1
LTD NotesPart 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
DISCLAIMER: The notes provided herein are derived from the book, “Laws and
Jurisprudence on Land Registration, Environment and Natural Resources” (2019),
authored by Professors ASG Marissa de la Cruz-Galandines and Atty. Joseph
Ferdinand Dechavez. Consequently, these notes are specifically designed for review
purposes only, and should not be used when the subject matter is being learned for the
first time; for the latter purpose, the makers of these notes emphasize that the
aforementioned book be read in its original text in order to procure better
comprehension of all its topics. Lastly, it should be noted that while the makers of the
notes have been painstakingly careful with regard to preserving the notes’ accuracy,
they nonetheless cannot warrant its absolute correctness by reason of possible human
error.
CHAPTER 8
Applicants in Ordinary Registration Proceedings
WHO MAY APPLY FOR ORDINARY REGISTRATION OF LANDS:
1. POSSESSORS OF ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Basis: Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest 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 earlier. (Section 14 (1), PD 1529)
Requisites:
a. That the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public
domain
b. That the applicant by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
c. That such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June
1945 or earlier
Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic:
a. Section 44 of the Public Land Act, as amended by RA No. 6940, which
provides for a prescriptive period of 30 years possession, applies only to
applications for free patents.
b. Section 48 9 (b) of the Public Land Act requires for judicial confirmation of an
imperfect or incomplete title of the continuous possession of the land since
June 12 1945 or earlier.
Notes:
● If land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly.
● In a pacto de retro sale, the vendor a retro may file an application for the
original registration of the land. But, should the title be consolidated with the
vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may
continue the proceedings.
● A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of the land
held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust.
● All applicants must be natural-born Filipino citizens. However, by way of
exception, juridical persons may apply for registration of leased agricultural and
disposable lands not exceeding 1000 hectares in area for a period of 25 years
and not renewable for not more than 25 years.
Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court and ACME Plywood:
Notwithstanding the prohibition in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions against private
corporations holding land “of the public domain except by lease, still a private
corporation may institute confirmation proceedings under Section 48 (b) of Public Land
Act if, at the time of institution of the registration proceedings, the land was already
private land.
2. POSSESSORS WHO HAVE ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP BY PRESCRIPTION
Basis: Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the
provision of existing laws. (Section 14 (2), PD 1529)
Article 1137, New Civil Code: “ownership and other real rights over immovables also
prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof of thirty years, without need
of title or of good faith.”
Requisites under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act:
a. That the land is alienable public land
b. That his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of the same must be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the
Public Land Act.
Republic v. Doldol: When the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor of
the land, by operation of law, acquires right to a grant, a government grant, without the
necessity of a certificate of tiled being issued.
Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic citing Aquino v. Director of Lands: Under PD 1529,
there exists already a title which the court only need to confirm while under the Public
Land Act, there is presumption that the land still pertains to the state and that the
occupants and possessors can only claim an interest in the land by the virtue of their
imperfect title or continuous, open, and notorious possession thereof.
3. CLAIM BY RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Basis: Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds
by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws.(Section 14 (3), PD 1529)
Article 461, New Civil Code: River beds which are abandoned through the natural
change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of the
lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value
thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.
Celestial v. Cachopero: It is required that before one can invoke the foregoing rule, he
should adduce indubitable evidence to prove the old course, its natural abandonment,
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 2

and the new course. Where the creek dried up as a result of the construction of an
irrigation canal by the government or when a certain estuary dried up due to the
continuous dumping of garbage by the residents in the surrounding areas, this rule in
Article 461 of the New Civil Code cannot apply.
Article 457, New Civil Code: To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
waters.
Article 459, New Civil Code: Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent
segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another
estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the
ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years.
Article 465, New Civil Code: Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial
deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers, belong to the owners of
the margins or banks nearest to each of them, or to the owners of both margins if the
island is in the middle of the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in
halves. If a single island thus formed be more distant from one margin than from the
other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof.
registration, the character of one's possession of the land subject thereto must be under
a bonafide claim of ownership.
Reyes v. Sierra: A mortgagee or his successor in interest cannot apply for the
registration of the land subject of the mortgage, notwithstanding the lapse of the period
for the mortgagor to pay the loan secured or to redeem it. Such act would amount to
pactum commissarium which is against good morals and public policy.
Hechanova v. Adil: A deed of mortgage which contains a stipulation that in case the
mortgagor fails to pay the debt secured by the mortgagee shall become the owner of the
property is null and void.
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals: An antichrectic creditor cannot acquire by prescription
the land surrendered to him by the debtor, because his possession is not in the concept
of owener.
Kidpalos v. Baguio Mining Co.: A person or entity whose claim of ownership to land
has been previously denied in a revindicatory action may not apply for its registration, its
possession having been interrupted by the judgement of the court vesting title in another
entity.

Cureg v. Intermediate Appellate Court: Accretion from river to registered land does not
automatically become registered land. It must be placed under the operation of Torrens
System.

4. OTHER CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP

Basis: Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for
by law. (Section 14 (4), PD 1529)

Republic v. Court of Appeals: A land grant is constitutive of a fee simple title that may
be brought under the operation of the Torrens System.

De Buyser v. Director of Lands: An accretion from the sea is part of the public domain
and outside of the commerce of man.

Ignacio v. The Director of Lands: Land formed by the action of the sea is property of
the state. Only the Executive and possibly the Legislative Department have the authority
and the power to make the declaration that any land so gained by the sea, is not
necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries or
for coast-guard service.

Insular Government v. Aldecoa & Co.: Accretions and alluvial deposits added to the
shores may not be acquired by prescription. Shores pertain to public domain.

Palawan Agricultural and Industrial Co., Inc. v. Director of Lands: A public land
sales applicant insofar as the land covered by his sales application is concerned cannot
apply for the registration of such land. This is because he acknowledged that he is not
the owner of the land and the same is public land. He also acknowledged the his
possession is not adverse to the government. On the other hand, for a person to apply

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020


CHAPTER 9
Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title
A. DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC LANDS SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES
Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only by:
● Homestead patent
● Sale
● Lease
● Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
● Administrative legalization or free patent.
The confirmation of imperfect titles to alienable and disposable agricultural land of the
public domain may be done in two ways:
● Judicial legalization or judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles
under Chapter VIII
● Administrative legalization or free patent under Chapter VII of the Public Land
Act.
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE MUST
COVER AN AREA OF UP TO 12 HECTARES ONLY
➔ Applicants must by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation
of alienable and disposable agricultural land, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.
◆ Except: When prevented by war or force majeure, shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential
to a government grant.
➔ When the conditions in Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act are complied with,
the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a
grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued.
➔ The application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of which does not
affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and
the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.
➔ Section 44, Chapter VII of the Public Land Act provides, the applicant must
be:
● A natural born citizen of the Philippines
● Owner of not more than 12 hectares
● For at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6940, has
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public land
subject to disposition
● Who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has
not been occupied by any person, shall be entitled to a free patent
over such land.
A POSITIVE ACT DECLARING LAND AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE IS
REQUIRED
3
Section 8 of C.A. No. 141 limits alienable or disposable lands only to those lands,
which have been officially delimited and classified.
The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of the lands of
the public domain is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who
must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
The applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive act, administrative action, investigation reports
of the Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or a statute.
Applicant may also secure a certification from the government that the land to have
been possessed for the required number of years is alienable and disposable.
MATTERS OF LAND CLASSIFICATION OR RECLASSIFICATION CANNOT BE
ASSUMED
In Secretary of DENR vs. Yap, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative
action, report, statute, or certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft
of evidence that prior to 2006, the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants
were subject of a government proclamation that the land is alienable and disposable.
Absent of such evidence, the court cannot accept that the lands occupied by private
claimants were already open to disposition before 2006.
ANKRON AND DE ALDECOA DID NOT MAKE THE WHOLE OF BORACAY ISLAND,
OR PORTIONS OF IT, AGRICULTURAL LANDS
➔ In Secretary of DENR vs. Yap, private claimants reliance to the old cases of
Ankron and De Aldecoa in claiming that that Boracay was already an
agricultural land is misplaced. Note that, these cases were decided under the
provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926.
➔ Ankron and De Aldecoa were decided at a time when the President of the
Philippines had no power to classify lands of the public domain into mineral,
timber, and agricultural. At that time, the courts are free to make corresponding
classifications in justifiable cases, or were vested with implicit power to do so,
depending upon the preponderance of evidence.
➔ The presumption in Ankron and Aldecoa attaches only to land registration
cases brought under the provisions of Act No. 926, or more specifically those
cases dealing with judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect titles.
➔ It cannot apply to landowners, such as private claimants or their predecessors-
in-interest, who failed to avail themselves of the benefits of Act No. 926.
➔ The assumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa was not absolute. If there was proof
that the land was better suited for non-agricultural uses, the courts could
adjudge it as a mineral or timberland despite the presumption.
➔ Since 1919, courts were no longer free to determine the classification of lands
from the facts of each case, except those that have already become private
lands.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

ALL UNCLASSIFIED LANDS, INCLUDING THOSE IN BORACAY ISLAND, ARE IPSO
FACTO CONSIDERED PUBLIC FORESTS
➔ Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation No.
1064. The DENR and the National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority certify that Boracay Island is an unclassified land of the public domain.
➔ President Marcos issued P.D. No. 705, categorized all unclassified lands of
public domain as public forest.
➔ Forest, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the Constitution does not
necessarily refers to large tract of wooded land or expenses covered by a
dense growth of trees and underbrush.
➔ In Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, forest lands do not have to
be on mountains or in out of the way places. Swampy areas covered by
mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees growing in brackish or sea water
may also be classified as forest land.
PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 OF 2006 DECLARED PART OF BORACAY AS
ALIENABLE AND OPENED THE SAME TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Former President Gloria Arroyo merely exercised the authority granted to her to classify
lands of public domain, presumably subject to existing vested rights.
Proclamation No. 1064 classifies Boracay into 400 hectares of reserved forest land and
628.96 hectares of agricultural land.
B. BONAFIDE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP
Shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the
applicant himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.
APPLICANTS HAVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2020 TO FILE APPLICATIONS FOR
CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE
The latest extension of the period for the filing of applications for the confirmation of
imperfect title which is until December 31, 2020 shall apply if the area applied for does
not exceed 12 hectares. Applications filed before the effectivity of R.A. No. 9176 “shall
be treated as having been filed in accordance with the provisions thereof.”
Under Section 14, P.D. No. 1529, persons who possess the qualifications prescribed
under Section 48 (b) and (c), CA 141 may still apply for registration of title.
C. POSSESSION SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL
Time immemorial means beyond the reach of memory, that is, possession which no
man has seen the beginning, and the existence of which is learned from the elders.
4
IMMEMORIAL MEANS BEYOND THE REACH OF MEMORY, THAT IS, POSSESSION
WHICH NO MAN HAS SEEN THE BEGINNING
In Director of Lands vs. Buyco, immemorial means beyond the reach of memory,
beyond human memory, or time out of mind. Also, it means possession of which no man
living has seen the beginning, and the existence of which he has learned from his elders.
➔ Such possession was never present in the case of the private respondents.
The trial court and the public respondent based the finding of more than eighty
years of possession on the sole testimony of Mrs. Gabay who was eighty three
years old when she testified. Thus, she must have been born in 1896. If the
asserted possession lasted for a period of more than eighty years at the time
she testified the same must have commenced at the time she was barely three
years old. It is quite impossible that she could fully grasp, before coming to age
of reason the concept of possession of such a big tract of land and testify on
the same eight decades later. In short, she cannot be relied upon to prove the
possession by Charles Hankins of the said property from 1899.
WHILE THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO CLASSIFY PORTIONS OF PUBLIC
LAND, THE PRIMARY RIGHT OF A PRIVAE INDIVIDUAL WHO POSSESSED AND
CULTIVATED THE LAND IN GOOD FAITH MUCH PRIOR TO SUCH
CLASSIFICATION MUST BE RECOGNIZED
In Republic vs. CA and Valdez, it is settled that forest land or forest reserves are not
capable of private appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert
them into private property.
➔ In the case at bar, petitioner’s allegation that the parcels sought to be
registered are within the Northern Ilocos Forest Reserve declared under the
P.D. No. 338 has not been clearly established.
➔ While the government has the right to classify portions of public and, the
primary right of a private individual who possessed and cultivated the land in
good faith much prior to such classification must be recognized and should not
be prejudiced by after-events which could not have been anticipated. Thus, we
have held that Government, in the first instance may, by reservation, decide for
itself what portions of public land shall be considered forestry land, unless
private interests have intervened before such reservation is made.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

