Cadastral Proceedings (PD 1529, Sections 35-39)
any survey undertaken by the Bureau of Lands or by a
ORDER FOR SPEEDY SETTLEMENT AND ADJUDICATION;
SURVEY; NOTICES
Section 35. Cadastral Survey preparatory to filing of
petition.
(a) When in the opinion of the President of the
Philippines public interest so requires that title to any
unregistered lands be settled and adjudicated, he may to
this end direct and order the Director of Lands to cause
to be made a cadastral survey of the lands involved and
the plans and technical description thereof prepared in
due form.
(b) Thereupon, the Director of Lands shall give notice to
persons claiming any interest in the lands as well as to
the general public, of the day on which such survey will
begin, giving as fully and accurately as possible the
description of the lands to be surveyed. Such notice shall
be punished once in the Official Gazette, and a copy of
the notice in English or the national language shall be
posted in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of
the municipal building of the municipality in which the
lands or any portion thereof is situated. A copy of the
notice shall also be sent to the mayor of such
municipality as well as to the barangay captain and
likewise to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the
Sangguniang Bayan concerned.
(c) The Geodetic Engineers or other employees of the
Bureau of Lands in charge of the survey shall give notice
reasonably in advance of the date on which the survey of
any portion of such lands is to begin, which notice shall
be posted in the bulletin board of the municipal building
of the municipality or barrio in which the lands are
situated, and shall mark the boundaries of the lands by
monuments set up in proper places thereon. It shall be
lawful for such Geodetic Engineers and other employees
to enter upon the lands whenever necessary for the
purposes of such survey or the placing of monuments.
(d) It shall be the duty of every person claiming an
interest in the lands to be surveyed, or in any parcel
thereof, to communicate with the Geodetic Engineer
upon his request therefor all information possessed by
such person concerning the boundary lines of any lands
to which he claims title or in which he claims any interest.
(e) Any person who shall willfully obstruct the making of
licensed Geodetic Engineer duly authorized to conduct
the survey under this Section, or shall maliciously
interfere with the placing of any monument or remove
such monument, or shall destroy or remove any notice
of survey posted on the land pursuant to law, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos
or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
PETITION; LOT NUMBERS
Section 36. Petition for registration. When the lands
have been surveyed or plotted, the Director of Lands,
represented by the Solicitor General, shall institute
original registration proceedings by filing the necessary
petition in the Court of First Instance of the place where
the land is situated against the holders, claimants,
possessors, or occupants of such lands or any part
thereof, stating in substance that public interest requires
that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated and
praying that such titles be so settled and adjudicated:
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and
shall be accompanied by a plan thereof, and may contain
such other data as may serve to furnish full notice to the
occupants of the lands and to all persons who may claim
any right or interest therein.
Where the land consists of two or more parcels held or
occupied by different persons, the plan shall indicate the
boundaries or limits of the various parcels as accurately
as possible. The parcels shall be known as "lots" and shall
on the plan filed in the case be given separate numbers
by the Director of Lands, which numbers shall be known
as "cadastral lot numbers". The lots situated within each
municipality shall, as far as practicable, be numbered
consecutively beginning with number "one", and only
one series of numbers shall be used for that purpose in
each municipality. However in cities or townsites, a
designation of the landholdings by blocks and lot
numbers may be employed instead of the designation by
cadastral lot numbers.
The cadastral number of a lot shall not be changed after
final decision has been entered decreasing the
registration thereof, except by order of court. Future
subdivisions of any lot shall be designated by a letter or
letters of the alphabet added to the cadastral number of
the lot to which the respective subdivisions pertain. The
letter with which a subdivision is designated shall be
known as its "cadastral letter": Provided, however, that
the subdivisions of cities or townsites may be designated
by blocks and lot numbers.
ANSWER
Section 37. Answer to petition in cadastral proceedings.
Any claimant in cadastral proceedings, whether named
in the notice or not, shall appear before the court by
himself or by some other authorized person in his behalf,
and shall file an answer on or before the date of initial
hearing or within such further time as may be allowed by
the court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by
the claimant or by some other authorized person in his
behalf, and shall state whether the claimant is married or
unmarried, and if married, the name of the spouse and
the date of marriage, his nationality, residence and
postal address, and shall also contain:
(a) The age of the claimant;
(b) The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed, as
appearing on the plan filed in the case by the Director of
Lands, or the block and lot numbers, as the case may be;
(c) The name of the barrio and municipality in which the
lots are situated;
(d) The names and addresses of the owners of the
adjoining lots so far as known to the claimant;
(e) If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed and
can show no express grant of the land by the government
to him or to his predecessors-in-interest, the answer
shall state the length of time he has held such possession
and the manner in which it has been acquired, and shall
also state the length of time, as far as known, during
which the predecessors, if any, held possession;
(f) If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of
the land, the answer shall fully set forth the interest
claimed by him and the time and manner of his
acquisition;
(g) if the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last
assessed value; and
(h) The encumbrances, if any, affecting the lots and the
names of adverse claimants, as far as known.
HEARING; JUDGMENT; DECREE
Section 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. The trial of the
case may occur at any convenient place within the
province in which the lands are situated and shall be
conducted, and orders for default and confessions
entered, in the same manner as in ordinary land
registration proceedings and shall be governed by the
same rules. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated
by the court and decrees awarded in favor of the persons
entitled to the lands or to parts thereof and such decrees
shall be the basis for issuance of original certificates of
title in favor of said persons and shall have the same
effect as certificates of title granted on application for
registration of land under ordinary land registration
proceedings.
Certificate of Title (PD 1529, Section 39)
Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title.
After the judgment directing the registration of title to
land has become final, the court shall, within fifteen days
from entry of judgment, issue an order directing the
Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of
registration and certificate of title. The clerk of court shall
send, within fifteen days from entry of judgment,
certified copies of the judgment and of the order of the
court directing the Commissioner to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and certificate of
title, and a certificate stating that the decision has not
been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has
become final. Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause
to be prepared the decree of registration as well as the
original and duplicate of the corresponding original
certificate of title. The original certificate of title shall be
a true copy of the decree of registration. The decree of
registration shall be signed by the Commissioner,
entered and filed in the Land Registration Commission.
