1
CHAPTER 1
The Regalian Doctrine
ALL LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BELONG TO THE STATE
REGALIAN DOCTRINE (​jura regalia)​ - all lands of the public domain belong to the State and that
the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony; all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State (​Zarate v. Dir. of Lands)​ ; State’s power of
dominum
➔ Jura regalia is a western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into
the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. The Laws of the
Indies set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Philippines Islands.
➔ The Laws of the Indies was followed by the ​Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of
1893 which provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as
possessory claims.
➔ The Royal Decree of 1894 or the Maura Law partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law
and the Laws of the Indies. It established possessory information as the method of
legalizing possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions. Under the Maura
Law, the possessory information title, when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, is
converted into a title of ownership only after the lapse of 20 years of uninterrupted
possession which must be actual, public, and adverse from the date of its inscription
(Maura Law expired 1 year after promulgation)
➔ The PH passed to the Spanish Crown by discovery and conquest in the 16th century.
Before the Treaty of Paris in April 11, 1899, our lands whether agricultural, mineral or
forest were under the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. Private
ownership of land could only be acquired through royal concessions which were
documented in various forms such as
1. Titulo real​ or Royal Grant
2. Concession Especia​l or Special Grant
3. Titulo de Compra​ or Title by Purchase
4. Informacion Posesoria or Possessory Information obtained under Spanish
Mortgage Law or under the Royal Decree of Jan. 26, 1889
ALL SETTLERS OF PUBLIC LANDS MUST OBTAIN DEEDS FROM THE STATE TO CONFIRM
THEIR TITLES
➔ Valenton v. Murciano:​ SC held that the policy pursued by the Spanish Gov’t from the
earliest times requiring settlers on the public lands to obtain deeds therefor from the
State, has been continued by the American Gov’t.
➔ Whether or not a particular land of the public domain is alienable and disposable
primarily rests on the classification of public lands made under the Constitution
➔ 1987 Constitution classification:
◆ Agricultural
◆ Forest or timber
◆ Mineral
◆ National parks
➔ Agricultural lands may be further classified by law according to the use
➔ The identification of lands according to their legal classification is done exclusively by
and through a positive act of the Executive department
ALL NATURAL RESOURCES ARE OWNED BY THE STATE
Sec. 2, Article XII, 1987 Consti​: 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. xxx
Sec. 3, Article XII, 1987 Consti​: Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest
or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further
classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold
such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not
more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant. xxx
UNLESS PUBLIC LAND IS RECLASSIFIED AND ALIENATED TO A PRIVATE PERSON, IT
REMAINS PART OF INALIENABLE PUBLIC DOMAIN
➔ For the original registration of title, the applicant must overcome the presumption that
the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Unless such public
land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it
remains part of the inalienable public domain.
➔ Menguito v. Republic​: where petitioners simply relied on the printed words on the
survey plan which reads that “the land inside is Alienable and Disposable Land Area
xxx” is not sufficient proof
➔ Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how long, cannot ripen into
ownership and be registered as a title. To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible
evidence must be shown by the applicant. Absent such evidence, the land sought to be
registered remains alienable.
APPLICANT MUST SHOW THAT THE LAND IS ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE
➔ The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of lands of the
public domain is on the person applying for registration. The applicant must show that
the land is alienable and disposable
➔ A mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain
➔ Reyes v. CA​: the Court found that at the time the homestead patent was issued to
petitioners, the subject land belonged to the inalienable and undisposable portion of the
public domain. Thus, any title issued in their name by mistake or oversight is void ab
initio.
PRESCRIPTION DOES NOT RUN AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
➔ When the government is the real party in interest and is proceeding mainly to assert its
own rights and recover its own property, there can be no defense on the ground of
laches or limitations
➔ All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State.
➔ Republic v. CA​: the rule is that a void act cannot be validated or ratified. The
subsequent release of the subject land as alienable and disposable did not cure any
defect in the issuance of the homestead patent and the title.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020
 2

THE GOVERNMENT DETERMINES WHO SHALL BE THE FAVORED RECIPIENTS OF

PUBLIC LANDS
➔ The government, as the agent of the state is possessed of the plenary power as the
persona in law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands as well
as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of
obstacles in the way of their exercise of what would otherwise be ordinary acts of
ownership.
➔ Applicants are duty-bound to prove two legal requirements:
1. The land applied for was alienable and disposable
2. The applicants and their predecessors-in-interest had occupied and
possessed the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely for at
least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure (​C.A. No.
141​ and ​P.D. No. 1073​)

REGALIAN DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED TOGETHER WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL

PROVISIONS ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
➔ Director of Lands v. Funtilar​: the Regalian Doctrine must be applied together with the
constitutional provisions on social justice and land reform and must be interpreted in a
way as to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice
➔ Every application for a concession of public land has to be viewed in the light of its
peculiar circumstances.
➔ Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry:​ a strict application of the ruling is
warranted whenever a portion of the public domain is in danger of ruthless exploitation,
fraudulent titling or other questionable practices. SC ruled that a forested area classified
as a forest land of public domain does not lose such classification simply because
loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.

LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN DO NOT INCLUDE PRIVATE LANDS BEFORE THE SPANISH
CONQUEST
➔ Oh Cho v. Director of Lands​: ^
➔ Indigenous People’s Rights Act - granted ownership over ancestral lands and domains
to indigenous cultural communities; recognizes their native title which presumes that the
lands is private and was never public

Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

CHAPTER 2
Land Registration and Related Laws
A. PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE
➔ P.D. No. 1529 covers both ordinary and cadastral registration proceedings, and has
superseded Act No. 296 (Land Registration Act)
➔ Director of Lands v. Santiago:​ the Property Registration Decree, issued on June 11,
1978, supersedes all other laws relative to registration of property
➔ It seeks to strengthen the Torrens System of land registration in the country by adopting
safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property
◆ The Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was believed to
be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
recognized; the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land; to
put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title
PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE
➔ Barstowe Philippine Corp. v. Republic​: 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 had actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to
make such further inquiry. Thus, where innocent third persons relying on the correctness
of the certificate thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court cannot disregard
such rights.
➔ PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE - one who buys the property of
another without notice that some other person has a right to or an interest in such
property; and who pays a fair and full price for the same at the time of such purchase or
before he or she has notice of the claims of interest of some other person
➔ GOOD FAITH - is the honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious
advantage of another
ALL LANDS NOT COVERED BY TORRENS TITLE ARE CONSIDERED UNREGISTERED
LANDS
➔ The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law has been discontinued and
all lands recorded under said system which are not covered by Torrens title have been
considered as unregistered lands
NATURE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR LAND REGISTRATION SHALL BE IN REM
➔ ...and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens
system
➔ Grey Alba v. de la Cruz:​ the SC held that every decree of registration shall bind the
land and quiet title thereto. It shall be conclusive against all persons including the Insular
Government and all branches thereof.
THE MAIN PRINCIPLE OF REGISTRATION IS TO MAKE TITLES INDEFEASIBLE
➔ Upon presentation in the Court of Land Registration of an application for the registration
of the title to lands, under the torrens 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 a right to appear in opposition to such application.
➔ The proceeding is against the whole world
3
➔ Legarda v. Saleeby:​ the real purpose of the 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.
➔ Escueta v. Director of Lands​: Proceeding for the registration of land under the torrens
system is judicial
B. ​ACT NO. 3344
➔ Entitled an Act to Amend Section 194 of Act No. 2711, known as the Administrative
Code, governs the system of registration of unregistered lands
◆ No instrument or deed establishing, transmitting, acknowledging, modifying or
extinguishing rights with respect to real estate not registered under the
provisions of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, entitled 'The Land
Registration Act', and its amendments, or under the Spanish Mortgage Law,
​ s between the parties thereto, until such instrument or
shall be valid, ​except a
deed has been registered, in the manner hereinafter prescribed, in the office
of the register of deeds for the province or city where the real estate lies.
➔ It required the register of deeds for each province or city to keep a day book and a
registry book for unregistered real estate. It declared that any registration made
thereunder shall be understood to be without prejudice to a third person with a better
right
PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE CONTINUES TO ALLOW RECORDING OF
UNREGISTERED LANDS
➔ Sec. 113 (a) of P.D. No. 1529​: The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall
keep a Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary Entry Book shall
contain, among other particulars, the entry number, the names of the parties, the nature
of the document, the date, hour and minute it was presented and received. The
recording of the deed and other instruments relating to unregistered lands shall be
effected by any of annotation on the space provided therefor in the Registration Book,
after the same shall have been entered in the Primary Entry Book
➔ Above law continues to allow instruments affecting lands originally registered under the
Spanish Mortgage Law to be recorded under Sec. 113 thereof until the land shall have
been brought under the operation of the Torrens System.
➔ It also provides that the books of registration for unregistered lands provided under Sec.
194 of Act No. 2711, shall continue to remain in force, subject to the proviso that all
instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under Sec.
113 thereof.
REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS ON LANDS MUST BE DONE IN THE PROPER REGISTRY
TO BIND THE LAND
➔ Thus, the registration of instruments affecting titled lands under Act No. 334 does not
affect third persons.
➔ Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Aying:​ the registration of instruments affecting titled
lands under Act. No. 3344 does not affect third persons
➔ Sec. 113 (b) P.D. No. 1529:​ It shall be understood that any recording made under this
section shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
➔ MCIAA v. Tirol:​ registration of instruments must be done in the proper registry in order
to effect and bind land.
◆ It means that if a parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is sold, but the deed
of sale was registered under Act No. 3344 and not under the Land
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

Registration Act, the sale is not considered registered, and the registration of
deed is not constructive notice to the whole world.
➔ Sec. 50 of Act No. 496 categorically states that it is the act of registration that shall
operate to convey and affect the land; absent such any registration, the instrument
executed by the parties remains only as a contract between them and as evidence of
authority to register of deeds
IMPROPER REGISTRATION IS NO REGISTRATION AT ALL
➔ Likewise, a sale that is not correctly registered is binding only between the seller and the
buyer, but it does not affect innocent third persons
A PERSON DEALING WITH REGISTERED LAND MAY GENERALLY RELY ON THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
➔ Under the established principles of land registration, a person dealing with registered
land may generally rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and the law will in no
way oblige him to go beyond it to determine the legal status of the property (​Naawan
Community Rural Bank v. CA​)
◆ Except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such
inquiry.
➔ Registration, however, by the first buyer under Act No. 3344 can have the effect of
constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer in good
faith. (​Santiago v. CA)​ However, where a property is registered under the Torrens
system is registered not under the Property Registration Decree but under Act No. 3344,
the sale is considered not registered and effective for purposes of Art. 1544 of the NCC.
REGISTRATION UNDER ACR NO. 3344 IS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR PURPOSES OF ART. 1544,
IF LAND IS ALREADY REGISTERED UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
➔ Abrigo v. De Vera​:
➔ Art. 1544, NCC​: If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession
thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it
who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no
inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the
possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith.
➔ Otherwise stated, the law provides that a double sale of immovables transfers
ownership to:
1. The first registrant in good faith
2. Then, the first possessor in good faith;
3. Finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.
C. ​PUBLIC LAND ACT
➔ Commonwealth Act No. 141 governs the disposition of lands of the public domain. It
prescribes the rules and regulations for homesteads, the sale or lease of portions of the
public domain and prescribes the terms and conditions to enable qualified persons to
perfect their titles to alienable or disposable public lands in the Philippines.
➔ Cruz v. Sec. of Environment and Natural Resources
4
PUBLIC LAND ACT OPERATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT TITLE TO PUBLIC LANDS
REMAINED IN THE GOVERNMENT
➔ Act No. 926. the first Public Land Act. The Public Land Act operated on the assumption
that title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the government; and that
the government’s title to public land had sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other
subsequent treaties between Spain and the United States.
◆ The term “public land” referred to all lands of the public domain whose title still
remained in the government and are thrown open to private appropriation and
settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of the government and the
friar lands
➔ Act No. 2847, the second Public Land Act. This new law was passed under the Jones
Law. It was comprehensive in scope but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to
FIlipinos and American citizens of other countries which gave Filipinos the same
privileges. Act No. 2974 was amended in 1936 by the present Public Land Law (C.A. No
141) and is essentially the same. The main difference between the two relates to the
transitory provisions on the rights of American citizens and corporations during the
Commonwealth period at par with Filipino citizens and corporations.
➔ Act 496 placed all public and private lands in the Philippines under the Torrens system.
◆ The Torrens system requires that the government issue an official certificate
of title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property
prescribed therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted
or the law warrants or reserves. This system highly facilitates land
conveyance and negotiation. The certificate of title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance
of said certificate.
FILIPINO CITIZENS MAY ACQUIRE NOT MORE THAN 12 HECTARES OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
➔ Under the ​Sec 3, Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution, Filipino citizens may acquire not
more than 12 hectares of agricultural land of the public domain, by purchase,
homestead, or grant.
➔ The Public Land Act provides for the requirements for the issuance of homestead patent
and the free patent.
◆ R.A. No. 9176 extended the period for filing of applications for free patents
until December 21, 2020.
➔ Sales patent are issued for public agricultural lands or agricultural lands suitable for
residential, commercial, or industrial purposes which are sold at public auction.
◆ R.A. No. 730 allowed the sale without public auction of public lands not
exceeding 1,000 sqms for residential purposes
➔ The filing and processing of the application and the issuance of the free patent
constituted an administrative mode of confirming an imperfect title, the judicial mode
being under Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Act (​Kayaban v. Republic)​
ONLY TITLES TO ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN MAY BE
JUDICIALLY CONFIRMED
➔ Under the Public Land Act, only titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain may be judicially confirmed. Unless a public land is reclassified and declared as
such, occupation thereof in the concept of an owner, no matter how long, cannot confer
ownership or possessory rights (​De Ocampo v. Arlos)​
➔ Republic v. Doldol:​ the Public Land Act require that the applicant must prove:
a. That the land is alienable public land
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

