1. Regalian Doctrine Amicus Curiae.

The CHR asserts

G.R. No. 135385 December 6, that IPRA is an expression of the
2000 principle of parens patriae and
that the State has the
ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, responsibility to protect and
vs. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT guarantee the rights of those who
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, et.al. are at a serious disadvantage like
indigenous peoples. For this
RESOLUTION reason it prays that the petition
be dismissed.
PER CURIAM:
 On March 23, 1999, Haribon, et
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar al., filed a motion to Intervene
Europa brought this suit for prohibition with attached Comment-in-
and mandamus as citizens and Intervention. They agree with the
taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality NCIP and Flavier, et al. that IPRA
of certain provisions of Republic Act No. is consistent with the Constitution
8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as and pray that the petition for
the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of prohibition and mandamus be
1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing dismissed.
Rules and Regulations (Implementing
Rules). The motions for intervention of the
aforesaid groups and organizations
 On October 19, 1998, were granted.
respondents DENR Secretary
and DBM Secretary of the Oral arguments were heard on April 13,
Department of Budget and 1999. Thereafter, the parties and
Management (DBM). The intervenors filed their respective
Solicitor General is of the view memoranda in which they reiterate the
that the IPRA is partly arguments adduced in their earlier
unconstitutional on the ground pleadings and during the hearing.
that it grants ownership over
natural resources to indigenous Petitioners assail the constitutionality of
peoples and prays that the the following provisions of the IPRA and
petition be granted in part. its Implementing Rules on the ground
that they amount to an unlawful
 On November 10, 1998, Flavier, deprivation of the State’s ownership
et. al, filed their Motion for Leave over lands of the public domain as well
to Intervene. They join the NCIP as minerals and other natural resources
in defending the constitutionality therein, in violation of the regalian
of IPRA and praying for the doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article
dismissal of the petition. XII of the Constitution:

 On March 22, 1999, the CHR "(1) Section 3(a) which defines the
likewise filed a Motion to extent and coverage of ancestral
Intervene and/or to Appear as
domains, and Section 3(b) which, in
turn, defines ancestral lands; Petitioners also content that, by
providing for an all-encompassing
"(2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), definition of "ancestral domains" and
which provides that ancestral domains "ancestral lands" which might even
including inalienable public lands, include private lands found within said
bodies of water, mineral and other areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the
resources found within ancestral rights of private landowners.3
domains are private but community
property of the indigenous peoples; In addition, petitioners question the
provisions of the IPRA defining the
"(3) Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and
and 3(b) which defines the composition making customary law applicable to the
of ancestral domains and ancestral settlement of disputes involving
lands; ancestral domains and ancestral lands
on the ground that these provisions
"(4) Section 7 which recognizes and violate the due process clause of the
enumerates the rights of the indigenous Constitution.4
peoples over the ancestral domains;
These provisions are:
(5) Section 8 which recognizes and
enumerates the rights of the indigenous "(1) sections 51 to 53 and 59 which
peoples over the ancestral lands; detail the process of delineation and
recognition of ancestral domains and
"(6) Section 57 which provides for which vest on the NCIP the sole
priority rights of the indigenous peoples authority to delineate ancestral domains
in the harvesting, extraction, and ancestral lands;
development or exploration of minerals
and other natural resources within the "(2) Section 52[i] which provides that
areas claimed to be their ancestral upon certification by the NCIP that a
domains, and the right to enter into particular area is an ancestral domain
agreements with nonindigenous peoples and upon notification to the following
for the development and utilization of officials, namely, the Secretary of
natural resources therein for a period Environment and Natural Resources,
not exceeding 25 years, renewable for Secretary of Interior and Local
not more than 25 years; and Governments, Secretary of Justice and
Commissioner of the National
"(7) Section 58 which gives the Development Corporation, the
indigenous peoples the responsibility to jurisdiction of said officials over said
maintain, develop, protect and conserve area terminates;
the ancestral domains and portions
thereof which are found to be necessary "(3) Section 63 which provides the
for critical watersheds, mangroves, customary law, traditions and practices
wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, of indigenous peoples shall be applied
protected areas, forest cover or first with respect to property rights,
reforestation."2 claims of ownership, hereditary
succession and settlement of land Department of Environment and Natural
disputes, and that any doubt or Resources to cease and desist from
ambiguity in the interpretation thereof implementing Department of
shall be resolved in favor of the Environment and Natural Resources
indigenous peoples; Circular No. 2, series of 1998;

"(4) Section 65 which states that "(4) The issuance of a writ of prohibition
customary laws and practices shall be directing the Secretary of Budget and
used to resolve disputes involving Management to cease and desist from
indigenous peoples; and disbursing public funds for the
implementation of the assailed
"(5) Section 66 which vests on the NCIP provisions of R.A. 8371; and
the jurisdiction over all claims and
disputes involving rights of the "(5) The issuance of a writ of mandamus
indigenous peoples."5 commanding the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources to
Finally, petitioners assail the validity of comply with his duty of carrying out the
Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP State’s constitutional mandate to control
Administrative Order No. 1, series of the and supervise the exploration,
1998, which provides that "the development, utilization and
administrative relationship of the NCIP conservation of Philippine natural
to the Office of the President is resources."7
characterized as a lateral but
autonomous relationship for purposes of After due deliberation on the petition, the
policy and program coordination." They members of the Court voted as follows:
contend that said Rule infringes upon
the President’s power of control over Seven (7) voted to dismiss the
executive departments under Section petition. Justice Kapunan filed an
17, Article VII of the Constitution.6 opinion, which the Chief Justice and
Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and
Petitioners pray for the following: Santiago join, sustaining the validity of
the challenged provisions of R.A. 8371.
"(1) A declaration that Sections 3, 5, 6, Justice Puno also filed a separate
7, 8, 52[I], 57, 58, 59, 63, 65 and 66 and opinion sustaining all challenged
other related provisions of R.A. 8371 are provisions of the law with the
unconstitutional and invalid; exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III
of NCIP Administrative Order No. 1,
"(2) The issuance of a writ of prohibition series of 1998, the Rules and
directing the Chairperson and Regulations Implementing the IPRA,
Commissioners of the NCIP to cease and Section 57 of the IPRA which he
and desist from implementing the contends should be interpreted as
assailed provisions of R.A. 8371 and its dealing with the large-scale exploitation
Implementing Rules; of natural resources and should be read
in conjunction with Section 2, Article XII
"(3) The issuance of a writ of prohibition of the 1987 Constitution. On the other
directing the Secretary of the hand, Justice Mendoza voted to
dismiss the petition solely on the within their ancestral domain. Ownership
ground that it does not raise a over the natural resources in the
justiciable controversy and ancestral domains remains with the
petitioners do not have standing to State and the rights granted by the IPRA
question the constitutionality of R.A. to the ICCs/IPs over the natural
8371. resources in their ancestral domains
merely gives them, as owners and
Seven (7) other members of the Court
occupants of the land on which the
voted to grant the petition. Justice
Panganiban filed a separate opinion resources are found, the right to the
expressing the view that Sections 3 (a) small scale utilization of these
(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related resources, and at the same time, a
provisions of R.A. 8371 are priority in their large scale development
unconstitutional. He reserves judgment and exploitation.
on the constitutionality of Sections 58,
59, 65, and 66 of the law, which he The IPRA was enacted by Congress not
believes must await the filing of specific only to fulfill the constitutional mandate
cases by those whose rights may have of protecting the indigenous cultural
been violated by the IPRA. Justice Vitug communities' right to their ancestral land
also filed a separate opinion expressing but more importantly, to correct a grave
the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of historical injustice to our indigenous
R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. Justices people.
Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes,
and De Leon join in the separate
opinions of Justices Panganiban and The Philippine Constitutions
Vitug.
The Regalian doctrine was enshrined in
As the votes were equally divided (7 the 1935 Constitution. One of the fixed
to 7) and the necessary majority was and dominating objectives of the 1935
not obtained, the case was Constitutional Convention was the
redeliberated upon. However, after nationalization and conservation of the
redeliberation, the voting remained
natural resources of the country. There
the same. Accordingly, pursuant to
was an overwhelming sentiment in the
Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, the petition is Convention in favor of the principle of
DISMISSED. state ownership of natural resources
and the adoption of the Regalian
doctrine.
NOTES:
State ownership of natural resources
Discussion from the Separate was seen as a necessary starting
Opinion of Justice Puno: point to secure recognition of the
state's power to control their
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in disposition, exploitation,
the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs development, or utilization. The
ownership over the natural resources delegates to the Constitutional
Convention very well knew that the - the right to stay in the territories;
concept of State ownership of land and
- the right in case of displacement;
natural resources was introduced by the
Spaniards, however, they were not - the right to safe and clean air and
certain whether it was continued and water;
applied by the Americans. To remove all
doubts, the Convention approved the - the right to claim parts of reservations;
provision in the Constitution affirming - the right to resolve conflict;
the Regalian doctrine.
- the right to ancestral lands which
include the right to transfer land/property
THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS to/among members of the same
ACT. ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and
traditions of the community concerned;
Republic Act No. 8371 is entitled "An and the right to redemption for a period
Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote not exceeding 15 years from date of
the Rights of Indigenous Cultural transfer, if the transfer is to a Cnon-
Communities/ Indigenous Peoples, member of the ICC/IP and is tainted by
Creating a National Commission on vitiated consent of the ICC/IP, or if the
Indigenous Peoples, Establishing transfer is for an unconscionable
Implementing Mechanisms, consideration.
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for
Other Purposes." It is simply known as
"The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of Within their ancestral domains and
1997" or the IPRA. ancestral lands, the ICCs/IPs are given
The IPRA recognizes the existence of the right to self-governance and
the indigenous cultural communities empowerment, social justice and human
or indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a rights, the right to preserve and protect
distinct sector in Philippine society. It their culture, traditions, institutions and
grants these people the ownership community intellectual rights, and the
and possession of their ancestral right to develop their own sciences and
domains and ancestral lands, and technologies.
defines the extent of these lands and
domains. The ownership given is the
indigenous concept of ownership To carry out the policies of the Act, the
under customary law which traces its law created the National Commission on
origin to native title. Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The NCIP
is an independent agency under the
Other rights are also granted the Office of the President and is composed
ICCs/IPs, and these are: of seven (7) Commissioners belonging
- the right to develop lands and natural to ICCs/IPs from each of the
resources; ethnographic areas- Region I and the
Cordilleras; Region II; the rest of Luzon;
Island groups including Mindoro, ascription by others, who have
Palawan, Romblon, Panay and the rest continuously lived as organized
of the Visayas; Northern and Western community on communally bounded and
Mindanao; Southern and Eastern defined territory, and who have, under
Mindanao; and Central Mindanao. The claims of ownership since time
NCIP took over the functions of the immemorial, occupied, possessed and
Office for Northern Cultural utilized such territories, sharing common
Communities and the Office for bonds of language, customs, traditions
Southern Cultural Communities created and other distinctive cultural traits, or
by former President Corazon Aquino who have, through resistance to
which were merged under a revitalized political, social and cultural inroads of
structure. colonization, non-indigenous religions
and cultures, became historically
differentiated from the majority of
Disputes involving ICCs/IPs are to be Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include
resolved under customary laws and peoples who are regarded as
practices. When still unresolved, the indigenous on account of their descent
matter may be brought to the NCIP, from the populations which inhabited the
which is granted quasi-judicial powers. country, at the time of conquest or
The NCIP's decisions may be appealed colonization, or at the time of inroads of
to the Court of Appeals by a petition for non-indigenous religions and cultures, or
review. the establishment of present state
boundaries, who retain some or all of
their own social, economic, cultural and
A. Indigenous Peoples political institutions, but who may have
been displaced from their traditional
The IPRA is a law dealing with a specific domains or who may have resettled
group of people, i.e., the Indigenous outside their ancestral domains."
Cultural Communities (ICCs) or the
Indigenous Peoples (IPs). The term
"ICCs" is used in the 1987 Constitution Indigenous Cultural Communities or
while that of "IPs" is the contemporary Indigenous Peoples refer to a group
international language in the of people or homogeneous societies
International Labor Organization (ILO) who have continuously lived as an
Convention 169 and the United Nations organized community on communally
(UN) Draft Declaration on the Rights of bounded and defined territory. These
Indigenous Peoples. groups of people have actually
ICCs/IPs are defined by the IPRA as: occupied, possessed and utilized their
territories under claim of ownership
"Sec. 3 [h]. Indigenous Cultural since time immemorial. They share
Communities/ Indigenous Peoples- refer common bonds of language, customs,
to a group of people or homogeneous traditions and other distinctive cultural
societies identified by self-ascription and traits, or, they, by their resistance to
political, social and cultural inroads of communalism and mutual help. The
colonization, non-indigenous religions social structure which emphasized
and cultures, became historically division of labor and distinction of
differentiated from the Filipino majority. functions, not status, was maintained.
ICCs/IPs also include descendants of The cultural styles and forms of life
ICCs/IPs who inhabited the country at portraying the varieties of social
the time of conquest or colonization, courtesies and ecological adjustments
who retain some or all of their own were kept constantly vibrant.
social, economic, cultural and political
institutions but who may have been
displaced from their traditional territories Land is the central element of the
or who may have resettled outside their indigenous peoples' existence. There
ancestral domains. is no traditional concept of permanent,
individual, land ownership. Among the
Igorots, ownership of land more
Their Concept of Land accurately applies to the tribal right to
use the land or to territorial control. The
Indigenous peoples share distinctive
people are the secondary owners or
traits that set them apart from the
stewards of the land and that if a
Filipino mainstream. They are non-
member of the tribe ceases to work, he
Christians. They live in less accessible,
loses his claim of ownership, and the
marginal, mostly upland areas. They
land reverts to the beings of the spirit
have a system of self-government not
world who are its true and primary
dependent upon the laws of the central
owners. Under the concept of
administration of the Republic of the
"trusteeship," the right to possess the
Philippines. They follow ways of life and
land does not only belong to the present
customs that are perceived as different
generation but the future ones as well.
from those of the rest of the population.
The kind of response the indigenous
peoples chose to deal with colonial
Customary law on land rests on the
threat worked well to their advantage by
traditional belief that no one owns the
making it difficult for Western concepts
land except the gods and spirits, and
and religion to erode their customs and
that those who work the land are its
traditions. The "infieles societies" which
mere stewards. Customary law has a
had become peripheral to colonial
strong preference for communal
administration, represented, from a
ownership, which could either be
cultural perspective, a much older base
ownership by a group of individuals or
of archipelagic culture. The political
families who are related by blood or by
systems were still structured on the
marriage, or ownership by residents of
patriarchal and kinship oriented
the same locality who may not be
arrangement of power and authority.
related by blood or marriage. The
The economic activities were governed
system of communal ownership under
by the concepts of an ancient
customary laws draws its meaning from
the subsistence and highly collectivized occupants of the land on which the
mode of economic production. The resources are found, the right to the
Kalingas, for instance, who are engaged small-scale utilization of these
in team occupation like hunting, foraging resources, and at the same time, a
for forest products, and swidden farming priority in their large-scale
found it natural that forest areas, development and
swidden farms, orchards, pasture and exploitation. Section 57 does not
burial grounds should be communally- mandate the State to automatically
owned. For the Kalingas, everybody has give priority to the ICCs/IPs. The
a common right to a common economic State has several options and it is
base. Thus, as a rule, rights and within its discretion to choose which
obligations to the land are shared in option to pursue. Moreover, there is
common. nothing in the law that gives the
ICCs/IPs the right to solely undertake
the large-scale development of the
Although highly bent on communal natural resources within their domains.
ownership, customary law on land The ICCs/IPs must undertake such
also sanctions individual endeavour always under State
ownership. The residential lots and supervision or control. This indicates
terrace rice farms are governed by that the State does not lose control and
a limited system of individual ownership over the resources even in
ownership. It is limited because while their exploitation. Sections 7 (b) and 57
the individual owner has the right to use of the law simply give due respect to the
and dispose of the property, he does not ICCs/IPs who, as actual occupants of
possess all the rights of an exclusive the land where the natural resources lie,
and full owner as defined under our Civil have traditionally utilized these
Code. Under Kalinga customary law, the resources for their subsistence and
alienation of individually-owned land is survival.
strongly discouraged except in marriage
and succession and except to meet
sudden financial needs due to sickness, The Small-Scale Utilization of Natural
death in the family, or loss of crops. Resources In Sec. 7 (b) of the IPRA Is
Moreover, and to be alienated should Allowed Under Paragraph 3, Section
first be offered to a clan-member before 2 of Article XII of the Constitution.
any village-member can purchase it, and
Ownership over natural
in no case may land be sold to a non-
resources remains with the State and
member of the ili.
the IPRA in Section 7 (b) merely grants
the ICCs/IPs the right to manage them.
The rights granted by the IPRA to the Ownership over the natural resources
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains
in their ancestral domains merely with the State and the ICCs/IPs are
gives the ICCs/IPs, as owners and merely granted the right to "manage
and conserve" them for future XII of the Constitution "in recognition
generations, "benefit and share" the of the plight of forest dwellers, gold
profits from their allocation and panners, marginal fishermen and others
utilization, and "negotiate the terms similarly situated who exploit our natural
and conditions for their exploration" resources for their daily sustenance and
for the purpose of "ensuring survival."
ecological and environmental
protection and conservation
measures." It must be noted that the The Large-Scale Utilization of Natural
right to negotiate the terms and Resources In Section 57 of the IPRA
conditions over the natural resources Is Allowed Under Paragraphs 1 and 4,
covers only their exploration which must Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
be for the purpose of ensuring Constitution.
ecological and environmental protection
of, and conservation measures in the
ancestral domain. It does not extend to Section 57 speaks of the "harvesting,
the exploitation and development of extraction, development or
natural resources. exploitation of natural resources within
ancestral domains" and "gives the
Simply stated, the ICCs/IPs' rights ICCs/IPs 'priority rights' therein." The
over the natural resources take the terms "harvesting, extraction,
form of management or stewardship. development or exploitation" of any
For the ICCs/IPs may use these natural resources within the ancestral
resources and share in the profits of domains obviously refer to large-
their utilization or negotiate the terms for scale utilization. It is utilization not
their exploration. At the same time, merely for subsistence but for
however, the ICCs/IPs must ensure that commercial or other extensive use that
the natural resources within their require technology other than manual
ancestral domains are conserved for labor. The law recognizes the probability
future generations and that the of requiring a non-member of the
"utilization" of these resources must not ICCs/IPs to participate in the
harm the ecology and environment development and utilization of the
pursuant to national and customary natural resources and thereby allows
laws. such participation for a period of not
more than 25 years, renewable for
The limited rights of "management another 25 years. This may be done on
and use" in Section 7 (b) must be condition that a formal written
taken to contemplate small-scale agreement be entered into by the non-
utilization of natural resources as member and members of the ICCs/IPs.
distinguished from large-scale.
Small-scale utilization of natural Section 57 of the IPRA does not give
resources is expressly allowed in the the ICCs/IPs the right to "manage and
third paragraph of Section 2, Article conserve" the natural resources.
Instead, the law only grants the and other mineral oils, or allow such
ICCs/IPs "priority rights" in the non-member to participate in its
development or exploitation thereof. agreement with the ICCs/IPs.
Priority means giving preference.
To reiterate, in the large-scale utilization
Having priority rights over the natural
of natural resources within the ancestral
resources does not necessarily mean
domains, the State, as owner of these
ownership rights. The grant of
resources, has four (4) options: (1) it
priority rights implies that there is
may, of and by itself, directly undertake
a superior entity that owns these
the development and exploitation of the
resources and this entity has the
natural resources; or (2) it may
power to grant preferential rights
recognize the priority rights of the
over the resources to whosoever
ICCs/IPs by entering into an agreement
itself chooses.
with them for such development and
Section 57 is not a repudiation of the exploitation; or (3) it may enter into an
Regalian doctrine. Rather, it is an agreement with a non-member of the
affirmation of the said doctrine that all ICCs/IPs, whether natural or juridical,
natural resources found within the local or foreign; or (4) it may allow such
ancestral domains belong to the State. It non-member to participate in the
incorporates by implication the Regalian agreement with the ICCs/IPs.
doctrine, hence, requires that the
The rights granted by the IPRA to the
provision be read in the light of Section
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources
2, Article XII of the 1987
in their ancestral domains merely
Constitution. Interpreting Section 2,
gives the ICCs/IPs, as owners and
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution in
occupants of the land on which the
relation to Section 57 of IPRA, the State,
resources are found, the right to the
as owner of these natural resources,
small-scale utilization of these
may directly undertake the development
resources, and at the same time, a
and exploitation of the natural resources
priority in their large-scale
by itself, or in the alternative, it may
development and
recognize the priority rights of the
exploitation. Section 57 does not
ICCs/IPs as owners of the land on which
mandate the State to automatically
the natural resources are found by
give priority to the ICCs/IPs. The
entering into a co-production, joint
State has several options and it is
venture, or production-sharing
within its discretion to choose which
agreement with them. The State may
option to pursue. Moreover, there is
likewise enter into any of said
nothing in the law that gives the
agreements with a non-member of the
ICCs/IPs the right to solely undertake
ICCs/IPs, whether natural or juridical, or
the large-scale development of the
enter into agreements with foreign-
natural resources within their domains.
owned corporations involving either
The ICCs/IPs must undertake such
technical or financial assistance for the
endeavour always under State
large-scale exploration, development
supervision or control. This indicates
and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
that the State does not lose control and and Integration of Indigenous and Other
ownership over the resources even in Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in
their exploitation. Sections 7 (b) and 57 Independent Countries" (ILO No. 107)
of the law simply give due respect to the passed on June 26, 1957.
ICCs/IPs who, as actual occupants of Developments in international law made
the land where the natural resources lie, it appropriate to adopt new international
have traditionally utilized these standards on indigenous peoples "with a
resources for their subsistence and view to removing the assimilationist
survival. orientation of the earlier standards," and
recognizing the aspirations of these
peoples to exercise control over their
THE IPRA IS A RECOGNITION OF own institutions, ways of life and
OUR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE economic development."
INDIGENOUS INTERNATIONAL
CONCLUSION
MOVEMENT.
The struggle of the Filipinos throughout
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
colonial history had been plagued by
formally recognizes the existence of
ethnic and religious differences. These
ICCs/IPs and declares as a State policy
differences were carried over and
the promotion of their rights within the
magnified by the Philippine government
framework of national unity and
through the imposition of a national legal
development. The IPRA amalgamates
order that is mostly foreign in origin or
the Philippine category of ICCs with the
derivation. Largely unpopulist, the
international category of IPs, and is
present legal system has resulted in the
heavily influenced by both the
alienation of a large sector of society,
International Labor Organization (ILO)
specifically, the indigenous peoples.
Convention 169 and the United Nations
(UN) Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
The histories and cultures of the
ILO Convention No. 169 is entitled the indigenes are relevant to the evolution of
"Convention Concerning Indigenous and Philippine culture and are vital to the
Tribal Peoples in Independent understanding of contemporary
Countries" and was adopted on June 27, problems. It is through the IPRA that an
1989. It is based on the Universal attempt was made by our legislators to
Declaration of Human Rights, the understand Filipino society not in terms
International Covenant on Economic, of myths and biases but through
Social and Cultural Rights, the common experiences in the course of
International Covenant on Civil and history.
Political Rights, and many other
The Philippines became a democracy a
international instruments on the
centennial ago and the decolonization
prevention of discrimination. ILO
process still continues. If the evolution of
Convention No. 169 revised the
the Filipino people into a democratic
"Convention Concerning the Protection
society is to truly proceed  The Plaintiff brought to US
democratically, i.e., if the Filipinos as a Supreme Court by of virtue of
whole are to participate fully in the task error and not by appeal.
of continuing democratization, it is this
Court's duty to acknowledge the
presence of indigenous and customary
laws in the country and affirm their co- FACTS:
existence with the land laws in our
Mateo Cariño, the appellant herein, filed
national legal system. his petition in the Court of Land
Registration praying that there be
granted to him title to a parcel of land
consisting of 40 hectares, 1 are, and 13
centares, and situated in the town of
Baguio, Province of Benguet, together
with a house erected thereon and
constructed of wood and roofed with
rimo.

