1.

Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (129 SCRA 689)

2. 3. 4. 5. 443) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 38) 15. 16.

Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (178 SCRA 708) IHVCP vs. UP (200 SCRA 554) Republic v. T.A.N. Properties Inc. (555 SCRA 477) Sunbeam Convenience Foods v. Court of Appeals (181 SCRA Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (133 SCRA 701) Republic v. Court of Appeals (154 SCRA 476) Republic v. Court of Appeals (135 SCRA 156) Natividad Sta. Ana Victoria v. Republic of the Philippines Union Leaf Tobacco Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines Republic v. Bacus (176 SCRA 376) Republic Cement Corporation v. Court of Appeals (198 SCRA 734) Director of Lands v. Reyes (68 SCRA 177) Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court (195 SCRA Prime Holdings v. Madayag Republic of the Philippines v. Candido Vergel De Dios

public.. In its decision.Director of Lands v. the CFI ordered the registration of the subject land in favor of the applicants (respondents). Bulacan and that areas within the unclassified region are denominated as forest lands and do not form part of the disposable and alienable portion of the public domain. which the CA affirmed basing from the evidence that the applicants’ predecessors-in. 1976.R. peaceful. filed their application for the registration of a parcel of land. G. The Republic of the Philippines. Court of Appeals (129 SCRA 689) DIRECTOR OF LANDS and DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT. connected to a river and which they have converted into fishponds. represented by the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application on the principal ground that the land applied for is within the unclassified region of Obando. GABRIELA VALERIANO VDA. HON. continuous. L-58867. in the CFI of Bulacan. and adverse possession of the parcel of land for more than 30 years. The Court further emphasized the rule stating that classification or reclassification of public lands is an exclusive right vested to the Executive Department of the Government and not to the Judiciary and in the absence of such classification. thus this case. June 22.interest have been in open. respondents. No. the SC commented that the CFI and CA’s approval for the registration of the subject land in effect released such property from the unclassified category. Antonio Valeriano et al. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO VALERIANO. The CA further opined that since the subject property is entirely devoted to fishpond purposes. LETICIA A. Ruling: No. . hereinafter referred to as the respondents. 1984 Facts: In May 10. Issue/s: Whether or not the Courts can reclassify public lands. After the hearing. the land remains as unclassified land until it is released therefrom and rendered open to disposition. vs. petitioners. it cannot not be categorized as part of forestlands. which is beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the Judiciary. VALERIANO and MARISSA VALERIANO DE LA ROSA. DE LA CRUZ.

an office under the Executive Department. in the CFI of Capiz. however long. Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar filed their joint application for the registration of two parcels of land. After the hearing. G. 83609. No. They claimed that they inherited those parcels of land.1976. citing as authority the case of Ankron vs.in-interest have been in open. The Court. holding that the classification of the lots as timberland by the Director of Forestry cannot prevail in the absence of proof that the said lots are indeed more valuable as forest land than as agricultural land. peaceful and adverse possession of the subject parcels of land under bona fide claims of ownership for more than 80 years. Government of the Philippine Islands (40 Phil. stated that a parcel of forestland is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry. . petitioner. October 26.R. continuous. respondents. located in the province of Capiz. The Director of Lands and Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application on the ground that said parcels of land were part of a timberland. the CFI ordered the registration of the title of the lots in the names of the applicants. particularly the Executive Department is needed to declassify land. cannot ripen into private ownership. so it cannot be the subject of the registration proceedings. The CA affirmed the CFI’s decision. herein private respondents after finding that the applicants and their predecessors. IBARRA BISNAR and AMELIA BISNAR. vs. public. 10). and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes before registration of which may proceed. 1989 Facts: On July 20. and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens System. citing various cases. Ruling: No. The Court ruled that possession of forestlands. a public dominion. COURT OF APPEALS. Issue/s: Whether or not the possession of forestlands or timberlands for 80 years can ripen to private ownership. It emphasized that a positive act of the government. Court of Appeals (178 SCRA 708) DIRECTOR OF LANDS.Director of Lands v. which is classified as forest.