The original of the original certificate of title shall also be
signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together
with the owner's duplicate certificate, to the Register of
Deeds of the city or province where the property is
situated for entry in his registration book.
A. Preparation of Decree and Certificate of Title
1. Reyes v. Raval Reyes
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 Mateo, Juan and Francisco are the registered owners
of 4 different lots covered by 1 OCT and 2 others
covered by 1 OCT
 On July 17, 1962 Mateo and Juan filed a motion for
issuance of writ of possession over all the lots
covered by both Certificate of titles
 Raval Reyes opposed the same claiming that he has
been in and is entitled to the possession of the two
lots covered by 1 OCT, since he acquired them by
way of an unrecorded absolute sale from Francisco,
who sold to Raval Reyes his undivided 1/3 share
interest in the disputed lots.
 After due hearing, the court issued the Writ of
possession over 2 of the 4 lots covered by 1 OCT
 Petitioners Mateo and Juan commenced an ordinary
civil action against Raval Reyes seeking to recover
the products of the disputed lots, or their value and
moral damages.
 Raval Reyes counterclaimed for partition of all the
disputed lots on the ground of the sale made to him
by Francisco
 Pending Trial, Mateo and Juan filed a motion to
compel Raval Reyes to deliver to them the owner’s
duplicates of OCT which he opposed.
 Court denied the motion on the ground that the
parcels of land covered by both titles are subject of
litigation that has not yet been decided on the
merits.
 MFR was denied hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
Who between the Petitioner-Appellants or Respondent-
Appellee has a better right to the possession or custody
of the disputed owner’s duplicates of certificates of
titled?
RULING:
The Petitioner-Appellants has a better right.
The owner of the certificate of title has a more
preferential right to the possession of the owner’s
duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the
certificate and has yet to establish his right to the
possession thereof.
The rights of Raval-Reyes are amply protected given that
he has already filed an independent civil action to
recover his alleged share in the property lots.
Furthermore, he may better protect his right by having a
notice of Lis Pendens annotated on the title pursuant to
Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
2. National Grains Authority v. IAC
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 Spouses Vivas and Lizardo as owners of a land in
Laguna sold for it 30,000 to Spouses Magcamit and
Cosico.
 The sale, with a right to repurchase was recorded in
the RoD in Laguna
 The sale was made absolute by Spouses Vivas and
Liardo in favor of Spouses Magcamit and Cosico for
the sum of 90,000 (50,000 was paid upon the
execution of the instrument) the balance of 40,000
was to be paid the moment the certificate of title is
issued.
 From the execution of the absolute sale, Spouses
Magcamit and Cosico have been in peaceful, adverse
and open possession of the property.
 2 years from the execution of the Deed of Absolute
Sale, an OCT was issued in the name of Spouses Vivas
and Lizardo without the knowledge of Spouses
Magcamit and Cosico.
 From there, the Spouses Vivas and Lizardo executed
an SPA in favor of Ramirez authorizing her to
mortgage the property with the National Grains
Authority
 The mortgage was extra-judicially foreclosed in favor
of NGA due to unpaid indebtedness by Ramirez.
 Provincial Sheriff caused the notice of sale of the
property and scheduled the public auction sale. NGA
was the highest and successful bidder so a certificate
of sale was issued in favor of NGA
 NGA in its capacity as Attorney-In-Fact of the
mortgage sold the property in favor of itself. TCT was
issued in favor of NGA
 When Spouses Magcamit and Cosico learned of all of
this, it offered to pay NGA 40,000 which is the
balance due under the terms of the deed of absolute
sale but NGA refused.
 NGA asked Spouses Vivas and Lizardo to vacate but
they refused
 Spouses Vivas and Lizarda filed a complaint for
reconveyance or transfer of ownership to them.
 RTC declared NGA to be the rightful owners while CA
reversed them and found Spouses Vivas and Lizardo
to be the rightful owners.
ISSUE:
Whether or not violation of the terms of the agreement
between the Spouses Vivas and Lizardo, (sellers) and
Spouses Magcamit and Cosico (Buyers) to deliver the
Certificate of Title to the latter upon its issuance
constitutes a breach of trust SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT THE
TITLE AND RIGHT ACQUIRED BY PETITIONER NGA, an
innocent purchaser for value.
RULING:
No. it is not sufficient to defeat the title and right
acquired by NGA.
While registration of the conditional sale with right of
repurchase may be binding on third persons, it is by
provision of law UNDERSTOOD TO BE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THIRD PARTY WHO HAS A BETTER RIGHT.
NGA is a registered owner under the Torrens System and
thus has the better right than respondent and that the
deed of absolute sale with suspensive condition IS NOT
REGISTERED and is necessarily binding only on the
Spouses Vivas and Lizardo (Seller) and Spouses Magcamit
and Cosico (buyers)
Thus, it has been invariably restated by this Court, "The
real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land
and to stop forever any question as to its legality.
The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains
a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he
has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He is
then considered as guilty of fraud and he may be
compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner
so long as the property has not passed to the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value
It will be noted that the spouses Vivas and Lizardo never
committed any fraud in procuring the registration of the
property in question. On the contrary, their application
for registration which resulted in the issuance of OCT No.
1728 was with complete knowledge and implied
authority of private respondents who retained a portion
of the consideration until the issuance to said spouses of
a certificate of title applied for under the Torrens Act and
the corresponding delivery of said title to them. The
question therefore, is not about the validity of OCT No.
1728 but in the breach of contract between private
respondents and the Vivas spouses. Petitioner NGA was
never a privy to this transaction. Neither was it shown
that it had any knowledge at the time of the execution of
the mortgage, of the existence of the suspensive
condition in the deed of absolute sale much less of its
violation. Nothing appeared to excite suspicion. The
Special Power of Attorney was regular on its face; the
OCT was in the name of the mortgagor and the NGA was
the highest bidder in the public auction. Unquestionably,
therefore, the NGA is an innocent purchaser for value,
first as an innocent mortgagee under Section 32 of P.D.
1529 and later as innocent purchaser for value in the
public auction sale.
