Case 1: Cruz v. Sec. of DENR
IPRA only affirms IPs rights over lands they
Facts: About IPRA allegedly violating the regalian doctrine
1. Cruz assailed the constitutionality of RA 8371
(Indigenous People’s Rights Act)
2. He claims that it goes against the Regalian Doctrine and
Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Consti amounting to deprivation of
the State’s ownership over lands of public domain and
the natural resources within.
3. Sec. 5 and 7, IPRA basically recognize that lands
already occupied by indigenous peoples’ (IPs) are
private but community property of IPs.
4. Cruz contends that by providing an all-encompassing
definition of ancestral domain, which might even include
private lands found within said areas, Secs. 3(a) and
3(b) (the sections of IPRA that define ancestral domain)
violate the rights of private landowners.
Issue: W/N IPRA is unconstitutional by depriving the state of its
ownership over ancestral domain and its natural resources.
LEFT UNDECIDED.
Ruling: When the SC deliberated the matter, they voted and
reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again only to have the
same result. There being no majority vote, the petition was
dismissed. IPRA stands.
NOTES: I think the separate opinions in this case are important
as the case itself does not discuss the issues.
Separate Opinions: Is IPRA unconstitutional?
1. J. Kapunan: NO.
a.
already own thru native title (owning of certain
lands since time immemorial.) So, the State is
not deprived of ancestral domain since these
lands are already considered private lands and
are not part of ancestral domain.
b. Sec. 57, IPRA only grants IPs priority over usage
of natural resources and not absolute
ownership.State still exercises full control.
2. J. Puno: NO.
a. Same as Kapunan. Said land are already private
as IPs can gain ownership over their ancestral
lands thru:
i. Native title
ii. Torens title
3. J. Panganiban: YES
a. Sec. 7 and 57 amount to undue delegation
stripping the State of its patrimony.
Case 2: DENR vs Yap.
Facts:
1. Yap Et al. sought to register parcels of land in Boracay
in their name through a judicial confirmation of imperfect
title.
2. Yap Et al claimed that they and their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the lands since June 12, 1945
or earlier.
3. But, then President Ferdinand Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82,
which made Boracay a tourist zone and marine
 reserve, which was now under the administration of the
Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)
4. Yap Et al, thought that their claim to the land would be
hampered by the new proclamation because they would
no longer he able to register the lands under their name.
5. But, in the proceedings they avered, that they can still
register the lands under their name because its
classification as a tourist spot makes the land,
susceptible to private ownership.
6. DENR, who was represented by the Solicitor General,
opposed the registration of the lands saying that the
subject lots were unclassified land of the public domain
and whatever possession they had cannot ripen into
ownership.
7. The RTC gave a favorable judgement to Yap Et al
because nowhere in the proclamation or circular did it
say that the lands in boracay were inalienable.
8. CA upheld the decision.
ISSUE :
1. Whether Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No.
3-82 pose any legal obstacle for respondents, and all
those similarly situated, to acquire title to their occupied
lands in Boracay Island.
Ruling: CA decision is reversed because the lands have not
been classified as alienable and disposable land. Also, it is of
no moment that they made improvements on the land they were
occupying. Note, Yap et al, stated that they had possession of
the land since 1945 and they also paid taxes, but their only proof
of possession is the 1993 tax declaration ( which is fairly recent)
It also did not convince the court that they actually had
possession from 1945.
1. There must be a positive act from the government
classifying lands as alienable and disposable before
registration.
2. Under the Regalian Doctrine, lands of the public domain
belong to the State.
3. All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership and all lands that have not been
acquired from the government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the State as part of the inalienable
public domain; and before these inalienable lands of
public domain becomes alienable and disposable, there
must be a positive act from the government, such as an
official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public
lands into disposable land for agricultural or other
purposes.
4. It may also come in the form of presidential proclamation
or an executive order; an administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators;
and a legislative act or a statute.
5. The Regalian Doctrine dictates that the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony. So
any claim of ownership over lands of the public domain
need to come from the state.
Note :
1. It was Proclamation No. 1064 of 2006 which
positively declared part of Boracay as
 alienable and opened the same to private
ownership. Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141[120]
provide that it is only the President, upon the
