NOTES IN LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

I. Torrens System

A. Concept and Background

1. A system for registration of land under which, upon the landowner’s

application, the court may, after appropriate proceedings, direct the issuance of a
certificate of title.

2. The Torrens system does not create or vest title. It only confirms
and records title already existing and vested. It does not protect a usurper from
the true owner. It cannot be a shield for the commission of fraud. It does not
permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another. (Angeles vs. Samia, 66
Phil. 444 (1938)

3. In order to establish a system of registration by which title recorded

became absolute, indefeasible and imprescriptible, Act No. 496, otherwise known
as the Land Registration Act, was passed and took effect on February 1, 1903.
Rights acquired under this system are guaranteed by the government which
provides an assurance fund to answer for damages to be suffered by persons thru
the operation of this system.

4. The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and
to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner
may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
sitting on the "mirador su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land. A Torrens
title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to
therein. A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and
that they are valid. (Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184589. June
13, 2013)

5. Regalian doctrine – all lands of whatever classification and other

natural resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership
belong to the State. Section 2, Article 12 of the Constitution embodies this
doctrine. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released
as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain
part of the inalienable public domain.

5.1. But regalian doctrine does not negate “native title” as espoused in
Carino vs. Insular Government, 212 Phil. US, where it was held that “when, as far
back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individual 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.
 5.2. Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR, 445 SCRA 1, has reiterated the concept
of native title as the constitutionality of IPRA was upheld as the SC did not muster
enough votes to declare it as an invalid law.

6. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely a

procedure to establish evidence of title over realty.

7. Laws on land registration

a. Act No. 496, the original Land Registration Act, which became effective
on January 1, 1903.
b. Act No. 2259, the Cadastral Act of 1913.
c. CA 141, passed on November 7, 1936, applies to lands of public domain
which have been declared open to disposition or concession and
officially delimited and classified. It contains provisions on the different
modes of government grant, e.g. homestead, sale, free patent and
reservation for public and semi-public purpose.
d. PD 1529 issued on June 11, 1978.

B. Certificate of Title

1. This is the true copy of the decree of registration or the transcription

thereof and like the decree shall also be signed by LRA Administrator1593

It takes effect upon the date of entry thereof, and the land covered thereby
becomes registered land on that date.

2. Land title – is the evidence of the right of the owner or the extent of
his interest, and by which means he can maintain control, and as a rule assert
right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of property.

3. Deed – is an instrument in writing which any real estate or interest

therein is created, alienated, mortgaged or assigned or by which title to any real
estate may be affected in law or equity.

4. Fee simple – absolute title, absolute estate in perpetuity. Land is

conferred upon a man and his heirs absolutely and without any limitation imposed
upon the State.

II. Nature and stages

 1. Land registarion is a proceeding in rem. (Sec. 2, PD 1529). A proceeding
is in rem when the object of the action is to bar indifferently all who
might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right
sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be
heard on the strength of alleging facts which, if true, show an
inconsistent interest. In rem proceedings does not require personal
service of notice to all claimants of the res.
2. Roxas vs. Enriquez (1914): a proceeding in rem, dealing with a tangible res,
may be instituted and carried to judgment, without personal service.
3. Three stages
a. Production and delivery of deed by grantor to grantee without
registration
b. Deed of conveyance is recorded to bind third persons
c. Registration of title

III. Purpose of registration

1. It serves as constructive notice

2. Prevents fraudulent claims
3. Protects interest of strangers to transaction
4. Grey Alba vs. CA(1910): To establish and certify to the ownership of an
absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and to simply its transfer.
5. SM Prime Holdings vs. Angela Madayag (2009): The fundamental
purpose of the Land Registration Decree is to finally settle title to real
property, in order to preempt any question on the illegality of the title –
except claims that were noted on the certificate itself at the time of
registration or those that arose subsequent thereto. Consequently, once
the title is registered under the said law, owners can rest secure on their
ownership and possession.

IV. Modes of acquiring land titles

1. Title by public grant – conveyance of public land by government to a

private individual
2. Title by acquisitive prescription - open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious possession of a property
3. Title by accretion – alluvion
4. Title by reclamation – filling of submerged land by deliberate act and
reclaiming title thereto.
5. Title by voluntary transfer – private grant; voluntary execution of deed
of conveyance
 6. Title by involuntary alienation – no consent from owner of land; forcible
acquisition by state (expropriation)
7. Title by descent or devise – hereditary succession to the estate of
deceased owner
8. Title by emancipation patent or grant – for purpose of ameliorating
sad plight of tenant-farmers except by hereditary succession.

V. Jurisdiction

1. General Rule: Land registration proceedings and all petitions after original
registration of titles are filed with the RTC of the province or the city where the
land or a portion of it lies.