3. Cajayon v. Spouses Batuyong
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 Cajayon, Constantino and Candelaria were co-
owners of a lot covered by a TCT
 On February 1, 1995 a partition agreement was
entered into by Petitioners and Candelaria where 6-
A was given to Candelaria while 6-B was given to
petitioners. The original TCT was cancelled and a new
one was issued in favor of petitioners
 Candelaria sold his property including the
improvements to Spouses Batuyong. A TCT was
issued in their favor
 Cajayon started construction of a 7-door bungalow-
type building that allegedly intruded on the land of
Spouses Batuyong
 It was agreed upon that construction will be stalled
pending the result of the relocation survey
 Verification survey found that the lots were not
geographically positioned and that sub-lot B serves
as right of way of 6-B while sub-lot C was the portion
of lot 6-A (Batuyong’s) presently occupied by
Cajayon
 In spite of this, petitioners still proceeded with the
construction thereby occupying 20.62 square meters
of Batuyong’s lot and a protion of the right of way of
petitioner’s tenants.
 Respondents fenced their lot and demanded
petitioners to vacate their lot.
 MeTC ordered petitioner to vacate said portion, RTC
and CA affirmed
ISSUE:
RULING:
PRESCRIPTION; SUIT FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR PERIOD
FROM DISPOSSESSION MANDATED BY LAW IN CASE AT
BAR. — Petitioners contend that while they concede they
might have intruded on respondents' property, the
action is barred by prescription because it was filed more
than one (1) year after the occurrence of the alleged
intrusion. The contention is baseless. Section 1, Rule 70
of the Rules of Court allows a plaintiff to bring an action
in the proper inferior court for forcible entry or unlawful
detainer within one (1) year, respectively, after such
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. In
forcible entry, the one-year period is counted from the
date of actual entry on the land. Records show that the
ejectment suit was instituted on 11 April 1997.
Petitioners' actual entry into the property, according to
the complaint, took place on 21 May 1996. Thus, the suit
was filed well within the one (1)-year period mandated
by law.
CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; BUILDER IN GOOD
FAITH, DEFINED; POSSESSION OF TITLED PROPERTY
ADVERSE TO THE REGISTERED OWNER IS NECESSARILY
TAINTED WITH BAD FAITH; CASE AT BAR. — As a
collateral issue, petitioners claim that they are at least
entitled to the rights of a builder in good faith on the
premise that they are not the owners of the property
encroached upon. This contention is not tenable. Good
faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he
is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or
flaw in his title. In the instant case, when the verification
survey report came to petitioners' knowledge their good
faith ceased. The survey report is a professional's field
confirmation of petitioners' encroachment of
respondents' titled property. It is doctrinal in land
registration law that possession of titled property
adverse to the registered owner is necessarily tainted
with bad faith. Thus, proceeding with the construction
works on the disputed lot despite knowledge of
respondents' ownership put petitioners in bad faith.
REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF
COURTS BELOW, MORE SO WHEN AFFIRMED BY THE
APPELLATE COURT, CANNOT BE RAISED IN A PETITION
FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI; CASE AT BAR. —
Petitioners question the evidentiary weight of the
verification survey report. They point out that since the
survey was a unilateral act of respondents, done as it was
without their consent, they should not be bound by its
findings. In raising the issue, petitioners are in effect
asking this Court to reassess the factual findings of the
courts below, a task which is beyond this Court's domain.
Factual matters cannot be raised in a petition for review
on certiorari. This Court at this stage is limited to
reviewing errors of law that may have been committed
by the lower courts. We find no ample reason to depart
from this rule, more so in this case where the Court of
Appeals has affirmed the factual findings of the RTC and
the MeTC.
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF PERFORMANCE OF
OFFICIAL DUTIES; EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE
VERIFICATION SURVEY REPORT PREPARED BY A
GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONARY; CASE AT BAR. — There is
a presumption that official duty is regularly performed,
i.e., government officials who perform them are clothed
with the presumption of regularity, as the courts below
pointed out. In this case, the verification survey was
conducted by a government functionary. Even
prescinding from the presumption of regularity, what
appears on record is that the verification survey was
conducted with the agreement of both parties and in
their presence. That was the finding made by the courts
below and affirmed by the appellate court without any
wrinkle.
4. Spouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 Federico is the son of Andres who was the owner of
a parcel of land located in Bulacan.
 Andres died and possession of the property was
transferred to Federico a document was executed by
the heirs of Andres who waived all their rights to the
property in favor of Federico
 Meanwhile, A Deed of Conditional Sale was executed
between Feliciano and Respondent Mano where
Feliciano agreed to sell to Mano a 2056 sqm parcel
of land located in Bulacan
 Jose applied for a free patent and was issued OCT but
it indicated that the area of the property was 2739
sqm.
 Federico declared in his name under tax declaration
the property covered by declaration of real property
in the name of Andres
 Jose sold a portion of his land to Balingcongan
thereby splitting the property, TCT was issued to
both of them covering their respective share.
 Federico transferred his residence to Malabon and
left the care of the property to his nephew Vicente.
 He instructed Vicente to construct a perimeter fence
around the property but was prevented by Jose who
claimed that the 447 sqm. was hi property as per the
TCT he holds while Federico claimed it is part of the
property he inherited from his Father Andres
 When the matter couldn’t be settled amicably,
petitioners lodged a complaint for Annulment of
Title and/or reconveyance
ISSUE:
Who owns the disputed 447 sqm. Property?
RULING: that his lot is only about 2,000 square meters and that
Andres owns the adjoining lot which is enclosed by a
There is preponderance of evidence that Federico is the
fence. Part of his testimony is copied verbatim to wit:
owner of the disputed property
The testimony of Feliciano from whom Jose purchased
Feliciano sold a portion of Lot 1305 to Jose. After the sale
the property coincides with the observation made during
was made, a Sketch/Special Plan 20 was prepared by
the ocular inspection conducted by the RTC that there is
Geodetic Engineer Fortunato E. Chavez. It is clear from
an old fence, measuring about 40 meters which encloses
such document that Lot 1305-A representing the upper
the true and actual area purchased by Jose. Feliciano
portion with an area of 1,112 square meters was
retained the upper portion of Lot No. 1305 which
retained by Feliciano and what was sold was the lower
eventually became Lot No. 1305-A because it is along the
portion thereof which became Lot No. 1305-B with a
national highway. The disputed 447 square meters
total area of 2,292 square meters. This exceeds the area
property is located at the eastern side of Lot No. 1305-A.
