© COMPILED BY KC

II-MANRESA 2016
During the pendency of the 1st case, PGMA issued Proclamation No. 1064
2016 classifying Boracay Island into
1. (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes) and
[LAND TITLES AND DEEDS] 2. (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (A/D).
 Agcaoili Book;
Book; Atty. Panes Lectures; LA Notes 3. (15m) buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads and trails,
reserved for right-of-way and which shall form part of the area reserved
for forest land protection purposes.
Sec. 1 Title of Decree –
Decree – This
 This decree shall be known as the Property
Registration Decree. On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants , owners of beach resorts in Boracay
filed with this Court an action to nullify PGMA’s proclamation claiming that it
Regalian Doctrine (Art.
Doctrine (Art. 12, Sec. 2 of the 1987 PC) infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of Boracay; th ere is no need for
- all lands of whatever classification and other natural resources not a proclamation reclassifying Boracay into agricultural land; and Being classified as
otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership belong to neither mineral nor timber land,
land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the
the State Philippine Bill of 1902 
1902  and Act No.
No. 926,
926, known as the first PLA. Thus, their
possession in the concept of owner for the required period entitled them to judicial
Jura Regalia confirmation of imperfect title.
private title to a land must be traced to s ome grant, express or implied,
or from its successors OSG argued that petitioners-claimants Boracay is an unclassified public forest land
OSG argued
- The belief that the Spanish
Spanish Crown
Crown is the origin of all land titles in
in the pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 and cannot be the subject of judicial
Philippines. This refers to Royal Rights that all lands were formerly held confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the executive department, not the courts,
by the King. which has authority to reclassify lands of the public domain into A&D. There is a
- (Maam Panes): refers to private ownership and how private ownership need for a positive government act in order to release the lots for disposition.
of lands were given by virtue of the royal rights possessed by the King
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Exceptions to Regalian Doctrine W/N petitioner claimants have a right to secure titles over their occupied portions
1) Native Title (Carino v. Insular) –
 – refers to pre-conquest rights
rights to in Boracay. The twin petitions pertain to their right, if any, to judicial confirmation
lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been of imperfect title under CA No. 141, as amended. They do not involve their right to
held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/Indigenous Peoples, secure title under other pertinent laws.
have never been public lands, and are thus indisputably presumed to
have been held the same way since before Spanish Conquest HELD:
HELD:
REGALIAN DOCTRINE AND POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE TO RECLASSIFY
 Time Immemorial -
Immemorial - A period of time when as far back as LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Private claimants rely on three (3) laws and
memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have executive acts in their bid for judicial confirmation of imperfect title, namely:
occupied, possessed in the concept of an owner, and 1) Philippine Bill of 1902
1902 in relation to Act No. 926, 926, later amended
amended and/or
utilized a defined territory developed to them, by operation superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141;
of customary law or inherited from t heir ancestors with their 2) Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos; and
customs and traditions 3) Proclamation No. 1064 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
2) Ancestral Domain (Cruz v. Secretary)

1935 1973 CONSTITUTION 1987

SECRETARY OF DENR V. MAYOR JOSE S. YAP CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION
October 8, 2008 1. agricult 1. agricultural 1. agricultur 
ural 2. industrial/comme al (maybe
This case involves 2 petitions regarding the right of the present occupants of 2. forest or rcial  A/D)
Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied lands. timber 3. residential 2. forest/tim
4. resettlement ber
FIRST CASE: G.R. No. 167707 Certiorari on CA decision affirming RTC granting 5. mineral 3. national
declaratory relief field by Mayor Jose Yap et al and ordered the survey of Boracay 6. timber/forest parks
for titling purposes 7. grazing lands 4. mineral
1976, (DENR)
1976, (DENR) approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay Island, which 8. others by law
identified several lots as being occupied or claimed by named persons. President
Marcos declared the area as tourist zones and marine reserves  reserves  under the Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been
administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). Hence, subsequent expressly and administratively classified under any of these grand divisions.
issuance of PTA Circular 3-82 to implement Proclamation No. 1801. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain.
- Petitioners claim that Proclamation and PTA Circular precluded them
from filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE dictates
DOCTRINE  dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to
survey of land for titling purposes; Marcos’ declaration raised doubts the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land
on their right to secure titles over their occupied lands and Since the and charged with
with the conservation of such
such patrimony. The doctrine has been
been
Island was classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, a nd 1987 Constitutions.
ownership; Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141,
otherwise known as the Public Land Act, they had the right to have the All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
lots registered in their names through judicial confirmation of imperfect presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have not been acquired
titles. from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as
part of the inalienable public domain.
domain. Necessarily, itit is up to the State to
OSG   invoked Section 3(a) of
OSG of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code that determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private ownership.
Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain.
domain. It formed part of The government, as the agent of the state, is possessed of the plenary power as
the mass of lands classified as public forest, which was NOT available for the persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands,
disposition and since Boracay Island had not been classified as A & D whatever as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the
possession they had cannot ripen into ownership. placing of obstacles in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be
ordinary acts of ownership.
ISSUE:
ISSUE: whether Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal hindrance or impediment
to the titling of the lands in Boracay.
Boracay. RTC neither Proclamation
Proclamation nor the Circular SPANISH RULE
mentioned that lands in Boracay were inalienable or could not be the subject of Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the
disposition. The Circular itself recognized private ownership
ownership of lands. Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and
- Sections 87 and 53 of the Public Land Act as basis for acknowledging possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown.
private ownership of lands in Boracay and that only those forested
areas in public lands were declared as part of the forest reserve. The Laws Of The First introduced Regalian doctrine and laid the
- The RTC took judicial notice that certain parcels of land in Boracay Indies And The foundation that all lands that were not acquired from the
Island were covered by OCT in the name of the Heirs of Ciriaco S. Royal Cedulas Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to
Tirol. The titles were issued on August 7, 1933. the public domain
- CA held that respondents-claimants could not be prejudiced by a Ley Hipotecaria provided for the systematic registration of titles and
declaration that the lands they occupied since time immemorial were Or The  Mortg age deeds as well as possessory claims.
part of a forest reserve. Law Of 1893 .
The R oyal
oyal partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law   and the
Decree Of 1894 Laws of the Indies.
Indies. It established possessory information
SECOND CASE: CASE : G.R. No. 173775 a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and Or The Maura as the method of legalizing possession of vacant Crown
nullification of Proclamation No. 1064 issued by PGMA classifying Boracay into Law 
reserved forest and agricultural land.
1
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
land, under certain conditions which were set forth in public domain since time immemorial or
said decree. Under Section 393 of the Maura Law,
Law, an since July 26, 1894.
1) informacion posesoria or possessory information
title,  Amendments of this Requirement
Requirement
2) when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property,  Republic Act (RA) No. 1942
is converted into a title of ownership  OCENPO 30 Years
3) only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of  PD No. 1073,
1073 ,
4) uninterrupted possession which must be actual,  OCENPO since June 12, 1945, or 
public, and adverse, earlier.
5) from the date of its inscription.
6) However, possessory information title had to be There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of
perfected one year after the promulgation of the imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely:
Maura Law, or until April 17, 1895. Otherwise, the (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
lands would revert to the State. possession and occupation of the subject land by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest
In sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be under a bona fide claim
fide claim of ownership since time
founded on royal concessions which took various forms, namely: immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and
1945;  and
a) titulo real or royal grant; (2) The classification of the land as as alienable
alienable and
b) concesion especial or special grant; disposable land of the public domain.
c) composicion con el estado or adjustment title;  discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence
d) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and in land registration proceedings. Under the decree,
e) informacion posesoria or possessory information title. all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply
PD No. 892
for registration of their lands under Act No. 496
February 16,
within six (6) months from the effectivity of the
1976
decree on February 16, 1976.
Spanish Titles
 Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered lands
may no longer be
AMERICAN RULE shall be governed by Section 194 of the Revised
used as evidence
Philippine Bill of 1) AGRICULTURAL (
AGRICULTURAL  ( those public lands acquired  Administrative Code,
Code, as amended by Act No.
of ownership due
1902 from Spain which are not timber or mineral 3344.
to the rise of
US assumed lands)  Evidences of Ownership during Spanish Regime
several conflicting
administration of 2) MINERAL 1) Royal Grant
claims of
the Phil. Is. After a. absolute grant (freehold system) 2) Special Grant
ownership
the 1898 Treaty b. lease (leasehold system) 3)  Adjustment Title
of Paris 3) TIMBER OR FOREST LANDS. 4) Title by Purchase
established a system of registration by which 5) Possessory Information Title
Act No. 496 recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and 6) Gratuitous Title
Land imprescriptible. This is known as the TORRENS  Amended and updated the Act. No. 496
Registration Act SYSTEM.  enacted to codify the various laws relative to
On February 1, Made the Court of Land Registration registration of property
PD No. 1529,
1529 ,
1903 Does not create title nor vest one, simply confirms  governs registration of lands under the Torrens
Property
and register system as well as unregistered lands, i ncluding
Registration
introduced the HOMESTEAD SYSTEM , SYSTEM  , chattel mortgages.
Decree
provisions for judicial and administrative  Broadened the jurisdiction of RTCs with regard to
Act No. 926 June 11, 1978
confirmation of imperfect titles original registration of title to lands
First Public  Created the former LRC which is now Land
i. OCENPO of agricultural
agricultural lands for the next ten
Land Act Registration Authority
(10) years preceding July 26, 1904
October 7, 1903
SALE OR LEASE OF PUBLIC LANDS.
title to public
permitted corporations regardless of the nationality
lands in the A POSITIVE ACT DECLARING LAND AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE IS
of persons owning the controlling stock to lease or
Philippines REQUIRED. In keeping with the presumption of State ownership, the Court has
purchase lands of the public domain
remained in the time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act of the government,
 judges of courts have the authority to determine
gov’t and its title such as an an official proclamation,
proclamation, declassifying inalienable
inalienable public land into
classification of lands
sprung from disposable land for agricultural
agricultural or other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No. 141
CFI’s had power to adjudicate cases relating to
Treaty of Paris limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been officially
land titles and disputes
delimited and classified.
Cadastral system of registration  –   –  when in the
opinion of the President, the public interest requires THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF STATE
that the title to any lands be settled and adjudicated, OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS ON THE PERSON
he shall order the DoL to make survey thereof, w/ APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION (or
REGISTRATION  (or claiming ownership), who must prove that
Act. No. 2259 notice to all persons claiming an interest therein. the land subject of the application
application is alienable
alienable or disposable. To overcome this
Cadastral Act Thereafter, DoL shall be represented by SG, shall presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land subject
Feb. 11, 1913 institute the registration proceedings by filing a of the application (or claim) is A/D.
petition in the proper court against the possessors
stating that public interest requires the titles to such 1) presidential proclamation or P
lands be settled and adjudicated. 2) an executive
executive order; E
comprehensive law limited the exploitation of 3) an administrative action; A
agricultural lands to Filipinos and Americans and 4) investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators;
investigators; and a R
citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the 5) legislative act or a statute. L
same privileges.
Act No. 2874 For judicial confirmation of title, possession and The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land
Second Public occupation en concepto dueo since time claimed to have been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and
Land Act
Land  Act immemorial, or since July 26, 1894, was required. disposable.
November 29, ***POSITIVE ACT REQUIRED In this case records bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, the portions of
1919 Courts are no longer authorized to determine Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation
Under Jones Law classification of lands that the land is A/D. Matters of land classification or reclassification
reclassification cannot be
Gave the executive through the President t he assumed. They call for proof.
exclusive prerogative to classify public lands into A
& D, mineral or forest. After declaration of A&D, Who may classify lands?
this law requires publication and notice JUDICIARY (ANKRON AND DE ALDECOA )These ) These cases were decided
CA No. 141 under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 (October
remains as
remains as the existing general law governing the 7, 1926). During that time, the President had no power to classify lands of
PUBLIC LAND
classification and disposition of lands of the public the public domain into mineral, timber, and agricultural. Hence, the courts
ACT
domain other than timber and mineral lands, and were free to make corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were
1935
privately owned lands which reverted to the State. vested with implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance of
Constitution;
 Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained
141 retained the the evidence. To aid the courts in resolving
resolving land registration cases under
under
December 1,
requirement under Act No. 2874 of  Act No. 926, it was then necessary to devise a presumption on land
1936
possession and occupation of lands of the classification that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, lands are
considered agricultural. However, this presumption did not automatically
2
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
converted all lands of the public domain as A&D agricultural lands for it tourist destination for local and foreign tourists, Boracay appears more
would be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long- of a commercial island resort, rather than a forest land. Nevertheless,
entrenched Regalian doctrine. The presumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa that the occupants of Boracay have built multi-million peso beach
attaches only to land registration cases brought under the provisions of Act resorts on the island; that the island has already been stripped of its
No. 926, or more specifically those cases dealing with judicial and forest cover; or that the implementation of Proclamation No. 1064 will
administrative confirmation of imperfect titles. The presumption applies to destroy the islands tourism industry, do not negate its character as
an applicant for judicial or administrative conformation of imperfect title public forest.
under Act No. 926. It certainly cannot apply to landowners, such as private Forests,, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the Constitution
Forests
claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, who failed to avail themselves classifying lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber,
of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to t hem, their land remained unclassified mineral lands, and national parks, do not necessarily refer to large
and, by virtue of the Regalian doctrine, continued to be owned by the State. tracts of wooded land or expanses covered by dense growths of trees
In any case, the assumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa was not absolute. and underbrushes A forested area classified as forest
forest land of the public
public
Land classification was, in the end, dependent on proof. If there was proof domain does not lose such class ification simply becau becauss e log
log gers
that the land was better suited for non-agricultural uses, the courts could or s ettlers
ettlers may have stripped it of its forest cove r. The
adjudge it as a mineral or timber land despite the presumption. class
class ification is descriptive of its legal nature
nature or status
status and does
does
not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Since 1919, courts were no longer free to Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official
determine the classification of lands from the facts of each case, except proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable
those that have already became private lands. Act No. 2874,2874, promulgated agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on confirmation of
in 1919 and reproduced in Section 6 of CA No. 141, 141 , gave the Executive imperfect title do not
not apply. (Emphasis supplied)
supplied)
Department, through the President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or
reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.96-a
Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or implied, PROCLAMATION NO. 1801 IS NOT A POSIITIVE ACT. ACT . However, private
to determine the classification of lands of the public domain. claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos in
1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title. The Proclamation
Here, private claimants, unlike the HEIRS OF CIRIACO TIROL who were classified Boracay, among other islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert
issued their title in 1933, did not present a justiciable case for determination that, as a tourist spot, t he island is susceptible of private ownership.
by the land registration court of the propertys land classification. Simply put, Proclamation No. 1801 or PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not convert the
there was no opportunity for the courts then to resolve if the land the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land but merely recognizes that
Boracay occupants are now claiming were agricultural lands. When Act No. the island can be classified by the Executive department pursuant to
926 was supplanted by Act No. 2874 i n 1919, without an application for its powers under CA No. 141. Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801
 judicial confirmation having been filed by pri vate c laimants or their cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island
predecessors-in-interest, the courts were no longer authorized to as alienable and disposable land. If President Marcos intended to
determine the propertys land classification. Hence, private claimants classify the island as alienable and disposable or forest, or both, he
cannot bank on Act No. 926. would have identified the specific limits of each, as President Arroyo
did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not done in Proclamation No.
PRIVATE CLAIMANTS CONTINUED POSSESSION UNDER ACT NO. 926 1801.
DOES NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND IS ALIENABLE. The Whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1801shows 1801shows that the
Private claimants also contend that their continued possession of portions of proclamation is aimed at administering the islands for tourism and
Boracay Island for the requisite period
period of ten (10) years under Act No. 926 ipso ecological purposes. It does not address the areas alienability.
alienability.
facto converted the island into private ownership. Hence, they may apply for a title
in their name.A similar argument was squarely rejected by the Court in Collado v. IT WAS PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 OF 2006 WHICH POSITIVELY DECLARED
Court of Appeals. Collado, citing the separate opinion of now Chief Justice PART OF BORACAY AS ALIENABLE AND OPENED THE SAME TO PRIVATE
Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,107- OWNERSHIP.
a ruled: Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141 provide that it is is only the President,
President,
 Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed
passed in pursuance of the upon the recommendation of the proper department head, who has the
provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The law governed the authority to classify the lands of the public domain into alienable or
disposition of lands of the public domain. It  prescribed rules and disposable, timber and mineral lands. In issuing Proclamation No.
regulations for the homesteading, selling and leasing of portions of the 1064, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo merely exercised the
 public domain of the Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and authority granted to her to classify lands of the public domain,
conditions to enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the presumably subject to existing vested rights. Classification of public
Islands. It also provided for the issuance of patents to certain native lands is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department, through
settlers upon public lands, for the establishment of t own sites and sale the Office of the President. Courts
Courts have no authority to do so. Absent
of lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the such classification, the land remains unclassified until released and
cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the rendered open to disposition.
Islands. In
Islands. In short, the Public Land Act operated on the assumption that PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM   LAW. Private claimants
government; and that the governments title t o public land sprung from further assert that Proclamation No. 1064 violates the provision of the
the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent treaties between Spain and (CARL) or RA No. 6657 barring conversion of public forests into
the United States. agricultural lands.
lands. They claim that since Boracay is a public forest
The term public land referred to all lands of t he public domain whose under PD No. 705, President Arroyo can no longer convert it into an
title still remained in the government and are thrown open to private agricultural land without running afoul of Section 4(a) of RA No. 6657,
appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of thus:
the government and the friar lands.
lands. Thus, it is plain error for petitioners SEC. 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
to argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Public Land Act No. shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
926, mere possession by private individuals of lands creates the legal produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in
presumption that the lands are alienable
alienable and disposable. (Emphasis Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other
Ours) lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