b. That his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the same must either be since time immemorial or for the period
prescribed in the Public Land Act
➔ When the conditions by law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation
of law, acquires a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title being issued.
POSSESSION OF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN MUST BE FROM JUNE 12, 1945 OR
EARLIER, FOR THE SAME TO BE ACQUIRED THROUGH JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF
IMPERFECT TITLE
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT THE LAND IS
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE
➔ P.​ D. No. 1529 - provides for the issuance of patents to certain persons for the
establishment of town sites and sale of lots therein, for the completion of imperfect titles,
and for the cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the PH
➔ Reyes v. CA​: a homestead patent was issued to the petitioners’
predecessors-in-interest was cancelled on the ground that at the time it was issued, the
subject land was still part of the public domain.
◆ Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within the private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, the
burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of lands of
the public domain is on the person applying for registration.
➔ Ankron v. Gov. of the PH Islands: t​ he applicant proved that the land in question was
agricultural land and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had occupied the same as
owners in good faith for a period of more than 40 years prior to the commencement of
the present action
➔ Mapa v. Insular Government:​ ​agricultural public lands was held to mean “those
public lands acquired from Spain which are neither mineral nor timber lands”
THE CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS IS AN EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
➔ 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.
➔ Sec.6 of C.A. No. 141,​ gave the Executive Dept., through the President, the exclusive
prerogative to classify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or
forest.(​Bureau of Forestry v. CA)​
ONLY PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS MAY BE SUBJECT OF REGISTRATION
➔ The moment it appears that the land is not agricultural, the petition for registration must
be denied.
➔ However, the President, for reasons of public interest, declare lands of the public
domain open to disposition before the the same had their boundaries established or
been surveyed, or may, for the same reason, suspend their concession or disposition
until they are again declared open.
PUBLIC LANDS ALIENATED, GRANTED OR CONVEYED TO ANY PERSON SHALL BE
BROUGHT UNDER THE OPERATION OF THE TORRENS SYSTEM.
➔ Whenever public land is by the government alienated, granted or conveyed to any
person, the same shall be brought under the operation of the Property Registration
Decree
5
➔ It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or
conveyance in behalf of the government to cause such instrument to be filed with the
Register of Deeds
➔ It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land
➔ After due registration and issuance of certificate of tile, such land shall be deemed to be
registered land to all intents and purposes under the Property Registration Decree
.
D. ​CADASTRAL ACT
➔ Act No. 2259 provides that, when, in the opinion of the President, the public interest
requires that title to any lands be settled and adjudicated, he shall order the Director of
Lands to make a survey thereof, with notice to all persons claiming an interest therein.
Thereafter, the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, shall institute
registration proceedings by filing a petition in the proper court against the holders,
claimants, possessor, or occupants of such lands, stating that the public interest
requires that the titles to such lands be settled and adjudicated
➔ Sec. 36, P.D. No. 1529:​ Petition for registration. When the lands have been surveyed or
plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, shall institute
original registration proceedings by filing the necessary petition in the Court of First
Instance of the place where the land is situated against the holders, claimants,
possessors, or occupants of such lands or any part thereof, stating in substance that
public interest requires that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated and
praying that such titles be so settled and adjudicated
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS ARE INTENDED TO SETTLE DISPUTES AND QUIET LAND
TITLES IN A COMMUNITY
➔ The gov’t initiates a cadastral case, compelling all claimants in a municipality to litigate
against one another regarding their respective claims of ownership. By this plan, all the
private lands in a town are registered in one single collective proceeding. Thus, the
piecemeal and isolated registration of lands are avoided.
➔ The principal aim is to settle as much as possible all disputes over land and to remove
all clouds over land titles in a community.
➔ To attain this purpose, the cadastral court should allow all claimants ample freedom to
ventilate whatever right they may assert over real estate, permitting them, in keeping
with the law of evidence, to offer proofs in support of their allegations.
JUDICIAL CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS ARE IN REM
➔ De Luzurriaga v. Republic​: the SC held that the publication of the amendment in
petitioner's application is a condition sine qua non for the RTC, acting as cadastral court,
to acquire jurisdiction.
➔ Judicial cadastral proceedings, like ordinary administrative registration, are in rem, and
are governed by the usual rules of practice, procedure, and evidence. The Cadastral Act
and the Land Registration Decree provide for the publication and application for
registration and the schedule of hearing.
➔ Due publication is required to give notice to all interested parties of the claim and
identity of the property that will be surveyed.
➔ The Decree that shall be issued by the Court shall be the basis for the issuance of the
Certificate of Title which shall have the same effect as a certificate of title granted under
P.D. No. 1529.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020
 6

CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO DIMINISH OR ENLARGE THE have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled
AREA OF LANDS ALREADY COVERED BY TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE outside their ancestral domains
➔ Republic v. Abacite​: According to the SC, while it is true that the original certificate of
ANCESTRAL DOMAINS ARE AREAS OCCUPIED OR POSSESSED BY INDIGENOUS
title was issued pursuant to a homestead patent, such a patent once registered under
CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL
the Land Registration Act becomes indefeasible as a Torrens title especially in the ➔ Ancestral domains are areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland
absence of any third party claiming the land against the Government. As far as the waters, coastal areas, and natural resources held under a claim of ownership, occupied
Court is concerned, the cadastral proceeding would no longer be for the purpose of or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or
ownership thereof to its claimant because that was already accomplished in a previous individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present even when interrupted by
appropriate proceeding, but merely to substitute the old certificate of title issued in said war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of
prior proceeding with a new one. government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and
private individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic,
social and cultural welfare
➔ Ancestral lands refer to lands occupied. Possessed and utilized by individuals, families
E. ​INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS’ ACT
and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or
through their predecessor-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group
➔ R.A. No. 8731 declared that ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the
ownership, continuously to present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or
lands of public domain. They are private lands belonging to indigenous people cultural
displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or
minorities or indigenous peoples, based on native title, since time immemorial
any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals or
➔ Their rights over them may be acquired through:
corporation, including but not limited to residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private
a. Native title holder over both ancestral lands and domains or
forests, swidden farms and tree lots.
b. Torrens title under the Public Land Act?Property Registration Decree with
➔ Ancestral land owners are given the right to transfer these ancestral lands and the right
respect to ancestral lands only
to redeem such lands lost through vitiated consent. This is different from ancestral
domains in a sense that this specifically refers to land while the domain may include
LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN DO NOT INCLUDE LANDS WHICH BY CUSTOM AND LONG
land, water, and aerial territories.
ASSOCIATION HAVE BEEN REGARDED BY OCCUPANTS AS THEIR OWN
➔ Oh Cho v. Director of Lands:​ all lands that were not acquired from the Government,
NATIVE TITLE REFERS TO LANDS HELD UNDER CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP EVEN BEFORE
either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.
THE SPANISH CONQUEST
◆ Exception: any land that should have been in possession of an occupant and
➔ Native title ​refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as
of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, for such possession
memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have
would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public
never been public lands and thus presumed to have been held that way since before the
domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish
Spanish Conquest
conquest
➔ Cruz v. Secretary of Environment​: Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part
➔ Carino v. Insular Gov’t of PH Islands​: US SC has recognized the fact that even before
of the lands of the public domain. They are private and belongs to the ICCs/IPs. The
the Spaniards came into our islands, our ancestors owned some lands, stating that “it is
IPRA addresses the major problem of the ICCs/IPs which is the loss of land. (Justice
hard to believe that the US was ready to declare in the next breath that ‘any person’ did
Puno’s separate opinion)
not embrace the inhabitants of Benguet, or that it meant by ‘property’ only that which
➔ Ownership of ancestral domains by native title does not entitle the ICCs/IPs to a torrens
had become such by ceremonies of which presumably a large part of the inhabitants
title but to a ​Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) which formally recognizes
never had heard, and that it proposed to treat as public land that they, by native custom
the indigenous concept of ownership of the ICCs/IPs over their ancestral domain.
and by long association regarded as their own.”
➔ Indigenous concept of ownership maintains that the view that ancestral domains under
➔ The ​Indigenous Cultural Communities or the ​Indigenous People (ICs/IPs) refer to a
the ICCs/IPs private but community property. It is owned in common and not by one
group of people or homogeneous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by
particular person.
others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded
and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial,
FOR PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION, IPRA EXPRESSLY CONVERTS ANCESTRAL LAND
occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language,
INTO PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LAND
customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance
➔ For purposes of registration under the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act,
to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and
the IPRA expressly converts ancestral land into public agricultural land which may be
cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos.
disposed of by the State. The necessary implication is that ancestral land is private.
◆ Include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent
However, it has to be first converted to public agricultural land simply for registration
from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time or conquest or
purposes.
colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures,
➔ SECTION 12.​ Option to Secure Certificate of Title Under Commonwealth Act 141, as
or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of
amended, or the Land Registration Act 496.​ - Individual members of cultural
their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may
communities, with respect to their individually-owned ancestral lands who, by

Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous
possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owner since time immemorial
or for a period of not less than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the approval of
this Act and uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall have the option to
secure title to their ancestral lands under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as
amended, or the Land Registration Act 496.
For this purpose, said individually-owned ancestral lands, which are agricultural in
character and actually used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming
purposes, including those with a slope of eighteen percent (18%) or more, are hereby
classified as alienable and disposable agricultural lands.
The option granted under this section shall be exercised within twenty (20) years from
the approval of this Act.
THE OPTION TO REGISTER LAND MUST BE EXERCISED WITHIN 20 YEARS FROM
APPROVAL OF IPRA
➔ Date of approval of IPRA: October 29, 1997
F. ​P.D. 1529 PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGRARIAN REFORM
P.D. No. 27 Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil,
Transferring to them the Ownership of the Land they Till​ xxx
➔ covers tenanted rice and corn lands and grants each tenant of covered lands a five (5)
hectare lot, or incase a lot is irrigated, three hectares constituting the family size farm.
Meantime, the said law allows a covered landowner to retain not more than seven (7)
hectares of his land if his aggregate landholding does not exceed twenty-four (24)
hectares.
➔ Beneficiaries are issued certificates of land transfer which will entitle them to possess
the land. Thereafter, they are issued ​emancipation patents which they will present to
the Register of Deeds and shall be the basis for the issuance of the corresponding
transfer certificates of title in favor of the corresponding beneficiaries. Emancipation
patents are issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform to the tenant-farmer
➔ Special registry book - ​Provisional Register of Documents issued under P.D. No. 27​:
shall register:
◆ All Certificates of Land Transfer issued pursuant to P.D. No. 27
◆ All subsequent transactions affecting Certificate of Land Transfer such as
adjustment, transfer, duplication and cancellations of erroneous Certificate of
Land Transfer
➔ Registry of deeds shall:
◆ Complete the entries on the aforementioned Emancipation Patent
◆ Assign an original certificate of title number in case of unregistered land
◆ In case of the registered property, shall issue the corresponding transfer
certificate of title without requiring the surrender of the owner’s duplicate of
title to be cancelled.
◆ In case of death of grantee, DAR shall determine his heirs or
successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of Deeds.
◆ In case of subsequent transfer of property covered by Emancipation Patent or
a Certificate Title emanating from Emancipation Patent, the Register of Deeds
shall effect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the
DAR.
7
CONVEYANCE OF PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY
➔ No voluntary deed or instrument to be a subdivision, mortgage, lease, sale or any other
mode of encumbrance or conveyance of private agricultural land principally devoted to
​ ccompanied by an affidavit
rice or corn or any portion thereof shall be registered ​unless a
of the vendor or executing stating that the land involved is not tenanted, or if tenanted,
the same is not primarily devoted to production of rice and/or corn.
➔ If only a portion of the land is primarily devoted to the production of rice and/or corn, and
such are so devoted is tenanted, no such deed or instrument shall be registered ​unless
accompanied by an affidavit stating the area (size) of the portion which is tenanted and
primarily devoted to rice and/or corn, and stating further that the deed or instrument
covers only the untenanted portion or that which is not primarily devoted to the
production of rice and/or corn
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW COVERS, REGARDLESS OF TENURIAL
ARRANGEMENT AND COMMODITY PRODUCED, ALL AND PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL
LANDS
➔ R.A. No. 6657 - CARL of 1998 (June 15, 1988)
➔ Agrarian Reform - means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced,
to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective or tenurial
arrangement to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the
economic status of the beneficiaries and all the arrangements alternative to the physical
redistribution of lands, such as production or profit sharing, labor administration and the
distribution of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of
the lands the work.
➔ Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6657:​ CARL shall “cover regardless of the tenurial agreement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands.”
➔ Agricultural Land ​- land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
➔ R.A. No. 6657 was amended by R.A. No. 6532 providing for funds for its implementation
until year 2008
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM EXTENSION WITH REFORMS CONTINUED THE
PROGRAM OF DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
➔ R.A. No. 9700 - CARPER expired on June 30, 2014
➔ Section 3. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended
to read as follows:
"SEC. 4.Scope. -The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, That
landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be
covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:
a. All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable
for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural
lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking
into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have
determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;
b. All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by
Congress in the preceding paragraph;
c. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for
agriculture; and
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020
 8

d. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the
agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.
➔ Section 22. Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 65. Conversion of Lands. - After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when
the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the
locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the
beneficiary or the landowner with respect only to his/her retained area which is
tenanted, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may
authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: ​Provided,​
That if the applicant is a beneficiary under agrarian laws and the land sought to be
converted is the land awarded to him/her or any portion thereof, the applicant, after the
conversion is granted, shall invest at least 10% of the proceeds coming from the
conversion in government securities: Provided, further, That the applicant upon
conversion shall fully pay the price of the land: Provided, furthermore, That irrigated and
irrigable lands, shall not be subject to conversion: Provided, finally, That the National
Irrigation Administration shall submit a consolidated data on the location nationwide of
all irrigable lands within 1 year from the effectivity of this Act.
➔ Alangilan Realty & Dev’t. Corp. v. Office of the President, citing the case of Dept.
of Agrarian Reform v. Oroville Devt. Corp.:​ SC held that in order to exempt from
CARP coverage, the subject property must have been classified as industrial/residential
before June 15, 1988.
LANDS RESERVED FOR TOWNSITE PURPOSES “to be developed as human settlements by
the proper land and housing agency” ARE NOT DEEMED AGRICULTURAL LANDS; THEY
ARE OUTSIDE THE COVERAGE OF CARL
➔ Natalia Realty Inc. v. Dept. of Agrarian Reform​: The undeveloped portions of Antipolo
Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as agricultural lands. Said lots
were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of
their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Lands devoted to agricultural
activity are outside the coverage of CARL. Furthermore, Natalia lands were converted
prior to June 15, 1988. (p.52 of book for whole digest)

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO CLASSIFY AND IDENTIFY LANDHOLDINGS FOR

COVERAGE IS REPOSED IN DAR SECRETARY
➔ DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify landholdings for
coverage under the CARP
➔ Ros v. Dept. of Agrarian Reform​: SC explained that after the passage of R.A. No.
6657 (CARP), agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of
conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR. However, agricultural lands
already reclassified before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 are exempted from
conversion.