of 2,056 square meters indicated in the above sale
He gave Jose a right of way at the western side 24 of the
transaction.
lot he retained for himself. This supports the theory that
In another Sketch/Special Plan 21 prepared by Geodetic Feliciano was fully aware that the property at the eastern
Engineer Norberto C. Chavez, it is shown that Lot No. part of his property belonged to Andres from whom
10176-B with an area of 2,292 square meters with a right Federico inherited the said lot. This is the reason why a
of way going to Camino Provincial Highway was the one right of way going to the national highway was given to
sold to Jose and which was also sold by him to the Jose between Lot No. 1305-A and Lot No. 1304. If the
Balingcongan spouses. This is also known as Lot No. disputed property is part of the sale as claimed by Jose
1305-B. TCT No. T-112865 was issued in the name of the then Feliciano would not have given the said right of way
spouses Balingcongan. Lot No. 10175 which represents but would rather keep it to himself.
the upper portion of Lot No. 1305 was retained by
"Settled is the rule that a person, whose certificate of
Feliciano. This is also known as Lot No. 1305-A. However,
title included by mistake or oversight the land owned by
what is surprising is that the said plan showed that Lot
another, does not become the owner of such land by
No. 10176-A with an area of 447 square meters had been
virtue of the certificate alone. The Torrens System is
made to appear as part of the lot sold by Feliciano to
intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness
Jose. TCT No. T-112864 was issued in the name of Jose. If
of the certificate of registration but is not intended to
indeed this disputed area is part of Lot No. 1305 then it
perpetrate fraud against the real owner of the land. The
should have been part of Lot No. 1305-A which was
certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper
retained by Feliciano as it is at the East side of the said
from the true owner."
property.
Anent the second issue, we rule that Jose committed
Moreover, during the ocular inspection, 22 it was
fraud in obtaining title to the disputed property. The
observed that all the neighboring lots are either square
chain of events leading to the issuance of title in his name
or rectangle. There is an old fence, measuring about 40
shows beyond cavil the bad faith or a fraudulent pattern
meters long (abutting the newly constructed fence),
on his part. The evidence on record disclosed that even
which bounds the true and actual area purchased by
before Jose purchased the 2,056 square meters from
Jose. Thus, if the old fence is followed, the land
Feliciano, he had already caused on January 30, 1991 the
purchased would either be square or rectangular like the
survey of a 2,739 square meters lot. Although the
adjoining lots. However, if the disputed 447 square
document of sale expressly stated that the area sold was
meters would be included in the land purchased by Jose,
2,056 square meters and is located at Dampol 1st,
the same would slant remarkably to the right, to the
Pulilan, Bulacan, however, when he filed his application
extent of covering the entire area fronting the provincial
for free patent in March 1991, he used the survey on the
road, which as per tax declaration of Federico, is the
2,739 square meters and indicated the same to be
boundary of his land on the north.
located at Dampol II, Pulilan, Bulacan. Also, in his
Furthermore, Feliciano, the owner of Lot No. 1305 from application, he stated that the land described and
whom Jose acquired the property through sale, testified applied for is not claimed or occupied by any person
when in reality the same is owned and possessed by
Federico.
B. Indefeasibility
1. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corp. v. Dumyung
The Republic of the Philippines filed separate civil actions
for annulment of the free patent and the corresponding
certificates of title issued pursuant thereto to herein
private respondents on the ground of misrepresentation
and false data and information furnished by said
respondents. The Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Company intervened alleging that a portion of the titled
lands in question was within its ordinary timber license,
and other portion, embraced in its mineral claims. The
proceedings on these cases were suspended until after
the three criminal cases for falsification of public
documents filed by the Republic of the Philippines
against private respondents for allegedly making untrue
statements in their application for free patents over the
subject lands were dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence. Thereafter, upon motion of private
respondents and without having received any evidence
in the civil cases, the trial judge dismissed said cases, and
ruled that respondents' original certificates of title had
become indefeasible, that they were entitled to the
benefits of Republic Act 3872 as members of the cultural
minorities, and their acquittal in the criminal cases for
falsification was a bar to these civil cases. Hence, this
petition.
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred in
ruling on the factual issues in these civil cases without
having received evidence thereon, and ruled that the
acquittal of private respondents from the criminal cases
for falsification could not be a bar to these civil cases, for,
the only issue in the criminal cases was whether or not
there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the
private respondents had committed the acts of
falsification, and the factual issues of whether or not the
lands in question were timber and mineral, and whether
or not private respondents belonged to the cultural
minorities and are qualified under Republic Act 3872 to
be issued free patents on said lands were not in issue in
said criminal cases.
Cases remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
1. LAND REGISTRATION; MEMBERS OF CULTURAL
MINORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC LAND,
DISPOSABLE OR NOT, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3872. —
A member of the cultural minorities who has
continuously occupied and cultivated either by himself or
through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of
land, whether disposable or not since July 4, 1956, shall
be entitled to a free patent issued to him for such tract
or tracts of land not exceed 20 hectares; provided that at
the time he filed his free patent application he is not the
owner of any real property secured or disposable under
the provision of the Public Land Law. (Section 44,
Republic Act 3872)
2. ID.; CERTIFICATION OF TITLE COVERING TIMBER OR
MINERAL LAND IS VOID. — It is well settled that a
certificates of title is void when it covers property of
public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral
lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the
hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be
cancelled.
3. CIVIL PROCEDURE; ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL CASE IS
NOT A BAR TO A CIVIL CASE; CASE AT BAR. — The
acquittal of private respondents in the criminal cases for
falsification of public documents by allegedly making
untrue statements in their application for free patents is
not a bar to civil actions to cancel their certificates of title
issued pursuant to the said free patents. For, the only
issue in the criminal cases for falsification was whether
there was evidence beyond doubt that the private
respondent had committed the acts of falsification
alleged in the informations, and the factual issues of
whether or not the private respondents are entitled to
the benefits of Republic Act No. 3872, and whether or
not the lands in question are timber and mineral were
not in issue in said criminal cases.
4. ID.; ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE; JUDGMENT;
PREMATURE DISMISSAL OF ACTION. — In a suit for
cancellation of title of land on the grounds that the lands
covered are mineral and timber lands, it is premature for
the trial court to rule that the certificates of title issued
to defendants have become indefeasible and that
defendants are entitled to the benefits of Republic Act
3872 as members of the cultural minorities, and thereby
dismiss the actions without first receiving evidence on
the factual issues, namely whether or not the lands in
question are timber and mineral lands and whether
private respondents belong to the cultural minorities and
qualified to be issued free patents.
