A. What are properties that cannot be the subject of registration?

The following are non-registrable properties:

1. Property of Public Dominion

 These properties are parts of the public domain intended for public use or public service, as such, are
outside the commerce and men, and, therefore, not subject to private appropriation.
 Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports, and bridges constructed by
the State, banks, shores, roadsteads and others of similar character;
 Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service
or for the development of the national wealth (Patrimonial Property).
*These properties are also cannot be the subject to levy, encumbrance, or disposition though public
or private sale. So, if a person obtains title under the Torrens system which includes these lands, he
cannot be the owner of such lands.

2. Forest lands
 These lands are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forest Development and beyond the
jurisdiction of the registration court.
 A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply
because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.
 Unless and until the land classified as "forest" is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that
it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of
imperfect title do not apply.

3. Watersheds
 A watershed is an area of land that drains rainwater into one location such as stream, lake, or wetland.
These water bodies supply our drinking water for agriculture and manufacturing.

4. Mangrove swamps
 Mangroves is a community of intertidal plants including species of trees, shrubs, vines and herbs found
on coasts, swamp, or border camps (Sec. 4, RA No. 8550).

5. Mineral lands
 Mineral land means any area where mineral resources are found. Mineral resources are owned by the
State (Sec. 4, RA No. 7942).

6. National parks and protected areas

 National parks refer to forest reservations essentially of natural wilderness character which have been
withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or any form of exploitation except in conformity with approved
management plan and set aside as such exclusively to conserve the area or preserve the scenery, the
natural and historic objects, wild animals and plants therein and to provide enjoyment of these features
in such areas (RA. No. 7586 or the NIPAS Act).

7. Military or naval reservation

 Lands inside a military or naval reservation cannot be the object of registration.

8. Foreshore land
 Foreshore land has been invariably defined as “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.
 may be disposed of only by lease and not by otherwise.

9. Submerged lands

 like the waters (sea or bay) above them, are part of the State’s inalienable natural resources. Submerged
lands are property of public dominion, absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of men.

10. Lakes
  A lake is an area of variable size filled with water, localized in basin, that is surrounded by land, apart
from any river or any outlet that serves to feed or drain the lake.

11. Navigable rivers

 Navigable rivers cannot be appropriated and registered under the Torrens system, nor acquired by
prescription and under a free patent.

12. Creeks
 A creek is a recess or arm extending from a river a participating in the ebb and flow of the sea.

13. Reservations for public and semi-public purposes

 Under Section 83 or CA 141, “Upon recommendation of the secretary of Environment and Natural
resources, the president may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain
as reservations for the use of the Republic of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the
inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this purpose, or for quasi-public uses
or purposes when the public interest requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for
railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or leguas communales, public
parks, public quarries, public fishponds, workingmen’s village and other improvements for the public
benefit.”

So, all of these properties, unless and until reclassified in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part
of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply. More so
they cannot be the subject of Registration.

B. Application is a mere formality when all the requirements set forth by Section 48(b), CA 141 (Public
Land Act) are complied with.
Case: Mesina v. Sonza (GR No. L-14722, May 25, 1960)

 Plaintiff Mesina filed an action for the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. P-1137 held by
the defendants. He claims that he is the real owner in fee simple of Lot No. 3259.
 He claims that he has been in actual possession thereof since 1914, publicly, openly, peacefully and
against the whole world and up to the present time he is the only one who benefits from the produce
thereof.
 He further contends that sometime in September 12, 1953, the Director of Lands, without exercising due
care, and in spite of his knowledge that defendants had not complied with the requirements of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, issued a homestead patent in their favor as a consequence of which a
certificate of title was issued in their name by the register of deeds; that said title was procured by
defendants through frauds, deception and misrepresentation since they knew that the lot belonged
to the plaintiff.
 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff's action is already barred by the statute
of limitations. The present action which calls for the cancellation of said decree and title has been filed
after the elapse of more than four years.
 The Court of First instance of Pangasinan sustained this motion and dismissed the complaint.

 ISSUE: WON Mesina is deemed to have acquired the lot by a grant of the State?

 HELD: -YES

 The Supreme court then, citing Sus v. Razon, reiterated that it was observed that where all the
necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are complied with though actual physical
possession openly, continuously, and publicly with a right to a certificate of title to said land under
the provisions of Chapter VIII of Act no. 2874, amending Act no. 9266 (carried over as Chapter VIII of
Commonwealth Act no. 141), the possessor is deemed to have already acquired by operation of law not
only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title be
 issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts – an application therefor being sufficient
under the provisions of section 47 of Act n. 2874 (reproduced as Section 50, CA No. 141).”