EXCEPT FOR LANDS ALREADY COVERED BY EXISTING TITLES, That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under PD No. 705
BORACAY WAS AN UNCLASSIFIED LAND OF THE PUBLIC did not bar the Executive from later converting it into agricultural land.
DOMAIN PRIOR TO PROCLAMATION NO. 1064. SUCH Boracay Island still remained an unclassified land of the public domain
UNCLASSIFIED LANDS ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC FOREST despite PD No. 705., the prohibition under the CARL applies only to a
UNDER PD NO. 705.  705.   The DENR
DENR and the National Mapping
Mapping and reclassification of land. If the land had never been previously
Resource Information
Information Authority certify that Boracay Island is an classified, as in the case of Boracay, there can be no prohibited
unclassified land of the public domain. PD No. 705 issued by President reclassification under the agrarian law. We agree with the opinion
Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the public domain as public of the Department of Justice on this point: Thus, Thus, obviously, the
forest. Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a PUBLIC FOREST as a prohibition in Section 4(a) of the CARL against the reclassification of
mass of lands of the public domain which has not been the subject of forest lands to agricultural lands without a prior law delimiting the limits
the present system of classification for the determination of which lands of the public domain, does not, and cannot, apply to those lands of the
are needed for forest purpose and which are not . Applying PD No. 705, public domain, denominated as public forest under the Revised
all unclassified lands, including those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto Forestry Code, which have not been previously determined, or
considered public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles already classified, as needed for forest purposes in accordance with the
existing prior to its effectivity. provisions of the Revised Forestry Code.
The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a forest land under
PD No. 705 may seem to be out of touch with the present realities in PRIVATE CLAIMANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL
the island. Boracay, no doubt, has been partly stripped of its forest CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE UNDER CA NO. 141. NEITHER DO
cover to pave the way for commercial developments. As a premier THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS OVER THE OCCUPIED LANDS UNDER THE
3
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
SAID LAW.
LAW . There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of imperfect or ISSUE: whether or not the areas in question have ceased to have the status of
incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely: forest or other i nalienable lands of the public domain?
1) OCENPO of the subject land by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since RULING: SC had an opportunity to discuss the concept of Regalian Doctrine in t his
time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and case. It states that all lands of the public domain belong to the State that is the
2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the source of any asserted right to ownership of land. Public lands not shown to have
public domain. been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private
person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.
domain.
Why pb of 1902 and act. No. 926 and pn 1801 reliance must fail?
because of the absence of the 2nd of a/d their entitlement to a The burden of proof to overturn the presumption that the land subject of an
government grant under our present public land act presupposes that application is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant. The SC said that the
the land possessed and applied for is already alienable and disposable. CA, in this case, assumed that the lands in question are already A&D. CA
this is clear from the wording
wording of the law itself.
itself. where the land is not
not ratiocinated that the possession of Naguiat of the lands created a legal fiction
alienable and disposable, possession of the land, no matter how long, where without judicial declaration, the same ceases to be a public land and
cannot confer ownership or possessory rights. becomes private property ipso jure.
Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect t o those lands Respondent Naguiat did not present any incontrovertible proof that there has
which were classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants failed to been a positive act from the government which reclassified the land applied for as
prove the first element of OCENPO of their lands in Boracay since June  A&D. The tax receipts cannot be be a sufficient proof for there is no information about
12, 1945. the classification of the property on it. Instead, the applicant could have obtained
a Certificate of Land Classification from the DENR as a valid proof. Since the land
 All is not lost, however. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to is unclassified, according to SC, the same cannot be acquired by adverse
possess. occupation. Occupation on such land in the concept of an owner, however long,
For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered title. To this, t he application
improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession. For of Naguiat to have the lands registered is denied.
another, they may look into other modes of applying for original registration of title,
such as by homestead or sales patent,
patent, subject to the conditions imposed by law.
ISAGANI CRUZ VS. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT
More realistically, Congress may enact a law t o entitle private claimants to acquire 347 SCRA 128
title to their occupied lots or to exempt them from certain requirements under the FACTS:
present land laws. There is is one such bill now pending in the House of of Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the constitutionality of certain
Representatives. Whether that bill or a similar bill will become a law is for Congress provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) together with its
to decide. implementing rules and regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to
In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the government has taken the step necessary indigenous people.
to open up the island to private ownership. This gesture may not be sufficient to
appease some sectors which view the classification of the island partially into a On the other hand, CHR  CHR  asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of
forest reserve as absurd. That the island is no longer overrun by trees, however, parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee
does not becloud the vision to protect its remaining forest cover and to strike a the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous people. For
healthy balance between progress and ecology. Ecological conservation is as this reason, it prays that the petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa
important as economic progress. countered the constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground
that they amount
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of
To be sure, forest lands are fundamental to our nations survival. Their promotion the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources. Also, that the
and protection are not just fancy rhetoric for politicians and activists. These are law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine embodied in the Constitution.
needs that become more urgent as destruction of our environment gets prevalent
and difficult to control. As aptly observed by Justice Conrado Sanchez in 1968 in  Also, petitioners contended that, by providing
providing for an all-encompassing
all-encompassing definition of
Director of Forestry v. Munoz: “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might include private lands found
within the said areas.
The view this Court takes of the cases at bar is but in adherence to public policy
that should be followed with respect to forest lands. Many have written much, and Issue:WON
Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian Doctrine?
many more have spoken, and quite often, about the pressing need for forest Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional.
preservation, conservation, protection, development and reforestation. Not without  After due deliberation on the petition,
petition, 7 members of the court voted to dismiss the
 justification. For, forests constitute a vital segment of any country's natural petition, and 7 members of the court voted t o grant the same.
resources. It is of common k nowledge by now that absence of the necessary green The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the same.
cover on our lands produces a number of adverse or ill effects of serious  According to t he Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be dismissed. The
proportions. Without the trees, watersheds dry up; rivers and lakes which they constitutionality of IPRA is upheld.
supply are emptied of their contents. The fish disappear. Denuded areas become
dust bowls. As waterfalls cease to function, so will hydroelectric plants. With the Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion:
rains, the fertile topsoil is washed away; geological erosion results. With erosion Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality:
come the dreaded floods that wreak havoc and destruction to property crops, 1. It violates
violates the inalienability of Natural
Natural Resources
Resources and of Public
Public Domains.
Domains.
livestock, houses, and highways not to mention precious human lives. Indeed, the That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of the Constitution that only
foregoing observations should be written down in a lumbermans decalogue. agricultural lands of the public domain can be considered as alienable and
disposable lands.
2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s natur al
al resources
REPUBLIC V. NAGUIAT and 1/3 of the country’s land will be concentrated to 12 Million IPs, and while
FACTS: Respondent Celestina Naguiat filed for an application for registration of 4 60 million other Filipinos will share the remaining. These figures violates the
parcels of land located in Zambales. She alleges that she is the owner of the constitutional principle of a “more equitable distribution of opportunities,
subject lands having acquired them from LID Corporation. LID Corp. acquired the income,
income, and wealth” among Filipinos.
land from Calderon, Moraga, Monje and their predecessors in interest who have 3. It abdicates
abdicates the State Duty
Duty to take Full
Full Control
Control and
and Supervision
Supervision of Natural
Natural
been in OCENPO for more than 30 years. She believes that the lots are not Resources
mortgaged nor encumbered. 4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned owned by the State and Cannot
be Alienated or Ceded
RP opposed
RP opposed the application alleging
1) No OCENPO since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto;
2) muniments of title and tax payment receipts of applicant do not constitute
competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide acquisition of the lands
applied for or of his OCENPO ;
3) applicants claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or
grant can no longer be availed of . . . ; and that
4) parcels of land applied for are part of the public domain belonging to RP not
subject to private appropriation.

The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Naguiat which was subsequently affirmed
by the CA. Hence, the appeal before the SC. The Republic faults the CA on its
finding which respects the length of Naguiat’s occupation of the subject property
and for not considering the fact that she has not established that the lands in
question have been declassified from forest land to A&D property.

4
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Sec. 2 Nature of Registration Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Courts 1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest
Judicial Proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be have been in OCENPO of AD lands of the public domain under a
 in rem bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier 
 Based on generally accepted
accepted principles
principles underlying
underlying the Torrens system
system 2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription
CFI shall have exclusive jurisdiction over under the provisions of existing laws
 all applications
applications for original
original registration of title to lands,
lands, 3) Those how have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned
 including all improvements and interests therein, and and river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws
 over all
all petitions filed after original registration ofof title, 4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
 with power to hear and determine all questions arising arising upon such
such applications or provided by law
or petitions.
The court through its clerk of court shall
 furnish the Land Registration Commission with Where and how to file the application for Registration?
o 2 certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued With theinRTC of the province or city where the land is situated. The TC
applications or petitions for land registration, shall issue an order setting the date and hour of initial hearing, and the
o with the exception of stenographic notes, public shall be given notice thereof by means of publication, mailing
 within 5 days from the the filing or issuance
issuance thereof and posting. Any person claiming an interest in the land may appear
and file an opposition, stating all his objections to the application. The
case shall be heard and all conflicting claims of ownership shall be
determined by the court.
Once the judgment becomes final, the court shall issue an order for the
History issuance of a decree and the corresponding certificate of title in favour
- conceptualized by Sir Robert Torrens from South Australia of the person adjudged as entitled to registration.
- the purpose is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of Thereupon. The LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY shall prepare
the system the corresponding decree of registration as well as the original and
duplicate certificate of title which shall be sent to the Register of Deeds
What is Torrens System? of the city or province where the land lies for registration.
- Those systems of registration of transaction with interest in land whose
declared object is, under governmental authority; Jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to property
- To establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and Sec. 19(2), BP 129
indefeasible title to realty, With the RTC where assessed value of the property exceeds 20k
- To simplify its transfer  If Manila, if the assessed value of the property exceeds 50k
Exceptions
What are the Purposes of Torrens System? (Legarda v. Saleeby) o Forcible entry
1) To quiet title to land; o Unlawful detainer of lands or buildings
2) To put a stop forever to any question of the legality of title
Exception
Claims which were noted at the time of registration, in t he certificate or DIFFERENCE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TITLE AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
which may arise subsequent thereto TITLE CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
  once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure without Source of right Merely confirms a title already existing
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the “mirador
“mirador Foundation of ownership Mere evidence of ownership
de su casa”
casa” to avoid the possibility of losing his land. Best evidence of ownership Best evidence of title
Advantages of the Torrens System
1) Substitutes security for insecurity
2) Reduced the cost of c onveyances and time occupied
LEGARDA V. SALEEBY
3) Exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage
G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915
4) Simplified ordinary dealings
5)  Affords protection against fraud
CASE: Land is registered under the name of two persons
6) Restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding
FACTS:
FACTS :
titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect,
and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults o That the plaintiffs
plaintiffs LEGARDA and the defendant
defendant SALEEBY occupy, as
owners, adjoining lots which existed a number of years a stone wall
THREE PRINCIPLES
PRINCIPLES in the TS
between the said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the plaintiffs
1) Mirror Principle
LEGARDA. Upon petition to the Court, Legarda was able able to obtain a decree
o if there are several transfers, the TCT will be a ‘mirror’ in of registration which included the stonewall.
that it should be identical to the current facts. If the seller
o Several months later (the 13th day of December, 1912) the plaintiffs plaintiffs
sells the land, the old title must be identical to the new one
LEGARDA discovered that the wall which had been included in the
in terms of technical description, so as to reinforce the
certificate granted to them had also been included in the certificate granted
concept that the buyers should be able to rely on the face
to the defendant .They immediately presented
presented a petition in the Court
Court of
of the title.
Land Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error committed
o  Exception
o The lower court however, without notice to the defendant SALEEBY denied
a) when a person deals with a registered land with
said petition upon the theory that, during the pendency of the petition for t he
someone that is not the registered owner 
registration of the defendant's land, they failed to make any objection to the
b) when the party has actual knowledge of facts
registration of said lot, including the wall, in the name of the defendant
which should impel a reasonably cautious mind
SALEEBY.
to make such inquiry to the lack of title;
c) in cases of banking and financing institutions ISSUE:
ISSUE: W/N the lower court is correct in granting to SALEEBY the stonewall
stonewall as
2) Curtain Principle
his registered property? NO
o The concept that the buyer should be able to rely on the
face of the title, and should not go beyond the certificate. In RULING:
a way, the buyer does not have to go behind the curtain to
The REAL PURPOSE OF THAT SYSTEM is to quiet title to land; to put a stop
ascertain the truth of the title, because the Torrens
forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted
Certificate guarantees him that.
at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto.
3) Insurance Principle
That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title is registered
o Equates registration to a guarantee by the State the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of
the court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of
losing his land. 
land.  Of course, it can not be denied that the proceeding for the
LAWS PRIOR TO 1529, See Table under Sec. v. Yap
registration of land under the torrens system is judicial (Escueta vs. .Director of
PD 1529 Lands, 16 Phil. Rep., 482). It is clothed with all the forms of a n action and the result
How is jurisdiction over the RES acquired?
is final and binding upon all the world. It is an action in rem.
 A: Sec. 23
1) Publication
While the proceeding is judicial, it involves more in its consequences than does an
2) Mailing
ordinary action. All the world are parties, including the government. After the
3) Notice
registration is complete and final and there exists no fraud, there are no innocent
third parties who may claim an interest. The rights of all the world are foreclosed
Who may apply for registration?
by the decree of registration.
registration. The government itself assumes the burden of
 A: Sec. 14, p. 1-4 OPAL
giving notice to all parties. To permit persons who are parties in the registration
proceeding (and they are all the world) to again litigate the same questions, and to