The Insular Government opposed the

granting of these petitions, alleging that
the whole parcel of land is public
property of the Government and that the
MATEO CARIÑO, vs. THE INSULAR same was never acquired in any manner
GOVERNMENT or through any title of egresion from the
G.R. No. 2869 March 25, 1907 State.
ARELLANO, C.J.:
After trial, and the hearing of
BACKGROUND: documentary and oral proof, the court of
Land Registration rendered its judgment
 This case is about the application that Cariño and his predecessors have
for land registration to the not possessed exclusively and
Philippine Court of Land adversely any part of the said property
Registration, which the court prior to the date on which Cariño
granted March 4, 1904. constructed the house. Both petitions
are dismissed and the property in
 The Philippines and US question is adjudged to be public land.
Government, those governments
having taken possession of the ISSUE:
property for public and military
purposes, appealed the decision a.) Whether or not the Regalian
to CFI of Province of Benguet, Doctrine applies to lands
which dismissed the application previously occupied by tribes
of the plaintiff and affirmed by the such as the Igorots, who acquired
SC. native title thereof; and
 b.) Whether or not Carino owns the memory goes, the land has been held
land. by individuals under a claim of
HELD: private ownership, it will be
presumed to have been held in the
1. No. The Court held that the same way (private ownership) before
Regalian Doctrine does not apply the Spanish conquest, and never to
to lands previously occupied by have been public land. The Principle
tribes that already acquired native of Native Title states that there is an
title thereof, such as the Igorots. existence of native title to land, or
ownership of land by Filipinos by
By Section 12 of the Organic Act of July virtue of possession under a claim of
1, 1902, all the property and rights ownership since time immemorial and
acquired there by the United States are independent of any grant from the
to be administered "for the benefit of the Spanish Crown, as an exception to the
inhabitants thereof.” The same statute theory of (jura regalia) Regalian
made a bill of rights, embodying the Doctrine.
safeguards of the Constitution, and, like
the Constitution, extends those b) YES. The Court held that
safeguards to all. It provides that "no law Plaintiff Carino should be
shall be enacted in said islands which granted what he seeks and
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, should not be deprived of what
or property without due process of law, by the practice and belief of
or deny to any person therein the equal those among whom he lived,
protection of the laws." was his property, through a
refined interpretation of an
In the light of the declaration that we almost forgotten law of Spain.
have quoted from Section 12, it is hard
to believe that the United States was The grant to the plaintiff was the result
ready to declare in the next breath that of the principle of Prescription as
"any person" did not embrace the mentioned in the royal cedula of 1754
inhabitants of Benguet, or that it meant states:
by "property" only that which had
become such by ceremonies of which “where such possessors shall not
presumably a large part of the be able to produce title deeds, it
inhabitants never had heard, and that it shall be sufficient if they shall
proposed to treat as public land what show that ancient possession, as
they, by native custom and by long a valid title by prescription.”
association -- one of the profoundest Moreover, the decree of June 25, 1880
factors in human thought -- regarded as states that possessors for certain times
their own. shall be deemed owners; if a cultivated
land 20 years, if uncultivated 30 years.
Every presumption is and ought to be Here the plaintiff’s father was the owner
against the government in a case like of the land by the very terms of this
the present. It might, perhaps, be decree – by Organic Act of July 1, 1902,
proper and sufficient to say that all the property and rights acquired there
when, as far back as testimony or
by the US are to be administered “for
the benefit of the inhabitants thereof.” NOTES:

The Obiter Writ of Error is the general  Section 6 of Act No. 627 admits
method of bringing cases to this court prescription, in accordance with
(Federal SC), and appeal the exception, the provisions contained in Act
confined to equity in the main. Every No. 190, as a basis for obtaining
presumption is and ought to be against the right of ownership. "The
the government in a case like present. petitioners claims title under the
The Court said that the reason for taking period of prescription of ten years
over the Philippines was different established by that act, as well as
(compared to the occupation of white by reason of his occupancy and
race against Native Americans). Our first use thereof from time
object in the internal administration of immemorial." (Allegation 1.) But
the islands is to do justice to the natives said act admits such prescription
not to exploit their country for private for the purpose of obtaining title
gain. and ownership to lands "not
exceeding more that sixteen
Hence, the effect of proof was not to hectares in extent." (Sec. 6 of
confer title but simply to establish it, as said act.) The land claimed by
already conferred by the decree, if not Cariño is 40 hectares in extent,
by earlier law. if we take into consideration
his petition, or an extension of
By reason of the findings set forth it is 28 hectares, according to the
clearly seen that the court below did not possessory information, the
err: only thing that can be considered.
Therefore, it follows that the
1. In finding that Mateo Cariño and judgment denying the petition
those from whom he claims his right had herein and now appealed from
not possessed and claimed as owners was strictly in accordance with
the lands in question since time the law invoked herein.
immemorial;
2. In finding that the land in question did And we should not lose sight of
not belong to the petitioner, but that, on the fact that, considering the
the contrary, it was the property of the intention of Congress in granting
Government. (Allegation 21.) ownership and title to 16
hectares, that Mateo Cariño and
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from his children have already
is affirmed with the costs of this instance exceeded such amount in various
against the appellant. After the acquirements of lands, all of
expiration of twenty days from the which is shown in different cases
notification of this decision let judgment decided by the said Court of Land
be entered in accordance herewith, and Registration, donations or gifts of
ten days thereafter let the case be land that could only have been
remanded to the court from whence it made efficacious as to the
came for proper action. So ordered.
 conveyance thereof with the 2002, the farm lands occupied by the
assistance of these new laws. members of SAMBICO in Sitio Dipangan
and Langka, Brgy. Bintuan, Coron,
Palawan were placed under the
coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by
the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR). The lands placed under CARP
had titles in the name of Mercury Group
of Companies.

However, the implementation of the

CARP over the subject lands was
stopped because the said lands were
unclassified forest land under Sec. 3(a)
of P.D. No. 705 and thus, are inalienable
and belong to the government. As these
are forest lands, they are under the
administration of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and not the DAR.