AGRICULTURAL LANDS MUST GO THROUGH CONVERSION PROCESS BEFORE THEY

MAY BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES
➔ ​Alarcon v. CA:​ requirement that agricultural lands must go through the process of
conversion despite having undergone reclassification
◆ Conversion - is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural
land into some other use as approved by the Dept. of Agrarian Reform
◆ Reclassification - is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be
utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as
embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for
land use conversion. It includes the reversion of non-agricultural lands to
agricultural use
◆ A mere reclassification of agricultural land does not automatically allow a
landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment of the tenants. He
has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the
agricultural land for other purposes.

ALL LANDS ALREADY CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR RESIDENTIAL

BEFORE 15 JUNE 1988 NO LONGER NEED ANY CONVERSION CLEARANCE
➔ Advincula-Velazquez v. CA, citing National Housing Authority v, Allarde​: SC held
that with respect to conversions of agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657 to
non-agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR to approve such conversions may be
exercised from the date of the laws effectivity on June 15, 1988. This conclusion is
based on the liberal interpretation of R.A. No. 6657.

Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

CHAPTER 3
Jurisdiction of Courts
Jurisdiction on land registration cases shall be with the ​Regional Trial Court of the province
where the land is located (​Sec. 2, par. (b), P.D. No. 1529 and Sec. 48, C/A/ No. 141​)
A. ​EXTENT OF AUTHORITY OF LAND REGISTRATION COURT
➔ RTC acting as land registration court, may hear and determine all questions arising from
applications for original registration of title and petitions filed subsequent to registration
➔ Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. v. First Baptist Church:​ w/n the
CFI, now RTC, acting as a land registration court, has jurisdiction to cancel an adverse
claim based on a contract to sell or promise to sell, which can no longer be enforced
because of non-payment of the agreed purchase price - YES.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER APPLICATIONS FOR
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION AND PETITIONS FILED AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
➔ Regional Trial Courts now 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. ​Section 2 of PD
1529​, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides, as follows:
SEC. 2. Nature of registration proceedings: jurisdiction of courts. — Judicial
proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in
rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the
Torrens system.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications
for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests
therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power
to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land
Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits,
orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land
registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days from
the filing or issuance thereof.
➔ But, even under Act 496, the Land Registration Act, the court of first instance, sitting as
a land registration court, has the authority to conduct a hearing, receive evidence, and
decide controversial matters with a view to determining whether or not the filed notice of
adverse claim is valid.​ Section 110 of Act 496​ provides:
SEC. 110. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to
the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original
registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Act for registering the
same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or
interest, and how or under whom acquired, and a reference to the volume and
page of the certificate of title of the registered owner, and a description of the
land in which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse
claimant's residence, and designate a place at which all notices may be
served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an
adverse claim, and the court, upon a petition of any party in interest, shall
grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim
and shag enter such decree therein as justice and equity may require. If the
claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration shall be cancelled. If, iii any
9
case the court after notice and hearing shall find that a claim thus registered
was frivolous or vexatious, it may tax the adverse claimant double or treble
costs in its discretion.
LAND REGISTRATION COURTS MAY HEAR AND DECIDE CONTENTIOUS AND
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES
➔ RTC may hear and decide not only non-controversial cases but even contentious and
substantial issues which were beyond its competence before
➔ Averia v. Caguioa​: issue on w/n the court has jurisdiction to order the registration of a
deed of sale which is opposed on the ground of an antecedent contract to sell. The
petitioner refused to participate in the hearing of registration proceedings, claiming that
the respondent court, acting as cadastral court, had no competence to act upon the said
case under Sec. 112 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act). It was held that with
reference to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act (now Section 108 of P.D. No.
1529), the court is no longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction which enabled it to
grant relief only in cases where there was "unanimity among the parties" or none of
them raised any "adverse claim or serious objection." Under the amended law, the court
is now authorized to hear and decide not only such non-controversial cases but even
this contentious and substantial issues, such as the question at bar, which were beyond
its competence before.
B. ​LIMITED JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR COURTS
➔ B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691. Sec. 34​. Delegated Jurisdiction in
Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to
hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the
affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more
than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions
in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional
Trial Courts.
➔ Appealable to the Court of Appeals
C. ​PETITIONS AND MOTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
➔ Petitions or motions, after original registration, shall be filed and docketed in the original
cases in which decree was entered (Sec. 8, P.D. No. 1529)
➔ Neither the Land Registration Authority nor the Court of Appeals have authority or
jurisdiction, in the first instance, to ​cancel a certificate of title issued pursuant to a
decree issued by the Land Registration Court. They may not inquire into the validity of
the title or the competing claims of property.
➔ Any review by the CA shall be limited to the issue of e/n there exists a previously
existing title covering the same property.
THE CANCELLATION OF TITLE CANNOT ARISE INCIDENTALLY FROM THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FOR RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE
➔ Manotoc v. Barque:​ Sec. 48 of P.D. No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration
Decree, provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to a collateral attack and
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

cannot be altered, modified or cancelled ​except in a direct proceeding in accordance
with law. The cancellation of the Manotok title cannot arise incidentally from the
administrative proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title.even if the evidence from
that proceeding revealed the Manotok title as fake. Nor could it have emerged
incidentally in the appellate review of the LRAs administrative proceeding. (see p. 62)
THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ANNUL
TORRENS TITLES OR TO OTHERWISE ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS OVER OWNERSHIP OF
PROPERTY
➔ Sec. 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 r​ estricts the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals to special civil actions and to actions for annulment of judgments of the regional
trial court.
◆ In the case above (Manotoc v. Barque), the CA did acquire jurisdiction over
the Barques and the Manotoks petitions, albeit in the exercise of its exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over the ruling of the LRA. For the appellate court to be
able to direct the cancellation of a Torrens title in the course of reviewing a
decision of the LRA, the LRA itself must have statutory authority to cancel a
Torrens title in the first place.
THE RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS SEEKING THE
CANCELLATION OF TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY
➔ Sec. 19 of B.P. Blg. 129 ​confers jurisdiction on the RTC over all civil actions which
involve the title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein. That the RTC
has exclusive original jurisdiction over action seeking the cancellation of title to real
property.
◆ w/n, notwithstanding the statutory delineation of exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC, there is a statutory basis for the LRA to exercise jurisdiction over the
cancellation of Torrens titles. (discussion below)
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS TITLES IS INTENDED FOR
CONTROVERSIAL CASES
➔ Sec. 6 of P.D. 1529​. ​General functions of the Land Registration Commissioner:
a. Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts in land
registration proceedings and cause the issuance by the Registers of Deeds of
the corresponding certificates of title;
b. Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other
personnel of the Commission;
c. Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of,
Registers of Deeds;
d. Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of the
Courts of First Instance throughout the Philippines with respect to the
discharge of their duties and functions in relation to the registration of lands;
e. Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to the
registration of lands and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor;
f. Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision
survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except those covered by
P.D. No. 957.
➔ Nowhere in the aforecited provision is it stated that the LRA has the power to cancel
titles.
◆ In Manotoc v. Barque, it is clear that neither the CA nor the LRA had
jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title.
10
➔ W/N the LRA had acted accordingly in ordering, conditional as it may have been, the
administrative reconstitution of the Barque Title.
◆ The ​provisions below establish that the ​administrative reconstitution of
Torrens title is intended for non-controversial cases, or especially where the
subject property is not covered by an existing title in favor of a person other
than the applicant. Such an implication is consonant with the ​rule ​that the
reconstitution proceedings are not the venue for confirmation or adjudication
of title but merely a means by which a previously adjudicated title whose
original has been lost or destroyed may be reissued by the owner.
● R.A. No. 26 as amended by R.A. No. 6732​: administrative
reconstitution of titles is permitted where the certificates of titles
have been lost due to flood, fire, and other force majeure. The
petitioner in such a case is required to execute an affidavit
containing the following averments:
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
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.
● Sec. 19 of same law​: If the certificate of title considered lost or
destroyed, and subsequently found or recovered, is not in the name
of the same person in whose favor the reconstituted certificate of
title has been issued, the register of deeds should bring the matter
to the attention of the proper Court of First Instance, which, after
due notice and hearing, shall order the cancellation of the
reconstituted certificate of title and render, with respect to the
memoranda of new liens or encumbrances, if any, made in the
reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, such
judgment as justice and equity may require: Provided, however,
That, if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by
virtue of any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary,
or by an order of the court, and a new certificate of title has been
issued, the procedure prescribed above, with respect to
memoranda of new liens or encumbrances made on the
reconstituted certificate of title, after its reconstitution, shall be
followed with respect to the new certificate of title, and to such new
liens or encumbrances, if any, as may have been made on the latter
after the issuance thereof.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020
 11

● Sect. 11 of R.A. No. 6732​. A reconstituted title obtained by means

of fraud, deceit or other machination is void ab initio as against the
party obtaining the same and all persons having knowledge thereof.
● Sec. 12 ​of R.A. No. 6732​. Any person who by means of fraud,
deceit or other machination obtains or attempts to obtain a
reconstituted title shall be subject to criminal prosecution and, upon
conviction, shall be liable for imprisonment for a period of not less
than two years but not exceeding five years or the payment of a fine
of not less than Twenty thousand pesos but not exceeding Two
hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the court.
➔ Alabang Dev’t. Corp. v. Valenzuela​: held that the courts simply have no jurisdiction
over petitions by such third parties for reconstitutions of allegedly lost or destroyed titles
over lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their
duly registered owners
◆ Such doctrine was established for cases of judicial reconstitution does not bar
its application to cases of administrative reconstitution. None of the provisions
of administrative reconstitution in R.A. No. 26 or 6732 extraordinarily
empowers the LRS to exercise jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution,
where the property is already covered by a Torrens title. ​The LRA in such
cases are powerless to void the previous title or to diminish its legal
effect​. Even assuming that the previously issued title is fraudulent or attended
by flaws and as such cannot be countenanced by the legal system, ​the
corrective recourse lies with the courts, and not with the LRA.
➔ If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed with the LRA, and it appears from the
official records that the subject property is already covered by an existing Torrens title in
the name of another person, there is nothing further the LRA can do but to ​dismiss ​the
petition.
◆ Dismissal of such petition is subject to judicial review, but only the relevant
inquiry in such appellate proceeding is on w/n there is a previously existing
title covering that property. Neither the LRA nor the CA at that point may
inquire into the validity of the title or the competing claims over the property.
The only remedy is an action before the RTC for the cancellation of the
existing title, whether by the competing claimant or by the OSG on behalf of
the Republic.

Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

CHAPTER 4
Administration of Torrens System
TORRENS LAND REGISTRATION SYSTEM
➔ Was introduced in South Australia by Sir Robert Torrens in 1857 (Grey Alba v. Dela
Cruz)
TORRENS
➔ Those systems of registration of transactions with interest in land and 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.
➔ Example: A sale of land 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 MAIN PRINCIPLE OF REGISTRATION IS TO MAKE REGISTERED TITLES
INDEFEASIBLE
➔ Purpose: 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.
THE RIGHTS OF ALL THE WORLD ARE FORECLOSED BY THE DECREE OF
REGISTRATION
➔ The entire world is parties, including the government.
➔ The registration, under the torrens system, does not give the owner any better title than
he had. If he does not already have a perfect title, he cannot have it registered.
➔ Certificate of registration – accumulates in open document a precise and correct
statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner.
➔ Certificate ​– is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its owner.
➔ The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not be impugned, altered,
changed, modified, enlarged, or diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted
by law. Otherwise all security in registered titles would be lost. A registered title cannot
be altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding and not even by
a direct proceeding, after the lapse of the period prescribed by law.
BENEFITS OF SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION OF TITLES MADE BY SIR ROBERT TORRENS​:
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.
3. It has exchanged the brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage.
4. It has so simplified ordinarily dealings that he who has mastered the “R’s” can transact
his own conveyancing.
5. It affords protection against fraud.
6. It has restored 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.
LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (LRA)
➔ E.O. No. 30, series of 2011: “LRA has been transferred from DENR to the DOJ to
ensure a more effective and efficient execution of laws relative to land registration.”
➔ Appointed by the President upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice:
1. Administrator
2. Deputy Administrator
12
3. Regional Registrar of LTD
4. Assistant Regional of LTD
5. Provincial/City Registrars of LTD
FUNCTIONS OF THE LRA
1. Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgment of the courts in the land
registration proceedings and cause the issuance by the Registrars of LTD of the
corresponding certificates of title.
2. Be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled under
the Torrens system.
3. Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings and
to the other agencies of the government on the implementation of the land reform
program.
LRA ADMINISTRATOR
➔ It has been given judicial rank, but is not a member of the judiciary.
➔ He shall have the same qualifications, rank and salary as those of an Associate Justice
of a collegiate appellate court.
➔ No authority to represent the Government as its counsel. Under the Administrative Code
of 1987, the Solicitor General is bound to “represent the Government in al land
registration and related proceedings.”
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS:
1. Exercise supervision and control over all Registrars of LTD and other personnel of the
Administration
2. Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from the decision of Registrars of
LTD.
3. Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of the RTC
throughput the Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and functions in
relation to the registration of lands.
4. Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to the registration of
the lands and issue subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice.
5. Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision survey
plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No. 957.
REGISTRY OF DEEDS
➔ The functions of the Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds,
encumbrances, instruments are ministerial in nature.
➔ It is also the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument
presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all
the requisites for registration.
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS MUST REGISTER AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED FOR
REGISTRATION WHICH COMPLIES WITH ALL THE REQUISITES FOR REGISTRATION
➔ In Baranda v. Gustilo​, the SC ruled on the nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds
is to annotate and/or cancel the notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title. It is
also the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented
for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all the
requisites for registration. If the instrument is not registrable, he shall deny the
registration and inform the presenter of such denial in writing, stating the ground or
reasons, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section
117 of this decree.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020
 13

➔ Section 117 provides, that when the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the
proper step to be taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage
or other instrument presented to him for registration or where any party in interest does
not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such
instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by
the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
➔ In Pornellosa and Angels v. Land Tenure Administration and Guzman, a mere private
document does not conclusively establish their right to the parcel of land.
Note: A deed of sale executed in a place other than where the property is located does not affect
extrinsic validity of the instrument as long as the notary public concerned has authority to
acknowledge the document executed within his territorial jurisdiction.

AUTHORITY OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS IN THE REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS WHEN IN DOUBT AS TO THE PROPER ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON AN INSTRUMENT OR
➔ In ​Balbin v. Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur​, the Register of Deeds refused DEED, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS MAY REFER THE MATTER TO THE LAND
registration of a deed of donation and the annotation thereof on a duplicate owner’s REGISTRATION AUTHORITY FOR CONSULTA MANDAMUS
copy of a title, where the other’s copies of the same title were not presented. ➔ In ​Almirol v. The Register of Deeds of Agusan,​ SC held that the Register of Deeds
may not validly refuse to register a deed of sale presented to him for registration.
P.D. NO. 1529 PRESCRIBES THE ACCEPTABLE FORM OF CONVEYANCE: Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the Register of Deeds to determine, this
➔ Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney, and other function belongs properly to a court of competent jurisdiction. When he is in doubt as to
voluntary instruments, whether affecting registered or unregistered land, executed in the proper step to be taken with respect to any deed or other instrument presented to
accordance with in the form of public instruments shall be registrable: Provided, that: him for registration, all that he is supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to
1. Every such instrument shall be signed by the person or persons executing the the Commissioner of Land Registration who shall, after notice and hearing, enter an
same in the presence of at least two witnesses who shall likewise sign order prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful question.
thereon;
2. Shall acknowledged to be the free act and deed of a person or persons
executing the same before a notary public or other public officer authorized by
law to take acknowledgement.
➔ Where the instrument so acknowledged consist of two or more pages including the page
whereon acknowledgment is written, each page of the copy which is to be registered in
the office of the Register of Deeds, or if registration is not contemplated, each page of
the copy to be kept by the notary public, except the page where the signatures already
appear at the foot of the instrument, shall be signed on the left margin thereof by the
person or persons executing the instrument and their witnesses, and all the pages
sealed with the notarial seal, and this fact as well as the number of pages shall be
stated in the acknowledgment. Where the instrument acknowledged relates to a sale,
transfer, mortgage or encumbrance of two or more parcels of land, the number thereof
shall likewise be set forth in said acknowledgment.

REGISTER OF DEEDS MAY DENY REGISTRATION

1. Where there is more than one copy of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and not all
such copies are presented in the Registry of Deeds.
2. Where the voluntary instrument bears on its face some infirmity.
3. Where the validity of the instrument sought to be registered is in issue in a pending court
suit.
4. When the document is not verified and notarized.
5. When in doubt as to the proper action to be taken on an instrument or deed, the
Register of Deeds may refer the matter to the Land Registration Authority for consulta
mandamus. The aggrieved party may also avail of the remedy of consulta. If still
aggrieved, the decision of the LRA Administrator in consulta may be appealed to the CA
within 15 days.

➔ In ​Gallardo v. IAC,​ the crux of the matter now centers on whether or not the
unnotarized deed of sale purportedly executed on August 10, 1973 by the primitive
owner Pedro Villanueva, in favor of petitioners, can be considered as a valid instrument
for effecting the alienation by way of sale of a parcel of land registered under the
Torrens System.
➔ In ​Bucton v. Gabar​, a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal effects
between the parties.

Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

CHAPTER 5
Registrable Properties
A. ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Only alienable and disposable lands of public domain may be the subject of a petition
for original land registration or petition for confirmation of imperfect title.
Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain may also be conveyed by way of
public patents. HOWEVER, registration of these public patents, such as free,
homestead, sales or special patents, is REQUIRED. A patent becomes indefeasible as
a Torrens Title only when the said patent is registered.
A PATENT BECOMES INDEFEASIBLE ONLY WHEN REGISTERED
➔ Ortegas et. al. v. Hidalgo: ​SC stated that all patents may be granted must be
registered since conveyance of the land covered thereby is effectively only upon such
registration which shall be the operative act to convey the affect of the land. Registration
is ​MANDATORY.
◆ Section 51 of PD No. 1529 provides: The act of registration shall be the
operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as the third persons are
concerned and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made
in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city or the land lies.
➔ Absent the fact of registration of a patent, title to the land covered thereby whether it be
by sales or homestead, may not be said to have been perfected and therefore, NOT
INDEFEASIBLE.
➔ A patent becomes indefeasible as a Torrens Title only when said patent is registered
with the Register of Deeds pursuant to the provisions of the Land Registration Act.
◆ Republic v. Abacite: ​Prior to the institution of the cadastral proceedings, the
whole 15.6882 hectares was already covered by a Torrens certificate of Title.
Supreme Court: While it is true that the Original Certificate of Title was issued
pursuant to a homestead patent, such patent once registered under the LRA
becomes indefeasible as a Torrens title especially in the absence of any
private third party claiming the land against the Government. As far as the
Court is concerned, the cadastral proceeding would no longer be for the
purpose of determining the ownership to its claimants. It is merely to
substitute the old certificate of title issued in said prior proceeding with a new
one. Cadastral court would have no jurisdiction to diminish nor enlarge the
area of the property thus already decreed.
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES MAY ACQUIRE NOT MORE THAN 12 HECTARES OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND OF PUBLIC DOMAIN.
➔ Under the 1987 Constitution, citizens of the Philippines may acquire not more than 12
Hectares of agricultural land of the public domain by purchase, or grants.
➔ The Public Land Act provides for the requirements for the issuance of homestead
patent and free patent. Under the RA No. 6940, the period for filing of application for
free patents as prescribed under Se. 44 of the Public Land Act ended on Dec. 31, 2000
and was extended until Dec. 21, 2020 by RA No. 9176.
➔ Filing and processing of the application and issuance of the free patent constituted an
administrative mode of confirming an imperfect title, the judicial mode being under Sec.
48(b) of the Public Land Act.
➔ Sales patent are issued for public agricultural lands or agricultural lands suitable for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes which are sold at public auction.
◆ Under RA. No. 730 (1952) sales without public auction of public lands not
exceeding 1,000 sq.ms., for residential purposes is allowed.
14
➔ Special patents may also be granted to non-Christians under Sec. 84 of Public land act
or for educational, charitable and similar purposes or as payment for landed estates by
the government under RA 926 which took effect on June 20, 1953. Original Certificate of
title issued to special patents serve as concrete and conclusive evidence of indefeasible
title to the properties covered.
ONLY TITLES TO ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN MAY BE
JUDICIALLY CONFIRMED
Only titles to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain may be judicially confirmed.
UNLESS a public land is reclassified and declared as such, ​occupation in the concept of an
owner, no matter how long, ​CANNOT ​confer ownership or possessory rights.
➔ De Ocampo v. Arlos: ​Respondents claim that they purchased (1967) the subject lots from
Obdin, who in return had been in possession of the property since 1947. When De Ocampo
filed their application for cultivating, in the concept of owners, the said parcels of land for at
least 30 years as required by Public Land Act.
◆ Supreme Court: ​A title may be judicially confirmed under Sec. 48 of the
Public Land Act only if it pertains to alienable lands of public domain. ​UNLESS
such assets are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable,
occupation in the concept of an owner ​CANNOT ​ripen into ownership and be
registered as a title.
◆ PD No. 1073 clarified Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act by specifically
declaring that the Section 48(b) applied only to alienable and disposable lands
of public domain
➔ In ​Arlos​: the disputed land which was formerly part of a US military reservation that had been
turned over to the Philippine government in 1965, was declared disposable and alienable only in
1971.
➔ In ​Manalo v. IAC and de Ocampo: ​a suit involving the same parcel of land and instituted by
petitioners against other claimants:
◆ Supreme Court: US Military Reservation in Bataan of which the land in
question forms part, was turned over to the PH Government, the same
automatically became a disposable land of the public domain. The ownership
and control over said reservation was transferred to the PH Government, but
its nature as a military reservation remained unchanged. Said parcels of land
became a disposable land of public domain on May 19, 1971 per certification
of the Bureau of Forestry. The Court is of the conclusion that the land
continued to be a military reservation land while in custody of the PH
Government until it was certified alienable in 1971.
◆ Respondents and their predecessor-in-interest could not have occupied the
subject property from 1947-1971 when the land was declared alienable and
disposable because it was a military reservation at the time. Hence, it is not
subject to occupation, entry or settlement. As provided for by Sec. 83 and 88
of Public Land Act.
● SEC. 83: ​Upon recommendation of Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, 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 purpose, for quasi-public uses or purposes when the public
interest requires it, including reservation for highways, rights of way
for railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal
pastures or leguas comunales, public parks, public quarries, public
fishponds, working-men’s village and other improvements for the
public benefit.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