D. POSSESSION SINCE JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER
There is no substantial difference between Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529 and Section
48 (b) of CA 141, as to the requirements for original registration of title.
In Republic vs. Bbonia, even if the applications is filed under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No.
1529, the same may be granted if the requirements for Section 14 (2) thereof are
complied with.
Applicants for registration of land must prove:
● That it forms part of alienable and disposable lands of public domain;
● They have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time
immemorial or since June 12, 1945.
Relative to the first requisite, it is undisputed that the subject lots have been declared as
alienable and disposable by a positive government act on January 17, 1986. The
Republic argues that since the lots were declared alienable only on January 17, 1986,
respondents could not have occupied and possessed the same in the concept of owners
since June 12, 1945. The Court ruled citing the case of Republic vs. CA, the proper
interpretation of Section 14 (1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be
registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration
of title is filed.
As to the second requisite also in the case of Republic vs. CA, evidence on record
shows that their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
possession of the said property since 1955. The CA held that the period of possession
would not suffice for the purpose of registration of title. What is required is open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession by respondents and their predecessor-
in-interest, under a bona fide claim of ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
A CERTIFICATION FROM THE DENR THAT A LOT IS ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE TRUE NATURE AND
CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AND ENJOYS A PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY
In Tan vs. Republic, the spouses Tan presented a Certification from the DENR-CENRO,
Cagayan de Oro City, dated August 14, 2000, to prove the alienability and disposability
of the subject property. The said Certification stated that the subject property became
alienable and disposable on December 31, 1925. The Certification from DENR is
sufficient to establish the true nature and character of the property and enjoys the
presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
E. PRIVATE CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS
Private corporations or associations may acquire land, formerly part of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain.
5
In Chavez vs. PEA and Amari, the Supreme Court opined that the constitutional
provision prohibiting private corporations from holding public land, except by lease, does
not apply to reclaimed lands whose ownership has passed on to PEA by statutory grant.
PRIVATE CORPORATION MAY INSTITUTE CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS OVER
THE LAND IT ACQUIRED FROM ITS PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST, WHO, BY
ADVERSE POSSESSION FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS HAD ACQUIRED THEREOF
IPSO JURE, ENABLING THE LATTER TO CONVEY TITLE TO THE CORPORATION
Under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, for corporations to qualify, it is
required that sixty per centum of the capital of such corporations or associations must
be owned by Filipino citizens.
In Director of Lands vs. IAC and Acme, the Supreme Court stated that if it is accepted
as it must be that the land was already private land to which the Infiels had a legally
sufficient and transferable title on October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it from said
owners, it must be conceded that Acme had a perfect right to make such acquisition,
there being nothing in the 1935 Constitution then in fore prohibiting corporations from
acquiring and owning private lands.
OPEN, EXCLUSIVE AND UNDISPUTED POSSESSION OF ALIENABLE PUBLIC
LAND FOR THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY LAW CREATED THE LEGAL FICTION
WHEREBY THE LAND, UPON COMPLETION OF THE REQUISITE PERIOD IPSO
JURE AND WIHTOUT THE NEED OF JUDICIAL OR OTHER SANCTION, CEASES
TO BE PUBLIC LAND AND BECOMES PRIVATE PROPERTY
In Director of Lands vs. Bengzon, it was held that when the conditions as specified in
the foregoing provision are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by
operation of law, a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title being issued. The land, therefore, ceases to be of the public domain,
and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The application for
confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of
the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the
strength of said patent.
THE ISSUANCE OF A PATENT HAD THE EFFECT OF SEGREGATING THE SAID
LAND FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
In Ayog vs. Cusi, the Supreme Court resolved that the Secretary of Justice in his
opinion ruled that where the applicant, before the Constitution took effect, had fully
complied with all his obligation under the Public Land Act in order to entitle him to a
sales patent, there would seem to be no legal or equitable justification for refusing to
issue or release the sales patent.
Its compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Law for the issuance of a patent
had the effect of segregating the said land from the public domain. The corporation’s
right to obtain a patent for that land is protected by law. It cannot be deprived without
due process.
A CORPORATION SOLE MAY ACQUIRE BY PURCHASE A PARCEL OF PRIVATE
AGRICULTURAL LAND
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

➔ In Republic vs. IAC and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Lucena, the issue
raised in this case involves the question whether the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Lucena, as a corporation is qualified to apply for confirmation of
its title to the four parcels of land subject of this case.
➔ The question posed before this Court has been settled in Director of Lands vs.
Hermanos y Hermanas de Sta Cruz de Mayo, Inc. in said case, this Court
stated that the determination of the character of the lands at the time of
institution of the registration proceedings must be made. If they were then still
part of the public domain, it must be answered in the negative.
➔ If on the other hand, they were already private lands, the constitutional
prohibition against their acquisition by private corporation or association
obviously does not apply.
➔ The proceedings would not originally convert the land from the public to private
land, but only confirm such a conversion already effected by operation of law
from the moment the required period of possession became complete.
A CORPORATION SOLE IS A SPECIAL FORM OF CORPORATION USUALLY
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLERGY; DESIGNED TO FACILITATE THE EXERCISE OF
THE FUNCTIONS OF OWNERSHIP CARRIED ON BY THE CLERICS FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE CHURCH
In Roman Catholic Apostolic Administration of Davao, Inc. vs. Land Registration
Commission, et al. the Supreme Court ruled that there is no doubt that a corporation
sole by the nature of its Incorporation is vested with the right to purchase and hold real
estate and personal property. It need not therefore be treated as an ordinary private
corporation because whether or not it be treated as such, the Constitutional provision
involved will nevertheless be not applicable.
We might safely state that even before the establishment of the Philippine
Commonwealth and the Republic of the Philippines every corporation sole then
organized and registered had by an express provision of law the necessary power and
qualification to purchase in its name private lands located in the territory in which it is
exercised its functions or ministry and for which it was created, independently of the
nationality of its incumbent unique and single member and head, the bishop of the
diocese. It can also be maintained without fear of being gainsaid that the Roman
Catholic Apostolic Church in the Philippines has no nationality and that the frames of the
Constitution, as will be hereunder explained, did not have in mind the religious
corporations sole when they provided that sixty per centum of the capital thereof be
owned be Filipino citizens.
F. FORMER NATURAL-BORN FILIPINO CITIZENS
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship, who
have acquired disposable and alienable lands of the public domain from Filipino citizens
who had possessed the same manner and for the length of time indicated under
Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act.
Under B.P. Blg. 185, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship may be a transferee of private land for use by him as his residence.
6
Any natural born citizen has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine
laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand
square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be
used by him as his residence.
In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege granted herein.
However, if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the
maximum area fixed under B.P. 185.
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes which
when added to those already owned by him shall not exceed the maximum areas
authorized therein.
A transferee may acquire not more than two lots which should be situated in different
municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines subject to the limitation that the total
area thereof shall not exceed one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or
one hectare in the case of rural land.
Under R.A. No. 7042, as amended by R.A. No. 8179, otherwise known as Foreign
Investment Act of 1991, any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship
and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under the Philippine laws may be
a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of five thousand square meters in
the case of urban land or three hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for
business or other purposes.
In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege of the said law.If
both shall avail, the total acquired shall not exceed the maximum fixed therein.
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural land for business or other purposes,
he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural land which when
added to those already owned by him shall not exceed the maximum areas so
authorized.
A transferee may acquire not more than two lots which should be situated in different
municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines subject to the limitation that the total
area thereof shall not exceed five thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or
three hectares in the case of rural land for use by him for business or other purposes.
A transferee who has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring
rural land and vice versa.
NON-FILIPINOS MAY NOT ACQUIRE TITLE TO PRIVATE LANDS, EXCEPT BY WAY
OF LEGAL SUCCESSION OR IF THE ACQUISITION WAS MADE BY FORMER
NATURAL BORN CITIZENS
In Republic vs. CA and Spouses Lapina and De Vega it was held that private
respondents were undoubtedly natural-born Filipino citizens at the time of the acquisition
of the properties and by virtue thereof, acquired vested rights acquired thereon, tacking
in the process, the possession in the concept of owner and the prescribed period of time
held by their predecessors-in-interest under the Public Land Act.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 7

Even if the private respondents were already Canadian citizens at the time they applied
for registration of the properties in question, said properties as discussed above were
already a private land; consequently, there could be no legal impediment for the
registration thereof by respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains.

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020


CHAPTER 10
Evidence Required
A. Proof of classification
➔ land must be classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain,
hence, registrable; possession and occupation thereof for the length of time
and manner required by law
➔ If private ownership is claimed not because of applicant's possession, the
muniments of title must be submitted
1. Presidential Proclamations and other executive acts, including LC Maps,
reports or certification of District Forester or Bureau of Lands Investigator
➔ may be submitted as proof of classification
➔ A survey plan, even if approved by the Bureau of Lands, does not convert such
land into alienable land, much less private property
➔ A mere notation by the surveyor in the surveyor in the survey plan that the land
is alienable and disposable is also not enough, as he has no power to classify
lands.
THE MERE FACT THAT THE AREA IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED HAS
BECOME HIGHLY DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL LAND AND
ACTUALLY NO LONGER FOREST LAND DOES NOT ALTER THE LOT'S STATUS
AS FOREST LAND
Republic vs. Bacus: the subject property has not yet been declassified as forest land
and is not, therefore, nor was it ever before, susceptible of private ownership. The
certifications cited by the respondent court, and its own ruling updating the BF LC Map,
did not have the effect of making the land alienable and disposable.
P.D. NO. 1085, COUPLED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ACTUAL ISSUANCE OF A
SPECIAL PATENT COVERING THE FREEDOM ISLANDS, IS EQUIVALENT TO AN
OFFICIAL PROCLAMATION CLASSIFYING THE FREEDOM ISLANDS AS
ALIENABLE OR DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority and Amari
2. Legislative Acts
➔ The passage of Republic Act No. 3990, which ceded a portion of a public forest
and granted title over it to the University of the Philippines may be taken notice
and used as basis to apply for registration of title thereto
➔ International Hardwood and Veneer Co. of the Philippines vs. University
of the Philippines: under RA No. 3990 which establishes a central experiment
station for the use of the UP in connection with its research and extension
functions, particularly by the College of Agriculture, College of Veterinary
Medicine and College of Arts and Sciences, the said "reserved" area was
"ceded and transferred in full ownership to the University of the Philippines
subject to any existing concessions, if any."
8
WHEN BY LAW, A PORTION OF PUBLIC FOREST IS CEDED AND TRANSFERRED
TO AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT AS A JURIDICAL ENTITY, IT IS
COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN
➔ When it ceded and transferred the property to UP, the Republic completely
removed it from the public domain and segregated it from a public forest
➔ The law intended a transfer of the absolute ownership is unequivocally
evidenced by its use of the word "full"
➔ Full means entire, complete, or possessing all particulars, or not wanting in any
essential quality
➔ RA No. 274 or an Act Authorizing the Director of Lands to Subdivide Lands
Within Military Reservations
◆ the Director of lands shall cause the subdivision of lands within
military reservations owned by the Republic which may be declared by
the President of the Philippines as no longer needed for military
purpose
◆ All lands to be subdivided, except such portion thereof as may be
needed for public service, may be sold to persons qualified to acquire
agricultural public lands under "The Public Land Act"
◆ Provided, that first priority shall be given to war veterans of the past
war including members of USAFFE, recognized guerillas, and
deserving members of unrecognized guerilla organization
B. Identity of Land
➔ In land registration proceedings, land must be identified
➔ Survey plan of the property which shows the boundaries and total area clearly
identifying and delineating the extent of land, must be approved by the Bureau
of Lands; otherwise, it cannot be considered as evidence
➔ Without such identification, no opposition, even its own, to the application for
registration could be interposed
➔ Even if duly approved, the survey plan is not entitled to credit if the survey plan
shows that the lots sought to be registered have areas very much bigger than
those indicated in the tax declarations of the same lots
THE SUBMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF THE ORIGINAL TRACING CLOTH PLAN OR
SEPIA COPY (DIAZO POLYESTER FILM), DULY APPROVED BY THE BUREAU OF
LANDS, IN CASES FOR APPLICATION OF ORIGINAL REGISTRATION IS A
MANDATORY REQUIREMENT
Del Rosario vs. Republic
WHILE SUBMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL TRACING CLOTH PLAN, DULY
APPROVED BY THE BUREAU OF LANDS, IS MANDATORY, SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE IS NEVERTHELESS ALLOWED
➔ thus, blue print copies of the original tracing cloth plan and technical description
satisfy the requirement on the identification of the subject land
➔ NALTDRA (LRC) Circular No. 66 dated May 2, 1985 and Bureau of Lands
General Circular No. 66 dated May 2, 1985 and Bureau of Lands General
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

Circular No. 124 dated August 20, 1985 have authorized the use of diazo
polyester film in line in lieu of tracing cloth as material in the preparation of
survey plans or maps for land registration.
➔ Only the Land Management Bureau may approve survey plans to be used in
original land registration proceedings
TAX DECLARATIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY OF LAND
Republic vs. Funtilar
C. Proof of Private Ownership
1. Status of Spanish Titles
➔ Under P.D. 892, Spanish Titles are now inadmissible and ineffective proof of
ownership in land registration proceedings filed after August 16, 1976
➔ System of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is discontinued, and all
lands recorded under said system which are not yet covered by the Torrens
Title shall considered as unregistered lands
➔ Within 6 months from the effectivity of P.D. 892, all holders of Spanish titles
grants should apply for registration of their lands under the Land Registration
Act
SPANISH TITLES CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN
ANY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
➔ all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage
Law may be recorded under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code,
as amended by Act 3344
➔ Intestate Estate: Don Mariano San Pedro vs. Court of Appeals, et al.: it is
settled that by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892 which took effect on
February 16, 1976, the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law
was abolished and all holders of Spanish titles or grants should cause their
lands covered thereby to be registered under the Land Registration Act within 6
months from the date of effectivity of the said Decree or August 16, 1976;
otherwise, non-compliance therewith will result in a re-classification of their
lands
2. Tax Declarations and Realty Tax Payments
➔ these are not conclusive evidence of ownership
➔ They become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when
accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property or supported by
other effective proof
➔ It may be valuable in support of one's title by prescription
➔ Viernes, et al. vs. Agpaoa
TAX DECLARATIONS OR TAX RECEIPTS ARE GOOD INDICIA OF POSSESSION IN
THE CONCEPT OF OWNER
9
The omission to declare the land in question for taxation purposes at the inception of the
tax system in 1901 of this country does not destroy the continuous and adverse
possession under claim of ownership of applicants predecessors in interest
Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals and Divinaflor: belated declaration of
property for tax purposes does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the
predecessors were not in possession of the land as required by law since 1945
3. Presidential Proclamations
Presidential proclamation reserving a land for specific purpose/s, constitute a fee simple
title or absolute title in favor of the grantee.
Republic v. CA: the SC held that when President Magsaysay issued Proclamation No.
350, such proclamation legally effected a land grant to the Mindanao Medical Center,
Bureau of Medical Services, Department of Health, of the whole lot, validity sufficient for
initial registration under the Land Registration Act.
GRANTS OR PATENTS INVOLVING PUBLIC LANDS MUST BE BROUGHT UNDER
THE OPERATION OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM TO BECOME REGISTERED LANDS
Sec. 122, Act 496: Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the
Government of the United States or to the Government of the Philippine Islands are
alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same
shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act and shall become registered
lands.
Sec. 64 (e), Revised Administrative Code: empowers the President to reserve from
sale or other disposition and for specific public uses for service, any land belonging to
the private domain of the Government of the Philippines, the use of which is not
otherwise directed by law. The land reserved shall be used for the specific purposes
directed by such executive order until otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 83, C.A. 141: The President may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of
land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in accordance with
regulations prescribed for this purpose, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the
public interest requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads,
hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or leguas comunales,
public parks, public quarries, public fishponds, workingmen's village and other
improvements for the public benefit.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 10

THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY TO RECLASSIFY SUCH LANDS FROM ONE

CLASS TO ANOTHER eg. from agricultural to reserved area and vice versa
Republic v. Octobre: the SC pointed out that the Revised Administrative Code did not
specifically provide that a congressional act is necessary before reserved land may be
released and opened for disposition. It merely states that such reserved land shall be
used for the purpose directed in the reservation until otherwise provided by law. Under
the provisions of the Public Land Law, the President has the authority to reclassify such
lands from one class to another. This reclassification may be effected anytime and in a
similar manner, that is, by presidential action.
Patrimonial property is private property of the government. The person acquires
ownership of patrimonial property by prescription under Section 14 (2) of the Property
Registration Decree.
Two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired:
1. Ordinary - a person acquires ownership of patrimonial property through
possession of at least 10 years, in good faith and with just titles.
2. Extraordinary - a person acquires ownership of patrimonial property through
possession of at least 30 years, regardless of good faith or just title.