5. APPEAL; REMAND OF A CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT
WHERE NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS FINDINGS. — Where
the trial court prematurely dismisses a suit for
cancellation of title of land without first receiving
evidence on the factual issues raised in the action, the
order of dismissal, upon appeal, shall be set aside and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
2. Heirs of Maximo Labanan v. Heirs of Constancio
Labanon
Constancio Labanon with the help of his more educated
brother, cultivated and acquired a property though a
homestead patent prior the WW-II. Since Constancio do
not know the formalities necessary in the application of
a homestead patent and subsequently a certificate of
title, he asked the assistance of his brother Maximo. In
return, he offered to give half of the property to Maximo.
Upon the acquisition of the homestead patent in 1941
and subsequently the OCT, Maximo executed a
document transferring his rights over the eastern
property to his brother. Upon Constancio’s death, the
eastern portion was sold to Alberto Magkilang, his son-
in-law. The heirs of Maximo however intervened in the
said sale by causing the cancellation of the said sale. No
reasons were given for refusal. Heirs of C Labanon
demanded the surrender the OCT. But heirs of M.
Labanon refused to honor the prior agreement of
brothers Constancio and Maximo.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Original Certificate of Title No. 41320
issued on April 10, 1975 in the name of MAXIMO
LABANON be now considered indefeasible and
conclusive; and
2. Whether or not the Trust Agreement allegedly made
by Constancio Labanon and Maximo Labanon prescribed
RULING:
First Issue:
Respondents are not precluded from challenging the
validity of Original Certificate of Title No. P-41320
The principle of indefeasibility of a TCT is embodied in
Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,
amending the Land Registration Act, which provides:
Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent
purchaser for value. — The decree of registration shall
not be reopened or revised by reason of absence,
minority, or other disability of any person adversely
affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for
reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of
any person, including the government and the branches
thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest
therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of
First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and
after the date of the entry of such decree of registration,
but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the
court where an innocent purchaser for value has
acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights
may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent
purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in
this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent
lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the
decree of registration and the certificate of title issued
shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by
such decree of registration in any case may pursue his
remedy by action for damages against the applicant or
any other persons responsible for the fraud.
Contrary to petitioners' interpretation, the aforequoted
legal provision does not totally deprive a party of any
remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered
in the name of another. Section 32 of PD 1529 merely
precludes the reopening of the registration proceedings
for titles covered by the Torrens System, but does not
foreclose other remedies for the reconveyance of the
property to its rightful owner.
While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that
the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after
a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party
of a remedy in law. The acceptability of the Torrens
System would be impaired, if it is utilized to perpetuate
fraud against the real owners.
The mere possession of a certificate of title under the
Torrens system does not necessarily make the possessor
a true owner of all the property described therein for he
does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the
owner of the land illegally included. It is evident from the
records that the petitioner owns the portion in question
and therefore the area should be conveyed to her. The
remedy of the land owner whose property has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name
is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set
aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as
incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring
an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for
reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.
Undeniably, respondents are not precluded from
recovering the eastern portion of Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. P-14320, with an area subject of the
"Assignment of Rights and Ownership" previously owned
by their father, Constancio
Labanon. The action for Recovery of Ownership before
the RTC is indeed the appropriate remedy.
Second Issue:
The trust agreement between Maximo Labanon and
Constancio Labanon may still be enforced.
In the instant case, such intention to institute an express
trust between Maximo Labanon as trustee and
Constancio Labanon as trustor was contained in not just
one but two written documents, the Assignment of
Rights and Ownership as well as Maximo Labanon's April
25, 1962 Sworn Statement. In both documents, Maximo
Labanon recognized Constancio Labanon's ownership
and possession over the eastern portion of the property
covered by OCT No. P-14320, even as he recognized
himself as the applicant for the Homestead Patent over
the land. Thus, Maximo Labanon maintained the title
over the property while acknowledging the true
ownership of Constancio Labanon over the eastern
portion of the land. The existence of an express trust
cannot be doubted nor disputed.
In relation to the issue of prescription, unrepudiated
express trusts do not prescribe. In the case at bar,
Maximo Labanon never repudiated the express trust
instituted between him and Constancio Labanon. And
after Maximo Labanon's death, the trust could no longer
be renounced; thus, respondents' right to enforce the
trust agreement can no longer be restricted nor
prejudiced by prescription.
Lastly, the heirs of Maximo Labanon are bound to the
stipulations embodied in the Assignment of Rights and
Ownership pursuant to Article 1371 of the Civil Code that
contracts take effect between the parties, assigns, and
heirs. Petitioners as heirs of Maximo cannot disarrow the
commitment made by their father with respect to the
subject property since they merely subrogated to the
rights and obligations of their predecessor-in-interest.
3. Caraan v. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
 Spouses Cosme filed a complaint of accion
reivindicatoria with damages against Caraan in the
RTC.
 They alleged that they are the registered owners of
the real property located in QC under TCT 214949
and that they had been paying realty txes on the
property from 1969-1993
 It was in March 1991 that they discovered that the
land was being occupied by Caraan who had built his
residential house and such occupancy was effected
through fraud strategy and stealth with the
knowledge and consent of the Spouses Cosme.
 Demands both oral and written, asking Caraan to
vacate the premises were made but were to no avail
 Spouses Cosme prayed that judgment be rendered
ordering Caraan and all persons holding title under
him to vacate the subject premises and deliver
possession of the property to the Spouses Cosme.
 Caraan interposed the defense that he acquired the
land through EOAP from 30 years of Continuous,
Public, Open and Uninterrupted Possession.
 RTC and CA ruled in favor of Spouses Cosme.
 Caraan died and his heirs filed a petition for review
on certiorari insisting that Spouses Cosme’s TCT is a
derivative of OCT and TCT that has been declared
null and void
 Spouses Cosme contended that their Certificate of
title cannot collaterally attacked thus their TCT is
valid an existing and is conclusive evidence of
ownership unless it becomes subject of a direct
attack through a proceeding for cancellation of title.