● SEC. 88: Tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of
sec. 88 shall be non-alienable and ​shall not be subject to
occupation, entry, sale, lease or other disposition until again
declared under the provision of this Act or by proclamation of the
President.
LANDS COVERED BY RESERVATION ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ENTRY, NO LAWFUL
SETTLEMENT ON THEM CAN BE ACQUIRED.
➔ Manalo: Court debunked petitioners’ similar argument that they had been occupying
the property since 1944.The big tract of land in Mariveles, Bataan to which the parcels
of land involved in the case belong was formerly a portion of the US Military Reservation
in Mariveles, Bataan which was turned over to the PH Government only on Dec. 22,
1965. Under the situation, the Court seriously doubts whether Placido Mapa and their
predecessors-in-interest could have been in possession of the land since could have
been in possession of the land since 1944 as they claimed: Lands covered by
reservation are not subject to entry and no lawful settlement on them can be acquired.
◆ Supreme Court ​reiterated that the land having been declared alienable only
in 1971, respondents have not satisfied the thirty year requirement under the
Public Land Act. They could not have occupied the property for 30 years,
because it formed part of a military reservation. Their application for the
registration of their titles was erroneously granted by the appellate and the
trial courts.
B. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
Property has been classified under the NCC as regards to persons to whom they belong, into
properties of public dominion or of private ownership. (Art. 419)
1. PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION
Article 420: The following things are property of public dominion:
1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks shores,
roadsteads, and others of similar character;
2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and
are intended for some public service or for the development of the
national wealth.
➔ Property of public dominion is not owned by the State but simply under its jurisdiction
and administration for the enjoyment of all the people of the State of which it is the
territorial sovereign.
➔ The purpose of property of public dominion is not to serve the State as juridical persons
BUT THE CITIZENS. ​It is intended for the common and public welfare and so it cannot
be the object of appropriation either by the State or by private persons. The relation of
State to this property arises from the fact that the State is the juridical representative of
the social group and as such it takes care of and preserves the same and regulates its
for the general welfare.
SUBMERGED AREAS OF MANILA BAY
➔ Chavez v PEA and Amari: “​the foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part
of the lands of the public domain, waters x x x and other natural resources and
consequently owned by the State.” As such, foreshore and submerged areas shall not
be alienated, ​UNLESS THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Mere reclamation of these areas by PEA does not convert
these alienable natural resources of the State into alienable or disposable lands of the
15
public domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying
these reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable and open to disposition or concession.
These reclaimed lands cannot be classified as alienable or disposable if the law has
reserved them for some public or quasi-public use. These submerged are, under the
Constitution, waters x x x owned by the State, forming part of the public domain and
consequently alienable.
a. ONLY when reclaimed from the sea can these submerged areas be classified
as public agricultural lands, which under the Constitution are the only natural
resources that the State may alienate.
b. Once reclaimed and transformed into public agricultural lands, the
government may then officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable
open to disposition.
c. Thereafter, the government may declare these lands no longer needed for
public service. Only then can these reclaimed lands be considered alienable
or disposable lands of the public domain and within the commerce of man.
CREEKS AND PONDS; RIVERS AND THEIR NATURAL BEDS
➔ Samson v. Dionisio: ​Issue is the question of the ownership of creek or pond which
receives its waters from the Bocaue River. Defendants: the said creek is situated within
their own land, for which reason they believed they were entitled to construct dams at
the entrance of the creek; but the plaintiff states that it is public property, and in common
use by the residents of that locality.
◆ Article 339 of the Civil Code provides:
Property of public ownership is:
That destined to the public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports, and bridges constructed by the State and banks, shores,
roadstead, and that of a similar character.
◆ Article 344 of the Civil Code provides:
Property of public use in provinces and in towns comprises the
provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains and public waters,
the promenades and public works of general service supported by the said
towns or provinces.
◆ Article 407 of Civil Code provides:
The following are of public ownership:
1. Rivers and their natural beds.
xxx xxx xxx
4. Lakes and ponds formed by nature on public lands and
their beds.
The articles are substantially in conformity with the Law of Waters of August 3, 1966, the only one
extended to these Islands which was published in the Gaceta de Manila of 1871. In classifying
such properties, the code only mentions some of them by way of examples, as for instance
paragraph 1 of article 339 says “and that of similar character.”
➔ Supreme Court: ​The Magos Creek existed in said locality and that it was utilized by the
public in general; that it was passage for the public traveling in small craft to and from
the lands alongside the river; that fish passed in and out by it and that through the said
creek the waters coming from the adjoining estates during the rainy season flowed into
the river until it was closed by the appellants.
Since the creek was of public ownership, the defendants had no right to construct dams,
closing its entrance into and communication with the Bocaue River and as they did it
without any authority and to the loss and prejudice of the plaintiff, they are under
obligation to indemnify the latter for reasons alleged by him in his complaint in
accordance of article 1902.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

FORESHORE.
➔ Republic v. CA: ​“evidence disclose that marginal area of the land radically changed
sometime in 1937-1955 due to a strong earthquake followed by frequent storms
eventually eroding the land. The gradual reclamation was undertaken by the lumber
company owned by Moratos. Having restored the land thru mostly human hands
employed the lumber company, the area continued to be utilized by the owner of sawmill
up to the time of his death in 1965. Again in 1973, there was a strong earthquake
unfortunately causing destruction to hundreds of residential houses fronting the Calauag
Bay including the Santiago Bldg., a cinema house constructed of concrete materials.
The catastrophe totally caused the sinking of concrete bridge at Sumulong river also in
the municipality of Quezon. On 1977, a typhonon code named Unding wrought havoc as
it lashed main land of Calauag, Quezon causing great erosion this time than that which
area suffered in 1937. So that, when the application for a free patent was made in 1972,
the land has become foreshore and can no longer be subject of a free patent under the
Public Land Act.
➔ Government of the Philippines v. Cabagis:
◆ Article 339 of the Civil Code provides:
Property of public ownership is:
That destined to the public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports, and bridges constructed by the State and banks, shores,
roadstead, and that of a similar character.
◆ Article 1, case 3, of the Law of Waters of 1966 provides
The Shores. By the shore is understood that space covered and
uncovered by the movement of the tide. Its interior or terrestrial limit is the line
reached by the highest or equinoctal tides. Where the tides are not
appreciable, the shore begins on the land side at the line reached by the sea
during ordinary storms of tempests.
➔ Aragon v. Insular Government: In reference to art. 339, ​We should not be
understood to hold that in a case of gradual encroachment or erosion by the ebb and
flow of the tide, private property may not become property of public ownership where it
appears that the owner has to all intents and purposes abandoned it and permitted it to
be totally destroyed so as to become a part of the playa(shore of the sea) or
rada(roadstead), or the like.
➔ Enciclopedia Jurdica Espaola: With relative frequency the opposite phenomenon
occurs; that is the sea advances and private properties are permanently invaded by the
waves, in such case they become part of the shore or beach. They pass to the public
domain, but owner dispossessed does NOT retain any right to the natural products
resulting from new nature. It is a de facto case of eminent domain and not subject to
indemnity.
When the sea moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the invaded property became
foreshore land and passed to the realm of public domain.
➔ Government of the Philippines v. Cabagis.
ACCRETION.
➔ Ker & Co. v. Cauden: ​SC declared that because shores are properties of public
domain, accretion to the shores of the sea by action of water are likewise properties of
public dominion.
◆ General Rule: That what is added by accretion belongs to the owner of the
things to which it is added. It would follow that such addition addition belongs
to the public and we hold that prior to 1871 the land formed in this case by the
action of sea did not belong to the grantors of the plaintiffs, but belonged to
the public.
16
RECLAIMED AND MARSHY LANDS.
➔ Republic Real Estate Corporation v. CA: ​Foreshore lands are lands of public
dominion intended for public use. Lands reclaimed by the government by dredging,
filling or other means are of public dominion also.
◆ Act 1654 manded that the control and disposition of the foreshore lands and
lands under water remained in the national government. It only allowed the
leasing of reclaimed land.
◆ Public Land Acts of 1919 and 1936 also declared that foreshore lands
reclaimed by the government were to be disposed of to private parties by
lease and not otherwise.
● Before leasing, ​the governor-general, upon recommendation of
the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, h​ad to determine
that the land reclaimed was not necessary for the public
service. This must be met first before the land could be
disposed of.
○ But even then, the foreshore and lands under water were
not to be alienated and sold to private parties. The
disposition of the reclaimed land was only by lease as the
land remained property of the State.
Ownership of foreshore and marshy alienable lands of public domain was reaffirmed in CA Np.
141 after 1935 Constitution took effect.
Foreshore lands became inalienable as natural resources of the state and ​UNLESS reclaimed by
the government and classified as agricultural land of the public domain ​in which case they
fall under the classification of government reclaimed lands.
After effectivity of 1935 Constitution, government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the
public domain continued to be only leased and not sold to private parties. These lands remained
sui generis, as the only alienable and disposable lands of the public domain the government could
not sell to private parties.
➔ The only way government can sell to private parties government reclaimed and marshy
disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing
such sale.
◆ The C.A. No. 141 does not authorize the President the reclassify government
reclaimed and marshy lands into other than non-agricultural lands under Sec.
59(d).
● Lands classified under Sec. 59(d) are the only alienable or
disposable lands for non-agricultural purposes that the government
could sell to private parties.
◆ Sec. 60 of CA No. 141 EXPRESSLY requires congressional authority before
lands under Section 59 that the government previously transferred to
government units or entities could be sold to private parties.
● SECTION 60 of CA No. 141: ​x x x The area so leased or sold shall
be such as shall in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources be reasonably necessary for the purpose for
which such sale or lease is requested, and shall not exceed 140
hectares. PROVIDED, however, that this limitation shall not apply to
grants, or transfers made to a province, municipality or branch or
subdivision of the Government for the purposes deemed by said
entities conducive to the public interest; ​but the land so granted,
donated, or transferred to a province, municipality or branch or
subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated, encumbered
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title, except when
authorized by Congress.
◆ Congressional authority required in SECTION 60 of CA No. 141 mirrors the
legislative authority required in Section 56 of Act. No, 2874.
◆ Reason for such congressional authority: Section 60 exempted government
units and entities from the maximum area of public lands that could be
acquired from the State. These government units and entities should not just
turn around and sell these lands to private parties in violation of constitutional
or statutory limitations. Otherwise, the transfer of lands for non-agricultural
purposes to government units and entities could be used to circumvent
constitutional limitations on ownership of alienable or disposable lands of
public domain. It could be used to evade the statutory prohibition in CA No.
141 on sale of government reclaimed marshy lands of public domain to
private parties. Section 60 constitutes by operation of law a lien on these
lands.
➔ In case of sale or lease of disposable lands of the public domain falling under SEC. 59
of CA No. 141, sections 63 and 67 require public bidding.
◆ SECTION 63: Whenever it is decided that lands covered by this chapter are
NOT needed for public purposes, the director of lands shall ask the Secretary
of Agriculture and Commerce(now Secretary of Natural Resources). Upon
receipt of such authority, the Director of Lands shall give notice by public
advertisement in the same manner as in the case of leases or sales of
agricultural public land.
◆ SECTION 67. The lease or sale of shall be made by oral bidding; and
adjudication shall be made to the highest bidder.
● Thus, CA No. 141 mandates the government to put to public
auction all leases or sales of alienable or disposable lands of the
public domain.
○ CA No, 141 did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law
of Waters of 1866. Parties could still reclaim portions of
the sea with government permission. However, the
reclaimed land could become private land only if
classified as alienable agricultural land of the public
domain open to disposition under CA No. 141. The 1935
Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural
resources except public agricultural lands.
Government must formally declare that the property of the public dominion is no longer needed for
public use or public service, before the same could be classified as patrimonial property of the
state. Declaration of reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain is governed by applicable
provisions of CA No. 141.
Property of public dominion without being for public use are intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth. Thus government reclaimed and marshy lands of the State,
even if not employed for public use or public service, if developed to enhance the national wealth,
are classified as property of public dominion.
BAY, ROADSTEADS, COAST SEA, INTLETS AND SHORES; PUBLIC PARK; RECLAIMED
LAND, EXTENSION TO THE LUNETA
➔ Manila Lodge No. 761 v. CA: ​The reclaimed area, an extension, is declared to be
property of the City of Manila. Property, however, is either of public ownership or of
private ownership. The property is of public dominion, intended for public use.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020
17
1. If the reclaimed area was granted to the City of Manila as patrimonial, the City
could, by virtue of its ownership, dispose of the whole reclaimed area without
need of authorization to do so from the lawmaking body. Article 348 of the CC
of Spain provides “ownership is the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing
without further limitations than those established by law.” The right to dispose
of one’s property is an attribute of ownership. Act No. 1360 provides that City
of Manila could not dispose of the reclaimed area without being authorized by
the lawmaking body. ​To so construe the statute as to render the term
"authorize," which is repeatedly used by the statute, superfluous would violate
the elementary rule of legal hermeneutics that effect must be given to every
word, clause, and sentence of the statute and that a statute should be so
interpreted that no part thereof becomes inoperative or superfluous. ​To
authorize means to empower, to give a right to act​. Act No. 1360
furthermore qualifies the verb it authorize" with the adverb "hereby," which
means "by means of this statue or section,"
Hence without the authorization expressly given by Act No. 1360, ​the City of
Manila could not lease or sell even the northern portion; much less
could it dispose of the whole reclaimed area. ​Consequently, the reclaimed
area was granted to the City of Manila, not as its patrimonial property. At
most, only the northern portion reserved as a hotel site could be said to be
patrimonial property for, by express statutory provision it could be disposed of,
and the ​title ​thereto would revert to the City should the grantee fail to comply
with the terms provided by the statute.
It was precisely Act 1360 that gave the City the power to dispose for it was
hereby authorized by lease of sale. Hence, the City of Manila had no power to
dispose of the reclaimed land had such power not been granted by Act No.
1360, and the purpose of the authorization was to empower the city to sell or
lease the northern part and not, as TDC claims, to limit only the power to
dispose. Moreover, it is presumed that when the lawmaking body enacted the
statute, it had full knowledge of prior and existing laws and legislation on the
subject of the statute and acted in accordance or with respect thereto
2. The reclaimed area is an extension to Luneta in the City of Manila. If it is an
extension then it is of the same nature or character as the old Luneta. Power
to extend cannot authorize a transaction that is totally distinct. Hence,
extension of Luneta must also be a public park or plaza for public use.
3. Reclaimed area was formerly part of the Manila Bay. A bay is nothing more
than an inlet of the sea. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Law of Waters of 1866,
bays, roadsteads, coast sea, inlets and shores are parts of the national
domain open to public use. These are also property of public ownership
devoted to public use, according to Article 339 of the Civil Code of Spain.
When the shore or part of the bay is reclaimed, it does not lose its character
of being property for public use, according to Government of the Philippine
Islands vs. Cabangis​.
4. Act 1360, as amended, authorized the lease or sale of the northern portion of
the reclaimed area as a hotel sites. The subject property is not that northern
portion authorized to be leased or sold; the subject property is the southern
portion. Hence, applying the rule of ​expresio unius est exlusio alterius​, the
City of Manila was not authorized to sell the subject property
5. Article 344 of the Civil Code of Spain provides that to property of public use, in
provinces and in towns, comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares
streets fountains, and public waters the promenades, and public works of
general service paid for by such towns or provinces." A park or plaza, such as
the extension to the Luneta, is undoubtedly comprised in said article.