Said license authorizes the company to cut.A. 3990. the Congress enacted R.R. the two parcels of land were not declared by the Executive Department to be alienable and disposable. The said experiment station covers a portion of the timberland in Paete.In the present case. respondents-appellants. which means that the Republic of the Philippines completely removed it from the public domain. being the owner of the land. JR. and collect the corresponding forest charges prescribed by the BIR. Ruling: Yes. The Court further cited Sec. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES and JOSE C. Issue/s: Whether or not UP is the owner of the portion of timberland in Paete.A. 3 of R.A. who claims ownership of said portion of timberland. occupied by IHVCP so UP. No. UP (200 SCRA 554) INTERNATIONAL HARDWOOD AND VENEER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES. demanded the latter to pay the forest charges to it. petitionerappellee.” The provision of the Act is clear that UP. The Court ruled that R. In 1964. thus it cannot be registered under private ownership. vs. 3990 ceded and transferred in full ownership to UP the area. 1991 Facts: IHVCP is a company engaged in the manufacture. which provides that. . including Paete. instead of the BIR. the said Act removed and segregated it from being a public forest. It renewed its timber license.A. measure and seal the timber cut by it within the tract of land referred to in said Act. claiming that R. 3990 does not empower UP to scale. In respect to the areas covered by the timber license of IHVCP. which was granted by the government and shall be valid for 25 years. IHVCP v. has the right to collect forest charges and to supervise the operations of IHVCP insofar as the property of the UP within it is concerned.August 13. "any incidental receipts or income therefrom shall pertain to the general fund of the University of the Philippines. L-52518 . collect and remove timber from the portion of timber land located in certain municipalities of Laguna. an Act establishing an experiment station for UP. 3990. G. IHVCP rejected the demand and it filed a suit against UP.. in early 1960. processing and exportation of plywood. CAMPOS.

A. vs. To support its application.A.A.N. Properties did not prove that the land was alienable and disposable. the Court cited DENR Administrative Order No. 38.A. Ruling: No. No.. classifying lands to be alienable and disposable. 20) and DAO No. DAO No. T.N. Properties did not prove that the land is alienable and disposable.N. 20 (DAO No. Properties Inc. T. it submitted two certificates. The Republic of the Philippines.4007 hectares. June 26. petitioner. PROPERTIES.N.Republic v. Tomas.A. opposed the application on the ground that T.N. Issue/s: Whether or not the applicant proved that. T.4007 hectares. .A. issued by CENRO and FMS-DENR and both certifying that the land applied for was alienable and disposable. The land applied for in the case has an area of 56. represented by the Director of Lands. Batangas and with an area of 56.R. T. 154953. INC. 2008 Facts: In 1999. 20 proves that FMS-DENR has no authority to issue certificates. (555 SCRA 477) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. located at Sto. the land is alienable and disposable. 38 provides that CENRO can issue certificates of land classification for lands having a maximum area of 50 hectares. and DAO No. It is clear from the aforementioned DAO’s that the documents submitted by T. G. In the present case. For the documents provided by the company. Properties did not provide the needed proof. Properties filed in the RTC of Batangas an application for the registration of a land. It is the burden of the applicant to prove that the land subject to registration is alienable and disposable and for such the applicant must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable.N. thus CENRO has no jurisdiction over it. respondent.