Exceptions:

MeTC or MTC has jurisdiction if the case involves (1) lot without controversy
or opposition, or (2) contested lots where the value does not exceed P100,000.00.

2. PD 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested

in RTC and the latter’s limited jurisdiction when acting merely as a land registration
court. Land registration courts can no hear and decide even controversial and
contentious cases, as well as those involving substantial issues. It may, therefore,
hear and determine all questions that arise from a petition for registration.

V. Torrens Certificate of Title

1. Original Certificate of Title – the first certificate of title issued in the name
of the registered owner by the Register of Deeds covering a parcel of land which
had been registered under the torrens system, by virtue of judicial or
administrative proceedings.

2. Transfer Certificate of Title – the subsequent certificate of title pursuant to

any deed of transfer or conveyance to another person.

3. Patent – titles issued involving public lands which are alienated by the
government pursuant to the Public Land Act.

4. A torrens title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even by adverse,

open and notorious possession. A registered title under the Torrens system cannot
be defeated by prescription. The title once registered, is notice to the whole
world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead ignorance of the
registration. (Egao vs. CA, 1989)

VI. Original Registration

1. Laws governing registration

a. PD 1529 – covering original and cadastral registration proceedings.

b. CA 141 – governing the procedure for the judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title; covering lands of the public domain
which have been declared open to disposition or concession and
officially delimited and classified.
c. RA No. 8371 – the IPRA recognizes the right of ownership and
possession of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral
domains and lands on the basis of the native title and defines the
extent of these lands and domains. It converts ancestral lands to
public agricultural lands and members or communities have the
option of securing title pursuant to CA 141 or PD 1529.

2. Effect of registration

a. Registration does not vest or give tile to the land, but merely
confirms and thereafter protects the title already possessed by
the owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties.
It does not give the owner any better title than he has.
b. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A
certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true
owner or as shield for the commission of fraud. (Vagalidad vs.
Vagalidad, 2006)
c. Camitan and Lopez vs. Fidelity Investment Corp. (2008)
Possession of an owner’s duplicate copy of a certificate of title is not
necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The
certificate itself does not vest ownership. It is merely an evidence of
the title over the property.

d. Registration under the Torrens system, not being a mode of

acquiring ownership, does not create or vest title. The Torrens certificate of
title is merely an evidence of ownership or title in the particular property
described therein. In that sense, the issuance of the certificate of title to a
particular person does not preclude the possibility that persons not named
in the certificate may be co-owners of the real property therein described
with the person named therein, or that the registered owner may be holding
the property in trust for another person. Nonetheless, it is essential that
 title registered under the Torrens system becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible. (Casimiro Development Corporation vs. Mateo G.R.
No. 175485. July 27, 2011)

VII. Original Registration Proceedings

1. Steps in Original Registration Proceedings

a. Determine if the land is registrable

b. Determine if you are qualified to apply
c. Survey the land
d. Files the application (survey attached) for land registration with the
appropriate court
e. Court sets initial hearing
f. Publication of the initial hearing
g. File an opposition to the application
h. Hearing
i. Judgment
j. Issuance of the decree

2. What lands are registrable?

a. Registrable land
i. Private lands
ii. Agricultural lands

• Republic vs. CA and Naguit (2005) – the land must be classified as alienable
and disposable. It must be classified as such at the time of filing the
application for registration.

• HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ISSUES:

1. In order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be
registered under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known
as the Property Registration Decree, should the land be classified as alienable and
disposable as of June 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such classification occur at
any time prior to the filing of the applicant for registration provided that it is
established that the applicant has been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945 or earlier?
2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree may a parcel
of land classified as alienable and disposable be deemed private land and therefore
susceptible to acquisition by prescription in accordance with the Civil Code?

3. May a parcel of land established as agricultural in character either because of

its use or because its slope is below that of forest lands be registrable under
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in relation to the provisions of
the Civil Code on acquisitive prescription?

4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of the subject land in their names
under Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree or both?

HELD:

The Petition is denied.

(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree, Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms that “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” have acquired ownership of, and registrable title
to, such lands based on the length and quality of their possession.

(a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession since 12 June 1945 and does
not require that the lands should have been alienable and disposable during the
entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to secure judicial confirmation
of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable, subject to the
timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the Public Land Act.

(b) The right to register granted under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is
further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider
that under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized as a mode of acquiring
ownership of patrimonial property. However, public domain lands become only
patrimonial property not only with a declaration that these are alienable or
disposable. There must also be an express government manifestation that the
property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the
development of national wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And only when
the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition
of property of the public dominion begin to run.
(a) Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person
acquires ownership of patrimonial property by prescription under the Civil Code is
entitled to secure registration thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree.