It should be noted, however, that properties of provinces and towns for public
use are governed by the same principles as properties of the same character
belonging to the public domain. In order to be property of public domain an
intention to devote it to public use is sufficient.
➔ Luneta extension may be later converted to patrimonial property. However,
Ignacio vs. The Director of Lands​, the executive and possibly the legislation
department that has the authority and the power to make the declaration that
said property, is no longer required for public use, and until such declaration is
made the property must continue to form paint of the public domain.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION
a. They are outside commerce of men.
- Cannot be sold, leased or otherwise be subject
matter of contracts.
CITY STREETS.
➔ Dacanay v. Asistio: ​Petitioner is an aggrieved Caloocan City resident who file special
civil action of mandamus against the incumbent city mayor and city engineer to compel
these officials to remove the market stalls from certain city streets which the officials
have designated as flea markets, and private respondents to vacate the street.
◆ Supreme Court: No doubt that the disputed areas where market stalls are
sought to be evicted are PUBLIC STREETS. A public street is property for
public use hence outside commerce of man. Hence it may not be the subject
of lease or other contracts. Leases or licenses are null and void for being
contrary to law. The right of the public to use the city streets may not be
bargained away through contract. Interest of a few should not prevail over the
good of the greater number in the community whose health, peace, safety,
good order and general welfare, the respondent city officials are under
obligation to protect.
AIRPORT LANDS AND BUILDINGS.
➔ MIAA v. CA: ​Airport lands and buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and
owned by the State or Republic of the Philippines.
◆ The term ports in Art. 420 of NCC includes seaports and airports. Such are
devoted to public use because they are used by the public for international
and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that MIAA collects terminal
fees and other charges from public does not remove the character of the
airport lands and buildings as properties for public use. Charging of fees to
the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is of
public dominion or not. Even if the government collect toll fees, the road is still
intended for public use if anyone can use the road under the same terms and
conditions as the rest of the public.
Communal things that cannot be sold because they are by their very nature outside of commerce
are those for public use, such as plazas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc.
AIRPORT RUNWAY.
Properties of public dominion being outside the commerce of man cannot be the subject of an
auction sale. They are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition through public or private
sale. Any encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public dominion is
void for being contrary to public policy.
18
Before MIAA can encumber the Airport Lands and Buildings, the president must first withdraw from
public use the airport lands and buildings. Section 83 and 88 of CA No. 141 provide:
➔ SECTION 83: Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, 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.
➔ SECTION 88: The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of
section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to
occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared
alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President.
Thus, unless the President issues a proclamation withdrawing the Airport Land and Buildings from
public use, these properties remain properties of public domain and are alienable. As long as the
Airport Lands and Buildings are reserved for public use their ownership remains with the State or
Republic of the Philippines.
b. They cannot be acquired by prescription.
- Lands formed by the action of the sea as accretion forms
part of the public domain; cannot be appropriated nor
acquired by prescription.
➔ Lanzar v. Director of Lands: Whether or not the title to land in question which was
formed by the action of the sea as an accretion to Lot 1899 may be registered in the
name of the applicant on the basis of adverse possession for over 30 years.
◆ Article 4 of Law of Waters: Lands added to the shores by accretions and
alluvium deposits caused by the action of the sea form part of the public
domain. When they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and are
not necessary for the purposes of public utility, the government shall declare
them to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as
an increment thereof.
◆ Also, under Article 341 of the Civil Code (Article 422 of the NCC) states that,
“Property of public ownership, when no longer devoted to general uses or to
the requirements of the defense of the territory, shall become a part of the
State property.”
SEASHORES AND LANDS RECLAIMED FROM THE SEA; ACCRETION AND ALLUVIUM
OCCASIONED BY THE SEA.
The shores and the lands reclaimed from the sea, while they continue to be devoted to public uses
and no grant whatever has been made of any portion of them to private persons, remain a part of
the public domain and are for public uses, and, until they are converted into patrimonial property of
the State, such lands, thrown up by the action of the sea, and the shores adjacent thereto, are not
susceptible of prescription, inasmuch as, being dedicated to the public uses, they are not subject
of commerce among men, in accordance of Article 1936 of the Civil Code.
Occupation or material possession of any land formed upon the shore by accretions and alluvium
deposits by the sea of a private person is ILLEGAL possession on his part and amounts to nothing
more than a mere detainer of the land.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

c. They cannot be attached and sold at public auction to satisfy
judgment.
➔ Vda. de Tantoco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo: ​On account of lack of funds of the
municipality of Iloilo was unable to pay a court judgment, the plaintiff had a writ of
execution issue against the property of the municipality by virtue of which the sheriff
attached 2 auto trucks used for sprinklings and one police patrol automobile, the police
stations on Mabini st. and Molo, and Mandurriao and concrete structure with the
corresponding lots used as markets by Iloilo, Molo and Mandurriao.
◆ Supreme Court: Cited the case of Tufexis v. Olaguera and Municipal
Council of Guinobatan, ​such right of the creditor to the collection of a debt
owed him by the debtor who enjoys the said special privilege of usufruct in a
public market is not absolute and may be exercised only through the action of
court of justice with respect to the profits or revenue obtained under the
special right of usufruct enjoyed by debtor.
◆ The special concession of the right of usufruct in a public market cannot be
attached like any ordinary right, because that would be to permit a person
who has contracted with the state or with the administrative officials thereof to
conduct and manage a service of a public character, to be substituted, without
the knowledge and consent of the administrative authorities, by one who took
no part in the contract, thus giving rise to the possibility of the regular course
of a public service being disturbed by the more or less legal action of a
grantee, to the prejudice of the state and the public interests.
◆ It is evident that the ​movable and immovable property of a municipality,
necessary for governmental purpose, may not be attached and sold for
the payment of a judgment against the municipality. The supreme reason
for this rule is the character of the public use to which such kind of property is
devoted. The necessity for government service justifies that the property of
public of the municipality be exempt from execution just as it is necessary to
exempt certain property of private individuals in accordance with section 452
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
d. They cannot be burdened by easements.
➔ Villarico v. Sarmiento: ​Petitioner claims that respondents, by constructing their
buildings on the lot in question, have deprived him of his right of way and his right of
possession over a considerable portion of the same lot. The lot on which the stairways
were constructed is a property of public dominion, it cannot be burdened by a voluntary
easement of right of way in favor of petitioner. Petitioner cannot appropriate it for himself
and cannot claim any right of ownership.
◆ Article 530 of CC: Only things and rights which are susceptible of being
appropriated maybe the object of possession.
e. They cannot be registered under the Land Registration Law.
➔ Republic v. Ayala Cia: ​Inclusion of areas(portions of the foreshore, beach or of the
navigable water) in a certificate of title does not convert the same into properties of
private ownership or confer title on the registration.
➔ Government of P.I. v. Cabangis: ​SC held that the lots in question having disappeared
on account of gradual erosion due to the ebb and flow of the tide and having remained
in the such a state until they were reclaimed from the sea by filling in done by
Government, thy are public land.
➔ Director of Forestry and Munoz and Republic v CA (G.R. No. 56948 1987): ​forest
lands or reserves are incapable of private appropriation and possession however long
cannot convert them into private properties.
◆ Ruling is premised on regalian doctrine.
19
➔ Reyes v. CA: ​Homestead patent issued to the petitioners predecessor-in-interest was
cancelled on the ground that at the time it was issued, the subject land was still part of
the public domain.
◆ Supreme Court: ​Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain
belong to the State, and that the State is the source of any asserted right to
ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. This
same doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
◆ Hence, the burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership
of lands of the public domain is on the person applying for registration. The
applicant must show that the land subject of the application is alienable or
disposable This petitioners failed to do.
◆ We have stated earlier that at the time the homestead patent was issued to
petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, the subject land belonged to the
inalienable and undisposable portion of the public domain. Thus, any title
issued in their name by mistake or oversight is ​void ab initio because at the
time the homestead patent was issued to petitioners, as
successors-in-interest of the original patent applicant, the Director of Lands
was not then authorized to dispose of the same because the area was not yet
classified as disposable public land. Consequently, the title issued to herein
petitioners by the Bureau of Lands is void ​ab initio​.
Prior to March 27, 1972, when the subject parcels of land were classified as alienable or
indisposable, the same could not be the subject of confirmation or imperfect title. There can be no
imperfect title to be confirmed over lands not yet classified as disposable or alienable.
Rules on the confirmation of imperfect title do not apply unless and until the land classified as
forest land is released in an official proclamation to the effect so that it may form part of the
disposable agricultural lands of public domain.
3. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
- All other property of State which is not of the character stated in the
enumeration above is patrimonial property.
- Property of public dominion when no longer intended for public use
or for public service shall form part of the patrimonial property of the
state.
- Patrimonial property is property over which the State has the same
rights and of which it may dispose to the same extent as private
individuals according to law and regulations on the procedure of
exercising such rights.
a. RECLAIMED LANDS
➔ Chavez v. PEA: ​SC held that reclaimed lands are lands of public domain. However, by
statutory authority, the right of ownership and disposition over reclaimed lands have
been transferred to PEA, by virtue of which PEA, may validly convey the same to any
qualified persons without violating the Constitution or statute.
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.
b. PUBLIC CEMETERY
i. City of Manila v. IAC​: ​The City of Manila is a political
body corporate and as such endowed with the facilities of
municipal corporations to be exercised by and through its
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

ii.
A PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE IS OF PUBLIC DOMINION UNLESS IT IS
CONVINCINGLY SHOWN THAT IT HAS BECOME PATRIMONIAL
➔ Laurel v. Garcia​: The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is clearly
spelled out. It is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has
become patrimonial. And as property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the
commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership
for general use and enjoyment.
city government in conformity with law, and in its proper
corporate name. It may sue and be sued, and contract
and be contracted with. Its powers are two-fold in
character ​— (1) public, governmental or political; and (2)
corporate, private and proprietary. In connection with the
powers of a municipal corporation, it may acquire
property in its public or governmental capacity, and
private or proprietary capacity.
MUNICIPAL WATERWORKS, SLAUGHTER HOUSES,
MARKETS, STABLES, BATHING ESTABLISHMENTS,
WHARVES, FERRIES AND FISHERIES. ​While the
following are corporate or proprietary in character ​—
municipal waterworks, slaughter houses, markets,
stables, bathing establishments, wharves, ferries and
fisheries ​— m​aintenance of parks, golf courses,
cemeteries, and airports among others, are also
recognized as municipal or city activities of a proprietary
character.
In the absence of a special law, the North Cemetery is a
patrimonial property of the City of Manila. The City of
Manila prescribes the procedure and guidelines for the
use and dispositions of burial lots and plots within the
North Cemetery through Administrative Order No. 5, s.
1975. ​With the acts of dominion, there is no doubt that
the North Cemetery is within the class of property which
the City of Manila owns in its proprietary or private
character​.
Torio v. Fontanilla:​ The Court declared that with respect
to proprietary functions, the settled rule is that a municipal
corporation can be held liable to third persons ​ex
contractu or ​ex delicto.​ Further, said the Court: “​The rule
of law is a general one, that the superior or employer
must answer civilly for the negligence or want of skill of its
agent or servant in the course or line of his employment,
by which another who is free from contributory fault, is
injured. Municipal corporations under the conditions
herein stated, fall within the operation of this rule of law,
and are liable accordingly, to civil actions for damages
when the requisite elements of liability co-exist.​”
20
A PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR PRIVATE APPROPRIATION OR
OWNERSHIP UNTIL THERE IS A FORMAL DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
WITHDRAW IT FROM BEING SUCH
➔ Laurel v. Garcia​: The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for
actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. ​A
property continues to be property of the public domain, not available for private
appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the
government to withdraw it from being such​. The Court added that ​abandonment cannot
be inferred from the non-use alone especially if the non-use was attributable not to the
government’s own deliberate and indubitable will, but to a lack of financial support to
support and improve the property.
➔ JUSTICE FELICIANO, Dissenting Opinion (​Laurel v. Garcia​): In ​Ignacio v. Director
of Lands​, the Supreme Court held that only the executive and possibly the legislative
departments 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. If no such declaration has been made
by said departments, the lot in question forms part of the public domain. Thus, under
Ignacio,​ ​either the Executive Department of the Legislative Department may convert
property of the State of public dominion into patrimonial property of the State​.
◆ The same legal situation exists in respect of conversion of property of public
dominion belonging to municipal corporations, ​i.e. local governmental units,
into patrimonial property of such entities. In ​Cebu Oxygen Acetylene v.
Bercilles,​ although there was no formal and explicit declaration of conversion
of property for public use into patrimonial property, the Supreme Court held:
“​Since that portion of the city street subject of petitioner’s application for
registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it follows that such
withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an
ordinary contract.​”
◆ NON-USE DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE
PROPERTY INTO PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY. Still in ​Laurel v. Garcia​,
Justice Feliciano in his Dissenting Opinion said: “​I respectfully urge that
prolonged non-use, conjoined with the other factors here listed, was legally
effective to convert the lot in Roppongi into patrimonial property of the State. x
x x The majority opinion states that “abandonment cannot be inferred from the
non-use alone especially if the non-use was attributable not to the
Government’s own deliberate and indubitable will but to lack of financial
support to repair and improve the property.” With due respect, it may be
stressed that there is no abandonment involved here, certainly no
abandonment of property or of property rights. What is involved is the change
of the classification of the property from property of the public domain into
property of the private domain of the State.​”
4. PROPERTY OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
a. PROMENADE
i. Province of Camarines Sur v. CA​: The property subject
of this case filed by the City of Naga against Camarines
Sur is Plaza Rizal. The land was a garden that served as
the front lawn of the old capitol site in Naga. A monument
in honor of our national hero was built by the Provincial
Government of Camarines Sur on a portion of subject
land. A historical marker was erected in the place which
attests to the long-standing ownership, possession and
management by the Province of Camarines Sur of said
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