The members of the Samahan ng

Magsasaka ng Sto. Nino (SAMMASA)
alleged that they farmed the lands.
Farming was their means of livelihood
even before their barangay was
established in the 1960s. Sometime in
1980, the farm lands they tilled were
Federation of Coron et.Al. v Sec. of placed under the coverage of CARP.
DENR The land tilled by the farmers was
(GR No. 247866) September 15, 2020 originally titled under the name of a
certain Jose Sandoval. However, the
FACTS: land distribution was stopped under the
CARP because the DENR stated that
This is a petition for certiorari seeking to the said lands were unclassified forest
declare as unconstitutional Section 3 (a) land under Sec. 3(a) of P.D. No. 705
of PD No. 705, otherwise known as the and these forest lands belong to the
Forestry Reform Code of the government.
Philippines. Hence, this petition to declare Sec. 3(a)
Petitioners Federation of Coron, of P.D. No. 705 unconstitutional.
Busuanga, Palawan Farmer’s
Association, Inc (FCBPFAI) and ISSUE:
Sandigan ng mga Bukidnon Coro, Inc.,
(SAMBICO) are federations consisting Whether or Not section 3 (a) of PD No.
of fanners in Palawan. Sometime in 705 is unconstitutional
 ownership of the lands of the public
HELD: domain is on the person applying for
registration (or claiming ownership), who
Section 3 (a) PD No. 705 is must prove that the land subject of the
constitutional. application is alienable or disposable. To
Section 3(a) PD No. 705 provides that overcome this presumption,
Public forest is the mass of lands of the incontrovertible evidence must be
public domain which has not been the established that the land subject of the
subject of the present system of application (or claim) is alienable or
classification for the determination of disposable
which lands are needed for forest
purposes and which are not. In the case at bar, as petitioners failed to
assail Sec. 3(a) of P.D. No. 705, which
The Court finds that petitioners failed to is consistent with the Regalian Doctrine,
discharge the heavy burden in assailing wherein the subject lands remain within
the constitutionality of the law. Section 3 the ownership of the State. To repeat,
(a) of P.D. No. 705 is consistent with the the burden of proof in overcoming the
constitution, which adapted the Regalian presumption of state ownership of the
Doctrine that all land of public domain lands of the public domain is on the
belong to the State. person applying for registration that the
land subject of the application is
Under the Regalian Doctrine, which is alienable or disposable. Unless public
embodied in our Constitution, all lands land is shown to have been reclassified
of the public domain belong to the State, as alienable or disposable to a private
which is the source of any asserted right person by the State, it remains part of
to any ownership of land. All lands not the inalienable public domain. Property
appearing to be clearly within private of the public domain is beyond the
ownership are presumed to belong to commerce of man and not susceptible of
the State. Accordingly, public lands not private appropriation and acquisitive
shown to have been reclassified or prescription. Occupation thereof in the
released as alienable agricultural land or concept of owner no matter how long
alienated to a private person by the cannot ripen into ownership and be
State remain part of the inalienable registered as a title. In other words,
public domain. Unless public land is petitioners have no vested right over the
shown to have been reclassified as subject lands because these
alienable or disposable to a private unclassified lands belong to the State,
person by the State, it remains part of hence, no private right was violated by
the inalienable public domain. Property the State.
of the public domain is beyond the Verily, Sec. 3(a) of P.D. No. 705 is not
commerce of man and not susceptible of unconstitutional because it merely
private appropriation and acquisitive enforces the Regalian Doctrine in favor
prescription. Occupation thereof in the of the State. No amount of possession
concept of owner no matter how long will expose the subject lands to private
cannot ripen into ownership and be ownership. Petitioners should not seek
registered as a title. The burden of proof to devoid the said statutory provision;
in overcoming the presumption of State instead, they should proceed to the
Executive Department, through the situatuated in Barrio Galicia, Negros
Secretary of DENR, to establish that the Occidental.
subject unclassified forest lands must be
re-classified to alienable and disposable A private oppositors Macario Zafra and
lands of public domain.Only when the Manuel Yusay filed their Motion to
lands of public domain are classified as dismiss the application on the following
alienable or disposable, may petitioners grounds:
assert their property rights over the
subject lands 1. the land applied for has not
been declared alienable and disposable
WHEREFORE, the petition is 2. res judicata has set in to bar
DISMISSED. the application for registration
3. The application has no factual
or legal basis.

Sometime in 1988, the Republic of the

Philippines (Republic), through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
opposed the application for registration
on the following grounds, among others:
that neither the applicants nor their
predecessors-in-interest had been in
open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of
the land in question; that the muniment/s
of title and/or the tax declaration/s and
tax payments/receipts of applicants, if
any, attached to or alleged in the
application, do/es not constitute
competent and sufficient evidence of a
bona fide acquisition of the land applied
for or of their open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation in the concept of owner that
Valiao v Republic the parcel of land applied for is a portion
GR No. 170757 November 28, 2011 of public domain belonging to the
Republic, which is not subject to private
FACTS: appropriation; and that the present
action is barred by a previous final
Petitioners4 Pacifico, Lodovico, Ricardo, judgment in a cadastral case prosecuted
Bienvenido, all surnamed Valiao, and between the same parties and involving
Nemesio Grandea filed with the RTC of the same parcel of land.
Kabankalan, Negros Occidental an
application for registration of a parcel of The RTC denied private oppositors’
land with an area of 504,535 sqm, Motion to Dismiss and granted
petitioner’s application for registration of
the subject property and hereby orders
and decrees registration of Lot No. 2372 The Court held that under the Regalian
subject of the present proceedings and doctrine, public lands not shown to have
the registration of title thereto, in favor of been reclassified or released as
the applicants, who are declared the alienable agricultural land or alienated to
true and lawful owners of said Lot No. a private person by the State remain
2372, except applicant Lodovico Valiao, part of the inalienable public domain.
who sold his right to Macario Zafra. Unless public land is shown to have
been reclassified as alienable or
Aggrieved by the Decision, Private disposable to a private person by the
Oppositors and Republic filed an appeal State, it remains part of the inalienable
with the CA. The CA ruled that the public domain. Property of the public
classification of lands of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man
domain is an exclusive prerogative of and not susceptible of private
the executive department of the appropriation and acquisitive
government and in the absence of such prescription. Occupation thereof in the
classification, the lands remain as concept of owner no matter how long
unclassified until it is released therefrom cannot ripen into ownership and be
and rendered open to disposition. registered as a title. The burden of proof
Further, there exists a prior cadastral in overcoming the presumption of State
case involving the same parties herein ownership of the lands of the public
and the same Lot No. 2372, which ruled domain is on the person applying for
that Lot No. 2372 belongs to the registration (or claiming ownership), who
Republic. The CA held that such must prove that the land subject of the
judgment constitutes res judicata that application is alienable or disposable.
bars a subsequent action for land To overcome this presumption,
registration. It also ruled that the subject incontrovertible evidence must be
property is part of the inalienable land of established that the land subject of the
the public domain and petitioners failed application (or claim) is alienable or
to prove that they and their disposable.
predecessors-in-interest had been in
open, continuous, exclusive and In addition, there must be a positive act
notorious possession of the land in declaring land of the public domain as
question. alienable and disposable. To prove that
the land subject of an application for
Petitioners filed a motion for registration is alienable, the applicant
reconsideration, which was denied by must establish the existence of a
the CA. positive act of the government.

ISSUE The court added that no such evidence

was offered by the petitioners to show
Whether or Not Lot No. 2371 is an that the land in question has been
alienable and disposable land of the classified as alienable and disposable
public domain. land of the public domain.

HELD:
It is settled that the applicant must The Case
present proof of specific acts of
ownership to substantiate the claim and This Petition1 seeks to set aside the
cannot just offer general statements Decision of the Court of Appeals,2 dated
which are mere conclusions of law than June 22, 1992, in CA-G.R. SP No.
factual evidence of possession.Actual 25597, which declared null and void the
possession consists in the manifestation Decision3 dated January 30, 1991 of the
of acts of dominion over it of such a Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal,
nature as a party would actually Branch 71, in LRC No. 269-A, LRC Rec.
exercise over his own property. No. N-59179, confirming the imperfect
title of petitioners over a parcel of land.
WHEREFORE, The decision and
resolution of the CA AFFIRMED and the FACTS:
application for registration of title filed by
the Petitioners DENIED. In 1985, petitioner Edna T. Collado filed
with the land registration court an
application for registration of a parcel of
land with an approximate area of
1,200,766 square meters. The Lot is
situated in Barangay San Isidro
(formerly known as Boso-boso),
Antipolo, Rizal. Attached to the
application was the technical description
of the Lot "[t]his survey is inside IN-12
Mariquina Watershed."

The Republic of the Philippines, through

the Solicitor General, and the
Municipality of Antipolo, through its
Municipal Attorney and the Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal, filed oppositions to
petitioners’ application. In due course,
the land registration court issued an
order of general default against the
whole world with the exception of the
oppositors.

2. Constitutional Basis Petitioners alleged that they have

occupied the Lot since time immemorial.
EDNA COLLADO, vs. COURT OF Their possession has been open, public,
APPEALS notorious and in the concept of owners.
G. R. No. 107764 October 4, The Lot was surveyed in the name of
2002 Sesinando Leyva, one of their
predecessors-in-interest, as early as
CARPIO, J.: March 22, 1902. Petitioners declared the
Lot for taxation purposes and paid all
the corresponding real estate taxes. (Art. XIII, Sec. 1), 1973 (Art. XIV, Sec.
According to them, there are now 8), and 1987 Constitution (Art. XII, Sec.
twenty-five co-owners in pro-indiviso 2), all lands of the public domain belong
shares of five hectares each. to the State.” An applicant, like the
private respondents herein, for
The Trial Court’s Ruling registration of a parcel of land bears
the burden of overcoming the
presumption that the land sought to
It held that petitioners had adduced be registered forms part of the public
sufficient evidence to establish their domain.
registrable rights over the Lot. The court
confirmed the imperfect title of A positive Act of government is needed
petitioners. The Court said that all to declassify a public land and to convert
Presidential Proclamations like the it into alienable or disposable land for
Proclamation setting aside the Marikina agricultural or other purposes (Republic
Watershed are subject to "private vs. Bacas). The private respondents
rights." This was cited in the case of failed to present any evidence
Municipality of Santiago vs. Court of whatsoever that the land applied for as
Appeals, "private rights" is proof of described has been segregated from the
acquisition through among means of bulk of the public domain and declared
acquisition of public lands. by competent authority to be alienable
and disposable.
The LRC believes that from the
evidence presented as above stated, The CA furthermore stated that even
Applicants have acquired private rights assuming that petitioners did have the
to which the Presidential Proclamation said properties surveyed even before
setting aside the Marikina Watershed the same was declared to be part of the
should be subject to such private rights. Busol Forest Reservation, the fact
remains that it was so converted into a
Thereafter, the Solicitor General filed forest reservation, thus it is with more
with the Court of Appeals a Petition for reason that this action must fail. Forest
Annulment of Judgment pursuant to lands are inalienable and possession
Section 9(2) of BP Blg. 129 on the thereof, no matter how long, cannot
ground that there had been no clear convert the same into private property.
showing that the Lot had been And courts are without jurisdiction to
previously classified as alienable and adjudicate lands within the forest zone.
disposable making it subject to private (Heirs of Gumangan vs. CA)
appropriation.
Hence, the instant petition.
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
ISSUES:
The Court of Appeals granted the
petition and declared null and void the 1. Whether or not petitioners have
decision. The Court of Appeals registrable title over the Lot.
explained that "Under the Regalian 2. Whether or not the petitioners
Doctrine, which is enshrined in the 1935 acquire provate rights iver the
 parcel of land prior the issuance petitioners had acquired
of EO 33 segregating the same ownership or title to the Lot
as a watershed reservation. either by deed or by any other
3. Whether or not the petition for mode of acquisition from the
annulment of judgment should State with the issuance of EO
have been given due course. 33 in 1904 – for instance by
acquisitive prescription.

HELD: As of 1904, Sesinando Leyva had only

1. No. The Court held that the been in possession for two years. Verily,
petitioners have no registrable petitioners have not possessed the
title over the Lot. It stated that it parcel of land in the manner and for the
is a plain error for the petitioners number of years required by law for the
to argue that under Philippine Bill confirmation of imperfect title. In
of 1902 and Public Land Act No. Municipality of Santiago v. CA, the Court
926, mere possession by private held that inalienable public lands
individuals of lands creates the “cannot be acquired by acquisitive
legal presumption that the lands prescription. Prescription, both
are alienable and disposable. acquisitive and extinctive, does not run
against the State, unless the occupant
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands can prove possession and occupation of
not otherwise appearing to be clearly the same under claim of ownership for
within private ownership are presumed the required number of years to
to belong to the State. The Constitutions constitute a grant from the State.
prohibited the alienation of all natural
resources except agricultural lands of The evidence of record thus appears
the public domain. Also, the 1987 unsatisfactory and insufficient to show
Constitution was clear on stating that all clearly and positively that the Lot had
lands of the oublic domain and natural been officially released from the
resources belongs to the State. Marikina Watershed Reservation to form
part of the alienable and disposable
The Court further stated that since the lands of the public domain.
most important product of a watershed
is water which is one of the most Hence, the Court stated that once a
important human necessit(ies). The parcel of land is included within a
protection of watershed ensures an watershed reservation duly established
adequate supply of water for future by Executive Proclamation, as in the
generations and the control of instant case, a presumption arises that
flashfloods that not only damage the land continues to be part of such
property but also cause loss of lives. Reservation until clear and convincing
Protection of watersheds is an evidence of subsequent declassification
"intergenerational" responsibility that is shown.
needs to be answered now."
3. The Court held that in this case
2. No. The Court held that there since any title to the lot
was no proof that the concerned is ab initio, the LRC
 never acquired any jurisdiction through the Laws of the Indies
over it. All the proceedings of the and the Royal Cedulas,
LRC are therefore null and void. specifically, Law 14, Title 12,
Being a watershed reservation, Book 4 of the Novisima
the Lot is not alienable and Recopilacion de Leyes de las
disposable public land. Indias12 which laid the
foundation that "all lands that
In Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, the were not acquired from the
Court ruled that yhe Land Registration Government, either by purchase
Court has no jurisdiction over non- or by grant, belong to the public
registrable properties, such as public domain."13 Upon the Spanish
navigable rivers which are parts of the conquest of the Philippines,
public domain, and cannot validly ownership of all "lands, territories
adjudge the registration of title in favor and possessions" in the
of private applicant. Philippines passed to the
Spanish Crown.14
It should be noted further that the
doctrine of estoppel or laches does not  The Maura Law was the last
apply when the Government sues as a Spanish land law promulgated in
sovereign or asserts governmental the Philippines. It required the
rights, nor does estoppel or laches "adjustment" or registration of all
validate an act that contravenes law or agricultural lands, otherwise the
public policy, and that res judicata is to lands would revert to the state
be disregarded if its application would
involve the sacrifice of justice to  In 1903, the United States
technicality. colonial government, through the
Philippine Commission, passed
The Court further held that "the right of Act No. 926, the first Public Land
reversion or reconveyance to the State Act, which was described as
of the public properties registered and follows:
which are not capable of private
appropriation or private acquisition does "Act No. 926, the first Public
not prescribe." Land Act, was passed in
pursuance of the provisions of
Hence, the environmental the Philippine Bill of 1902. The
consequences in this case override law governed the disposition of
concerns over technicalities and rules of lands of the public domain. It
procedure. prescribed rules and regulations
for the homesteading, selling and
Wherefore, this petition is denied. leasing of portions of the public
domain of the Philippine Islands,
and prescribed the terms and
NOTES: conditions to enable persons to
perfect their titles to public lands
 The Spaniards first introduced in the Islands. It also provided for
the doctrine to the Philippines the "issuance of patents to
 certain native settlers upon public the Department of Natural
lands," for the establishment of Resources as a protected area.
town sites and sale of lots Rules and Regulations may be
therein, for the completion of promulgated by such Department
imperfect titles, and for the to prohibit or control such
cancellation or confirmation of activities by the owners or
Spanish concessions and grants occupants thereof within the
in the Islands." The term "public protected area which may
land" referred to all lands of the damage or cause the
public domain whose title still deterioration of the surface water
remained in the government and or ground water or interfere with
are thrown open to private the investigation, use, control,
appropriation and settlement, and protection, management or
excluded the patrimonial property administration of such waters."
of the government and the friar
lands."  An applicant for confirmation of
imperfect title bears the burden of
 Act 496, otherwise known as the proving that he meets the
Land Registration Act. Act 496 requirements of Section 48 of CA
placed all registered lands in the 141, as amended. He must
Philippines under the Torrens overcome the presumption that
system.The Torrens system the land he is applying for is part
requires the government to issue of the public domain and that he
a certificate of title stating that the has an interest therein sufficient
person named in the title is the to warrant registration in his
owner of the property described name arising from an imperfect
therein, subject to liens and title. An imperfect title may have
encumbrances annotated on the been derived from old Spanish
title or reserved by law. The grants such as a titulo real or
certificate of title is indefeasible royal grant, a concession
and imprescriptible and all claims especial or special grant, a
to the parcel of land are quieted composicion con el estado or
upon issuance of the adjustment title, or a titulo de
certificate.19 PD 1529, known as compra or title through
the Property Registration Decree purchase.29 Or, that he has had
enacted on June 11, 1978,20 continuous, open and notorious
amended and updated Act 496. possession and occupation of
agricultural lands of the public
 Article 67 of the Water Code of domain under a bona fide claim
the Philippines (PD 1067) of ownership for at least thirty
provides: years preceding the filing of his
application as provided by
"Art. 67. Any watershed or any Section 48 (b) CA 141.
area of land adjacent to any
surface water or overlying any  "A forested area classified as
ground water may be declared by forest land of the public domain
 does not lose such classification G.R. No. 157485 March 26, 2014
simply because loggers or
settlers may have stripped it of its LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
forest cover. Parcels of land
classified as forest land may This is a Petition for Review assailing
actually be covered with grass or the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in
planted to crops by kaingin CA-G.R. SP No. 65244 dated February
cultivators or other farmers. 24, 2003, which upheld the Decisions of
"Forest lands" do not have to be the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo,
on mountains or in out of the way Aklan in Civil Case No. 6130 and the
places. The classification is First Municipal Circuit Trial Court
descriptive of its legal nature (MCTC) of New Washington and Batan,
or status and does not have to Aklan in Civil Case No. 1181,
be descriptive of what the land segregating from the Aklan National
actually looks like. Unless and College of Fisheries (ANCF) reservation
until the land classified as "forest" the portion of land being claimed by
is released in an official respondents.
proclamation to that effect so that
it may form part of the disposable FACTS:
agricultural lands of the public
domain, the rules on confirmation Respondents claim that they are the
of imperfect title do not apply." lawful heirs of the late Maxima Lachica
Sin who was the owner of a parcel of
land situated at Barangay Tambac, New
Washington, Aklan. On August 26,
1991, they respondent heirs instituted in
the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan a complaint
against Aklan National College of
Fisheries (ANCF) for recovery of
possession, quieting of title, and
declaration of ownership with damages
claiming that the latter usurped their
rights over the property.