recommendation of the proper department head,
who has the authority to classify the lands of the
public domain into alienable or disposable,
timber and mineral lands.[121]
2. the 1973 Constitution provided the following
divisions: agricultural, industrial or commercial,
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or
forest and grazing lands, and such other classes
as may be provided by law,[41] giving the
government great leeway for classification.[42]
Then the 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935
Constitution classification with one addition:
national parks.[43] Of these, only agricultural
lands may be alienated
3.
Case 3: Rep. v. CA and Heirs of Carag
Facts:
1. Spouses Carag have owned a piece of land since time
immemorial.
2. This land was given to them by the CFI of Cagayan thru
a Decree in 1930 and an Original Certificate Title (OCT)
in 1938.
3. In 1952, the OCT was cancelled to discharge the
encumbrance stated in the Decree.
4. The land was then divided into 2. 1 part was named
after Cagayan, and the other one to the spouses.
5. Petitioner contests the ownership of the spouses of their
portion of the land because according to them, the land
was still classified as timberland when the Decree was
issued.
6. DENR investigated and found out that the portion of the
spouses was declared alienable only in 1982.
7. By 1998, petitioner filed for an annulment of the titles
since in 1930, the CFI did have jurisdiction to adjudicate
a portion of the land.
8. And that the said portion was classified as timber land
and is therefore inalienable.
Issue:
1. W/N the said portion of land was alienable. YES.
2. W/N CFI had jurisdiction to grant the portion of land to
the Spouses Carag. YES.
Ruling:
1. Under the Spanish regime, all crown lands (owned by
the State) were per se alienable as long as they are not
delcared mineral and timber zone, and those reserved
for public use
2. SC ruled that petitioner did not allege that the land has
been declared as mineral or timber zone, or it is
reserved for public purpose. Even the map they
produced did not show that the land was in a timber
zone.
3. Also, the law prevailing at the time of issuance of the
Decree was Act 2874.
4. Sec. 6, Act 2874 requires lands to be classified as
alienable, timber land, or mineral land. But, petitioner did
not allege that the land of the Spouses Carag are timber
or mineral land making it inalienable.
 5. Further, Sec. 8 says only those lands declared alienable
can be disposed of. However, the same section provides
that lands which have already become private property
are, in the first place, exempt from the classification
requirement. Thus recognizing the alienability of lands
in the spanish era.
6. On Jurisdiction: CFI has jurisdiction. Section 45(b),
Act 2874 states that people who have been in open,
exclusive, continuous, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain
under a rightful claim of ownership since July 26, 1894
may file an application with the CFI for confirmation of
their claims.
7. Here, when the CFI of Cagayan granted the ownership
of the land to the Spouses Carag, they have not only
confirmed their claim but also classified the land as
agricultural (remember only timber and mineral lands
are classified as inalienable under Sec. 6) , therefore,
alienable.
CASE 4 :
FACTS: BISHOP VS CA ( Private Respondent: SALANG
)
1. There is a 1652 square meter land in Subic.
2. It is in the possession of bishop and he already built
structures on the land.
3. But, it is actall owner by the Salang Spouses
because it is under their name. They also have the
TCT. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-29018.
4. Salang Filed a case against Bishop to take back
their lands. A case for the recovery of the land.
5. Bishop in there defence, stated that the land cannot
be subject to a TCT because this is public lands.
TBishop got an order from the bureau of forestry to
Also, they have been paying the TAX DEC.
6. Salang just posited that he is the registered owner.
7. RTC ruled in favor of Salang because they were
registered owners IN FEE SIMPLE.
8. CA affirmed the decision.
9. It is now with the SC.
ISSUES:
1. In the land private or public? Private
2. Who owns the land? Salang
3. Did Bishop acquire the land through acquisitive
prescription or laches? No
4. Are they builders in good faith? No.
5. What is the purpose and meaning of the torrens
system?
RULING: The parcel of land is owned by Salang.
1. It is private land because a certification of an
adminrative body ( bureau of forestry), cannot prevail
against a court decision declaring the land to be
registrable.
2. Salang owns the land because their tite can be traced
back to 1910, which is 82 years from this proceeding.
This means that the title is already incontrovertible and
binding against the whole world.
 thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once
Also, an OCT is will always prevail over the payment of a TAX the title was registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
DEC. because an OCT is proof of ownership, while a TAX DEC necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the
is proof of possession and can actully be paid by almost anyone. "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land.