place. The Court held that, from the description of the
place, at present, Plaza Rizal partakes of the nature of a
public park or promenade. As such, Plaza Rizal is
classified as a property for public use.
THE RIGHT OF ADMINISTRATION BY THE LGU OVER A PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN
WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS ON BEHALF OF AND IN REPRESENTATION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
➔ Municipality of San Carlos, Pangasinan v. Morfe:​ The Court recognized that a public
plaza is a public land belonging to, and, subject to the administration and control of, the
Republic of the Philippines. The Court further held that whatever right of administration
the Municipality of San Carlos may have exercised over said plaza was not proprietary,
but governmental in nature. It was possessed on behalf of and in representation of the
national government, the municipal government of San Carlos being ​— in the
performance of its political functions — a mere agency of the Republic, acting for its
benefit.
b. PUBLIC PLAZA, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, RURAL HEALTH
CENTER, BURUANGA COMMUNITY MEDICARE HOSPITAL,
BASKETBALL COURT, RIZAL MONUMENT AND GRANDSTAND
i. Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo, Aklan v.
Municipality of Buruanga, Aklan​: ​The complaint
alleged, among others, that the Roman Catholic Bishop
of Kalibo is the lawful owner and possessor of a parcel of
residential and commercial land (Cadastral Lot No. 138)
located at the poblacion of the Municipality of Buruanga,
Aklan. In 1894, the Roman Catholic Church built in the
middle portion of the said lot and has been in existence
since then up to the present (note: decision was penned
March 31, 2006). In 1978, the Municipality of Buruanga
constructed its municipal building on one portion of the
subject lot, which was razed by fire allegedly perpetrated
by members of the New People’s Army in 1989. The
Roman Catholic Church wrote to the Municipal Mayor of
Buruanga requesting the officials of the said municipality
to refrain from constructing its new building on the same
site because it is the property of the church, and that it
needed the said land for its social action projects. The
Court held that the fact that the lots in question are on the
same block on which the church and its parish house
stand do not necessarily make said lots also the property
of the petitioner absent any evidence that its ownership or
possession extended to these lots and under the
conditions required by law. Except for the construction of
the municipal building, the other improvements were
made on the lots, and continuously used by the public
without the petitioner’s objection. Further, there is no
proof that the petitioner merely tolerated the construction
of these improvements. On the other hand, ​the free and
continuous use by the public of the lots in question, as
found by the court a quo and affirmed by the appellate
court, incontrovertibly establishes that they are property
for public use​.
21
ii. PUBLIC PLAZA AND PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE. ​The
ruling in ​Harty v. Municipality of Victoria to the effect
that “​the whole of the land not occupied by the church of
the town of Victoria and its parish house, is a public plaza
of the said town, of public use​” was reiterated in ​Bishop
of Calbayog v. Director of Lands involving the same
question of ownership of the land which surrounded the
parish church of the town. The Supreme Court declared
that the public plaza and public thoroughfare are not
subject to registration by the church; that since neither
the Church nor the municipality presented positive proof
of ownership or exclusive possession for an appreciable
period of time, and the only indubitable fact is the free
and continuous use of Lot 2 by residents of Catarman,
and the town had no public plaza to speak of rather than
the disputed parcel of land, there was a strong
presumption that the same had been segregated as a
public plaza upon the founding of the municipality of
Catarman.
5. PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
a. CHURCHES, CONVENTS AND CEMETERIES
➔ The Supreme Court declared that churches are neither
public nor private properties, in the sense that a private
person may take ownership of it. They constituted a kind
of property, the distinctive characteristic of which was that
it was devoted to the worship of God.
➔ The convents where priests live comfortably, and that are
annexed to the churches, as well as the cemeteries
should also be treated similarly.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE CHURCH AS A JURIDICAL PERSON WAS THE
OWNER OF THE CHURCHES; IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE RIGHT TO THE EXCLUSIVE
POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE SAME, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS CREATION,
EXISTED
➔ Barlin v. Ramirez:​ The Supreme Court declared that the properties of the church are
intended for the purposes of that religion and for the observance of its rites that this
church and all other churches in the Philippines were erected. Further, it was said that it
is not necessary or important to give any name to this right of possession and control
exercised by the Roman Catholic Church in the church buildings of the Philippines prior
to 1898. ​It is not necessary to show that the church as a juridical person was the owner
of the buildings. It is sufficient to say that this right to the exclusive possession and
control of the same, for the purposes of its creation, existed​.
NEITHER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT NOR THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT HAS ATTEMPTED
TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN SPAIN
LEFT
➔ It is not necessary to invoke the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. Neither the
Government of the United States, nor the Government of the Philippine Islands, has
ever attempted in any way to interfere with the rights which the Roman Catholic Church
had in this building when Spanish sovereignty ceased in the Philippines. Any
interference that has resulted has been caused by private individuals, acting without any
authority from the Government.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

WHATEVER WAS GIVEN TO THE SERVICE OF GOD BECAME INCAPABLE OF PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP, BEING HELD BY THE CLERGY AS GUARDIANS OR TRUSTEES
➔ Late Corporation of Latter-Day Saints Church v. United States​: The Supreme Court
of the United States held that by the Spanish law, whatever was given to the service of
God became incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or
trustees; and any part not required for their own support, and the repairs, books and
furniture of the church, was devoted to words of piety, x x x. When property was given
for a particular object, as a church, a hospital, a convent or a community, etc., and the
object failed, the property did not revert to the donor or his heirs, but devolved to the
crown, the church or other convent or community unless the donation contained an
express condition in writing to the contrary.
AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE TREATY OF PARIS, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH CONTINUED TO BE THE OWNER OF ITS PROPERTIES
➔ At the time of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church,
through its representative in these Islands, continued to be the owner of the properties
in question, and, therefore, its ownership was guaranteed by said treaty.
b. FRIAR LANDS
➔ Friar lands ​are lands which were acquired by the State from religious sects and friars
and which do not come within the scope of the term alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain because they are considered as private lands.
➔ Bacalzo v. Pacada:​ The Supreme Court held that “​all the requirements of the law for
the purchase of the lot having been complied with by Carmiano Bacalzo on August 12,
1948, the Government on that date was legally bound to issue to him “the proper
instrument of conveyance” by reason of Sec. 12 of the Friar Lands Act. x x x The fact
that the Government failed to do so cannot, in our opinion, preclude the now deceased
purchaser from acquiring during his lifetime ownership over the lot in question. It it not
the issuance of the deed of conveyance that vests ownership in the purchaser under the
Friar Lands Act.​”
C. ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION
➔ All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless
otherwise provided.
➔ Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be
the object of prescription.
➔ However, if the real properties of the State or any of its subdivisions are patrimonial in
character, they may be lost or acquired by prescription.
◆ State properties become patrimonial when they are no longer intended for the
public use or public service.
◆ However, there must be an official declaration by the State that the public
dominion property is no longer intended for public use, public service, or for
the development of national wealth before it can be acquired by prescription.
◆ A mere declaration by government officials that a land of the public domain is
already alienable and disposable would not be sufficient for purposes of
registration under Sec. 12(2) of P.D. No. 1529. ​The period of prescription will
only begin to run from the time that the State officially declares that the public
dominion property is no longer intended for public use, public service, or for
the development of national wealth​.
22
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE STATE INCLUDE PATRIMONIAL LANDS OF
THE STATE AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
➔ Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall into two categories: (1) patrimonial lands
of the State, and (2) lands of the public domain, but with the limitation that the lands
must be agricultural.
➔ Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber, mineral, or national parks are not
susceptible of alienation or disposition unless they are reclassified as agricultural. A
positive act of the Government is necessary to enable such reclassification, and the
exclusive prerogative to classify public lands under existing laws is vested in the
Executive Department, not in the courts.
PUBLIC LAND ACT REQUIRES POSSESSION FROM JUNE 12, 1945 AND DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT THE LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE DURING
THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF POSSESSION
➔ Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic​: Since Sec. 48(b) merely requires possession from
June 12, 1945 and does not require that the lands should have been alienable and
disposable during the entire period of possession, the possessor is entitled to apply for
judicial confirmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declared alienable and disposable
within the period prescribed by Sec. 47 of the Public Land Act.
WHILE RIPARIAN OWNERS ARE GIVEN PREFERENCE OVER ALLUVIAL PROPERTY, THE
SAME MAY BE SUBJECT TO ACQUISITION THROUGH PRESCRIPTION BY THIRD
PERSONS
➔ Alluvium or ​alluvion is the gradual and imperceptible addition to the banks of rivers.
Alluvium is the soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank, while accretion is the
process whereby the soil is deposited. ​Accretion is the process whereby the soil is
deposited.
➔ Heirs of Emiliano Navarro v. IAC​: The Supreme Court emphasized that, accretion, as
a mode of acquiring property under Art. 457 of the New Civil Code, requires the
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be
gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river;
and (3) that the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.
➔ Riparian owners are, strictly speaking, distinct from littoral owners, the latter being
owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal waters.
➔ Accretion compensates the riparian owner for the diminutions which his land suffers by
reason of the destructive force of the waters. So, in the case of littoral lands, he who
loses by the encroachments of the sea should gain by its recession.
➔ Alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek or a river do not form part of the public
domain as the alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to which
it may have been added. ​The only restriction provided for by law is that the owner of the
adjoining property must register the same under the Torrens system; otherwise, the
alluvial property may be subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons​.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

CHAPTER 6
Non-registrable Properties
General Rule​: Properties of public dominion are not subject of private ownership. (Republic v.
Court of Appeals, 1984)
Reason​: They are things res publicae in nature, incapable of private appropriation. (Republic v.
Alagad)
Notes​:
➔ Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides that except agricultural lands,
all natural resources shall not be alienated.
➔ Article 420 of the New Civil Code enumerates the things which are properties of public
dominion.
➔ Article 502 of the New Civil Code, on special properties, like water, also enumerates the
other properties of public dominion subject to PD 1607, otherwise known as the Water
Code of the Philippines.
A. ​Forest or Timberland, Public Forest and Forest Reserves
➔ Forest lands​, like mineral or timber lands which are public lands, are not subject to
private ownership unless they, under the Constitution, become private properties. In the
absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified public land until released
therefrom and rendered open to disposition.
➔ Director of Lands v. Aquino:​ The forest lands or forest reserves are incapable of
private appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into
private properties.
➔ Director of Lands v. CA​: Land must first be released from its classification as forest
land and reclassified as agricultural land in accordance with the certification issued by
the Director of Forestry as provided for by Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative
Code. This is because the classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the
executive department of the government and not of the courts.
➔ Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Forestry:​ A positive act of the government is
needed to declassify e a forest land into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or
other purposes.
➔ Subsequent release of forest lands as alienable and disposable does not validate the
grant.
B. ​Mangrove Swamps
➔ Mangrove swamps or manglares were initially considered as agricultural lands after
noting that they used to be converted into fisheries which became the common feature
of settlement by inhabitants along the coast.
➔ Montano v. Insular Government​: Mangrove swamps are mud flats, alternately washed
and exposed by the tide, in which grows various kindred plants which will not live except
when watered by the sea, extending their roots deep into the mud and casting their
seeds, which also germinate.
➔ Later on, Mangrove swamps were understood to be compromised within the Public
Forests.
➔ Directory of Forestry v. Villarea​l​: Mangrove swamps or manglares should be
understood as comprise within the public forest of the Philippines as defined in Section
1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917.
23
C. ​Mineral Lands
➔ Philippine Mining Act of 199​5: Mineral resources are owned by the State and the
exploration, development, utilization, and processing shall be under its full control and
supervision.
➔ Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. v. CA:​ The legal effect of a valid location of mining
claim is not only to segregate the area from public domain, but to grant to the locator the
beneficial ownership of the claim and the right to patent therefor upon compliance with
the terms and conditions prescribed by law. Where there is a valid location of mining
claim, the area becomes segregated from the public and the property of the locator.
D. ​Foreshore Land or Seashore
➔ Capangan v. Morano:​ As the lot was covered by the highest tides from May to July,
and there is no showing that these tides are due to abnormal conditions, the land is
obviously part of the shore and public property.
E. ​Navigational Rivers, Streams and Creeks
➔ Mercado v. Municipal president of Macabebe​: A creek, defined as a recess or armed
extending from a river and participating in the ebb and flow of the sea, is a property
belonging to public domain which is not susceptible to private appropriation and
acquisitive prescription, and as a public water, it cannot be registered under Torrens
system in the name of individual.
➔ Municipality of Mangalda v. Municipality of Manaoag​: The public waters is acquired
by (1) administrative concession and (2) by prescription of 20 years,
➔ Art. 411​: the right to make of public water is extinguished by the forfeiture of the
concession and the non-user for 20 years.
F. ​Lakes and Lagoon
➔ Article 502 of the New Civil Code​: Lakes and lagoons formed by nature on public
lands and their beds are properties are public dominion.
➔ Lake ​- a body of water formed in depressions of the earth, ordinarily fresh water, coming
from rivers, brooks, springs and rivers connected to the sea, by them.
➔ Pond ​- a small body of water, ordinarily of fresh water, and not very deep fed by floods,
hollow bed by which is bounded by elevation of land.
➔ Republic v. Court of Appeals​: Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled; the free patents and
certificates of title cover areas which form parts of Laguna de Bay. It also enunciated
that any false statement in application for public land shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the title granted.
➔ Government v. Colegio de San Jose:​
◆ Encyclopedia juridica espanola​: Lake - a body of water formed in
depressions of the earth. Ordinarily fresh water coming from the rivers,
brooks, or spring, and connected by the sea by them. Lagoon - a small lake,
the hollow bed of which is bounded by elevations of land
◆ Dictionary of Spanish academy​: Ordinary - not exceeding the average;
common, natural, occurring always or most of the time; not going beyond
what happens or takes place. Extraordinary - uncommon transcending the
general rule, order or measure; exceeding, surpassing, or going beyond which
is ordinary, commonly met with, current , settled, or admitted by the majority.
According to the definitions, the highest depth of waters of the laguna the bay during the
dry season is the ordinary one, and the highest depth they attain during raining season
is the extraordinary one.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