G. .. vs. Forestlands are part of the public dominion so they cannot be the subject of land registration cases unless they have been declassified and converted into alienable and disposable lands. Court of Appeals (181 SCRA 443) SUNBEAM CONVENIENCE FOODS INC. No. an official proclamation by the executive department releasing the land to be alienated. and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATAAN.R. For a part of the public dominion to form part of the disposable lands. When appealed. the Director of Lands issued a sales patent in favor of Sunbeam and on the same year. In 1976. HON. the latter registered it with the Register of Deeds and obtained an OCT. L-50464. the CA granted the petition filed by the Republic since the core issue is the classification of the lands to be forestlands. there must be a positive act by the government. the Sol.Gen. so Sunbeam filed a Motion to Dismiss. in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. 1990 Facts: In 1963.Sunbeam Convenience Foods v. January 29. instituted an action for the reversion of the said OCT. Issue/s: Whether or not the patent issued by the Director of Lands converted the lands to be alienable and disposable from being forestlands. CORAL BEACH DEVELOPMENT CORP. respondents. Ruling: No.. COURT OF APPEALS and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. petitioners. The patent covers parcels of land in Bataan. which the CFI granted. which were claimed to be forestlands.

December 26. To prove their ownership. SALAZAR. thus. PEDRO F. the Salazars claimed that their predecessors-ininterest have been in continuous. exclusive. open. JESUS F. The basis of the reversal was the declaration made by the Director of Forestry in April 28. non-registerable. petitioner. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands (DoL) and by 25 occupants of the land. SALAZAR and AURORA F. COURT OF APPEALS. . Court of Appeals (133 SCRA 701) DIRECTOR OF LANDS. SALAZAR. L-50340. G. SALAZAR.R. and notorious possession in the concept of owner for more than thirty years prior to their application and the siblings further presented tax declarations but the DoL still claimed otherwise. a public dominion. uninterrupted. vs. In 1977. JOSE F. 1961. respondents. 1984 Facts: In 1965. Ruling: No. it reversed itself and granted the application. the CA denied the application but in its 1979 resolution. the Salazars filed an application for the registration of the 291 hectares of land (a forestland). the thirty-year requirement should be reckoned from April 1961. the point when the forestland was reclassified by the Director of Forestry to be alienable and disposable and not prior thereto since it was still a forestland. reclassifying the subject land as alienable and disposable from being a forestland. No. which they acquired from their mother Soledad.Director of Lands v. Issue/s: Whether or not the applicants proved their ownership of the land. 1961 cannot be credited to the thirty-year requirement. The Court affirmed the CA’s 1977 decision and acknowledged that the latter held correctly through Justice Serrano in its decision that whatever possession of the land the Salazars and their predecessors might have had prior to April 28. In the present case.

No. 1987 Facts: In 1968. Martina Carantes for and in behalf of the heirs of Salming Piraso filed in the CFI of Baguio an application for the registration of the land. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.R. petitioner. 56948. The government’s failure to show that the disputed land is more valuable for forest purposes is one of the reasons for the CA’s ruling. September 30. As to the claim of the applicants that they have been in possession of the land since 1915. Munoz (23 SCRA 1184). Court of Appeals (154 SCRA 476) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. It also noted the failure to prove that trees are thriving in the land. AND MARTINA CARANTES FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE HEIRS OF SALMING PIRASO. opposed the application on the ground that the said portion land is within the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve as shown in the reports and testimonies of the district foresters. REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT AND THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS. where it stated that possession of forest lands. G.respondents. the court cited its decision in Director of Forestry v. . cannot ripen into private ownership. Ruling: No. Issue/s: Whether or not the land in dispute is alienable and disposable. through the Solicitor General and the Director of Forestry.Republic v. exclusively. The Director of lands. The Court ruled that the petitioner clearly proved thru the reports and testimonies of the district foresters that the land applied for registration is a part of a forestland. which the latter claimed to be in their possession and occupation openly. which was also affirmed by the CA. The CFI granted the application. vs. continuously. no matter how long. notoriously since 1915.