C. Important Principle to Consider: Under the vested rights doctrine, the state may not impair vested rights by a
subsequent legislative enactment or by subsequent repeal of a municipal ordinance, or by a change in the constitution
of the state, except in a legitimate exercise of the police power. Thus, the due process clause prohibits the annihilation
of vested rights.

Case: Dicman vs Carino (GR No. 146459, June 8, 2006)

 Sioco Carino, the late grandfather of private respondent, bought a parcel of land together with its
improvements from HC Heald and took possession of it.
 Ting-el Dicman, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had been employed by Sioco Cariño as his cattle
herder. On the advice of his lawyers, and because there were already many parcels of land recorded in his
name, Sioco Cariño caused the survey of the land in controversy in the name of Ting-el Dicman. The latter
then executed a Ting-el Dicman executed a public instrument entitled "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights
and Interests in Agricultural Land”. The After the execution of the foregoing deed, Sioco Cariño, who had
been in possession of the land in controversy since 1916, continued to stay thereon.
 Sioco then sold said property to his son Guzman Carino, after a while, the latter then had the entire Lot 46
resurveyed so as to indicate the half portion that belonged to him and the other half that belonged to the
petitioners.
 Guzman Cariño filed a Free Patent Application over the land in question but Guzman later withdrew it when
he decided to file his opposition to the petition later filed by the heirs of Ting-el Dicman which sought to
establish ownership over Lot 76-A and Lot 76-B which, taken together, covered an area of 10.1006 hectares.
Guzman Cariño opposed the petition insofar as he insisted ownership over Lot 76-B, the land in controversy.
The Estate of Sioco Cariño likewise filed an opposition.
 On March 6, 1963, the trial court rendered a partial judgment and confirmed that the title over Lot 76-A
belonged to the heirs of Ting-el Dicman.
 Meanwhile, on January 8, 1960, while the foregoing petition was pending in the trial court, President Carlos
P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 628 "excluding from the operation of the Baguio Townsite Reservation
certain parcels of public land known as ‘Igorot Claims’ situated in the City of Baguio and declaring the same
open to disposition under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Public Land Act." The Proclamation further
provided that the "Igorot Claims" enumerated therein shall be "subject to the condition that except in favor of
the government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired by virtue of this proclamation
shall not be encumbered or alienated within a period of fifteen years from and after the date of issuance of
patent.
 Before the trial court could dispose of the case, the Supreme Court promulgated Republic v. Marcos which
held that Courts of First Instance of Baguio have no jurisdiction to reopen judicial proceedings on the basis of
Republic Act No. 931. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the petition to reopen petitioners’
registration, invalidating Lot 76-A decision that was issued in favor of the petitioners.
 After the dismissal of the case, Guzman Cariño was left undisturbed in his possession of the subject property
until he died in 1983.
 Immediately after carino’s death, Petitioners revived the foregoing case by filing a complaint for recovery
of possession in the RTC which the said court dismissed.
 Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals by which said court only affirmed the lower court’s
decision. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.
 Petitioners argued that Proclamation no. 638 issued by the President Carlos P. Garcia on January 8, 1960 had
the effect of “segregating” and “reserving” certain Igorot claims identified therein, including one purportedly
belonging to the Heirs of Dicman and prohibiting any encumbrance or alienation of these claims for a period
of 15 years from acquisition of patent.
 ISSUE: WON Proclamation no. 638 had the effect of “segregating” and “reserving” certain Igorot claims
and thus, alienation done during that time was invalid.
 HELD: No. By the time, the Proclamation had been issued, all rights over the property in question had
already been vested in private respondent. The executive issuance can only go so far as to classify public
land, but it cannot be construed as to prejudice vested rights. Moreover, property rights may not be altered or
deprived by executive fiat alone without contravening the due process guarantees of the Constitution and may
amount to unlawful taking of private property to be redistributed for public use without just compensation
where such expropriation is an infringement of rights to property.
D. What else may be the subject of judicial confirmation?

1. Land declared public and in previous registration case may be the subject of judicial confirmation.

Case: Zara vs Director of Lands (GR No. L-19535, July 10, 1967)
FACTS:
 Appellants, heirs of Pelagio Zara filed an application for registration of a parcel of land on August 4,
1960. Their grounds were on the basis of the provisions of Act 496 that their grandfather has been
granted a Spanish Title and CA 141 Chap 8 Sec. 48, that their predecessor-in-interest had been in
continuous and adverse possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years.
 Their application was opposed by the Director of Lands and Vicente V. de Villa on the ground that the
parcel of land had been included in the parcel of land applied for in registration by Vicente de Villa in
Civil Case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 was adjudicated on September 30, 1949.