4. Possession as a Mode of Acquiring Ownership

The land, upon completion of the requisite period, ipso jure and without the need of
judicial order or other sanctions, ceases to be public land and become private property.
The possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law, a right grant, a
government grant. Without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued.

Ramos v. Dir. of Lands: Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of

acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would natural exercise over his own
property.
➔ Question: is the actual occupancy of a part of the land described in the
instrument giving color of title sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?
➔ Doctrine of Constructive Possession: the general rule is that the possession
and cultivation of a portion of a tract under a claim of ownership of all is a
constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse possession
of another.

THE POSSESSION MUST BE RECKONED FROM JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER, FOR
LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

Prevailing Jurisprudence:
Heirs of Mario Malabanan: the more reasonable interpretation of Sec. 14 (1) of P.D. No.
1529 is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable
and disposable at the time the application for registration of titles is filed.
➔ The Court upheld the ruling in Republic v. CA and Naguit and abandoned the
ruling in Republic v. Herbieto.
➔ The Court declares that the correct interpretation of Section 14 (1) is that which
was adopted in Naguit. The contrary pronouncement in Herbieto absurdly limits
the application of the provision to the point of virtual inutility since it would only
cover lands actually declared alienable and disposable prior to June 12, 1945,
even if the current possessor is able to establish open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership long before
that date. The Naguit interpretation allows more possessors to avail of a judicial
confirmation of their imperfect titles.

THE REQUIREMENT OF POSSESSION FROM JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER DOES

NOT APPLY TO PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020


CHAPTER 11
Jurisdictional Requirements
A. Publication of Notice of Initial Hearing
Notice of Initial Hearing must be published once in the Official Gazette and in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines
➔ The notice should be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in
the land involved, including adjoining owners so far as known and in general to
whom it may concern.
➔ The notice requires all persons concerned to appear in court on the date and
time indicated to show cause why the application for registration should not be
granted.
➔ If at the time of the initial hearing, the publication, mailing and posting
requirements have been complied with already, the court has acquired
jurisdiction over the application, even if he said initial hearing was reset,
without need of republication to a future date.
APPLICANT CANNOT BE FAULTED IF THE INITIAL HEARING IS HELD OUTSIDE
THE 90-DAY PERIOD SET IN THE NOTICE AS PUBLISHED
Republic v. Manna Properties Inc.: the applicant cannot be faulted if the initial hearing
is held outside the 90-day period set in the Notice as published, as this process pertains
exclusively to the court
◆ Sec. 23, P.D. 1529: Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court
shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an order
setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be
earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of
the order. Xxx
◆ According to the SC, the duty and power to set the hearing date lies
with the land registration court. After an applicant has filed his
application, the court requires the issuance of a court order setting the
initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing is a court document
and is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is mailed by the
clerk of court to the LRA. This involves a process to which the party
applicant absolutely has no participation.
B. Publication in the Official Gazette
PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE
IS SUFFICIENT TO CONFER JURISDICTION TO THE COURT
While publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette is sufficient to
confer jurisdiction to the court, publication in a newspaper of general circulation
remains as an indispensable requirement consistent with due process.
➔ Publication in the Official Gazette does not dispense with the requirement of
notice by mailing and posting. But lack of personal notice is not sufficient to
invalidate registration proceedings or reconstitution proceedings.
11
➔ Where there is no publication, the proceedings are null and void; the court
lacks jurisdiction, as well as authority over the whole case.
PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE MUST BE COUPLED WITH
PUBLICATION IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION TO COMPLY WITH
DUE PROCESS
Director of Lands v. CA and Teodoro Abistado: Petitioner alleges that respondent CA
committed grave abuse of discretion in holding xxx that publication of the petition for
registration of title in LRC Case No.86 need not be published in a newspaper of general
circulation, and in not dismissing LRC Case No. 86 for want of such publication.
Private respondents contend that failure to comply with the requirement of publication in
a newspaper of general circulation is a mere procedural defect and that the publication
in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
➔ Sec. 23, P.D. 1529: xxx The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of
the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and
(3) posting.
1. By publication.
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause notice of initial hearing to be
published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the
Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said
notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the
land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and "to all whom
it may concern". Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appear
in court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said
application shall not be granted. Xxx
➔ The above provision provides in clear and categorical terms that publication in
the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration
court. However, the question is whether, absent any publication in a newspaper
of general circulation, the land registration court can validly confirm and register
the tile of private respondents. The Court answers in the negative. The answer
is impelled by the demands of statutory construction and the due process
rationale behind the publication requirement.
Republic v. Marasigan: the court held that Sec. 23 of P.D. No. 1529 requires notice of
the initial hearing by means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all of which
must be complied with.
The land registration is a proceeding in rem. Being in rem, requires constructive
seizure of the land as against all persons, including the State, who have rights to or
interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication. This being so, the process must be strictly complied with. Otherwise,
persons who may be interested or whose rights may be adversely affected would be
barred from contesting an application which they had no knowledge of.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

Reason why publication in a newspaper of general circulation should be deemed
mandatory: the reason is due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as
widely read and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation,
such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested parties on time, if at
all.
C. Posting of Notice of Initial Hearing
The notice of initial hearing duly attested by Administrator of Land Registration Authority
should be posted in a conspicuous place on each parcel of land as well as on the
bulletin board of the municipality or city in which the land is situated at least 14 days in
advance from the date set for hearing
Republic vs. Marasigan: While Section 23 of P.D. 1529 is entitled Notice of Initial
hearing, publication, etc. and provides, inter alia, that: The public shall be given notice of
initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2)
mailing; and (3) posting.
In so far as publication is concerned, there is sufficient compliance if the notice is
published in the Official Gazette, although the law mandates "once in the Official
Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines." Publication in
the latter alone would not suffice.
D. Notice by Mail of Initial Hearing
NOTICE BY MAIL IS MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL
➔ Land Registration Authority is tasked to cause the sending of notice by mail
➔ Section 23 of P?D. 1529 provides that the Commissioner of Land Registration
Commission (now Administrator for LRA) shall cause a copy of the notice of
initial hearing of the application to be mailed to the following:
1. To every person named in the notice whose address is known - within
7 days after publication of said notice in the Official Gazette
2. To the Secretary of Public Works and Highways, Provincial Governor,
and Mayor of the Municipality or City in which the land lies - if the
applicant requests to have the land of a public way or road determined
3. To the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the
Director of Lands Management, the Director of Mines and/or the
Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - if land borders on a
river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the sea where a river
or harbor line has been established, or on a lake or if it otherwise
appears from the application or the proceeding that a tenant-farmer or
the national government may have a claim adverse to that of the
applicant
4. To such other persons as the court may deem proper
➔ The OSG must be furnished with a copy of the notice of initial hearing, as it is
the counsel of the government in land registration proceedings.
12
➔ Unless OSG is notified of court decisions/orders, the same are not binding to
the government
NOTICE BY MAIL IS MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL
Republic v. CA and Bernabe: He is entitled to be furnished copies of all court orders,
notices, and decisions, and as held, the reglementary 30-day period for appeal should
be reckoned from the time the Solicitor General's Office is apprised of the 1970 order of
denial and not from the time the special counsel or the fiscal was served with that order
E. Submission in Evidence of Tracing Cloth Plan
➔ One of the mandatory requirements in applications of original registration of
land is the submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan or sepia
copy (Diazo Polyester Film), duly approved by the Bureau of Lands.
➔ This is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap
a parcel of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land
registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a
subsequent registration of any adjoining land.
➔ Failure to comply is fatal to petitioner's application for registration
UNLESS THE PLANT AND ITS TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ARE DULY APPROVED
BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE SAME ARE NOT OF MUCH VALUE
Director of Lands vs. Reyes
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE RULE
Recto vs. Republic of the Philippines: blueprint copies of the original tracing cloth
plan from Bureau of Lands and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification
to identify a piece of land for registration purposes, as the property was sufficiently
identified by:
1. blueprint copy of the plan and technical description which were both approved
by the Land Management Services of the DENR; and
2. report of the Land Management Sector stating that the subject property is not a
portion of, nor identical to any previously approved isolated survey.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Hubilla: the court also deemed as substantial
compliance the submission of the following in lieu of the original cloth plan:
1. blueprint copy of the subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands;
2. technical description approved by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR;
3. a certification from DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO) which states that the property has not been forfeited for non-
payment of real estate taxes, is entirely within alienable and disposable zone
as of December 31, 1925, has not been previously titled and is not covered by
any previous public land application; and
4. a report of the Land Management Bureau stating that the Property is not
recorded in their lot and plan index cards as being subject of previous public
land application.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

IF THERE IS DISCREPANCY IN THE AREA, THE ORIGINAL TRACING CLOTH
PLAN OR THE 'SEPIA COPY' MUST BE SUBMITTED
Republic vs. Enriquez
A person who seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove the claim by clear
and convincing evidence, and it is duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the
property
F. LRA Reports on Status of the Land
LRA and Land Management Bureau have the duty to render reports on, among others,
the status of the land applied for, which could be submitted before or after judgment, but
not beyond the lapse of the one (1) year period from the issuance of the decree
THE ADJUDICATION OF LAND IN A CADASTRAL OR LAND REGISTRATION
PROCEEDING DOES NOT BECOME FINAL, IN THE SENSE OF
INCONTROVERTIBILITY UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF ONE (1) YEAR
AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE FINAL DECREE OF REGISTRATION
Gomez vs. Court of Appeals
G. DENR Certification
➔ DENR Administrative Order (DAO) no. 20, dated 30 May 1988, delineated the
functions and authorities of the offices within DENR.
➔ CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for lands below 50
hectares
➔ PENRO issues certificates of land classification status for lands covering over
50 hectares
➔ DAO No. 38, series of 1990 retained the authority of the PENRO to issue
certificates of land classification status for lands covering over 50 hectares
➔ It is important that the applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR
Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the
public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved area per verification
through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.
➔ Applicant must present a copy of original classification approves by DENR
Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official
records
THE REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, FMS-DENR, HAS NO AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE CERTIFICATION OF LAND CLASSIFICATION
Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.
Under DAO No. 20, The Regional Director, FMS-DENR:
1. Issues original and renewal of ordinary minor products (OM) permits except
rattan;
2. Approves renewal of resaw/mini-sawmill permits;
13
3. Approves renewal of special use permits covering over five hectares for public
infrastructure projects; and
4. Issues renewal of certificates of registration for logs, poles, piles, and lumber
dealers.
Under DAO No. 38, he:
1. Issues original and renewal of ordinary minor products (OM) permits except
rattan;
2. Issues renewal of certificates of registration for logs, poles, piles, and lumber
dealers
3. Approves renewal of resaw/mini-sawmill permits;
4. Issues public gratuitous permits for 20 to 50 cubic meters within calamity
declared areas for public infrastructure projects; and
5. Approves original and renewal of special use permits covering over five
hectares for public infrastructure projects.
The certification issued by the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, in the form of a
memorandum to the trial court, has no probative value.
THE APPLICANT FOR LAND REGISTRATION MUST PROVE THAT THE DENR
SECRETARY HAD APPROVED THE LAND CLASSIFICATION AND RELEASED THE
LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE
H. LLDA Certification
This requirement applies to lands situated in the Province of Rizal and Laguna; Cities of
Pasay, Marikina, Pasig, Muntinlupa, Caloocan, Manila, Quezon, San Pablo, Tagaytay
and Tanauan; Town of Sto. Tomas and Malvar in Batangas; Town of Silang and
Carmona in Cavite; Towns of Lukban in Quezon Province; and Towns of Taguig and
Pateros in Metro Manila.
Pelbel Manufacturing Corporation vs. CA and Republic of the Philippines: the
government, through the LLDA, established that the areas sought to be registered are
below the statutory minimum elevation of 12.50 meters, hence formed part of the bed of
Laguna Lake under RA No. 4850, as amended.
The fact that a few of the other estates in the vicinity had succeeded in being registered,
and that there are already existing houses and roads between Laguna Lake and the
subject lots, does not prove that the subject lots are not part of the Laguna Lake bed.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 14

CHAPTER 12 IF THE AMENDMENT OF THE PLAN INVOLVES INCREASE IN THE AREA,

Formal Requirements SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF THE BOUNDARIES , OR INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL
AREA, PUBLICATION MUST BE HAD
A. Application in Writing, Duly Signed by Applicant ➔ Otherwise, if no publication is made, the order approving the amendment is
void; the court is divested of its jurisdiction.
The application must be: ➔ If the amendment of results in the reduction of the area, no further publication
- In writing is needed.
- Signed and sworn to by the applicant or by his duly authorized representatives
Escueta v. Dir. of Lands: If amendments or alternations were permitted in the
If there is more than one applicant: description of land sought to be registered, after the publication of the application in the
- Shall be signed and sworn to by and on behalf of each newspapers and the issuance of the decree for the registration of the property, on the
petition of the interested party, without new notifications and advertisement whereby to
The following must also be stated: make known to all persons the said alterations and amendments concerning the
- Full name situation, boundaries, and area of the land, the mandate of the law would be violated
- Status relative to the publicity of the proceedings prescribed for the registration of real estate, a
- Residence publicity which permeates the whole system of special trial established for the
- Post office address registration of landed properties. Moreover, third parties who have not had an
- Whether property is conjugal, paraphernal or exclusively owned opportunity to present their claims, might be seriously affected in their rights by not
being notified, it being natural and just that they be not injured in consequence of the
B. Description of the Land rectification that is sought.
The alternation or amendment of the plan of the land in question and of its description
The application must contain: may affect other persons besides the adjacent property owners Protasio Cabrera and
- The description of the land the heirs of Gregorio Pineda: wherefore the agreement of these owners or of their
- The number of parcels and location thereof representatives is not sufficient in order to comply with the Land Registration Act, for
- The nature of title thereto there might be other persons who have a right in rem in the properties of the said
- Encumbrances, if any adjacent owners who would be injured by the diminution of the area of the property
- Occupants thereon encumbered by such a right in rem. This possible injury to them should be avoided by
- Names and addresses of adjoining owners, if known means of new notifications and publication concerning the rectification or amendment
- Assessed value of the property desired. Moreover, a third party, who did not appear to allege his right in consequence
- Length of possession of the previous publication of the description of the land, in accordance with the original
plan, in the belief that the property concerned is one in which he had interest whatever,
Sec. 14, P.D. 1529: allows one application by several applicants who are co-owners would afterwards find that the said land, by a subsequent decree of the court, has a
different situation and different boundaries which affect his right, of which differences he
Sec. 18: allows one application covering several parcels of land, provided they are was not duly informed, on account of the omission of the indispensable notification and
situated within the same province or city. publication ordered by law.