MERCEDES. vs. COURT OF APPEALS. Republic v. where it ruled. decree. SOCORRO. thus non-registerable. L-56077. No. Issue/s: Whether or not the Government was estopped in appealing the registration order.In its decision.xxx” The Court again reiterated that there must first be a formal Government declaration that the forestland has been re-classified into alienable and disposable agricultural land. February 28.R. the same was dismissed on the ground that the order had allegedly long become final and unappealable so the Government was estopped thru the registration made by its agents. The CFI judge denied the petition and when appealed. REMEDIOS and FLORA. “A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Manuel Aquino. Minor represented by his father. Ruling: No. ROGELIO AQUINO. G. respondents. the Court also addressed the CA’s ruling by citing its decision in Heirs of Amunatequi v. xxxThe classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like. xxxForestlands do not have to be on mountains or in out of the way places. As to the ruling of CA that the government was estopped to appeal because the land was erroneously . CONCHITA. PEDRO GONZALES. Director of Forestry (126 SCRA 69. 75). Eight (8) years after the decision was rendered. the CFI of Quezon rendered a decision. petitioner. SPOUSES PRUDENCIO MAXINO and TARCIANA MORALES. ordering the registration of 885 hectares of public forestland in favor of the Maxinos. The Maxinos opposed the petition. 1985 Facts: In 1961. and title on the ground that they are void because the land in question was still a part of the unclassified public forest. and ALEJANDRO. The Government sufficiently proved that the parcel of land involved in the present case is a part of a forestland. Court of Appeals (135 SCRA 156) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. all surnamed CONSOLACION. The decision became final and executory so a decree of registration and an OCT were issued. before private persons in accordance with the various modes of acquiring public agricultural lands can acquire it. the Republic of the Philippines filed with the same CFI an amended petition to annul the decision.

Petitioner.R. Respondent. Victoria testified that she and her predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property continuously. 17967. Ana Victoria v. The OSG opposed the application. Map 2623.729-m2 lot in Bambang. of Pampanga. G. vs. as certified by the Bureau of Forest Development on January 3. Victoria applied for registration of a 1. In January 25. ANA VICTORIA. Republic of the Philippines NATIVIDAD STA. where it held that the Government should not be estopped by the mistakes or errors of its agents. verifying the subject property as within the alienable and disposable land of the public domain. and in the concept of owners since the early 1940s or for more than 30 years and have been declared as owners for taxation purposes for the last 30 years. (50 Phil. Natividad Sta. In 2007. adversely. Judge of 1st Inst. The OSG appealed the decision and during the appeal Victoria submitted a DENR Certification.C. uninterruptedly. 2006. The Republic did not present any evidence in support of its opposition. City of Taguig. the CA ruled that it could not take cognizance of the DENR . To prove her ownership. before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of that city. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. publicly. granting the application for registration and finding that Victoria sufficiently established her claim and right under the land registration law to have the subject property registered in her name. 980) . S. 1968. 2011 Facts: In November 2004. the CA reversed the MeTC’s decision because allegedly Victoria failed to prove that the subject lot is alienable and disposable. Furthermore.registered by its own agency. 975. vs. the Court ruled otherwise basing on its decision in Gov't. openly. which showed that the land is inside the alienable and disposable area under Project 27-B as per L. of the U. the MeTC rendered a decision. June 8. No. Victoria offered the Conversion/Subdivision Plan.

In the present case. The applicant must also present a copy of the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable. The Court also stated that the rules of procedure being mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO. it would be more prudent to recognize the DENR Certification and resolve the matter. Victoria was able to submit the DENR Certification. an applicant may secure a certification from the government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable. The Court is convinced that Victoria sufficiently proved her ownership of the land. Issue/s: Whether or not Victoria amply proved her claim of ownership of the property.Certification since it was not offered as evidence during the hearing in the trial court. the Court is empowered to suspend their application to a particular case when its rigid application tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice. To prove that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable. Republic. but the certification must show that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable. the Court cited its decision in Llanes v. . where it allowed consideration of a CENRO Certification though it was only presented during appeal to the CA to avoid a patent unfairness. verifying that the land is alienable and disposable. Ruling: Yes. The only reason why the CA reversed the lower court’s decision is that the said Certificate was only submitted during the appeal and not during trial in the lower court. Therefore. as declared by the DENR Secretary or as proclaimed by the President. To further support its ruling.

