REGISTRATION IS NOT A

MODE OF ACQUIRING
OWNERSHIP
> Registration doesn’t vest title
> Merely evidence of such a title over a particular property
> Not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely a PROCEDURE to establish
evidence of title over realty
> Where a petitioner’s registration of their deed of sale was done in bad faith, it
is as if no registration was made at all insofar as private respondent is
concerned.
> Registration under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 doesn’t vest in the registrant
private or public ownership of the land—it is merely evidence of ownership but is
not a mode of acquiring ownership

Proceeding In Rem Vs.

Proceeding In Personam
Proceeding In Proceeding In
Rem Personam
When the object of the To establish a claim against some
action is to particular person, with a judgment
bar indifferently all who which generally, in theory at
might be least,
minded to make an objection binds his body, or to bar some
of any individual claim or objection, or to
sort against the right sought only contain certain persons who
to be are entitled to be heard in defense
established, and if anyone in
the
world has a right to be heard
on the
strength of alleging facts,
 which, if
true, show an inconsistent
interest

HOW IS JURISDICTION IN
REM ACQUIRED? BY
GIVING THE PUBLIC
NOTICE OF INITIAL
HEARING BY MEANS OF:
1. Publication
2. Mailing
3. Notice
> The decree has also created the Land Registration Commission, now renamed
the Land Registration Authority, under the Department of Justice, the central
repository of records relative to original registration, including subdivision and
consolidation plans of titled lands

THE PERSONS WHO MAY

APPLY FOR
REGISTRATION, AND THE
CONDITIONS NECESSARY
FOR REGISTRATION, TO
WIT:
1. Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945, or
2. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws
3. Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds
by rights of accession or accretion under existing laws
4. Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for
by law

HOW DOES AN
APPLICATION FOR LAND
REGISTRATION PROCEED?
> Application shall be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the land is
situated
> Court shall issue an order setting the date and time of the initial hearing and
the public shall be given notice thereof by means of publication, mailing, and
posting
> Any person claiming interest may appear and file an opposition, stating all his
objections to the application
> The case shall be heard and all conflicting claims of ownership shall be
determined by the court
> Once judgment has become final, the court shall issue an order for the
issuance of the decree and corresponding certificate of title in favor of the
person adjudged as entitled to registration

WHAT IS THE BEARING OF

THE CERTIFICATE OR
DECREE OF
CERTIFICATION?
> The decree binds the land and quiets title thereto, subject only to such
exceptions or liens as may be provided by law
> Shall not be subject to collateral attack—except in a direct proceeding can it
be altered or modified or cancelled, in accordance with law
> Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser in good faith shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in said certificate
and any subsisting encumbrances enumerated in the law

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER LAND
REGISTRATION CASES
> Matters involving the registration of lands and lands registered under the
Torrens system is conferred by Section 2, PD 1529

> While jurisdiction over petitions for amendments of certificates of title is

provided for by Section 108 of this Decree

> Section 2 provides that RTC has exclusive jurisdiction for original registration
of titles to lands, including improvements and interest therein, and over all
petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising upon such

JURISDICTION IN CIVIL
CASES INVOLVING TITLE
TO PROPERTY
> RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve the title to, or possession to, real property, or any interest therein, where
the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000, or for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds P50,000, except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the MTC, MCTC, MMTC
> What determines jurisdiction are the allegations in the complaint and the
reliefs prayed for—where the ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to
property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the
assessed value of the property.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE COURT’S GENERAL
AND LIMITED
JURISDICTION
ELIMINATED IN LAND
REGISTRATION
> Section 2 has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction
vested in the RTC and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law
when acting merely as a land registration or cadastral court

> Change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring the RTC the
authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also for all
petitions after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or petitions

> The court is not any longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction

> Amendment was aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits

> In any event, whether a particular matter should be resolved by the RTC on the
exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court
is in reality not a jurisdictional question but is more in essence of a procedural
question involving the mode of practice which may be waived

DELEGATED
JURISDICTION OF
 INFERIOR COURTS IN
CADASTRAL AND LAND
REGISTRATION CASES
> MTC, MCTC, and the MMTC are granted delegated jurisdiction to hear and
determine cadastral and land registration cases in the following instances:
1. Where the lot sought to be registered is not the subject of controversy and
application
2. Where the lot is contested but the value thereof doesn’t exceed P100,000,
such value to be ascertained by the:
> Affidavit of the claimant or
> By the agreement of the respective claimants, if there be more than one, or
> From the corresponding tax declaration of the real property

SC ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 6-93-A
> Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of the Admin.
Circular but where hearing hasn’t yet commenced, shall be transferred by the
Executive Judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the cases to the Executive
Judge of the appropriate Metropolitan Trial court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for the required raffle among
the branches of the Court under his administrative supervision

> Where trial has already commenced as of the date of the effectivity of the
Admin circular shall remain with the courts. However, by agreement of the
parties, such cases may be transferred to the appropriate MTC, MCTC