(b) There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be
acquired, one ordinary and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive
prescription, a person acquires ownership of a patrimonial property through
possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person’s uninterrupted adverse possession
of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or
just title, ripens into ownership.

It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is insufficient to establish that Malabanan

has acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48(b) of the Public
Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or
petitioners as his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property
since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their
possession, according to their own evidence—the Tax Declarations they presented
in particular—is to the year 1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of
registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.

Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14(2) as basis for registration.
While the subject property was declared as alienable or disposable in 1982, there
is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use service or for
the development of the national evidence, conformably with Article 422 of the Civil
Code. The classification of the subject property as alienable and disposable land
of the public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion
under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition by
prescription.

2013 Heirs of Malabanan Case

8.1. Alienable and disposable 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. A positive act
of the Government is necessary to enable such reclassification, and the
exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws is vested in the
Executive Department, not in the courts. If, however, public land will be
classified as neither agricultural, forest or timber, mineral or national park, or
when public land is no longer intended for public service or for the development
of the national wealth, thereby effectively removing the land from the ambit of
public dominion, a declaration of such conversion must be made in the form of a
law duly enacted by Congress or by a Presidential proclamation in cases where
the President is duly authorized by law to that effect. 27 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.

8.2. To sum up, we now observe the following rules relative to the
disposition of public land or lands of the public domain, namely:

(1) As a general rule and pursuant to 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, to wit:

(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain are rendered alienable and
disposable through any of the exclusive modes enumerated under Section 11 of
the Public Land Act. 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. Thereby, a conclusive presumption that the
applicant has performed all the conditions essential to a government grant arises,
and the applicant becomes the owner of the land by virtue of an imperfect or
incomplete title. By legal fiction, the land has already ceased to be part of the
public domain and has become private property.

(b) Lands of the public domain subsequently classified or declared as no longer

intended for public use or for the development of national wealth are removed
from the sphere of public dominion and are considered converted into patrimonial
lands or lands of private ownership that may be alienated or disposed through any
of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. 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.
 • The following lands cannot be registered
o Forest or timberlands
o Lands for public use, roads, ports and bridges, etc.
o Lands which are owned by the State for public service or
development of national wealth

3. Who may apply?

a. Only Filipino citizens

Exceptions:
• Aliens by way of hereditary succession
• Natural born citizens who have lost their citizenship
o Limited to 5,000 square meters for urban land and 3 hectares for
rural land (RA No. 8179)
• Private corporations may not hold alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease
• Private lands may be owned by a corporation for as long as 60% of its
shares are owned by Filipinos.

• Section 14 of PD 1529

1. Those who by themselves or through their predecessors‐ in‐

interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession an
d occupation of alienable and disposable lands of public domain under a bona
fide claim of ownership since June 12,1945 or earlier;

2. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription

under provisions of existing laws;

3. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river

beds by right of Accession or accretion under the existing laws.

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

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

A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of

any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the
trust.

Judicial Confirmation of Title: CA 141 vs. PD 1529

• Republic vs. Tsai, (2009): CA 141 has been amended many times…As the
law now stands, a mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or
more is not sufficient. Therefore, since the effectivity of PD 1073 on 25 January
1977, it must now be shown that possession and occupation of a piece of land
by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on
12 June 1945 or earlier. This provision is in total conformity with Section 14(1)
of PD 1529.

Ø BUT take note:

· There are still some cases that use CA 141 for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title.

Republic vs. Fabio, (2008): CA 141, also known as the Public Land Act,
remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and
disposition of lands of the public domain, other than timber and mineral lands.

3. Survey

Ø The survey may be done by a public or private surveyor. When done by a

private surveyor it has to be approved by the Land Management Bureau. PD 239
withdrew the authority of the Land Registration Authority to approve original
survey plans.

The application for land registration shall be:

• in writing
• signed and sworn to by the applicant/duly authorized person, and if more than
one applicant, it shall be signed and sworn to by and in behalf of each
• It shall contain:
• a description of the land
 • citizenship and civil status of the applicant
• if married, the name of the wife or husband
• if the marriage has been legally dissolved, when and how
• full names and addresses of all occupants and those of the adjoining
owners, if known
• if not known, it shall state the extent of the search made to find
them.

Note: It must be accompanied by the original tracing cloth plan, white or blue
copies thereof, the original and copies of the technical description and geodetic
engineer’s certification.

• If the land bounded by a road, the applicant must state in his application if
he claims any portion of the land within the limits of the road, or if he likes
to have the boundaries determined.

• If the applicant is a non-resident, he shall appoint an agent or

representative who is a Philippine resident

Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro vs. CA, (1996): A person
claiming ownership of real property must clearly identify the land claimed by him.