ANCF countered that the subject land

was the subject of Proclamation No.
2074 of then President Ferdinand E.
Marcos allocating the area of said
property as civil reservation for
educational purposes of ANCF. The
ANCF Superintendent furthermore
averred that the subject parcel of land is
timberland and therefore not susceptible
of private ownership.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
HEIRS OF MAXIMA LACHICA SIN
The respondents presented evidence 1945; and (2) the classification of the
that they inherited a bigger parcel of land as alienable and disposable land of
land from their mother who acquired it the public domain.
by virtue of a deed of sale. That in 1988
a potion thereof was occupied by ANCF Under the Regalian doctrine, which is
and converted into a fishpond for embodied in our Constitution, all lands
educational purpose. Respondent heirs of the public domain belong to the State,
asserted that they were previously in which is the source of any asserted right
possession of the disputed land in the to any ownership of land. All lands not
concept of an owner. To prove appearing to be clearly within private
possession, respondents presented ownership are presumed to belong to
several tax declarations, the earliest of the State. Accordingly, public lands not
which was in the year 1945. shown to have been reclassified or
released as alienable agricultural land or
The MCTC, the RTC and the Court of alienated to a private person by the
Appeals unanimously held that State remain part of the inalienable
respondents retain private rights to the public domain. Unless public land is
disputed property by virtue of their and shown to have been reclassified as
their predecessors’ open, continuous, alienable or disposable to a private
exclusive and notorious possession person by the State, it remains part of
amounts to an imperfect title, which the inalienable public domain.
should be respected and protected.
Property of the public domain is beyond
ISSUE: the commerce of man and not
susceptible of private appropriation and
Whether or not the claim of the acquisitive prescription. Occupation
respondents amounts to judicial thereof in the concept of owner no
confirmation of imperfect title. matter how long cannot ripen into
ownership and be registered as a title.
HELD: The burden of proof in overcoming the
presumption of State ownership of the
No. At the outset, it must be noted lands of the public domain is on the
that respondents have not filed an person applying for registration (or
application for judicial confirmation claiming ownership), who must prove
of imperfect title under the Public that the land subject of the application is
Land Act or the Property Registration alienable or disposable. To overcome
Decree. Section 48(b) of the Public this presumption, incontrovertible
Land Act and Section 14(1) of the evidence must be established that the
Property Registration Decree provide land subject of the application (or claim)
the requisites for judicial confirmation of is alienable or disposable.
imperfect title: (1) open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and There must be a positive act declaring
occupation of the subject land by himself land of the public domain as alienable
or through his predecessors–in–interest and disposable. To prove that the land
under a bona fide claim of ownership subject of an application for registration
since time immemorial or from June 12, is alienable, the applicant must establish
the existence of a positive act of the
government, such as a presidential RP vs. TRI-PLUS CORPORATION
proclamation or an executive order; an G.R. No. 150000 September 26,
administrative action; investigation 2006
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators;
and a legislative act or a statute. The AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
applicant may also secure a certification
from the government that the land FACTS:
claimed to have been possessed for the
required number of years is alienable On April 30, 1997 Tri-Plus Corporation
and disposable. filed with the MTC an Application for
Registration of Title over two parcels of
In the case at bar, it is therefore the land designated as Lots 1061 and 1062
respondents which have the burden to of the cadastral survey of Consolacion,
identify a positive act of the government, Cebu and located at Barangay Tayud,
such as an official proclamation, Consolacion. Tri-Plus alleged that it is
declassifying inalienable public land into the owner in fee simple of the subject
disposable land for agricultural or other parcels of land, including the
purposes. Since respondents failed to improvements thereon, having acquired
do so, the alleged possession by them the same through purchase; and that it
and by their predecessors–in–interest is is in actual, continuous, public,
inconsequential and could never ripen notorious, exclusive and peaceful
into ownership. Accordingly, possession of the subject properties in
respondents cannot be considered to the concept of an owner for more than
have private rights within the purview of 30 years, including that of its
Proclamation No. 2074 as to prevent the predecessors-in-interest.
application of said proclamation to the
subject property.
The Republic opposed the application
stating that the tax declarations and
receipts of tax payments, do not
constitute competent and sufficient
evidence of a bona fide acquisition of
the land applied for or of its open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation thereof in
the concept of owner since June 12,
1945 or prior thereto; that the claim of
ownership in fee simple on the basis of
a Spanish title or grant may no longer be
availed of by the applicant because it
failed to file an appropriate application
for registration in accordance with the
provisions P.D. No. 892; and that the
subject parcels of land are portions of
the public domain belonging to the
Republic of the Philippines and are not
subject to private appropriation. Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No.
141, as amended, provides that the
classification and reclassification of
The MTC and CA ruled in favor of the public lands into alienable or disposable,
respondents. Petitioner contends that a mineral or forest land is the prerogative
mere notation appearing in the survey of the Executive Department. 
plans of the disputed properties showing
that the subject lands had been Under the Regalian doctrine, which is
classified as alienable and disposable embodied in our Constitution, all lands
on June 25, 1963 is not sufficient to of the public domain belong to the State,
establish the nature and character of which is the source of any asserted right
these lands. to any ownership of land. All lands not
appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to
Petitioner asserts that there should be a
the State. Accordingly, public lands not
positive act on the part of the
shown to have been reclassified or
government, such as a certification from
released as alienable agricultural land or
the DENR, to prove that the said lands
alienated to a private person by the
are indeed alienable and disposable.
State remain part of the inalienable
Petitioner further contends that even if
public domain.
the subject properties were classified as
alienable and disposable on June 25,
In the case at bar, the only evidence to
1963, the law, nonetheless, requires that
prove the character of the subject lands
such classification should have been
as required by law is the notation
made on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
appearing in the Advance Plan stating in
effect that the said properties are
Hence, this petition. alienable and disposable. However, this
is hardly the kind of proof required by
law. To prove that the land subject of an
Issue: application for registration is alienable,
an applicant must establish the
existence of a positive act of the
Whether or not the lands in question are government such as a presidential
alienable or disposable. proclamation or an executive order, an
administrative action, investigation
Held: reports of Bureau of Lands investigators,
and a legislative act or statute. The
applicant may also secure a certification
No. The Court held that the from the Government that the lands
respondents failed to submit a applied for are alienable and
certification from the proper disposable. 
government agency to prove that the
lands subject for registration are Furthermore, while the Advance Plan
indeed alienable and disposable. The bearing the notation was certified by the
Court cannot, therefore, grant the Lands Management Services of the
application for registration.
DENR, the certification refers only to the
technical correctness of the survey
plotted in the said plan and has nothing
to do whatsoever with the nature and
character of the property surveyed. RP vs. CANDY MAKER, INC.
Respondents failed to submit a G.R. No. 163766 June 22, 2006
certification from the proper government
agency to prove that the lands subject CALLEJO, SR., J.:
for registration are indeed alienable and
disposable. FACTS:

On April 29, 1999, Antonio, Eladia, and

Felisa, all surnamed Cruz, executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Candy
Maker, Inc. On June 16, 1999, Candy
Maker, Inc., filed an application for the
registration of its alleged title over
subject lands. The LRA and the LMB
and FMB were instructed to submit their
respective reports on the status of the
parcels of land before the initial hearing
scheduled on October 29, 1999.

The CENRO Officer of Antipolo City filed

his Report declaring that "the land falls
within the Alienable and Disposable
Zone On the other hand, the LRA, in its
September 21, 1999 Report,
recommended the exclusion of Lot No.
3138-B on the ground that it is a legal
easement and intended for public use,
hence, inalienable and indisposable.
The LLDA approved Resolution No. 113,
Series of 1993, providing that untitled
shoreland areas may be leased subject
to conditions enumerated therein.

The Republic and the LLDA filed its

Opposition to the Amended Application
of Candy Maker in which it alleged that
the lot subject of the application for
registration may not be alienated and
disposed since it is considered part of that its predecessors occupied
the Laguna Lake bed, a public land the land openly, continuously,
within its jurisdiction pursuant to exclusively, notoriously and
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4850, as adversely in the concept of owner
amended. since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

Cruz testified that his grandparents ISSUES:

owned the property, and after their
demise, his parents, the spouses 1. Whether the property subject
Apolonio Cruz and Aquilina Atanacio of the amended application is
Cruz, inherited the lot; he and his father alienable and disposable
had cultivated the property since 1937, property of the State, and, if
planting palay during the rainy season so,
and vegetables during the dry season; 2. Whether respondent adduced
his father paid the realty taxes on the the requisite quantum of
property, and he (Cruz) continued evidence to prove its
paying the taxes after his father’s death. ownership over the property
Cruz insisted that he was the rightful under Section 14 of P.D.
claimant and owner of the property. 1529.
HELD:
Petitioner’s Contention

 The Engineer’s Survey Report The property subject of this

and the Laguna de Bay application was alienable and
Shoreland Survey both show that disposable public agricultural land
Lot No. 3138-A is located below until July 18, 1966. However,
the reglementary lake elevation, respondent failed to prove that it
hence, forms part of the Laguna possesses registerable title over the
Lake bed. It insists that the property.
property belongs to the public
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands
domain as classified under Article
not otherwise appearing to be clearly
502 of the Civil Code.
within private ownership are presumed
to belong to the State. The presumption
 Respondent failed to present
is that lands of whatever classification
incontrovertible evidence to
belong to the State. Unless public land
warrant the registration of the
is shown to have been reclassified as
property in its name as owner.
alienable or disposable to a private
The testimonies of the two
person by the State, it remains part of
witnesses only proved that the
the inalienable public domain.
possession of the land may be
characterized as mere casual
cultivation; they failed to prove
Property of the public domain is beyond confirmation of imperfect title do not
the commerce of man and not apply. A certification of the
susceptible of private appropriation and Community Environment and Natural
acquisitive prescription. Occupation Resources Officer in the Department
thereof in the concept of owner no of Environment and Natural
matter how long cannot ripen into Resources stating that the land
ownership and be registered as a title. subject of an application is found to
The statute of limitations with regard to be within the alienable and
public agricultural lands does not disposable site per a land classification
operate against the State unless the project map is sufficient evidence to
occupant proves possession and show the real character of the land
occupation of the same after a claim of subject of the application.
ownership for the required number of
years to constitute a grant from the The applicant is burdened to offer proof
State. of specific acts of ownership to
substantiate the claim over the land.
No public land can be acquired by Actual possession consists in the
private persons without any grant from manifestation of acts of dominion over it
the government, whether express or of such a nature as a party would
implied. It is indispensable that there be actually exercise over his own property.
a showing of a title from the State. The A mere casual cultivation of portions
rationale for the period "since time of the land by the claimant does not
immemorial or since June 12, 1945" constitute sufficient basis for a claim
lies in the presumption that the land of ownership; such possession is not
applied for pertains to the State, and exclusive and notorious as to give rise to
that the occupants or possessor a presumptive grant from the State.
claim an interest thereon only by
virtue of their imperfect title as In this case, the evidence on record
continuous, open and notorious shows that the property is alienable
possession. agricultural land. Romeo Cadano of the
Community Environment and Natural
To prove that the land subject of an Resources Office, Antipolo Rizal,
application for registration is alienable, certified that the property "falls within the
an applicant must conclusively establish Alienable and Disposable zone, under
the existence of a positive act of the Land Classification Project No. 5-A, per
government such as a presidential L.C. Map No. 639 certified released on
proclamation or an executive order, or March 11, 1927." However, under R.A.
administrative action, investigation No. 4850 which was approved on July
reports of the Bureau of Lands 18, 1966, lands located at and below the
investigator or a legislative act or maximum lake level of elevation of the
statute. Until then, the rules on
Laguna de Bay are public lands which Finance and the Secretary of Public
form part of the bed of said lake. Works and Communications.

Under R.A. No. 4850 and the issuances Pursuant to the said law, Ordinance No.
of LLDA, registerable rights acquired by 121 was passed by the city of Pasay for
occupants before the effectivity of the the reclamation of foreshore lands within
law are recognized. However, the their jurisdiction and entered into an
respondent failed to adduce proof that agreement with Republic Real Estate
its predecessors-in-interest had Corporation for the said project.
acquired registerable title over the
property before July 18, 1966 Republic questioned the agreement. It
contended, among others, that the
In light of the foregoing, the petition of agreement between RREC and the City
the Republic of the Philippines is of Pasay was void for the object of the
granted. contract is outside the commerce of
man, it being a foreshore land.
RP v. CA
Pasay City and RREC countered that
G.R. No. 103882 November 25, 1998 the object in question is within the
——————— commerce of man because RA 1899
gives a broader meaning on the term
PASAY CITY AND REPUBLIC REAL “foreshore land” than that in the
ESTATE CORPORATION, v. CA definition provided by the dictionary.

G.R. No. 105276 November 25, 1998 RTC rendered judgment in favour of
Pasay City and RREC, and the decision
PURISIMA, J.:
was affirmed by the CA with
FACTS: modifications.

On June 22, 1957, RA 1899 was Hence, this petition.

approved granting authority to all
ISSUE:
municipalities and chartered cities to
undertake and carry out at their own 1. Whether or not the term
expense the reclamation by dredging, “foreshore land” includes the
filling, or other means, of any foreshore submerged area.
lands bordering them, and to establish,
provide, construct, maintain and repair HELD:
proper and adequate docking and 1. No. The Court held that the
harbor facilities as such municipalities ordinanced issued by Pasay
and chartered cities may determine in City was invalid. It restated that
consultation with the Secretary of the term "foreshore lands" refers
to:
“The strip of land that lies between the
high and low water marks and that is
alternately wet and dry according to the
flow of the tide.