ISSUE: Who has a better right to the subject property?
4. Republic v. Guerrero
FACTS:
• December 1964: Benjamin Guerrerro filed with the
Bureau of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales Application
covering a parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin,
Quezon City. This application was approved and
Miscellaneous Sales Patent was issued subsequent
thereto.
• Angelina Bustamante later filed a protest with the
Bureau of Lands claiming that Guerrero obtained the
sales patent through fraud, false statement of facts
and/or omission of material facts. This was however
dismissed by the Director of lands and further affirmed
by then Minister of Natural Resources.
• Through a MFR, an ocular investigation and relocation
survey found out that 83 sq. m. of the titled property of
Guerrero is under actual physical possession of Marcelo
Bustamante, husband of Angeluna. Thus, upon the
directive of the Office of The President, the Director of
Lands instituted a petition for the amendment of plan
and technical description.
• Guerrero opposed said motion through a motion to
dismiss but however was dismissed thereafter. However,
the RTC ruled in favor of Guerrero stating that the
Republic failed to prove its allegation that Guerrero
obtained the sales patent and certificate of title through
fraud and misrepresentation. RTC also ruled that the
original certificate of title in the name of Guerrero
acquired the characteristics of indefeasibility after the
expiration of 1 year from the entry of the decree of
registration. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the Republic has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that Guerrero procured Miscellaneous Sales
Patent and OCT through fraud and misrepresentation.
2. W/N Guerrero’s title acquired the characteristic of
indefeasibility.
HELD:
1. NO.
the property in question, while once part of the lands of
the public domain and disposed of via a miscellaneous
sales arrangement, is now covered by a Torrens
certificate. Grants of public land were brought under the
operation of the Torrens system by Act No. 496, or the
Land Registration Act of 1903. Under the Torrens system
of registration, the government is required to issue an
official certificate of title to attest 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 what the law warrants or reserves.
Upon its registration, the land falls under the operation
of Act No. 496 and becomes registered land. Time and
again, we have said that a Torrens certificate is evidence
of an indefeasible title to property in favor of the person
whose name appears thereon.
However, Section 38 of Act No. 496 recognizes the right
of a person deprived of land to institute an action to
reopen or revise a decree of registration obtained by
actual fraud. However, the Republic in this case failed to
prove that there is actual and extrinsic fraud to justify a
review of the decree. It has not adduced adequate
evidence that would show that respondent employed
actual and extrinsic fraud in procuring the patent and the
corresponding certificate of title. Petitioner miserably
failed to prove that it was prevented from asserting its
right over the lot in question and from properly
presenting its case by reason of such fraud.
2. YES. Guerrero’s title, having been registered under the
Torrens system, was vested with th garment of
indefeasibility.
NB: The Torrens system was adopted in this country
because it was believed to be the most effective measure
to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect
their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece
of land on the assurance that the seller’s title thereto is
valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that
his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not
only be unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were
permitted, public confidence in the system would be
eroded and land transactions would have to be attended
by complicated and not necessarily conclusive
investigations and proof of ownership. The further
consequence would be that land conflicts could be even
more abrasive, if not even violent. The government,
recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system,
should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued
thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are
satisfied.
While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles
to lands but merely a system of registration of titles to
lands, justice and equity demand that the titleholder
should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the
mistake or negligence of the State’s agents, in the
absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of
manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of
the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop
forever to any question as to the legality of the title,
except claims that were noted in the certificate at the
time of the registration or that may arise subsequent
thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system
shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency
of land registration officials, who are ordinarily
presumed to have regularly performed their duties.
C. Prescription
Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions.
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession.
1. Javier v. Judge Concepcion
D. Collateral Attack
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack.
It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law.
1. Halili v. Court of Industrial Relations
2. Madrid v. Spouses Mapoy and Martinez
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
• The spouses Bonifacio and Felicidad Mapoy
(respondents) are the absolute owners of two parcels of
land (the properties) known as Lot Nos. 79 and 80 of
Block No. 27 of the Rizal Park Subdivision, located at No.
1400 Craig Street corner Maria Clara Street, Sampaloc,
Manila, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos.
130064 and 130065 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila.
The properties have a combined area of two-hundred
seventy (270) square meters.
• On April 4, 1988, the respondents-plaintiffs sought to
recover possession of the properties through an accion
publiciana filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila against petitioners.
ALLEGATION of DEFENDANT
• They acquired the properties from the spouses
Procopio and Encarnacion Castelo under a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1978.
• They merely tolerated the petitioners’ continued
occupancy and possession until their possession became
illegal when demands to vacate the properties were
made.
• Despite the demands, the petitioners continued to
occupy and unlawfully withhold possession of the
properties from the respondents, to their damage and
prejudice.
• Efforts to amicably settle the case proved futile, leaving
the respondents no recourse but to file a complaint for
ejectment which the lower court dismissed because the
respondents should have filed an accion publiciana.
• Thus, they filed their complaint for accion publiciana,
praying for recovery of possession of the properties and
the payment of P1,000.00 as monthly rental for the use
of the properties from January 1987 until the
petitioners-defendants vacate the properties, plus
P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, and
P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
ALLEGATION of PLAINTIFF
• Gregorio Miranda owned the properties by virtue of an
oral sale made in his favor by the original owner, Vivencio
Antonio (Antonio).
• That in 1948, Gregorio Miranda was Antonio’s
carpenter, and they had a verbal contract for Miranda to
stay in, develop, fix and guard the properties; in 1972,
Antonio gave the properties to Gregorio Miranda in
consideration of his more than twenty (20) years of loyal
service.
• Petitioner Bernardo asserted ownership over the
portion he occupies based on an oral sale to him by
Antonio.
• That Bernardo became a ward of Gregorio Miranda in
1965 when he was 10 years old and helped in the
development of the properties; he helped construct a
bodega and a house within the properties.
• Bernardo and Antonio met in 1975, and Antonio
promised that the bodega would be given to him in
gratitude for his work.
• Petitioner Madrid, for his part, claimed that he started
occupying a portion of the properties in 1974, and
constructed a house on this portion in 1989 with the
permission of Bernardo, the son of Gregorio Miranda.