In re: Application for Land Registration vs. Republic, (2008, Nachura):

An applicant in a land registration case must prove the facts and circumstances
evidencing the alleged ownership of the land applied for. General statements which
are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession are unavailing.
The deeds in its favor only proved possession of its predecessors-ininterest as early
as 1948. (The law now stands that a mere showing of possession for 30 years is
not sufficient. OCEN possession must be shown to have stated on June 12, 1945
or earlier.)
4. Notice of Initial Hearing

a. Under Sec. 23 of PD 1529, after the filing of the application for

registration of title to land, the next step is for the proper RTC, within 5 days from
said filing, to “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.
In turn, the public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for
land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.”

b. Purpose and effects of publication. – The primary purposes and

effects of publication of the notice of initial hearing of application are: (1) to confer
jurisdiction over the land applied for upon the court, and (2) to charge the whole
world with knowledge of the application of the land involved, and invite them to
take part in the case and assert and prove their rights over the property subject
thereof.

c. The notice of initial hearing must be published once in the Official

Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation, provided, however, that
the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon
the court.

d. In Republic vs. Marasigan, 198 SCRA 228, the Supreme Court ruled
that Section 23 of PD 1529 requires mailing and posting of the notice of initial
hearing not only publication in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general
circulation.

e. A defective publication of the notice deprives the court of jurisdiction

(Po vs. Republic, 40 SCRA 37). The following are examples of defective
publication:

1. where what was published in the Official Gazette is the description

of the bigger lot which includes the land subject of registration and
this is the description to be published.
2. where the actual publication of the notice of initial hearing was after
the hearing itself, Thus, in Register of Deeds of Malabon vs. RTC,
Malabon, Branch 170 (181 SCRA 788) it was held that the court did
not acquire jurisdiction if the Official Gazette was circulated later
than the date of the hearing of the application.

f. Persons and officials to whom notice is given by mailing

1. to every person named in the notice whose address is known.

2. to the Secretaries of DPWH and DAR, the Provincial Governor,
Municipal or City Mayor, who has jurisdiction over the land
applied for.
3. to the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands Management
Bureau, the Director of Mines and the Director of BFAR.
4. to such other persons as the court may deem proper.

5. Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings

a. Sec. 25 of PD 1529 provides that nay person claiming an interest,

whether named in the notice or not, may file an opposition on or before the date
of initial hearing or within such further time as may be allowed by the court.

b. Under the criteria set by Sec. 25 of PD 1529, the following may be

the proper oppositors:
 1. a homesteader who had not yet been issued his title but who had
fulfilled all the conditions required by law to entitle him to a patent;
2. a purchaser of friar land before the issuance of patent to him; and
3. persons who claim to be in possession of a tract of land and have
applied with the Bureau of Lands for its purchase.

c. Under Sec . 25, the opposition shall state all the objections to the
application and set forth the interest claimed by the oppositor, and duly sworn to
by him or his duly authorized representative.

6. Default

a. Sec. 26 of PD 1529 provides that if no person appears and answers

within the time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason
to the contrary appearing, order a default to be recorded and require the applicant
to present evidence. Where an appearance has been entered and an answer is
filed, a default order shall be entered against persons who did not appear and
answer.

b. A defaulted interested person may however gain standing in court

by filing a motion to set aside the order of default in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
c. In Director of Lands vs. Santiago, 160 SCRA 186, the SC held
that declaring a person, who filed an opposition or answer, in default due to his
failure to appear during the hearing, is improper, even illegal.

d. In land registration cases, a motion to dismiss an application or a

motion to dismiss the opposition is allowed as held in Valisno vs. Plan, 143 SCRA
502.

7. Evidence

a. Specific Evidence that the applicant must present:

1. Proof that the land has been declassified from the forest zone, is
alienable or disposable, and is registrable.

1. Presidential proclamation
2. Executive order
3. Administrative order
4. Certification by the Director of Forestry
5. Statutes
 2. Proof on the identity of land

6. survey plan
7. tracing cloth or blue print copy
8. technical description

3. Proof of private ownership

9. tax declarations
10. payment of real estate taxes

Notes:
1. Municipality of Santiago vs. CA, (1983):

Tax declaration and receipts are not conclusive but have strong
probative value when accompanied by proof of actual possession.

2. Republic vs. Tayag, (1984): Payment in one lump sum to cover

all past taxes is “irregular” and affects the validity of the applicant’s
claim of ownership

3. Spanish titles are no longer admissible.

4. Republic vs. Alconaba, (April 14, 2004):The law speaks of

possession and occupation. Since these words are separated
by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to
make one synonymous with the other. 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. Actual possession of a
land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it
of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his
own property.

5. Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, 555 SCRA 477

Persons authorized to issue certifications of alienability and

disposability:
 Under DAO No. 20, series of 1988:
• CENRO issues certificates of land classification status
for areas below 50 hectares.
• The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Offices (PENRO) issues certificate of land classification
status for lands covering over 50 hectares.

8. Judgment

a. Under Sec. 29 of PD 1529, the court is required to consider not only

the evidence presented but also the reports of the Commissioner of LRA and
Director of Lands before rendering judgment.

b. The judgment rendered in a land registration proceedings becomes

final upon the expiration of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of
judgment . An appeal may be taken from the judgment of the court as in ordinary
civil cases.

c. After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the
court to forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of PD 1529 to the
Commissioner of LRA for the issuance of the decree of registration and the
corresponding certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged entitled to
registration.

d. In Republic vs. Abaya, 182 SCRA 524, it was held that court orders
and decisions sent to the Fiscal, acting as agent of the Solicitor General in land
registration cases, are not binding until they are actually received by the Solicitor
General.

e. Notwithstanding the lapse of the 15-day period from receipt of

judgment by the parties, the court continues to retain control of the case until the
expiration of 1 year after the entry of decree of registration by the LRA. (Gomez
vs. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 503)

f. While the law explicitly mandates the court to issue the order to the
LRA Administrator within fifteen days from entry of judgment, the court may
nonetheless still issue the said order even beyond that period so as not to prejudice
the adjudged owner. (Vda. De Barroza vs. Albano, 157 SCRA 136)

9. Decree of Registration

a. Contents of the decree. – Every decree of registration shall bear the

date, hour and minute of its entry, and shall be signed by the LRA Administrator;
it shall state whether the owner is married or unmarried; and if married, the name
of the husband or wife; shall contain a description of the land as finally approved
by the court, and shall set forth the estate of the owner, and also, in such manner
as to show their relative priorities, all particular estates, mortgages, easements,
liens, attachments, and other encumbrances, including rights of tenant-farmers, if
any.

b. The decree of registration binds the land, quiets title thereto, subject
only to such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It is conclusive upon
all persons, including the national government. The decree, after the lapse of 1
year from date of issuance, becomes incontrovertible (Sec. 32, 2nd par., PD 1529).

c. The duty of LRA Administrator to issue the decree of registration is

ministerial in the sense that he acts under the orders of the court.

10. Certificate of Title

a. The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of

registration and like the decree shall also be signed by the Administrator of the
LRA. Such certificate of title is therefore the transcription of the decree.

b. Sec. 41 of PD 1529 provides that the owner’s duplicate certificate of

title shall be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly authorized
representative. Sec. 43 of the same decree states that subsequent certificates of
title may be issued by the Register of Deeds pursuant to any voluntary or
involuntary instrument relating to the same land shall be in like form entitled
“transfer certificate of title”.

c. Probative value of certificate of title. – A torrens title is the best

evidence of ownership over registered land. (Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals,
198 SCRA 472)

d. Attributes of, and limitations on, certificates of title and registered

lands:

1. Free from liens and encumbrances, except:

a. Liens, claims or rights existing under the laws and Constitution
which are not required to appear of record in the Registry of
Deeds
b. Unpaid real estate Taxes levied and assessed within 2 yrs
preceding the acquisition of any right over the land
c. Any public Highway or private way established or recognized by
law, or any government irrigation canal or lateral thereof, if the
 certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such have
been determined.
d. Any disposition of the property or limitation on the use thereof by
virtue of, or pursuant to, Presidential Decree No. 27 or any other
laws on Agrarian reform.

2. Incontrovertible and indefeasible – upon expiration of 1 year from

the date of the decree of registration

• Ground for reopening and reviewing the decree of registration:

actual fraud (Asked in ’92)

• Periods:
o Must be reopened not later than 1 year from and after the
date of the entry of such decree. (Asked in ’90 and ’03)
o Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree
of registration and the certificate of title issued shall
become incontrovertible. The only remedy left is an action
for damages.

• Prohibitions:
o Cannot be reopened because of absence, minority, or
other disability of any person adversely affected thereby
o Cannot be reopened where an innocent purchaser for
value may be prejudiced
o (includes an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value.)

Arguelles vs. Timbancaya, (1976): The rule on the

incontrovertible nature of a certificate of title applies when what is
involved is the validity of the OCT, not when it concerns that of the
TCT.
3. Registered land not subject to prescription

Barcelona vs. Barcelona, (1956):

Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but
also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step
into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely
the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest.

4. Certificate of title not subject to collateral attack – Sec. 48 of PD 1529

provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
 attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct
proceedings in accordance with law.