A strip of land margining a body of water

(as a lake or stream); the part of a
seashore between the low-water line
usually at the seaward margin of a low-
tide terrace and the upper limit of wave
wash at high tide usually marked by a
beach scarp or berm.” (Webster's Third
New International Dictionary)

The duty of the court is to interpret the

enabling Act, RA 1899. In so doing, the
RP v. LAKAMBINI C. JABSON, et.al.
Court cannot broaden its meaning;
much less widen the coverage thereof. If G.R. No. 200223, June 06, 2018
the intention of Congress were to
include submerged areas, it should have LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* J.:
provided expressly. That Congress did Before the Court is a petition for review
not so provide could only signify the on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
exclusion of submerged areas from the of Court, as amended, seeking to
term “foreshore lands.” reverse and set aside the Amended
Therefore, it bears stressing that the Decision1 dated November 4, 2010 and
subject matter of Pasay City Ordinance Resolution2 dated December 26, 2011
No. 121, as amended by Ordinance No. of the Court of Appeals.
158, and the Agreement under attack, FACTS:
have been found to be outside the
intendment and scope of RA 1899, and There are two parcels of land being
therefore ultra vires and null and void. applied for registration - one is located
at Barrio San Jose, Pasig City, and the
other is situated in Barangay Bagong
Katipunan, Pasig City.

Both used to form part of seven parcels

of land owned and possessed by the
Jabson family as early as 1909. Each
and every applicant herein claims
undivided share and participation as
follows: Lakambini C. Jabson-1/5;
Paraluman Jabson1/5; Magpuri Jabson- confirmed, the applicant must present
1/5 & Tala J. Olega-1/5; Manuel III, evidence to prove that his possession
Edgardo, Renato, Noel & Nestor Jabson has been adverse, continuous, open,
as legal heirs of their father Manuel public, peaceful, and in the concept of
Jabson, Jr.-1/5. an owner

In 1978, applicants had already applied However, the appellate court noted that
for registration of the same parcels of the rule on confirmation of an imperfect
land. However this was dismissed for title grounded on adverse possession
failure of the applicants to comply with does not apply unless and until the
the recommendation of the then Land subject land has been released in an
Registration Commission to include in official proclamation to that effect so that
their application the complete names it may form part of the disposable lands
and postal addresses of all the lessees of the public domain. To this end, the
occupying the lands sought to be applicant must secure a certification
registered. from the Government that the land
applied for is in fact alienable and
RTC Ruling disposable.
RTC found that respondents Jabson It found that respondents Jabson did not
acquired the properties from their present any evidence showing that the
predecessors-in-interest who, in tum, San Jose property had already been
have possessed the same since time classified as alienable and disposable
immemorial. Upon acquisition, land of the public domain.
respondents Jabson possessed the
parcels of land for more than 30 years in A plain photocopy of a purported
an open, continuous, exclusive, and Community Environment and Natural
notorious manner, and in the concept of Resources Office (CENRO) Certification
an owner. dated May 14, 1998, which tended to
show that the Bagong Katipunan
Hence, it ruled that respondents Jabson property is "within the alienable and
satisfactorily proved and established disposable zone," was submitted to the
their rights over the subject properties, trial court. 15 However, the Court of
in compliance with Section 14(1) and (2) Appeals noted that no party identified,
of Presidential Decree No. 1529. testified to, nor offered the certification in
CA Ruling evidence. Thus, the Court of Appeals
held that it cannot be admitted in
CA reversed the decision of the RTC. It evidence.
held that the applicant has the burden of
showing that he is the real and absolute RESPONDENTS FILED MR: CA
owner in fee simple of the land applied GRANTED
for. To have his imperfect title
The Court of Appeals found that Doctrine, which, as enshrined in the
respondents Jabson sufficiently 1987 Constitution, declares that the
established that: (a) they have had State owns all lands of the public
open, continuous, exclusive, and domain. Land that has not been
notorious possession of the subject acquired from the government, either by
properties; and (b) such properties purchase, grant, or any other mode
formed part of the alienable and recognized by law, belongs to the State
disposable lands of the public domain. as part of the public domain.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that The Public Land Act governs the
based on Llanes v. Republic,20 in the classification and disposition of lands of
interest of substantial justice and to the public domain, except for timber and
resolve a material issue in a land mineral lands. The law also entitles
registration case, the court is allowed to possessors of public lands to judicial
admit a CENRO Certification in confirmation of their imperfect titles.
evidence despite its belated submission
and lack of formal offer. Section 14 of Presidential Decree No.
1529 provides that any applicant for
It ruled that respondents Jabson registration of title to land derived
sufficiently established their adverse through a public grant must sufficiently
possession of the subject properties establish three things:
through the following: (a) by exercising
specific acts of ownership such as (a) the subject land's alienable and
constructing residential houses on the disposable nature;
subject properties and leasing the same (b) his or her predecessors' adverse
to third parties, and (b) as admitted by possession thereof, and
petitioner Republic, by possessing and
occupying the San Jose property since (c) the reckoning date from which such
1944. adverse possession was under a bona
fide claim of ownership, that is, since
Hence, this petition. June 12, 1945 or earlier.
ISSUE: That land has been removed from the
Whether or not the grant of respondent scope of the Regalian Doctrine and
Jabson’s application for registration of reclassified as part of the public
title to the subject property was proper domain's alienable and disposable
under the law and current jurisprudence portion cannot be assumed or
implied.
HELD:
The prevailing rule is that the applicant
No. It is a general rule that prevailing must clearly establish the existence of a
over claims of land is the Regalian positive act of the government, such as
a presidential proclamation or an 2009. This document also cannot be
executive order; an administrative given probative value - it was not
action; investigation reports of Bureau of presented and identified during trial,
Lands investigators; and a legislative act much less formally offered in evidence.
or a statute to prove the alienable and
disposable nature of the subject land. SECOND: Carlito P. Castaneda, a
Thus the DENR Certification dated DENR Sr. Forest Management
February 19, 2009 was not sufficient Specialist, was not authorized to issue
evidence to establish the subject certifications as to land classification,
properties' alienable and disposable much less order for the release of lands
character. of the public domain as alienable and
disposable.
Wherefore, the decision is revesed and
the petition granted. The Public Land Act vested the
President the authority to classify lands
of the public domain into alienable and
disposable. Subsequently, the Revised
Forestry Code of the Philippines also
Note: empowered the DENR Secretary to
determine and approve land
[FIRST: The respondents CANNOT use classification as well as declare the
the Llanes case as a defense. The same as alienable and disposable. Only
CENRO that was belatedly filed in the DENR Secretary is empowered to
Llanes was merely a corrected or declare that a certain parcel of land
amended certification, the unedited forms part of the alienable and
version of which had been earlier disposable portion of the public domain.
presented in the trial court as evidence
of the alienable and disposable nature of THIRD: a certification alone is not
the land. And the correction or sufficient in proving the subject land's
amendment pertained merely to the alienable and disposable nature. We
statement of the reckoning date of have already ruled that a PENRO and/or
adverse possession. HOWEVER, CENRO certification must be
respondents Jabson failed to present accompanied by a copy of the original
during trial any evidence establishing classification.]
the subject properties' alienable and
disposable nature. The DENR
Certification dated February 19, 2009
was submitted for the first time by
respondents Jabson in their Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals'
original Decision dated January 30,
 possession, occupation, and cultivation
of the subject lands since time
immemorial.

The Director of Lands argued that the

subject lands are not alienable and
disposable because: they are located
within the Calumpang Point Naval
Reservation, segregated from the public
domain by Proclamation No. 307 and
that by virtue of RA. 6236, the right to
judicial confirmation of imperfect title
under Section 48 of the Public Land
Law, with respect to lands having an
area of more than 144 hectares, has
expired; that the Saclolos had not
acquired title over the subject lands
through any recognized mode of
acquisition of title; that the Saclolos and
their predecessors-in-interest had not
been in open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject lands for at
TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ v. least 30 years immediately preceding
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, et.al. the filing of the application. In 1993,
G.R. No. 168065, September 06, 2017 Trinidad Diaz- Enriquez filed a motion
————————— for intervention alleging that the Saclolos
had sold to her all their interests and
GERONIMO SACLOLO, et.al. v. CA rights over the subject lands.
G.R. No. 168070, September 6, 2017
The RTC Ruling
MARTIRES, J.:
The RTC ruled that the subject lands are
FACTS: alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain because Proclamation
In 1974, Geronimo, Josefino, and No. 307 itself stressed that the
Rodrigo, all surnamed Saclolo (the segregation of the Calumpang Point
Saclolos) filed before the then CFI a Naval Reservation was subject to
joint application for registration of title private rights. It opined that the pieces of
over three (3) parcels of land located at evidence presented by the Saclolos
Sitio Sinalam, Bario Sapang, Ternate, proved that their rights over the subject
Cavite.The Saclolos averred that they lands, being private in nature and
had acquired title to the subject lands character, were excluded from the
through purchase and that together with reservation for military purposes.
their predecessors-in-interest, they had
been in actual and exclusive
Later, the RTC modified its earlier
decision by ordering the issuance of the HELD:
decree of registration to Enriquez.
1. Yes. The Court held that the
The CA Ruling subject lands may still be
declared public lands
The CA declared that the subject lands notwithstanding the Director of
are all within the Calumpang Point Naval Lands' failure to appeal from
Resevation, thus, the said lands could the RTC decision.
not be privately titled. It held that even if
Proclamation No. 307 qualifies the
reservation as being subject to private In addition, an applicant is not
rights, the Saclolos have not established necessarily entitled to have the land
by adequate proof their open, registered under the Torrens system
continuous, exclusive, and notorious simply because no one appears to
possession over the subject lands. oppose his title and to oppose the
registration of his land. He must show,
The appellate court concluded that the even though there is no opposition to
subject lands could not be registered the satisfaction of the court, that he is
because they lie within a naval the absolute owner, in fee simple.
reservation and most of them are forest
and foreshore lands. It reversed the Hence, the appellate court may still
decision rendered by the RTC. determine whether the subject lands are
indeed alienable and disposable lands
Aggrieved, the Saclolos and Enriquez of the public domain, notwithstanding
moved for reconsideration, but the same the Director of Lands' failure to appeal
was denied by the CA. from the RTC decision.
Hence, these consolidated petitions.
2. No. The Court held that the
ISSUES: applicants failed to prove that
the subject lots are alienable
1. Whether or not the appellate and disposable.
court may declare that the lands
sought to be registered are not The necessary requirements for the
alienable and disposable grant of an application for land
notwithstanding the failure of the registration are the following:
Director of Lands to appeal from
the decision of the trial court
decreeing the issuance of 1. The applicant must, by himself or
certificates of title; through his predecessors-in-
interest, have been in possession
2. Whether or not the applicants for and occupation of the subject
registration of title have land;
sufficiently proved that the 2. The possession and occupation
subject lands are alienable and must be open, continuous,
disposable. exclusive, and notorious;
 3. The possession and occupation emphasized that there must be a
must be under a bona fide claim positive act of the government, such as
of ownership for at least thirty an official proclamation,declassifying
years immediately preceding the inalienable public land into disposable
filing of the application; and land for agricultural or other purposes.
4. The subject land must be an
agricultural land of the public
domain. The burden of proof in overcoming
the presumption of State ownership
of the lands of the public domain is
Among these requirements, the question on the person applying for
of whether the subject lands were registration (or claiming ownership),
declared alienable and disposable is of who must prove that the land subject
primordial importance because it is of the application is alienable or
determinative if the land can in fact be disposable. To overcome this
subject to acquisitive prescription and, presumption, incontrovertible evidence
thus, registrable under the Torrens must be established that the land
system. Without first determining the subject of the application (or claim) is
nature and character of the land, all the alienable or disposable. There must still
other requirements such as the length be a positive act declaring land of the
and nature of possession and public domain as alienable and
occupation over such land do not come disposable. To prove that the land
into play. The required length of subject of an application for registration
possession does not operate when the is alienable, the applicant must establish
land is part of the public domain. the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential
In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic proclamation or an executive order; an
of the Philippines, the Court emphasized administrative action; investigation
that lands of the public domain, unless reports of Bureau of Lands investigators;
declared otherwise by virtue of a statute and a legislative act or a statute. The
or law, are inalienable and can never be applicant may also secure a certification
acquired by prescription. No amount of from the government that the land
time of possession or occupation can claimed to have been possessed for the
ripen into ownership over lands of the required number of years is alienable
public domain. All lands of the public and disposable.
domain presumably belong to the State
and are inalienable. Lands that are not Hence, in the case at bar, no such
clearly under private ownership are also proclamation, executive order,
presumed to belong to the State and, administrative action, report, statute, or
therefore, may not be alienated or certification was presented to the Court.
disposed. The records are bereft of evidence
showing that the subject lands were
A positive act declaring land as proclaimed by the government to be
alienable and disposable is required. In alienable and disposable. Time and
keeping with the presumption of State again, it has been held that matters of
ownership, the Court has time and again
land classification or reclassification Petitioner was able to secure an Order
cannot be assumed. They call for proof. issued by DAR Secretary approving the
application of Summit Point Golf &
Country Club, Inc. for conversion of
several agricultural landholdings,
including owned by "Perla K. Mortilla, et
al." to residential, commercial, and
recreational uses. She was also able to
get from the Office of the City Assessor.
Lastly, the Register of Deeds of Lipa
City issued a Certification attesting that
the said lot in the name of co-owners
Raquel, Urbana, and Perla, was not
covered by a certificate of title, whether
judicial or patent, or subject to the
issuance of a Certificate of Land
Ownership Award or patent under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.