• On the basis of the length of their claimed occupation
of the properties, the petitioners likewise invoked
Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517 (PD 1517), also
known as the Urban Land Reform Law, which provides
that legitimate tenants of 10 year or more, who have
built their homes on these lands and who have
continuously resided thereon for the past ten years, shall
not be dispossessed of their occupied lands and shall be
allowed the right of first refusal to purchase these lands
within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices.
COURT’S RULING
We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit.
a. Accion Publiciana and Ownership
Accion publiciana, also known as accion plenaria de
posesion,[10] is an ordinary civil proceeding to
determine the better right of possession of realty
independently of title.[11] It refers to an ejectment suit
filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of
the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty.
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to
recover possession only, not ownership.[13] However,
where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts
may pass upon the issue to determine who between or
among the parties has the right to possess the property.
This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding
determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the
purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the
issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of
possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership,
being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the
same parties involving title to the property.[14] The
adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of
ownership.
In the present case, both the petitioners-defendants and
the respondents-plaintiffs raised the issue of ownership.
The petitioners-defendants claim ownership based on
the oral sale to and occupation by Gregorio Miranda,
their predecessor-in-interest, since 1948. On the other
hand, the respondents-plaintiffs claim that they are the
owners, and their ownership is evidenced by the TCTs in
their names. Under this legal situation, resolution of
these conflicting claims will depend on the weight of the
parties' respective evidence, i.e., whose evidence
deserves more weight.
b. Findings of Fact Below – Final and Conclusive
A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the
consideration of factual issues – an exercise that is not
appropriate for the Rule 45 petition that the petitioners-
defendants filed; under the Rules of Court, the parties
may raise only questions of law under Rule 45, as the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[16] As a rule, we are
not duty-bound to again analyze and weigh the evidence
introduced and considered in the tribunals below.[17]
This is particularly true where the CA has affirmed the
trial court's factual findings, as in the present case. These
trial court findings, when affirmed by the CA, are final
and conclusive and are not open for our review on
appeal.
In the present case, both the RTC and the CA gave more
weight to the certificate of title the respondents-
plaintiffs presented, and likewise found that the
petitioners-defendants' possession of the properties was
merely upon the respondents-plaintiffs’ tolerance. We
see no reason to doubt or question the validity of these
findings and thus recognize their finality.
As a matter of law, a Torrens Certificate of Title is
evidence of indefeasible title of property in favor of the
person in whose name the title appears. The title holder
is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the
property, including possession, subject only to limits
imposed by law.[19] In the present case, the
respondents-plaintiffs are indisputably the holders of a
certificate of title against which the petitioners-
defendants’ claim of oral sale cannot prevail. As
registered titleholders, they are entitled to possession of
the properties.
c. Claim of Fraud – a Prohibited Collateral Attack
Registration of land under the Torrens system, aside
from perfecting the title and rendering it indefeasible
after the lapse of the period allowed by law, also renders
the title immune from collateral attack.[20] A collateral
attack transpires when, in another action to obtain a
different relief and as an incident of the present action,
an attack is made against the judgment granting the
title.[21] This manner of attack is to be distinguished
from a direct attack against a judgment granting the title,
through an action whose main objective is to annul, set
aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment if not
yet implemented, or to seek recovery if the property
titled under the judgment had been disposed of.[22] To
permit a collateral attack on respondents-plaintiffs’ title
is to water down the integrity and guaranteed legal
indefeasibility of a Torrens title.[23]
The petitioners-defendants’ attack on the validity of
respondents-plaintiffs’ title, by claiming that fraud
attended its acquisition, is a collateral attack on the title.
It is an attack incidental to their quest to defend their
possession of the properties in an "accion publiciana,"
not in a direct action whose main objective is to impugn
the validity of the judgment granting the title.[24] This
is the attack that possession of a Torrens Title specifically
guards against; hence, we cannot entertain, much less
accord credit to, the petitioners-defendants’ claim of
fraud to impugn the validity of the respondents-
plaintiffs’ title to their property.
d. Claimed Protection under PD 1517
To qualify for protection under PD 1517 and avail of the
rights and privileges granted by the said decree, the
claimant must be: (1) a legitimate tenant of the land for
ten (10) years or more; (2) must have built his home on
the land by contract; and, (3) has resided continuously
for the last ten (10) years. The “tenant” covered by PD
1517 is, as defined under Section 3(f) thereof, "the
rightful occupant of land and its structures, but does not
include those whose presence on the land is merely
tolerated and without the benefit of contract, those who
enter the land by force or deceit, or those whose
possession is under litigation."
Stated differently, those whose possession or occupation
of land is devoid of any legal authority or those whose
contracts of lease are already terminated, or had already
expired, or whose possession is under litigation are not
considered "tenants" under the decree. Conversely, a
legitimate tenant is one who is not a usurper or an
occupant by tolerance.[25] The petitioners-defendants
whose occupation has been merely by the owner’s
tolerance obviously fall outside the coverage of PD 1517
and cannot seek its protection.
Public Grant
(CA 141; Section 6, 8 and 11)
SECTION 6. The President, upon the recommendation of
the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from
time to time classify the lands of the public domain into
(a) Alienable or disposable,
(b) Timber, and
(c) Mineral lands,
and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such
lands from one class to another, for the purposes of their
administration and disposition.
SECTION 8. Only those lands shall be declared open to
disposition or concession which have been officially
delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed,
and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-
public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in
any manner become private property, nor those on
which a private right authorized and recognized by this
Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or which,
having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be
so. However, the President may, for reasons of public
interest, declare lands of the public domain open to
disposition before the same have had their boundaries
established or been surveyed, or may, for the same
reason, suspend their concession or disposition until
they are again declared open to concession or
disposition by proclamation duly published or by Act of
the National Assembly.
SECTION 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural
purposes can be disposed of only as follows, and not
otherwise:
(1) For homestead settlement;
(2) By sale;
(3) By lease;
(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:
(a) By judicial legalization;
(b) By administrative legalization (free patent)
A. Homestead Patent
SECTION 12. Any citizen of the Philippines over the age
of eighteen years, or the head of a family, who does not
own more than twenty-four hectares of land in the
Philippines or has not had the benefit of any gratuitous
allotment of more than twenty-four hectares of land
since the occupation of the Philippines by the United
States, may enter a homestead of not exceeding twenty-
four hectares of agricultural land of the public domain.
