MHH_2.

1_Land Titles and Deeds

I. Introduction
Importance of Land registration
 Land registration is the process wherein the state provides a public record of the land title itself upon which a
prospective purchaser or someone else interested may rely. (Peña, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds,
1988)
 The main objects of land title registration are to:
o Protect property rights
o Facilitate transactions in land
o Enable land to be used as collateral for a loan. (Jinggoy Estrada, Senate Bill No. 2318, 14th Congress)

II. Governing Law

A. Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) - approved on June 11, 1978
B. Laws codified
a. Act No. 926 (The first Public Land Act, 1903) ➡ Act No. 2874 (the 2nd PLA, 1919) ➡ CA No. 141 (Public
Land Act, 1936)
b. Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act, 1902) - established the Torrens System; created the Court of Land
Registration
c. Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act, 1913)
d. Act No. 3344 (An Act increasing the number of Assistant Provincial Fiscals for the Province of Cagayan,
amending for the purpose Section 1674 of the Administrative Code, as amended, 1961)
e. 1508
f. 26
g. PD 27 (Decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the
ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and mechanism therefor, 1972)
h. 8958
i. 726

III. Legal basis and Nature of Land Registration

A. Regalian Doctrine - jura regalia (royal rights)
a. Concept
 Sec of DENR vs Yap
At stake is the right of the present occupants of Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied
lands. In Apr 1976, the DENR approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay Island, which
identified several lots as being occupied or claimed by named persons. In Nov 1978, Pres. Marcos
issued Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay as a tourist zone and marine reserve under the
administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority. To implement such, he then approved the
issuance of PTA Circular 3-82.
Respondents-claimants: Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No 3-82 precluded them from
filing an application for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes. These did not place Boracay beyond the commerce of man. Since the Island was
classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private ownership. Under CA 141 (Public Land
Act) they had the right to have the lots registered in their names through judicial confirmation of
imperfect titles. They themselves, or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or
earlier since time immemorial. They declared their lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on
them.
OSG: Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain. It is classified as “public forest,”
which was not available for disposition pursuant to PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code). Reliance on
Proc 1801 and PTA Circ 3-82 was misplaced. Their right to judicial confirmation of title was
governed by CA No. 141 and PD No. 705. Since Boracay Island had not been classified as alienable
and disposable, whatever possession they had cannot ripen into ownership.
The RTC and CA upheld respondents-claimants’ right to have their occupied lands titled in their
name. Whether claimants have a right to secure titles over their occupied portions in Boracay.
SC: No. Private claimants are not entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title
under CA 141. Neither do they have vested rights over the occupied lands. There are two
requisites:
(1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since time
immemorial or from June 12, 1945; (✖ Tax Dec dtd 1993)
(2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. ✖
The Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber and
national parks (only agricultural lands may be alienated). Boracay was neither and thus an
 MHH_2.1_Land Titles and Deeds
unclassified land of the public domain. Such unclassified lands are considered public forest under
PD 705. Applying the Regalian doctrine, Boracay is considered State property. To overcome the
Regalian Doctrine, a positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required, such as an
official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or
other purposes. This is wanting in the case at bar. Proc 1801 or PTA Circ 3-82 did not convert the
whole of Boracay into an agricultural land. These only aimed at administering the islands for
tourism and ecological purposes and not to address the areas’ alienability.
Regalian Doctrine: Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, ownership of all lands,
territories and possessions in the Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown. The Regalian doctrine
was first introduced in the Philippines through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas,
which laid the foundation that “all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. In sum, private
ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be founded on royal concessions which
took various forms, namely:
(1)titulo real or royal grant;
(2) concesion especial or special grant;
(3) composicion con el estado or adjustment title;
(4) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and
(5) informacion posesoria or possessory information title.
 Republic vs Muñoz
Muñoz filed an Application for Registration of Title of a 1,986sq m parcel of residential land
before the RTC of Ligao, Albay. CA 141's two requisites:
(1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation xxx; (✔ Donation inter
vivos from Muñoz' parents in 1956, and that the spouses and their predecessors-in-interest have
been in possession since time immemorial for more than 70 yrs)
(2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable. (✖ CA only assumed that it is A&D
since the lot had once been covered by free patent application= the property was already
declared by the govt as open for public disposition.)
SC: Application denied. Neither the Director of Lands nor the LRA attested that the land subject
of this proceeding is alienable or disposable. Muñoz failed to submit a certification from the
proper government agency to prove that the land subject for registration is indeed alienable and
disposable, (eg CENRO certificate).
Regalian Doctrine: All lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership
are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been
reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State
remain part of the alienable public domain. No public land can be acquired by private persons
without any grant, express or implied, from the govt; and it is indispensable that the person
claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired from the State or any other
mode of acquisition recognized by law. To prove that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The
applicant may also secure a certification from the Government that the land applied for is
alienable and disposable.
 Rural Bank of Anda, Inc. vs RC Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
SB Resolution 104 converted Lot 736 from an institutional lot to a commercial lot, while
Resolution 105 authorized the mayor to enter into a contract of lease for 25 years with the Rural
Bank of Anda. Respondent and Mun. of Binmaley, Pangasinan claimed ownership over Lot 736.
However, both failed to prove their right over it.
SC: Since Lot 736 has never been acquired by anyone through purchase or grant or any other
mode of acquisition, it remains part of the public domain and is owned by the state. This is in
accordance with the Regalian doctrine which holds that the state owns all lands and waters of the
public domain. Thus, under Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution: “All lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by
the state.” Municipal corporations cannot appropriate to themselves public or government lands
without prior grant from the government. Since Lot 736 is owned by the state, the Sangguniang
Bayan of Binmaley exceeded its authority in passing Resolution Nos. 104 and 105. Ergo, these are
void.
As held in Hong Hok v. David: There being no evidence whatever that the property in question
was ever acquired by the applicants or their ancestors either by composition title from the
 MHH_2.1_Land Titles and Deeds
Spanish Government or by possessory information title or by any other means for the acquisition
of public lands, the property must be held to be public domain. For it is well settled “that no
public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the
government.” It is indispensable then that there be a showing of a title from the state or any
other mode of acquisition recognized by law. The most recent restatement of the doctrine, found
in an opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes follows: “The applicant, having failed to establish his right or
title over the northern portion of Lot No. 463 involved in the present controversy, and there being
no showing that the same has been acquired by any private person from the Government, either
by purchase or by grant, the property is and remains part of the public domain
 Cruz vs Sec of DENR
Petitioners brought suit assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 (Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 - IPRA), and its IRR, on the ground that they amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other
natural resources therein, in violation of the Regalian Doctrine. After deliberation, 7 Justices voted
for dismissal, while 7 voted for granting. Redeliberation. Still, 7 to 7. So, acdg to Rule 56, Sec 7 of
ROC, petition is dismissed. Separate opinions (see pg. 7 of book):
Voting to dismiss Voting to grant