ISSUE:

WON the 1949 judgment in the previous case, denying the application of Vicente S. de Villa, Sr.,
and declaring the 107 hectares in question to be public land precludes a subsequent application by
an alleged possessor for judicial confirmation of title on the basis of continuous possession for at
least thirty years?

HELD: NO!
A judgment in a land registration proceeding, that a tract of land is public land, does not bar
other persons from filing a subsequent land registration proceeding for the judicial confirmation
of their title to the same land under section 48 of the Public Land ACT , on the basis of a
“composicion” title and continuous and adverse possession thereof for more than thirty years.
Their imperfect possessory title was not disturbed or foreclosed by prior judicial declaration that the
land is public land since the proceeding under Sec. 48 presupposes that the land is public.
E. Hearing

1. As mandated by Sec. 2, PD 1529, applications for registration shall be heard in the regional trial court in the
same manner and shall be subject to the same procedure as established in the Property Registration Decree. Notice
of all such applications, together with a plan of the lands claimed shall be immediately forwarded to the Director
of Lands, who may appear as a party in such cases.
2. Prior to the publication for hearing, all of the papers in said case shall be transmitted by the clerk to the Solgen or
offices acting in his stead, in order that he may, if he deems it advisable for the interests of the government,
investigated all of the facts alleged in the application or otherwise brought to his attention (Sec. 51, C No. 141).

Jurisdiction of metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts
 Section 34 of BP Blg. 129, also known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by RA No. 7691,
approved March 25, 1994, grants metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts
the delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases in the following instances:
1. Where the lot sought to be registered is not the subject of controversy or opposition; or
2. Where the lot is contested but the value thereof does not exceed P100,000, such value thereof to be
ascertained of the claimant or by the agreement of the respective claimants, if there be more than one, or from
the corresponding tac declaration of the real property.

The decisions of said inferior courts are appealable.

So the General Rule: RTCs have plenary jurisdiction over land registration cases.

XPN: MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs have delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases in the following instances:

a. Where the lot sought to be registered is not the subject of controversy; or b. 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 (Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended by Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7691).

Burden of Proof
The burden is on the applicant to prove his positive averments and not for the government or the private oppositors to
establish a negative proposition insofar as the applicants’ specific lots are concerned.

1. He must submit convincing proof of his and his predecessor-in-interests’ actual, peaceful, and adverse
possession and occupation in the concept of owner of the lots during the period required by law.
2. Since under the regalian doctrine all lands, not otherwise appearing to be within private ownership, belongs
to the state. In case of doubt, it is presumed to be owned by the state. The applicant has to overcome such presumption.

The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the
person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is
alienable or disposable.
To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject of the application
(or claim) is alienable or disposable. There existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation or an executive must still be a positive act declaring land of the public domain as alienable and
disposable. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, the applicant must
establish the order; an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a
legislative act or a statute.
The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for the
required number of years is alienable and disposable.

Requisites under the Public Land Act

The law requires both possession and occupation
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act speaks of “Possession and occupation”. It is a rule in statutory construction that
when the law is clear, the clear intention of the law should be applied as it is. Thus, there should not only be possession of
the land but occupation as well.

F. Judgment

 If the court finds that more than one person or claimant has an interest in the land, the conflicting interests shall be
adjudicated by the court and decree awarded in favor of the person or persons entitled to the land sought to be
registered. However, if none of said persons is entitled to the land, or if the person who might be entitled lacks the
qualifications required by law for acquiring agricultural land of the public domain, the decision shall be in favor of
the government.
 So, if the application and/or the opposition shall be dismissed, the land should be declared public land (Sec. 54,
CA No. 141).
 The decree denying the registration does not declare that the holder of the land is the owner of it and does not
operate as a bar to the proceedings for registration on the grounds of new evidence of appellant alleging ownership
of the disputed land.
 Moreover, an order denying registration does not automatically entitle the oppositor to have the property
registered in his name. He must prove that he himself is the owner of the property that is the subject matter of his
opposition (Sec. 56, CA No. 141).

Order for the issuance of a decree

1. Whenever any judgment of confirmation or other decree of the court shall become final, it is the clerk of court that
shall certify that fact to the Director of Lands, with a certified copy of the decree of confirmation or judgment of
the court and the plan and technical description of land.
2. The final decree of the court shall in every case be the basis for the original title in favor of the persons entitled to
the property under the procedure prescribed in the Property Registration Decree (Secs. 39 – 42, PD No. 1529).
3. Entry in the property registry and the issuance of title presuppose that the applicant is now the owner and
proprietor of the realty he seeks to register.