Spouses Padilla vs. Velasco, et. al, G.R. No. 169956 (2009,
Nachura)

Facts: Velasco et al (respondents) are the heirs of Artemio who died,

leaving a parcel of land. He acquired it by virtue of a deed of sale in
his favor. The Padilla sps (petitioners) entered the land as trustees
by virtue of a deed of sale executed by a bank in favor of the
Solomon sps. Velascos demanded that the Padillas vacate the
property.

Padillas cut trees, built a house and harvested crops. Velascos filed
a complaint for accion publiciana before the RTC. Velascos presented
deed of sale in favor of Artemio, while Padillas presented deed of
sale between bank and Solomons. The Padillas also argue that the
Solomon sps acquired the land in good faith and for value and that
they argue that Lot 2161 (the one they are occupying) and Lot 76-
pt (the lot the Solomon spouses bought) are one and the same.

Held: The Velascos have a better right to the land. The instant case
is for accion publiciana, or for recovery of the right to possess.

Accion publiciana is also used to refer to an ejectment suit where the

cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost for more
than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court.

The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover

possession only, not ownership. The Velascos were able to establish
lawful possession of the land when the Padillas occupied the
property. The OCT was issued to the original owners who then sold
the land to Artemio.

From then on, he was in continuous possession of the land until his
death. It was only in 1987, when the Padillas occupied the property.
The argument that the lots are one and the same
is a collateral attack on the title over the property which is
registered in the name of Artemio, which cannot be countenanced.

5. Torrens certificate presumed valid and devoid of flaws

VIII. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title

1. General Rule: No title or right to, or equity in, any lands of the public domain
may be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession or occupancy except as
expressly provided by law. The Public Land Act recognizes the concept of
ownership under the civil law. This ownership is based on adverse possession and
the right of acquisition is governed by the Chapter on judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete titles.

• This applies only to alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public
domain. Under Sec. 6 of CA 141, the classification of public lands into alienable
and disposable forest lands, or mineral lands is the prerogative of the Executive
Department.

• Bracewell vs. CA, (2000): The rule on confirmation of imperfect title does not
apply unless and until the land classified as, say, forest land, is released in an
official proclamation to that effect so that if may form part of the disposable
agricultural lands of the public domain.

2. Period of Filing

Ø RA No. 9176 extended the period to file an application for judicial confirmation
of imperfect or incomplete title to December 31, 2020. It further limited the area
applied for to 12 hectares.

3. Requisites

• Filipino citizen
• He must have, by himself, or thru his predecessors – in - interest, possessed
and occupied an alienable and disposable agricultural portion of the public
domain
• Such possession and occupation must have been OCEN and in the concept
of owner since June 12, 1945
• Application filed with proper court

4. Private Corporations

Ø Director Of Lands vs. IAC and Acme Plywood and Veneer Co., (1986): 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
corporation acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply for the
land was no longer public land but private property. Since
the land is private, the corporation can institute confirmation proceedings.

NOTE:
Ø MAXIMUM LAND THAT CAN BE APPLIED FOR: 144 hectares
Ø In case of foreigner, it sufficient that he is already Filipino citizen at the time of
his application.
Ø Corporation who has less than 60% Filipino ownership cannot apply
confirmation of imperfect title; can only lease
Ø PERSONS COMPETENT TO QUESTION LAND GRANT:
Persons who obtained title from State or thru persons who obtained title from
State.

IX. Cadastral Registration

a. Steps in Cadastral Registration Proceedings

1. Determination of the President that public interest requires title to

unregistered lands be settled
2. Director of lands shall make a cadastral survey
3. Director of Lands gives notice to interested persons
4. Publication of notice
5. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the mayor and the sanggunian
6. Geodetic engineers/ Bureau of Land employees shall notify (re: survey)
by posting at the municipal building
7. Interested persons should communicate with the geodetic engineer if he
requests for any information about the land
8. Actual survey/ plotting of the land
9. Director of Lands represented by Solicitor General shall institute original
registration proceedings
10. Publication, mailing posting
11. Hearing
12. Decision
13. Issuance of the decree and certificate of title

NOTE: In voluntary registration proceedings, there is no res judicata when the

applicant fails to prove his title. In cadastral registration, if the applicant cannot
prove that he is entitled to the land, the land becomes public land. There is res
judicata.

X. Subsequent Registration
Two Types of Dealings

A. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS
Ø Deeds, instruments, documents which are the results of free and voluntary acts
of parties thereto.

B. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
Ø Writ, order, or process issued by the court of record affecting registered land,
also other instruments which are not willful acts of the registered owner, executed
without his knowledge or consent.

NOTE: The deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will
shall ONLY operate as:
1. A contract between the parties and 2. Evidence of authority to the Register of
Deeds to make registration.
Ø The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned.
Ø A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no title. (Asked in ’85, ’89,
’00 and’05)
· EXCEPTION: If there is good faith, a TCT has already been issued to the
purchaser, the latter being an innocent purchaser for value according to Sec. 39,
PD 1529, then the title is good.
Ø Every entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the
office of the Register of Deeds be constructive notice to all persons from the time
of registering.