Only thereafter did petitioner proceed to

levy on execution on the lot, and
scheduled a public auction. Sometime in
May 2002, before the scheduled public
auction sale, petitioner learned that said
Lot was inside the Summit Point Golf
and Country Club Subdivision owned by
Summit Point Realty and Development
Corporation (Summit Realty). She
immediately went to the Makati City
3. Title office of Summit Realty to meet with its
 Title vs. Certificate of Title Vice President, Orense. However, she
Castillo vs. Escutin (G.R. No. 171056) claimed that Orense did not show her
any document to prove ownership.
FACTS:
The public auction sale pushed through.
Petitioner is a judgment creditor of a Petitioner had her acquisition of
certain Raquel K. Moratilla. Thereafter, Raquel's 1/3 pro-indiviso share recorded
petitioner discovered that Raquel, her in the Primary Entry Book and
mother Urbana Kalaw, and sister Perla Registration Book of the Register of
K. Moratilla, co-owned a parcel of land Deeds.
consisting of 15,000 square meters,
situated at Brgy. Bugtongnapulo, Lipa When petitioner attempted to pay real
City, Batangas, and covered a tax estate taxes for her 5,000-square-meter
declaration. share, she was shocked to find out that,
without giving her notice, her Tax
Declaration was cancelled. The said criminally charge respondents.
encompassed in and overlapped with Essentially, the appellate court adjudged
the owned by Francisco Catigbac. that petitioner can not impute corrupt
motives to respondents' acts.
In July 2002, the TCT in the name of
Catigbac was cancelled and was issued The Court of Appeals referred to the
in its place to the Summit Realty. consistent policy of the Supreme Court
not to interfere with the exercise by the
The foregoing incidents prompted Ombudsman of his investigatory power.
petitioner to file a before the Office of If the Ombudsman, using professional
the Ombudsman charging several public judgment, finds the case dismissible, the
officers and private individuals acting in Court shall respect such findings, unless
concert and conspiring with Lauro S. clothed with grave abuse of discretion.
Leviste II and Benedicto L. Orense,
while in the discharge of their Hence, this petition.
administrative functions did then and
there unlawfully, through evident bad ISSUE:
faith, gross inexcusable negligence.
Whether or not petitioner’s title
Petitioner's Complaint Affidavit gave rise evidenced by tax declaration must be
to simultaneous administrative and upheld rather than that covered by
preliminary (criminal) investigations. certificate of title
Respondent Escutin clarified in his HELD:
Counter Affidavit that TCT reflected the
same date and time of entry of the Deed NO.  The Court held that as between
of Absolute Sale between Yagin (as Catigbac’s title, covered by a certificate
Catigbac's attorney-in-fact) and Summit of title, and petitioner’s title, evidenced
Realty, i.e., 25 July 2002 at 2:30 p.m., in only by a tax declaration, the former is
accordance with Section 5628 of evidently far superior and is, in the
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise absence of any other certificate of title to
known as the Property Registration the same property, conclusive and
Decree. He emphasized that his duty as indefeasible as to Catigbac’s ownership
Register of Deeds to register the Deed of Lot 1-B.  
of Absolute Sale presented before him
was purely ministerial.
It clarified the distinction a title and
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman certificate of title.  Title is generally
decreed that the administrative case defined as the lawful cause or ground of
against public respondents be dismissed possessing that which is ours.  It is that
for lack of substantial evidence and the which is the foundation of ownership of
criminal case for lack of probable cause. property, real or personal.  Title,
therefore, may be defined briefly as that
Petitioner sought recourse from the which constitutes a just cause of
Court of Appeals, however, it found exclusive possession, or which is the
noreason to administratively or foundation of ownership of property.
Certificate of title, on the other hand, is name a tax declaration for the said
a mere evidence of ownership; it is not property.  And since Lot 1-B is already
the title to the land itself. Under covered by a tax declaration in the name
the Torrens system, a certificate of title of Catigbac, accordingly, any other tax
may be an Original Certificate of Title, declaration for the same property or
which constitutes a true copy of the portion thereof in the name of another
decree of registration; or a Transfer person, not supported by any certificate
Certificate of Title, issued subsequent of title, such that of petitioner, must be
to the original registration. cancelled; otherwise, the City Assessor
would be twice collecting a realty tax
  from different persons on one and the
  Catigbac’s certificate of title is same property.       
binding upon the whole world, including  
respondent public officers and even Petitioner’s allegations of defects
petitioner herself.   The Court or irregularities in the sale of Lot 1-B to
reiterated that it had previously ruled Summit Realty by Yagin, as Catigbac’s
that tax declarations and attorney-in-fact, are beyond the
corresponding tax receipts cannot be jurisdiction of the Office of the Deputy
used to prove title to or ownership of Ombudsman for Luzon to consider.  It
a real property inasmuch as they are must be remembered that Summit
not conclusive evidence of the same. Realty had already acquired a certificate
Petitioner acquired her title to the 5,000 of title, TCT No. T-134609, in its name
square meter property from Raquel, her over Lot1-B, which constitutes
judgment debtor who, it is important to conclusive and indefeasible evidence
note, likewise only had a tax declaration of its ownership of the said property
to evidence her title.   and, thus, cannot be collaterally
attacked in the administrative and
The cancellation of petitioner’s preliminary investigations conducted
Tax Declaration No. 00942-A was not by the Office of the Ombudsman
because of the issuance of a new for Luzon.  Section 48 of the Property
owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 181, but of Registration Decree categorically
the fact that Lot 1-B, which provides that a certificate of title shall
encompassed the 5,000 square meters not be subject to collateral attack.  It
petitioner lays claim to, was already cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled
covered by TCT No. 181 (and except in a direct proceeding in
subsequently by TCT No. 129642) in the accordance with law.  For this same
name of Catigbac.  A certificate of title reason, the Court has no jurisdiction to
issued is an absolute and indefeasible grant petitioner’s prayer in the instant
evidence of ownership of the property in Petition for the cancellation of TCT No.
favor of the person whose name T-134609 in the name of Summit
appears therein. It is binding and Realty.      
conclusive upon the whole
world.  Therefore, upon presentation of WHEREFORE, premises considered,
TCT No. 129642, the Office of the City the instant Petition for Review is hereby
Assessor must recognize the ownership DENIED.
of Lot 1-B by Catigbac and issue in his
Modes of Acquiring Title The Republic of the Philippines
Republic vs. Heirs of Juan Fabio (petitioner), through the Office of the
(G.R. No. L-65818) Solicitor General, filed an appeal with
the Court of Appeals. Petitioner claimed
FACTS: that the trial court erred in ruling that
respondents have acquired a vested
In 1996, respondents, who are the heirs right over the Lot which falls within the
of Juan Fabio, filed with the RTC, an Calumpang Point Naval Reservation.
application for registration of title to the Petitioner asserted that the trial court
Lot with an approximate area of disregarded the testimony of
1,096,866 square meters or 109.6 Pangyarihan who recommended the
hectares. The Lot is situated in approval of the survey plan with the
Barangay Sapang, Ternate, Cavite. The notation that this survey falls within the
respondents sought the registration of Calumpang Point Naval Reservation.
title under the provisions of Act No. 496
or the Land Registration Act, as In essence, petitioner argued that the
amended by Presidential Decree No. trial court's grant of registration is
1529 (PD 1529). contrary to the provisions of Section 88
of Commonwealth Act No. 14120 and
In the application, respondents alleged Proclamation No. 1582-A.21
that they are the owners of the Lot,
including all the improvements, having The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
acquired the same through a bona fide
claim of ownership. They declared that  The Court of Appeals affirmed the
they and their predecessors-in-interest ruling of the trial court. For wrong
were in open, continuous, exclusive and remedy and for lack of merit, the
notorious possession of the Lot in the Court holds and so rules that the
concept of an owner for more than 100 trial court erred not in granting
years. petitioners' application for
registration of title.
After the presentation of exhibits
establishing the jurisdictional facts, the
 On the merits of the case, it may
trial prosecutor assigned to the case
be true that the General Order of
interposed no objection. Thus, the trial
the United States War
court ordered a general default against
Department reserved the subject
the public except the government.
property as a military reservation,
however, President Ferdinand
On 1 July 1997, respondents presented
Marcos issued Proclamation 307
their evidence consisting of
provided an exception:
documentary exhibits and the
testimonies of witnesses. Thereafter, the
trial court rendered a Decision ordering “those properties subject to
the registration of the Lot in the name of private rights or those on which
Juan Fabio. private individuals can prove
ownership by any mode
acceptable under our laws and
Torrens system.”
 The mere letter-certification is
 President Marcos provided insufficient. Conlu is merely a land
another proclamation investigator of the DENR. It is not
(Proclamation 1582-A) which enough that he alone should certify that
complements and recognizes the the Lot is within the alienable and
rights acquired by private disposable zone. Under Section 6 of the
individuals under Proclamation Public Land Act, the prerogative of
307, over the portion of the classifying or reclassifying lands of the
properties reserved under public domain belongs to the President.
General Order of the United The President, through a presidential
States War Department dated 25 proclamation or executive order, can
March 1904. classify or reclassify a land to be
included or excluded from the public
domain. The DENR Secretary is the only
Hence, the instant petition. other public official empowered by law to
approve a land classification and
ISSUE: declare such land as alienable and
disposable.
Whether or not the respondents have
acquired a right over the Lot. Further, the burden is on respondents to
prove that the Lot ceased to have the
HELD: status of a military reservation or other
inalienable land of the public domain. No
No. The Court held that the proof was ever submitted by
respondents failed to present any respondents that the Calumpang Point
documents indicating that the DENR Naval Reservation, or the Lot, ceased
Secretary or the President has as a military reservation. Even if its
classified the Lot as alienable and ownership and control had been
disposable. transferred by the Americans to the
Philippine government, the Calumpang
Section 14(1) of PD 1529 states that Point Naval Reservation remained as an
there are three requisites for the filing of official military reservation. Thus, being
an application for registration of title: a military reservation at the time, the
(1) that the property in question is Calumpang Point Naval Reservation, to
alienable and disposable land of which the Lot is a part of, can not be
the public domain; subject to occupation, entry or
(2) that the applicants by settlement.
themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have Well-entrenched is the rule that unless a
been in open, continuous, land is reclassified and declared
exclusive and notorious alienable and disposable, occupation in
possession and occupation; and the concept of an owner, no matter how
(3) that such possession is under long, cannot ripen into ownership and be
a bona fide claim of ownership registered as a title.
since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
Public lands not shown to have been own any such land or an interest therein,
classified as alienable and disposable but whose titles have not been perfected
land remain part of the inalienable public or completed, may apply to the Court of
domain. First Instance of the province where the
land is located for confirmation of their
In Republic v. Estonilo, we ruled that claims and the issuance of a certificate
persons claiming the protection of of title therefor, under the Land
"private rights" in order to exclude their Registration Act, to wit:
lands from military reservations must
show by clear and convincing evidence xxx
that the properties in question have
been acquired by a legal method of (b) Those who by themselves or through
acquiring public lands. Here, their predecessors in interest have been
respondents failed to do so, and are in open, continuous, exclusive, and
thus not entitled to have the Lot notorious possession and occupation of
registered in their names. Clearly, both agricultural lands of the public domain,
the trial and appellate courts gravely under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
erred in granting respondents' ownership, since June 12, 1945, or
application for registration of title. earlier, immediately preceding the filing
of the application for confirmation of title,
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. except when prevented by war or force
majeure. These shall be conclusively
NOTES: presumed to have performed all the
conditions essential to a Government
 The three proclamations cited grant and shall be entitled to a certificate
reserving the Calumpang Point of title under the provisions of this
Naval Reservation for the chapter.
exclusive use of the military are
the following: (1) U.S. War  Section 14 of PD 1529 or the
Department Order No. 56 issued Property Registration Decree,
on 25 March 1904, (2) governing original registration
Proclamation No. 307issued on through registration proceedings,
20 November 1967, and (3) provides:
Proclamation No. 1582-A issued
on 6 September 1976. SECTION 14. Who may apply. - The
following persons may file in the proper
 Commonwealth Act No. 141 Court of First Instance an application for
(CA 141), also known as the registration of title to land, whether
Public Land Act. personally or through their duly
Section 48(b) of CA 141, as amended authorized representatives:
by Presidential Decree No. 1073 (PD
1073), provides: (1) Those who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-
Sec. 48. The following described interest have been in open,
citizens of the Philippines, occupying continuous, exclusive and
lands of the public domain or claiming to
 notorious possession and is agricultural; (2) it has not been
occupation of alienable and earmarked for public purposes; (3) the
disposable lands of the public entire area is within the alienable and
domain under a bona fide claim disposable zone as classified on
of ownership since June 12, November 21, 1927 and (4) Northern
1945, or earlier. Cement is the actual occupant of the
Subject Lot with the improvement:
"Cogon."
Prescription
REPUBLIC v. NORTHERN CEMENT
CORPORATION The OSG filed its Notice of Appearance
for the Republic, deputizing the City
G.R. No. 200256 April 11, 2018 Prosecutor of Urdaneta City to appear in
FACTS: the case.
Northern Cement filed with the RTC an
application for the registration of title The RTC granted the Application. The
over the Subject Lot - 58,617.96 square Republic appealed to the CA, alleging
meters lot in Barangay Labayug, Sison, that the RTC erred in granting the
Pangasinan- pursuant to PD 1529 and application for registration despite the
to have the title thereto registered and failure of Northern Cement to observe
confirmed under its name (Application). the requirements for original registration
of title under PD 1529. CA denied the
Republic's appeal and ruled that the
In its Application, Northern Cement
evidence sufficed to comply with the
alleged that: (1) it is the owner in fee
requirements of PD 1529.
simple of the Subject Lot which it
acquired by way of a Deed of Absolute
Sale from the former owner, Rodolfo ISSUE:
Chichioco (2) the Subject Lot was last
assessed at P17,630.00 (3) Northern Whether the CA erred in affirming the
Cement is occupying said lot. RTC's Decision granting the application
for registration of title in favor of
Northern Cement despite non-
To support its Application, Northern compliance with the requirements under
Cement offered, amongst others, seven PD 1529.
(7) Tax Declarationsfor various years
from 1971 to 2003 in the name of
Northern Cement and a Tax
Declarationfor year 1970 in the name of HELD:
Chichioco and Tax Clearance Yes. The Court held that the CA erred
Certificate. in affirming the RTC’s decision
Likewise, Northern Cement submitted a granting rge application for
Report from the Community registration of title in favor of
Environment and Natural Resources Northern Cement despite non-
Office (CENRO), DENR, Urdaneta City, compliance with the requirements
stating, among others, that: (1) the land under PD 1529z
The Application itself does not enlighten In the case of Heirs of Crisologo v.
as to whether it was filed under Section Rañon, the Court stated that:
14(1) or Section 14(2) of PD 1529. Prescription is another mode of
Northern Cement made no allegation acquiring ownership and other
nor presented evidence that it had been real rights over immovable
in possession of the subject property property. It is concerned with
since June 12, 1945 or earlier. At any lapse of time in the manner and
rate, the evidence presented, the under conditions laid down by
allegations in the pleadings as well as law, namely, that the possession
the discussion of the CA and the RTC in should be in the concept of an
their respective decisions and owner, public, peaceful,
resolutions, reveal that the present uninterrupted and adverse.
controversy was filed and tried based on Possession is open when it is
Section 14(2) of PD 1529. Thus, the patent, visible, apparent,
Petition shall be resolved on Northern notorious and not clandestine.It is
Cement's proof of its acquisition of the continuous when uninterrupted,
Subject Lot by prescription. unbroken and not intermittent or
occasional; exclusive when the
Unlike Section 14(1) which requires an adverse possessor can show
open, continuous, exclusive, and exclusive dominion over the
notorious manner of possession and land and an appropriation of it to
occupation since June 12, 1945 or his own use and benefit; and
earlier, Section 14(2) is silent as to the notorious when it is so
nature and period of such possession conspicuous that it is generally
and occupation necessary. This known and talked of by the public
necessitates a reference to the relevant or the people in the
provisions of the Civil Code on neighborhood x x x
prescription - in this case, Articles 1137
and 1118 thereof; Applying the foregoing to the present
case, the Court is unconvinced by the
Article 1137.Ownership and pieces of evidence submitted by
other real rights over immovables Northern Cement to prove compliance
also prescribe through with the requirement of possession
uninterrupted adverse under Section 14(2) of PD 1529 in
possession thereof for thirty relation to Articles 1137 and 1118 of the
years, without need of title or of Civil Code for original registration of
good faith. land.
First, the 8 tax declarations presented
do not qualify as competent evidence
Article 1118.Possession has to to prove the required possession. Tax
be in theconcept of an owner, Declarations are not conclusive
public, peaceful and evidence of ownership but only a basis
uninterrupted. for inferring possession. It is only when
these tax declarations are coupled with
proof of actual possession of the
property that they may become the
basis of a claim of ownership. FACTS:

Second, Northern Cement failed to Applicant Jose Lachica filed this

sufficiently demonstrate that its application for title to land on April 28,
supposed possession was of the nature 1958 with the claim that the land applied
and character contemplated by law. The for was purchased by him and his wife,
two witnesses, claiming to be heirs of Adela Raz from, from one Eulalio Raz.
the owners of the lands adjoining the The documents attached to the
subject property, did not testify as to the application are: technical description,
specific acts of possession and surveyor's certificate, certification by the
ownership exercised by Northern chief deputy assessor of Aklan and the
Cement and/or its predecessors-in- blue print of Psu-161277.
interest.