Sec. 34: the Rules of Court shall apply by analogy or in suppletory character when there
is more than one applicant covering several parcels of land over which they are not co-
owners.
➔ Thus, while there must be separate application to be filed, but if only one
application is filed, there is then misjoinder of causes of action and parties
which, if not objected to, will not oust the court of its jurisdiction to hear the
application
The transferee of one of the parcels of land covered by a single application may
continue, under an amended application, the application as to such parcel so conveyed
to him.
C. ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION
The applications must be accompanied with:
1. Tracing cloth plan or diazo polyester film duly approved by the Dir. of Lands
2. Copies of corresponding Technical Descriptions
3. 3 copies of surveyors certificate
4. All original muniments of titles in the possession of the applicant which proved
his rights
5. Certificate in quadruplicate of the City/Provincial Treasurer of the Assessed
Value of the land, at its last assessment for taxation or in the absence thereof,
that of the preceding year. In case the land has not been assessed, the
application may be accompanied with an affidavit in quadruplicate of the Fair
Market Value of the land signed by 3 disinterested persons.

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020


CHAPTER 13
Steps in Chronological Order for the Registration of Title to Land
A. Survey of the Land by the Bureau of Lands or duly Licensed surveyor
- It must be drawn in a tracing cloth plan; and approved only by the Director of
Land Management Bureau. Only the Land Management Bureau has the
authority to approve survey plans to be used in original land registration
proceedings.
B. Preparation and filing of the application for registration by the applicant
- The application shall be filed before the RTC of the province, city or
municipality where property is situated. It is then indorsed to the MTC if there is
no controversy over the land or its value is less than PHP 100,000. In cases of
delegated jurisdiction to the MTC, the appeal shall be filed directly with the
Court of Appeal.
The Bureau of Lands must always be furnished with a copy of the Petition and all Pertinent
Documents.
> If the land is situated between boundaries of two provinces, the application
must be filed with the appropriate RTC of the province where land is declared for taxation purposes,
if the boundaries are not defined.
> If on the other hand, the boundaries of the land are defined, a separate plan
for each portion must be prepared by the surveyor and a separate application for each lot must be
filed with appropriate RTC of the respective province.
C. Setting of the Date for the Hearing of the application by the Court.
D. Transmittal of the duplicate of application and the date of initial hearing together
with all documents attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration
Authority.
Jurisdiction is acquired by the publication of the application in the Official Gazette.
E. Publication of the Notice of Filing of Application and the Date and Place of Hearing
once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.
> It is at this point that the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The publication is done by the Administrator who acts the clerk of court.
F. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have
interest in the property by the Sheriff.
G. Filing of Answer or Opposition to the application by any person, whether named in
the notice or not.
> Any opposition to the application must:
a. be signed and sworn to;
b. state oppostor’s interest and the grounds of opposition. But substantial
compliance is allowed, when the opposition is unverified and the defect was
not objected to; when appearance with opposition was filed.
The written appearance with Opposition presented by petitioner was insufficient to give him
Legal Standing in Court and would entitle him to Notice, as a matter of right.
Nicolas v. Director of Lands and Camungao: the lower court dismissed a petition for review of its
judgment adjudicating the land to an applicant, filed by an oppositor who was not notified of the
hearing, for hearing that “in the first place, the opposition filed by him was not a valid opposition
because it was not sworn to as required by the Land Registration Act. It was simply a written
appearance. In other words, he failed to file his answer in due form.”
According to the SC: the written appearance with opposition presented by petitioner was
a valid one, sufficient to give him legal standing in court and would entitle him to notice, as a matter
15
of right. Lower Court erred in having chosen to ignore the law which was a substantial compliance
with the law, that requires a formal answer. In his appearance-opposition, the petitioner asserted
that the land involved in the application belonged to him by virtue of his awarded Sales Application
covering the property of the applicant and of which an administrative case had been instituted and
terminated in the Land Department on May 13, 1938, adjudicating the said property in his favor, a
fact which had been categorically made known to the trial court, when petitioner presented said
appearance-opposition, before the initial hearings of the petition for registration filed by the herein
respondents.
SC: “with these allegations appearing in the record, there was a need for formal hearing
of the petitioner for review, wherein the parties should have been allowed to explain their respective
claims. How respondents had come to court and said that they were in continuous, open, notorious
possession of the properties since 1936, when upon the other hand, petitioner claimed that he was
in possession, actual and physical, of the same properties, since its award to him, by virtue of a
sales application surely needs more than summary dismissal.
Lack of, or defect in the verification of an Opposition may be waived by the Adverse Party’s
failure to make a proper and timely objection thereto.
Miller v. Director of Lands: The requirement of verifying oppositions in Land
Registration is based on Sec. 34 of Act 496 which provides that:
“Any person claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not, may
appear and file an answer on or before the return day, or within such further time as may be
allowed by the court. The answer shall state all objections to the application, and shall set forth the
interest claimed by the party filing the same and apply by him or by some person in his behalf.”
Applicants failed to invoke this provision seasonably. Without objecting to the unverified
opposition, they proceeded with the trial, presented evidence and rested their case. Only after the
first witness of the private oppositors had testified and applicants’ counsel had crosse-examined
him, was the defect of lack of verification brought up. By that, applicants had waived the defect.
“An object to a want of verification must be seasonably made. . . . The
objection must be taken before trial . . . The question cannot properly be raised by an objection to
the introduction of evidence.
x x x”
Lack of, or defect in the verification of an Opposition may be waived by the Adverse
Party’s failure to make a proper and timely objection thereto . . . . Where a party proceeds with the
case as though his adversary’s pleading were verified, he waives the lack of verification of such
pleading.
xxx
“The act of . . . proceeding to trial on the merits without objection, is generally a
waiver of all uncertainties, ambiguities, irregularities, formal defects, or faults or defects of any kind
in the pleadings of the adverse party.
xxx
“By . . . going to trial without objection to trial without objection . . . . a party
may waive the right urge that his adversary’s pleading is not subscribed or verified . . .”
Applicants contend that the defect could not be waived because it resulted in the private
oppositors’ lack of standing in the case from the start.
This Court has already held unverified opposition sufficient to confer standing in court to
oppositors. In Malagum v. Pablo, a written opposition not made under oath was
dismissed by the lower court. When oppositors sought from this Court mandamus to
have their opposition reinstated, this Court denied the same for the reason that petitioner
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

“had appeared in the case, had therefore standing in court, and the order excluding their
answer was in effect a final determination of their rights” so that appeal and not
mandamus was their proper.
The Opposition’s Nature of Interest need not be in the Character of a Legal Owner.
It may be of purely equitable nature as when the oppositor is a beneficiary of a trust. The
oppositor need not have the legal
character that would enable him to file the application in his own behalf as long as he must have
some claim on the property. All claims of 3rd persons to the property must be asserted in the
registration proceedings.
If any claim to a portion thereof is upheld, that portion is segregated from the property
applied for and is not included in the decree of registration and certificate of title subsequently
issued to the applicant. If it is included, the claim is deemed adversely with the finality, subject only
to a petition for review of the decree within 1 year from its issuance on the ground of fraud, under
sec. 38 of LRA.
De Castro v. Marcos: The corrective powers of this Court are invoked in this to strike
down the reopening proceedings before the cadastral court below x x x to annul said court’s orders
rejecting petitioner’s intervention for want of personality to sue. The litigation commenced from the
petition of respondent Rufino Akia before the CFI of Baguio, acting as a cadastral court, for the
reopening of cadastral proceedings, pursuant to RA No. 931. Respondent Akia sought the
registration in his name of the 15,922sqm of land situated in City of Baguio. Petitioner moved to
intervene. Her interest is in the 1000sqm allegedly included in he 15,922 sqm of land specified in
respondent’s petition below.
> To give party standing in Court of Land Registration, he must make some claim
to the property.
● Roxas v. Cuevas: this Court declared that mere citizens could have no
interest in public land. At about the same time, this court held that to give a
party standing in a court of land registration, he must make some claim to the
property.
● Archbishop of Manila v. Barrio of Sto. Cristo: this Court pronounced that
although an opponent in a land registration proceeding could not show title in
himself, he was not discapacitated from opposing the registration sought by
another. Plain was the statement there that “all that is necessary to enable
anyone to exert faculty of opposition is that he should appear to have an
interest in the property.” And, so this Court added, “it is immaterial whether this
interest is in the character of legal owner or is of purely equitable nature as
whether he is the beneficiary in a trust.” Later, this Court described a
homesteader who had not yet been issued his title but who had fulfilled all the
conditions required by law, as a person who should be regarded as an
equitable owner of the land. Similarly, a purchaser of friar land has an
equitable title to the land before the issuance of the patent.
● Pitargue v. Sorilla: laid down the principle that a bona fide applicant of public
land may protect his right of possession and sue for forcible entry or unlawful
detainer or pursue any suitable remedy provided by law. Indeed, an awardee in
a sales application is authorized to take possession of the land to enable him
to comply with the requirements of the award before title can be issued.
● Diaz v. Macalinao: that a homestead entry segregates the homestead from
the public domain and divests the Director of Lands of control and possession
thereof except if the homestead application is finally disapproved and the entry
annulled or revoked.
● Heirs of Pelagio Zara v. Director of Lands: Persons who claim to be in
possession of a tract of public land and have applied with the Bureau of Lands
for its purchase have the necessary personality to oppose registration.
16
● Director of Lands v. CA: Award under a sales application has “the effect of
withdrawing the lands of the public domain that were disposable by the
Director of Lands.
● Under RA No, 931, the petition for reopening is narrowed down by the specific
conditions therein set forth. It bears repetition to say that said petition is
possible “only with respect to such of said parcels of land as have not been
alienated, reserved, leased, granted or otherwise provisionally or permanently
disposed of by the Government. The statute made it abundantly clear that
judicial proceedings shall be reopened only, if the cadastral court shall find that
all conditions herein established have been complied with.” Thus it is, that the
alienation, reservation, lease, grant or any provisional or permanent
disposition by the government of the land claimed should suffice to bar
reopening.
Petitioner de Castro here, it must be recalled, is an awardee in the public bidding held upon her
own township sales application. Of course, the award up to now has been fully implemented
because she has not yet with the one condition imposed on her. But if the award is not a permanent
disposition, it is at least a provisional, one enough to prevent reopening by respondent Akia as to
the land disputed.
Petition who may file opposition.
A homesteader who is qualified to be issued a patent may file an opposition. Likewise, a
purchaser of friar land before the patent is issued, an awardee of sales application or an applicant
for sales patent may file an opposition. Once an opposition is filed, no default may be entered
against the one who filed the opposition, even if he failed to appear during initial hearing.
Director of Lands v. Santiago: the SC quoted Sec. 34 of LRA, and as
adopted in Sec. 151 of the Public Land
Act:
“Any person claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not, may
appear and file an answer
on or before the return day, or within such further time as may be allowed by
the court. The answer
shall state all the objections to the application, and shall set forth the interest
claimed by the party
filing the same and apply for the remedy desired, and shall be signed and
sworn to by him or by
some person in his behalf.
It appears on February 19, 1974 or prior to the issuance of the Notice of Initial
Hearing, an opposition was filed
by the petitioner Director of Lands to the original application for the land
registration of respondent Garcia. That verified opposition was precisely the
answer referred to in the above quoted section, for as therein alleged by the
Director of Lands, neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest
possess sufficient title to acquire ownership in fee simple of the parcels of land
applied for; neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest, have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the
lands in question have been for at least 30 years immediately preceding the
filing of the present application; that the said parcels of land are a portion of the
public domain belong to the Philippines, and that therefore, the same should
be declared part of the public domain. As a matter of fact, under the Property
Registration Decree, is sued on June 11, 1978, which supersedes all other
laws relative to registration of property, the word used is “opposition” and not
“answer.”
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

