LAND TITLES

AND DEEDS

Submitted by:
BARNES, John Michael
BILOG, Kathleen
DE LA ROSA, Camille
SEMBRANO, Patricia Mae
TABANDA, Mikael Lorenzp

LLB – 2C

Discussion:

890 3 Lamsis v. 20 2 Republic v. Director of Lands 75 PHIL. One of the modes of acquiring ownership of land is by possession of the land since time immemorial1. Manny Villa as an intruder does not acquire any rights from the vacant lot within the land of Heirs of Pucay. Section 8 clearly stated the rights to ancestral lands: a) Right to transfer land/property.000-square meter portion of the area that was part of the presidential proclamation as a reservation is deemed to never have been a part of the public domain. must be in the concept of an owner. the sale between her and the Heirs of Pucay is a valid sale subject to the rules and regulations laid down by Republic Act No. Oh Cho vs. Bilog Jr. It is evident that they are eligible for a native title. by themselves and their predecessors-in-interest.R. The heirs of Pucay claim that when the presidential proclamation was issued declaring the land as a Government Center Reservation.R. or is transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price. Dong-e. 8371 also known also known as “The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997”. occupants of lands who.2 The 2. peaceful and uninterrupted. unless the juridical relation is first expressly repudiated and such repudiation has been communicated to the other party. the transferor ICC/IP shall have the right to redeem the same within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years from the date of transfer. their predecessors-in-interest and themselves had been in continuous and exclusive possession since time immemorial. Acts of possessory character executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate for purposes of acquisitive prescription. in order to ripen into ownership. Court of Appeals. April 11. G. No. 3 Possession not in the concept of owner cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription. to a non-member of the concerned ICCs/IPs is tainted by the vitiated consent of the ICCs/IPs. he claimed to be and his predecessors-in-interest has occupied as owners. Manantan. public. February 23. 175763. no matter how long performed. 158328. said land since the 1 Land titles and deeds. openly. 335 SCRA 693. have been in possession of the land for such length of time justifies the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain and that it had been private property.000-square meter portion of the area reserved. 4 As to Richard Alimba. Thus the Heirs of Pucay has a valid title over 2. through the occupation by the Heirs of Pucay themselves and their predecessors-in-interest by way of continuous and exclusive possession and ownership. Such right shall include the right to transfer land or property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs. do not start the running of the period of prescription. No. p. even before the Spanish Conquest. Gregorio G. In cases where it is shown that the transfer of land/property rights by virtue of any agreement or devise. subject to customary laws and traditions of the community concerned and b) Right to Redemption. G. 2012 4 Esguerra v. However. Possession by tolerance is not adverse and such possessory acts. In the case of Cornie Macay. It is settled that possession. continuously and adversely. 2007 . exclusively.

there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. may not be acquired by prescription. exclusively. the property. however long. occupied. however his right to the land has stopped upon the declaration of the land as a Government Center Reservation. as authorized by law. cannot ripen into private ownership. Republic8. This is because an applicant who. Remnan Enterprises. even if classified as alienable or disposable. 1989 6 Menguito v. 199310. remains property of the State. December 14.year 1920. remains property of the public dominion. cannot ripen into private ownership. G.R. openly.R. even if classified as alienable or disposable. the possession reckoned from 1950.R. Republic. It is only when such alienable and disposable lands are expressly declared 5 Director of Lands v. Thus Alimba has no valid title over the 500-square meter portion of the reservation. Court of Appeals. 83609. but where the president. There must be an express declaration that the property is no longer intended for public service or development of national wealth. this terminates any rights to previously acquired in such lands by a person who was settled thereon in order to obtain a preferential right of purchase. the possession of the applicants.R. 1947 may apply for judicial confirmation. 2009 . Without such express declaration. In Heirs of Malabanan v. the property. issues a proclamation reserving certain lands and warning all persons to depart therefrom. this Court ruled that possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land for the periods provided under the Civil Code do not automatically convert said property into private property or release it from the public domain. February 19. October 26. No. continuous. and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. G. continuously. it remains part of the inalienable public domain. and thus. 134308. No. G. and improved a parcel of public land which is later included in a reservation are considered worthy of protection and are usually respected. by himself or had predecessors in interest has been in open. and adversely from 1920 until the declaration as a reserve on 1925. exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership for 30 years prior to the issuance of PD 1073 or at least since May 8.7 In the case at hand.6 The claims of persons who have settled on. pursuant to Article 420(2). No. April 29. Accordingly. Neither could Philip Kate nor Ryan Saya could acquire title over the 200 square meter portion and subsequently apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the PLA. Where property is still unclassified. 2014 8 G. The occupation of Richard Alimba as owner. they cannot be said to have acquired title over the portion subject of the claim.5 Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the state. Without such express declaration. No. 2000 7 Republic v. Therefore. An unclassified land cannot be acquired by adverse possession. 179987.

for 10 years in highly urbanized city like Baguio can be given a title through the law. m. for one to invoke the provisions of Section 14(2) and set up acquisitive prescription against the State. 1529 as he has or his predecessors-in-interest has been in open.by the State to be no longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that the period of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. lot.A. The mere possession of a certificate of title does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate of title alone become the owner of the land illegally included. In the case of Andry Javier occupation of the 300 sq. m. more than 5 years of the statutory requirement of 30 years reckoned from June 12. 1) of PD. there was not even an iota of genuineness of the Tax Declaration. m. which was occupied and improved by Philip Kate since 1950. exclusive and notorious possession thereat for 35 years. The land of Andry Javier which was included to the sale between Sacla and Tan is invalid because Andry Javier is a lawful owner. Thus. Tax Declaration is not ipso facto an evidence absolute ownership of a piece of land. m. In other words. Both Philip Kate and Ryan Saya cannot claim valid and legal ownership of the 200 sq. they can apply for a valid title to the lots. continuous. and Bernardo Tan cannot encroach to his land. Bernardo Tan being a purchaser for value and in good faith. However. it is primordial that the status of the property as patrimonial be first established. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. De Recinto v Inciong . 10023 (Free Patent Act to Residential Lands). With regard to the 200 sq. The sale is valid up to the extent of the land of Bert Sacla only. 14 (Par. of the 100-square meter land of Bert Sacla and the included land of Andry Javier of 50-square meters. is within the purview of Sec. 1945. Since Philip Kate and Ryan Saya had occupied the subject lots for more than 10 years. This include zoned as residential areas including townsites as defined under the Public Land Act. Furthermore.9 9 Vda. it was stated under R. the period of possession preceding the classification of the property as patrimonial cannot be considered in determining the completion of the prescriptive period. that actual occupants of lands of 200 sq. It will only serve as an evidence of claim.