BELMONTE, VICENTE ERIC DG.

Land, Title and Deeds

Assignment No. 1

1. WHAT IS REGALIAN DOCTRINE? WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF

THIS DOCTRINE?

Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State and that
lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State.

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND

PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING—“ Paragraph 1, Section 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. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements
may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In
cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than
the development of water power,beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the
grant.”

The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for
public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well
as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development
and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing
it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing agreements, or into
agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance
for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization.

2. WHAT IS A NATIVE TITLE. CITE THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

SUPPORTING NATIVE TITLES.

This is the Doctrine of Native Title, which arose from a US Supreme Court
decision in 1909 written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes on a case filed by my great
grandfather, indigenous Ibaloi leader Mateo Cariño, vs. the US colonial government in
the Philippines. In 1903, the US colonial Government expropriated the ancestral lands
of the Cariño family for the establishment of a US military base known as Camp John
Hay. Mateo Cariño filed suit against the Insular Government for this illegal taking of his
family’s pasturelands.

The legal case, Cariño vs. Insular Government, went through the court system
and reached all the way to the US Supreme Court, which finally decided in Mateo
Cariño’s favor after six long years. In 1909 the US Supreme Court declared that that “…
when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, that land has been held by individuals
under a claim or 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…. Law and
justice require that the applicant should be granted what he seeks, and should not be
deprived of what by practice and belief of those among whom he lived, was his
property.”

The Cariño doctrine was the basis for the definition of Native Title under the
Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. Indigenous peoples in the
Philippines have effectively used the Doctrine of Native Title to assert our rights over
their ancestral domains through self-delineation and self-declaration of Native Title in
accordance with customary law.

3. IS THERE A CONFLICT BETWEEN REGALIAN FOCTRINE AND THE CONCEPT

OF NATIVE TITLES? WHY?

Yes.

Under the Regalian doctrine, private title to land must be traced to some grant, or
title, given by the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government,
and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. This is in direct conflict with indigenous peoples’
concepts of land rights and ownership, which are based on occupation since time
immemorial. The Regalian doctrine is still in effect until today and the Philippine
constitution contains provisions that clearly state that all lands of the public domain and
all natural resources belong to the State. 

On one hand, indigenous peoples are asserting their right to land and self-
determination when confronted with destructive development projects such as mining,
logging, plantations, dams and other forms of extractive industries and development
aggression. On the other hand, the government insists that they have the right and
power to take over indigenous peoples’ land and resources for exploitation by private
corporations, because these are part of the public domain.

4. SUPPOSING A, AN IP, HAS BEEN OCCUPYING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND

SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL, CAN A REGISTER THE LAND? WHY? SUPPOSING
THE LAND IS CLASSIFIED AS FORESTLAND? CAN A REGISTER THE LAND?

Yes.
 Regardless of the classification of the land, for as long as it falls under ancestral
domain and ancestral land under RA 8371 AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND
PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION
ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, it can be
registered.

Ancestral Domains — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas generally

belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural
resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by
ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since
time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force
majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government
projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private
individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and
cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural,
and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise,
hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other
natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs
but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional
activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting
cultivators;

Ancestral Lands — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land occupied,

possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the
ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the
present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit,
stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings
entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not
limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and
tree lots;

5. WHAT ARE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION? WHO UNDERTAKES SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION?

SEC. 3, ART. XII, 1987 CONSTITUTION: Lands of the public domain are
classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks.
Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the
uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands. 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.

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.

6. WHAT IS SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS? WHO

UNDERTAKES SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION?

COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141* - AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE THE

LAWS RELATIVE TO LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Section 9. For the purpose of
their administration and disposition, the lands of the public domain alienable or open to
disposition shall be classified, according to the use or purposes to which such lands are
destined, as follows:

(a) Agricultural

(b) Residential commercial industrial or for similar productive purposes

(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes

(d) Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public uses.

The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and

Commerce, shall from time to time make the classifications provided for in this section,
and may, at any time and in a similar manner, transfer lands from one class to another.

7. WHAT ARE THE NATIONAL AGENCIES THAT HAVE MANDATES TO ISSUE

TITLES? CITE THE TYPES OF TITLES THEY ISSUE?

LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY -  is an agency of the Philippine

government under the Department of Justice responsible for issuing decrees of
registration and certificates of title and register documents, patents and other land
transactions for the benefit of landowners, agrarian-reform beneficiaries and the
registering public in general; providing a secure, stable and trustworthy record of land
ownership and recorded interests therein so as to promote social and economic well-
being and contribute to the national development.