5
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
again cast doubt upon the validity of the registered title, would destroy the very to two different persons it shall belong to the person acquiring it, who first inscribes
purpose and intent of the law. it in the registry. This rule, of course, presupposes that each of the vendees or
purchasers has acquired title to the land. The real ownership in such a case
THE REGISTRATION, UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, SYSTEM, DOES NOT GI VE THE depends upon priority of registration.
OWNER ANY BETTER TITLE THAN HE HAD . If he does not already have a
perfect title, he can not have it registered. Fee simple titles only may be registered.  Adopting the rule which we believe to be more in consonance with the purposes
The certificate of registration accumulates in open document a precise and correct and the real intent of the torrens s ystem, we are of the opinion and so decree that
statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner. The certificate, in the in case land has been registered under the Land Registration Act in the name of
absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its two different persons, the earlier in date shall prevail.
owner. The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be
impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or diminished, except in some
direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise all security in r egistered titles would In the present case,
case, the appellee SALEEBY was the first negligent (granting that
be lost. A registered title can not be altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished he was the real owner, and if he was not the real owner he cannot complain) in not
in a collateral proceeding and not even by a direct proceeding, after the lapse opposing the registration in the name of the appellants. Granting that he was the
of the period prescribed by law. owner of the land upon which the wall is located, his failure to oppose the
registration of the same in the name of the appellants, in the absence of fraud,
For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act (No. 496) providing for the forever closes his mouth against impugning the validity of that judgment. There is
registration of titles under the torrens system affords us no remedy. There is no no more reason why the doctrine invoked by the appellee should be applied to the
provision in said Act giving the parties relief under conditions like the present. appellants than to him.
There is nothing in the Act which indicates who should be the owner of land which
has been registered in the name of two different persons. IN CASE OF DOUBLE REGISTRATION UNDER THE LAND REGISTRATION
ACT, THAT THE OWNER OF THE EARLIEST CERTIFICATE IS THE OWNER
The rule, we think, is well settled that the decree ordering the registration of a OF THE LAND. That
LAND.  That is the rule between original parties. May this rule be applied
particular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation over the same between to successive vendees of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or t he
the same parties .In
parties .In view of the fact that all the world are parties, it must follow other of the parties, before t he error is discovered, transfers his original certificate
that future litigation over the title is forever barred; there can be no persons who to an "innocent purchaser." The general rule is that the vendee of land has no
are not parties to the action. This, we think, is the rule, EXCEPT as to rights which greater right, title, or interest than his vendor; that he acquires the right
are noted in the certificate or which arise subsequently, and with certain which his vendor had, only. Under
only.  Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate
other exceptions which need not be dismissed at present.  present.  A title once would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate.
registered can not be defeated, even by an adverse, open, and notorious
possession. REGISTERED TITLE UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM CAN NOT We find statutory provisions which, upon first reading, seem to cast some doubt
BE DEFEATED BY PRESCRIPTION (section 46, Act No. 496). The title, once upon the rule that the vendee acquires the interest of the vendor only. Sections 38,
registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead 55, and 112 of Act No. 496 indicate that the vendee may acquire rights and be
ignorance of the registration.  protected against defenses which the vendor would not . Said sections speak of
available rights in favor of third parties which are cut off by virtue of the sale of the
The question, who is the owner of land registered in the name of two different land to an "innocent purchaser." That is to say,  persons who had had a right or
persons, has been presented to the courts in other jurisdictions. In some interest in land wrongfully included in an original certificate would be unable to
 jurisdictions, where
where the "torrens" system has beenbeen adopted, the difficulty
difficulty has been enforce such rights against an "innocent purchaser," by virtue of the provisions of
settled by express statutory provision. In others it has been settled by the courts. said sections.
Hogg, in his excellent discussion of the "Australian Torrens System," at page 823,
says: "THE
"THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT IN THE CASE OF TWO CERTIFICATES UNDER THE RULE OF NOTICE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE PURCHASER
OF TITLE, PURPORTING TO INCLUDE THE SAME LAND, THE EARLIER IN HAS EXAMINED EVERY INSTRUMENT OF RECORD AFFECTING THE TITLE.
DATE PREVAILS, WHETHER THE LAND COMPRISED IN THE LATTER Such presumption is irrebutable. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by
CERTIFICATE BE WHOLLY, OR ONLY IN PART, COMPRISED IN THE the record and is presumed to know every fact which an examination of the record
EARLIER CERTIFICATE. 
CERTIFICATE.   Hogg adds however that, "IF IT CAN BE VERY would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by proof of
CLEARLY ASCERTAINED BY THE ORDINARY RULES OF CONSTRUCTION innocence or good faith. Otherwise the very purpose and object of the law requiring
RELATING TO WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE LAND a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of
IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF PRIOR DATE IS A MISTAKE, THE want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be
MISTAKE MAY BE RECTIFIED BY HOLDING THE LATTER OF THE TWO permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. The rule that
CERTIFICATES
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE TO BE CONCLUSIVE."CONCLUSIVE." (See Hogg on the "Australian all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule
torrens System," supra, and cases cited. See also the excellent work of Niblack in of law. The rule must be absolute. Any variation would lead to endless confusion
his "Analysis of the Torrens System," page 99.) Niblack, in discussing the general and useless litigation.
question, said: "Where two certificates purport to include the same land the earlier
in date prevails. ... In successive registrations, where more than one certificate is While there is no statutory provision in force here requiring that original deeds of
issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, t he person claiming under conveyance of real property be recorded, yet there is a rule requiring mortgages
the prior certificates is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to be recorded. (Arts. 1875 and 606 of the Civil Code.) The record of a mortgage
to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived is indispensable to its validity. (Art .1875.) In the face of that statute would the
directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate courts allow a mortgage to be valid which had not been recorded, upon the plea of
issued in respect thereof. While the acts in this country do not expressly cover the ignorance of the statutory provision, when third parties were interested? May a
case of the issue of two certificates for the same land, they provide that a registered purchaser of land, subsequent to the recorded mortgage, plead ignorance of its
owner shall hold the title, and the effect of this undoubtedly is that WHERE TWO existence, and by reason of such ignorance have the land released from such lien?
CERTIFICATES
CERTIFICATES PURPORT TO INCLUDE THE SAME REGISTERED LAND, THE Could a purchaser of land, after the recorded mortgage, be relieved from the
HOLDER OF THE EARLIER ONE CONTINUES TO HOLD THE TITLE" (p. 237). mortgage lien by the plea that he was a bona fide purchaser? May there be a bona
fide purchaser of said land, bona fide in the sense that he had no knowledge of the
Section 38 of Act No. 496, provides
496, provides that; "It (the decree of registration) shall be existence of the mortgage? We believe the rule that all persons must take notice
conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government and all of what the public record contains in just as obligatory upon all persons as the r ule
the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or that all men must know the law; that no one can plead ignorance of the law. The
citation, or included in the general description " To all whom it may may concer n ." fact that all men know the la w is contrary to the presumption. The conduct of men,
Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other at times, shows clearly that they do not know the law. The rule, however, is
disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for mandatory and obligatory, notwithstanding. It would be just as logical to allow the
reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person defense of ignorance of the existence and contents of a public record.
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration
obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land Registration a petition for review within In view, therefore, of the foregoing rules of law, may the purchaser of land from t he
one year after entry of the decree (of registration), provided no innocent purchaser owner of the second original certificate be an "innocent purchaser," when a part or
for value has acquired an interest. all of such land had theretofore been registered in the name of another, not the
GENERAL RULE: "decree
RULE:  "decree of registration" shall not be opened, for any reason, in vendor? We are of the opinion that said sections 38, 55, and 112 should not be
any court, applied to such purchasers. We do not believe that the phrase "innocent purchaser
EXCEPTION:
EXCEPTION: fraud, and not even for fraud, after the lapse of one year. should be applied to such a purchaser. He cannot be regarded as an "innocent
purchaser" because of the facts contained in the record of the first original
Q: If then the decree of registration can not be opened for any reason, except for certificate. The rule should not be applied to the purchaser of a parcel of land the
fraud, in a direct proceeding for that purpose, may such decree be opened or set vendor of which is not the owner of the original certificate, or his successors. He,
aside in a collateral proceeding by including a portion of the land in a subsequent in nonsense, can be an "innocent purchaser" of the portion of t he land included in
certificate or decree of registration? another earlier original certificate. The rule of notice of what the record contains
We do not believe the law contemplated that a person could be deprived of his precludes the idea of innocence. By reason of the prior registry there cannot be an
registered title in that way. We have in this jurisdiction a general statutory provision innocent purchaser of land included in a prior original certificate and in a name
which governs the right of the ownership of land when the same is registered in other than that of the vendor, or his successors. In order to minimize the difficulties
the ordinary registry in the name of two persons. Article 1473 of the Civil Code we think this is the safe rule to establish. We believe the phrase "innocent
provides, among other things, that when one piece of real property had been sold purchaser," used in said sections, should be limited only to cases where
6
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
unregistered land has been wrongfully included in a certificate under the torrens government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant. The latter then
system. When land is once brought under the torrens system, the record of the shall accept the certificate and agree to pay the purchase price so fixed and in the
original certificate and all subsequent transfers thereof is notice to all the world. instalments and at the interest specified in the certificate. Subject to a resolutory
That being the rule, could Teus even regarded as the holder in good fifth of that condition that non-payment of price in full may cancel the sale. The court said that
part of the land included in his certificate of the appellants? We think not. Suppose, the title Peñaranda has the valid acquisition from the government of the subject
for example, that Teus had never had his lot registered under the torrens system. friar land since it was in compliance with law and hence, the sale in favor of Solid
Suppose he had sold his lot to the appellee and had included in his deed of tr ansfer State is valid and binding. Contrary to that, the
the very strip of land now in question. Could his vendee be regarded as an
"innocent purchaser" of said strip? Would his vendee be an "innocent purchaser" SC said while the sale of the lot to Legaspi occurred much earlier in time, the sam e
of said strip? Certainly not. The record of the original certificate of the appellants cannot be considered as a ground to for him to be considered the true owner of
precludes the possibility. Has the appellee gained any right by reason of the the land. Legaspi did not present an evidence showing that a certificate of sale was
registration of the strip of land in the name of his vendor? Applying the rule of notice ever issued by the BoL in his favor. The existence of the official receipts showing
resulting from the record of the title of the appellants, the question must be payment of the price of the land by Legaspi does not prove that the land was legally
answered in the negative. We are of the opinion that these rules are more in conveyed to her without any contract of sale. Legaspi also alleged that he
harmony with the purpose of Act No. 496 than the rule contended for by the purchased the land in a sale at public auction, which procedure is nowhere
appellee. We believe that the purchaser from the owner of the later certificate, and provided in the pertinent laws conveying friar lands. The law expressly state that
his successors, should be required to resort to his vendor for damages, in case of an actual occupant of the land shall purchase the lot occupied by him at a private
a mistake like the present, rather than to molest the holder of the first certificate sale not in a public auction. There was also absence of a deed of conveyance to
who has been guilty of no negligence. The holder of t he first original certificate and Legaspi by the government after the full payment of the instalments on the disputed
his successors should be permitted to rest secure in their title, against one who lot.
had acquired rights in conflict therewith and who had full and complete knowledge
of their rights. The purchaser of land included in the s econd original certificate, by Time and again,
again, registration does not vest title to the land, but merely a
reason of the facts contained in the public record and the knowledge with which he procedure to establish
is charged and by reason of his negligence, should suffer the loss, if any, resulting evidence over realty.
realty. Even if the 1 year period has already lapsed, the title did
from such purchase, rather than he who has obtained the first certificate and who not become incontrovertible but it is a null and void for not complying with the
was innocent of any act of negligence. requirements of the law. Therefore, Virata could not have validly obtained title to
the land
The foregoing decision does not solve, nor pretend to solve, all the difficulties
resulting from double registration under the torrens system and the subsequent FULLTEXT RULING:
transfer of the land. Neither do we now attempt to decide the effect of the former We find the petition impressed with merit.
registration in the ordinary registry upon the r egistration under the torrens system. Since the assigned errors were interrelated, it would be well for this Court to
We are inclined to the view, without deciding it, that the record under the torrens discuss them jointly.
system, supersede all other registries. If that view is correct then it will be sufficient, Petitioner does not question the factual findings made by the respondent appellate
in dealing with land registered and recorded alone. Once land is registered and court and supported by the records (p. 22, Rollo).
Rollo). It does not however accept the
recorded under the torrens system, that record alone can be examined for the legal conclusion made by the appellate court and trial court that the registered t itle
purpose of ascertaining the real status of the title to t he land. of private respondent to the land should prevail over its own title.
Petitioner contends that Act No. 1120,1120, otherwise known as the Friar Lands Act
It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two persons have acquired provides the procedure for the sale and disposition of the friar lands to private
equal rights in the same thing, to hold that the one who acquired it first and who persons; that pursuant thereto, the acquisition by petitioner's predecessor-in-
has complied with all the requirements of the law should be protected. interest Julian Peñaranda of the disputed Lot 7449, which was formerly part of the
friar lands estate, was in compliance with all legal requisites laid down in Act No.
1120, for the validity of the sale by the government in favor of Peñaranda of such
SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS Corp. vs.CA friar lands.
G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991
It also argues that the sale of Lot No. 7449 to respondent's predecessor, Mabini
FACTS: Legaspi, and the issuance of a certificate of title in her f avor was in violation of the
In 1982,
1982, Solid State, a domestic corporation, filed an action for quieting of title on Friar Lands Act as there was no required approval by the Secretary of Agriculture
a parcel of land located at Imus, Cavite which was allegedly registered by Virata in and Natural Resources.
his name by fraudulently obtaining a title through an administrative reconstitution
of a non-existent original title of the land, and t hat by reason of said reconstitution, There is no dispute here that the land involved in this case is a friar land and that
there now exists a cloud on the title of Solid State. Solid State alleges that it bought the laws which are applicable are Act No. 1120, 1120, known as the Friar Lands Act,
the land from Julian Peñaranda who obtained the same through the grant of providing for the administration and temporary leasing and sale of certain
application for the sale of a friar land from the government. The land was registered haciendas and parcels of land, commonly known as friar lands, and
in the name of Peñaranda in 1969 under CA 32. Peñaranda's
32.  Peñaranda's occupation of the Commonwealth Act No. 32  32  dated September 15, 1936 as amended by
land is derived through a voluntary assignment of right of the former occupant, Commonwealth Act No. 316  316  dated June 9, 1938, which provided for the
Mabini Legaspi, and that the same is free from claims and conflicts and that the subdivision and sale of all the portions of the friar lands estated remaining
said applicant has established his rights over the subject land, in view of which, undisposed of.
said investigator recommended that said lot be awarded to applicant Julian Sec. 12 of Act No. 1120 provides
1120 provides in part:
Peñaranda according to law. . . . the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the said settler and occupant
a certificate which shall set forth in detail that the Government has agreed to sell
him at the price so fixed
to such settler and occupant the amount of land so held by him at
Virata 
Virata  countered saying that he bought the land from Mabini Legaspi who payable as provided in this Act at the Office of the Chief of the Bureau of Public
obtainedownership
obtainedownership in 1957 on the subject land after the Director of Lands sold the Lands . . . and that upon the payment of the final installment together with all
same at public auction. Official Receipts of payment for the instalments were accrued interest the Government will convey to such settler and occupant the said
shown as a proof. The title was reconstituted since the Provincial Capitol of Cavite land so held by him by proper instrument of conveyance,
conveyance, which shall be issued
was burned including the ROD office which holds the title to the subject property. and become effective in the manner provided in section one hundred and twenty
Legaspi also denied that she sold the land to Julan Peñaranda. RTC ruled in favor two of the Land Registration Act.
of Virata which was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this appeal
before the SC.  Also, Sec. 18 of the same Act provides:
.. No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands under the
Issue:  provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the Secretary of the
WON CA correctly held that Virata is the true and lawful owner of the subject Interior. (Emphasis
Interior. (Emphasis ours)
property? NO.
Similarly, Sec. 2 of C.A. No. 32, as amended by C.A. No. 316 provides in part:
Ruling: . . . The persons who, at the time of the subdivision survey are actual and bona
Solid State contends
State contends that Act No. 1120 or Friar Lands Act provides the procedure  fide  occupants of any portion of the Friar Lands Estates, not exceeding ten
for the sale and disposition of hectares,, shall be given preference to purchase the portion occupied at a private
hectares
the friar lands to private persons. The acquisition by Peñaranda was in compliance sale and at a price to be fixed in such case, by the Director of Lands, subject to the
with all legal requisites laid down by the law for the validity of the sale. He further approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, after taking into
contended that the issuance to Mabini Legaspi of a COT in her favor was a violation consideration its location, quality, and any other circumstances as may affect its
of the Friar Lands Act as there was no required approval by the Secretary of value, the provisions of section 12, of Act 1120, as amended, to the contrary, . . .
 Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Resources. (Emphasis ours)

The friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual settlers and It is clear from the foregoing provisions that the friar lands were purchased by the
occupants at the time said government for sale to actual settlers and occupants at the time said lands are
lands are acquired by the government. The Bureau of Lands shall first issue a acquired by the government.
certificate stating therein that the 1) The Bureau of Lands shall first issue a certificate stating
certificate stating therein that
the government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant.
7
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
2) The occupant then shall accept 
accept  the certificate and agree to pay the
purchase price so fixed and in the installments and at the interest The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Mabini Legaspi did not vest
specified in the certificate. ownership upon her over the land nor did it validate the alleged purchase of the
3) The conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or the so lot, which is null and void. Time and again, it has been held that registration does
called certificate of sale, is a conveyance of the ownership of the not vest title. It is merely evidence of such title over a particular property.
property, subject only to the resolutory condition that the sale may be Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than that
cancelled if the price agreed upon is not paid for in full. The purchaser
The purchaser what he actually has  has  (De man et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. L- 46935
becomes the owner upon the issuance of the certificate of sale in his December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 701; Cruz vs. Cabana, No. 56232, June 22, 1984,
favour subject only to the cancellation thereof in case the price agreed 129 SCRA 656).
upon is not paid (Pugeda vs. Trias, No. L-16925, March 31, 1962, 4 Although a period of one year has already expired from the time the
SCRA 849.) certificate of title was issued to Mabini Legaspi pursuant to the alleged sale
4) Upon the payment of the final installment together with all accrued from the government, said title does not become incontrovertible but is null
interests, the government shall then issue a final deed of and void since the acquisition of the property was in violation of law.
conveyance in
conveyance in favor of the purchaser.
5) However, the sale of such friar lands shall be valid only if approved by Further, the petitioner herein is in possession of the land in dispute. Hence, its
the Secretary of Interior   as provided in Act No. 1120.
1120. Later laws, action to quiet title is imprescriptible.
imprescriptible. In one case, this Court ruled that an adverse
however, required that the sale shall be approved by the Secretary of claimant of a registered land who is in p ossession thereof for a long period of tim e
 Agriculture and Commerce. In short, the approval by the Secretary of is not barred from bringing an action for reconveyance which in effect seeks to
 Agriculture and Commerce is is indispensable for the validity
validity of the sale. quiet title to the property against a registered owner relying upon a Torrens title
which was illegally or wrongfully acquired. In actions for reconveyance of property
It is undisputed that SOLID STATE’s 
STATE’s  predecessor, Julian Peñaranda was the predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was void ab initio, initio, a
actual occupant of Lot 7449 when he filed his application to purchase the said lot claim of prescription of the action would be unavailing. Being null and void, the sale
on November 22, 1968; that on December 16, 1989, the Secretary of Agriculture made to Mabini Legaspi and the subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto
and Natural Resources approved the sale of the lot without auction to Peñaranda; produced no legal effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est nullum producit affectum.
affectum.
that a sales contract was executed between the Director of Lands and Peñaranda There being no title to the land that Mabini Legaspi acquired from the government,
on February 28, 1969 for a consideration of P 1,198.00 payable in 10 monthly it follows that no title to the same land could be conveyed by the former to
installments; that upon the full payment of the price, the Undersecretary of respondent Virata. Even assuming that respondent Virata was a purchaser in good
 Agriculture and Natural
Natural Resources issued the final deed
deed of conveyance of Lot No. faith and for value, the law is, as between two persons both of whom are in good
7449 in favor of Peñaranda. Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued faith and both innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the
TCT No. 39631 in the name of Peñaranda, and when the latter sold the land to lawful holder of registered title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of any
petitioner, TCT No. 39631 was cancelled and TCT No. T-80889 was issued in favor transmissible rights .
rights . Further if a person happened to obtain property by mistake
of the latter. or to the prejudice of another with or without bad faith, the certificate of title which
may have been issued to him under the circumstances may and should be
Clearly, the purchase of the friar land m ade by Peñaranda was in compliance with cancelled or corrected. Our unavoidable conclusion in this case is that the title of
law. The execution of the sales contract vested the right of ownership in Peñaranda petitioner under the Torrens land system should be upheld considering that
over the land. There is no doubt whatsoever that the said sale was valid as it was no previous valid title to the same land existed.
existed.
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the sale Petition granted.
made by Peñaranda in favor of the petitioner transferred the ownership of the land
in favor of the latter resulting in the proper issuance of TCT No. T-80889 in its GREY ALBA VS. DE LA CRUZ
name. 17 SCRA 49
Facts:
On the other hand, the antecedents leading to the acquisition of title by respondent Petitioners are heirs of Segunda Alba Clemente.
Clemente. They, as co-owners sought for
VIRATA 
VIRATA   are clearly shown in the records. The latter's predecessor, Mabini the registration of a parcel of
Legaspi bought Lot 7449 in a sale by public auction  auction  held on May 5, 1943 land located in Baliuag, Bulacan. The land is said to be an agricultural one used
conducted by the Bureau of Lands and f riar lands agent Severino Rivera, and paid for the raising of rice and sugar cane. This petition for registration was granted by
the purchase price thereof in installments in 1943; that on December 12, 1944, the the court. Subsequently, Anacleto Dela Cruz objected
Cruz objected before the court asking for
Bureau of Lands sent a letter to the Register of Deeds of Cavite requesting the the revision of the case. Dela Cruz alleged that the decree of registration was
issuance of certificates of title to several persons including Mabini Legaspi, in fraudulently obtained by the petitioners and that included in the parcels of land
whose favor TCT A-2188 was issued; that subsequently on December 6, 1957,  Albas sought
sought to register
register is the two parcels of land he inherited from his father which
she sold the disputed land to respondent Virata, which was evidenced by a deed was a state grant. To this the court revised its decision which excludes the two
of sale registered with the Registry of Deeds of Cavite on December 10, 1957; that parcels of land claimed by Dela Cruz.
on the same date, TCT No. 11520 was issued in the name of Virata. Due to the
fire which gutted the building housing the Registry of Cavite on June 7, 1959, the Issue: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Anacleto De La
latter administratively reconstituted the original of TCT No. 11520 on September Cruz? YES.
Cruz? YES.
1, 1959, based on the owner's duplicate certificate and renumbered the same as Ruling:
TCT No. 1120 RT 1660. It is admitted that Dela cruz was occupying the two parcels of land at the time the
appellants presented their petition for registration. That Dela Cruz did not appear
 Apparently, the sale of the lot to Mabini Legaspi occurred much earlier than the in the petition as an occupant and also that he is alleged to be a tenant for the
date of acquisition of same lot by petitioner's predecessor, and the evidence  Albas the reason why the latter did not include his
his name in the petition as occupant.
presented by respondent Virata indicates that the latter's predecessor paid the It is proved that the Uncle of the petitioners, who took care of them after their
purchase price of Lot No. 7449 on installments. Nowhere in the evidence for the parents died, have leased the property to Anacleto’s Father. Anacleto agreed that
respondent or in the records of this case however, would show that a there was a lease but the two parcels of land he is claiming were not
certificate of sale was ever issued by the Bureau of Lands, which would vest included in the lease contract. The fact that the petitioners were able to have the
ownership and title over the land i n favor of Mabini Legaspi.
Legaspi. The existence of subject land registered will tell us that such registration is conclusive upon and
the official receipts showing payment of the price of the land by Legaspi does not against all persons, including the government, whether their names are mentioned
prove that the land was legally conveyed to her without any contract of sale having in the application or included in the general description “to “ to all who it may
been executed by the government in her favor. Viewed from all angles,   the concern”. By
concern”. By express provision of the law, such as the Land Registration Act, the
acquisition of the lot by Legaspi was highly irregular and void, and not in world are made parties-defendant by the description in the notice “to all whom it
compliance with the procedure mandated by law for the sale of friar lands. may concern”.Though,
concern”.Though, Anacleto De la Cruz was not served with notice, he
For one thing, Mabini Legaspi allegedly purchased the land in a sale at public was already made a party defendant by publication and the entering of the
auction, which procedure is nowhere provided in Act No. 1120 or in C.A. 32, as decree in 1908 must be held conclusive against all persons including him. him.
amended by C.A. 316. The laws expressly state that a n actual occupant of the land The SC said it was error for the lower court to have opened the decree and
shall purchase the lot occupied by him at a private s ale and not in a sale at public modified the judgment on account of absence, infancy, or other disability. It
auction (Sec. 2, C.A. 32 as amended). Further, neither was there any deed of could have been opened only on the ground that the decree was obtained
conveyance issued to Legaspi by the government after the full payment of the through fraud.
fraud.
installments on the disputed lot.
While it was alleged that there was f raud, the SC did not consider such allegation.
Highly significant at this point is the fact t hat there was neither allegation nor proof It ruled that the petitioners
that the sale was with the approval of th e Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. honestly believed that Anacleto was occupying the lands as t heir tenant. Specific,
The  absence of such approval made the supposed sale null and void ab
The  intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some
initio. Without the certificate of sale to prove the transfer of the ownership of the manner injure him, must be alleged and proved; proved; that is, there must be actual
land from the government Mabini Legaspi and without the required approval of the or positive fraud.To
fraud.To this, the SC said t hat the Lower Courts decision be reinstated
sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, We find that Mabini Legaspi and the decision of the Appellate Court be reversed.
did not in any manner acquire ownership over the land in 1943. The 1943. The ownership
or title over the friar land, specifically Lot No. 7449 remained in the government
until Peñaranda, petitioners predecessor, lawfully acquired ownership over
the same lot on February 28, 1969 by virtue of a sales contract executed in JURISDICTION OVER LAND REGISTRATION CASES
his favor. VENUE
8
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
RTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction (Sec. 2 (2) of PD 1529) consent or waiver upon a court objection on improper venue may be
1)  All applications for original registration of title to lands, including which otherwise would have no waived by the failure of the defendant
improvements and interests therein  jurisdiction over the subject matter of to raise it at the proper time.
2)  All petitions
petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear an action
and determine all question arising upon such applications or Rules as to jurisdiction can never be In such an event, the court may still
petition left to the consent or agreement of render a valid judgment
MTC’s delegated jurisdiction the parties.
MTCs may hear and determine l and registration cases in the following  jurisdictional Procedural (may be waived); to
instances: provide convenience to the parties
1) Lot sought to be registered is not subject to controversy or rather than restrict their access to the
opposition courts as it relates to the place of t rial.
2) Lot is contested, but the value thereof does not exceed 100, 000
a. Such value is ascertained by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court
 by the affidavit of the claimant a. laying of venue is procedural
 by the agreement of the respective claimants (if there be more than one), rather than substantive.
or b. It relates to the jurisdiction of
 from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property the court over the person
rather than the subject matter.
SC Administrative Circular 6-93-A c. Provisions relating to venue
Nov. 15, 1995 establish a relation between
1) Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of this A.C. the plaintiff and the
shall be transferred by the Executive Judge of the RTC having jurisdiction defendant 
defendant  and not between
over the cases to E.J. of the appropriate Courts of limited jurisdiction for the the court and the subject
required raffle among the branches of the court under his administrative matter.
supervision d. Venue relates to trial 
trial  not to
2) But those already commenced as of the date of effectivity shall remain w/  jurisdiction, touches more of
said courts, except when the parties agree otherwise the convenience of
convenience of the parties
RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC. ,  , rather than the substance of the
vs . RoD Paranaque. case.
[G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000]
In Dacoycoy v. IAC , this Court ruled:
FACTS:   The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by respondent trial court
PETITIONER CORPORATION 
CORPORATION   was formerly known as Rudolf Lietz, on the ground of improper venue is plain error, obviously attributable to its
Incorporated.
Incorporated. On July 15, 1996, it amended its Articles
Articles of Incorporation to change inability to distinguish between jurisdiction and venue.
its name to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc and was approved by the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 1997. As a consequence of its change of VENUE, IN INFERIOR COURTS AS WELL AS IN THE CFI (NOW RTC), M AY BE
name, petitioner sought the amendment of the TCTs over real properties owned WAIVED EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY  Dismissing the complaint on the ground
by the said corporation, all of which were under the old name, Rudolf Lietz, of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at this stage of
Incorporated. For this purpose, petitioner instituted, on November 20, 1997, a the proceedings, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of
petition for amendment of titles with the RTC of
RTC of Paraaque City impleading as
impleading  as first instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where the
respondent the ROD of Pasay City,
Pasay City, apparently because the titles sought to be defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by
amended, all state that they were issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasay Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a
City. Petitioner likewise inadvertently alleged in the body of the petition that the decision to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to
lands covered by the subject titles are located in Pasay City. Subsequently, belatedly challenge the wrong venue, which is deemed waived.
petitioner learned that the subject titles are in t he custody of the Register of
Deeds of Paraaque City.
Paraaque City. Hence, Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Amended Petition THOUGH TECHNICALLY WRONG, MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE PARTIES
now impleading ROD of Paraaque City, and alleged that its lands are located in FOR WHOSE CONVENIENCE THE RULES ON VENUE HAD BEEN
Paraaque City. Court dismissed due to improper venue since properties are DEVISED.
DEVISED. Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion
in Pasay In the meantime, however, on January 30, 1998, the court a quo had quo had to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid, as for all
dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue, it appearing practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may be
therein that the respondent is the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City and the acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been
City.[7]MR denied
properties are located in Pasay City. devised. The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendants prerogative to object to
the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing
proprio dismissing the case.
PETITIONER BEFORE SC
The court a quo acted contrary to the rules and jurisprudence on the matter for the INDEED, IT WAS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO HAVE
following reasons: TAKEN A PROCEDURAL SHORT-CUT BY DISMISSING  MOT U P R OP R IO  the
1. It has no power
power to immediately
immediately dismiss
dismiss an initiatory pleading
pleading for improper
improper complaint on the ground of improper venue without first allowing the procedure
venue; outlined in the rules of court to take its proper course. Although we are for the
2. Assuming the Order
Order of 30 January
January 1998 was proper, itit was nevertheless speedy and expeditious resolution of cases, justice and fairness take primary
still a matter of right on petitioners part to amend its petition in order to importance. The ends of justice require that respondent trial court faithfully adhere
correct the wrong entries therein; and to the rules of procedure to afford not only the defendant, but the plaintiff as well,
3. The unassailable
unassailable reality is that the subject
subject parcels of land are located
located in cause.[18]
the right to be heard on his cause.
Paraaque City, so venue was properly laid despite that erroneous
erroneous allegation
 allegation
petition.[11]
in the original petition.
PETITIONER CORRECTLY INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL
OSG TRIAL COURT IN SEEKING THE AMENDMENT OF ITS CERTIFICATES OF
The Solicitor General filed on November 4, 1998 his Comment said that trial court TITLE.
TITLE. The jurisdiction of the RTC over matters involving the registration of lands
did not acquire jurisdiction over the res 
res  because it appeared from the original and lands registered under the Torrens system is conferred by Section 2 of
petition that the lands are situated in Pasay City; hence, outside t he jurisdiction of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
1529, The Property Registration Decree, viz:
the Paraaque court. Since it had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not have Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. ---
courts. --- Judicial proceedings
acted on the motion to admit amended petition. for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be
based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens s ystem.
PETITIONER’S REPLY JURISDICTION V. VENUE On February 15, 1999,
petitioner filed its Reply. TC had jurisdiction over the petition, but that venue COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE (now
INSTANCE  (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have exclusive
appeared to be improperly laid based on the erroneous allegation therein on the  jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including
location of the properties. improvements and interest therein, and over all petitions filed after original
registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon
ISSUE: May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground of such applications or petitions.
improper venue? NO.
The COURT through its CLERK OF COURT shall
RULING: W hilehile the ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the petition 1. furnish the Land Registration Commission with
Commission with two certified copies
below was clearly that of improper venue, the Solicitor General confuses venue of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in
with jurisdiction. A distinction between the two must be drawn. applications or petitions for land registration,
2. WITH THE EXCEPTION
EXCEPTION of stenographic notes,
JURISDICTION OVER THE VENUE OF AN ACTION 3. within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.
SUBJECT MATTER
nature of an action is conferred only as fixed by statute may be changed by
by law. It may not be conferred by the consent of the parties, and an
9
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
In the case at bar, the lands are located in Paraaque City, as stated on the faces herein prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city
of the titles. Petitioner, thus, also correctly filed the petition in the place where the where the land lies.
lands are situated, pursuant to the following rule:
Venue of real actions .  --- Actions affecting title to or possession of (a) The Register
Register of Deeds for each province
province or city shall keep aPrimary
a Primary Entry
real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the Book 
Book   and a Registration Book.
Book. The Primary Entry Book shall contain,
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real among other particulars,
situated.[19]
property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. 1. the entry number,
2. the names of the parties,
3. the nature of the document,
VDA. DE ARCEO VS. CA 4. the date, hour and minute it was presented and received.
185 SCRA 489 5. The recording of the deed and and other instruments relating to
Facts:
Facts: unregistered lands shall be effected by any of annotation on the
Spouses Arceo are owners of four parcels of unregistered lands located in space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the same
Bulacan. They had one Son named Esteban who had 5 children. Esteban’s shall have been entered in the Primary Entry Book.
children and their children are the parties involved in this case. In 1941, Spouses
 Arceo executed a donation inter vivos in favor of Jose, one of Esteban’s children. (b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in law, the
Since 1942, Jose paid the taxes, took personal possession of the land and claimed Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument in the manner
it as his own. In 1941, also, Arceos supposedly provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds refuses its administration to
signed a deed of donation mortis causa to give away the subject properties in f avor record, said official shall advise the party in interest in writing of the ground
of all his grandchildren including Jose. However, the said document was notarized or grounds for his refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter to the
in 1944 only after Mrs. Arceo died. Commissioner of Land Registration in
Registration  in accordance with the provisions of
Section 117 of this Decree.
Decree. It shall be understood that any recording made
Subsequently, the wife of Jose, together with their children, filed with the cadastral under this section shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better
court an application for right.
registration in their names the subject lands. This was contested by Pedro and
Lorenzo, Jose’s siblings contending that they
that  they are entitled to a part of the subject (c) After recording on the Record Book,
Book, the Register
Register of Deeds shall
shall endorse
parcels of land. The cadastral court rejected the registration and distributed the among other things, upon the original of the recorded instruments, the file
properties according to law on intestate succession instead. The CA affirmed its number and the date as well as the hour and minute when the document
decision. was received for recording as shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning
Issue:
Issue: WON the cadastral court has jurisdiction in determining the ownership of to the registrant or person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with
lands? appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the instrument after
reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the provincial or city assessor as
Ruling:
Ruling: required by existing law.
 As to the issue of jurisdiction, Section 2 of PD 1529 provides that RTC, sitting as
a land registration court, is no (d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse
adverse claim and
longer circumscribed as it is in the previous law. PD 1529 eliminated the general other instruments in the nature of involuntary dealings with respect to
 jurisdiction of RTC and the limited jurisdiction
jurisdiction of RTC acting merely as a cadastral unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient in law, shall likewise be
court; the purpose of this is to avoid multiplicity of suits. admissible to record under this section.
In this case, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction in the
determination of issues on (e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under this section,
ownership, which at the same time involves the issue on the right of registration. he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed for similar services for
There would be a multiplicity of suits or the registration will be prolonged if not the registration of deeds or instruments concerning registered lands.
impossible should the cadastral court decide not to pass upon the issue of
ownership. REGISTRATION UNDER THE SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW

 As to the issue of co-ownership: TITULO

TITULO DE PROPR IEDAD NO. 4136
4136 The case of Director of Forestry v. Muñoz
Jose’s
Jose’s wife contends that they acquired the lot through acquisitive prescription. would soon be the core of subsequent decisions declaring the infamous Titulo de
This was rejected by the SC. The Civil Code provides that prescription does not lie Propriedad No.
Propriedad No. 4136 as a forgery foisted upon the courts and bereft of any validity
against co-owners, unless the following requisites concur. and efficacy as evidence of ownership. In this case, petitioners-heirs did not
a. There is a clear showing that the claimant
claimant has repudiated adduce
the co-ownership. evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad 4136 was brought under the operation
b. He has made known to the co-owners
co-owners that he is assuming of P.D. No. 892 despite
892 despite their
exclusive ownership over the property. allegation that they did so on August 13, 1976. Proof of compliance with P.D. No.
c. Clear and convincing evidence thereof. 892 should be the Certificate of Title covering the land registered.
d. His possession is OCEN.
This circumstances were not present in the case at bar. The fact of paying taxes REGISTRATION UNDER UNDER ACT NO. 3344; ineffective as against 3 rd persons
cannot defeat the right of coowners to their right to enjoy the use of their property, The inscription under Act No. 3344 of a transaction relating to unregistered land
the same does not confer title upon a claimant. was held not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code, the law on
Nonetheless, the SC granted the petition and have the lands registered under the double sale of the same property. The registration should be made in the property
name of Jose and his heirs by registry to be binding upon third persons; mere registration of a sale in one’s favour
virtue of the valid deed of donation inter vivos. The Supreme Court further ruled does not give him any right over the land if the v endor was not anymore the owner
that the donation mortis causa did not revoke the first donation. The weight of of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier
authority is that a valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable subject to sale was unrecorded.
few exceptions. Finally, the court said that the disposition in favor of Jose of the
subject properties should be respected.

CHAPTER II
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS
Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The system
of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby discontinued and all Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In order to have a more efficient
lands recorded under said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall execution of the laws relative to t he registration of lands, geared to the massive
be considered as unregistered lands. and accelerated land reform and social justice program of the government,
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish there is created a commission to be known as the Land Registration
Mortgage Law may be Commission under the executive supervision of the Department of Justice.
recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been brought Section 5. Officials and employees of the Commission.  Commission.  The Land
under the operation of the Torrens system. The books of registration for Registration Commission shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be known,
unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative respectively, as the Commissioner   and the Deputy Commissioner   of Land
Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall continue to remain in force; provided, Registration who shall be appointed by the President .
that all instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered The Commissioner  shall
 shall be
under Section 113 of this Decree. duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar
with at least ten years of practice in the legal profession, and
shall have the same rank, compensation and privileges as those
Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered lands. No of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.
deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument affecting land The Deputy Commissioner , who shall
not registered under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as between the possess the same qualifications as those required of the
parties thereto, unless such instrument shall have been recorded in the manner Commissioner,

10
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand pesos Between the two buyers of the same immovable property registered
per annum less than that of the Commissioner. under the Torrens System, the law gives ownership priority to
He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during the 1) First registrant in good faith
absence or disability of the Commissioner and 2) First possessor in good faith
when there is a vacancy in the position until another person shall 3) Buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title
have been designated or appointed in accordance with law.
The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions Effect of Registration
as the Commissioner may assign to him. Constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering,
They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be necessary filing, or entering.
in the interest of the functioning of the Commission, by a Special Assistant to
the Commissioner , and by a Chief Geodetic Engineer   who shall each SEC. 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies and other
receive compensation at the rate of three thousand four hundred pesos per subordinate personnel; salaries. — Registers of Deeds shall be appointed
annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of
 All other officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission Justice. Deputy Registers of Deeds and all other subordinate personnel of the
including those of the Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein Registries of  Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon the
provided, shall receive salaries corresponding to the minimum of their recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration. The salaries of
respective upgraded ranges as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget Registers of Deeds and their Deputies shall be at the following rates:
Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, (1) First Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds in
notwithstanding the maximum salary allowed for their respective civil service first class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos
eligibilities. per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner.
The salaries of officials and employees provided in t his Decree shall be without (2) Second Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds in
prejudice to such benefits and adjustments as may from time to time be granted second class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred
by the President or by the legislature to government employees. pesos per annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in first
 All officials and
and employees of the Commission except except Registers of Deeds
Deeds shall class Registries.
be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the (3) Third Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds in
Commissioner of Land Registration. third class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos
Section 6. General Functions. per annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in second class
(1) The Administrator of Land Registration shall have the following Registries.
functions: (4) The salaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds and Second Deputy
a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the Registers of Deeds shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per
courts in land registration proceedings and cause the issuance annum less than those of their corresponding Registers of Deeds
by the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of and Deputy Registers of Deeds, respectively.
title; (5) The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the
b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and Commissioner of Land Registration, shall cause the reclassification
other personnel of the Commission; of Registries based either on work load or the class of province/
c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from city, whichever will result in a higher classification, for purposes of
decision of, Registers of Deeds; salary adjustments in accordance with the rates hereinabove
d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and provided.
personnel of the Courts of First Instance throughout the
Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and
functions in relation to the registration of lands; SEC. 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of
e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated Deeds. — No person shall be appointed Register of Deeds unless he has been
relative to the registration of lands admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines and shall have been actually
and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules engaged in such practice for at least three years or has been employed for a
and regulations therefor; like period in any branch of government the functions of which include the
f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation- registration of property.
subdivision survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 The Deputy Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine Bar.
except those covered by P.D. No. 957. Provided, however, That no Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Deeds
(2) The Land Registration Authority Authority shall
shall have
have the following holding office as such upon the passage of this Decree shall by reason hereof,
functions: be removed from office or be demoted to a lower category or scale of salary
a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of except for cause and upon compliance with due process as provided for by
 Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the law.
implementation of the land reform program of the government;
b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land SEC. 10. General functions of Reg isters of Deeds. — The office of the
registration proceedings; Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of instruments
c) Be the central repository of records relative to original registration affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the
of lands titled under the Torrens system, including subdivision province or city wherein such office is situated.
and consolidation plans of titled lands.
SEC. 7. Office of the R egis ter of Deeds Deeds . —  There shall be at least one It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to
Register of Deeds for each province and one for each city. immediately register an instrument presented for registration
dealing with real or personal property
Every Registry with a which complies with all the requisites for registration.
yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper
during the last three years shall have one documentary and science stamps and that
o Deputy Register of Deeds, the same are properly cancelled.
and every Registry with a If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith
yearly average collection of more than three hundred thousand o deny registration thereof and
pesos o inform the presentor of such denial in writing,
during the last three years, shall have one o stating the ground or reason therefor, and
o Deputy Register of Deeds and o advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in
o one second Deputy Register of Deeds. accordance with Section 117 of this Decree.

The Secretary of Justice 

Justice  shall define the official station and territorial Office of the Register of Deeds
 jurisdiction of each Registry upon the recommendation of the Commissioner Public repository of records of instruments affecting registered or
of Land Registration,
Registration, with the end in view of making every registry easily unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city
accessible to the people of the neighboring municipalities. The province or city wherein such office is situated
shall furnish a suitable space or building for the office of the Register of Deeds
until such time as the same could be furnished out of national funds. NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF LRA
General Rule:It’s
Rule:It’s duty is ministerial – those
– those acts of functions that conform to an
Registry of Property instruction or a prescribed procedure. They act under the orders of the court and
in accordance with Sec. 51 of PD 1529 which provides that “no deed, the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data
mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument  –   –  except a will- found in the record. If the LRA is in doubt as t o the issuance and preparation
purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. In
court. In this sense, they
conveyance or bind the land until its registration. Thus, if the sale is act as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the
not registered, it is binding only between the seller and the buyer but act of the court. They are specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in
it does not affect innocent 3rd persons. ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the
land insofar as third persons are concerned.
11
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
The validity of the document is not for the register to determine for it is a function land registration, and to forestall the possibility of which by a
of a court of competent jurisdiction. Validity is to be decided after the registration subsequent registration of any adjoining land.
in a litigation. In case of doubt, it shall be referred to the LRA
LRA shall after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step
to be taken on the doubtful question which shall be conclusive and
binding upon all RoDs LABURADA V. LRA
Exception: LRA officials may exercise discretion in the following instances: FACTS:
FACTS : Spouses Laburada were the applicants for registration of a parcel of
a) When obeying the court’s order would result to double titling; land located in Mandaluyong City, RTC, acting as land registration court,
b) When there are several copies of title but only one is presented with granted such application. After the finality of the decision, the Sps filed a motion
the instrument to be registered before the RTC requiring LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration,
c) Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the instrument of which was then granted by RTC. However, the LRA refused to do so. To this,
conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse; the Sps Laburada filed an action for mandamus.
d) Where there is pending case in court where the character of the land LRA contends that such refusal is grounded on the fact that a portion of the
and the validity of conveyance is in issue; subject property was a subject of a land decree in court of land registration,
o In this case, the matter of registration may well await the that if it will be pursued, it will result to double titling which destroys the policy
outcome of that case, and in the meantime the rights of the and purpose of the Torrens System. The SG sought to have the petition of the
interested parties
parties could be protected by the filing the Sps Laburada dismissed after it found out on its investigation that the title
proper notices of lis pendens.
pendens. issued for the subject lot cannot be located.
e) Where required certificates and documents are not submitted ISSUE:
ISSUE: w/n the LRA can be compelled to issue the decree of registration
through an action for mandamus (for ministerial duties)? NO
HELD:
HELD:
May the RoD be compelled b y mandamus? There are three reasons why Mandamus is not the right remedy
No. Since the registration is a judicial function, it cannot be compelled by 1) JUDGMENT IS NOT YET EXECUTORY
mandamus. The interested party must resort to the available administrative - The judgment Sps Laburada seek to enforce is not yet executory
remedy before he can have recourse to the courts. and incontrovertible under the Land Registration Law. They do not
have any clear legal right to implement it. It was ruled previously
that a judgment of registration does not become incontrovertible
SEC. 11. Dis charge of duties
duties of R egis ter
ter of Deeds in case of vacancy,
vacancy, etc.
etc. until after the expiration of one year after the entry of the final
— decree of registration.
1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a 2)  A VOID JUDGMENTJUDGMENT IS POSSIBLE
province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon t he occasion - LRA’s refusal to issue a decree is based on documents
do cuments which, if
of the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of the Register of Deeds verified, may render the judgment of the TC void. To this, LRA’s
to discharge his duties, said duties shall be performed by the following hesitation to issue a decree is understandable, even imperative. If
officials, in the order in which they are mentioned below, unless the it issues the decree, it will destroy the integrity of the Torrens
Secretary of Justice designates another official to act temporarily in his System. LRA is mandated to refer to the courts any doubt it may
place: have in regard to the preparation and the issuance of a decree of
a) For the province oror city where there is a Deputy
Deputy Register
Register of registration. They are specifically called upon t o “extend assistance
Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or by the second to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings.
Deputy Register of Deeds, should there be one; Since in this case, the subject property has already been decreed
b) For the province or city
city where there is
is no Deputy or
or second
second by the court for registration. Hence, LRA is divested of jurisdiction.
Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or City Fiscal, or 3) ISSUANCE OF A DECREE IS NOT A NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT
any Assistant Fiscal designated by the Provincial or City - It is part of the judicial function of courts
courts and is not
not a mere
Fiscal. ministerial act, which may be compelled thorough mandamus. This
2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of Deeds is because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion.
without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the Secretary of Justice Writ of mandamus can only be had when the plaintiff’s legal right
may, in his discretion, authorize the payment of an additional to the performance of the particular act which is sought to be
compensation to the official acting as Register of Deeds, such additional compelled is clear and complete. But where the right sought to be
compensation together with his actual salary not to exceed the salary enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, as in this case,
authorized for the position thus filled by him. mandamus cannot issue.
3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending establishment of
a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a regular Register of Deeds
for the new province or city, the Register of Deeds of the mother province
or city shall be the ex-officio Register
ex-officio Register of Deeds for said new province or
city.

SEC. 12. Owner’s Index; reports. —  There shall be prepared in every

Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all registered ABRIGO V. DE VERA
owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an index card which shall be Between two buyers of the same immovable property registered under
prepared in the name of each registered owner which shall contain a list of all the Torrens system, the law gives ownership priority to
lands registered in his name. the first registrant in good faith
The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration Commission within then, the first possessor in good faith; and
ten days after the mo nth to which they pertain his monthly r eports on collections finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.
and accomplishments. He shall also submit to the Commission at the end of This provision, however, does not apply if the property is not registered under
December of each year, an annual inventory of all titles and instruments in his the Torrens system.
Registry.
FACTS:
FACTS :
SEC. 13. Chief Geodetic Engineer. —  There shall be a Chief Geodetic Villafania sold
Villafania sold a house and lot located Pangasinan to Tigno-Salazar and Cave-
Engineer in the Land Registration Commission who shall be the technical Go covered by a tax declaration. ‘Unknown, however to Tigno-Salazar
Tigno-Salazar and a Cave-
adviser of the Commission on all matters involving surveys and shall be Go, Villafania obtained a free patent over the parcel of land involved. The said free
responsible to him for all plats, plans and works requiring the services of a patent was later on cancelled by a TCT.
geodetic engineer in said office. He shall perform such other functions as may,
from time to time, be assigned to him by the Commissioner. ‘On Oct 16, 1997,
1997, Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go,
Cave-Go, sold the house and lot to the
Spouses Abrigo.
Abrigo .
PD 239
- Only the 
the  LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU has authority to approve ‘On Oct 23, 1997, Villafania 
Villafania  sold the same house and lot to de Vera. De Vera
original survey plans for registration purposes. registered the sale and as a consequence a TCT was issued in her name.
- The grant of authority to the LRC to approve original survey plans has
resulted in wasteful overlapping or duplication of functions. There was De Vera filed
Vera filed an action for Forcible Entry and Damages against Spouses Abrigo
therefore a need to centralize in one agency, the LMB, the function of before the MTC.
MTC.
verifying and approving original survey plans for all purposes in order
to assure compliance with established standards and minimize Spouses Abrigo filed a case with with the RTC
RTC for the annulment of
of documents,
irregularities in the execution of land s urveys injunction, preliminary injunction, restraining order and damages against Villafania.