G. ​Military Reservations
➔ Republic v. Marcos​: The establishment of military reservation is governed by Act 627
of the Philippine commission and Section 1 of the act provides that all building or lands,
or any interest therein, within philippine islands lying within the boundaries of the areas
now or hereafter set part and declared to be military reservation shall be brought under
operation of the land registration act.
H. ​Other Reservations
➔ Other kinds of reservations​: Park Purposes (Palomo v. Court of Appeals), Medical
Center Site (Republic v. Court of Appeals [1976]), Baguio Townsite Reservation
(Republic v. Sangalan), School Site (Republic v. Court of Appeals [2001])
➔ PD 47​: Tiwi Hot Spring National Park is an inalienable land and was never converted
therefrom and cannot be disposed nor susceptible to disposition under the provisions of
Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141) nor registrable under the Land Registration Act (Act No.
496)
➔ Republic v. Court of the Philippines:​ Lands covered by reservation are not subject to
entry, and no lawful settlement on them can be acquired. The claims of persons who
have settled on occupied, and improved a parcel of public land which is later included in
a reservation are considered worthy of protection and are usually respected. But where
the President, as authorized by law, issues a proclamation reserving certain lands and
warning all persons to depart therefrom, this terminates any rights previously acquired in
such lands by a person who was settled thereon in order to obtain a preferential right of
purchase. And patents for lands which have been previously granted, reserved from
sale, or appropriate, are void.
➔ Palomo v. Court of Appeals​: The adverse possession which may be the basis of a
grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title cases applies only to alienable lands of the
public domain.
I. ​Watersheds
➔ Tan v. Director of Forestry​: It is of public knowledge that watersheds serve as a
defense against soil erosion and guarantees the steady supply of water.
J. ​Grazing Lands
➔ Grazing lands and timber lands are not alienable under Section 1 of Article XIII of the
1935 Constitution and Sections 8, 10 and 11 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution.
Section 10 distinguishes strictly agricultural lands (disposable) from grazing lands
(inalienable).
➔ Republic v. Animas​: Lands within the forest zone or timber reservation cannot be the
object of private ownership.
K. ​Previously Titled Land
➔ Lahora v. Dayanghirang:​ Where land is granted by the government to a private
individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is
issued to the grantee; Thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation
of the Land Registration Act. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its
issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a
certificate issued in a registration proceeding.
◆ Cadastral Case cannot cover a land already settled and adjudicated.
➔ Pamintuan v. San Agustin:​ A land fully settled and adjudicated, within the meaning of
the Cadastral Act by a final decree is an ordinary land registration as it would be a
similar decree in a cadastral case and it cannot have been the intention of the
Legislative to provide a special proceeding for the settlement and adjudication of title
24
already settled and adjudicated. It is more doubtful if the Legislature would have the
power to enact such a provision had it so desired the landholder who possesses a
settled and adjudicated title to his land cannot be deprived of that title through another
settlement and adjudication of a similar character.
L. ​Man-made Alluvial Deposits
➔ Article 457​, New Civil Code: To the owners of lands adjoining the banks or rivers
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from effects of the current waters.
➔ Requisites of accretion​:
1. Deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
2. Made through the effects of the current of the water; and
3. Land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the river banks of rivers
◆ Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature.
➔ Republic v. CA​: All deposits caused by human intervention and is not an exclusive work
of nature is not considered as an alluvion.
M. ​Public Market, Public Plaza, Municipal Streets or Public Buildings
➔ Municipality of Antipolo v. Zapanta​: Being already devoted to public use and public
service, public markets, public plazas, municipal streets and public buildings are outside
the commerce of man and could no longer be subject to private property.
➔ Property devoted to public use and public service are outside the commerce of man and
could no longer be subject to private registration.
N. ​Roppongi Property
➔ They are acquired from the Japanese government under Second Year Schedule and
listed under the heading “Government Sector,” through Reparations Contract No. 300
dated June 27, 1958. It consists of the land and building “for the Chancery of the
Philippine Embassy.”
➔ The purpose of Roppongi Property is not to serve the State as a Juridical Person but the
Citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of
appropriation.
➔ Laurel v. Garcia​: The Roponggi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be
alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment,
an application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group.
The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended
for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.
➔ Lots acquired by the Philippine Government from Japan:
a. Roponggi Property
b. Nampeidai Property
c. Kobe Commercial Property
d. Kobe Residential Property
➔ Roponggi Lot is a property for public service.
➔ Cebu Oxygen Acetylene Co v. Bercilles:​ The fact that Roponggi has not been used
for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to
patrimonial property.
➔ Ignacio v. Director of Lands:​ A property continues to be part of the public domain, not
available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the
part of the government to withdraw it from being such.
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020

CHAPTER 7
Classification of Public Lands
THE CLASSIFICATION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDS INTO ALIENABLE
DISPOSABLE, MINERAL OR FOREST LAND IS THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
➔ Stated under ​Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141
➔ Bracewell v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 107427. January 25, 2000): ​The rule on the
confirmation of imperfect title does not apply unless and until the land classified as
forest land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part fo
the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.
➔ Applicant must secure a certification from the Government that the lands applied for by
the applicants are alienable and disposable
➔ Declaration of lands of public domain as open for disposition may be made by
Presidential proclamation duly published ​or by ​an Act of Congress
THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE THAT THE LAND IS ALIENABLE PUBLIC LAND
➔ Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove
◆ that the land is alienable public land; and
◆ 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
➔ When conditions are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law,
acquires a right to grant​, ​a ​government grant​, without the necessity of a certificate of
title being issued.
A HOMESTEAD PATENT MAY BE CANCELLED ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE TIME IT
WAS ISSUED THE LAND WAS STILL PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
➔ Reyes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 94524, September 10, 1998): The Court ruled as
follows:
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of public domain belong to the State,
and that the State is the source of an asserted right to ownership in land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony. This same doctrine also
states that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State (​citing ​Director of Lands v.
IAC)​
➔ The burden of proof in overcoming the presumption of State ownership of lands of the
public domain is on the person applying for registration. The applicant must show that
the land subject of the application is alienable or disposable.
➔ In the absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified public land until
released therefrom and open to disposition
THE CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY INTO A FISHPOND, OR TITLING OF PROPERTIES
AROUND IT, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENDER THE PROPERTY AS ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE
➔ Director of Lands and Director of Forest Development v. CA (G.R. No. L-58867.
June 22, 1984): ​Classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the
Executive Department of Government and not of the Courts. The conversion of subject
property into a fishpond by the applicants, or the alleged titling of properties around it,
does not automatically render the property as alienable and disposable
25
A. ​POSITIVE ACT OF GOVERNMENT
➔ The defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title pursuant to a free patent does not lie
against the state in an action for reversion of the land covered thereby when such a land
is a part of a public forest or of a forest reservation
➔ Although the Director fo Lands has jurisdiction over public lands classified as agricultural
under the constitution, or alienable or disposable under the Public Land Act, and is
charged with the administration of all laws relative thereto, mineral and timber lands are
beyond his jurisdiction
THE BUREAU OF FORESTRY HAS JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER THE
DEMARCATION, PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT, REPRODUCTION, OCCUPANT AND USE
OF PUBLIC FORESTS
➔ Bureau of Forestry has jurisdiction and authority over the demarcation, protection,
management, reproduction, occupancy and use of all public forests and forest
reservations and over the granting of licenses for the taking of products therefrom,
including stone and earth.
➔ Titles issued to private parties by the Bureau of Lands when the land covered thereby is
not disposable public land but forest land are void ​ab initio.
B.​ ​OFFICIAL PROCLAMATION
➔ Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141: ​Classification or reclassification of public
lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now ​a prerogative of the
Executive Department of the government and not the courts
➔ Done through the Office of the President
➔ A positive act of government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest
and to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.
Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to
that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public
domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply
➔ Possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership
➔ A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and
beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens
system.
IT IS NOT THE COURT WHICH DETERMINES THE CLASSIFICATION WHICH DETERMINES
THE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN INTO AGRICULTURAL,
FOREST OR MINERAL BUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, THROUGH
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
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 v. PEA and Amari (G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002)
C.​ ​LEGISLATIVE ACT
➔ By way of legislative act or statute, a public land may be reclassified wherein a
previously reserved forest area was segregated and ceded to the University of the
Philippines, pursuant to RA No. 3990.
➔ International Hardwood v. CA: R ​ .A. No. 3990 which establishes a central experiment
station for the use of the UP in connection with its research and extension functions,
Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020
 26

particularly by the College of Agriculture, College of Veterinary Medicine and College of
Arts and Sciences, the above “reserved” area was “​ceded and transferred in full
ownership to the University of the Philippines subject to any existing concessions, if
​ hen it ​ceded and transferred ​the property to UP, the Republic of the Philippines
any.” W
completely removed it from public domain and, more specifically, in respect to the areas
covered by the timber license of petitioner, removed and segregated it from a public
forest; it divested itself of its rightd and title thereto and relinquished and conveyed the
same to UP; and made the latter the absolute owner thereof, subject only to the existing
concession.
➔ That the law intended a transfer of the absolute ownership is unequivocally evidenced
by its use of the word “​full​” to describe it. ​Full m
​ eans entire, complete, or possessing all
particulars, or not wanting in any essential quality.
➔ RA No. 9323, ​entitled “An Act Reclassifying a Parcel of Timberland Located in Barangay
Atabay, Municipality of Hilongos, Province of Leyte as Alienable and Disposable Land
for Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Other Productive Purposes,” reclassified a
timberland into an alienable and disposable land for residential, commercial, industrial
and other purposes.
D. ​CERTIFICATION OF THE BUREAU OF FORESTRY
➔ Certification that the land applied for became alienable and disposable must be
examined. Thus, where the Forester who issued the certification did not testify in court,
such evidence is hearsay; hence, not controlling.
➔ DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20 dated 30 May 1988​, delineated the
functions and authorities of the offices within DENR.
➔ Under DAO No. 20, the CENRO issues certificates of land classificstion status for areas
below 50 hectares
➔ The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Offices (PENRO) issues certificate
fo land classification status for lands covering ​over 50 hectares
➔ DAO No. 38, dated 19 April 1990, ​amended DAO No. 20 -- retained authority of
CENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for areas belwo 50 hectares, as
well as the authority of PENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for lands
covering over 50 hectares.
investigation was conducted by the Bureau of lands, which enjoys the presumption of
regularity.
A PARTY WHO HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH ENTITLE
HIM TO A PATENT FOR A PARTICULAR TRACT OF PUBLIC LAND ACQUIRES A VESTED
INTEREST, AND IS TO BE REGARDED, AS ITS EQUITABLE OWNER
➔ Republic vs. De Porkan (​G.R. No. L-66866. June 18, 1987)
➔ Where the right to a patent has once become vested in a purchaser of public lands, it is
equivalent so far as the Government is concerned, to a patent actually issued. The
execution and delivery of the patent after the right to it has become complete are mere
ministerial acts of the officers charged with that duty.
A PERFECTED VALID APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC LAND OPERATES AS A WITHDRAWAL
OF THE TRACT FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, IT IS DEEMED A PRIVATE PROPERTY
➔ A perfected homestead under the law, is property in the highest sense, which may be
sold and conveyed and will pass by descent
➔ Even without a patent a perfected homestead is a property right in the fullest sense,
unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is in the Government. Such
land may be conveyed or inherited
THE APPLICANT FOR LAND REGISTRATION MUST PRESENT A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
CLASSIFICATION APPROVED BY DENR SECRETARY AND CERTIFIED AS A TRUE COPY
BY THE LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS
➔ Executive Order, Administrative Order, Land Classification Map, reports of District
Forester may also be presented as proof to show the classification of public lands
➔ The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved
the land classification and that the land subject of the application for registration falls
within the approved area per verification through the survey by the PENRO or CENRO
➔ In addition, the application for land registration must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal
custodian of the official records.
➔ These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable

THE CLASSIFICATION OR CERTIFICATION MADE BY THE BUREAU OF FORESTRY THAT A

PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS TIMBERLAND IS NOT CONTROLLING IN ALL CASES
➔ Tottoc vs. IAC (G.R. No. 69969. December 20, 1989)

E​. ​INVESTIGATION REPORTS OF BUREAU OF LANDS

➔ When a homesteader has complied with all the terms and conditions which entitle him to
a patent for a particular tract of public land, he acquires a vested interest therein, and is
to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof.
➔ Once the patent has become vested in a purchaser of public land, it is equivalent to a
patent actualy issued.
➔ It sustains the conckusion of the trial court that a tract of public land ceased to be part of
the public domain and became private land over which the Director of Lands is divested
of control and possession.

INVESTIGATION REPORTS OF BUREAU OF LANDS INVESTIGATOR ENJOYS THE

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
➔ Herico vs. Dar (G.R. No. L-23265. January 28, 1980): ​it was shown that the CA found
for Dar because his application for a free patent was approved after the requisite official

Aliga, Cinco, Ibañez, Marco, Mendoza, Panandigan; LTD Notes (ASG) S.Y. 2019-2020