If an opposition or answer is filed based on substantial ground, it was impropert for the
Judge to declare the oppositor in default because he failed to appear on the day set for the
Initial Hearing.
The pertinent provision of law which states: “If no person appears and answers within the
time allowed, the court may at once upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary
appearing, order a general default to be recorded …,” cannot interpreted to mean that the court can
just disregard the answer before it, which has long been filed, for such an interpretation would be
nothing less than illogical, unwarranted, and unjust. Had the law intended that failure of the
oppositor to appear on the date of the initial hearing would be a ground for default despite his
having filed answer, it would have been so stated in unmistakable terms, considering the serious
consequences of an order of default.. Especially in this case where the greater public interest is
involved as the land received the applicant’s evidences and set another date for the reception of
the oppositor’s evidence. the oppositor in the Court below and petitioner herein should have been
accorded ample opportunity to establish the government’s claim.”
Private Persons may not file an opposition on behalf of the Government.
In such a case, they do not have personality because the land belongs to the State;
simply put private persons cannot represent the interest of the government.
● Roxas v. Cuevas: In order that an application for registration of the title of
ownership in the Court of Land Registration may be objected to, pursuant to
the provisions of Act No. 496, the opposition must be based on the right of
dominion or some other real right opposed to the adjudication or recognition of
the absolute; and if none such rights of the respondent have been injured by
the judgment, he cannot have, on his part the right to appeal from the said
judgment, whatever it may be, as neither the said act nor any other law on this
matter grants anyone the right to appeal on behalf of another party and not in
his own name and by reason of his own interest. It is only the legal personal
right of the respondent, prejudiced by the judgment of the lower court, that can
be considered by this court upon appeal. No right of their own being claimed by
the respondent, and inasmuch as the decision they seek from this court is one
declaring that the land adjudicated by the lower court is the property of the
Government, there is no way for his court to consider and decide as to a right
which has not been claimed in the appeal by the party prejudiced, which in the
present case would be the Insular government represented by the Attorney-
General, who has not appealed from the said judgment.
Even if the Government does not Oppose, the applicant is still bound to prove his title.
The government may oppose, as the land is presumed to be owned by the State. The
applicant is not assured of a favorable decree if he fails to prove his title.
● Republic v. Sayo: it appears that the principal document relied upon and
presented by the applicants for registration, to prove the private character of
the large tract of land subject of their application, was a photocopy of a
certification of the National dated August 16, 1932 to the effect according to the
Government’s (Estadistica de Propiedades) of Isabela issued in 1896, the
property in question was registered under the Spanish system of land
registration as private property of Don Liberato Bayaua. However, the SC ruled
that Spanish document, the (Estadistica de Propiedades) cannot be
considered a title to property, it not being one of the grants made during the
Spanish regime, and obviously not constituting primary evidence of ownership.
It is an inefficacious document on which to base any finding of the private
character of the land in question.
Motion to Dismiss
Motion to dismiss is proper in land registration proceedings as when the land applied for
was already litigated and declared as being owned by the movant.
17
● Valisno v. Plan: the SC held that the Land Registration Act does not provide
for a pleading similar or corresponding to a motion to dismiss. Rule 132 of
Rules of Court, however, allows the application of the rules contained therein in
land registration proceedings in a suppletory character or whenever practicable
and convenient.
A Motion to Dismiss is Proper, if it is shown that the court did not have Jurisdiction over the
land that had been previously registered in the name of the movant.
● Duran v. Oliva: the SC sustained the dismissal of the application for
registration of therein appellants upon a motion to dismiss filed by five
oppositors, it having been indubitable shown that the court a quo did not have
jurisdiction over the res as the lands sought to be registered in appellants’
name had previously been registered in the names of the oppositors. To have
allowed the registration proceeding to run its usual course would have been a
mere exercise in futility.
○ Opposition partakes of the nature of an answer with a counterclaim.
In ordinary civil cases, the counterclaim would be considered a
complaint, this time with the original defendant in the counterclaim
may either answer the counterclaim or be declared in default, or may
file a motion to dismiss the same. The latter choice was what
respondent opted for. Although as we have earlier said, such
situation rarely, if ever, happens in land registration cases, the
irregularity that petitioner complain of stems basically from the
infrequent use of a motion to dismiss in land registration cases, the
irregularity that in land registration cases, not from being unauthorize.
The CFI has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already decreed in an
earlier land registration case and a second decree for the same land is null and void. This is
because when once decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land thus
determined is already a res judicata binding on the whole world. Registration of the property in the
name of first registered owner in the Registration Book is a standing notice to the world that said
property is already registered in his name.
Default
In case, no opposition is filed, then the allegations in the application are deemed
admitted by the purported claimant. The Claimant is deemed to have forever lost his right in the
land. Failure of the plaintiff, if he ever had any interest or title in said land, to appear and oppose
the registration of the same or to question the registration in his name during a period of one year
after the certificate of title had been issued, operates to exclude him forever from questioning the
title under the Torrens system.
The failure of the plaintiff and her husband, despite notice of publication and posting by the
sheriff of the notice of hearing, to oppose the defendant’s application for registration will bar
them from questioning the action of the Court on the application.
● Esconde v. Barlongay: Land registration proceedings in rem is valid and
conclusive against the whole world. The failure of the plaintiff and her husband,
despite notice of publication and posting by the sheriff of the notice of hearing,
to oppose the defendant’s application for registration will bar them from
questioning the action of the Court on the application. Under Section 38 of Act
496, every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto. It
shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular
Government and all the branches whether mentioned by name in the
application, notice or citation or included in the general description, “To all
whom it may concern.”
○ When a decree of registration has been obtained by fraud, the party
defrauded has only one year from entry of the decree to file a
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

petition for review before a competent court, provided that the land
has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value. Said
Sec. 38 categorically declares that “upon the expiration of the said
term of 1 year, every decree or certificate of title issued in
accordance with this section shall be inconvertible.
■ Claimant having failed to present his answer or objection
to the registration of a parcel of land under the Torrens
System or to question the validity of such registration
within a period of 1 year after the certificate of title had
been issued, had forever lost his right in said land even
granting that he had any right therein.
A Default Order shall be entered against those who did not file answer/opposition
A defaulted party loses standing in court. However, a default order may be
lifted upon motion filed before judgment. A defaulted party cannot claim that it is bound by the
judgment, as the proceedings are in rem.
● Cachero v. Marzan: the SC ruled that Genovas were and are
bound by the order of default issued in Land Reg. Case No. N-824, a
proceeding undoubtedly in rem in character. The default order was
entered “against the whole world,” with the exception of the parties
who had appeared and filed pleadings in the registration case. The
Genovas were charged with knowledge of the Cacheros’ application
since notice of the application since notice of the application had
been published in accordance with the law. They could and should
have taken part in case the to assert and prove their rights over the
property subject thereof. The fact that they did not, cannot operate to
exclude them from the binding effects of the in rem judgment
rendered in the proceedings.
● Director v. CA and Carino: Notwithstanding absence of opposition
from the government, the petitioner In Land Registration is not
relieved of the burden of proving the Imperfect Right or Title over the
land. Possession of public lands, however long, never confers title
upon the possessor, unless the occupant can prove possession or
occupation of the same under the claim of ownership for the required
period to constitute a grant from the State. Petitioner is necessarily
entitled to have the land registered under the Torrens system simply
because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the
registration of his land. He mut show, even though there is no
opposition, to the satisfaction of the Court, that he is the absolute
owner in fee simple. Courts may deny the registration of the land
even in the absence of opposition, upon the ground that the facts
presented did not show that the petitioner is the owner, in fee simple,
of the land which he is attempting to have registered.
H. Hearing of the Case by the Court and presentation of evidence.
Republication or amendment of technical description of land is necessary when
there is substantial increase of the area of the land. If increase is merely minimal, no republication
is needed. Only in cases where the original survey plan is amended during the registration
proceedings by the addition of lands not previously included in the original plan should publication
be made in order to confer jurisdiction on the court to order the registration of the area that was
added after the publication of the original plan.
Once the Registration court has acquired Jurisdiction over a certain parcel of land, that
Jurisdiction attaches to the land described in the application.
If it is later shown that the decree of registration had included land or lands not
included in the original application as published, then the registration proceedings and the decree
18
of registration must be declared null and void in so far - but only in so far - as the land not included
in the publication is concerned.
The burden of proof is on the applicant because the presumption is that all Lands belong to
the State.
● Director of Lands v. CA and Manlapaz: the SC emphasized that
the burden is on the applicant to prove his positive averments and
not for the government or the private oppositors to establish a
negative proposition insofar as the applicants’ specific lots are
concerned.
Land Registration Courts have the authority to act not only on applications for original
registration but also over all petitions filed after the original registration of title, with power
to hear and determine all questions arising upon such application.
I. Promulgation of judgment by the Court.
Land registration court may decided not only non-controversial
issues but contentious issues. Under Sec. 2 of PD No. 1529, it is
now provided that CFI shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of titles to lands, including
improvement and interest therein and over all petitions filed after
original registration of title with power to hear and determine all
questions arising from such petitions.”
● Ligon v. CA: When Iglesia ni Kristo filed a motion for
issuance of an order from the same court to compel the
holder of the duplicate certificates of title to surrender the
same to the Register of Deeds for registration of the deed
of sale subject of the principal action, the motion was a
necessary incident to the main case. When the sale of the
property was upheld by the court in it judgment and the
defendant was directed to comply with its terms and
conditions, the right of INK to have the same registered
with the Register of Deeds could not be disregarded. To
assert and enjoy its rights, INK should be allowed to seek
the aid of the court to direct the surrender of the certificate
of title. Since RTC are courts of general jurisdiction, they
may therefore take cognizance of this case pursuant to
such jurisdiction.
● Even while Sec. 107 of PD No. 1529 speaks of a petition
which can be filed by one who wants to compel another to
surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does not
preclude a party to a pending case to include as incident
therein the relief stated under Sec. 107, especially if the
subject certificates of the title to be surrendered are
intimately connected with the subject matter of the
principal action.
● Period for appeal from the final decision shall be fifteen
days from notice of the said decision appealed from.
Unlike Ordinary Civil Actions, adjudication of land in Cadastral or Land Registration
Proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the
expiration of one year after the entry of final decree of registration.
The LRA and Land Management Bureau have the duty to render reports the
status of the land applied for, which could be submitted before or after judgment, but not beyond
the lapse of the 1 year from the issuance of the decree.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

● Gomez v. CA: Unlike Ordinary Civil Actions, adjudication
of land in Cadastral or Land Registration Proceeding does
not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until
after the expiration of one year after the entry of final
decree of registration. As long as a final decree has not
been entered by the NLTDRA and the period of 1 year has
not elapsed from the date of such decree, the title is not
finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration
proceeding continues to be under the control and sound
discretion of the court rendering it.
○ Land registration officials may extend period
even after its finality but not beyond lapse of one
year from the entry of decree.
The doctrine of Res Judicata in Land Registration and Cadastral Proceedings.
● Vencilao v. Vano: SC held that a final judgment or order
on the merits rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the
subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a
subsequent case between the same parties and their
successors in interest litigating upon the same thing and
issue regardless of how erroneous it may be.
○ Requisites of Res Judicata:
1. Former judgment must be final
2. It must have been rendered by the
court having jurisdiction of the subject
matter and of the parties.
3. It must be a judgment on the merits.
4. There must be, between the first and
second actions, identity of parties, of
subject matter and of cause of action.
○ Identity of parties means that the parties in the
second case must be the same parties in the
first case or must be successors in interest by
the title subsequent to the commencement of
the former action or proceeding, or when the
parties in the subsequent case are heirs.
Judgment of Dismissal of an application is not res judicata and the successful applicant
may file another proceeding for the registration of the same land.
● Director of Lands v. CA and Manlapaz: SC declared that
decision in a cadastral case does not constitute a bar to
the application of respondent Pastor, because a decision
in a cadastral proceedings is not the final decree
contemplated in Sec. 38 and 40 of LRA.
● Judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public does not
preclude even the same applicant from subsequently
seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land
provided he complies with the provisions of Sec. 48 of CA
No. 141 and as long as land remains alienable and
disposable.
● Henson v. Director of Lands: Interest rei pibllicae ut finis
si litium. However when reference is had to the purpose
and practical application of the LRA, considerations of
public interest will be found largely to the preponderate in
favor of the doctrine in this case. To hold that a decree
dismissing an application for registration of a parcel of land
19
precludes the applicant and his successors from renewing
the application, if the party who opposed the original
proceeding or his successor see fit to make further
objection, would lead to consequences much impairing the
usefulness of the system of registration by the LRA.
When the decision Attains Finality, the Court directs the issuance of decree of registration.
J. Issuance of an order by the court declaring the judgment final and instructing
the LRA to issue the decree of registration in accordance with Section 39 of P.D. No. 1529.
● Marcos v. Banuvar: SC held that “decision having
become final and executory, it devolved on both the
respondent court and LRCommission to cause the
issuance of a decree to the person adjudged entitled to
registration that is, as ordained, “el registro del lote No. 1,
con todas sus mejoras, y con excepcion de las citadas
mejoras pertenecientes al opositor Cristobal Marcos” in
favor of the applicant La Urban Inc., or its successor or
private respondent De Banuvar. While the requirement in
the decision leaves something yet to be done, it does not
detract from the finality of the decision because the
segregation adverted to refers to a defined and delimited
portion of the said parcel and may be accomplished
anytime after decision became final and executory.
The Court retains jurisdiction over the case even after the lapse of the
appeal period but not beyond 1 year from period of Issuance and entry of Decree
of Registration.
Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in cadastral or land
registration proceeding does not become final in the sense of incontrovertibility until after
the expiration of o1 year after the entry of the final decree of registration. This Court, held
that as long as a final decree has not been entered by the LRC(NLTDRA) and the period
of 1 year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally
adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceedings continues to be under control
and sound discretion of the court rendering it. As long as the final decree issued and the
1 year period has not yet lapsed, the court may, upon notice and hearing, set aside the
decision and adjudicate the land to another with a better right.
● Cayanan v. De Los Santos: It was error for the lower
court to deny the above petition and to require the filing of
ordinary civil action by petitioners-appellants in order to
test the validity of such transfer to one allegedly not an
innocent purchaser for value.
The Decree of Registration may be reviewed on the ground of Fraud and petition on that
ground must be filed within 1 year from Entry of the Decree.
K. Entry of the Decree of registration in LRA.
It is not the Court but the LRA which issues the decree of confirmation and
registration. 1 year after issuance of the decree, it becomes inconvertible and amendments of the
same will not be allowed except reviewed on the ground of fraud and petition on that ground must
be filed within 1 year from entry of the decree.
A Torrens Title issued on the Basis of a Judgment that is not Final is Nullity.
the duty of the LRA to issue a decree of registration is not ministerial.
A certificate of title issued when judgment is pending appeal is void, as a decree of registration is
issued only when the decision adjudicating the land becomes final and executory.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