The parties submitted a Motion for Dismissal in view of their agreement in the
Survey Plan instant (RTC) case that neither of them can physically take possession of the
- serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does property in question until the instant case is terminated. Hence the ejectment case
not overlap a parcel of land portion thereof already covered by previous was dismissed.

12
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016

RTC JUDGMENT been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a sale in one’s
Compromise Agreement approved. favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore
Villafania was given one year from the date of the Compromise Agreement to buy the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else
back the house and lot, and failure to do so would mean that the previous sale in even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.
favor of Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go shall remain valid and binding and the plaintiff
shall voluntarily vacate the premises without need of any demand. Villafania failed “The case of Carumba vs. Court of Appeals is
Appeals is a case in point. It was held therein
to buy back the house and lot, so the [v endees] declared the lot in their name that Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application to land not registered
under Act No. 496. Like
496.  Like in the case at bar, Carumba dealt with a double sale of
The RTC rendered the assailed Decision awarding the properties to Spouses the same unregistered land. The first sale was made by the original owners and
 Abrigo as well as damages. Moreover, Villafania was ordered to pay [petitioners was unrecorded while the second was an execution sale that resulted from a
and private respondent] damages and attorney’s f ees. complaint for a sum of money filed against the said original owners. Applying
[Section 33], Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court held that Article
Not contented with the assailed Decision, both parties [appealed to the CA]. 1544 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked to benefit the purchaser at the execution
sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even if this second sale was
CA JUDGMENT registered. It was explained that this is because the purchaser of unregistered
In its original Decision, the CA held that a void title could not give rise to a valid land at a sheriff’s
sheri ff’s execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment
one and hence dismissed the appeal of Private Respondent de Vera. Since debtor, and merely acquires the latter’s interest in the property sold as of the
Villafania had already transferred ownership to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita time the property was levied upon.
Cave-Go, the subsequent sale to De Vera was deemed void. The CA also
dismissed the appeal of Petitioner-Spouses Abrigo and found no sufficient basis “Applying this principle, x x x the execution sale of unregistered land in fa vor of
to award them moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer belonged to the judgment
debtor as of the time of t he said execution sale.
On reconsideration found Respondent
Respondent De Vera to be a purchaser in good faith and
for value. The appellate court ruled that she had relied in good faith on the Torrens 3. Good-Faith Requirement
title of her vendor and must thus be protected. We have consistently held that Article 1544 requires the second buyer to acquire
the immovable in good faith and to register it in good faith. Mere registration of title
Hence, this Petition. is not enough; good faith must concur with the registration.We explained the
rationale in Uraca v. Court of Appeals,
Appeals, which we quote:
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Who between petitioner-spouses and respondent has a better right to the
property. “Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by the sec ond
buyer does not by itself confer ownership or a better right over the property. Article
HELD:
HELD: DE VERA 1544 requires that such registration must be coupled with good faith.
The present case involves what in legal contemplation was a double sale. Gloria Jurisprudence teaches
teaches us that ‘(t)he governing principle is primus tempore, potior
Villafania first sold the disputed property to Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, from  jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge
right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the
whom petitioners, in turn, derived their right. Subsequently a second sale was second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights except where the second buyer
executed by Villafania with Respondent de Vera. registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first, as provided by the Civil
Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights
Article 1544 of the Civil Code states the law on double sale thus: under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against the second
“Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the buyer. But in converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since such
thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the price exacted by
 Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer being able to displace the first
“Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person buyer; that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show
acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the
first buyer’s rights) —-
—- from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in him by registration, or failing registration, by delivery of possession.’”34 (Italics
good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person supplied)
who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
Equally important, under Section 44 of PD 1529 , every registered owner receiving
There is no ambiguity in the application of this law with r espect to lands registered a certificate of title pursuant to a decree of registration, and every subsequent
under the Torrens system. purchaser of registered land taking such certificate for value and in good faith shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances, except those noted and enumerated in
In the instant case,
case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered the sale of the certificate. Thus, a person dealing with registered land is not required to
the property. Since neither petitioners nor their predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and go behind the registry to determine the condition of the property, since such
Cave-Go) knew that the property was covered by the Torrens system, they condition is noted on the face of the register or certificate of title.Following
title.Following
registered their respective sales under Act 3344  3344  For her part, respondent this principle, this Court has consistently held as regards registered land that a
registered the transaction under the Torrens system because, during the sale, purchaser in good faith acquires a good t itle as against all the transferees thereof
Villafania had presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) covering the property. whose rights are not recorded in the Registry of Deeds at the time of the sale.

Soriano v. Heirs of Magali 2323 held that registration must be done in the proper
registry in order to bind the land. Since the property in dispute in the present
case was already registered under the Torrens system, petitioners’ CHAPTER III
registration of the sale under Act 3344 was not effective for purposes of (ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS)
Article 1544 of
1544 of the Civil Code. SECTION 14

More recently, in Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeal s,24

s,24 the Court
upheld the right of a party who had registered the sale of land under the Property
Registration Decree, as opposed to another who had registered a deed of final
conveyance under Act 3344. In that case, the “priority in time” principle was
not applied, because the land was already covered by the Torrens system at
the time the conveyance was registered under Act 3344.3344. For the same reason,
inasmuch as the registration of the sale to Respondent De Vera under the Torrens
system was done in good faith, this sale must be upheld over the sale registered
under Act 3344 to Petitioner-Spouses Abrigo.

NOTES:

The principle in Article 1544 of the Civil Code is in full accord with Section 51 of
PD 1529 which provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary
instrument — except a will — purporting to convey or affect registered land shall
take effect as a conveyance or bind the land until its registration. Thus, if the sale
is not registered, it is binding only between the seller and the buyer but it does not
affect innocent third persons.

Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo25  

Palileo25   explained the difference in the rules of
registration under Act 3344 and those under the Torrens system in this wise:
“Under Act No. 3344,
3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is
‘without prejudice to a third party with a better right.’ The
right.’ The aforequoted phrase has
13
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Section 14. Who may apply. 
apply.   The following persons may file in the proper Patrimonial property –
property  – Property owned by the State but which is not devoted to
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether public use, public service, or the development of national wealth. It is wealth owned
personally or through their duly authorized representatives: by the State in its private capacity.
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, c ontinuous, exclusive and notorious possession and For private lands, which are patrimonial properties of the State, to be
occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under acquired via prescription, the following must concur:
a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. 1) Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription, 10 years possession in good faith and
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription with just title; or
under the provision of existing laws. 2) Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription, uninterrupted adverse possession of
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river patrimonial property for at least 30 years, regardless of good faith and just
beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws. title; and There must be an express declaration by the Stat e that the public
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the
provided for by law. development of the national wealth
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the
application jointly. MALABANAN V. REPUBLIC

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, Facts:
however, that should the period for redemption expire during the In 1998, Mario Malabanan 
Malabanan  filed an application for land registration covering a
pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property parcel of land located in Silang Cavity. Malabanan claimed that he purchased the
consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the land from Eduardo Velazco,
Velazco, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had
applicant and may continue the proceedings. been in OCENPO of the land for more than 30 years.
Aristedes Velazco,
Velazco, Malabanan’s witness, testified before the court that the
 A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of property originally belonged to a 22- hectare property owned by Lino Velazco,
Velazco, her
any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument great-grandfather. Lino had 4 sons –
sons – Benedicto,
 Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban.
creating the trust. Esteban is Aristedes’
is Aristedes’ grandfather. The property
property was divided among the 4 of them.
In 1996, Magdalena, Esteban’s wife, became the administrator of all the properties
of the Velazco sons. After Esteban and Magdalena died, their son Virgilio
succeded them in administering the properties, including the subject land, which is
owned by his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. Eduardo sold t his to Malabanan.
 Also, a certificate issued by CENRO, DENR dated JUNE 1, 2001 was presented
verifying the said land as A and D. RTC ruled in favor of Malabanan. Republic
Registration –
Registration  –   the entry of instruments or deeds in book or public registry. To
appealed, now represented by the OSG, CA reversed the decision of the RTC.
register, means to enter in a register, to record formally or distinctly, to enroll; to
enter in a list.
Issue/Ruling:
AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND, IN ORDER TO BE
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) The first title issued in the name of a registered
REGISTRABLE UNDER SECTION 14 (1) OF PD 1529, SHOULD HAVE BEEN
owner by the ROD over a parcel of land registered under the Torrens System by
CLASSIFIED AS A&D AS OF JUNE 12, 1945.
virtue of
The OSG contends that all lands certified as A&D after June 12, 1945 cannot be
a) Judicial or
registered either under Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act.
b)  Administrative proceedings.
proceedings.
The SC said such interpretation renders the mentioned provision virtually
inoperative and even precludes the government form giving it effect even as it
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Subsequent
(TCT) Subsequent issuance of ROD pursuant to any
decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as A&D. Such unreasonableness
voluntary and involuntary instrument relating to the same land.
is aggravated of the fact the before June 12, 1945, Philippines was not yet even
Note: Registration proceedings may be in rem or in personam. The following are
considered an independent state. The SC cited the case of Naguit. Such decision
its distinctions.
provides that the Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 only requires the property sought to
In rem Binds
rem Binds the whole world be registered as already A&D at the time the application for registration of
In personam To
personam To enforce a personal right against a person title is filed.
filed.
Quasi in rem Deals
rem Deals with status, ownership or liability of a particular property.
If the State has not yet released the land as A&D at the time of the application, it
It only operates on the question between the parties.This is not to ascertain or
cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. is presumed that the State is still reserving its right to utilize the property. But in
this case, the property was already classified as A&D, this shows an intention of
the State to abdicate its authority over the land.

SECTION 14 (1) –(1)  – OCENPO

 OCENPO AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT A LAND CLASSIFIED AS A&D BE
-Registration under the first paragraph of Section 14 requires the concurrence of DEEMED PRIVATE LAND AND THEREFORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO
the following ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION.
REQUISITES: In this case, the petitioners primarily based their registration bid on Sec. 14 (2) of
(1) Land applied for is an agricultural public land classified as
classified as alienable and PD 1529 or prescription.
disposable land at the time;  Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that “All things which are within the
(2)  Application for registration is
is filed with the proper court;
court; commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided.
(3)  Applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall
OCENPO thereof,
OCENPO  thereof, under bona fide claim of ownership; not be the object of prescription.”
(4) Such possession and occupation has been effected since June 12, 1945 or 1945 or
earlier. SC said, unlike Sec 14(1), Sec 14 (2) explicitly refers to the principles on
prescription under existing laws. The SC also said that the rules on prescription
SECTION 14 (2) –(2)  – PRESCRIPTION
 PRESCRIPTION under the Civil Code is applicable in Sec 14 (2).Article
(2). Article 1113 of the Civil Code
PRESCRIPTION LACHES says that only the patrimonial property of the state can be subject to prescription.
an extraordinary mode of acquiring or the unreasonable delay in the  Also it is clear that land which is part of public dominion cannot
cannot be alienated even
losing of ownership and other real bringing of a cause of action before if it is declared A&D. There must be a declaration of the State that the public
rights through the lapse of time in the the courts of justice. It is also referred dominion property is no longer intended for the development of t he national wealth
manner and under the conditions laid to as ‘sleeping on your rights or that the property has been converted into patrimonial for the period of
down by law. prescription to run. Without these, the property remains to be of public dominion.
 A matter of time A question of equity Section 14 (1) mandates
(1) mandates registration on the basis of possession while
It is statutory not statutory Sec. 14 (2) 
(2)  entitles registration on the basis of prescription. Registration under
It is based on law based on equity Section 14 (1) is extended under the aegis of the Property Registration Decree and
based on a fixed time the period varies the Public Land Act, while registration under Section 14 (2) is made available both
on a case-to-case basis by the Property Registration Decree and the Civil Code.

The basis for Sec. 14 (2) is found in Art icle 1113 of the Civil Code  Also, Registration under Sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act is
Act is based on possession,
Article 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men are Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 is
1529 is founded on extraordinary prescription under the Civil
susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State Code. The rules on prescription under the Civil Code do not apply to Sec 14 (1)
or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object since there is no such intent manifested by the legislature and that PD 1529 is
of prescription. neither superior nor inferior than Civil Code, legislature is not bound to adhere on
Maam: You have to be specific, because not all lands of ‘public domain’ are Civil Code framework.
inalienable. Patrimonial properties of the State are still considered public domain.

14
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016

AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT MALABANAN IS ENTITLED TO parents of their mother. When it was surveyed for purposes of registration in 1930,
REGISTER THE PROPERTY BASED ON SECTION 14 (1) OR SECTION 14(2) the northeastern boundary was the Cagayan River. Since then, a gradual accretion
OF PD 1529 OR BOTH. on the northeastern side took place, by action of the current of the Cagayan River.
The SC said that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that Malabanan That by 1958, an alluvial deposit of 19, 964 square meters, more or less, had been
thas acquired ownership over the subject property under Section 48 (b) of the added to the registered area.
Public Land Act. There is no substantive evidence to establish that Malabanan or
his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since June, In 1958, Grandes filed an action to quiet title to said portion formed by accretion.
12, 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, as They alleged that they and their predecessor-in-interest were formerly in peaceful
evidenced a tax declaration, is to the year 1848. Therefore, they cannot register and continuous possession of the said land until the Calalungs entered upon the
the land under Sec. 14 (1). Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section 14 (2) said land under claim of ownership in 1948. The Calalungs, on the other hand,
as basis for registration. While the subject property was declared A&D in 1982, asserts that they have been in continuous, open, and undisturbed possession of
there is no competent evidence that is no longer intended for public use, public the land since prior to the year 1933 up to t he present.
service, or for the development of the national wealth.
wealth . The classification of the
subject property as A&D land of the public domain does not change its RTC ruled in favor of the Grandes and ordered Calalungs to vacate the premises.
status as property of the public dominion.
dominion. Thus, it is insusceptible to acquisition The lower court said that the land in question being an accretion to the mother or
by prescription registered land, the same belongs to Grandes. That the same cannot be acquired
by prescription since it is considered a registered property under Section 46, Act
496, hence, it could not be acquired by prescription. CA overturned RTC’s decision
RP V. CA AND NAGUIT
saying that prescription has already set in favor of the Calalungs.
Section 14 (1) merely requires the property sought to be registered as
already alienable and disposable “at the time the application for registration of
Issue:
Issue: WON Calalungs acquired the alluvial property in question through
title is filed. A contrary interpretation renders par. (1) Section 14 virtually
prescription?
inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it effect even as it
decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as A&D. Ruling:
Ruling:
It is undisputed that under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, petitioners Grande are the
lawful owners of said alluvial property, as they are the registered owners of the
land which it adjoins. Any alluvial deposits
dep osits adjoining one’s land does not become
SEC. 14 (3) –
(3) – ACCESSION
 ACCESSION AND ACCRETION ipso facto registered land. Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and
A. Accession –
Accession  – Refers to the right of an owner of a thing to its products as registration under Torrens system of that ownership is quite another. To obtain the
well as whatever is inseparably attached thereto as an accessory. The protection of imprescriptibility, the land must be placed under the operation of the
accessory follows the principal. registration laws where in certain judicial procedures have been provided.

Basis in the Civil Code In this case, Grandes never sought registration of said alluvial property until the
Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to present action. The increment, therefore, never became registered property, and
everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached hence is not entitled to the protection of imprescriptibility, which means it was
thereto, either naturally or artificially. subject to acquisition through prescription by 3rd persons. Furthermore, in this
case, the CA found that Calalungs were in possession of the alluvial lot since 1933
Requisites of Accession (applies to lakes, creeks, and streams):
streams): or 1934 until 1958. The law on prescription applicable to the case is that provided
1. That the deposit be gradual and imperceptible; in Act 190 and not the provisions of th e Civil Code since the New Civil Code rules
2. That it be
be made through the effects
effects of
of the current of the water; on prescription were not yet in force. The SC finally said that Calalungs acquired
3. That the land where the accretion takes place
place is adjacent to the the alluvial lot in question by acquisitive prescription.
banks of the river.
Alluvial formation along the seashore forms part of the public domain
- It may only be disposed of if there is a formal declaration by the government that
B. Accretion and Alluvion
the same is A and D. Its
Accretion – defined
Accretion –  defined as the addition of portions of soil, by gradual
disposition falls under the exclusive supervision and control of the Land
deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that already in the
Management Bureau.
possession of the owner. (Black’s Law)
SEC. 14 (4) –
(4) – IN
 IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY LAW
Alluvion  – 
 –  It refers to the accretion made by flow of rivers. A form of
1) Presidential proclamation reserving lands for specific public purpose
accession natura , which is provided for in Articles 457 and 461.
The president has the authority to set aside lands from sale/public
acquisition and reserve them to public use, even though this might
Article 457.
457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
defeat the imperfect right of a settler. Lands covered by reservation are
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
not subject to entry and may not be the subject of lawful settlement.
waters.
Example:
Article 461. River
461. River beds which are abandoned through t he natural change in
1) Proclamation 791. It set aside a parcel of land for the University of the
the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are
Philippines’ College of Agriculture 
Agriculture   even though a logger-corporation had
occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the
been possessing the land by virtue of a timber license. (International
owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the
hardwood
hardwood vs. Univers ity of the Phil.)
same by paying the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of
2) Proclamation 350 was a land grant to the Mindanao Medical Center even
the area occupied by the new bed.
though the occupant possessed a sales patent. (R epublic
epublic & Mindanao
Mindanao
 Medic al C enter vs . C A )
Requisites of Accretion or Alluvion:
Alluvion :
3) Proclamation 180 set aside a parcel of land upon which a public school was
1) The change must be sudden;
to be built. The occupant could not prove OCENPO and could not therefore
2) The changing of the course must be more or less permanent, and not
assert a superior right over the school. (R epublic
epublic vs . Doldol)
Doldol)
temporary over flooding of another’s land;
3) The change of the river must be a natural one, not by artificial means;
4) There must be definite abandonment by the government;
5) The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not completely dry up RP BY MINDANAO MEDICAL CENTER V. CA
or disappear.
FACTS:
Rationale of the law on accretion: In 1921, Eugenio de Jesus,
Jesus , the father of respondent Alejandro de Jesus, applied
- It is primarily anchored on the principle or right of accession in Art. with Bureau of Lands for Sales Patent of
Patent of a land situated in Davao City, the subject
457. Also, to compensate the owner  for the danger of loss that he property applied for was a portion of what was known as Davao Cadastre. Bureau
suffers because of the location of his lands. of Lands accepted sealed bids for the purchase of the land. The Director of Lands
annulled the auction sale by reason of non-participation of Eugenio due to non-
 ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP IN ANY MANNTER PROVIDED FOR BY service of notice.
LAW
o RESERVATION
RESERVATION FOR SPECIFIC PUBLIC PURPOSE Bidding was held where Eugenio was the lone bidder, he equaled the bid
previously submitted by Dr. Ebro which is P100.50 per hectare. An order of award
was then given to Eugenio. Thereafter, A survey was conductedand the s ame was
approved. In 1936, the DL ordered the amendment of the Sales Application of
GRANDE V. CA
Eugenio saying that a portion of the property is needed by the Philippine Army for
5 SCRA 524
military campsite. The area excluded was identified was Lot 1176 –
1176 – B
 B –
 – 2,
 2, the land
Facts:
in question which consists of 12.8 hectares. In the same year, President Manuel
Petitioners Grande are the owners of a parcel of land located in the Municipality of
Quezon issued Proclamation No. 85 withdrawing the subject lot from sale
Magsaysay, province of Isabela. They inherited the said land from their mother
who inherited the same from her parents. The land is registered in the name of the
15
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016

and settlement and reserving it for military purposes.

purposes . Then, Eugenio paid for The Director of Lands opposed to nothing of the allegations except the applicability
the installment for the Sales Patent, this payment did not include the military of the 1935 Constitution. DL contends that the registration was commenced only
campsite after it was excluded from the application. Finally, in 1948, the Sales in 1981 which was long after the 1973 Constitution took effect.
Patent was awarded to him by DL and by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Article 14 Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits private corporations or
Resources. Subsequently, President Ramon Magsaysay revoked associations from holding alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease
Proclamation No. 85 which opened the subject property to disposition under
disposition under not to exceed 1,000 hectares. This proscription is not found in the 1935
the provisions of the Public Land Act for resettlement of the squatters. However, Constitution which was in force the time Acme bought t he land in question. Hence,
the same revocation was superseded by another order reserving the lot for it cannot be registered under Sec. 48 of CA 141. RTC and CA ruled in favor of the
medical center site. 
site.  In 1969, Mindanao Medical Center   applied for  the Director of Lands.
registration of the land under Torrens System claiming a “fee simple” title. title.
Respondents De Jesus opposed the registration on the ground that his father has Issue: WON the title Infiels transferred to Acme in 1962 could be confirmed in favor
prior vested right on the property. of Acme? And WON 1973 Constitution should apply?

RTC Davao ruled in favor of MMC. CA overturned RTC’s decision recognizing De Ruling:
Jesus’ alleged vested right. The land was already private land to which the Infiels had a legally sufficient
transferable title in 1962 when Acme purchased it. Acme also had a perfect right
ISSUE:
ISSUE: WON De Jesus has vested right and is consequently entitled to the to make such acquisition, there being nothing in the 1935 constitution prohibiting
registration of the property in dispute? Corporations from acquiring and owning private lannds. Even if the land remained
technically “public” land despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their 
RULING:
RULING : ancestors, until title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate
No. President Magsaysay’s proclamation (No. 350) legally effected a land grant to proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no question to Acme’s right
MMC of the whole lot and not only a portion thereof. Such land grant amounts to to acquire the same since there is no prohibition for corporation to acquire
a “fee simple” title or absolute title in favor of MMC.
MMC. incomplete or imperfect title. The only limitation was that corporations could
not hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1, 024. 1973
Section 64 (e) of the Revised Administrative Code empowers the president “to Constitution also cannot defeat a right already vested before the law came
reserve from sale or other disposition to the private domain of the Government of into effect, or invalidate transaction then perfectly valid and proper 
the Philippines, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law.” The land
reserved “shall be used for the specific purposes directed by such Executive Order What is a Corporation Sole?
until otherwise provided by law. It is a special form of corporation usually associated with the clergy. It
consists of one person only, and his successors (who will always be one at
Section 83 of the Public Land Act authorizes the President to issue proclamation a time), who are incorporated by law to give them some legal capacity to
to declare lands reserved for public use or when the public interest requires it. administer church properties that come into their possession.
It is true that Proclamation No. 350 states that the same is subject to "privilege They are not treated as ordinary private corporation. As by the nature of its
rights, if any there be,"
be," but Eugenio de Jesus or his son Alejandro de Jesus f ailed incorporation, it is empowered by law to purchase and hold real estate and
to prove any private rights over the property reserved. Wee-settled is the rule that personal property.
unless the applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that a certain
portion of the public domain was acquired by him or his ancestors either by Vested rights
composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, It is some right or interest in property, which has become fixed and
or any other means for the acquisition of public lands, such as grants or patents, established and no longer open to doubt or controversy. It cannot be
the property must be held to be part of the public domain impaired without violating one’s right to due process.

Even on the gratuitous assumption that a donation of the military "camp site" was  Judicial confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles
executed between Eugenior de Jesus and Serafin Marabut, such donation would
anyway be void, because Eugenior de jesus held no dominical rights over the site AYOG VS. CUSI
when it was allegedly donated by him in 1936. 146 SCRA 15
FACTS:
In 1953, the Director of Lands granted Binan Development Co., Inc. its Sales
Application of
Application of the land l ocated in Davao City with an area of 250 hectares. There
were protesters but then their protest was dismissed by the Director and ordered
B. LAND ACQUISITION BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS them to vacate the subject lot. No appeal was made from the decision. Despite
Ownership by Corporations that, the “squatters” defied the Director of Land’s order to vacate. An ejectment suit
History was brought which caused the delay of the issuance of the patent.
1935 It allowed private juridical entities to acquire alienable lands of
Constitution public domain, which shall only be less than 1, 024 hectares
hectares . The Director of Lands recommended to the Secretary of Natural Resources the
1973 Section 11, Article 14 of the said constitution stated that no approval of the Sales Patent saying that the Corporation had complied with the
Constitution private corporation xxx may hold alienable lands except by said requirements long before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, that t he land
lease
lease not to exceed 1000 hectares
hectares in area. in question was free from claims and conflicts and that the issuance of the patent
1987 Section 3, Article 12 retained the 1973 Constitution’s was legal, and the said issuance is an exception to the prohibition of ownership by
Constitution limitations, but added lease period not exceeding 25 years private corporation.
and renewable
renewable for not more than 25 years.
General Rule: Corporations are disqualified from owning alienable lands of The Secretary of Natural Resources noted that the applicant had acquired a vested
public domain except through lease. right to issuance. Subsequently, the ejectment suit was decided in favor of the
corporation. However, the “squatters” alleged that the adoption of the 1973
Exception: Where at the time the Corporation acquired the land, its Constitution was a supervening fact that will make the issuance of patent
predecessors-in-interest have complied with OCENPO as to entitle him illegal since no private corporation is allowed to hold alienable lands of the
registration in his name. The Constitutional prohibition will no longer apply as public domain except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares.
the land, by virtue of prescription has become private. (Suzi vs. Razon)
ISSUE:
ISSUE: WON BInan Development Corporation may validly acquire the Sales
Patent despite the prohibition embodied in the 1973 Constitution? Yes.

RULING:
RULING :
DOL V. IAC AND ACME PLYWOOD AND VENEER
The said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application to the sales
146 SCRA 509
application of Binan Corp. because it has already acquired a vested right to the
Facts:
land applied for at the time of the 1973 Constitution took effect. Such vested right
In 1981, Acme Plywood and Veneers Co. Inc. applied for a land registration of 5
has to be respected. It could not be abrogated by the new Constitution.
parcels (481, 390 sqm) of land it allegedly acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel,
both member of the Dumagat tribe. The Infiels Infiels  substantiates their ownership
 A vested right is
right is defined as when the right to enjoyment has become the property
saying that their ancestors have possessed and occupied t he land from generation
of some person as a present interest, or, it is some right or interest in property
to generation until it came into their possession. Acme contended
Acme contended in its application
which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or
that their adverse and continuous possession since 1962 and by tacking their
controversy. In this case, it is undisputed that prior to the effectivity of the 1973
possession to that of the possession of the Infiels, they have already acquired title
Constitution, the right of the corporation to purchase the land in question had
over it; that the ownership of lands by corporations is governed by the 1935
become fixed and established and was no longer open to doubt or controversy. Its
Constitution. Acme further proves that the subject land is a private land after it
compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Law had the effect of
ownership was given to the non-Christian tribes pursuant to RA 3872. 3872. That
segregating the said land from public domain. The petitioners contention that their
also, they have introduced more than 45 million pesos worth of improvements on
predecessors-in-interest have possessed the property should fail, the SC said,
the land. Also that their ownership is r ecognized by Municipality of Isabela through
they should have applied for patent applications if it is true.
the donation it made which was accepted by the former.

16
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016

Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the
ZARA V. DOL Court a quo for trial and judgment on the merits, with costs against the private
FACTS: oppositors-appellees.
"application for registration of the parcel of land consisting of
On August 4, 1960 appellants filed an application for registration of
registration of 107 hectares JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES
parcel of land pursuant to the provisions of Act 496. They
496. They alleged that the land (SECTION 48 (b) of CA 141)
had been inherited 
inherited  by them from their grandfather, Pelagio Zara, who in turn Period of possession for Judicial Confirmation of imperfect title:
acquired the same under a Spanish grant known as "Composicion de Terrenos Historical Background
Realengos" issued in 1888. Alternatively, should the provisions of the Land LAW DATE OF RULE
Registration Act be not applicable, applicants invoke the benefits of the EFFECTIVITY
provisions of Chapter VIII, Section 48, subsection (b) of C.A. 141 as amended, PLA- 926 Oct. 17, 1903 OCENPO of agricultural lands for 10 years
on the ground that they and their predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous
before the effectivity of this Act
and adverse possession of the land in concept of owner for more than 30 years
2nd PLA –
 PLA – Nov. 29, 1919 OCENPO of ‘agricultural lands’ (excluding
immediately preceding the application.
2874 timber and mineral lands) of t he public
domain, under bona fide claim of acquisition
Oppositions were filed by the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry and by
of ownership, since JULY 26, 1894
Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. The latter's opposition recites:
RPLA –
RPLA – 141
 141 Dec. 1, 1936 Possession and occupation of lands of the
x x x that the parcel of land sought to be registered by the applicants consisting of
public domain since JULY 26, 1984 only
107 hectares, more or less, was included in the area of the parcel of land applied
limited to Filipinos
for registration by Vicente S. de Villa, Sr. in Civil Case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601
RA 1942 June 22, 1957 Possession and occupation for atleast 30
in this Court, which was decided by this same Court through the then incumbent
Judge, the Honorable Juan P. Enriquez, on September 30, 1949; that the parcel years immediately preceding the filing of the
sought to be registered by the applicants was declared public land  land  in said application
decision; that they (the oppositors Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. and Vicente S. de Villa, PD 1073 January 25, Land must be A&D (not anymore ‘agricultural
Sr.) have an interest over the land in question because for a period more t han sixty 1977 lands’ of the public domain, it must be
(60) years, the de Villas have been in possession, and which possession, possessed and occupied since June 12,
according to them, was OCENCO that the proceeding being in rem, the failure of 1945
the applicants to appear at the case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 to prove their
imperfect and incomplete title over the property, barred them from raising the same The amendment from ‘agricultural lands’ to ‘A & D’ is not a substantial
issue in another case; and that as far as the decision in Civil Case No. 26, L.R. amendment because only agricultural lands are alienable. The prevailing
Case No. 601 which was affirmed in the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 5847-R is rule for OCENPO is not anymore 30 years. It is now ‘since June 12,1 2, 1945
concerned, there is already "res-judicata" — in other words, the cause of action of or earlier’. The amendment was made to ‘jive’ with Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529.
the applicant is now barred by prior judgment; and that this Court has no more
 jurisdiction over the subject matte r, the decision of the Court in said case having Did PD 1529 and PD 1073 (which removed the 30 yr requirement for
transferred to the Director of Lands. OCENPO) preclude application for registration of alienable lands of public
domain commenced only after June 12, 1945?
On November 15, 1960 the De Villas (De Villa, Sr. was subsequently included as No, considering Section 14(2) still allows acquisition of alienable lands of
oppositor) filed a motion to dismiss, invoking the same grounds alleged in its public domain through prescription. In civil law, prescription is one of the
opposition, but principally the fact that the land applied for had already been wars of acquiring public land. So even if the possession was commenced
declared public land by the judgment in the former registration case. later than June 12, 1945, you may still qualify under Section 14(2).