> Allowed when there is permission of the SC

REGISTRATION COURT IS
NOT DIVESTED OF ITS
 JURISDICTION BY
ADMINISTRATIVE ACT FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF PATENT
> It has been held that a land registration court which has validly acquired
jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title cannot be divested of
said jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance
by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of land
(De
Los Angeles v. Santos)

WHAT IS THE BEARING OF

THE CERTIFICATE OR
DECREE OF
CERTIFICATION?
> The decree binds the land and quiets title thereto, subject only to such
exceptions or liens as may be provided by law
> Shall not be subject to collateral attack—except in a direct proceeding can it
be altered or modified or cancelled, in accordance with law
> Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser in good faith shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in said certificate
and any subsisting encumbrances enumerated in the law
 LAND REGISTRATION ACT
OR ACT #496
> Grants of public land were brought under the operation of a Torrens system
> Placed all public and private land under the Torrens system
> Torrens system requires that the government issue an official certificate of
title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property
described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or
the law warrants or reserves

PURPOSE OF THE
TORRENS SYSTEM
1. To quiet the title to land

2. To put a stop forever to any question of legality of the title, except claims
which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may
arise subsequent thereto
> Once a title is registered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of
waiting in the portals of the court, to avoid the possibility of losing his land
> All the world are parties, including the government
> After the registration is complete and final, and there exists no fraud, there are
no innocent third parties who may claim any interest.
> Aims to decree land titles shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable, and to
relieve the land of the burden of known as well as unknown claims
> The registration either relieves the land of all known as well as unknown
claims absolutely, or it compels the claimants to come unto court and to make
there a record, so that thereafter, there may be no uncertainty concerning either
the character or the extent of such claims

BACKGROUND OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

> In this system, title by registration takes the place of “title by deeds” of the system under the “general”
law

> A sale of land for example is effected by a registered transfer, upon which a certificate of title is issued
o Certificate is guaranteed by statute, and with certain exceptions, constitutes indefeasible title to the
land mentioned therein

o Under old system, the same sale would be effected through conveyance, depending on its validity,
apart from intrinsic flaws, on the correctness of a long series of prior deeds, wills, etc.

> Object of the Torrens system: to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of the old
conveyancing system

> Generally, by “Torrens” systems are meant those systems of registration of transactions with interest in
land whose declared object is, under governmental authority, to establish and certify to the ownership
of an absolute and indeafisible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer.

REQUISITE STEPS IN BRINGING THE LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM

1. Survey of land by the Lands Management Bureau or a duly licensed surveyor

2. Filing an application for registration by the applicant

3. Setting the date of initial hearing of the application by the court

4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together will all the documents or other
evidence attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the LRA

5. Publication of the notice of the filing of the application, date and place of hearing in the OF and in a
newspaper of general circulation

6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants, and those known to have interests in the
property by the sheriff

7. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not

8. Hearing of the case by the court

9. Promulgation of judgment by the court

10. Issuance of the order for the issuance of a decree declaring the decision final and instructing the LRA
to issue the decree of confirmation and registration

11. Entry of the decree of registration in the LRA

12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Register of Deeds

13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owner’s
duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the
prescribed fees

WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF

JURE REGALIA?
(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some
grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the
American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic
> In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the
King has by virtue of his prerogatives
> The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of
conquest

CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S POWER

OF DOMINUUM
> Capacity of the state to own or acquire property—foundation for the early
Spanish decree embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia
> This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal
Cedulas
> The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest.
Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the
Spanish Crown.
> The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law
of 1893. This law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as
well as possessory claims
> The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law
promulgated in the Philippines, which required the adjustment or registration of
all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the State

TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS

ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST
CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING—
> “ Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations
or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such
terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development
of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.”
> The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for
public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands,
as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the
exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture
or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization

THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE

1935 CONSTITUTION
WHICH PROVIDES—
> Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and
their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to
citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing
right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the
Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the
exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license,
concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the
natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation,
water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in
which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE

REGALIAN DOCTRINE
AS FOLLOWS—
> Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and
other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other
natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the
public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license,
concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to
water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than
development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure
and the limit of the grant.

THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE

NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO
WHAT HAS BEEN HELD IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
on the ground that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership
over lands of the public domain and all other natural resources therein, by
recognizing the right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands on the basis of native title.
> As the votes were equally divided, the necessary majority wasn’t obtained and
petition was dismissed and the law’s validity was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t negate the native title to lands held
in private ownership since time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of
CARINO V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through Holmes held: “xxx the
land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be
presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest,
and never to have been public land.”
> Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of
possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent
of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of jure regalia
> Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of private land title that
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State and was based on the
strong mandate extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA
recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the society. It grants
this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains
> Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective will of the people
expressed in the Constitution.
> Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to the
Constitution, and that no one is exempt from its allencompassing provisions