● Director of Lands v. Reyes: SC ruled that execution
pending appeal is not applicable in land registration
proceeding. It is fraught with dangerous consequences. A
Torrens Title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not
final is nullity, as it is violative of the explicit provisions of
LRA which requires that decree shall be issued only after
the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and
executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the
Register of Deeds concerned issues the corresponding
certificate of title. Consequently, the lower court acted
without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering
the issuance of a decree of registration despite the appeal
timely taken from the entire decision a quo.
After the expiration of the 1 year period, the Certificate of Title Becomes indefeasible.
This rule applies only to holder of a title in good faith; if the holder of
title is in bad faith, and land has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, then he may be
compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner.
● National Grains Authority v. IAC: Proceedings for
registration of title to land under Torrens system is an
action in rem not in personam, hence, personal notice to
all claimants of the res is not necessary in order that the
court may have jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the
res. Neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or
invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration
proceeding, for the State, as sovereign over land situated
within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a
proceeding in rem or one in the nature of or akin to
proceeding in rem which shall be binding upon all persons,
known or unknown. It is thus evident that respondents’
right over the property was barred by res judicata when
the decree of registration was issued to spouses Vivas
and Lizardo. It does not matter that they may have had
some right even the right of ownership, BEFORE the grant
of the Torrens Title.
Indirect or Collateral Attack on a Torrens Title is not allowed.
The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop
forever any question as to its legality.
“Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals
of the court, or sitting on the “mirador su casato,” to avoid the possibility of losing his land. “An
indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is not allowed.”
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.
All persons dealing with Property Covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title are not required
to go beyond what appears on the face of the title.
Where there is nothing on the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in
the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance there on, the purchaser is not required to
explore further than what the torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or
inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto.
The Court has ruled that a bank is not required before accepting a mortgage to
make an investigation of the title of the property being given as security, and where innocent third
20
person like mortgagee relying on the certificate of title acquire rights over the property, their rights
cannot be disregarded.
Issuance of a Decree of Registration is part of the Judicial Function of the
Courts and it is not a mere ministerial act that may be compelled through mandamus.
● Adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral case does not
become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of 1 year after
the entry of final decree. Within this period of 1 year, the decree may
be reopened on the ground of fraud and the decree may be set aside
and the land adjudicated to another party. As long as the final decree
is not issued and the period of 2 year within which it may be
reviewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under the control
and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
● A decision in a civil case may constitute res adjudicata in a land
registration proceedings.
● After rendition of a decision by a registration or cadastral court, there
remain many things to be done before the final decree can be issued,
such as the preparation amended plans and amended descriptions,
especially orders a subdivision of a lot, the segregation therefrom a
portion being adjudicated to another party to fit the said decision.
○ De los Reyes v. De Villa: Decrees of registration must be
stated in convenient form for transcription upon certificate
of title and must contain a description of the land. This
requires trained technical men. Moreover, it frequently
occurs that only portions of a parcel of land included in an
application are ordered registered and that the limits of
such portions can only be roughly indicated in the decision
of the court. In such cases amendments of the plans and
sometimes additional surveys hardly be done by the court
itself; the law very wisely charges the chief surveyor of the
General Land Registration Office with such duties.
● Issuance of final decree can hardly be considered a ministerial act
for the reason that said Chief of General Land Registration Office
acts not as an administrative officer but as an officer of the court and
so the issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not an
administrative one.
● Issuance of such decree is not compellable by mandamus because it
is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion.
L. Sending of Copy of the decree of Registration to the corresponding Registrar of
Deeds by the LRA.
M. Inscription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the
issuance of the owner’s duplicate certificate of the original certificate of title to the applicant
by the Registrar of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees.
The original Certificate of Title shall be a True Copy of the Decree of Registration.
It shall state:
1. full names of all persons whose interest make up the
ownership of the land
2. their civil status
3. names of their respective spouses, if married
4. their citizenship
5. residence
6. postal address
The fact that the land was originally registered, the record number,
the original certificate of title number and volume and page of registration book in which it is found
shall also be indicated in the Certificate of Title.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 21

such as the petitioners herein, the custody and possession

Properties acquired during marriage are presumed conjugal
UNLESS proven otherwise. However, if there is no showing as to when the properties are acquired
and said properties are registered in the name of one spouse alone, the presumption does not
apply; that is the properties belong to souch spouse alone.
● PNB v. CA: Person dealing with a registered land has a
right to rely upon the face of the torrens of certificate of
title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further,
except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of
facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry.
of the owner’s duplicate of certificates of title. The owner of
the land in whose favor and in whose name said land is
registered and inscribed in 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 possession
thereto.

A Torrens Title concludes all controversy over ownership of the Land covered by final
decree of registration.
Once the title is registered the owner may rest assured without the
necessity of stepping into the portals of the court or sitting in the mirador de su casa to avoid the
possibility of losing his land.
● Article 160 of Civil Code: All property of the marriage is
presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership UNLESS it
be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to
the wife.
● When the property is registered in the name of a spouse
only and there is no showing as to when the property is
acquired by said spouse, this is an indication that the
property belongs exclusively to said spouse.
○ NOTE: If the properties are conjugal, one
spouse may not bind the same without special
authorization of the other spouse.
● A co-owner can only dispose of his aliquot share in the
property held in common, he cannot divided the property
into parts and convey one part by metes and bounds.
● Article 493 of NCC: Each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign
or mortgage it and even be substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But
the effect of alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the
co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be
allotted to him in the division upon termination of the co-
ownership.
● What a co-owner may dispose of under art. 493 is only his
undivided aliquot share which shall be limited to the
portion which may be allotted to him upon the termination
of the co-ownership. He has no right to divide the property
into parts and then convey one part by metes and bounds.

Each Co-owner may have his copy of the Certificate of Title, but all copies
must be surrendered in order to register a voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or portion
thereof. The registered owner, not the actual occupant, is entitled to the owner’s copy of the
certificate of title.
● Reyes v. Raval Reyes: While SC agreed with the court
that the disputed lots are subject of litigation in a civil case,
it appearing that respondent, as defendant therein, had
presented a counterclaim for partition of the lots covered
by titles, it saw no valid and plausible reason to justify, on
this ground, the withholding from the registered owners,

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020


CHAPTER 14
Effect of Issuance of Decree of Registration
The fundamental purpose of the Land Registration Law (PD 1529) is to finally settle title to real
property in order to preempt any question on the legality of the title – except claims that were noted
on the certificate itself at the time of registration or those that arose subsequent thereto.
PD 1529:
➔ Sec. 31: sets forth the contents of the decree
➔ Sec. 39: requires that the Original Certificate of Title must be a true copy of the Decree
➔ Sec. 39-40: provides that the certificate takes effect upon the date of entry thereof in the
Registry of Deeds, and the land covered thereby becomes registered land on that date
➔ Sec. 41: states that the duplicate owner’s copy shall be given to the registered owner or
his representative
➔ Sec. 45: requires that the certificate contains the full names of all persons whose interest
make up full ownership in the whole land, their civil status, the names of their respective
spouse (if married), their citizenship, residence, and postal addresses
A. INDEFEASIBILITY OF TORRENS TITLE
➔ A Torrens Certificate of Title is indefeasible and binding upon the whole world
unless and until it has been nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction.
➔ Under existing statutory and decisional law, the power to pass upon the validity
of such certificate of title at the first instance properly belongs to the Regional
Trial Courts in a direct proceeding for cancellation of title.
➔ Legarda v. Saleeby: The primary and fundamental purpose of the torrens
system is to quiet title. If those dealing with registered land cannot rely upon
the certificate, then nothing has been gained by the registration and the
expense incurred thereby has been in vain. It is the duty of the courts to adjust
the rights of the parties so as to minimize damages, taking into consideration
all of the conditions and the diligence of the respective parties to avoid them. In
the present case, the appellee was the first negligent (granting that he was the
real owner; and if he was not the real owner, he cannot complain) in not
opposing the registration in the name of the appellants. The Court held that
through his failure to appear and to oppose such registration, and the
subsequent entry of a default judgment against him, he became irrevocably
bound by the decree adjudicating such land to the appellants.
➔ The review of a decree of registration would prosper only upon proof that
the registration was procured through ACTUAL FRAUD.
o The fraud must be ACTUAL and EXTRINSIC, not merely
constructive or intrinsic; the evidence thereof must be CLEAR,
CONVINCING, and MORE THAN MERELY PREPONDERANT.
o Rationale: the proceedings which are assailed as having been
fraudulent are judicial proceedings, which, by law, are presumed to
have been fair and regular.
o ACTUAL FRAUD – proceeds from an intentional deception
perpetrated through the misrepresentation or the concealment of a
material fact.
o EXTRINSIC FRAUD – employed to deprive parties of their day in
court, and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property
registered in the name of the applicant.
o INTRINSIC FRAUD – that which is alleged in the petition to set aside
the decree is the fraud involved in the same proceedings in which
the parties seeking relief have had ample opportunity to assert their
right, to attack the document presented by the applicant for
registration, and to cross-examine the witnesses who have testified
22
thereon. Inquiry into this kind of fraud is barred after the judgment of
the land registration court has become final.
B. REGISTRATION IS THE OPERATIVE ACT TO CONVEY OR AFFECT THIRD
PERSONS
➔ Valdevieso v. Damalerio: While the subject land was deeded to petitioner as
early as December 5, 1995, it was not until June 6, 1996 that the conveyance
was registered, and, during that interregnum, the land was subjected to a levy
on attachment. Insofar as third persons are concerned, what validly transfers
or conveys a person’s interest in real property is the registration of the deed.
Thus, when petitioner bought the property on Dec. 5, 1995, it was, at that point,
no more than a private transaction between him and the spouses Uy. It needed
to be registered before it could bind third parties, including respondents. When
the registration finally took place on June 6, 1996, it was already too late
because, by then, the levy in favor of respondents, pursuant to the preliminary
attachment ordered by the RTC of General Santos City, had already been
annotated on the title.
➔ Levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference over a prior
unregistered sale.
o This is a necessary consequence of the fact that the property
involved was duly covered by the Torrens system which works under
the fundamental principle that registration is the operative act which
gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
o The preference created by the levy on attachment is not diminished
even by the subsequent registration of the prior sale. This is because
an attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is against a particular
property, enforceable against the whole world.
C. PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES
➔ Registered land is not subject to prescription and laches.
➔ The decree ordering the registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to
future litigation over the same between the same parties.
➔ A title once registered cannot be defeated, even by an adverse, open, and
notorious possession.
➔ St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. v. Cleofas (cited in Mateo v. Diaz): The
Supreme Court ruled that a party who had filed immediately a case as soon as
he discovered that the land in question was covered by a transfer certificate in
the name of another person is not guilty of laches.
➔ J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Aguirre (cited in Mateo v. Diaz): The Supreme Court
ruled that an action to recover possession of a registered land never prescribes
in view of Sec. 47 of PD 1529, to the effect that no title to registered land in
derogation to that of a registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession.
➔ While it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the
registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his
registered property by reason of laches.
o Department of Education v. Oate (citing De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel):
The Supreme Court reiterated that the law provides that no title to
registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner can be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Nonetheless, while
it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the
registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of
his registered property by reason of laches. If this happens, the
property remains to be owned by the registered landowner, but he
cannot claim possession thereof. The Court ruled that it is unjust for
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

the State and the affected citizenry to suffer after respondent and his
predecessors-in-interest had slept on their rights for 52 years.
D. CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF RIGHTS OR INTEREST OVER THE SAME LAND
➔ When more than one certificate of title is issued over the same land or portions
thereof, the person who claims his right or interest under a prior certificate is
entitled to such right or interest as against the person who relies on latter
certificate. This rule applies only when there is no anomaly, irregularity,
mistake, or fraud.
➔ Iglesia ni Cristo v. CFI of Nueva Ecija: The Supreme Court held that a
Torrens title issued upon a free patent may not be cancelled after the lapse of
10 years from the date of its registration because the statute of limitations bars
such cancellation.
E. STATUTORY LIENS
➔ Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree
of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a
certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall hold the same free from all
encumbrances except those noted in said certificate and any of the following
encumbrances which may be subsisting, namely:
1) Liens, claims, or rights arising or existing under the
laws and the Constitution of the Philippines which are
not by law required to appear of record in the Registry
of Deeds in order to be valid against subsequent
purchasers or encumbrances of record.
2) Unpaid real estate taxes levied and assessed within 2
years immediately preceding the acquisition of any
right over the land by an innocent purchaser for value,
without prejudice to the right of the government to
collect taxes payable before that period from the
delinquent taxpayer alone.
3) Any public highway or private way established or
recognized by law, or any government irrigation canal
or lateral thereof which has been determined.
4) Any disposition of the property or limitation on the
use thereof by virtue of, or pursuant to, PD 27 or any
other law or regulations on agrarian reform. (Sec. 44,
PD 1529)
➔ LIEN – charge on the property usually for the payment of some debt or
obligation.
➔ ENCUMBRANCE – burden upon the land.
➔ The servitudes in Par. 3, Sec. 44, PD 1529, such as public highway, must be
existing during the acquisition of the land; highway constructed after such
acquisition is not covered by Sec. 44 of PD 1529.
➔ Digran v. Auditor General: The Supreme Court held that Par. 3, Sec. 44, PD
1529 has no application in this case for the reason that Mango Avenue was
constructed subsequent to the acquisition of Lot No. 638 by Ruperta Cabucos.
Mango Avenue is not an “encumbrance which may be subsisting” when
Cabucos purchased the land from the government in 1909.
➔ Private agricultural lands are subject to the retention limits, such that the sale
of the excess area must be done pursuant to the said laws.
➔ Patents may not be sold within 5 years from the date of its issuance; otherwise,
the sale is void, and the property may revert to the mass of public domain.
➔ Chavez v. PEA and Amari: Alienable lands of the public domain transferred to
government units, such as reclaimed lands of the Public Estates Authority
(PEA), may not be sold except when expressly authorized by Congress. EO
23
654, which authorizes PEA to determine the kind and manner of payment for
the transfer of its assets and properties, does not exempt PEA from the
requirement of public auction. EO 654 merely authorizes PEA to decide the
mode of payment, whether in kind and in installment, but does not authorize
PEA to dispense with public auction. It is only when the public auction fails that
a negotiated sale is allowed, in which case the Commission on Audit must
approve the selling price. At the public auction sale, only Philippine citizens are
qualified to bid for PEA’s reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands
of the public domain. Private corporations are barred from bidding at the
auction sale of any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
➔ Laurel v. Garcia: It is not for the President to convey real property of the
government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be
authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires
executive and legislative concurrence.
F. RIGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION; WRIT OF DEMOLITION
➔ A writ of possession is a process employed to enforce a judgment to recover
possession of land, and may be availed of in land registration proceedings,
extra-judicial foreclosure of realty mortgage, judicial foreclosure of mortgage
(provided the mortgagor is in possession and no third person had intervened),
and in execution sales.
➔ A writ of possession may be issued only pursuant to a decree of registration in
original land registration proceedings not only against the person who has
been defeated in the registration case, but also against anyone adversely
occupying the land or any portion thereof during the proceedings up to the
issuance of the decree.
➔ Lucero v. Loot (cited in Demorar v. Ibañez): A writ of possession may be
issued not only against the person who has been defeated in a registration
case but also against anyone adversely occupying the land or any portion
thereof during the land registration proceedings. Any person unlawfully and
adversely occupying land at any time up to the issuance of the final decree,
may be subject to judicial ejectment by means of a writ of possession and it is
the duty of the registration court to issue said writ when asked for by the
successful claimant.
➔ Marcelo v. Mencias: If the writ of possession issued in a land registration
proceeding implies the delivery of possession of the land to the successful
litigant therein, … a writ of demolition must likewise issue, especially
considering that the latter writ is but a complement of the former, which,
without said writ of demolition, would be ineffective.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