VOLUNTARY DEALINGS INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS

Sale, mortgage, lease, patent, Attachment, injunction,

powers of attorney, trusts mandamus, levy on execution,
notice of lis pendens
Presentation of the owner’s Entry in the day book is sufficient
notice to all persons
duplicate
certificate of title is required to
notify;
mere entry insufficient

An innocent purchaser for value of Lenin vs. Bass, (1952):

registered land becomes the Entry thereof in the day book of
registered owner the moment he the ROD is sufficient notice to all
presents and files a duly notarized persons even if the owner’s
and valid deed of sale and the
duplicate certificate of title is not
same is entered in the day book
presented
and at the same time he
surrenders or presents the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title
covering the land sold and pays
the registration fees. (Asked in ’98)

Villasor vs. Camon, Dir. Of Lands vs. Reyes,

(1951):
It is necessary to register the deed
or
instrument in the entry book and a
memorandum thereof shall also be
made in the owner’s duplicate
certificate and its original
(1976):
Entry in the day book is sufficient
notice to all persons of an adverse
claim without the same being
annotated at the back of the
certificate of title
 Spouses Labayen vs. Leonardo AFP Mutual Benefit
Serafica, (2008, Nachura): At the Association vs. Santiago,
time of the filing of the petition for (2008, Nachura): Entry of the
cancellation of encumbrance, the attachment in the books is
lease contract already lost its sufficient notice to all persons.
efficacy. Thus, there is no basis to Hence, the fact
save its annotation on defendant’s that the deed of sale was already
annotated is of no moment with
title. The fact that the
regard to third persons. The
cancellation of the lease contract
preference created by the levy on
was
attachment is not diminished by
forged is of no moment, for there
the subsequent registration of the
was
deed of sale.
no violation of a right.

General Rule:
Ø Campillo vs. PNB. (1969): Mirror doctrine - A person dealing with registered
property need not go beyond, but only has to rely on, the title.
(Asked in ’86 and ’04)
Ø He is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims which are annotated
on the title, for registration is the operative act that binds the property. (Asked in
’84 and’04)
Ø When should a purchaser investigate?
· Banks are required to exercise more care and prudence in dealing with registered
lands for their business is one affected with public interest. The general rule does
not apply.
· Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery, (1918): When party concerned has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man
to make inquiry.
· Jamoc vs. CA, (1991): When purchaser is in bad faith; e.g. he had full knowledge
of a previous sale.
Quiniano vs. CA, (1971): When a person buys land from one whose rights over
the land is evidenced only by a deed of sale and an annotation in the certificate of
title but no TCT.

Exceptions to Mirror doctrine

1. Where the purchaser or mortgagee is a Bank/financing institution;

2. Where the Owner still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering
the same property because the law protects the lawful holder of a re
gistered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rig
ht;
3. Purchaser in Bad faith;
4. Purchases land with a certificate of title containing a notice of lis pendens
5. Sufficiently strong indications to impel closer Inquiry into the location
, boundaries and condition of the lot;
6. Purchaser had full Knowledge of flaws and defects in the title; or
7. Where a person buys land not from the registered owner but from whose r
ights to the land has been merely Annotated on the certificate of title.

XI. Registration of public land

1. Classification of Land of the Public Domain

A. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

1. Agricultural- only type of land that is alienable
2. Forest or timber
3. Mineral lands
4. National Park

B. UNDER THE PUBLIC LAND ACT

1. Alienable/disposable
a. Agricultural
b. Residential, commercial, industrial
c. Educational, charitable
d. Town sites and for public and quasi-public uses
2. Timber lands – inalienable
3. Mineral lands – inalienable
NOTE:
Ø If patent of title is issued for inalienable lands, such patent or title is void ab
initio Ø Not subject to acquisitive prescription; even if in possession for long time,
will not ripen into ownership.
Ø EXCEPT: mineral lands and forest lands acquired before inauguration of
Commonwealth in November 15, 1935; vested rights which are protected · is
exclusive prerogative of executive & not by judiciary

· Anyone who applies for confirmation of imperfect title has burden of proof to
overcome the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of
public domain (Regalian doctrine)

· Before, fishponds are included in the definition of agriculture, conversion of

agricultural land to fishponds does not change character of land.

· Now: restricted meaning; fishponds has distinct category; cannot be

alienated but maybe leased from government

· Republic vs. Imperial, (2000): The classification of public lands is a function

of the executive branch of government.