3. No, because thre can be no presciption when then is a
Torrens Title.
Even if , they were aware of the petitioners' occupation of the
property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful
owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any
time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely
tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches.
ALSO, It is an elementary principle that the owner of a land
registered under the Torrens system cannot lose it by prescription.
My wordsd : In short, it’s purpose is to settle disputes regarding
ownership of land and to easily prevent new disputes from arising
because the world is bound by the registration of the land.
NOTE :
1. To sustain an action for annulment of a Torrens certificate
for being void ab initio, it must be shown that the
registration court had not acquired jurisdiction over the
case and that there was actual fraud in securing the title.

4. NO ,they are not builders in good faith because they

occupied the land, knowing or suggesting that it was a
public land and also they did not even care to check who
actually owned the land they were living on by going to
the Register of Deeds.

A builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any flaw in his title
to the land at the time he builds on it
5. For the purpose and meaning, the case cited Legarda v.
Saleeby:

The real purpose of the Torrens system of land registration is to

quite title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality
of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of
registration in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent
 Issues:
Ruling:
Case 5: Legarda v. Saleeby
Facts:
1. Legarda and Saleeby own two adjoining lots separated
by a wall on Legarda’s lot. This is not a joint wall.
2. Legarda had his lot registered under the Torrens
systems with the Court of Land Registration and was
issued an original certificate. Said certificate included
the wall.
3. Later, predecessors of Saleeby had their land registered
under the Torrens system as well. His original certificate
also included the wall.
4. When Legarda discovered the registration of the wall
under the name of Saleeby’s predecessors, he
immediately went to the Court of Land Registration for
an adjustment and correction of the error committed by
including said wall in both their titles.
5. Saleeby claims that Legarda is now estopped from
asserting the same as he failed to contest the title upon
registration.
1. Who is the rightful owner of the wall? Legarda.
2. What happens if there is an “innocent purchaser” who
purchases a land under an erroneous subsequent title?
He is not to be considered an “innocent purchaser.”
1. Saleeby cannot set up his defense on Legarda’s
supposed failure to assert his right, because if he
(Saleeby) was truly the owner of the wall, also failed to
assert ownership when Legarda had the wall registered.
2. Although there is nothing in Art 496 that categorically
stipulates what must be done when a land is registered
under two titles, the SC concluded that a prior
registration is a bar to any and all future litigations over
the same parties.
3. The title issued earlier must prevail otherwise, the whole
purpose of the Torrens System - to quiet title - is
defeated.
4. General rule: When two certificates of title over the same
land, the earlier in date prevails. Exception: “If it can be
very clearly ascertained by the ordinary rules of
construction on written documents, that the inclusion of
the land in the prior certificate of title is a mistake, then
the latter title shall prevail.
5. Decree of registration cannot be opened, for any reason,
in any court, except for fraud and even then, it must be
done within one year from registration.
6. Thus, if Saleeby was truly the owner, his failure to
oppose the registration, in the absence of fraud, forever
closes his mouth against impugning the validity of that
judgment.
 7. As for “innocent purchasers” who may come to buy the
land of subsequent registration, cannot be considered
“innocent purchasers.”
8. Note that registration under the Torrens system is a
procedure in rem and so everyone is bound to know
about any prior registration over a land they are about to
buy.
9. Under the above rule of notice, it is presumed that the
purchaser has examined every instrument of record
affecting the title. Such presumption cannot be
overcome, even by good faith.
10. His remedy should be to asked his vendor for damages
and not go after the person holding the first original
certificate of title.
11. “Innocent purchasers” shall only refers to those who
purchase unregistered lands mistakenly included in a
torrens title.
NOTES:
Act No. 496 is the law that provides for the registration of titles
under the torrens system.
CASE 6:
BERNAS vs YU HAN YAT
FACT:
1. There was a land bought by YU HAN YAT (YU) in 1953.
It is called lot 824 -A-4
2. It is in Quezon City. It is part of bigger land under lot 824.
Transfer Certificate of Title. 30627
3. YU then divided this land into 60 to create a subdivision.
4. So the TCT for his land was cancelled, and made into
60 separate lots with different titles.
5. To finance his plan he obtained loans from the bank and
then mortgaged is a few of the 60 new properties, but
the mortgages could not be registered with the register
of deeds because the lots were overlapping with another
lot with the TCT of 336663, which was owned by
Esperanza Nava.
6. Nava sold it to Mejia. Then Mejia sold it to Wharton
Resources group who was represented by Bernas.
7. Bernas Then he discovered that the land he bought was
overlapping with the land of you.
8. So Bernas filed an adverse claim against Yu.
9. Yu then was not able to register the mortgages, so he
could not Finance his subdivision venture.
 10. Yu then filed a petition ith the court for the quieting of the better title over the subject property for having
title against the estate of Nava, which had on her side presented the earlier title
Mejia and Bernas
11. The trial court decided in favor of Nava. We have decided, in case of double registration under the Land
12. So Yu Appealled to the CA Registration Act that the owner of the earliest certificate is the
13. The CA stated that the Titles given to Bernas and Mejia owner of the land.
were Null and void because they stemmed from a TCT
and the recently declared void by the courts.
14. This is why they filed their complaint. 3.
ISSUE:
1. Are the land covering the same property ? YES
2. Who owns the land ? Yu