The land applied for is residential,

Lastly, Northern Cement failed to prove situated in the Poblacion of Banga,
possession of the Subject Lot in the Aklan, with an area of 4,845 square
concept of an owner, with the records meters, bounded on the northeast by the
bare as to any acts of occupation, property of the Municipality of Banga
development, cultivation or maintenance The initial hearing was held on October
by it over the property. Indeed, from the 31, 1958.
evidence presented, the only
"improvements" on the Subject Lot were
"cogon" and "unirrigated rice." These An order of general default was issued
grow casually on lands in this country, but those who presented their
without need of cultivation, and hardly opposition, namely, Octabela Alba Vda.
have utility. More than anything, its De Raz, Manuel and Susana Braulio,
presence is usually indicia that the land Jose Rago, representing Apolonia
on which it grows are idle. Rebeco, the Director of Lands and the
Municipality of Banga represented by
the Provincial Fiscal, were given thirty
Hence, Northern Cement did not (30) days to file their written opposition.
acquired the subject lot by prescription They opposed the registration of the
as it failed to prove that it is in southeastern portion of the 240 square
possession of it in the concept of an meters of the land applied for alleging
owner, public, peaceful and that they are the owners in fee simple
uninterrupted for at least thirty years. and possessors of said portion and all
the improvements thereon for not less
than 70 years together with their
predecessor-in-interest deriving their
title by purchase from the original
ALBA Vda. De RAZ, et.al. vs. CA owners.
G.R. No. 120066 September 9, 1999 Rodolfo Alba, Lourdes Alba,
represented by their attorney-in-fact,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Octabela Alba Vda. de Raz, alleged that
they are the co-owners of a portion of case is Sec. 48 of CA 141 (which deals
the land applied for with an area of with registration of lands of public
2,262 square meters bounded on the domain) and not Sec. 19 of Act 496
north by Januario Masigon, Nicolas (which deals with registration of private
Realtor, Agustina Rebeldia and Apolonia lands) and with which the lower courts
Rebeco, on the south by Eulalio Raz had relied on.
and on the west by the public market of The law in force at the time an action
Banga. They claimed to have inherited accrues is what governs the proceeding
the above-mentioned portion from their consistent with the fundamental dictum
late father, Eufrosino M. Alba, who that laws shall have no retroactive
purchased the same from Dionisia effect, unless the contrary is proved. In
Regado in 1918. Hence, they have been this case, the lower courts relied on the
in possession continuously, openly and provisions on prescription with the
peacefully under claim of ownership of assumption that the subject property is a
the above-mentioned portion for not less private land. However, the application
70 years. for registration should be that of a
judicial confirmation of an imperfect title
The trial court finds that Dr. Jose considering that the land is presumed
Lachica is the absolute owner in fee under the Regalian Doctrine to be part
simple of the land described in his of the public domain.
application for its original registration in
his name. Public lands are classified into:
(1) alienable or disposable lands
Dissatisfied, petitioners interposed an which includes agricultural lands
appeal to the Court of Appeals which and
affirmed the decision of the trial court. (2) inalienable or non-disposable
lands or those not susceptible of
ISSUE: private appropriation which
includes Timber lands and
Whether or not Lachica have acquired Mineral lands.
the subject property through
prescription. For purposes of administration and
disposition, the lands of the public
domain classified as "disposable" or
HELD: "alienable" are further sub-classified
into:
NO. The Court held that Lachica did
not acquired the subject property a. Agricultural;
through prescription. b. Residential, commercial,
industrial or for similar productive
Based from the facts and evidences
purposes;
presented, it was proven that Lachica
c. Educational, charitable or other
only had a title to a 620sq.m. portion of
similar purposes, and
the total area. Prescription cannot be
d. Reservations for town sites and
had on the remaining area. The Court
for public and quasi-public
stated that the law applicable in this
purposes.
Possession of public agricultural land,
however long the period may have Imuan vs. Cereno
extended, never confers title thereto
upon the possessor and it is because G.R. No. 167995
the statute of limitations with regard to
public agricultural land does not FACTS:
operateagainst the State, unless the
occupant can prove possession and During his lifetime, Pablo de Guzman
occupation of the same under claim of contracted two marriages. His first
ownership for the required number of marriage was with Teodora Soriano,
years to constitute a grant from the with whom he had three children,
State. namely, Alfredo, Cristita, and Inday. His
Under (b), Sec. 48, CA 141, second marriage was in 1919 with
confirmation of an imperfect title to a Juana Velasquez, with whom he also
public domain requires that: had three children, namely: Nena,
Teodora, and Soledad. All these
1. There be an open, children are now dead.
continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and Petitioners are Pablo's grandchildren by
occupation of agricultural his first marriage, while respondent
lands of the public domain; Juanito Cereno is Soledad's husband
and the other respondents are their
2. It should be under a bona fide children.
claim of ownership; and
On July 15, 1936, Pablo died intestate
3. Possession should be for at leaving two parcels of land, to wit: (1) a
least thirty years immediately parcel of coconut land located at Salaan
preceding the filing of the Mangaldan, Pangasinan; and (2) a
application for confirmation of parcel of cornland located at (Inlambo)
title except when prevented by Palua, Mangaldan, Pangasinan.
war or force majeure
After Pablo's death in 1936, his second
wife Juana and their children continued
In this case, Lachica had not yet
to be in possession of the parcel of land
satisfied the requirement of the 30-year
located at Salaan, Mangaldan,
possession, hence, prescription cannot
Pangasinan (the disputed property),
be granted in favor of him.
where they lived since they were
married in 1919.

In 1970, Juana executed a Deed of

Absolute Sale in favor of respondents-
spouses, Soledad, Juana and Pablo's
daughter, and her husband Juanito
conveying the subject property. The
deed was duly registered with the
Register of Deeds of Lingayen, MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners
Pangasinan. however upon appeal CA ruled in favor
of the respondents as it held that the
Juana, Pablo’s second wife, together respondents are in peaceful possession
with her children continued to be in of said lot for 29 years which suffice to
possession of the parcel of land owned meet the requirement of 10-year period
by Pablo after his death. A joint affidavit of open, public, and adverse possession
was executed attesting that Pablo ceded in the concept of owner that the law on
the property in favor of Juana in the prescription requires. It ruled that
occasion of their marriage but the petitioners are barred by latches from
document was lost. Juana sold said claiming ownership of the disputed
parcel of land to the respondent which property.
was registered in the register of deeds.
The land area sold to respondents was ISSUE::
divided by a barangay road. They built a
house on one side and planted fruit- Whether or not the petitioners are
bearing trees on the other side. It is on barred by latches and prescription in
the latter’s side where the petitioners claiming their share of the property?
took possession and built a nipa hut
thereon. An ejectment case was filed by HELD:
the respondents against petitioners but
was later dismissed when the petitioners Yes. The Court held that petitioners
left the area. are barred by laches and prescription
in claiming their share of the
Petitioners now brought an action for property. It ruled that the respondents
reconveyance, damages, and have acquired the disputed property by
annulment of deed of sale by Juana to acquisitive prescription.
the respondents. They contend that it
was through their tolerance that Juana Prescription is another mode of
and her children constructed their house acquiring ownership and other real
on the lot in dispute, that Pablo have not rights over immovable property and is
partitioned among his heirs his property concerned with a lapse of time laid down
and the sale made by Juana to by law where possession should be in
respondents are null and void. the concept of an owner, public,
peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse.
Respondents invoke the ground that Possession is open when it is patent,
when Pablo married Juana the property visible, apparent, and notorious. It is
was his exclusive property and donated continuous when uninterrupted,
such through propter nuptias when they unbroken and not intermittent or
married. Thus Juana, being the owner of occasional; exclusive when the adverse
said lot, validly made the sale to possessor can show exclusive dominion
respondents who immediately took over the land and an appropriation of it
possession over the land and paid its to his own use and benefit; and
realty tax. notorious when it is so conspicuous
that it is generally known and talked of
by the public or the people in the  Ordinary acquisitive prescription
neighborhood. requires possession in good faith
and with just title for ten years.
The party who asserts ownership by
adverse possession must prove the  In extraordinary prescription,
presence of the essential elements of ownership and other real rights
acquisitive prescription. Ordinary over immovable property are
acquisitive prescription requires acquired through uninterrupted
possession in good faith and a just title adverse possession for thirty
in 10 years while extraordinary years without need of title or of
acquisitive prescription involves good faith.
uninterrupted adverse possession for 30
years without the need for good title and  The good faith of the possessor
good faith. consists in the reasonable belief
that the person from whom he
Respondents immediately took received the thing was the owner
possession of the property after buying it thereof, and could transmit his
and diligently paid its realty tax. Even if ownership.
the petitioners saw respondents built
a house thereon and planted fruit-  For purposes of prescription:
bearing trees, they did not raise
objection on the respondent’s there is just title when the
possession. Their inaction further made adverse claimant came into
them guilty of latches since they live possession of the property
merely 100 meters away from the through one of the modes
property to know of the respondent’s recognized by law for the
possession of said land. They only filed acquisition of ownership or other
an action for reconveyance 29 years real rights, but the grantor was
after the respondent’s peaceful not the owner or could not
possession over the property, the 10- transmit any right.
year prescription period for ordinary
acquisitive prescription has already
lapsed.

Hence, the Court affirms the CA

decision declaring the respondents as
the rightful owner of the land in dispute.

NOTES:

 Acquisitive prescription of real

rights may be ordinary or
extraordinary.
 Petitioners, however, failed to have the
necessary documents registered in the
civil registry as required under Section 1
of Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act
Providing the Manner in which the
Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship
shall be Declared by a Person whose
Mother is a Filipino Citizen). It was only
on 27 July 2005 or more than thirty (30)
4. Land Registration y ears after they elected Philippine
Cabiling vs. Fernandez (G.R. 183133, citizenship that Balg amelo and Felix, Jr.
26 July 2010) did so. On the other hand, there is no
showing that Valeriano complied with
FACTS: the registration requirement. Individual
certific ations all dated 3 January show
Petitioners Balgamelo Cabiling Ma, that all of them are registered voters of
Felix, Jr., and Valeriano were all born Barangay Washington in Surigao City
under the 1935 Philippine Constitution. since June 1997.
They have four other siblings, but the
said three are the only petitioners. Their The Bureau of Immigration received the
mother is Filipino, while their father is Complaint - Affidavit of a crrtain Mat G.
Taiwanese. Catral , alleging that Felix (Yao Kong)
Ma and his seven (7) children are
They were all raised in the Philippines undesirable and overstaying aliens..
and have resided in this country for
almost sixty (60) years; they spent their The Board ruled that since they elected
whole lives, studied and received their Philippine citizenship after the
primary and secondary education in the enactment of Commonwealth Act No.
country; they do not speak nor 625, which was approved on 7 June
understand the Chinese language, have 1941, they were governed by the
not set foot in Taiwan, and do not know following rules and regulations:
any r elative of their father; they have
not even traveled abroad; and they have 1. Section 1 of Commonwealth
already raised their respecti ve families Act No. 625, providing that the
in the Philippines. election of Philippine citizenship
embodied in a statement sworn
During their age of minority, they before any officer authorized to
secured from the Bureau of Immigration administer oaths and the oath of
their Alien Certificates of Registration allegiance shall be filed with the
(ACR s). Immediately upon reaching the nearest civil registry; and
age of twenty - one, they claimed Commission of Immigration and
Philippine citizenship in accordance with Deportation ( CID, now Bureau of
Section 1(4), Article IV, of the 1935 Immigration [BI]) Circular dated
Constitution. 12 April 1954, detailing the
procedural requirements in the
 registration of the election of elect Philippine citizenship is within 3
Philippine citizenship. years from reaching the age of majority.
However, the Court held in Cuenco vs.
2. Memorandum Order dated 18 Secretary of Justice, held that the three
August 1956 of the CID, requiring (3) year period is not an inflexible rule,
the filing of a petitio n for the which may be extended under certain
cancellation of their alien circumstances, as when the person
certificate of registration with the concerned has always considered
CID, in view of their election of himself a Filipino, but the Court also
Philippine citizenship; cautioned in the latter case that the
extension of the option to elect
3. Department of Justice (DOJ) Philippine citizenship is not indefinite.
Opinion No. 182, 19 August
1982; and DOJ Guidelines, 27 Petitioners complied with the first and
March 1985, requiring that the rec second requirements upon reaching the
ords of the proceedings be age of majority. It was only the
forwarded to the Ministry (now registration of the documents of election
the Department) of Justice for with the civil registry that was belatedly
final determination and review. done. The Court held that under the
facts peculiar to the petitioners, the
In addition according to public right to elect Philippine citizenship
respondents, any foreign national found has not been lost and they should be
in possession of an ACR other than the allowed to complete the statutory
E-series shall be considered improperly requirements for such election.
documented aliens.
The Court cited Pascua v. Court of
ISSUE: Appeals, which discussed the principles
of civil law on registration. It stated
Whether or not the prescription period actual knowledge may even have the
for election of Filipino citizenship for effect of registration as to the person
children of Filipino mothers and alien who has knowledge thereof. Thus, its
fathers had passed before they could purpose is to give notice thereof to all
register their oaths. persons (and it) operates as a notice of
the deed, contract, or instrument to
HELD: others. As pertinent is the holding that
registration neither adds to its
NO. The Court held that the validity nor converts an invalid
prescription period for election of instrument into a valid one between
Filipino citizenship for children of the parties.
Filipino mothers and alien fathers
had not yet passed. Also, the Court compared the situation
at hand to contracts of partnership,
In Re:Application for Admission to the where an unregistered contract of
Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching , the partnership is valid as among the
Court held that under the 1935 partners, so long as it has the essential
Constitution, the reasonable time to requisites, because the main purpose of
registration is to give notice to third
parties, and it can be assume d that the
members themselves knew of the
contents of their contract.