On appeal by the Republic. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. the RTC granted the application of the corporation by relying on the testimonies offered by the witnesses of the latter. citing Article XII. Issue/s: Whether or not the parcels of land are proven alienable and disposable. G. vs. HILARION P. After the trial. Republic of the Philippines UNION LEAF TOBACCO CORPORATION." to support its claim. March 16.Union Leaf Tobacco Corporation v. La Union four applications for land registration covering various parcels of land. LC Map No. Section 3 of the Constitution. The corporation presented testimonial evidence as well as documentary evidence. which all noted that the subject lands are "inside alienable and disposable area as per project No. insisted that the Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans it presented proved that the parcels of land are alienable. 2891. 185683. Ruling: . Respondent. The Republic opposed the applications. the Corporation filed before the RTC of Agoo. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. UY. 2011 Facts: In December 1.R. 5-A. No. Petitioner. holding that the corporation presented no evidence to show that the subject parcels of land have been reclassified by the State as alienable or disposable to a private person. the CA reversed the trial court’s decision. The corporation in its answer. 2004. particularly the Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans.

August 11. The Republic through the Director of Lands opposed the application on the ground that said land was still a part of the public domain since the land is still part of a public forest. vs. Inc. the Court cited the case Republic v. The Court ruled that the Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans are hardly the competent pieces of evidence that the law requires. Properties. petitioner. Bacus (176 SCRA 376) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. respondent. The CA relied on the certification of City Development Coordinator of Ozamis City. Ruling: No. Bacus filed an application for the registration of a 496-m 2 parcel of land in the CFI of Misamis Occidental. 73261. T. who certified that the subject land was within the commercial-residential zone and the certification of the Register of Deeds of Ozamis City.R. Further. No. G. FRANCISCO BACUS. Republic v. The notation by a geodetic engineer on the survey plans that properties are alienable and disposable does not suffice to prove the lands’ classification. 1989 Facts: In 1981.A. . These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. Issue/s: Whether or not the land has been converted as part of the disposable land of the Government.No.N. The CFI and CA ruled in favor of Bacus. who certified that the lots near and surrounding the subject land had already been registered in favor of private persons. where It directs that: x x x x The applicant for registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

the CA . Bulacan.887-m 2. After the trial. 2880 of the Cadastral Survey of Norzagaray. G. which the CA relied on. title to which is sought to be registered by Republic Cement. The 3 oppositors were later substituted by private respondent Moises Correa as subsequent purchaser of the aforesaid portions of said parcel of land.The Court ruled that the certifications.389– m2. with a total area of 68. Court of Appeals (198 SCRA 734) REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION. located in barrio Minuyan. the CFI ordered the registration of the parcels of land bought by Correa but Republic Cement’s application was dismissed. The area is still considered forestland since it has not been declassified as such by the proper authorities. Spouses Jose Rayo and Susana Mangahas and one Pedro Legaspi opposed the application. for the registration in its name of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. petitioner. COURT OF APPEALS. Plan Ap-16404. The Court further stressed that development of forestland into residential and commercial status does not alter its legal standpoint as forestland. are not sufficient to change the nature of the property.996 –m 2.repondents.Oppositor Pedro Legaspi claims that he is the owner of the eastern portion of the same parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-225872.R. vs. 85991-94. MOISES CORREA AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN. Bulacan. July 03. The oppositor spouses claimed that they are the owners for a period of over 60 years of the east central portion of the parcel of land. covered by Plans PSU 229592 and 227659. Norzagaray. On appeal. Republic Cement Corporation v. with a total area of 31. with an area of 207. Nos. 1991 Facts: Republic Cement Corporation filed a petition in the CFI of Bulacan.