SECTION 14. No certificate shall be given or patent issued
for the land applied for until at least one-fifth of the land
has been improved and cultivated. The period within
which the land shall be cultivated shall not be less than
one nor more than five years, from and after the date of
the approval of the application. The applicant shall,
within the said period, notify the Director of Lands as
soon as he is ready to acquire the title. If at the date of
such notice, the applicant shall prove to the satisfaction
of the Director of Lands, that he has resided continuously
for at least one year in the municipality in which the land
is located, or in a municipality adjacent to the same, and
has cultivated at least one-fifth of the land continuously
since the approval of the application, and shall make
affidavit that no part of said land has been alienated or
encumbered, and that he has complied with all the
requirements of this Act, then, upon the payment of five
pesos, as final fee, he shall be entitled to a patent.
B. Free Patent (CA 141 as amended by RA 9176)
SECTION 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who since July fourth, nineteen hundred and twenty-six
or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and
cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-
in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands
subject to disposition, or who shall have paid the real
estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied
by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of
this chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such
tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twenty-four
hectares
Section 45. The President of the Philippines, upon
recommendation of the Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources, shall from time to time fix by
proclamation the period within which applications for
free patents may be filed in the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office or region specified in such
proclamation, and upon the expiration of the period so
designated, unless the same be extended by the
President, all the lands comprised within such district,
chartered city, province, municipality or region subject
thereto under the provisions of this chapter may be
disposed of as agricultural public land without prejudice
to the prior right of the occupant and cultivator to
acquire such land under this Act by means other than
free patent. The time to be fixed in the entire
Archipelago for the filing of applications under this
Chapter shall not extend beyond 31 December 2020:
Provided, that the period shall apply only when the area
applied for does not exceed twelve (12) hectares. The
period fixed for any district, chartered city, province or
municipality shall take effect thirty (30) days after the
publication of the proclamation in one (1) newspaper of
general circulation in the city, province or municipality
concerned. A certified copy of said proclamation shall be
furnished by the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources within thirty (30) days counted from the date
of the presidential proclamation to the Community
Environment and natural Resources office and to the
provincial board and municipal board or city council and
barangay council affected, and copies thereof shall be
posted on the bulletin board of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office and at such
conspicuous places in the provincial capitol. It shall
moreover be announced and aired over the government
station in the concerned local area.
Encinares v. Achero
C. Free Patents for Residential Lands (RA 10023)
Section 1. Qualifications. - Any Filipino citizen who is an
actual occupant of a residential land may apply for a Free
Patent Title under this Act: Provided; That in highly
urbanized cities, the land should not exceed two
hundred (200) square meters; in other cities, it should
not exceed five hundred (500) square meters; in first
class and second class municipalities, it should not
exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square meters; and in
all other municipalities, it should not exceed one
thousand (1,000) square meters; Provided, further, That
the land applied for is not needed for public service
and/or public use.
Section 2. Coverage. - This Act shall cover all lands that
are zoned as residential areas, including townsites as
defined under the Public Land Act; Provided, That none
of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 705 shall be
violated.
Zoned residential areas located inside a delisted military
reservation or abandoned military camp, and those of
local government units (LGUs) or townsites which
preceded Republic Act No. 7586 or the National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) law, shall also
be covered by this Act.
Section 3. Application. - The application on the land
applied for shall be supported by a map based on an
actual survey conducted by a licensed geodetic engineer
and approved by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and a technical description of
the land applied for together with supporting affidavit of
two (2) disinterested persons who are residing in the
barangay of the city or municipality where the land is
located, attesting to the truth of the facts contained in
the application to the effect that the applicant thereof
has, either by himself or through his predecessor-in-
interest, actually resided on and continuously possessed
and occupied, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, the land applied for at least ten (10) years Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, may execute
and has complied with the requirements prescribed in contracts in favor of the same, in the form of donation,
Section 1 hereof. sale, lease, exchange, or any other form, under terms
and conditions to be inserted in the contract; but land so
Section 4. Special Patents. - Notwithstanding any
granted shall in no case be encumbered or alienated,
provision of law to the contrary and subject to private
except when the public service requires their being
rights, if any, public land actually occupied and used for
leased or exchange, with the approval of the President,
public schools, municipal halls, public plazas or parks and
for other lands belonging to private parties, or if the
other government institutions for public use or purpose
National Assembly disposes otherwise.
may be issued special patents under the name of the
national agency or LGU concerned: Provided, That all E. Restrictions (CA 141; Sec. 69 and 118)
lands titled under this section shall not be disposed of
SECTION 118. Except in favor of the Government or any
unless sanctioned by Congress if owned by the national
of its branches, units, or institutions, or legally
agency or sanctioned by the sanggunian concerned
constituted banking corporations, lands acquired under
through an approved ordinance if owned by the LGU.
free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject
Section 5. Removal of Restrictions. - The restrictions to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the
regarding encumbrances, conveyances, transfers or approval of the application and for a term of five years
dispositions imposed in Sections 118, 119,121, 122 and from and after the date of issuance of the patent or
123 of Chapter XII, Title VI of Commonwealth Act No. 141 grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of
as amended, shall not apply to patents issued under this any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said
Act. period; but the improvements or crops on the land may
be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons,
Section 6. Period for Application. - All applications shall
associations, or corporations.||| (The Public Land Act,
be filed immediately after the effectivity of this Act
Commonwealth Act No. 141, [November 7, 1936])
before the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR. The CENRO is
mandated to process the application within one hundred
and twenty (120) days to include compliance with the
required notices and other legal requirements, and
forward this recommendation to the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO), who
shall have five (5) days to approve or disapprove the
patent. In case of approval, patent shall be issued; in case
of conflicting claims among different claimants, the
parties may seek the proper judicial remedies.1avvphi1

Section 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The

Director of the Land Management Bureau of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry
out the provisions of this Act, and shall see to it that such
are gender responsive.

D. Concession by Donation of Lands for Educational,

Charitable and other Similar Purposes (CA 141; Sec. 69)

SECTION 69. Whenever any province, municipality, or

other branch or subdivision of the Government shall
need any portion of the land of the public domain open
to concession for educational, charitable, or other similar
purposes, the President, upon recommendation by the