to hold in
abeyance proceedings for the issuance of the
writ.
(c) The true owner must resort to judicial process for
the recovery of the property.
(d) The interested party should resort to mandamus
since issuance of the writ is ministerial.
 An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in how many years from
the issuance of the title over the property?
(a) 4 years.
(b) imprescriptible.
(c) 10 years.
(d) 6 years.
 The State may prosecute for perjury the party who
obtains registration through fraud, such as by stating
false assertions in the sworn application of applicants?
Thus premised, which of the following is false?
 (a) A judgment on the guilt of the accused would not
undermine the indefeasibility of Torrens titles.
 (b) To give immunity from prosecution to those
successful in deceiving the registration court would be
putting a premium on perjury.
 (c) The prosecution for perjury would amount to an
attack on the validity of the titles which are presumed
valid.
 (d) Any judgment rendered in the criminal case would
leave the titles undisturbed.
 Laches is the failure or neglect to assert a right within
reasonable time. Which is not correct in the following
statements?
(a) Laches is concerned with the fact of delay.
(b) Laches applies in equity.
(c) Laches is concerned with the effect of delay.
(d) Laches is not based on a fixed time.
 The writ of possession may not be issued in which of the
following?
(a) in a land registration proceeding.
(b) in a petition for reconstitution.
(b) in an extrajudicial foreclosure of a realty mortgage.
(c) in a judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
 What options are open to the mortgagee in case the
mortgagor dies?
(a) waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt
from the estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim.
 (b) foreclose the mortgage judicially and prove any
deficiency as an ordinary claim.
(c)Rely on the mortgage exclusively, foreclosing the
same at any time before it is barred by prescription,
without right to file a claim for any deficiency.
(d) all of the above.
 Within what period may a judgment in a land
registration case be enforced?
(a) Upon motion within 5 years from the date of
entry.
(b) No further proceeding to enforce the judgment is
necessary.
(c) Upon motion within 10 years from the date of
entry.
(d) Upon motion after finality of judgment praying
that LRA be directed to issue the decree of registration.
 The original certificate of title is issued on the date
(a) the decree of registration is issued by the LRA.
(b) the title is given the corresponding number by
the Register of Deeds.
(c) the original and duplicate copies are received by
the Register of Deeds from the LRA.
(d) the decree of registration is transcribed.
 The following are sample allegations of actual
fraud which may be the basis of a petition for the
review of a decree. Which is the most serious?
(a) The Solicitor General has not been
furnished with the requisite notices and
copy of the decision granting registration
of land within the forest zone.
(b) The applicant failed to show
possession and occupation of the land for
the length of time required by law.
(c) The registration court did not have
jurisdiction over the res because it is non-
registrable.
(d) The prosecutor did not have the
authority to withdraw the appeal of the
government.
 Section 5 of PD No. 957 prohibits the sale of a
subdivision lot without an HLURB license.
(a) The subsequent issuance of the license erases
the offense.
(b) The invocation of good faith extinguishes
criminal liability.
(c) The crime is regarded as malum prohibitum.
(d) The determination of liability rests with the
HLURB.
 Can the plaintiff in an action for specific performance
compel defendant, in the same action, to surrender the
duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds (RD)
for the registration of the sale?
(a) No. He must file a separate petition in court
to compel surrender of the same to the RD.
(b) Yes, this being a necessary incident in the
main case.
(c) No. The issue should be threshed out in an
ordinary action.
(d) Yes, to avoid multiplicity of suits.
 Which of the following (sample) allegations in a
defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint for quieting
of title does not constitute a collateral attack on
plaintiff’s title?
(a) that plaintiff is the prior registered
owner of the land.
(b) that plaintiff is disqualified to acquire
the land since he is not a Filipino citizen.
(c) that plaintiff has no cause of action
because the land had been previously sold by
plaintiff to defendant.
(d) that plaintiff’s title was improperly
issued for lack of possession of the disputed
property.
 The registration of a broker engaged in selling
subdivision lots may be revoked when
(a) he has made a material false statement in his
application for registration.
(b) he has been guilty of a fraudulent act in the
sale of a subdivision lot.
(c) he has demonstrated his unworthiness as a
broker.
(d) all of the above.
 The registration of a broker engaged in selling
subdivision lots may be revoked when
(a) he has made a material false statement in his
application for registration.
(b) he has been guilty of a fraudulent act in the
sale of a subdivision lot.
(c) he has demonstrated his unworthiness as a
broker.
(d) all of the above.
 Over what cases does HLURB have no jurisdiction?
(a) Claims for refund by a subdivision buyer.
(b) Determination of the criminal liability of a broker
selling condominium units without a license.
(c) unsound real estate practices.
(d) cases involving specific performance of
contractual obligations filed by subdivision buyers.
• A homesteader cannot sell the homestead within
5 years from the issuance of the patent. Which of
the following situations is not covered by the
prohibition?
 (a) Sale made to the homesteader’s own
son or daughter.
(b) Sale made within the prohibitory period
but conditioned that the sale shall not take effect
until after the expiration of said period.
(c) Sale of a portion of the homestead with
the homesteader keeping a reasonable area for
himself and his family
(d) None of the above.

 Who has jurisdiction over cases involving the

cancellation of registered emancipation patents
(EPs), certificates of land ownership award
(CLOAs), and other titles issued under the
agrarian reform program?
(a) The Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
(b) The Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB).
(c) The ordinary courts of justice.
(d) The RTC acting as a Special Agrarian
Court (SAC).

• Where a tenant farmer appears to have a claim adverse

to the applicant, who among the following need not be
served with the notice of initial hearing?
(a) Director of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources.
(b) Solicitor General.
(c) Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
(d) Mayor of the city or municipality where
the land is situated.

 No salesman shall engage is selling subdivision lots

unless registered with HLURB. His registration shall
cease when
 (a) he has made a false statement in his
application for registration.
 (b) he has demonstrated his unworthiness to
transact business as such.
 (c) he has violated any provision in his certificate
of registration.
 (d) his employment with a dealer or broker has
terminated.

• Pedro, a lot buyer, filed a complaint against Asia

Development Corporation (ADC) for mortgaging
subdivision lots (including his) without being first
informed of such fact. Which of the following defenses
of ADC is valid?
(a) that the loan to ADC was granted when the
mortgaged property was not yet subdivided.
(b) that the mortgage was constituted prior to
the actual sale of the lot to Pedro.
(c) that the knowledge or consent of the lot
buyer to the mortgage is not required.
(d) none of the above.