8. WHAT IS TORRENS SYSTEM? CITE THE BENEFITS OF PLACING YOUR TITLE

UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM. WILL THE OWNER OF THE TITLE HAVE
ADDITIONAL RIGHTS WHEN THE TITLE IS PLACED UNDER THE SYSTEM? IS
THE SYSTEM CONSIDERED MODE OF TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP?

TORRENS SYSTEM is 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.

Generally, by “Torrens” systems are meant those systems of registration of

transactions with interest in land whose declared object is, under governmental
authority, to establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and indefeasible title
to realty, and to simplify its transfer.

Benefits:
 Substituted security for insecurity
 Reduced the cost of conveyance from pounds to shillings, and the time
occupied from months to days
 It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage
 It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the 3 R’s
(which means Reading, writing and arithmetic) can transact his own conveyance
 It affords protection against fraud
 It has restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding
titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has
barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults

The registration under the Torrens System, does not give the owner any better
title than he had. The registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation
over the same between the same parties. It is a notice to the world and no one can
plead ignorance of the registration.

Registration under the Torrens Law was never intended as a means of acquiring
ownership. Not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely a PROCEDURE to
establish evidence of title over realty. Where a petitioner’s registration of their deed of
sale was done in bad faith, it is as if no registration was made at all insofar as private
respondent is concerned.

9. DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION:

CA I41 amended the second Public Land Act after the passage of the 1935
Constitution. The present Public Land Act, which is essentially the same as Act No.
2874. The main difference between the two relates to the transitory provision on the
rights of American citizens and corporations during the Commonwealth period at par
with Filipino citizen and corporations. CA No. 141, approved November 7, 1936, applies
to lands of the 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 reservations for
public and semi-public purpose.

CA 496 - Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) was approved on November 6,
1902, but it became effective on January 1, 1903. It established the Torrens system of
registration in the country. It created a court called the Court of Land Registration which
had exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for registration, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising upon such applications. The sole purpose of the law was
to bring land titles in the Philippines under one comprehensive and harmonious system,
the cardinal features of which are indefeasibility of title and the intervention of the State
as a prerequisite to the creation and transfer of titles and interests, with the resultant
increase in the use of land as a business asset by reason of the greater certainty and
security of title.Registration under the system did not create a title. It simply confirmed a
title already created and vested.

ACT NO 2259 - The cadastral system of registration took effect with the
enactment on February 11, 1913 of Act No. 2259. When, in the opinion of the President,
the public interest requires that title to any lands be settled and adjudicated, he shall
order the Director of Lands to make a survey thereof, with notice to all persons claiming
an interest therein. Thereafter, the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor
General, shall institute registration proceedings by filing a petition in the proper court
against the holders, claimants, possessors or occupants of such lands, stating that the
public interest requires that the titles to such lands be settled and adjudicated. Cadastral
proceeding is a proceeding in rem, hence, generally binding upon the whole world.

PD 1529- On June 11, 1978, PD No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree was approved. The Decree was issued to update the Land
Registration Act and to codify the various laws relative to registration of property
and to facilitate effective implementation of said laws. It codified and incorporated
the following laws related to property registration:

1. Act 496, The Land Registration Act

2. CA No. 141, The Public Land Act
3. Act 2259, The Cadastral Act
4. Act 3344, System of Registration for Unregistered Lands
5. Act No. 1508, as amended, The Chattel Mortgage Law
6. Republic Act No. 26, Reconstitution of Original Certificates of Title
7. PD 27, Emancipation Patents, Land Reform Law

 It supersedes all other laws relative to registration of property.

 Judicial proceedings under the Property Registration Decree, like the old Land
Registration Act, are in rem, and are based on the generally accepted principles
underlying the Torrens system.
 Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by giving the public notice of initial hearing
by means of publication, mailing and notice.
  The Decree created the Land Registration Commission, now renamed Land
Registration Authority, as the central repository of records relative to original
registration, including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled lands.

10. DIFFERENCE OF PROCEEDING IN REM AND PROCEEDING IN PERSONAM.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF PROCEEDING IN LAND REGISTRATION?

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal

liability. And action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the
person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and
the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in
rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to
confer jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the
seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of
the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of
the court is recognized and made effective.

Land Registration proceeding are judicial and in rem. Judicial in character and
not merely administrative. Proceeding is in rem (binding upon the whole world). 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.

11. WHICH COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN LAND REGISTRATION?

WHERE DO YOU APPEAL THE DECISION?

RTC have plenary jurisdiction over land registration cases as provided in Section

2 of PD 1529. 

Section 33. PD 1529.  Appeal from judgment, etc. The judgment and orders of
the court hearing the land registration case are appealable to the Court of Appeals or to
the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions:

12. HOW ABOUT DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE INFERIOR COURTS IN

LAND REGISTRATION, WHERE DO YOU APPEAL THE DECISION?
 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.