J. Puno: J. Vitug:
 IPRA was enacted not only to protect  IPRA is beyond the context of the
the indigenous cultural communities' fundamental law and amounts to
right to their ancestral land, but also to undue delegation of State authority
correct a grave historical injustice to over a significant area of the
them. country and its patrimony.
 Ancestral domains and lands are  The Cariño case cannot override the
private property of Indigenous Peoples collective will of the people
and do not constitute part of the Land expressed in the Constitution
of Public Domain. (see Cariño case) (Regalian Doctrine).
 IPRA is a novel piece of legislation -
upholds the concept of native title and
principle of parens patriae.
 IPRA is a recognition of our active
participation in the Indigenous
International Movement.

J. Kapunan:
 A statute should be construed in
harmony with the Constitution.
 There exists a native title to land by
Filipinos by virtue of possession under
a claim of ownership since time
immemorial - exception to Regalian
Doctrine. (see Cariño)
J. Panganiban:
 IPRA violates the Constitution
insofar as it grants rights of
ownership over lands of public
domain, waters xxx and it defeats
the authority of the State to
oversee the exploration, devt and
utilization of natural resources.

J. Mendoza
 The case does not raise a justiciable
controversy and petitioners do not
have standing to question the
constitutionality of RA 8371.
b. Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are
owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter
into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-
five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
 MHH_2.1_Land Titles and Deeds
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well
as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays,
and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical of
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State
shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision,
within thirty days from its execution.
c. Native Title; Exception to Regalian Doctrine
 Cariño vs Insular Govt of the Phil Islands (1909)
Cariño, an Igorot, sought to register his 146 hectares land in Benguet. He claimed that his land had
been possessed and occupied by his ancestors since time immemorial and that his grandfather
built fences around the property for holding of cattle and his father cultivated some parts of it. A
decree on June 25, 1880 required registration within a limited time to make the title good, but the
plaintiff's land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not always, public land.
Whatever may have been the technical position of Spain, it does not follow that, in the view of
the United States, he had lost all rights and was a mere trespasser when the present government
seized his land. The argument to that effect seems to amount to a denial of native titles
throughout an important part of the island of Luzon, at least, for the want of ceremonies which
the Spaniards would not have permitted and had not the power to enforce. The US Supreme
Court noted that it need not accept Spanish doctrines, as the choice is with the new colonizer. To
do justice to the natives and to uphold the due process of law under the Phil Bill of 1902, it held:
As far back as testimony or memory goes, the land that has been held by individuals under a claim
of private ownership will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the
Spanish conquest, and never to have been a public land.
B. Torrens System of Registration
a. Meaning
 Grey Alba vs De la Cruz (1910)
Petitioners had their land registered, but Respondent claimed ownership of two small parcels of
land included therein. The two small parcels of land were purchased by the parents of the
petitioners in 1864, as is evidenced by the public document of purchase and sale of that year. The
same two parcels of land are included in the state grant issued in favor of Respondent's father in
1895. This grant was obtained after the death of the petitioners' parents and while they were
minors. A decree on February 12, 1908 registering the land of petitioners was contradicted by
Respondent alleging fraud and malice, thereby requesting revision of the case. The court did and
excluded the two parcels from the Petitioners' land since the latter failed to include in the petition
the name of the Respondent as occupant of the land. The father of Respondent has been a tenant
in the land and the Petitioners believed Respondent is too. Court: The decree should not have
been opened on account of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected
thereby, and could have been opened only on the ground that the said decree had been obtained
by fraud. That decree was not obtained by fraud on the part of the applicants, inasmuch as they
honestly believed that the appellee was occupying these two small parcels of land as their tenant.
The Land Registration Act requires that all occupants be named in the petition and given notice by
registered mail. This did not do the appellee any good, as he was not notified; but he was made a
party defendant, as we have said, by means of the publication "to all whom it may concern." If
this section of the Act is to be upheld this must be declared to be due process of law.This is the
Torrens Land Registration System, which is embodied in Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act). The
law in turn was copied substantially from the Massachussetts law of 1898; the latter was upheld
in the Massachussetts SC.
Torrens system: This system was introduced in South Australia by Sir Robert Torrens in 1857 and
was there worked out in its practicable form. The main principle of registration is to make