NOTES:

RULING : Ownership is given to Yu Han Yat because he

possesses the earliest title on the property.

1. Yes, the lands were covering the same property there

was just an error in indicating where the TCT of Yu
came from because it actually came from TCT 336663,
and that is why there were overlapping.

Actually TCT 336663 had already been canceled when it was

divided and title into 4 different lots.

2. Verily, it is undoubtedly clear that between the parties

in this case, it is Yu Han Yat who has shown that he has
Case 7: Rep. v. Cosalan
Facts:
1. There was a parcel of land in Benguet spanning 98,205
sqm, owned by the Cosalan clan, members of the Ibaloi
Tribe, since time immemorial.
2. This land has been passed on and divided by the
Cosalans from one generation to the next.
3. One of the Cosalan great-great-grand children, the
respondent, sought to have his portion registered after
his siblings successfully did the same with their portions.
4. Respondent claims that he has been in open,
continuous, exclusive, peaceful, notorious and adverse
occupation, cultivation and actual possession, in the
concept of an owner, by himself and through his
predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial
5. Both RTC and CA ruled in his favor, citing the ruling in
Cruz v DENR.
6. Republic, however, contests the propriety if his
registration, claiming that his land has been declared
part of the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve established
under Proclamation No. 217 and is therefore inalienable.
Issue:
1. W/N Cosalan’s registration should be granted. YES.
Ruling:
1. SC upheld the ruling in Cruz v. DENR.
2. Ancestral lands owned by individual members of
Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) or Indigenous
Peoples (IPs) who, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous
possession and occupation in the concept of owner
since time immemorial, or for a period of not less than
30 years, which claims are uncontested by the members
of the same ICCs/IPs, may be registered under C.A.
141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act or Act 496,
the Land Registration Act.
3. Although the government has the right to classify which
lands are alienable and which are not, the right of an
individual who possessed and cultivated the land in
good faith was before such classification cannot be
impaired.
4. Further, Cosalan was able to prove that said land is an
ancestral land owned and occupied by his ancestors
since time immemorial and that the same land has been
utilized from agricultural purposes BEFORE it has been
declared a Forest Reserve under Proc. 217.
5. Native titles are an exemption to the Regalian Doctrine.
It is as if these lands were never under public domain,
having been owned by private individuals as far as one
can remember.
NOTES:
Section 3 (b) Ancestral Lands, IPRA - Subject to Section 56
hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by
individuals, families and clans who are members of the
ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or
traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except
when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by
force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government
projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by
government and private individuals/corporations, including, but
not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private
forests, swidden farms and tree lots[.]