The trial court, over the objection of the applicants, granted the motion to dismiss Requirements for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title
by order dated January 27, 1961, holding, inter alia, that "once a parcel of land is 1) The land must form part of the A&D agricultural lands of the public
declared or adjudged public land by the court having jurisdiction x x x it cannot be domain;
the subject anymore of another land registration proceeding x x x (that) it is only 2)  Applicant must have been in OCENPO
OCENPO
the Director of Lands who can dispose of the same by sale, by lease, by free patent 3) Under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial or since
or by homestead." June 12, 1945

In the present appeal from the order of dismissal neither the Director of Lands nor
the Director of Forestry filed a brief as appellee. RA 8371
Oct. 29, 1997
ISSUE: INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT
whether the 1949 judgment in the previous case, denying the application of Vicente CARINO V. INSULAR
S. de Villa, Sr., and declaring the 107 hectares in question to be public land, Facts:
 precludes a subsequent application by an alleged possessor for judicial Carino applied for the registration of a parcel of land located in Benguet province.
confirmation of title on the basis of continuous possession for at least thirty years, Carino alleges that:
 pursuant to Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as a. His predecessors
predecessors has
has been in the possession of the land for more than 50
amended. years.
b. He was inherited the land under the Igorot customs.
HELD: However, it was not shown that Carino has a document of title to prove ownership
Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as 141, as amended. such as royal grant. The dispute arose when the government opposed the
The right to file an application under the f oregoing provision has been extended by registration contending that the land in question belonged to the State.
Republic Act No. 2061 to December 31, 1968. That the Spanish law provides that all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown (J ura
It should be noted t hat appellants' application is in the alternative: Regalia), and it could not have been acquired by Carino since prescription does
- for registration of their title of ownership under Act 496 or not lie against the crown.
- for judicial confirmation of their "imperfect" title or claim based on adverse
and continuous possession for at least thirty years. Issue: WON Carino’s application should be granted? YES.
granted? YES.
It may be that although they were not actual parties in that previous case the Ruling:
 judgment therein is a bar to theirtheir claim as owners under the first alternative, Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title. The Supreme
since the proceeding was in rem, of which they and their predecessor had Court of the United States through Justice Holmes had this to say: “It might
constructive notice by publication.
publication. Even so this is a defense that properly perhaps be proper and sufficient to sa y that when,
when, as far as testimony or memory
pertains to the Government, in view of the fact that the judgment declared the land goes,
goes, the land has b een held by individuals under a claim of private ownership. It
in question to be public land. will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish
Conquest, and never to have been in Public
Pub lic Land.” It was further ruled that Carino’s
In any case, appellants' imperfect possessory title was not disturbed or kind of title, a native title, is an exception to Jura Regalia.
foreclosed by such declaration, for precisely the proceeding contemplated
in the aforecited provision of Commonwealth Act 141 presupposes that the CRUZ V. DENR
land is public.
public. The basis of the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein FACTS:
is not that the land is already privately owned and hence no longer part of the public Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the constitutionality of certain
domain, but rather that by reason of the claimant's possession for thirty years he provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) together with its
is conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a implementing rules and regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly
Government grant. unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to
On the question of whether or not the private oppositors-appellees have the indigenous people.
necessary personality to file an opposition, we find in their favor, considering that
they also claim to be in possession of the land, and have furthermore applied for On the other hand, CHR 
CHR  asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of
its purchase from the Bureau of Lands. parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee
the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous people. For
this reason, it prays that the petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa
17
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
countered the constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground o Condition precedent to the acquisition of jurisdictions:
that they amount
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of Exhaustion of all remedies provided under their customary
the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources. Also, that the laws and a certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders
law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine embodied in the Constitution. who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute and
that it was not resolved.
 Also, petitioners contended that, by providing
providing for an all-encompassing
all-encompassing definition of 2) It has the authority to issue
issue Certificates of
of Ancestral
Ancestral Lands
Lands Title
“ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might include private lands found (CALT) and Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)
within the said areas. 3) It has OEJ over petition for cancellation of CADT CADT and CALT
alleged to have been fraudulently acquired to any person
Issue:WON
Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian Doctrine? 4) Issuance of certification as a precondition to grant
grant of permit
permit for
Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional. disposition
 After due deliberation on the petition,
petition, 7 members of the court voted to dismiss the 5) Power to cite for contempt and issue restraining orders
petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the same.
The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the same. Ancestral Domains Office
 According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be dismissed. The - Responsible for identification, delineation, and recognition of ancestral
constitutionality of IPRA is upheld. lands/domains

Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion:

Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality:
1. It violates
violates the inalienability of Natural
Natural Resources
Resources andand of Public Domains.
Domains. CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT, AFFIDAVIT
That this is in contravention to Section 2, A rt. 12 of the Constitution that only OF NON-TENANCY
agricultural lands of the public domain can be considered as alienable and
disposable lands. SEC. 104. Provisional Register of Documents. — The Department of Agrarian
2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s natural resources Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special registry book to be
and 1/3 of the country’s land will be concentrated to 12 Million IPs, and while known as the “Provisional Register of Documents issued under PD-27”
PD-27 ” which
60 million other Filipinos will share the remaining. These figures violates the shall be kept and maintained in every Registry of Deeds throughout the country.
constitutional principle of a “more equitable distribution of opportunities,
income, and
and wealth” among Filipinos. Said Registry Book shall be a register of:
3. It abdicates
abdicates the State Duty
Duty to take Full
Full Control
Control and
and Supervision
Supervision of Natural a)  All Certificates of Land Transfer
Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No. 27; and
Resources b)  All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer such as
4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned owned by the State andand Cannot
Cannot adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of erroneous Certificates
be Alienated or Ceded of Land Transfer

SEC. 105. Certificates

Certificates of Land Transfer, E mancipat
mancipation
ion P atents.
atents.
Ancestral Domain- refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising —  The Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27 issue in
lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein duplicate, a Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought under “Operation
Land Transfer,” the original of which shall 
shall   be kept by the tenant-farmer and the
Ancestral Land –
Land  – refers
 refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds.
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  After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant
traditional ownership of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which may cover previously
titled or untitled property shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Native Title- refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains, which, as far back The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the aforementioned
as memory reaches, have been held under claim of private ownership by I CCs/IPs. Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original certificate of title number in case
of unregistered land, and in case of registered property, shall issue the
Time Immemorial –
Immemorial  – period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain corresponding transfer certificate of title without requiring the surrender of the
IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner owner’s duplicate
owner’s duplicate of the title to be cancelled.

IPRA connotes group or communal ownership. Ancestral domains are In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall determine
private, but community property his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of Deeds
Private- since it is not part of t he public domain accordingly. In case of subsequent transfer of property covered by an
Community –
Community  – ancestral domain is owned in common and not by 1 Emancipation Patent or a Certificate of Title emanating from an Emancipation
particular person Patent, the Register of Deeds shall effect the transfer only upon receipt of the
supporting papers from the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Ownership over the natural resources STILL belong to the State
- ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to manage and conserve them No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in connection with
for future generation. The rights of IPs take the form of management the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and for the registration of related
and stewardship documents.

Modes of Acquisition of Ancestral domains and ancestral lands by the IP

TENANT EMANCIPATION DECREE
a)  Applicant must be a member of indigenous
indigenous cultural group;
(PD 27)
b) He must have been in possession of an individually-owned ancestral
(Oct. 21, 1972)
land for not less than 30 years
Applicability/Coverage
c) By operation of law (IPRA), the land is already classified as A&D land,
 This applies to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily
even if it has a slop of 18% hence there is no need t o submit a separate
devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease
certification that the land is A&D
tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not
Transfer of land or property rights
Retention Limits/Award Ceiling
1) Only the members of the ICCs/IPs
 A farmer shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family-
2) In accord with customary laws and customs
size farm of
3) Subject to the right of redemption of the ICCs/IPs for a period of 15
o 6 hectares if not irrigated 
years if the land was transferred to a non-member of ICCs/IPs
o 3 hectares if irrigated 
Mining Operations on Ancestral Land
Landowner Retention Limit
General Rule: Not allowed
o 7 hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or
Exception: If the ICCs concerned consent to it
will now cultivate it 
In the event of an agreement of mining operations Cost of Land/Compensation
1) Parties shall agree upon the Royalty payment
The land shall be equivalent to 2 ½ times the average harvest of 3
2) The Royalty payment shall form part of trust fund for the socio-
normal crop years
economic well-being of the ICC
It shall be paid by the tenant in 15 equal annual amortizations
Members of the cultural communities are given priority in awarding of SMALL-
including interest at the rate of 6% per annum
SCALE MINING CONTRACTS- Sec. 7, 7076 

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

Requisite before the title to the land owned be actually issued to the
1) Jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the rights of
tenant farmer
ICCs/IPs

18
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Tenant farmer should become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized  2) Regular farmworkers;
farmer’s cooperative  3) Seasonal farmworkers;
4) Other farmworkers;
Transferability of title acquired to PD 27  5)  Actual tillers or occupants of public
public lands
Only through hereditary succession or to the Govt in accordance w/ 6) Collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries
pertinent laws 7) Others directly working on the land

children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference.

 Actual land-tillers shall
shall not, however, be ejected or removed therefrom
 A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude,
and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible
COM
MP
PREHENSIVE AGR ARIAN R EFORM PROGRAM Support services shall be extended equally to women and men agrarian
(RA 6657)
6657) reform beneficiaries
 A ug . 7, 2009
Agrarian Reform - redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits
produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective Retention Limits of Landowners
of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services o Maximum of 5 hectares
designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other o 3 hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner subject
arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as to the f ollowing qualifications
production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares 1.  Atleast 15 years of age
of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of 2. He is actually tilling the land or directly managing the
the lands they work farm
Retention limits shall not apply to LGUs acquiring private agricultural land
Agricultural land –
land  – land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act by expropriation or other modes of acquisition be used for public
and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land.  purposes

Agricultural activity –
activity – cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit Disposition or Sale of retained land by land owner
trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm Valid, as long as the total landholding that shall be owned by the
products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed
conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or the landholding ceilings
 juridical.
Award ceiling to beneficiaries
Coverage o 3 hectares
 All public and private agricultural lands including lands of public domain o It may be a contiguous tract or several parcels of land cumulate up
suitable for agriculture to the prescribed award limits
 All lands in excess of the specific
specific limits as determined by Congress
Congress
 All other lands owned by the gov’t devoted to or suitable for agriculture Landless Beneficiary –
Beneficiary – owns less than 3 ha. Of agricultural lands
 All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the Determination of just compensation
agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon 1. Cost of acquisition of the land 
o Except landholdings of landowners with a total area of 5 2. Value of the standing crop
hectares below  3. Current value of like properties
4. Its nature, actual use, and income
Exemptions and Exclusions from CARP coverage 5. Sworn valuation by the owner 
1) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, 6. Tax declarations
forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding 7.  Assessment made by government
government assessors
grounds, watersheds and mangroves; 8. 70% zonal valuation by the BIR 
 2) Private lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for prawn
farms and fishponds, provided that the same have not been Manner of Payment
distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award issued to It shall be paid by the beneficiaries to the LBP in 30 annual amortization
agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP; of 6% interest per annum
 3) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be Payment for the first 3 years may be at reduced amounts
necessary for: LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded, it may be
a. National defense, school sites and campuses, foreclosed by the LBP for nonpaymnet of an aggregate of 3 annual
including experimental farm stations operated by public amortizations
or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and Beneficiary whose land was foreclosed shall be permanently disqualified
seeding research and pilot production center  from becoming a beneficiary 
b. Church sites and convents, mosque sites and Islamic
centers, common burial grounds Transferability of awarded lands (CLOA)
c. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by only through hereditary succession, to the government, or to the LBP, or
inmates to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a period of 10 years
d. Government and private research and quarantine
centers Voluntary Land Transfer
e.  All lands
lands with
with 18% slope and over, except those already
already landowners of agricultural lands may enter into a voluntary arrangement
developed  to direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to
 A g ri cultur al lands rec lass ifi ed  by LGU’s into residential, guidelines set in the law 
commercial or industrial uses excluded Payment shall be made by the f armer-beneficiary to the land owner under
 This is based on DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) which provides terms to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
that with respect to the conversion of agricultural lands It shall be binding upon them, upon registration with the approval by the
covered by RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the DAR 
authority of the DAR to approve such conversion may be  Approval is deemed given, unless notice of disapproval is received by
exercised from the date of its effectivity or on June 15, 1988. the farmer-beneficiary within 30 days from the date of registration
Thus, all lands already classified as c ommercial, industrial or In case they don’t agree on the price, the procedure for compulsory
residential before that date no longer need any conversion acquisition shall apply 
clearance from the DAR. LBP may extend financing to t he beneficiaries

Homesteads
 While PD No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from When the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for
the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of agricultural purposes, or that the land will have greater economic value
the land they till is a sweeping social legislation, it cannot for residential, commercial or industrial purposes
defeat the very purpose of the Public Land Act which has The DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the land-owner, may authorize
been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition Provided that
the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation Irrigated and irrigable lands,
shall not be subject to conversion

Qualified
Qualified B eneficiaries
eneficiaries Jurisdiction of DAR
Landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless a) Adjudication  of all matters involving implementation of agrarian
residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority reform
1)  Agricultural lessees and share tenants; b) Resolution  of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems
19
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
c) Approval  or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or earmarking of fifty billion pesos as Agrarian Reform Fund, although
d) readjustment  of
 of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, denominated as an initial amount, is actually the maximum sum
industrial, and other non-agricultural uses appropriated. The word “initial” simply means that additional amounts may
be appropriated later when necessary.
Appeals
DAR decision
4) Finally, on the contention that the law is unconstitutional insofar as it requires
15 days from the receipt CA by certiorari
the owners of the expropriated properties to accept just compensation
Notwithstanding appeal to the CA, the decision of the DAR shall be
therefor in less than money, which is the only medium of payment allowed,
immediately executory.
the Court held that the law “is not an ordinary expropriation 
expropriation  where only a
Jurisdiction of DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)
specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State
a) Determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose,” but deals with “a
implementation of CARP
revolutionary kind of expropriation (which) affects all private agricultural
b) Cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of EPs
lands.” “(S)uch a program will involve not mere millions of pesos (but)
and CLOAs which are registered with the ROD.
hundreds of billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the
amount of P50 billion initially appropriated, which is already staggering as it
For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be a tenancy relationship
is by our present standards.”
between the parties which has the following elements:
1. Parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee
Based on the slogan: Land for the Landless
2. Subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land
1935 constitution –
constitution – mandated the policy of social justice to “ensure the well-being
well-being
3. Consent between the parties to the relationship
and economic security of all t he people”, especially the less privileged.
4. Purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
 production
 Art. XIII, Sec. 4
5. There is personal cultivation on the part of
of the tenant
tenant or
The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
agricultural lessee
- founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers,
6. Harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
- who are landless, to own
own directly or collectively the lands they till or,
agricultural lessee
- in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.
thereof.
Note: If the action is brought before the trial court, it must determine first the
To this end, the State shall
existence of tenancy relationship. If there is, then it should dismiss the case.
- encourage and undertake the just distribution
distribution of all agricultural lands,
It there is no such relationship, then it has jurisdiction over the case. Finding
- subject to such
such priorities
priorities and
and reasonable
reasonable retention
retention limits as
as the Congress
by DAR of such relationship is merely preliminary and does not bind the
may prescribe,
courts.
o taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
considerations and subject to the payment of just
compensation.
An action to enforce rights as a tenant is barred by prescription
- In determining
determining retention limits, the State shall respect
respect the right of small
If not filed within 3 years
landowners.
Special Agrarian Court designated by the RTC shall have the following
o The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary
original and exclusive jurisdiction
land-sharing.”
land-sharing.”
1)  All petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners, and
3844 - Agricultural land reform code (aug. 8, 1963)
 2) Prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657
PD 27 -
27 - compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-
farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for land owners (Oct. 21, 1972)
Titles issued pursuant to PD 27 and RA 6657 shall become indefeasible and
imprescriptible after 1 year from their registration in the ROD
EO 228 -
228 - full ownership in favor of PD 27 beneficiaries and providing valuation of
still unvalued lands
Jurisdiction of DAR and DARAB
PP 131-
131- CARP and EO 229 providing
229 providing mechanisms for its implementation
DAR DARAB RA 6657 –
6657  – Comprehensive
 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998, by P. Aquino (June
Prior to registration with the ROD After registration with ROD 10, 1988)
Case involving issuance, recall or Issuance, correction or cancellation
cancellation of CLOAs and EPs of CLOAs or EPs

NATALIA REALTY V. DAR

MODES OF ACQUIRING PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND
1) Operation Land Transfer
Lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity
2) Volutary Offer to Sell
of CARL are outside its coverage
3) Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme
4) Compulsory Acquisition
5) Voluntary Stock Distribution in the case of corporation HELD:
Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These
include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity
of CARL by government agencies other than DAR. Thus, for instance, the
Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable and suitable agricultural conversion of portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision for residential use and
lands and do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands. Lands developed such prior to the passage of the law excluded the area for CARL
converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 are outside its coverage because it ceased to be devoted to agricultural activity.
coverage – Natalia vs. DAR
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent
Lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the
agricultural land. It declared as unconstitutional the provision in RA 6657 insofar undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the c overage of
as it included livestock farms in the coverage of agrarian reform –
reform – Luz
 Luz Farms vs. CARL.”
Secretary of DAR
LUZ FARMS V. SECRETARY
Farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine not covered
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V. SAR (1989) in determining the area of land to be excluded, AO No. 9 fixed the following
1) the requirement of public use has been settled by the Constitution itself. It retention limits, viz.: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per 1 head of
noted that “(n)o less than the 1987 Charter calls for agrarian reform which is animal shall be retained by the landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for
the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded from
subject to the prescribed
prescribed maximum retention limits.” The Court also declared the operations of the CARL.
that the law is a valid exercise by the State of the police power and the power
of eminent domain.

2) On the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar planters
have failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be
differently treated.

3)  And on the alleged payment of public money as just compensation without

the corresponding appropriation, the Court said that t here is no rule that only
money already in existence can be the subject of an appropriation law. The

20