CHAPTER 15
Remedies Against Issuance of Decree of Registration
EVERY DECREE OF REGISTRATION SHALL BIND THE LAND AND QUIET TITLE
THERETO.
Grey Alba v. De La Cruz:Every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title
thereto. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular
Government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application,
notice or citation, or included in the general description “to all whom it may concern.”
Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of
any person affected thereby, nor by any proceedings in any court for reversing
judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of
any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the
Court of Land Registration a petition for review within one year.
A. NEW TRIAL
Within the period for taking an appeal, a motion may be filed to set aside the judgment
or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of the movant: (1) Fraud, (2) Accident, (3) Mistake, (4)
Excusable negligence, (5) Newly discovered evidence
The motion must be filed within 15 days from notice of judgment; supported by affidavit
of merits; and shall be heard upon prior notice to the adverse party. The period to file a
motion for new trial or reconsideration cannot be extended.
Ø Sterling Investment Corporation: Not every kind of fraud is sufficient
ground to set aside a judgment. This Court has held that only extrinsic or
collateral, as distinguished from instrinsic, fraud is a ground for
annulling a judgment. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the
successful party in litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case
against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys, or witnesses whereby
said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the
case. On the other hand, instrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in a litigation
during the trial, such as the use of forged instruments on perjured testimony,
which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just
determination of the case.
IT MUST APPEAR THAT THERE WAS ACCIDENT OR SURPRISE WHICH
ORDINARY PRUDENCE COULD NOT HAVE GUARDED AGAINST, AND BY
REASON OF WHICH THE PARTY APPLYING HAS PROBABLY BEEN IMPAIRED IN
HIS RIGHTS
Ø Sunico v. Villapando: Examples: Illness, or Lack of Advance Notice.
Ø Thus: “If a party is prevented by sickness from preparing his case or
attending the trial, and the circumstances are such that his
personal attention and presence are necessary to the due
24
protection of his rights, a judgment against him may be set aside
on the ground of casualty or excusable neglect”
THE MISTAKE MUST BE AN UNINTENTIONAL ACT, OMISSION OR ERROR
ARISING FROM IGNORANCE SUSPRISE, IMPOSITION, OR MISPLACED
CONFIDENCE
Ø Salazar v. Salazar: In view of the evidence showing a compromise
agreement between the parties, it was natural and logical that the
plaintiff herein believed that the action brought against him by the
defendant had been ended by the aforesaid compromise and that
he was relieved, therefore, from the duty of filing his answer. Such
belief is excusable and has prevented the plaintiff from making a
defense that would have been good and efficacious.
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE MEANS, FAILURE TO TAKE THE PROPER STEPS AT
THE PROPER TIME, NOT IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE PARTY’S OWN
CARELESSNESS, INATTENTION OR WILLFULL DISREGARD OF THE PROCESS
OF THE COURT
Ø Such as when the employee tasked to file the answer was suddenly
taken ill, and counsel was not immediately notified thereof
(Bustamante v Alfonso)
B. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken
against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence,
“the applicant or oppositor may file a petition for relief from judgment in such court and in
the same case praying that the judgment order or proceeding be set aside. It must be
filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other
proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six months after such judgment or final
order was entered, or such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with
affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence relied upon and
the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as
the case may be. This remedy may not be availed of if the judgment is not yet final
and executory, and when the relief of new trial is available. A petition for relief
from judgment and a motion for new trial are mutually exclusive.
C. APPEAL
The judgment or final order of the court granting or denying the application for
registration of land may be elevated to the Court of Appeals by ordinary appeal. The
appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court, which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party. (see Sec 2(a) Rule 41 Rules of Court)
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

The appeal shall be taken within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from. (see Sec 3 Rule 41 Rules of Court)
An appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, resolution of the Court of Appeals,
the Regional Trial Court, or other courts, involving pure questions of law, may be filed
directly with the Supreme Court by filing a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution appealed from or of denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment (see Rule 45 Rules of
Court).
A party whose motion for new trial or reconsideration is denied is given a fresh period of
fifteen days within which to appeal the decision. Henceforth, this fresh period shall also
apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial
Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and
Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme court.
In Neypes v. CA, the SC held that petitioners seasonably filed their notice of appeal
within the fresh period of 15 days, counted from July 22, 1998 (the date of receipt of
notice denying their motion for reconsideration). This pronouncement is not inconsistent
with Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules which states that the appeal shall be taken within
15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from. The use of or
supposes that the notice of appeal may be filed within 15 days from the notice of
judgment or within 15 days from the notice of the final order.
To recapitulate, a party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from
receipt of the Regional Trial Courts decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the
order denying his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. The new 15-day
period may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes
final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided for in Rule 41,
Section 3.
D. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECREE
A Petition for Review of Decree, in a form of motion may be filed in the same registration
proceeding where the Decree was issued, by those who were deprived of their
opportunity to be heard in the original registration proceedings, within one year from and
after date of entry of the Decree of Registration, upon actual or extrinsic fraud, and while
the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
THE PERSON(S) ENTITLED TO BE ENTITLED TO A REVIEW OF A DECREE OF
REGISTRATION, ARE THOSE WHO WERE FRAUDULENTLY DEPRIVED OF THEIR
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION CASE
Ø Crisolo v. Court of Appeals: The SC resolved the question of
whether or not an oppositor, after abandoning his opposition in a
25
land registration case and after a decision had been rendered and
a decree of registration issued thereunder, is entitled to a
reopening of the proceedings by means of a petition for review
based on fraud under Section 38 of Act 496. The record shows
that private respondent had been duly afforded the opportunity to
object to, the registration and substantiate the same. The Supreme
Court held that the persons contemplated under Section 38, to be
entitled to a review of a decree of registration, are those who were
fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original
registration case. Such is not the situation in Crisolo. The private
respondents were not denied their day in court by fraud, which the
law provides as the sole ground for reopening of the decree of
registration.
MERE ALLEGATION OF FRAUD IS NOT ENOUGH. SPECIFIC, INTENTIONAL ACTS
TO DECEIVE AND DEPRIVE ANOTHER OF HIS RIGHT, OR IN SOME MANNED
INJURE HIM, MUST BE ALLEGED AND PROVED
There must be actual or positive fraud as distinguished from constructive fraud to entitle
one to the reopening of a decree of registration. And it must be extrinsic and not intrinsic
fraud. There must be intentional concealment or omission of fact required by law to be
stated in the application, which is calculated to deprive another of his legal rights and
employed to deprive a party of his day in court, thereby preventing him to assert his
rights over the land registered in the name of the applicant
THE PETITION MUST BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE ISSUANCE OF
THE DECREE
Ø Republic v. Court of Appeals: The basic elements for the allowance
of the reopening or review of a decree, are (1) that the petitioner
has real or dominical right; (2) that he has been deprived thereof
through extrinsic fraud; (3) that the petition is filed within one
year from the issuance of the decree and (4) that the property
has not yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser.
E. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and
equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the
rights of any innocent holder of the decree of registration on the original petition or
application (Sec 53 (3), PD No 1529). The foregoing provision should be read in
conjunction with Article 1456 of the Civil Code, which provides that, “If property is
acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes.”
Ø The law thereby creates the obligation of the trustee to reconvey the
property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner. Correlating
Section 53 and Article 1456 of the Civil Code with Article 1144 (2)
of the Civil Code, the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of
fraudulently registered real property is ten years reckoned from the
date of the issuance of the certificate of title.
NO ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE CAN TAKE PLACE AGAINST A PARTY WHO
HAD ACQUIRED TITLE OVER THE REGISTERED PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH AND
FOR VALUE
Ø Benin v. Tuason: It is the settled rule that a party seeking the
reconveyance to him of his land that he claims had been wrongly
registered in the name of another person must be recognized the
validity of the certificate of title of the latter. It is also the rule that a
reconveyance may only take place if the land that is claimed to be
wrongly registered is still registered in the name of the person who
procured the wrongful registration. No action for reconveyance can
take place as against a third party who had acquired title over the
registered property on good faith and for value. And if no
reconveyance can be made, the value of the property registered
may be demanded only from the person who procured the wrongful
registration in his name.
BY FILING AN ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE, A PARTY SEEKS TO SHOW THAT
THE PERSON WHO SECURED THE REGISTRATION OF THE QUESTIONED
PROPERTY IS NOT THE REAL OWNER
Ø Gomez v. Duyan: Reconveyance is precisely the proper action for
respondents to take against petitioners since the former are
claiming that they are the rightful owners of the property in question,
not petitioners. By filing an action for reconveyance, a party seeks
to show that the person who secured the registration of the
questioned property is not the real owner thereof.
AN ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND BASED ON IMPLIED
OR CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PRESCRIBES IN TEN YEARS, THE POINT OF
REFERENCE BEING THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE DEED OR THE DATE
OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OVER THE PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, IF THE PERSON ENFORCING THE TRUST IS IN THE POSSESSION OF
THE PROPERTY, THE ACTION DOES NOT PRESCRIBE
Ø Thus in Reyes v CA, the Supreme Court restated the rule that an
action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied
or constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of
reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date
26
of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
However, it emphasized that this rule applies only when the plaintiff
or the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the
property since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in
actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance,
which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not
prescribe.
Ø The reason is that the one who is in actual possession of a piece of
land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession
is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate
his right. His undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to
seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the
nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own
title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.
Ø Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts
of dominion over it of such a nature as those a party would
naturally exercise over his own property. It is not necessary that
the owner of a parcel of land should himself occupy the property as
someone in his name may perform the act. In other words, the
owner of real estate has possession, either when he himself is
physically in occupation of the property, or when another person
who recognizes his rights as owner is in such occupancy.
IF BASED ON EXPRESS TRUST, OR VOID CONTRACT OF SALE, THE ACTION
DOES NOT PRESCRIBE
Ø Castillo v. Heirs of Vicente Madrigal: Petitioners sought the
declaration of the inexistence of the deed of sale because of the
absent of their consent, following the provision of Article 1410 of
the Civil Code, this kind of action is imprescriptible. The action for
reconveyance is likewise imprescriptible because its basis is the
alleged void contract of sale.
F. ACTION FOR DAMAGES
If an action for reconveyance based on constructive trust cannot reach an innocent
purchaser for value, the remedy of the defrauded party is to bring an action for damages
against those who caused the fraud or were instrumental in depriving him of the property.
It is now well-settled that such action prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the
Torrens Title over the property. An action for damages must be filed within ten years
against those who were responsible for the fraud.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

Ø Estrellado v. Martinez: For an action against any person for
damages for the wrongful deprivation of land to prosper, it
must be established, first, that the person is in reality
wrongfully deprived of his land by the registration in the name
of another of the land by actual OR constructive fraud; second,
that there was no negligence on his part; third, that he is not
barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for the
recovery of the land or interest therein; and, fourth, that the
action for compensation has not prescribed.
Thus, a person who is wrongfully deprived of land or of any estate or
interest therein, without negligence on his part, by the registration
in error of another person as owner of such land, may successfully
maintain an action for damages, begun before the action is barred,
against the person in whose favor the decree of registration was
issued, notwithstanding such decree was not obtained by actual
fraud and a petition for review on the ground of fraud has been
denied.
G. ACTION FOR COMPENSATION FROM ASSURANCE FUND
Ø Must be filed within six years from date of issuance of the certificate of
title, against the Register of Deeds in case the fraud, etc. was
committed by court personnel, Register of Deeds or his deputies. If
fraud, etc. is attributable to other persons, then the action must be
filed against the Register of Deeds, National Treasurer, and such
other persons.
Ø In Eagle Realty Corporation v Republic, it was held that an action
against the Assurance Fund by one who was not deprived of land
in consequence of bringing it under the operation of the Torrens
system through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission,
mistake or misdescription in the certificate of title, by the one who
was simply a victim of unscrupulous individuals, will not prosper. It
is a condition sine qua non that the person who brings the
action for damages against the Assurance Fund be the
Registered Owner and, as the Holders of transfer certificates
of title, that they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for
value. Realty companies, to qualify as innocent purchasers in good
faith and for value, are expected to exercise a higher standard of
diligence in ascertaining the status of the property, not merely rely
on what appears on the face of a certificate of title.
H. CANCELLATION OF TITLE
Cancellation may be resorted to in certain cases to revoke and cancel titles after being
issued. In case of double titling or when land is already a property of private ownership,
the certificates of titles issued therefor may be cancelled. In such cases, the true owner
27
may file the action and not the state. Titles issued on non-registrable properties may
likewise be cancelled.
CADASTRAL PROCEEDING CANNOT COVER LANDS ALREADY ADJUDICATED
WITH ALL THE LEGAL FORMALITIES AND WITH ALL THE FORCE OF A TITLE
Ø In the case of Manalo v. Lukban and Maliwanag, the Supreme Court
provided that the land covered by said judgment had already been
granted by the government to Monico Corpus Manuel as
homesteader under the provisions of Act 926, the corresponding
certificate of title having been registered and issued to said grantee.
By virtue of said registration and issuance of the certificate of title,
that land is considered registered within the meaning of the Land
Registration Act, No, 496. So that when the trial was held in the
cadastral proceeding which covered said land, and when the
judgment was rendered, the title to that land could no longer be the
subject of any inquiry, determination or judgment, for it had already
been adjudicated to Monico Corpus Manuel more than ten years
before, with all the legal formalities and the force of a title under Act
496.
IF THE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PATENT
WERE NOT FOLLOWED OR VIOLATED, OR IF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IS NON-REGISTRABLE, THE ACTION TO FILE FOR
REVERSION IS NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION, LACHES OR ESTOPPEL.
Ø It may only be filed upon prior investigation by the Director of Lands or
DENR. The action must be filed through the Office of the Solicitor
General; it may not be filed by a private person, as the land involved
belongs to the mass of public domain.
Ø If the decree was issued pursuant to a judgment rendered by the
Regional Trial Court in a land registration proceeding, the proper
remedy for the cancellation of said decree and or derivative titles is
to file a petition for annulment for judgment before the Court of
Appeals pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
Ø Reversion under Section 124 of C.A. No 141 is proper only in the
following instances: (1) Alienation of land acquired under free patent
or homestead provisions in violation of Section 118, C.A. No. 141; (2)
Conveyances made by non-Christians in violation of Section 120,
C.A. No. 141; and (3) Alienations of lands acquired under C.A. No.
141 in favor of persons not qualified under Sections 121, 122, and
123 of CA No 141.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 28

I. QUIETING OF TITLE.

An action to quiet the title to land may be filed within four years, if the property is in
possession of the adverse party (Sapto v Fabiana); or anytime if the property is in the
possession of the plaintiff (thus imprescriptible) (Faja v CA). Quieting of title is a
common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubrt, or uncertainty on the title to
real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
that is apparently valid or effective by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective but in truth and in fact
invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title. An
action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon the title to real
property or any interest therein (Art 476, Civil Code)

Ø There is settled jurisprudence that one who is in actual possession

of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait
until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being
that his undistrubed possession gives him a continuing right to
seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the
nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own
title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.