registered titles indefeasible. Upon the presentation in the Court of Land Registration of an
application for the registration of the title to lands, under this system, the theory of the law is that
all occupants, adjoining owners, adverse claimants, and other interested persons are notified of
the proceedings, and have have a right to appear in opposition to such application. In other
words, the proceeding is against the whole word. This system was evidently considered by the
Legislature to be a public project when it passed Act No. 496. The interest of the community at
large was considered to be preferred to that of private individuals.
- Benefits of Torrens registration:
1. It has substituted security for insecurity.
2. It has reduced the costs of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from
months to days.
 MHH_2.1_Land Titles and Deeds
3. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage.
4. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the "three R's" can transact his
own conveyancing.
5. It affords protection against fraud.
6. It has restored to their just value many estates held under good holding titles, but depreciated
in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar
faults. (Sheldon)
- In the Torrens system title by registration takes the place of "title by deeds" of the system under
the "general" law. A sale of land, for example, is effected by a registered transfer, upon which a
certificate of title is issued. The certificate is guaranteed by statute, and, with certain exceptions,
constitutes indefeasible title to the land mentioned therein. The object of the Torrens system,
them, is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of the old conveyancing system.
(Duffy and Eagleson)
- By "Torrens" system generally are meant those systems of registration of transactions with
interest in land whose declared object is, under governmental authority, to establish and certify
to the ownership of an absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer. (Hogg)
b. Purpose
 Legarda vs Saleeby
Petitioners and respondent own adjoining lots in Ermita, Manila with a stoned wall in between.
Petitioners applied for registration of their land, including the stoned wall and was granted such in
Oct 1906. The predecessor of Respondent also filed and was granted registration of land including
the stoned wall in Mar 1912. Petitioners discovered this and presented a petition in the Court of
Land Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error. The lower court denied said
petition upon the theory that, during the pendency of the petition for the registration of the
respondent's land, they failed to make any objection.
SC: The lower court erred. Adopting the rule more in consonance with the purposes and the real
intent of the Torrens system, in case land has been registered under the Land Registration Act in
the name of two different persons, the earlier in date shall prevail.
The real purpose of Torrens system is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question
of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the
certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would
seem that once a title is registered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in
the portals of the court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his
land. Of course, it can not be denied that the proceeding for the registration of land under the
torrens system is judicial. It is clothed with all the forms of an action and the result is final and
binding upon all the world. It is an action in rem.
 Traders Royal Bank vs CA
Failing to pay the amount due, TRB foreclosed the mortage instituted on the Capays' property. To
prevent the property’s sale by public auction, the Capays filed a petition for prohibition with
preliminary injunction alleging that the mortgage was void since they did not receive the proceeds
of the loan. The trial court initially granted the Capays' prayer for preliminary injunction. A notice
of lis pendens was annotated on the Title. But when the property was foreclosed by TRB and a
new Title was issued under its name, the notice of lis pendens was not carried over, so it was able
to sell the property 10yrs later to Santiago and so forth to other third persons. Considering,
however, that the mortgage in favor of TRB had been declared null and void for want of
consideration and, consequently, the foreclosure proceedings did not have a valid effect, the
Capays would ordinarily be entitled to the recovery of their property. Nevertheless, this remedy
is not now available to the Capays inasmuch as title to said property has passed into the hands of
third parties who acquired the same in good faith and for value. Such being the case, TRB is duty
bound to pay the Capays the fair market value of the property at the time it was sold to Emelita
Santiago, the transferee of TRB.
The main purpose of the torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to
facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a
Torrens 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 should impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such further inquiry. Where innocent third persons, relying on the
correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court
cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such
an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for
everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in
every instance as to whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued by the court. Every
person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title
issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine
the condition of the property.