The judgment and orders of the court hearing the land registration case are
appealable to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the same manner as in
ordinary actions.

13. WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INFERIOR COURT TO EXERCISE
THE DELEGATED FUNCTION? WHAT IF ONE REQUIREMENT IS LACKING, CAN
THE DELEGATED FUNCTIONS BE EXERCISED?

Inferior Courts delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine cadastral or land

registration cases in the following instances:

 Where the lot sought to be registered is not the subject of controversy or

opposition; or
 Where the lot is contested but the value thereof does not exceed P100,000.00,
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by the agreement
of the respective claimants, if there be more than one, or from the corresponding
tax declaration of the real property.

 The Decree has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested
in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when
acting merely as a cadastral court. The amendment was aimed at avoiding
multiplicity of suits and the change has simplified registration proceedings.

 Real Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein

shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has territorial jurisdiction
over the area where the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

 Personal Actions shall be commenced and tried in the proper court where the
plaintiff or any of the principal defendants resides or in the case of anon-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.

14. WHAT ARE SPANISH TITLES? DO WE STILL RESPECT AND RECOGNIZED

THESE TITLES

Spanish titles are those titles listed under the system of registration of the
Spanish Mortgage Law. Which are already discontinued and all lands recorded under
said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as
unregistered lands. Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under
the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the
land shall have been brought under the operation of the Torrens system.

Although evidence of ownership, Spanish titles may be lost through prescription.

PD 592: Spanish titles may no longer be used as evidence of land ownership in

all registration proceedings—the reason for this is the proliferation of dubious Spanish
titles which have raised conflicting claims of ownership and tended to destabilize the
Torrens system of registration.

The abovementioned decree also noted that fraudulent sales, transfers, and
other forms of conveyances of large tracts of public and private lands to unsuspecting
and unwary buyers appear to have been perpetrated by unscrupulous persons claiming
ownership under Spanish titles or grants of dubious origin, and that these fraudulent
transactions have often resulted in conflicting claims and litigations between
legitimate land holders, bona fide occupants or applicants of public lands, on the one
hand, and holders of, or persons claiming rights under, the said Spanish titles or grants,
on the other, creating confusion and instability in property ownership and threatening
the peace and order of conditions in the areas affected.

15. CASES:

DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY V MUNOZ GR L- 24796

 Titulo Propriedad No. 4136 was the high point of controversy in a land claim
involving several hectares of land.
 Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corporation (PIADECO) was claiming to be
the owner of some 72,000 hectares of land located in municipalities of Angat,
Norzagaray, and San Jose Del Monte, province of Bulacan, and in Antipolo and
Montalban, province of Rizal.
 PIADECO relied on the aforementioned title as incontrovertible evidence of its
ownership.
 Justice Sanchez noted the dubious validity of the title in his opinion, stating “Private
ownership of land must be proved not only through the genuineness of title but also
with clear identity of the land claimed xxx no definite area seems to have
beenmentioned in the title”

INTESTATE ESTATE OF DON MARIANO SAN PEDRO V. COURT OF APPEALS

 This is a claim of a huge parcel of land covering lands in the provinces Nueva ecija,
Bulacan, and in cities including Quezon city. (for illustration refer to page 769)
 This case involves 2 cases, which prior to being decided by the SC were
consolidated. The first case was a complaint for recovery of possession and
damages against Ocampo, Buhain, and Dela Cruz.
 In the complaint, it was alleged that the defendants (Ocampo - Dela Cruz) were able
to secure from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City titles to a portions of the
claimed estate. In the end, the lower courts ruled in favor of Ocampo - Dela Cruz,
declaring that the Torrens titles of the defendants cannot be defeated by the alleged
Spanish title, TituloPropriedad no. 4316.
 The 2nd case is a petition for letters of adiministration over the intestate estate of the
late Mariano San Pedro Y Esteban. This involves a prayer to be declared as
administrator. This case eventually ended in the same manner as the first case - the
Titulo de Prorpriedad was declared void and of no legal force, therefore the lands
covered by the Titulo are not within the estate of thedeceased.
 Issue is whethere the Titulo de Propriedad is null and void and therefore the lands
covered or claimed under such title are not included inthe estate of the deceased.
 The Titulo is null and void. It has been defeated by the title of thedefendants under
the Torrens system.
 It is settled that by virtue of Pd no 892 which took effect on Feb 16 1976 the site of
registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished and all holders of
Spanish titles or grants should cause their lands covered thereby to be registered
under the Land Registration Act within 6mos from date of Effectivity of the
saiddecree.
 Proof of compliance (Certificate of Title) with the said decreeshould have been
presented during trial.