J. PERJURY

A criminal action may be filed by the State against persons who may have committed
perjury in making false assertions to obtain registration to lands by fraud.

Ø Sec 116, Land Registration Act: Whoever knowingly swears falsely to

any statement required to be made under oath by this Act shall be
guilty of perjury and liable to the penalties provided by laws for
perjury.

Ø Aforesaid section is applicable to cadastral proceedings under Act No.

2259, by virtue of Section 11 thereof.

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020


CHAPTER 16 (Part 1)
Reconstitution
A. Judicial Reconstitution
➔ The original copy of the title itself is destroyed or lost.
➔ Otherwise, if it exists, no reconstitution is allowed.
➔ Or if the one lost is the owner’s or co-owner’s copy, then the petition to be filed
is for issuance of another owner’s or co-owner’s copy of the title.
Republic v. CA and A&A Torrijos Engineering Corporation: R.A. No. 26
provides for a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title
that are missing, and not fictitious titles or existing titles. Reconstitution
proceedings are void when titles reconstituted are actually subsisting in the
registry of deeds.
IF AN OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HAS NOT
BEEN LOST BUT IS IN FACT IN POSSESSION OF ANOTHER PERSON, THE
RECONSTITUTED TITLE IS VOID AND THE COURT RENDERING THE
DECISION HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION
Villanueva v. Viloria: A decision issuing a new duplicate title can be attacked any
time if the owner’s copy was not in fact lost. If the owner cannot successfully
dispute it or prove actual loss, then the court did not acquire jurisdiction and the
new title issued is void.
Original copies of certificates of titles lost or destroyed in the offices of the Register
of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered shall be
reconstituted judicially.
B. Administrative Reconstitution
➔ May be availed of only in case of substantial loss or destruction of land titles
due to fire, flood, or other force majeure as determined by the Administrator of
the LRA
◆ Provided, that the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged
should be at least 10% of the total number in possession of the Office
of the Register of Deeds
◆ Provided, further, that the number of certificates of titles lost or
damaged shall be not less than 500
C. Sources of Judicial Reconstitution
1. Original Certificate of Title
“Sec. 2, R.A. No. 26:
Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources
hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
a. The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
b. The owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate certificate of title;
c. A certified true copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
29
d. An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the
case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was
issued;
e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased
or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing
that its original had been registered; and
f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient
and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of
title.”
2. Transfer Certificate of Title
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 26:
“Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources
hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
a. The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;
b. The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of
title;
c. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
d. The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds,
containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy
thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to
which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued;
e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased
or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing
that its original had been registered; and
f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient
and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of
title.”
3. Other Documents
➔ Documents similar to those previously enumerated in Sec. 2 (a) to (e)
and Sec. 3 (a) to (e)
Republic v. Lagramada; Republic v. IAC; Heirs of Dizon v. Hon. Discaya;
Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas: “Any other document” must
refer to similar documents as those previously enumerated. The enumerated
requirements are documents from official sources which recognize the
owner and his predecessors-in-interest, or documents which evidence title
or transactions affecting title to property.
A TAX DECLARATION, BLUE PRINT, SURVEY PLAN, OR TECHNICAL
DESCRIPTION BY ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE OWNERSHIP
Tahanan Development Corp. v. CA: The courts must be cautious in
granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title based on
documents and decrees made to appear authentic from mere xerox copies
and certifications of officials supposedly signed with seals of their office
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

affixed thereon. It is the duty of the courts to scrutinize and verify carefully all
supporting documents.
Republic v. Santua:
A tax declaration obviously does not serve as a valid basis for reconstitution.
It is executed for taxation purposes only and is actually prepared by the
alleged owner himself. At most, a tax declaration can only be prima facie
evidence of possession or a claim of ownership, which however is not the
issue in a reconstitution proceeding.
As for the survey plan and technical descriptions, such are not the
documents referred to in Sec. 3(f) but merely additional documents that
should accompany the petition for reconstitution as required under Sec. 12 of
R.A. No. 26 and Land Registration Commission Circular No. 35.
Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. CA: A tax declaration is not a reliable source for
the reconstitution of a certificate of title.
Lee v. Republic: The reconstitution based on a survey plan and technical
descriptions is void for lack of factual support.
D. Contents of Petition
Sec. 12, R.A. No, 26:
“Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e),
2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act shall be filed with the proper Court of
First Instance (Regional Trial Court) by the registered owner, his assigns, or any
person having an interest in the property.
The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the following:
1) that the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyed;
2) that no co-owner's mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had been issued, or,
if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed;
3) the location, area and boundaries of the property;
4) the nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which
do not belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of
the owners of such buildings or improvements;
5) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of
the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who
may have any interest in the property;
6) a detailed description of the encumbrances, if any, affecting the property;
and
7) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property have
been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof
has not been accomplished, as yet.
All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in
support of the petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the
same.
30
➔ Provided, that in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in section 2(f) of 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further be
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly
approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a
certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering
the same property.”
E. Publication, Posting and Mailing
Sec. 13, R.A. No. 26:
“The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the preceding section,
to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of
the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial
building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the
land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing.
The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail
or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein
whose address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing.
Said notice shall state, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed
certificate of title, if known, the name of the registered owner, the names of the
occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining
properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the
property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must
appear and file their claim or objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the
hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and service of the notice as
directed by the court.”
A PROCEEDING FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF LOST CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF A LAND REGISTRATION AND
CADASTRAL PROCEEDING, WHERE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF
INITIAL HEARING IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE IS REQUIRED
MWSS v. Sison: The requirements in Secs. 12 and 13, R.A. No. 26, above-quoted,
are mandatory and jurisdictional.
Syjuco v. PNB: If an order of reconstitution is issued without any previous
publication, as required by Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26, such order of reconstitution is
null and void and of no effect, and naturally, anything done under said order is also
void.
Publication in a newspaper of general circulation, other than the Official Gazette, is
authorized under Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 4569. However, R.A. No. 4569 applies only to
judicial notices which the law requires to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation. Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26 specifies that that publication of the notice
of hearing in proceedings for judicial reconstitution of lost certificates of title
should be made in the Official Gazette. It does not provide for any alternative
medium or manner of publication.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020

Lapses committed by the court or its personnel resulting in non-compliance
with Sec. 13, R.A. No. 26 will still render the proceedings void.
Notice to adjoining owners or occupants is not mandatory and jurisdictional if
the source of petition for reconstitution is the owner’s copy of the title itself.
Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc.: Lands already covered by valid
titles in the name of registered owners other than the petitioners cannot be a
proper subject of reconstitution proceedings.
F. Sources of Administrative Reconstitution
Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources as
enumerated in Sec. 2, R.A. No. 26. Meanwhile, transfer certificates of title shall be
reconstituted from such of the sources as enumerated in Sec. 3, R.A. No. 26.
Sec. 4, R.A. No. 26:
“Liens and other encumbrances affecting a destroyed or lost certificate of title shall
be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be
available, in the following order:
a. Annotations or memoranda appearing on the owner's co-owner's
mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate;
b. Registered documents on file in the registry of deeds, or authenticated
copies thereof showing that the originals thereof had been registered; and
c. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and
proper basis for reconstituting the liens or encumbrances affecting the
property covered by the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Sec. 5, R.A. No. 26, as amended by Sec. 2, R.A. No. 6732:
Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a,)
and 3(b) of this Act may be filed with the Register of Deeds concerned by the
registered owner, his assigns, or other person, both natural and juridical, having an
interest in the property. The petition shall be accompanied with the necessary
sources for reconstitution and with an affidavit of the registered owner stating,
among other things:
1) That no deed or other instrument affecting the property had been
presented for registration, or, if there be any, the nature thereof, the date
of its presentation, as well as the names of the parties, and whether the
registration of such deed or instrument is still pending accomplishment;
2) That the owner's duplicate certificate or co-owner's duplicate is in due form
without any apparent intentional alterations or erasures;
3) That the certificate of title is not the subject of litigation or investigation,
administrative or judicial, regarding its genuineness or due execution or
issuance;
4) That the certificate of title was in full force and effect at the time it was lost
or destroyed;
5) That the certificate of title is covered by a tax declaration regularly issued
by the Assessor's Office; and
6) That real estate taxes have been fully paid up to at least two (2) years prior
to the filing of the petition for reconstitution.
31
If the reconstitution is to be made from any of the sources enumerated in Section
2(b) or 3(b), the affidavit should further state that the owner's duplicate has been
lost or destroyed and the circumstances under which it was lost or destroyed.
Thereupon, the Register of Deeds shall, no valid reason to the contrary existing,
reconstitute the certificate of title as provided in this Act.”
THE DECISION OF RECONSTITUTING OFFICER IS APPEALABLE TO THE
LRA ADMINISTRATOR; THE DECISION OF THE LRA ADMINISTRATOR MAY
BE APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
The procedure for administrative reconstitution is contained in LRA Circular No. 13
dated July 26, 1989.
Medina v. CA: If fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence attended the
reconstitution, the decision may be annulled, upon prior petition, by the RTC. The
proper court referred to in Sec. 10 of R.A. No. 6732 could only mean the Regional
Trial Court.
G. Difference in the Effects of Judicial Reconstitution and Administrative
Reconstitution
Under Sec. 7, R.A. No. 26, reconstituted titles shall have the same validity and
effect as the originals thereof, unless the reconstitution was made extra-
judicially (administratively).
Judicial reconstitution is a proceeding in rem, while administrative
reconstitution is essentially an ex parte and without notice. However, in both
cases, the reconstituted title puts notice to persons dealing with it to be extra
careful, on description of the judicial and extrajudicial reconstitution and on
indefeasible charter of reconstituted title.
WHILE A FORGED INSTRUMENT IS NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT AS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IT MAY NEVERTHELESS BE THE ROOT OF A
GOOD TITLE; SO THAT THE TITLE OF A REGISTERED OWNER WHO HAS
TAKEN IT BONA FIDE AND FOR VALUE, IS NOT AFFECTED BY REASON OF
HIS CLAIMING THROUGH SOMEONE, THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS VOID
BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN PROCURED BY THE PRESENTATION OF A
FORGED INSTRUMENT.
Barstowe Philippine Corporation v. Republic: It is true that the general rule is a
forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. In the case at bar, it was not any of
the deeds of transfer or conveyance of the subject lots which was forged but the
Transfer Certificates of Title themselves. The forged TCTs nevertheless, just as a
forged deed, can make it appear that one had title, right, or interest to the land,
when in truth he had none, to the deprivation of the rightful owner. It has been
recognized that while a forged instrument is null and void and of no effect as that
the title of a registered owner who has taken it bona fide and for value, is not
affected by reason of his claiming through someone that the registration was void
because it had been procured by the presentation of forged instrument.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 32

H. Remedy if Petition for Judicial Reconstitution is Dismissed

Republic v. Santua: In case the petition for judicial reconstitution was dismissed,
the petitioner may file a petition for confirmation of title under the Land Registration
Act, per Sec. 15, R.A. No. 26.

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020


CHAPTER 16 (Part 2)
Other Court Actions Subsequent to Original Registration
All petitions or motions after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the
original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
Under Section 2 of P.D. No. 1259, regional trial courts acting as land
registration courts have exclusive jurisdiction not only over applications for
original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein,
but also over petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to
hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
A. Amendment and Alteration of Certificate of Title
No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book
after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the
attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper
Court of First Instance (Regional Trial Court).
A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property or, in
proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Administrator of land
Registration may apply by petition to the Court upon the ground:
a. That the registered interest of any description, whether vested, contingent,
expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated or
ceased;
b. That new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been
created;
c. That an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any
memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate;
d. That the same or any person on the certificate has been changed;
e. That the registered owner has married, or if registered as married, that the
marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors
will thereby be affected;
f. That a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved
has not convened the same within three years after its dissolution; or
g. Upon any other reasonable ground.
The court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest,
and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, or grant any other
relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it
may consider proper.
➔ Provided, however, that this section shall not be construed to give the
court authority to reopen the judgement or decree of registration, and that
nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or
other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good
faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent.
B. Surrender of Withheld Certificate of Title
33
Sec. 107, P.D. 1529:
The party in interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds.
a. Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any
involuntary instrument which divests the title of the registered owner
against his consent; or
b. Where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the
refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate
of title.
The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding
the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new
certificate or memorandum upon such surrender.
If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the
process of the court, or if for not any reason the outstanding owner’s
duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment
of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof.
Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the
annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
C. Replacement of Lost Duplicate
Sec. 109, P.D. 1529:
“In case of loss of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under
oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is
discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the
registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or
destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest
and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may,
after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate,
which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost
duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as
the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of
this decree.”
THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE TO BE
NOTIFIED AND HEARD IN THE PROCEEDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN
OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
Republic v. CA & Yupangco: Considering that the law does not impose such
notice requirement in proceedings for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate
certificate of title, the lack of notice to the Solicitor General, as counsel for the
Registrar of Deeds, was at most only a formal and not a jurisdictional defect.
LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020
 34

Note that Sec. 109 of P.D. 1529 is the law applicable in petitions for issuance or
new owner’s duplicate certificates of title which are lost or stolen or destroyed. On
the other hand, Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26 applies in cases of reconstitution of lost or
destroyed original certificates on file with the Register of Deeds.

LTD Notes Part 2 (ASG); S.Y. 2019-2020