The Court also emphasized that even

late registration of the fact of birth and of
marriage is allowed. Therefore, it did not
agree with the view that since the ACRs
presented by the petitioners are no
longer valid on account of the new
requirement to present an E -series
ACR, they are deemed not properly Laws implementing Land Registration in
documented. On the contrary, the Philippines
petitioners should not be expected to Director of Lands vs. Santiago (April
secure E-series ACR because it would 15, 1988)
be inconsistent with the election of
citizenship and its constructive FACTS:
registration through their acts made
public. An application for land registration was
filed by respondent Maria O. A copy of
The leanings towards recognition of the the application was forwarded to the
citizenship of children of Filipino mothers Solicitor General thru the Director of
have been indicated not alone by the Lands. The Director of Lands filed an
jurisprudence that liberalized the opposition to this application.
requirement on time of election, and
recognized positive acts of Philippine Subsequently, respondent Inperial
citizenship. While the 1935 Constitution Development Corporation, with the
requires that children of Filipino mothers conformity of respondent Garcia, filed a
elect Philippine citizenship upon Motion to Substitute Party Applicant
reaching their age of majority, upon the from Maria O. Garcia to Imperial
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, they Development Corporation without
automatically become Filipinos and amending the boundaries and the area
need not elect Philippine citizenship of the parcels of land stated in the
upon reaching the age of majority. original application, which motion was
granted by the respondent Judge.
Hence, failure to register the election
in the civil registry should not defeat Thereafter, a Notice of Initial Hearing
the election and resultingly negate was sent by the respondent Judge to all
the permanent fact that they have a parties concerned, with the warning that
Filipino mother. The lacking a party who failed to appear would be
requirements may still be complied with declared in default. The same notice
subject to the imposition of appropriate was likewise published in the Official
administrative penalties, if any. Gazette and posted by the sheriff as
required by law.
On the date of the initial hearing, neither the day set for the initial hearing. The
petitioner nor his counsel was present; pertinent provision of law which states:
an order of general default was issued "If no person appears and answers
by the respondent Judge. After the within the time allowed, the court may at
reception of evidence for the applicant once upon motion of the applicant, no
before the clerk of court, the respondent reason to the contrary appearing, order
Judge rendered the questioned decision a general default to be recorded ...,"
and adjudicated the lands in favor of the cannot be interpreted to mean that the
respondent corporation. court can just disregard the answer or
opposition before it, which has long
The petitioner filed a Motion for New been filed, for such an interpretation
Trial on the grounds that the failure of would be unjust.
his counsel to appear at the initial
hearing was excusable, and that the ISSUE:
decision was contrary to the facts and to
law. The motion was, however, denied. Whether or not the respondent
corporation’s application for land
Prior to the issuance of the Notice of registration was valid.
Initial Hearing, an opposition was filed
by the petitioner Director of Lands to the HELD:
original application for land registration
of respondent Garcia on the grounds No. The Court was not convinced with
that neither the applicant nor her the conclusion of the respondent Judge
predecessors-in-interest possess and with the arguments of the
sufficient title to acquire ownership in fee respondent corporation that the latter,
simple of the parcels of land applied for; through its predecessors-in- interest,
neither the applicant nor her has been in open, continuous, exclusive,
predecessors-in-interest, have been in and notorious possession and
open, continuous, exclusive, and occupation of agricultural lands of the
notorious possession and occupation of public domain, under a bona fide claim
the lands in question for at least 30 of acquisition or ownership, for at least
years immediately preceding the filing of thirty years.
the present application; that the said
parcels of land are a portion of the First, it appears that Maria Garcia and
public domain belonging to the Republic Vicente Obdin, from whom the
of the Philippines, and therefore, the respondent corporation purchased the
same should be declared part of the subject lots, have pending sales
public domain. applications. As such sales applicants,
they manifestly acknowledge that they
Therefore, the opposition or answer, do not own the land and that the same is
which is based on substantial grounds, a public land under the administration of
having been formally filed, it was the Bureau of Lands, to which the
improper for the respondent Judge applications were submitted. Therefore,
taking cognizance of such registration their possession was not that of an
case to declare the oppositor in default owner, as required by law.
simply because he failed to appear on
Secondly, if it is true that the original filing of the application for
owner and possessor, Generosa confirmation of title except when
Santiago, had been in possession since prevented by war or force
1925, why were the subject lands majeure. These shall be
declared for taxation purposes for the conclusively presumed to have
first time only in 1968, and in the names performed all the conditions
of Garcia and Obdin? For although tax essential to a Government grant
receipts and declarations of ownership and shall be entitled to a
for taxation purposes are not certificate of title under the
incontrovertible evidence of ownership, provisions of this chapter.
they constitute at least proof that the
holder had a claim of title over the as the above provision applies
property. exclusively to agricultural lands of the
public domain. It appears from Forestry
More than anything else, registration in Administrative Order that the subject
this instance cannot be granted on the lands were forest lands and only later,
basis of Section 48, paragraph b, of the declared as alienable or disposable by
Public Land Act which states that: the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. Hence, even on the
SEC. 48. The following described assumption that the applicant herein,
citizens of the Philippines, through its predecessors-in-interest, had
occupying lands of the public been in possession for at least thirty
domain or claiming to own any years, such possession never ripened
such lands or an interest therein, into private ownership.
but whose titles have not been
perfected or completed, may NOTES:
apply to the Court of First
Instance of the province where  In Director of Lands vs.
the land is located for Intermediate Appellate Court
confirmation of their claims, and that:
the issuance of a certificate of
title therefor, under the Land "No proof being admissible to
Registration Act, to wit: overcome a conclusive
presumption, confirmation
xxx xxx xxx proceedings would, in truth, be
little more than formality, at the
(b) Those who by themselves or most limited to ascertaining
through their predecessors-in- whether the possession claimed
interest have been in open, is of the required character and
continuous, exclusive and length of time; and registration
notorious possession and thereunder would not confer title,
occupation of agricultural lands of but simply recognize a title
the public domain, under a bona already vested.
fide claim of acquisition or
ownership, for at least thirty  Section 48, paragraph b, of the
years immediately preceding the Public Land Act, to wit:
SEC. 48. The following described
citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to
own any such lands or an interest
therein, but whose titles have not been
perfected or completed, may apply to
the Court of First Instance of the
province where the land is located for
confirmation of their claims, and the
issuance of a certificate of title therefor,
under the Land Registration Act, to wit:

(b) Those who by themselves or

through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of Purpose of Land Registration
the public domain, under a bona Legarda vs. Saleeby
fide claim of acquisition or (G.R. No. L-8936, 1915)
ownership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing FACTS:
of the application for confirmation
of title except when prevented by Consuelo Legarda and N.M. Saleeby
war or force majeure. These shall are owners of adjoining lots in Ermita,
be conclusively presumed to Manila. Between their lots is a stone wall
have performed all the conditions which is located on the lot of the
essential to a Government grant plaintiffs.
and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the On March 2, 1906, Consuelo and her
provisions of this chapter. husband presented a petition in the
Court of Land Registration to register
their lot. The registration was allowed on
Oct ober 25, 1906. They were then
issued an original certificate and the title
was registered. Both included the wall.

On March 25, 1912, the predecessor of

N.M. Saleeby presented a petition in the
Court of Land Registration for
registration. The court decreed the
registration of the land which also
included the wall. The plaintiffs
Consuelo and Mauro, her husband,
discovered that the wall has also been
registered to N.M. Saleeby. They
presented a petition in the Court of Land Therefore, in accordance with the
Registration for adjustment and Torrens system, it is the plaintiffs who
correction of the error where the wall are the owners. Under our law, once a
was indicated in both registrations. party registers the land, final and in
good faith, no third parties may claim
However, the lower court contended that interest on the same land. The rights
during the pendency of the petition for of all the world are foreclosed by the
the registration of the defendant’s land, decree of registration.
they failed to make any objection to the
regist ration of said lot, including the The registration, under the Torrens
wall, in the name of the defendant. system, does not give the owner any
better title than he had. The registration
ISSUE: of a particular parcel of land is a bar to
future litigation over the same between
Whether or not the defendant is the the same parties. It is a notice to the
owner of the wall and the land occupied world and no one can plead ignorance
by it. of the registration. Adopting the rule
which the Court believes it to be more in
consonance with the purposes and the
HELD: real intent of the torrens system. The
Court also stated that in case land has
NO. The lower court’s decision would been registered under the Land
call for the plaintiffs to be always alert Registration Act in the name of two
and see to it that no other parties will different persons, the earlier in date
register the wall and its land. Else, if shall prevail.
they spotted someone registering such
wall in their own name, plaintiff must Therefore, presumption is that the
immediately oppose. Such would purchaser has examined every
become defeat the real purpose of the instrument of record affecting the title.
Torrens system of land registration. This presumption is irrebutable. It
cannot be overcome by proof of
According to the Court, the real purpose innocence or good faith. Otherwise
of aforementioned system is to quiet title the very purpose and object of the law
to land; to put a stop forever to any requiring a record would be destroyed.
question of the legality of the title, The rule is that all persons must take
except claims which were noted at th e notice of the facts which the public
time of registration, in the certificate, or record contains is a rule of law. The rule
which may arise subsequent thereto. must be absolute. Any variation would
That being the purpose of the law, it lead to endless confusion and useless
would seem that once a title is litigation.
registered the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the Wherefore, the judgment of the lower
portals of the court, or sitting in the court is revoked. The wall and the land
“mirador de su casa” to avoid the where it sits is awarded to the plaintiffs.
possibility of losing his land.
Notes:

 The foregoing decision does not

solve, nor pretend to solve, all the
difficulties resulting from double
registration under the torrens
system and the subsequent
transfer of the land. Neither do
we now attempt to decide the
effect of the former registration in
the ordinary registry upon the
registration under the torrens
system. We are inclined to the
view, without deciding it, that the
record under the torrens system,
supersede all other registries. If
that view is correct then it will be
sufficient, in dealing with land
registered and recorded alone.

 Once land is registered and

recorded under the torrens
system, that record alone can be
examined for the purpose of
ascertaining the real status of the
title to the land.

It would be seen to a just and

equitable rule, when two persons
have acquired equal rights in the
same thing, to hold that the one
who acquired it first and who has
complied with all the
requirements of the law should be
protected.
Sapto vs. Fabiana vendors heirs, and ordered the plaintiffs
(G.R. No. L-11285) to execute the necessary deed of
conveyance in defendant's favor and its
FACTS: annotation in the certificate of title. From
this judgment, plaintiffs appealed to this
Sapto (Moro), now deceased, was the Court.
registered owner of a parcel of land
located in Alambre, Toril, Davao City. ISSUES:
When Sapto died, he left his children
Samuel, Constancio, and Ramon as 1. Whether or not the deed of sale
heirs of the property in question. Ramon executed by appellants'
pre-deceased his two brothers, leaving predecessors in favor of the
no, other heirs. appellee over the land in
question, although never
On June 6, 1931, Samuel and registered, is valid and binding;
Constancio Sapto executed a deed of and
sale of a portion of four hectares of the
land aforementioned in favor of 2. Whether or not the CFI’s order
defendant Apolonio Fabiana. The sale of conveyance in favor of
was duly approved by the Provincial Fabiana is valid.
Governor of Davao, but was never
registered. Possession of the land HELD:
conveyed was, however, transferred to
Fabiana and the latter has been in the 1. Yes. The Court held that the
possession thereof since 1931 up to the deed of sale executed by
present. appellants' predecessors in
favor of the appellee over the
Thereafter, Constancio Sapto died land in question, although
without any issue. Samuel Sapto never registered, is valid and
married one Dora (Bagoba) and upon binding.
his death was survived by his widow and
two children, Laureana and Vicente The Court first affirmed the validity of the
Sapto. sale between the Sapto brothers and
Fabiana, ruling, that even though it was
On October 19, 1954, the widow and never registered the sale was valid,
children of Samuel Sapto filed this binding, and effective upon the heirs of
action in the Court of First Instance of the vendor. It reiterated that as between
Davao for the recovery of the parcel of the parties to a sale, registration is not
land sold by their predecessors to necessary to make it valid and effective,
defendant Apolonio Fabiana in 1931. for actual notice is equivalent to
registration.
After trial, the lower court held that
although the sale between Samuel and In Medina vs. Imaz and Warner Barnes
Constancio Sapto and defendant in and Co., the Court held that the peculiar
1931 was never registered, it was valid force of a title is exhibited only when the
and binding upon the parties and the purchaser has sold to innocent third
parties the land described in the
conveyance. Furthermore, in Galanza Lee Tek Sheng vs. CA
vs. Nuesa, the Court held that (G.R. No. 11540)
"registration is intended to protect the
buyer against claims of third persons FACTS:
arising from subsequent alienations by
the vendor, and is certainly not After his mother's death Leoncio Lee
necessary to give effect as between the Tek Sheng filed a complaint against his
parties to their deed of sale". father, Lee Tek Sheng to partition the
conjugal properties of his parents. Lee in
Since no right of innocent third persons his answer with counterclaim alleged
or subsequent transferees of the that the four parcels of land registered
property in question is involved herein. solely in petitioner's name under
The property has remained and still is in Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 8278
the possession of the vendee of are conjugal properties. It was
appellants' predecessors, herein registered in Leoncio’s name only as a
appellee. trustee since he was then the only
Filipino citizen in the family. Accordingly,
Hence it is therefore, clear that the Lee prayed for the dismissal of the
conveyance between appellee and his partition case and for the reconveyance
vendors are valid and binding upon the of the lots to its rightful owner — the
latter, and is equally binding and conjugal regime.
effective against the heirs of the
vendors, herein appellants. In other In order to protect the interest of the
words, the transfer and possession of conjugal regime during the pendency of
the property was a clear indication of the the case, Lee caused the annotation of
validity of the sale. a notice of lis pendens on TCT 8278.
Leoncio moved for the cancellation of
2. Yes. The Court held that the said annotation which was denied by the
CFI’s order of conveyance in trial court ruling that (a) the notice was
favor of Fabiana is valid. not for the purpose of molesting or
harassing petitioner and (b) also to keep
In assailing the order, the Sapto heirs the property within the power of the
claimed that the CFI cannot order the court pending litigation. Leoncio
conveyance because the defendant’s appealed to CA, but to no avail.
cause of action had already prescribed.
Aggrieved, Leoncio resort to the SC
The Court ruled however, that the action contending primarily that in the
for conveyance was actually one to quiet resolution of an incidental motion for
title. It cited the American jurisprudence cancellation of the notice of lis pendens
and Art. 480 of the New Civil Code, (a) it was improper to thresh out the
which states, that actions to quiet title to issue of ownership of the disputed lots
property in the possession of the plaintiff since ownership cannot be passed upon
are imprescriptible. in a partition case, otherwise, (b) it
would amount to a collateral attack of
his title obtained more than 28 years collateral attack. It cannot be
ago. altered, modified, or cancelled
except in a direct proceeding in
He argues that his sole ownership as accordance with law.
shown in the TCT would be improperly What cannot be collaterally attacked
assailed in a partition case and should is the certificate of title and not the
be done through a separate suit. On the title. The certificate referred to is that
contrary, private respondent posits that document issued by the Register of
evidence of ownership is admissible in a Deeds known as the Transfer Certificate
partition case as this is not a probate or of Title (TCT).
land registration proceedings where the
court's jurisdiction is limited. By title, the law refers to ownership
which is represented by that document.
ISSUES: Ownership is different from a certificate
of title. The TCT is only the best proof of
1. Whether or not the notice of lis ownership of a piece of land and cannot
pendens on TCT 8278 would always be considered as conclusive
amount to a collateral attack to evidence of ownership. Mere issuance
the Certificate of Title; and of the certificate of title in the name of
any person does not foreclose the
2. Whether or not the denial of possibility that the real property may be
motion to cancel the notice of lis under co-ownership with persons not
pendens is valid. named in the certificate or that the
registrant may only be a trustee or that
HELD: other parties may have acquired interest
subsequent to the issuance of the
1. No. The Court held that the certificate of title.
petitioner's claim is not legally
tenable. There is no dispute that To repeat, registration is not the
a Torrens certificate of title equivalent of title, but is only the best
cannot be collaterally attacked, evidence thereof. In this case
but that rule is not material to this petitioner's certificate of title is not being
case. assailed by private respondent. What
the latter disputes is the former's claim
The annotation of a notice of lis pendens of sole ownership. Hence, although
does not in any case amount nor can it petitioner's certificate of title may have
be considered as equivalent to a become incontrovertible one year after
collateral attack of the certificate of title issuance, yet contrary to his argument, it
for a parcel of land. The concept of no does not bar private respondent from
collateral attack of title is based on questioning his ownership.
Section 48 of P.D. 1529 which states
that: 2. Yes. The Court held that the
denial of motion to cancel thd
Certificate not Subject to notice of lis pendens is valid.
Collateral attack. — A certificate
of title shall not be subject to
The Court stated that a notice of lis
pendens may be cancelled only on two
grounds, which are:

(1) if the annotation was for the

purpose of molesting the title
of the adverse party, or,

(2) when the annotation is not

necessary to protect the title
of the party who caused it to
be recorded.

Neither ground for cancellation of the

notice was convincingly shown to concur
in this case. The annotation of a notice
of lis pendens is only for the purpose of
announcing "to the whole world that a
particular real property is in litigation,
serving as a warning that one who
acquires an interest over said property
does so at his own risk, or that he
gambles on the result of the litigation
over said property." The parties are still
locked in a legal battle to settle their
respective claims of ownership.

Hence, the lower court allowed the

annotation pending litigation only for the
purpose of giving information to the
public that parcel of land is involved in a
suit and that those who deal with the
property is forewarned of such fact.