with the CFI of Nueva Ecija. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS. L-28144 November 28. 227659 and 225872 which were ordered registered in the name of private respondent Correa. ROMAN C. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY. PARAÑAQUE INVESTMENT and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. applicant-appellee. Republic Cement petitioned the Supreme Court. Issue/s: Whether or not Correa proved the identity of the lands he claims. During the pendency of the case. No. The Director of Lands. SALVADOR C. Afterwhich. oppositors-appellants. vs. G.800 hectares. and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. G. TAMAYO. The technical description and the survey plan duly approved by the Director of Lands submitted in evidence by him fully describes the meters and bounds of the parcels of land involved. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS. claiming that the CA erred in ordering the registration of the three parcels of land covered by Plans PSU225872. through his predecessors in interest. REYES. now substituted by PARAÑAQUE INVESTMENT and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Ruling: Yes. 229592 and 227659 in the name of Correa allegedly because the latter failed to prove the identity of the lands he claims. Branch III. November 28. PIDC substituted Alinsunurin since the former acquired the ownership of the land.R. 2880 in the name of Republic Cement but excluding portions thereof as described in Plans PSU-229592. The Court held that contrary to the claim of Republic Cement. Director of Forestry. L-27594. 1975 Director of Lands v. and . containing an area of 16. Correa. THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY and the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. respondents. petitioners. vs. THE COMMISIONER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NUEVA ECIJA.ordered the registration of Lot No. Alisunurin filed his application for the registration of a vast tract of land. The land was admittedly inside the boundary of the military reservation of Fort Magsaysay. No. HON. 1975 ALIPIO ALINSUNURIN. as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. was able to establish the identity of and title to the land sought to be registered in his name. Reyes (68 SCRA 177) Facts: In 1964.R.

dated December 10. the same are not of much value. 237.the Armed Forces of the Philippines opposed the application. The government through the Sol. Unless a plan and its technical description are duly approved by the Director of Lands. 1955 of the President. which the Director of Lands. was not submitted in evidence. 70825.Gen. which he bought from Llacer. Ruling: No. Intermediate Appellate Court (195 SCRA 38) Facts: In 1972. Issue/s: Whether or not the plans presented by the applicants are sufficient to prove the identity of the land in dispute. Issue/s: Whether or not the land in dispute was sufficiently identified. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ISIDRO ESPARTINEZ.R. where they claim that the plans presented by the applicants failed to identify the parcel of land sought to be registered. DIRECTOR OF LANDS and DIRECTOR OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT. appealed to the IAC but the latter affirmed the lower court’s decision. claiming that the applicant was without sufficient title and that approximately 13. No.957 hectares of said land consist of the military reservation of Fort Magsaysay established under Proclamation No. respondents. which must be approved by the Director of Lands. Director of Forestry. the CFI granted the application and ordered registration. The submission of such plan is a statutory requirement of mandatory character. the applicants presented blueprints of two survey plans but lack the approval of the Director of Lands. . The CFI granted the application so the Sol. Espartinez filed with the CFI of Albay an application for the registration of a parcel of land. The blueprints of two survey plans presented had no approval of the Director of Lands. The Court held that the original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for. 1991 Director of Lands v. To prove the claim. After the trial. March 11.Gen. and the Armed Forces of the Philippines appealed to SC. opposed the application on the ground that the applicant failed to prove his ownership thereof. petitioners. thus these did not suffice the requirement of the law. G. vs. To support his claim he presented to the trial court several documents and two of which are the survey plan of the land and a technical description thereof indicating that the actual area of the land.