2. Modes of Alienating Public Lands:

A. Homestead settlement
B. Sale
C. Confirmation of Imperfect or incomplete title,
supra.
1. Judicial legalization
2. Administrative legalization
NOTE:
Ø Lease is not included since lease does not transfer ownership
Ø Free-title grant: free distribution of public lands to encourage people to
cultivate: government furnishes the applicant with tolls plus cash allowance to
enable him to cultivate

Patents
A. WHEN IS GOVERNMENT GRANT DEEMED ACQUIRED BY OPERATION
OF LAW

1. Deed of conveyance issued by government patent/grant

2. Registered with Register of Deeds –mandatory: operative act to convey &
transfer title

3. Actual physical possession, open & continuous

NOTE:
Ø Land ceased to be part of public domain & now ownership vests to the grantee
Ø Any further grant by Government on same land is null & void
Ø Upon registration, title is indefeasible.

TITLE ISSUED PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF PATENT

1. Indefeasible – when registered, deemed incorporated with Torrens system; 1
year after issuance of patent

2. May not be opened one year after entry by Land Registration Authority;
otherwise, confusion, uncertainty & confusion on government system, of
distribution of public lands may arise & this must be avoided
EXCEPT: Annullable on ground of fraud, may be reopened even after 1 year
because registration does not shield bad faith

3. Court in exercise of equity jurisdiction may direct reconveyance even without

ordering cancellation of title

8. Remedies

a. An aggrieved party may take any of the remedies available in law to

challenge the judgment in a land registration case or the validity of title issued
pursuant thereto. Such remedies must, however, be seasonably invoked within the
reglementary or prescriptive period or as allowed by jurisprudence and equity.

Motion for New Trial • 15 days from notice of judgment

• Grounds:
· Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable
negligence
· Newly discovered evidence
· Awarded excessive damages, or
insufficiency of evidence, or that the
decision is against law
Appeal · 15 days from notice
· appealable to the CA or to the SC in the
same manner as in ordinary actions

Relief from Judgment · 60 days after petitioner learns of

judgment, but not more than 6 months
after
judgment was entered
· Grounds: Fraud, accident, mistake,
excusable negligence

Petition for Review Requisites:

Walstrom vs. Mapa,, (1990):
· petitioner must have an estate or
interest in the land
· he must show actual fraud
· petition must be filed within one year
form the issuance of the decree by LRA
· property has not yet passed to an
innocent purchaser for value.
· Grounds:
· extrinsic fraud,
· void decision for want of due process
· lack of jurisdiction
· Calalang vs. Register of Deeds (1992):
Under the Torrens system of registration,
the Torrens still becomes indefeasible
and incontrovertible one year form the
issuance of the final decree and is
generally conclusive evidence of the
ownership
· Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CFI, (1983):
· This applies as well to title acquired
through homestead or free patents
Action for · before issuance of decree, or
Reconveyance within/after 1 year from entry
· if based on implied trust, 10 years;
· if based on express trust and void
contract, imprescriptible
· if based on fraud, 4 years from the
discovery
· it is not available if the property has
already been transferred to an innocent
purchaser for value.
· Esconde vs. Barlongay, (1987): It does
not reopen proceedings but a mere
transfer of the land from registered
owner to the rightful owner
· Huang vs. CA,1994:
· It is available in case of fraud thereby
creating a constructive trust between
parties
Damages Ching vs. CA, 1990:
· It can be availed of when reconveyance
is no longer possible as when the land
has been transferred to an innocent
purchaser for value
Action for Compensation · Requisites:
from the Assurance
Fund · A person sustains loss or damage or is
deprived by any estate or interest in land
· On account of bringing of land under the
Torrens system
· Through (FEMOM) fraud, error, mistake,
omission, or misdescription in the
certificate of entry in the registration
book
· Without negligence on his part
· And is barred from bringing an action for
recovery of the land.
· The action has not prescribed. It must
be instituted within 6 years from the time
the right to bring such action first
occurred--> date of issue of the
certificate of title
· Against whom filed: against the Register
of Deeds and the National Treasurer if
FEMOM is caused by court personnel,
Register of Deeds, his deputy or other
employees of the Registry
· If other those above mentioned: the
Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer
and other person or persons, as co-
defendants.
Annulment of Judgment · Grounds: extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction.
· Galicia vs. Marquez (2007): Ordinary
remedies of appeal, motion for new trial
etc
should no longer be available. If based on
extrinsic fraud, file 4 within years from
discovery.
· If based on lack of jurisdiction, before it
is barred by laches or estoppel

Reversion · Instituted by the government, thru

Solgen in all cases where lands of public
domain are held in violation of the
Constitution or were fraudulently
conveyed.
· Indefeasibility of title, prescription,
laches, and estoppel do not bar reversion
suits.

Criminal Action Perjury, Forgery, Others involving fraud