SM also filed with the DENR a petition for cancellation of the survey plan. conclusively failed to sufficiently identify the land. Attached to the application was a tracing cloth of Survey Plan Psu-01-008438. Urdaneta City. despite Espartinez’ claim that the tracing plan was attached with the application he filed. Pangasinan an application for registration of a parcel of land with an area of 1. INC. Espartinez’ having failed to provide what was required by the law to be presented. SM PRIME HOLDINGS. 164687. In the present case. petitioner.. Madayag Facts: In 2001. After the trial. February 12. survey plans are accepted as evidence in identifying a land but the law requires that the Director of Lands must duly approve such plan. What was just presented to the Court was a survey plan but the latter did not recognize it because the Director of Lands has not approved it. G. San Fernando City. One of the best ways to identify a land is the presentation of a tracing cloth plan. Region 1. No.Ruling: No. Generally. Madayag filed with the RTC of Urdaneta. respondent. MADAYAG.R. there was also no proof that the same has been detached. Pangasinan.492-m 2 located in Barangay Anonas. SM filed with the RTC an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceeding in the land registration case alleging that the trial court should wait for DENR’s resolution of the petition. vs. Afterwhich. SM opposed the application because allegedly. the RTC suspended the registration proceedings on the ground that the petition for cancellation of the survey plan filed by SM with DENR is . which he sought to be registered. the lot encroached on the properties it recently purchased from several lot owners. ANGELA V. 2009 Prime Holdings v. approved by the LMS-DENR.

Ruling: Yes. and TERESITA. However. The RTC granted the petition but the Republic appealed the ruling to CA arguing about the sufficiency to order a reconstitution of the lost title of those presented by Candido. G. Issue/s: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over land registration proceedings is affected if there is a petition filed in DENR to cancel the survey plan. An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title. Furthermore. respondents. and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent registration of any adjoining land. The court may now verify this allegation based on the respondent’s survey plan vis-à-vis the certificates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors-ininterest.prejudicial to the determination of the land registration case since a survey plan is one of the mandatory requirements in such proceedings. a survey plan precisely serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration. CANDIDO. one of the mandatory requirements in such proceedings. petitioner. Plan. The Court held that as an incident to its authority to settle all questions over the title of the subject property. DEMETILA. T-141671 and issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy in lieu of the destroyed one. February 9. After all. which was duly approved by the DENR. The CA also held as . Republic of the Philippines v. Attached with his petition are the Kasulatan. JESUS. 170459. Candido Vergel De Dios REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. the RTC need not wait for the decision of the DENR in the petition to cancel the survey plan in order to determine whether the subject property is already titled or forms part of already titled property.R. When Madayag appealed to CA. and that the RTC has the power to hear and determine all questions arising from an application for registration. which is not allowed by law. the latter ratiocinated that the survey plan. the land registration court may resolve the underlying issue of whether the subject property overlaps the petitioner’s properties without necessarily having to declare the survey plan as void. all surnamed VERGEL DE DIOS. Technical Description and Tax Declaration of the land. vs. 2011 Facts: Candidi filed with the RTC of Bulacan a petition for reconstitution of the burned Original of TCT No. should be accorded the presumption of regularity. No. ANGELITO. It stated that a land registration court has the duty to determine whether the issuance of a new certificate of title will alter a valid and existing certificate of title.

Issue/s: Whether or not the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of the Certificate of Title in lieu of the destroyed one is proper. after observing the procedures prescribed by law. thus. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have. When reconstitution is ordered. long after the original TCT was burned and the owner’s duplicate title was lost but it also affirmed the RTC’s order regarding the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy in lieu of the destroyed one. this document is replaced with a new one—the reconstituted title—that reproduces the original. the owner is issued a duplicate copy of the reconstituted title. which was previously granted by the lower court. Without the order for reconstitution. it should follow that no new owner’s duplicate copy of certificate of title should be issued. the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred. the order to issue a new owner’s duplicate title had no leg to stand on. In the present case. The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land.insufficient evidence the Kasulatan. it is clear that the CA cancelled the order of reconstitution. which was executed only in 1996. After the reconstitution. . Ruling: No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful