© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
2016
[LAND TITLES AND DEEDS]
Agcaoili Book; Atty. Panes Lectures; LA Notes
Sec. 1 Title of Decree – This decree shall be known as the Property Registration Decree.
SECOND CASE:
Regalian Doctrine (Art. 12, Sec. 2 of the 1987 PC)
- all lands of whatever classification and other natural
resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership belong to the State
Jura Regalia
private title to a land must be traced to some grant, express
or implied, or from its successors
- The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all land
titles in the Philippines. This refers to Royal Rights that all
lands were formerly held by the King.
- (Maam Panes): refers to private ownership and how private
ownership of lands were given by virtue of the royal rights
possessed by the King
Exceptions to Regalian Doctrine
1) Native Title (Carino v. Insular)– refers to pre-conquest
rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory
reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership
by ICCs/Indigenous Peoples, have never been public lands,
and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held the
same way since before Spanish Conquest
 Time Immemorial - A period of time when as far
back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are
known to have occupied, possessed in the concept
of an owner, and utilized a defined territory
developed to them, by operation of customary law
or inherited from their ancestors with their
customs and traditions
2) Ancestral Domain (Cruz v. Secretary)
SECRETARY OF DENR V. MAYOR JOSE S. YAP
October 8, 2008
This case involves 2 petitions regarding the right of the present
occupants of Boracay Island to secure titles over their occupied lands.
FIRST CASE: G.R. No. 167707 Certiorari on CA decision affirming RTC
granting declaratory relief field by Mayor Jose Yap et al and
ordered the survey of Boracay for titling purposes
1976, (DENR) approved the National Reservation Survey of Boracay
Island, which identified several lots as being occupied or claimed by 3)
named persons. President Marcos declared the area as tourist zones
and marine reserves under the administration of the Philippine
Tourism Authority (PTA). Hence, subsequent issuance of PTA Circular
3- 82 to implement Proclamation No. 1801.
- Petitioners claim that Proclamation and PTA Circular
precluded them from filing an application for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling
purposes; Marcos’ declaration raised doubts on their right to
secure titles over their occupied lands and Since the Island
was classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private
ownership; Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act (CA)
No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, they had
the right to have the lots registered in their names through
judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.
OSG invoked Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 or the Revised
Forestry Code that Boracay Island was an unclassified land of
the public domain. It formed part of the mass of lands classified
as public forest, which was NOT available for disposition and
since Boracay Island had not been classified as A & D whatever
possession they had cannot ripen into ownership.
 of such patrimony. The doctrine has been consistently adopted under
ISSUE: whether Proclamation No. 1801 posed any legal hindrance or
impediment to the titling of the lands in Boracay. RTC neither
Proclamation nor the Circular mentioned that lands in Boracay were
inalienable or could not be the subject of disposition. The Circular
itself recognized private ownership of lands.
- Sections 87 and 53 of the Public Land Act as basis for
acknowledging private ownership of lands in Boracay and
that only those forested areas in public lands were declared
as part of the forest reserve.
- The RTC took judicial notice that certain parcels of land in
Boracay Island were covered by OCT in the name of the
Heirs of Ciriaco S. Tirol. The titles were issued on August 7,
1933.
- CA held that respondents-claimants could not be prejudiced
by a declaration that the lands they occupied since time
immemorial were part of a forest reserve.
G.R. No. 173775 a petition for prohibition,
mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064 issued by PGMA
classifying Boracay into reserved forest and agricultural land.
During the pendency of the 1st case, PGMA issued Proclamation No.
1064 classifying Boracay Island into
1. (400) hectares of reserved forest land (protection purposes)
and
2. (628.96) hectares of agricultural land (A/D).
3. (15m) buffer zone on each side of the centerline of roads
and trails, reserved for right-of-way and which shall form
part of the area reserved for forest land protection
purposes.
On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants , owners of beach resorts in
Boracay filed with this Court an action to nullify PGMA’s proclamation
claiming that it infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of
Boracay; there is no need for a proclamation reclassifying Boracay into
agricultural land; and Being classified as neither mineral nor timber
land, the island is deemed agricultural pursuant to the Philippine Bill
of 1902 and Act No. 926, known as the first PLA. Thus, their
possession in the concept of owner for the required period entitled
them to judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
OSG argued that petitioners-claimants Boracay is an unclassified
public forest land pursuant to Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 and cannot
be the subject of judicial confirmation of imperfect title. It is only the
executive department, not the courts, which has authority to reclassify
lands of the public domain into A&D. There is a need for a positive
government act in order to release the lots for disposition.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner claimants have a right to secure titles over their
occupied portions in Boracay. The twin petitions pertain to their right,
if any, to judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA No. 141, as
amended. They do not involve their right to secure title under other
pertinent laws.
HELD:
REGALIAN DOCTRINE AND POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE TO
RECLASSIFY LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Private claimants rely
on three (3) laws and executive acts in their bid for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title, namely:
1) Philippine Bill of 1902 in relation to Act No. 926, later amended and/or
superseded by Act No. 2874 and CA No. 141;
2) Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then President Marcos; and
Proclamation No. 1064 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
1935 CONSTITUTION 1973 CONSTITUTION 1987 CON
1. agricultural 1. agricultural 1. ag
2. forest or timber 2. industrial/commercial (m
3. residential 2. for
4. resettlement 3. na
5. mineral 4. mi
6. timber/forest
7. grazing lands
8. others by law
Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had
never been expressly and administratively classified under any of
these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public
domain.
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE dictates that all lands of the public
domain belong to the State, that the State is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation
the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all
lands that have not been acquired from the government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the State as part of the
inalienable public domain. Necessarily, it is up to the State to
determine if lands of the public domain will be disposed of for private
ownership. 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
1
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles
in the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts concepto dueo since time immemorial, or since July
of ownership. 2 required.
***POSITIVE ACT REQUIRED
SPANISH RULE  Courts are no longer authorized to determine
classific
Our present land law traces its roots to the Regalian Doctrine. Upon the Spanish conquest of the  Gave the executive through the President the
exclusiv
Philippines, ownership of all lands, territories and possessions in the Philippines passed to the to classify public lands into A & D, mineral or forest.
A
Spanish Crown. declaration of A&D, this law requires publication and
 remains as the existing general law governing the cl
The Laws Of The First introduced Regalian doctrine and laid the foundation that
and disposition of lands of the public domain other
Indies And The that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by
th mineral lands, and privately owned lands which
Royal Cedulas grant, belong to the public domain
provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as rever State.
Ley Hipotecaria Or
The Mortgage Law possessory claims.  Section 48(b) of CA No. 141 retained the req
Of 1893. under Act No. 2874 of possession and
occupatio
The Royal Decree partly amended the Spanish Mortgage Law and the the public domain since time immemorial or sin
Of 1894 Or The It established possessory information as the method of legalizing 1894.
Maura Law possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditioCnAs
 Amendments of this Requirement
Nwoh.ic1h4w1ere
set forth in said decree. Under Section 393 of the MaurPaULBaLwIC  Republic Act (RA) No. 1942
LAND ACT  OCENPO 30 Years
1) informacion posesoria or possessory information t1it9le3,5  PD No. 1073,
Constitution;  OCENPO since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
2) when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property,
isDceocnevmerbterd1in, t1o936
a title of ownership
3) only after the lapse of twenty (20) years of
4) uninterrupted possession which must be actual, public, and
adverse, There are two requisites for judicial confirmation of
imperf
5) from the date of its inscription. incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely:
6) However, possessory information title had to be perfected one (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possessi
year after the promulgation of the Maura Law, or until occupation of the subject land by himself or
through
1895. Otherwise, the lands would revert to the State. predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of
since time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and
In sum, private ownership of land under the Spanish regime could only be founded on royal (2) The classification of the land as alienable and
concessions which took various forms, namely: dispo the public domain.
a) titulo real or royal grant;  discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in l
b) concesion especial or special grant; registration proceedings. Under the decree, all
holder
c) composicion con el estado or adjustment title; PD No. 892 titles or grants should apply for registration of their
la
d) titulo de compra or title by purchase; and
e) informacion posesoria or possessory information February 16, 1976 No. 496 within six (6) months from the effectivity of
title. Spanish Titles may t February 16, 1976.
no longer be used  Thereafter, the recording of all unregistered lands sha
as evidence of by Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code,
ownership due to a Act No. 3344.
the rise of several  Evidences of Ownership during Spanish Regime
AMERICAN RULE
Philippine Bill of 1) c o n fl i ct ( in
AGRICULTURAL those
g cpublic
laimslands
of acquired 1) Royal Grant
from S p a i n w h ic h
1902 2) Special Grant
ownership
US assumed are not timber or mineral lands) 3) Adjustment Title
administration of 2) MINERAL 4) Title by Purchase
the Phil. Is. After a. absolute grant (freehold system) 5) Possessory Information Title
b. lease (leasehold system) 6) Gratuitous Title
the 1898 Treaty of
3) TIMBER OR FOREST LANDS.  Amended and updated the Act. No. 496
Paris
Act No. 496  established a system of registration by which recordePd DtitNleo.  enacted to codify the various laws relative to
Land Registration registra
1529, becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible.  governs registration of lands under the Torrens syste
TPhroispeisrtkynown
Act as the TORRENS SYSTEM. unregistered lands, including chattel mortgages.
On February 1, Registration Decree
 Made the Court of Land Registration  Broadened the jurisdiction of RTCs with regard to
1903 June 11, 1978 orig
 Does not create title nor vest one, simply confirms and registration of title to lands
register
introduced the HOMESTEAD SYSTEM ,  Created the former LRC which is now Land Registratio
provisions for judicial and administrative confirmation of imperfect
Act No. 926 titles A POSITIVE ACT DECLARING LAND AS ALIENABLE AND
First Public Land i. OCENPO of agricultural lands for the next ten (10)DyIeSaPrOs SABLE IS REQUIRED. In keeping with the presumption of State
Act preceding July 26, 1904 ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must
October 7, 1903 SALE OR LEASE OF PUBLIC be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation,
LANDS.
title to public lands permitted corporations regardless of the nationality odf epcelrassosnifsying inalienable public land into disposable land
in the Philippines for owning the controlling stock to lease or purchase landasgorifctuhlteupraulbolirc other purposes. In fact, Section 8 of CA No.
141 limits
remained alienable or disposable lands only to those lands which have been
gov’t and in
title itsthe domain officially delimited and classified.

2
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
judges of courts have the authority to determine classification of
sprung from Treaty lands THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF
of Paris CFI’s had power to adjudicate cases relating to land tiStlTeAsTaEndOWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS
disputes ON THE PERSON APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION (or claiming
ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is
Cadastral system of registration – when in the aolipeinaiobnleof othre disposable. To overcome this
presumption,
President, the public interest requires that the title tioncaonnytrloavnedrstiblee evidence must be established that the land
subject of settled and adjudicated, he shall order the DoL tothme apkepliscuartvioeny (or claim) is A/D.
Act. No. 2259 thereof, w/ notice to all persons claiming an interest 1th)erepinre. sidential proclamation or P
Cadastral Act Thereafter, DoL shall be represented by SG, shall institu2t)e tahne executive order; E
Feb. 11, 1913 registration proceedings by filing a petition in the prope3r ) couarnt administrative action; A
against the possessors stating that public interest requires th4e) titliensvestigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and
to such lands be settled and adjudicated. a R
Act No. 2874  comprehensive law limited the exploitation of agricultural lan5d)s tolegislative act or a statute.
Second Public L Filipinos and Americans and citizens of other countries which gave
Land Act November The applicant may also secure a certification from the government that
29, 1919 Filipinos the same privileges. the land claimed to have been possessed for the required number of

Under Jones Law For judicial confirmation of title, possession and occupyaetaiorsn is alienable and disposable.
In this case records bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, (10) years under Act No. 926 ipso facto converted the island into private
the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of ownership. Hence, they may apply for a title in their name.A similar argument
a government proclamation that the land is A/D. Matters of land was squarely rejected by the Court in Collado v. Court of Appeals. Collado, citing
classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. They call for proof. the separate opinion of now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources,107-a ruled:
Who may classify lands? Act No. 926, the first Public Land Act, was passed in pursuance of the
 JUDICIARY (ANKRON AND DE ALDECOA )These cases were provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The law governed the disposition
decided under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and of lands of the public domain. It prescribed rules and regulations for
Act No. 926 (October 7, 1926). During that time, the President the homesteading, selling and leasing of portions of the public domain
had no power to classify lands of the public domain into mineral, of the Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions to
timber, and agricultural. Hence, the courts were free to make enable persons to perfect their titles to public lands in the Islands. It
corresponding classifications in justiciable cases, or were vested also provided for the issuance of patents to certain native settlers
with implicit power to do so, depending upon the preponderance upon public lands, for the establishment of town sites and sale of lots
of the evidence. To aid the courts in resolving land registration therein, for the completion of imperfect titles, and for the
cases under Act No. 926, it was then necessary to devise a cancellation or confirmation of Spanish concessions and grants in the
presumption on land classification that in the absence of Islands. In short, the Public Land Act operated on the assumption that
evidence to the contrary, lands are considered agricultural. title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the
However, this presumption did not automatically converted all government; and that the governments title to public land
lands of the public domain as A&D agricultural lands for it would
be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long-
entrenched Regalian doctrine. The presumption in Ankron and
De Aldecoa attaches only to land registration cases brought
under the provisions of Act No. 926, or more specifically those
cases dealing with judicial and administrative confirmation of
imperfect titles. The presumption applies to an applicant for
judicial or administrative conformation of imperfect title under
Act No. 926. It certainly cannot apply to landowners, such as
private claimants or their predecessors-in-interest, who failed to
avail themselves of the benefits of Act No. 926. As to them, their
land remained unclassified and, by virtue of the Regalian
doctrine, continued to be owned by the State. In any case, the
assumption in Ankron and De Aldecoa was not absolute. Land
classification was, in the end, dependent on proof. If there was
proof that the land was better suited for non-agricultural uses,
the courts could adjudge it as a mineral or timber land despite
the presumption.

 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 became private lands.
Act No. 2874, promulgated in 1919 and reproduced in Section
6 of CA No. 141, gave the Executive Department, through the
President, the exclusive prerogative to classify or reclassify
public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.96-a
Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express
or implied, to determine the classification of lands of the public
domain.

Here, private claimants, unlike the HEIRS OF CIRIACO TIROL

who were issued their title in 1933, did not present a
justiciable case for determination by the land registration
court of the propertys land classification. Simply put, there
was no opportunity for the courts then to resolve if the land
the Boracay occupants are now claiming were agricultural
lands. When Act No. 926 was supplanted by Act No. 2874
in 1919, without an application for judicial confirmation
having been filed by private claimants or their
predecessors-in-interest, the courts were no longer
authorized to determine the propertys land classification.
Hence, private claimants cannot bank on Act No. 926.

PRIVATE CLAIMANTS CONTINUED POSSESSION UNDER ACT NO.

926 DOES NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND IS
ALIENABLE. Private claimants also contend that their continued
possession of portions of Boracay Island for the requisite period of ten

3
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
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. Thus, it is plain error for petitioners to
argue that under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and
Public Land Act No. 926, mere possession by private
individuals of lands creates the legal presumption
that the lands are alienable and disposable.
(Emphasis Ours)
 EXCEPT FOR LANDS ALREADY COVERED BY
EXISTING TITLES, BORACAY WAS AN
UNCLASSIFIED LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
PRIOR TO PROCLAMATION NO. 1064. SUCH
UNCLASSIFIED LANDS ARE CONSIDERED
PUBLIC FOREST UNDER PD NO. 705. The
DENR and the
National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority certify that Boracay Island is an
unclassified land of the public domain. PD No. 705
issued by President Marcos categorized all
unclassified lands of the public domain as public
forest. Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a
PUBLIC FOREST as a mass of lands of the public
domain which has not been the subject of the
present system of classification for the
determination of which lands are needed for
forest purpose and which are not. Applying PD
No. 705, all unclassified lands, including those in
Boracay Island, are ipso facto considered public
forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles
already existing prior to its effectivity.
 The Court notes that the classification of Boracay as a
forest
land under PD No. 705 may seem to be out of
touch with the present realities in the island.
Boracay, no doubt, has been partly stripped of its
forest cover to pave the way for commercial
developments. As a premier tourist destination for
local and foreign tourists, Boracay appears more of
a commercial island resort, rather than a forest
land. Nevertheless, that the occupants of Boracay
have built multi- million peso beach resorts on the
 Sections 6 and 7 of CA No. 141 provide that it is
only the
President, upon the recommendation of the proper
department head, who has the authority to classify the lands
of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and
mineral lands. In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo merely exercised the authority
granted to her to classify lands of the public domain,
presumably subject to existing vested rights. Classification of
public lands is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive
Department, through the Office of the President. Courts
have no authority to do so. Absent such classification, the
land remains unclassified until released and rendered open
to disposition.
 PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW. Private
claimants further assert that Proclamation No. 1064 violates
the provision of the (CARL) or RA No. 6657 barring
conversion of public forests into agricultural lands.
They claim that since Boracay is a public forest under PD
No. 705, President Arroyo can no longer convert it into an
agricultural land without running afoul of Section 4(a) of RA
No. 6657, thus:
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.
 That Boracay Island was classified as a public forest under
PD No. 705 did not bar the Executive from later
converting it into agricultural land. Boracay Island still
remained an unclassified land of the public domain
despite PD No. 705., the prohibition under the CARL
applies only to a reclassification of land. If the land had
never been previously classified, as in the case of
Boracay, there can be no prohibited reclassification
under the agrarian law. We agree with the opinion of
island; that the island has already been stripped of its forest
cover; or that the implementation of Proclamation No. 1064
will destroy the islands tourism industry, do not negate its
character as public forest.
 Forests, in the context of both the Public Land Act and the
Constitution classifying lands of the public domain into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national
parks, do not necessarily refer to large tracts of wooded
land or expanses covered by dense growths of trees and
underbrushesA forested area classified as forest land of the
public domain does not lose such classification simply
because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its
forest cover. The classification is descriptive of its
legal nature or status and does not have to be
descriptive of what the land actually looks like. 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. (Emphasis
supplied)
PROCLAMATION NO. 1801 IS NOT A POSIITIVE ACT. However,
private claimants argue that Proclamation No. 1801 issued by then
President Marcos in 1978 entitles them to judicial confirmation of
imperfect title. The Proclamation classified Boracay, among other
islands, as a tourist zone. Private claimants assert that, as a tourist
spot, the island is susceptible of private ownership.
 Proclamation No. 1801 or PTA Circular No. 3-82 did not
convert the whole of Boracay into an agricultural land but
merely recognizes that the island can be classified by the
Executive department pursuant to its powers under CA
No.
141. Therefore, Proclamation No. 1801 cannot be deemed
the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as
alienable and disposable land. If President Marcos intended
to classify the island as alienable and disposable or forest, or
both, he would have identified the specific limits of each, as
President Arroyo did in Proclamation No. 1064. This was not
done in Proclamation No. 1801.
 The Whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1801shows
that the proclamation is aimed at administering the
islands for tourism and ecological purposes. It does
not address the areas alienability.
IT WAS PROCLAMATION NO. 1064 OF 2006 WHICH POSITIVELY
DECLARED PART OF BORACAY AS ALIENABLE AND OPENED
THE SAME TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
the Department of Justice on this point: Thus, obviously, the
prohibition in Section 4(a) of the CARL against the reclassification
of forest lands to agricultural lands without a prior law delimiting
the limits of the public domain, does not, and cannot, apply to
those lands of the public domain, denominated as public forest
under the Revised Forestry Code, which have not been previously
determined, or classified, as needed for forest purposes in
accordance with the provisions of the Revised Forestry Code.
PRIVATE CLAIMANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL
CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE UNDER CA NO.
141. NEITHER DO THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS OVER THE OCCUPIED
LANDS UNDER THE SAID LAW. There are two requisites for judicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under CA No. 141, namely:
1) OCENPO of the subject land by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of ownership since
time immemorial or from June 12, 1945; and
2) the classification of the land as alienable and disposable land of the
public domain.
 Why pb of 1902 and act. No. 926 and pn 1801 reliance
must fail?
because of the absence of the 2nd of a/d their
entitlement to a government grant under our present public land act
presupposes that the land possessed and applied for is already
alienable and disposable. this is clear from the wording of the law
itself. where the land is not alienable and disposable, possession of
the land, no matter how long, cannot confer ownership or possessory
rights.
 Neither may private claimants apply for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under Proclamation No. 1064, with respect to those
lands which were classified as agricultural lands. Private claimants
failed to prove the first element of OCENPO of their lands in
Boracay since June 12, 1945.
All is not lost, however. Lack of title does not necessarily mean lack of right to
possess.
For one thing, those with lawful possession may claim good faith as builders of
improvements. They can take steps to preserve or protect their possession. For
4
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
another, they may look into other modes of applying for original
registration of title, such as by homestead or sales patent, subject to
the conditions imposed by law.
More realistically, Congress may enact a law to entitle private
claimants to acquire title to their occupied lots or to exempt them
from
proof for there is no information about the classification of the
property on it. Instead, the applicant could have obtained a Certificate
certain requirements under the present land laws. There is one such
bill now pending in the House of Representatives. Whether that bill or
a similar bill will become a law is for Congress to decide.
In issuing Proclamation No. 1064, the government has taken the step
necessary to open up the island to private ownership. This gesture
may not be sufficient to appease some sectors which view the
classification of the island partially into a forest reserve as absurd.
That the island is no longer overrun by trees, however, does not
becloud the vision to protect its remaining forest cover and to strike a
healthy balance between progress and ecology. Ecological
conservation is as important as economic progress.
To be sure, forest lands are fundamental to our nations survival. Their
promotion and protection are not just fancy rhetoric for politicians and
activists. These are needs that become more urgent as destruction of
our environment gets prevalent and difficult to control. As aptly
observed by Justice Conrado Sanchez in 1968 in Director of Forestry v.
Munoz:
The view this Court takes of the cases at bar is but in adherence to
public policy that should be followed with respect to forest lands.
Many have written much, and many more have spoken, and quite
often, about the pressing need for forest preservation, conservation,
protection, development and reforestation. Not without justification.
For, forests constitute a vital segment of any country's natural
resources. It is of common knowledge by now that absence of the
necessary green cover on our lands produces a number of adverse or
ill effects of serious proportions. Without the trees, watersheds dry up;
rivers and lakes which they supply are emptied of their contents. The
fish disappear. Denuded areas become dust bowls. As waterfalls cease
to function, so will hydroelectric plants. With the rains, the fertile
topsoil is washed away; geological erosion results. With erosion come
the dreaded floods that wreak havoc and destruction to property
crops, livestock, houses, and highways not to mention precious human
lives. Indeed, the foregoing observations should be written down in a
lumbermans decalogue.
REPUBLIC V. NAGUIAT
FACTS: Respondent Celestina Naguiat filed for an application for
registration of 4 parcels of land located in Zambales. She alleges that
she is the owner of the subject lands having acquired them from LID
Corporation. LID Corp. acquired the land from Calderon, Moraga,
Monje and their predecessors in interest who have been in OCENPO
for more than 30 years. She believes that the lots are not mortgaged
nor encumbered.
RP opposed the application alleging
1) No OCENPO since 12 June 1945 or prior thereto;
2) muniments of title and tax payment receipts of applicant do not
constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide
acquisition of the lands applied for or of his OCENPO ;
3) applicants claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of
Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of . . .; and that
4) parcels of land applied for are part of the public domain
belonging to RP not subject to private appropriation.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Naguiat which was
subsequently affirmed by the CA. Hence, the appeal before the SC.
The Republic faults the CA on its finding which respects the length of
Naguiat’s occupation of the subject property and for not considering
the fact that she has not established that the lands in question have
been declassified from forest land to A&D property.
ISSUE: whether or not the areas in question have ceased to have the
status of forest or other inalienable lands of the public domain?
RULING: SC had an opportunity to discuss the concept of Regalian
Doctrine in this case. It states that all lands of the public domain
belong to the State that is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land. Public lands not shown to have been reclassified or
released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person
by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.
The burden of proof to overturn the presumption that the land subject
of an application is alienable or disposable rests with the applicant.
The SC said that the CA, in this case, assumed that the lands in
question are already A&D. CA ratiocinated that the possession of
Naguiat of the lands created a legal fiction where without judicial
declaration, the same ceases to be a public land and becomes private
property ipso jure.
Respondent Naguiat did not present any incontrovertible proof that
there has been a positive act from the government which reclassified
the land applied for as A&D. The tax receipts cannot be a sufficient
of Land Classification from the DENR as a valid proof. Since the land is
unclassified, according to SC, the same cannot be acquired by adverse
5
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
occupation. Occupation on such land in the concept of an owner, What is Torrens System?
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered - Those systems of registration of transaction with interest in
title. To this, the application of Naguiat to have the lands registered is land whose declared object is, under governmental
denied. authority;
- To establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and
indefeasible title to realty,
ISAGANI CRUZ VS. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT - To simplify its transfer
347 SCRA 128
FACTS: What are the Purposes of Torrens System? (Legarda v. Saleeby)
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the 1) To quiet title to land;
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples 2) To put a stop forever to any question of the legality of title
Rights Act of 1997) together with its implementing rules and Exception
regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly Claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural certificate or which may arise subsequent thereto
resources to indigenous people.  once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure
without necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the sitting in the “mirador de su casa” to avoid the possibility of
principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to losing his land.
protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious
disadvantage like indigenous people. For this reason, it prays that the Advantages of the Torrens System
petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa countered the 1) Substitutes security for insecurity
constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground that 2) Reduced the cost of conveyances and time occupied
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over 3) Exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage
lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural 4) Simplified ordinary dealings
resources. Also, that the law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine 5) Affords protection against fraud
embodied in the Constitution. 6) Restored to their just value many estates, held under good
holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur
Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any
definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might similar faults
include private lands found within the said areas.
THREE PRINCIPLES in the TS
Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian 1) Mirror Principle
Doctrine? o if there are several transfers, the TCT will be a
Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional. ‘mirror’ in that it should be identical to the current
After due deliberation on the petition, 7 members of the court voted facts. If the seller sells the land, the old title must
to dismiss the petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the be identical to the new one in terms of technical
same. description, so as to reinforce the concept that the
The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the buyers should be able to rely on the face of the
same. According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be title.
dismissed. The constitutionality of IPRA is upheld. o Exception
a) when a person deals with a registered
Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion: land with someone that is not the
Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality: registered owner
1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public b) when the party has actual knowledge of
Domains. That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of facts which should impel a reasonably
the Constitution that only agricultural lands of the public domain cautious mind to make such inquiry to
can be considered as alienable and disposable lands. the lack of title;
2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s c) in cases of banking and financing
natural resources and 1/3 of the country’s land will be institutions
concentrated to 12 Million IPs, and while 60 million other 2) Curtain Principle
Filipinos will share the remaining. These figures violates the o The concept that the buyer should be able to rely
constitutional principle of a “more equitable distribution of on the face of the title, and should not go beyond
opportunities, income, and wealth” among Filipinos. the certificate. In a way, the buyer does not have
3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full Control and Supervision to go behind the curtain to ascertain the truth of
of Natural Resources the title, because the Torrens Certificate
4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State guarantees him that.
and Cannot be Alienated or Ceded 3) Insurance Principle
o Equates registration to a guarantee by the State

LAWS PRIOR TO 1529, See Table under Sec. v.

Yap PD 1529
How is jurisdiction over the RES acquired?
Sec. 2 Nature of Registration Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Courts A: Sec. 23
 Judicial Proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines sh1a)ll bePublication
 in rem 2) Mailing
 Based on generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens 3) Notice
system CFI shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
 all applications for original registration of title to lands, Who may apply for registration?
 including all improvements and interests therein, and A: Sec. 14, p. 1-4 OPAL
 over all petitions filed after original registration of title, 1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in
 with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applicatioinnsteorerst have been in OCENPO of AD lands of the public
petitions. domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
 The court through its clerk of court shall 1945 or earlier
 furnish the Land Registration Commission with 2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands
by prescription under the provisions of existing laws
o 2 certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisio3n)s filTehdosoer how have acquired ownership of private lands or
issued in applications or petitions for land registration, abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion
o with the exception of stenographic notes, under the existing laws
 within 5 days from the filing or issuance thereof 4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other
manner provided by law
History Where and how to file the application for Registration?
- conceptualized by Sir Robert Torrens from South Australia
- the purpose is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and  With the RTC of the province or city where the land is
expense of the system situated. The TC shall issue an order setting the date and
hour of initial hearing, and the public shall be given notice

6
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
thereof by means of publication, mailing and posting. Any
person claiming an interest in the land may appear and file
an opposition, stating all his objections to the application.
The case shall be heard and all conflicting claims of
ownership shall be determined by the court.
 Once the judgment becomes final, the court shall issue an
order for the issuance of a decree and the corresponding
certificate of title in favour of the person adjudged as
entitled to registration.
 Thereupon. The LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY shall
prepare the corresponding decree of registration as well as
the original and duplicate certificate of title which shall be
sent to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where
the land lies for registration.
Jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to property
Sec. 19(2), BP 129
 With the RTC where assessed value of the property
exceeds 20k
 If Manila, if the assessed value of the property exceeds 50k
Exceptions
o Forcible entry
o Unlawful detainer of lands or buildings
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TITLE AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
TITLE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Source of right Merely
over th confirms a title already e x is ti n g
Foundation of ownership Mere evidence of ownership
Best evidence of ownership Best evidence of title
LEGARDA V. SALEEBY
G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915
CASE: Land is registered under the name of two persons
FACTS:
o That the plaintiffs LEGARDA and the defendant SALEEBY
occupy, as owners, adjoining lots which existed a number of
years a stone wall between the said lots. Said wall is located on
the lot of the plaintiffs LEGARDA. Upon petition to the Court,
Legarda was able to obtain a decree of registration which
included the stonewall.
o Several months later (the 13th day of December, 1912) the
plaintiffs LEGARDA discovered that the wall which had been
included in the certificate granted to them had also been
included in the certificate granted to the defendant .They
immediately presented a petition in the Court of Land
Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error
committed
o The lower court however, without notice to the defendant
SALEEBY denied said petition upon the theory that, during the
pendency of the petition for the registration of the defendant's
land, they failed to make any objection to the registration of
said lot, including the wall, in the name of the defendant
SALEEBY.
ISSUE: W/N the lower court is correct in granting to SALEEBY the
stonewall as his registered property? NO
RULING:
The REAL PURPOSE OF THAT SYSTEM is to quiet title to land; to put a
stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims
which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or
which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the
law, it would seem that once a title is registered the owner may
rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the
court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the
possibility of losing his land. Of course, it can not be denied that
the proceeding for the registration of land under the torrens system is
judicial (Escueta vs. .Director of Lands, 16 Phil. Rep., 482). It is
clothed with all the forms of an action and the result is final and
binding upon all the world. It is an action in rem.
While the proceeding is judicial, it involves more in its consequences
than does an ordinary action. All the world are parties, including the
government. After the registration is complete and final and there
exists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who may claim an
interest. The rights of all the world are foreclosed by the decree
of registration. The government itself assumes the burden of giving
notice to all parties. To permit persons who are parties in the
registration proceeding (and they are all the world) to again litigate
the same questions, and to again cast doubt upon the validity of the
registered title, would destroy the very purpose and intent of the law.
GENERAL RULE: "decree of registration" shall not be opened, for any
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 can not have it registered. Fee
simple titles only may be registered. The certificate of registration
accumulates in open document a precise and correct statement of the
exact status of the fee held by its owner. The certificate, in the
absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real
interest of its owner. The title once registered, with very few
exceptions, should not thereafter 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 can not 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.
For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act (No. 496)
providing for the registration of titles under the torrens system affords
us no remedy. There is no provision in said Act giving the parties relief
under conditions like the present. There is nothing in the Act which
indicates who should be the owner of land which has been registered
in the name of two different persons.
The rule, we think, is well settled that the decree ordering the
registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to future
litigation over the same between the same parties .In view of
the fact that al l the world are parties, it must follow that future
l it ig a t ion e title is forever barred; there can be no persons who
are not parties to the action. This, we think, is the rule, EXCEPT as to
rights which are noted in the certificate or which arise
subsequently, and with certain other exceptions which need
not be dismissed at present. A title once registered can not be
defeated, even by an adverse, open, and notorious possession.
REGISTERED TITLE UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM CAN NOT BE
DEFEATED BY PRESCRIPTION (section 46, Act No. 496). The title,
once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice.
No one can plead ignorance of the registration.
The question, who is the owner of land registered in the name of two
different persons, has been presented to the courts in other
jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, where the "torrens" system has
been adopted, the difficulty has been settled by express statutory
provision. In others it has been settled by the courts. Hogg, in his
excellent discussion of the "Australian Torrens System," at page 823,
says: "THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT IN THE CASE OF TWO
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE, PURPORTING TO INCLUDE THE SAME
LAND, THE EARLIER IN DATE PREVAILS, WHETHER THE LAND
COMPRISED IN THE LATTER CERTIFICATE BE WHOLLY, OR ONLY
IN PART, COMPRISED IN THE EARLIER CERTIFICATE. Hogg adds
however that, "IF IT CAN BE VERY CLEARLY ASCERTAINED BY THE
ORDINARY RULES OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO WRITTEN
DOCUMENTS, THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE LAND IN THE
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF PRIOR DATE IS A MISTAKE, THE MISTAKE
MAY BE RECTIFIED BY HOLDING THE LATTER OF THE TWO
CERTIFICATES OF
TITLE TO BE CONCLUSIVE." (See Hogg on the "Australian torrens
System," supra, and cases cited. See also the excellent work of
Niblack in his "Analysis of the Torrens System," page 99.) Niblack, in
discussing the general question, said: "Where two certificates purport
to include the same land the earlier in date prevails. ... In successive
registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a
particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the
prior certificates is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is
deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or
whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was
the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof. While the
acts in this country do not expressly cover the case of the issue of two
certificates for the same land, they provide that a registered owner
shall hold the title, and the effect of this undoubtedly is that WHERE
TWO CERTIFICATES PURPORT TO INCLUDE THE SAME REGISTERED
LAND, THE HOLDER OF THE EARLIER ONE CONTINUES TO HOLD THE
TITLE" (p. 237).
Section 38 of Act No. 496, provides that; "It (the decree of
registration) shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including
the Insular Government and all the branches thereof, whether
mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included
in the general description "To all whom it may concern." Such
decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other
disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any
court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the
right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein
by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land
Registration a petition for review within one year after entry of the
decree (of registration), provided no innocent purchaser for value has
acquired an interest.
reason, in any court,
7
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
EXCEPTION: fraud, and not even for fraud, after the lapse of one year.
Q: If then the decree of registration can not be opened for any
reason, except for fraud, in a direct proceeding for that purpose, may
such decree be opened or set aside in a collateral proceeding by
including a portion of the land in a subsequent certificate or decree of
registration? We do not believe the law contemplated that a person
could be deprived of his registered title in that way. We have in this
jurisdiction a general statutory provision which governs the right of
the ownership of land when the same is registered in the ordinary
registry in the name of two persons. Article 1473 of the Civil Code
provides, among other things, that when one piece of real property
had been sold to two different persons it shall belong to the person
acquiring it, who first inscribes it in the registry. This rule, of course,
presupposes that each of the vendees or purchasers has acquired title
to the land. The real ownership in such a case depends upon priority
of registration.
Adopting the rule which we believe to be more in consonance with the
purposes and the real intent of the torrens system, we are of the
opinion and so decree that in case land has been registered under the
Land Registration Act in the name of two different persons, the earlier
in date shall prevail.
In the present case, the appellee SALEEBY was the first negligent
(granting that he was the real owner, and if he was not the real owner
he cannot complain) in not opposing the registration in the name of
the appellants. Granting that he was the owner of the land upon
which the wall is located, his failure to oppose the registration of the
same in the name of the appellants, in the absence of fraud, forever
closes his mouth against impugning the validity of that judgment.
There is no more reason why the doctrine invoked by the appellee
should be applied to the appellants than to him.
IN CASE OF DOUBLE REGISTRATION UNDER THE LAND
REGISTRATION ACT, THAT THE OWNER OF THE EARLIEST
CERTIFICATE IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. That is the rule
between original parties. May this rule be applied to successive
vendees of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or the
other of the parties, before the error is discovered, transfers his
original certificate to an "innocent purchaser." The general rule is that
the vendee of land has no greater right, title, or interest than his
vendor; that he acquires the right which his vendor had, only.
Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate would be the
owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate.
We find statutory provisions which, upon first reading, seem to cast
some doubt upon the rule that the vendee acquires the interest of the
vendor only. Sections 38, 55, and 112 of Act No. 496 indicate that the
vendee may acquire rights and be protected against defenses which
the vendor would not. Said sections speak of available rights in favor
of third parties which are cut off by virtue of the sale of the land to an
"innocent purchaser." That is to say, persons who had had a right or
interest in land wrongfully included in an original certificate would
be unable to enforce such rights against an "innocent purchaser," by
virtue of the provisions of said sections.
UNDER THE RULE OF NOTICE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE PURCHASER
HAS EXAMINED EVERY INSTRUMENT OF RECORD AFFECTING THE
TITLE.
Such presumption is irrebutable. He is charged with notice of every
fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which
an examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption
cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or good faith. Otherwise
the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be
destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of
knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be
permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law.
The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public
record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute. Any
variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation.
While there is no statutory provision in force here requiring that
original deeds of conveyance of real property be recorded, yet there is
a rule requiring mortgages to be recorded. (Arts. 1875 and 606 of the
Civil Code.) The record of a mortgage is indispensable to its validity.
(Art . 1875.) In the face of that statute would the courts allow a
mortgage to be valid which had not been recorded, upon the plea of
ignorance of the statutory provision, when third parties were
interested? May a purchaser of land, subsequent to the recorded
mortgage, plead ignorance of its existence, and by reason of such
ignorance have the land released from such lien? Could a purchaser of
land, after the recorded mortgage, be relieved from the mortgage lien
by the plea that he was a bona fide purchaser? May there be a bona
fide purchaser of said land, bona fide in the sense that he had no
knowledge of the
existence of the mortgage? We believe the rule that all persons must
take notice of what the public record contains in just as obligatory
upon all persons as the rule that all men must know the law; that no
one can plead ignorance of the law. The fact that all men know the
law is contrary to the presumption. The conduct of men, at times,
shows clearly that they do not know the law. The rule, however, is
mandatory and obligatory, notwithstanding. It would be just as logical
to allow the defense of ignorance of the existence and contents of a
public record.
In view, therefore, of the foregoing rules of law, may the purchaser of
land from the owner of the second original certificate be an "innocent
purchaser," when a part or all of such land had theretofore been
registered in the name of another, not the vendor? We are of the
opinion that said sections 38, 55, and 112 should not be applied to
such purchasers. We do not believe that the phrase "innocent
purchaser should be applied to such a purchaser. He cannot be
regarded as an "innocent purchaser" because of the facts contained in
the record of the first original certificate. The rule should not be
applied to the purchaser of a parcel of land the vendor of which is not
the owner of the original certificate, or his successors. He, in
nonsense, can be an "innocent purchaser" of the portion of the land
included in another earlier original certificate. The rule of notice of
what the record contains precludes the idea of innocence. By reason
of the prior registry there cannot be an innocent purchaser of land
included in a prior original certificate and in a name other than that of
the vendor, or his successors. In order to minimize the difficulties we
think this is the safe rule to establish. We believe the phrase "innocent
purchaser," used in said sections, should be limited only to cases
where unregistered land has been wrongfully included in a certificate
under the torrens system. When land is once brought under the
torrens system, the record of the original certificate and all
subsequent transfers thereof is notice to all the world. That being the
rule, could Teus even regarded as the holder in good fifth of that part
of the land included in his certificate of the appellants? We think not.
Suppose, for example, that Teus had never had his lot registered
under the torrens system. Suppose he had sold his lot to the appellee
and had included in his deed of transfer the very strip of land now in
question. Could his vendee be regarded as an "innocent purchaser" of
said strip? Would his vendee be an "innocent purchaser" of said strip?
Certainly not. The record of the original certificate of the appellants
precludes the possibility. Has the appellee gained any right by reason
of the registration of the strip of land in the name of his vendor?
Applying the rule of notice resulting from the record of the title of the
appellants, the question must be answered in the negative. We are of
the opinion that these rules are more in harmony with the purpose of
Act No. 496 than the rule contended for by the appellee. We believe
that the purchaser from the owner of the later certificate, and his
successors, should be required to resort to his vendor for damages, in
case of a mistake like the present, rather than to molest the holder of
the first certificate who has been guilty of no negligence. The holder
of the first original certificate and his successors should be permitted
to rest secure in their title, against one who had acquired rights in
conflict therewith and who had full and complete knowledge of their
rights. The purchaser of land included in the second original
certificate, by reason of the facts contained in the public record and
the knowledge with which he is charged and by reason of his
negligence, should suffer the loss, if any, resulting from such
purchase, rather than he who has obtained the first certificate and
who was innocent of any act of negligence.
The foregoing decision does not solve, nor pretend to solve, all the
difficulties resulting from double registration under the torrens system
and the subsequent transfer of the land. Neither do we now attempt
to decide the effect of the former registration in the ordinary registry
upon the registration under the torrens system. We are inclined to the
view, without deciding it, that the record under the torrens system,
supersede all other registries. If that view is correct then it will be
sufficient, in dealing with land registered and recorded alone. Once
land is registered and recorded under the torrens system, that record
alone can be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the real status
of the title to the land.
It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two persons have
acquired equal rights in the same thing, to hold that the one who
acquired it first and who has complied with all the requirements of the
law should be protected.
SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS Corp. vs.CA
G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991
FACTS:
In 1982, Solid State, a domestic corporation, filed an action for
quieting of title on a parcel of land located at Imus, Cavite which was
allegedly registered by Virata in his name by fraudulently obtaining a
title through an administrative reconstitution of a non-existent original
title of the land, and that by reason of said reconstitution, there now
8
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
exists a cloud on the title of Solid State. Solid State alleges that it
bought the land from Julian Peñaranda who obtained the same
through the grant of application for the sale of a friar land from the
government. The land was registered in the name of Peñaranda in
1969 under CA 32. Peñaranda's occupation of the land is derived
through a voluntary assignment of right of the former occupant,
Mabini Legaspi, and that the same is free from claims and conflicts
and that the said applicant has established his rights over the subject
land, in view of which, said investigator recommended that said lot be
awarded to applicant Julian Peñaranda according to law.
Virata countered saying that he bought the land from Mabini Legaspi
who obtainedownership in 1957 on the subject land after the Director
of Lands sold the same at public auction. Official Receipts of payment
for the instalments were shown as a proof. The title was reconstituted
since the Provincial Capitol of Cavite was burned including the ROD
office which holds the title to the subject property. Legaspi also denied
that she sold the land to Julan Peñaranda. RTC ruled in favor of Virata
which was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this appeal
before the SC.
..
Issue:
WON CA correctly held that Virata is the true and lawful owner of the
subject property? NO.
Ruling:
Solid State contends that Act No. 1120 or Friar Lands Act provides the
procedure for the sale and disposition of
the friar lands to private persons. The acquisition by Peñaranda was in
compliance with all legal requisites laid down by the law for the
validity of the sale. He further contended that the issuance to Mabini
Legaspi of a COT in her favor was a violation of the Friar Lands Act as
there was no required approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources.
The friar lands were purchased by the government for sale to actual
settlers and occupants at the time said
lands are acquired by the government. The Bureau of Lands shall first
issue a certificate stating therein that the
government has agreed to sell the land to such settler or occupant.
The latter then shall accept the certificate and agree to pay the
purchase price so fixed and in the instalments and at the interest
specified in the certificate. Subject to a resolutory condition that non-
payment of price in full may cancel the sale. The court said that the
title Peñaranda has the valid acquisition from the government of the
subject friar land since it was in compliance with law and hence, the
sale in favor of Solid State is valid and binding. Contrary to that, the
SC said while the sale of the lot to Legaspi occurred much earlier in
time, the same cannot be considered as a ground to for him to be
considered the true owner of the land. Legaspi did not present an
evidence showing that a certificate of sale was ever issued by the BoL
in his favor. The existence of the official receipts showing payment of
the price of the land by Legaspi does not prove that the land was
legally conveyed to her without any contract of sale. Legaspi also
alleged that he purchased the land in a sale at public auction, which
procedure is nowhere provided in the pertinent laws conveying friar
lands. The law expressly state that an actual occupant of the land
shall purchase the lot occupied by him at a private sale not in a public
auction. There was also absence of a deed of conveyance to Legaspi
by the government after the full payment of the instalments on the
disputed lot.
Time and again, registration does not vest title to the land, but
merely a procedure to establish
evidence over realty. Even if the 1 year period has already lapsed,
the title did not become incontrovertible but it is a null and void for
not complying with the requirements of the law. Therefore, Virata
could not have validly obtained title to the land
FULLTEXT RULING:
We find the petition impressed with merit.
Since the assigned errors were interrelated, it would be well for this
Court to discuss them jointly.
Petitioner does not question the factual findings made by the
respondent appellate court and supported by the records (p. 22,
Rollo). It does not however accept the legal conclusion made by the
appellate court and trial court that the registered title of private
respondent to the land should prevail over its own title.
Petitioner contends that Act No. 1120, otherwise known as the
Friar Lands Act provides the procedure for the sale and disposition of
the friar lands to private persons; that pursuant thereto, the
acquisition by petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Julian Peñaranda of
the disputed Lot 7449, which was formerly part of the friar lands
estate, was in compliance with all legal requisites laid down in Act No.
1120, for the
the name of Peñaranda, and when the latter sold the land to
validity of the sale by the government in favor of Peñaranda of such
friar lands.
It also argues that the sale of Lot No. 7449 to respondent's
predecessor, Mabini Legaspi, and the issuance of a certificate of title
in her favor was in violation of the Friar Lands Act as there was no
required approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
There is no dispute here that the land involved in this case is a friar
land and that the laws which are applicable are Act No. 1120, known
as the Friar Lands Act, providing for the administration and temporary
leasing and sale of certain haciendas and parcels of land, commonly
known as friar lands, and Commonwealth Act No. 32 dated
September 15, 1936 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 316
dated June 9, 1938, which provided for the subdivision and sale of all
the portions of the friar lands estated remaining undisposed of.
Sec. 12 of Act No. 1120 provides in part:
. . . the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the said settler
and occupant a certificate which shall set forth in detail that the
Government has agreed to sell to such settler and occupant the
amount of land so held by him at the price so fixed payable as
provided in this Act at the Office of the Chief of the Bureau of Public
Lands . . . and that upon the payment of the final installment together
with all accrued interest the Government will convey to such settler
and occupant the said land so held by him by proper instrument of
conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective in the manner
provided in section one hundred and twenty two of the Land
Registration Act.
Also, Sec. 18 of the same Act provides:
No lease or sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands under
the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the Secretary
of the Interior. (Emphasis ours)
Similarly, Sec. 2 of C.A. No. 32, as amended by C.A. No. 316 provides
in part:
. . . The persons who, at the time of the subdivision survey are actual
and bona fide occupants of any portion of the Friar Lands Estates,
not exceeding ten hectares, shall be given preference to purchase
the portion occupied at a private sale and at a price to be fixed in
such case, by the Director of Lands, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, after taking into
consideration its location, quality, and any other circumstances as may
affect its value, the provisions of section 12, of Act 1120, as amended,
to the contrary, . . . (Emphasis ours)
It is clear from the foregoing provisions that the friar lands were
purchased by the government for sale to actual settlers and occupants
at the time said lands are acquired by the government.
1) The Bureau of Lands shall first issue a certificate stating
therein that the government has agreed to sell the land to
such settler or occupant.
2) The occupant then shall accept the certificate and agree to
pay the purchase price so fixed and in the installments and
at the interest specified in the certificate.
3) The conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser,
or the so called certificate of sale, is a conveyance of the
ownership of the property, subject only to the resolutory
condition that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed
upon is not paid for in full. The purchaser becomes the
owner upon the issuance of the certificate of sale in his
favour subject only to the cancellation thereof in case the
price agreed upon is not paid (Pugeda vs. Trias, No. L-
16925, March 31, 1962, 4 SCRA 849.)
4) Upon the payment of the final installment together with all
accrued interests, the government shall then issue a final
deed of conveyance in favor of the purchaser.
5) However, the sale of such friar lands shall be valid only if
approved by the Secretary of Interior as provided in Act
No. 1120. Later laws, however, required that the sale shall
be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.
In short, the approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale.
It is undisputed that SOLID STATE’s predecessor, Julian Peñaranda
was the actual occupant of Lot 7449 when he filed his application to
purchase the said lot on November 22, 1968; that on December 16,
1989, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved
the sale of the lot without auction to Peñaranda; that a sales contract
was executed between the Director of Lands and Peñaranda on
February 28, 1969 for a consideration of P 1,198.00 payable in 10
monthly installments; that upon the full payment of the price, the
Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued the final
deed of conveyance of Lot No. 7449 in favor of Peñaranda.
Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued TCT No. 39631 in
petitioner, TCT No. 39631 was cancelled and TCT No. T-80889 was issued in
9
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
favor of the latter.
Clearly, the purchase of the friar land made by Peñaranda was in
compliance with law. The execution of the sales contract vested the
right of ownership in Peñaranda over the land. There is no doubt
whatsoever that the said sale was valid as it was approved by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the sale made
by Peñaranda in favor of the petitioner transferred the ownership of
the land in favor of the latter resulting in the proper issuance of TCT
No. T- 80889 in its name.
On the other hand, the antecedents leading to the acquisition of title
by respondent VIRATA are clearly shown in the records. The latter's
predecessor, Mabini Legaspi bought Lot 7449 in a sale by public
auction held on May 5, 1943 conducted by the Bureau of Lands and
friar lands agent Severino Rivera, and paid the purchase price thereof
in installments in 1943; that on December 12, 1944, the Bureau of
Lands sent a letter to the Register of Deeds of Cavite requesting the
issuance of certificates of title to several persons including Mabini
Legaspi, in whose favor TCT A-2188 was issued; that subsequently on
December 6, 1957, she sold the disputed land to respondent Virata,
which was evidenced by a deed of sale registered with the Registry of
Deeds of Cavite on December 10, 1957; that on the same date, TCT
No. 11520 was issued in the name of Virata. Due to the fire which
gutted the building housing the Registry of Cavite on June 7, 1959,
the latter administratively reconstituted the original of TCT No. 11520
on September 1, 1959, based on the owner's duplicate certificate and
renumbered the same as TCT No. 1120 RT 1660.
Apparently, the sale of the lot to Mabini Legaspi occurred much earlier
than the date of acquisition of same lot by petitioner's predecessor,
and the evidence presented by respondent Virata indicates that the
latter's predecessor paid the purchase price of Lot No. 7449 on
installments. Nowhere in the evidence for the respondent or in
the records of this case however, would show that a certificate
of sale was ever issued by the Bureau of Lands, which would
vest ownership and title over the land in favor of Mabini
Legaspi. The existence of the official receipts showing payment of the
price of the land by Legaspi does not prove that the land was legally
conveyed to her without any contract of sale having been executed by
the government in her favor. Viewed from all angles, the acquisition
of the lot by Legaspi was highly irregular and void, and not in
compliance with the procedure mandated by law for the sale of
friar lands. For one thing, Mabini Legaspi allegedly purchased the
land in a sale at public auction, which procedure is nowhere provided
in Act No. 1120 or in C.A. 32, as amended by C.A. 316. The laws
expressly state that an actual occupant of the land shall purchase the
lot occupied by him at a private sale and not in a sale at public auction
(Sec. 2, C.A. 32 as amended). Further, neither was there any deed of
conveyance issued to Legaspi by the government after the full
payment of the installments on the disputed lot.
Highly significant at this point is the fact that there was neither
allegation nor proof that the sale was with the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. The absence of such
approval made the supposed sale null and void ab initio.
Without the certificate of sale to prove the transfer of the ownership of
the land from the government Mabini Legaspi and without the
required approval of the sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, We find that Mabini Legaspi did not in any manner
acquire ownership over the land in 1943. The ownership or title
over the friar land, specifically Lot No. 7449 remained in the
government until Peñaranda, petitioners predecessor, lawfully
acquired ownership over the same lot on February 28, 1969 by
virtue of a sales contract executed in his favor.
The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of Mabini Legaspi did
not vest ownership upon her over the land nor did it validate the
alleged purchase of the lot, which is null and void. Time and again,
it has been held that registration does not vest title. It is merely
evidence of such title over a particular property. Our land
registration laws do not give the holder any better title than
that what he actually has (De man et al. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. L- 46935 December 21, 1987, 156 SCRA 701; Cruz vs.
Cabana, No. 56232, June
22, 1984, 129 SCRA 656).
Although a period of one year has already expired from the
time the certificate of title was issued to Mabini Legaspi
pursuant to the alleged sale from the government, said title
does not become incontrovertible but is null and void since the
acquisition of the property was in violation of law.
Further, the petitioner herein is in possession of the land in dispute.
Hence, its action to quiet title is imprescriptible. In one case, this
Court ruled that an adverse claimant of a registered land who is in
possession thereof for a long period of time is not barred from
bringing an action for reconveyance which in effect seeks to quiet title
to the property against a registered owner relying upon a Torrens title
which was illegally or wrongfully acquired. In actions for reconveyance
of property predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of
was void ab initio, a claim of prescription of the action would be
unavailing. Being null and void, the sale made to Mabini Legaspi and
the subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto produced no legal
effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est nullum producit affectum.
There being no title to the land that Mabini Legaspi acquired from the
government, it follows that no title to the same land could be
conveyed by the former to respondent Virata. Even assuming that
respondent Virata was a purchaser in good faith and for value, the law
is, as between two persons both of whom are in good faith and both
innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the
lawful holder of registered title over the transferee of a vendor
bereft of any transmissible rights . Further if a person happened to
obtain property by mistake or to the prejudice of another with or
without bad faith, the certificate of title which may have been issued
to him under the circumstances may and should be cancelled or
corrected. Our unavoidable conclusion in this case is that the title of
petitioner under the Torrens land system should be upheld
considering that no previous valid title to the same land existed.
Petition granted.
GREY ALBA VS. DE LA CRUZ
17 SCRA 49
Facts:
Petitioners are heirs of Segunda Alba Clemente. They, as co-owners
sought for the registration of a parcel of
land located in Baliuag, Bulacan. The land is said to be an agricultural
one used for the raising of rice and sugar cane. This petition for
registration was granted by the court. Subsequently, Anacleto Dela
Cruz objected before the court asking for the revision of the case.
Dela Cruz alleged that the decree of registration was fraudulently
obtained by the petitioners and that included in the parcels of land
Albas sought to register is the two parcels of land he inherited from
his father which was a state grant. To this the court revised its
decision which excludes the two parcels of land claimed by Dela Cruz.
Issue: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Anacleto
De La Cruz? YES.
Ruling:
It is admitted that Dela cruz was occupying the two parcels of land at
the time the appellants presented their petition for registration. That
Dela Cruz did not appear in the petition as an occupant and also that
he is alleged to be a tenant for the Albas the reason why the latter did
not include his name in the petition as occupant. It is proved that the
Uncle of the petitioners, who took care of them after their parents
died, have leased the property to Anacleto’s Father. Anacleto agreed
that there was a lease but the two parcels of land he is claiming were
not included in the lease contract. The fact that the petitioners were
able to have the subject land registered will tell us that such
registration is conclusive upon and against all persons, including the
government, whether their names are mentioned in the application or
included in the general description “to all who it may concern”. By
express provision of the law, such as the Land Registration Act, the
world are made parties-defendant by the description in the notice
“to all whom it may concern”.Though, Anacleto De la Cruz was not
served with notice, he was already made a party defendant by
publication and the entering of the decree in 1908 must be
held conclusive against all persons including him. The SC said it
was error for the lower court to have opened the decree and
modified the judgment on account of absence, infancy, or other
disability. It could have been opened only on the ground that
the decree was obtained through fraud.
While it was alleged that there was fraud, the SC did not consider
such allegation. It ruled that the petitioners
honestly believed that Anacleto was occupying the lands as their
tenant. Specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive
another of his right, or in some manner injure him, must be
alleged and proved; that is, there must be actual or positive
fraud.To this, the SC said that the Lower Courts decision be
reinstated and the decision of the Appellate Court be reversed.
JURISDICTION OVER LAND REGISTRATION CASES
VENUE
10
RTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction (Sec. 2 (2) of PD 1529)
1) All applications for original registration of title to lands, including improveJmUeRnItSsDaInCdTION OVER THE VENUE OF AN ACTI
SUBJECT
interests therein MATTER
2) All petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear naantdurdeeotef ramninaection is conferred only by law. It as fixed by
statute may be c
all question arising upon such applications or petition may not be conferred by consent or waiver consent of the parties, and a
MTC’s delegated jurisdiction upon a court which otherwise would have no improper venue may be waived
MTCs may hear and determine land registration cases in the following instances: jurisdiction over the subject matter of an of the defendant to raise it at th
1) Lot sought to be registered is not subject to controversy or action
opposition Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to In such an event, the court ma
2) Lot is contested, but the value thereof does not exceed 100, 000 the consent or agreement of the parties. valid judgment
a. Such value is ascertained by jurisdictional Procedural (may be waived
 by the affidavit of the claimant convenience to the parties rath
 by the agreement of the respective claimants (if there be more than
one), or
 from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
their access to the courts as it
property
place of trial.

SC Administrative Circular 6-93-A Rule 4 of the Revised Rules o

Nov. 15, 1995 a. laying of venue is proc
1) Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of than substantive.
this A.C. shall be transferred by the Executive Judge of the RTC b. It relates to the jurisdicti
having jurisdiction over the cases to E.J. of the appropriate over the person rather th
Courts of limited jurisdiction for the required raffle among the matter.
branches of the court under his administrative supervision c. Provisions relating to ven
2) But those already commenced as of the date of effectivity shall relation between the pla
remain w/ said courts, except when the parties agree otherwise
RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC., defendant and not betw
vs. RoD Paranaque. and the subject matter.
[G.R. No. 133240. November 15, 2000] d. Venue relates to trial not
touches more of the conv
FACTS: parties rather than the su
PETITIONER CORPORATION was formerly known as Rudolf Lietz, case.
Incorporated. On July 15, 1996, it amended its Articles of
Incorporation to change its name to Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc and In Dacoycoy v. IAC, this Court ruled:
was
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, ground of improper venue? NO.
1997. As a consequence of its change of name, petitioner sought the
amendment of the TCTs over real properties owned by the said RULING: While the ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the petition
corporation, all of which were under the old name, Rudolf Lietz, below was clearly that of improper venue, the Solicitor General confuses venue
Incorporated. For this purpose, petitioner instituted, on November 20, with jurisdiction. A distinction between the two must be drawn.
1997, a petition for amendment of titles with the RTC of
Paraaque City impleading as respondent the ROD of Pasay City,
apparently because the titles sought to be amended, all state that they
were issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. Petitioner likewise
inadvertently alleged in the body of the petition that the lands covered
by the subject titles are located in Pasay City. Subsequently,
petitioner learned that the subject titles are in the custody of
the Register of Deeds of Paraaque City. Hence, Ex-Parte Motion
to Admit Amended Petition now impleading ROD of Paraaque City,
and alleged that its lands are located in Paraaque City. Court
dismissed due to improper venue since properties are in Pasay
In the meantime, however, on January 30, 1998, the court a quo had
dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground of improper venue,
it appearing therein that the respondent is the Registry of Deeds of
Pasay City and the properties are located in Pasay City.[7]MR denied

PETITIONER BEFORE SC
The court a quo acted contrary to the rules and jurisprudence on the
matter for the following reasons:
1. It has no power to immediately dismiss an initiatory pleading for
improper venue;
2. Assuming the Order of 30 January 1998 was proper, it was
nevertheless still a matter of right on petitioners part to amend
its petition in order to correct the wrong entries therein; and
3. The unassailable reality is that the subject parcels of land are
located in Paraaque City, so venue was properly laid despite that
erroneous allegation in the original petition.[11]

OSG
The Solicitor General filed on November 4, 1998 his Comment said
that trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the res because it
appeared from the original petition that the lands are situated in Pasay
City; hence, outside the jurisdiction of the Paraaque court. Since it had
no jurisdiction over the case, it could not have acted on the motion to
admit amended petition.

PETITIONER’S REPLY JURISDICTION V. VENUE On February 15, 1999,

petitioner filed its Reply. TC had jurisdiction over the petition, but that
venue appeared to be improperly laid based on the erroneous
allegation therein on the location of the properties.

ISSUE: May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the
 The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by
respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue
is plain error, obviously attributable to its inability to
distinguish between jurisdiction and venue.

VENUE, IN INFERIOR COURTS AS WELL AS IN THE CFI

(NOW RTC), MAY BE WAIVED EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY
Dismissing the
complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not
the appropriate course of action at this stage of the
proceedings, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well
as in the courts of first instance (now RTC), may be waived
expressly or impliedly. Where the defendant fails to
challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as
provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and
allows the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he
cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to
belatedly challenge the wrong venue, which is deemed
waived.

THOUGH TECHNICALLY WRONG, MAY BE ACCEPTABLE

TO THE PARTIES FOR WHOSE CONVENIENCE THE RULES
ON VENUE HAD
BEEN DEVISED. Thus, unless and until the defendant objects
to the venue in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be
truly said to have been improperly laid, as for all practical
intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong,
may be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the
rules on venue had been devised. The trial court cannot pre-
empt the defendants prerogative to object to the improper
laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case.

INDEED, IT WAS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS FOR THE TRIAL

COURT TO HAVE TAKEN A PROCEDURAL
SHORT-CUT BY
DISMISSING MOTU PROPRIO the complaint on the ground of
improper venue without first allowing the procedure outlined
in the rules of court to take its proper course. Although we
are for the speedy and expeditious resolution of cases,
justice and fairness take primary importance. The ends of
justice require that respondent trial court faithfully adhere to
the rules of procedure to afford not only the defendant, but
the plaintiff as well, the right to be heard on his cause.
[18]

PETITIONER CORRECTLY INVOKED THE JURISDICTION

OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN SEEKING THE
AMENDMENT OF ITS
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE. The jurisdiction of the RTC over
matters involving the registration of lands and lands
registered under the Torrens system is conferred by Section
2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, The Property
Registration Decree, viz:
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 (now Regional Trial Courts)

shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for
original registration of
title to lands, including improvements and interest 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
1. 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,
2. WITH THE EXCEPTION of stenographic notes,
3. within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.
In the case at bar, the lands are located in Paraaque City, as stated on
the faces of the titles. Petitioner, thus, also correctly filed the petition
in the place where the lands are situated, pursuant to the following
rule:
Venue of real actions. --- Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved,
or a portion thereof, is situated. [19]
VDA. DE ARCEO VS. CA
185 SCRA 489
Facts:
Spouses Arceo are owners of four parcels of unregistered lands
located in Bulacan. They had one Son named Esteban who had 5
children. Esteban’s children and their children are the parties involved
in this case. In 1941, Spouses Arceo executed a donation inter vivos in
favor of Jose, one of Esteban’s children. Since 1942, Jose paid the
taxes, took personal possession of the land and claimed it as his own.
In 1941, also, Arceos supposedly
signed a deed of donation mortis causa to give away the subject
properties in favor of all his grandchildren including Jose. However,
the said document was notarized in 1944 only after Mrs. Arceo died.
Subsequently, the wife of Jose, together with their children, filed with
the cadastral court an application for
registration in their names the subject lands. This was contested by
Pedro and Lorenzo, Jose’s siblings contending that they are entitled to
a part of the subject parcels of land. The cadastral court rejected the
registration and distributed the properties according to law on
intestate succession instead. The CA affirmed its decision.
Issue: WON the cadastral court has jurisdiction in determining the
ownership of lands?
Ruling:
As to the issue of jurisdiction, Section 2 of PD 1529 provides that RTC,
sitting as a land registration court, is no
longer circumscribed as it is in the previous law. PD 1529 eliminated
the general jurisdiction of RTC and the limited jurisdiction of RTC
acting merely as a cadastral court; the purpose of this is to avoid
multiplicity of suits.
In this case, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming
jurisdiction in the determination of issues on
ownership, which at the same time involves the issue on the right of
registration. There would be a multiplicity of suits or the registration
will be prolonged if not impossible should the cadastral court decide
not to pass upon the issue of ownership.
As to the issue of co-ownership:
Jose’s wife contends that they acquired the lot through acquisitive
prescription. This was rejected by the SC. The Civil Code provides that
prescription does not lie against co-owners, unless the following
requisites concur.
a. There is a clear showing that the claimant has
repudiated the co-ownership.
b. He has made known to the co-owners that he is
assuming exclusive ownership over the property.
c. Clear and convincing evidence thereof.
d. His possession is OCEN.
This circumstances were not present in the case at bar. The fact of
paying taxes cannot defeat the right of coowners to their right to
enjoy the use of their property, the same does not confer title upon a
claimant.
Nonetheless, the SC granted the petition and have the lands
registered under the name of Jose and his heirs by
virtue of the valid deed of donation inter vivos. The Supreme Court
further ruled that the donation mortis causa did not revoke the first
donation. The weight of authority is that a valid donation, once
accepted, becomes irrevocable subject to few exceptions. Finally, the
court said that the disposition in favor of Jose of the subject properties
should be respected.
Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration
system. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is
hereby discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which
are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered
lands.
Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under
the Spanish Mortgage Law may be
recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have
been brought under the operation of the Torrens system. The books of
registration for unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the
Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall
continue to remain in force; provided, that all instruments dealing with
unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under Section 113 of
this Decree.
Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered
lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall
be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such
instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein prescribed
in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where
the land lies.
(a) 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,
1. the entry number,
2. the names of the parties,
3. the nature of the document,
4. the date, hour and minute it was presented and received.
5. 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.
(b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in
law, the Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument
in the manner provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds
refuses its administration to record, said official shall advise the
party in interest in writing of the ground or grounds for his
refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter to the
Commissioner of Land Registration in accordance with the
provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be
understood that any recording made under this section shall be
without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
(c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall
endorse among other things, upon the original of the recorded
instruments, the file number and the date as well as the hour
and minute when the document was received for recording as
shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning to the registrant or
person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with
appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the
instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the
provincial or city assessor as required by existing law.
(d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse
claim and other instruments in the nature of involuntary
dealings with respect to unregistered lands, if made in the form
sufficient in law, shall likewise be admissible to record under this
section.
(e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under
this section, he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed
for similar services for the registration of deeds or instruments
concerning registered lands.
REGISTRATION UNDER THE SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW
TITULO DE PROPRIEDAD NO. 4136 The case of Director of Forestry
v. Muñoz would soon be the core of subsequent decisions declaring
the infamous Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as a forgery foisted upon
the courts and bereft of any validity and efficacy as evidence of
ownership.
In this case, petitioners-heirs did not adduce
evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad 4136 was brought under
the operation of P.D. No. 892 despite their
allegation that they did so on August 13, 1976. Proof of compliance
with P.D. No. 892 should be the Certificate of Title covering the land
registered.
REGISTRATION UNDER ACT NO. 3344; ineffective as against
 3rd persons
The inscription under Act No. 3344 of a transaction relating to SEC. 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. — There shall be at least one Regist
unregistered land was held not effective for purposes of Article 1544 each province and one for each city.
of the Civil Code, the law on double sale of the same property. The
registration should be made in the property registry to be binding
Every Registry with a
upon third persons; mere registration of a sale in one’s favour does
not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore  yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos
the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody  during the last three years shall have one
else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. o Deputy Register of
Deeds, and every Registry with a
 yearly average collection of more than three hundred thousand pesos
 during the last three years, shall have one
o Deputy Register of Deeds and
CHAPTER II o one second Deputy Register of Deeds.
LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF
DEEDS
The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial juris
Registry upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registr
Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In order to have a more efficient eexnedcutinionvioefwtheof making every registry easily accessible to the
people of th
laws relative to the registration of lands, geared to the massive and accelerated lamnudnriceifpoarmlitieasn.dThe province or city shall furnish a suitable space or
building for t social justice program of the government, there is created a commission to beRekngoiswtenr oafs Dtheeds until such time as the same could
be furnished out of national f Land Registration Commission under the executive supervision of the Department of Justice.
Section 5. Officials and employees of the Commission. The Land RegistratiRonegCiosmtrmy iossfioPnroperty
shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be known, respectively, as the in accordance with Sec. 51 of PD 1529 which provides that
Commissioner Deputy Commissioner of Land Registration who shall be appointed by “no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument –
the President except a will- purporting to convey or affect registered land
shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land until its
The Commissioner shall be
registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding
 duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect
 with at least ten years of practice in the legal profession, and
 shall have the same rank, compensation and privileges as those of a Judge ofintnhoecent 3rd persons.
Court of First Instance.  The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey
The Deputy Commissioner, who shall or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.
 possess the same qualifications as those required of the  Between the two buyers of the same immovable property
Commissioner,
 shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand pesos per annum less rtehgainstered under the Torrens System, the law gives
that of the Commissioner. ownership priority to
 He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during the absence or disability of 1) First registrant in good faith
the Commissioner and 2) First possessor in good faith
3) Buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title
 when there is a vacancy in the position until another person shall have been
designated or appointed in accordance with law. Effect of Registration
 The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions as Ctohnestructive notice to all persons from the time of such
Commissioner may assign to him. registering, filing, or entering.
They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be necessary in the interest of
the functioning of the Commission, by a Special Assistant to the CommissioSnEeCr. 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies and
othe Chief Geodetic Engineer who shall each receive compensation at the rate of tphererseotnhnoeusl;ansdalaries. — Registers of Deeds shall be
appointed by the Pr
four hundred pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Deputy Registers o
All other officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission includinogthtehroseuboofrdthineate personnel of the Registries of Deeds shall be
appointed by t Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein provided, shall receive salariesJucsotrircespuopnodnintghe recommendation of the
Commissioner of Land Registration. to the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges as provided under paragraphRe3g.1istoefrsBuodf gDeeteds and their
Deputies shall be at the following rates:
Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, notwithstanding the (m1a)ximFiursmt Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds
in first
salary allowed for their respective civil service eligibilities. shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than that
The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be without prejudice to Csuomchmissioner.
benefits and adjustments as may from time to time be granted by the President (o2r) bySethceond Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of
Deeds i
legislature to government employees. Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum les
All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Deeds shall be appointeRdegbiysters of Deeds in first class Registries.
the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registratio(n3. ) Third Class Registries — The salaries of Registers of Deeds in
third
Section 6. General Functions. shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than those
(1) The Administrator of Land Registration shall have the following functions: Deeds in second class Registries.
a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the court(s4)in Tlhaendsalaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds and Second Deputy
Registers registration proceedings and cause the issuance by the Registers of Deeds obf ethethree thousand four hundred pesos per
annum less than t
corresponding certificates of title; corresponding Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of Deeds,
respe
b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other pe r so)nnTehl eof Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the
( 5
Commiss
the Commission; Registration, shall cause the reclassification of Registries based either
c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of, Registetrhseocflass of province/ city, whichever will result in a higher
classificatio
Deeds; of salary adjustments in accordance with the rates hereinabove
provide
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 SEC. 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of
lands;
 e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to tpheersroengishtraaltl iobne appointed Register of Deeds unless he has been
admitted to the
of lands in the Philippines and shall have been actually engaged in such practice for at le
and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations
therefor; or has been employed for a like period in any branch of government the func
i n c l u d e th e r e g istration of property.
f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-sub d i v i s io n su r v e y
plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except those covered by PT.Dh.eNDoe. p9u5t7y. Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine
Bar. Provided,
(2) The Land Registration Authority shall have the following functions: no Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Deeds holding office as such upon
the
a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of AgrariDanecRreeforsmha, ltl hbey reason hereof, be removed from office or be
demoted to a low Land Bank, and other agencies in the implementation of the land refosrcmaleprofgsralmaryofexcept for cause and upon compliance
with due process as provide
the government;
b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings;
SEC. 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. — The office of the
Regist
c) Be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled
under the or
registered Torrens
un system, including subdivision and consolidation cpolnasntsituotfestitalepdublic repository of records of instruments affecting
lands. lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is
situated
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to
 immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealinvgacwainthcyr,eealtco.r—
personal property
 which complies with all the requisites for registration.
 He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper documentary anodccsacsieionnceof the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of
the
stamps and that
 the same are properly cancelled.
 If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith
o deny registration thereof and
o inform the presentor of such denial in
writing,
o stating the ground or reason therefor, and
o advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Sectionby the second Deputy Register of Deeds, should there
117 of this Decree.
Office of the Register of Deeds
 Public repository of records of instruments affecting
registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in
the province or city wherein such office is situated
NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF LRA
General Rule:It’s duty is ministerial – those acts of functions that
conform to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. They act under
the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the
decision of the court and with the data found in the record. If the LRA
is in doubt as to the issuance and preparation of the decree, it
is their duty to refer the matter to the court. In this sense, they
act as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and
their act is the act of the court. They are specifically called upon to
extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration
proceedings.
The validity of the document is not for the register to determine for it
is a function of a court of competent jurisdiction. Validity is to be
decided after the registration in a litigation. In case of doubt, it shall
be referred to the LRA
 LRA shall after notice and hearing, enter an order
prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful question
which shall be conclusive and binding upon all RoDs
 Exception: LRA officials may exercise discretion in the following
instances:
a) When obeying the court’s order would result to double
titling;
b) When there are several copies of title but only one is
presented with the instrument to be registered
c) Where the property is presumed to be conjugal but the
instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one
spouse;
d) Where there is pending case in court where the character
of the land and the validity of conveyance is in issue;
o In this case, the matter of registration may well
await the outcome of that case, and in the
meantime the rights of the interested parties
could be protected by the filing the proper notices
of lis pendens.
e) Where required certificates and documents are not
submitted
May the RoD be compelled by mandamus?
No. Since the registration is a judicial function, it cannot be compelled
by mandamus. The interested party must resort to the available
administrative remedy before he can have recourse to the courts.
SEC. 11. Discharge of duties of Register of Deeds in case of
1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a
province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon the
Register of Deeds to discharge his duties, said duties shall be
performed by the following officials, in the order in which they
are mentioned below, unless the Secretary of Justice designates
another official to act temporarily in his place:
a) For the province or city where there is a Deputy
Register of Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or
be one;
b) For the province or city where there is no Deputy or
second Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or
City Fiscal, or any Assistant Fiscal designated by the
Provincial or City Fiscal.
2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of
Deeds without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the
Secretary of Justice may, in his discretion, authorize the payment
of an additional compensation to the official acting as Register of
Deeds, such additional compensation together with his actual
salary not to exceed the salary authorized for the position thus
filled by him.
3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending
establishment of a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a
regular Register of Deeds for the new province or city, the
Register of Deeds of the mother province or city shall be the ex-
officio Register of Deeds for said new province or city.
SEC. 12. Owner’s Index; reports. — There shall be prepared in
every Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all
registered owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an index
card which shall be prepared in the name of each registered owner
which shall contain a list of all lands registered in his name.
The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration
Commission within ten days after the month to which they pertain his
monthly reports on collections and accomplishments. He shall also
submit to the Commission at the end of December of each year, an
annual inventory of all titles and instruments in his Registry.
SEC. 13. Chief Geodetic Engineer. — There shall be a Chief
Geodetic Engineer in the Land Registration Commission who shall be
the technical adviser of the Commission on all matters involving
surveys and shall be responsible to him for all plats, plans and works
requiring the services of a geodetic engineer in said office. He shall
perform such other functions as may, from time to time, be assigned
to him by the Commissioner.
PD 239
- Only the LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU has authority to
approve original survey plans for registration purposes.
- The grant of authority to the LRC to approve original survey
plans has resulted in wasteful overlapping or duplication of
functions. There was therefore a need to centralize in one
agency, the LMB, the function of verifying and approving
original survey plans for all purposes in order to assure
compliance with established standards and minimize
irregularities in the execution of land surveys
Survey Plan
- serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure
that it does not overlap a parcel of land portion thereof
already covered by previous land registration, and to
forestall the possibility of which by a subsequent registration
of any adjoining land.
 LABURADA V. LRA
FACTS: Spouses Laburada were the applicants for registration of a
parcel of land located in Mandaluyong City, RTC, acting as land
registration court, granted such application. After the finality of the
decision, the Sps filed a motion before the RTC requiring LRA to issue
the corresponding decree of registration, which was then granted by
RTC. However, the LRA refused to do so. To this, the Sps Laburada
filed an action for mandamus.
LRA contends that such refusal is grounded on the fact that a portion
of the subject property was a subject of a land decree in court of land
registration, that if it will be pursued, it will result to double titling
which destroys the policy and purpose of the Torrens System. The SG
sought to have the petition of the Sps Laburada dismissed after it
found out on its investigation that the title issued for the subject lot
cannot be located.
ISSUE: w/n the LRA can be compelled to issue the decree of
registration through an action for mandamus (for ministerial duties)?
NO
HELD:
There are three reasons why Mandamus is not the right remedy
1) JUDGMENT IS NOT YET EXECUTORY
- The judgment Sps Laburada seek to enforce is not yet
executory and incontrovertible under the Land Registration
Law. They do not have any clear legal right to implement it.
It was ruled previously that a judgment of registration does
not become incontrovertible until after the expiration of one
year after the entry of the final decree of registration.
2) A VOID JUDGMENT IS POSSIBLE
- LRA’s refusal to issue a decree is based on documents
which, if verified, may render the judgment of the TC void.
To this, LRA’s hesitation to issue a decree is understandable,
even imperative. If it issues the decree, it will destroy the
integrity of the Torrens System. LRA is mandated to refer to
the courts any doubt it may have in regard to the
preparation and the issuance of a decree of registration.
They are specifically called upon to “extend assistance to
courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration
proceedings. Since in this case, the subject property has
already been decreed by the court for registration. Hence,
LRA is divested of jurisdiction.
3) ISSUANCE OF A DECREE IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT
- It is part of the judicial function of courts and is not a mere
ministerial act, which may be compelled thorough
mandamus. This is because it is a judicial act involving the
exercise of discretion. Writ of mandamus can only be had
when the plaintiff’s legal right to the performance of the
particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and
complete. But where the right sought to be enforced is in
substantial doubt or dispute, as in this case, mandamus
cannot issue.
ABRIGO V. DE VERA
Between two buyers of the same immovable property
registered under the Torrens system, the law gives ownership
priority to
the first registrant in good faith
then, the first possessor in good faith; and
finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.
This provision, however, does not apply if the property is not
registered under the Torrens system.
FACTS:
Villafania sold a house and lot located Pangasinan to Tigno-Salazar
and Cave-Go covered by a tax declaration. ‘Unknown, however to
Tigno-Salazar and a Cave-Go, Villafania obtained a free patent over
the parcel of land involved. The said free patent was later on cancelled
by a TCT.
‘On Oct 16, 1997, Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, sold the house and
lot to the Spouses Abrigo.
‘On Oct 23, 1997, Villafania sold the same house and lot to de Vera.
De Vera registered the sale and as a consequence a TCT was issued in
her name.
De Vera filed an action for Forcible Entry and Damages against Spouses Abrigo before the MTC.
Spouses Abrigo filed a case with the RTC for the annulment of
documents, injunction, preliminary injunction, restraining order and
damages against Villafania.
The parties submitted a Motion for Dismissal in view of their
agreement in the instant (RTC) case that neither of them can
physically take possession of the property in question until the instant
case is terminated. Hence the ejectment case was dismissed.
RTC JUDGMENT
Compromise Agreement approved.
Villafania was given one year from the date of the Compromise
Agreement to buy back the house and lot, and failure to do so would
mean that the previous sale in favor of Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go
shall remain valid and binding and the plaintiff shall voluntarily vacate
the premises without need of any demand. Villafania failed to buy
back the house and lot, so the [vendees] declared the lot in their
name
The RTC rendered the assailed Decision awarding the properties to
Spouses Abrigo as well as damages. Moreover, Villafania was ordered
to pay [petitioners and private respondent] damages and attorney’s
fees.
Not contented with the assailed Decision, both parties [appealed to
the CA].
CA JUDGMENT
In its original Decision, the CA held that a void title could not give rise
to a valid one and hence dismissed the appeal of Private Respondent
de Vera. Since Villafania had already transferred ownership to Rosenda
Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go, the subsequent sale to De Vera
was deemed void. The CA also dismissed the appeal of Petitioner-
Spouses Abrigo and found no sufficient basis to award them moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
On reconsideration found Respondent De Vera to be a purchaser in
good faith and for value. The appellate court ruled that she had relied
in good faith on the Torrens title of her vendor and must thus be
protected.
Hence, this Petition.
ISSUE: Who between petitioner-spouses and respondent has a better
right to the property.
HELD: DE VERA
The present case involves what in legal contemplation was a double
sale. Gloria Villafania first sold the disputed property to Tigno-Salazar
and Cave-Go, from whom petitioners, in turn, derived their right.
Subsequently a second sale was executed by Villafania with
Respondent de Vera.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code states the law on double sale thus:
“Art. 1544. 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.
There is no ambiguity in the application of this law with respect to
lands registered under the Torrens system.
In the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered
the sale of the property. Since neither petitioners nor their
predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go) knew that the property was
covered by the Torrens system, they registered their respective sales
under Act 3344 For her part, respondent registered the transaction
under the Torrens system because, during the sale, Villafania had
presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) covering the property.
 Soriano v. Heirs of Magali23 held that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to

dispute in the present case was already registered under the

Torrens system, petitioners’ registration of the sale under Act “Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by the second buyer does not
3344 was not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil
Code.

More recently, in Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of

Appeals,24 the Court upheld the right of a party who had registered
the sale of land under the Property Registration Decree, as opposed to
another who had registered a deed of final conveyance under Act
3344. In that case, the “priority in time” principle was not applied,
because the land was already covered by the Torrens system at
the time the conveyance was registered under Act 3344 . For the
same reason, inasmuch as the registration of the sale to Respondent
De Vera under the Torrens system was done in good faith, this sale
must be upheld over the sale registered under Act 3344 to Petitioner-
Spouses Abrigo.

NOTES:

The principle in Article 1544 of the Civil Code is in full accord with
Section 51 of PD 1529 which provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or
other voluntary instrument — except a will — purporting to convey or
affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the
land until its registration. Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is
binding only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect
innocent third persons.

Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo25 explained the difference in the

rules of registration under Act 3344 and those under the Torrens
system in this wise:
“Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting
unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice to a third party with a better
right.’ The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean
that the mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give
him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the
owner of the land having previously sold the same to
somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.

“The case of Carumba vs. Court of Appeals is a case in point. It was

held therein that Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application
to land not registered under Act No. 496. Like in the case at bar,
Carumba dealt with a double sale of the same unregistered land. The
first sale was made by the original owners and was unrecorded while
the second was an execution sale that resulted from a complaint for a
sum of money filed against the said original owners. Applying [Section
33], Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court held that Article
1544 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked to benefit the purchaser at
the execution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and
even if this second sale was registered. It was explained that this is
because the purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff’s
execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment
debtor, and merely acquires the latter’s interest in the
property sold as of the time the property was levied upon.

“Applying this principle, x x x the execution sale of unregistered land in

favor of petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer belonged
to the judgment debtor as of the time of the said execution sale.

3. Good-Faith Requirement
We have consistently held that Article 1544 requires the second buyer
to acquire the immovable in good faith and to register it in good faith.
Mere registration of title is not enough; good faith must concur with
the registration.We explained the rationale in Uraca v. Court of
Appeals, which we quote:
throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first
buyer’s rights) —- from the time of acquisition until the title
is transferred to him by registration, or failing registration,
by delivery of possession.’”34 (Italics supplied)

Equally important, under Section 44 of PD 1529, every registered owner receiving a certificate of title pursuant to a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking

CHAPTER III
(ORDINARY REGISTRATION
PROCEEDINGS) SECTION 14
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the
proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to
land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by
prescription under the provision of existing laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or
abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under
the existing laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
provided for by law.
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file
the application jointly.

Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor
a retro may file an application for the original registration of the
land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption
expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings and
ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro,
the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may
continue the proceedings.

A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original

registration of any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited
by the instrument creating the trust.

Registration – the entry of instruments or deeds in book or

public registry. To register, means to enter in a register, to
record formally or distinctly, to enroll; to enter in a list.

Original Certificate of Title (OCT) The first title issued in

the name of a registered owner by the ROD over a parcel of
land registered under the Torrens System by virtue of
a) Judicial or
b) Administrative proceedings.

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Subsequent issuance of

ROD pursuant to any voluntary and involuntary instrument
relating to the same land.
Note: Registration proceedings may be in rem or in
personam. The following are its distinctions.
In rem Binds the whole world
In personam To enforce a personal right against a person
Quasi in rem Deals with status, ownership or liability of a particular
property. It only operates on the question between the parties.This is
not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible
claimants.

SECTION 14 (1) – OCENPO

-Registration under the first paragraph of Section 14 requires
the concurrence of the following
REQUISITES:
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
(1) Land applied for is an agricultural public land classified as is aggravated of the fact the before June 12, 1945, Philippines was not
alienable and disposable land at the time; yet even considered an independent state. The SC cited the case of
(2) Application for registration is filed with the proper court; Naguit. Such decision provides that the Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 only
(3) Applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, requires the property sought to be registered as already A&D
has been in OCENPO thereof, under bona fide claim of at the time the application for registration of title is filed.
ownership;
(4) Such possession and occupation has been effected since June
If the State has not yet released the land as A&D at the time of the
12, 1945 or earlier.
application, it is presumed that the State is still reserving its right to
utilize the property. But in this case, the property was already
SECTION 14 (2) – PRESCRIPTION
classified as A&D, this shows an intention of the State to abdicate its
PRESCRIPTION LACHES
authority over the land.
an extraordinary mode of the unreasonable delay in the
acquiring or losing of ownership bringing of a cause of action
and other real rights through the before the courts of justice. It is
lapse of time in the manner and also referred to as ‘sleeping on AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER OR NOT A LAND CLASSIFIED
AS A&D BE DEEMED PRIVATE LAND AND THEREFORE
under the conditions laid down by your rights
SUSCEPTIBLE TO ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION.
law.
A matter of time A question of equity In this case, the petitioners primarily based their registration bid on
It is statutory not statutory Sec. 14 (2) of PD 1529 or prescription.
It is based on law based on equity Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that “All things which are within
based on a fixed time the period varies the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise
on a case-to-case basis provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not
patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.”
The basis for Sec. 14 (2) is found in Article 1113 of the Civil Code
Article 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men SC said, unlike Sec 14(1), Sec 14 (2) explicitly refers to the principles
are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. on prescription under existing laws. The SC also said that the rules on
Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial prescription under the Civil Code is applicable in Sec 14 (2).Article
in character shall not be the object of prescription. 1113 of the Civil Code says that only the patrimonial property of the
Maam: You have to be specific, because not all lands of ‘public state can be subject to prescription. Also it is clear that land which is
domain’ are inalienable. Patrimonial properties of the State are still part of public dominion cannot be alienated even if it is declared A&D.
considered public domain. There must be a declaration of the State that the public dominion
property is no longer intended for the development of the national
Patrimonial property – Property owned by the State but which is not wealth or that the property has been converted into patrimonial for
devoted to public use, public service, or the development of national the period of prescription to run. Without these, the property remains
wealth. It is wealth owned by the State in its private capacity. to be of public dominion.
For private lands, which are divided among the 4 of them.
patrimonial properties of the In 1996, Magdalena, Esteban’s wife,
State, to be acquired via became the administrator of all the
prescription, the following properties of the Velazco sons. After
must concur: Esteban and Magdalena died, their
1) Ordinary Acquisitive son Virgilio succeded them in
Prescription, 10 years administering the properties,
possession in good faith including the subject land, which is
and with just title; or owned by his uncle, Eduardo
2) Extraordinary Acquisitive Velazco. Eduardo sold this to
Prescription, uninterrupted Malabanan.
adverse possession of Also, a certificate issued by CENRO,
patrimonial property for at DENR dated JUNE 1, 2001 was
least 30 years, regardless presented verifying the said land as A
of good faith and just title; and D. RTC ruled in favor of
and There must be an Malabanan. Republic appealed, now
express declaration by the represented by the OSG, CA reversed
State that the public the decision of the RTC.
dominion property is no
longer intended for public
service or the Issue/Ruling:
development of the AS TO THE ISSUE ON WHETHER
national wealth OR NOT THE LAND, IN ORDER TO
BE REGISTRABLE UNDER
ne 12, 1945 cannot be registered either under Sec. 14 (1) of PD 1529 sec. 48 (b) of Public Land Act. MALABANA SECTION 14 (1) OF PD 1529,
rovision virtually inoperative and even precludes the government form giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as
N A&D. SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED
V. Such unreasonableness
REPUBLIC AS A&D AS OF JUNE 12, 1945.

Facts:
In 1998, Mario Malabanan filed
an application for land
registration covering a parcel of
land located in Silang Cavity.
Malabanan claimed that he
purchased the land from
Eduardo Velazco, and that he
and his predecessors-in-interest
had been in OCENPO of the land
for more than 30 years.
Aristedes Velazco, Malabanan’s
witness, testified before the
court that the property originally
belonged to a 22- hectare
property owned by Lino
Velazco, her great-grandfather.
Lino had 4 sons – Benedicto,
Gregorio, Eduardo and Esteban.
Esteban is Aristedes’
grandfather. The property was

16
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Section 14 (1) Civil Code. y
mandates .
registration on the Also, Registration
basis of under Sec. 48 (b) of T
possession while Public Land Act is h
Sec. 14 (2) based on possession, e
entitles Sec. 14 (2) of PD
registration on the 1529 is founded on
extraordinary a
basis of
prescription under the c
prescription. c
Registration under Civil Code. The rules
on prescription under e
Section 14 (1) is s
the Civil Code do not
extended under s
apply to Sec 14 (1)
the aegis of the o
since there is no such
Property Registration Decree r
intent manifested by
and the Public Land Act, y
while registration the legislature and
that PD 1529 is neither RP V. CA AND NAGUIT
under Section 14
superior nor inferior f
(2) is made Section 14 (1) merely requires the property sought to be
than Civil Code, o
available both by registered as already alienable and disposable “at the time the
legislature is not l
the Property application for registration of title is filed. A contrary interpretation
bound to adhere on l
Registration renders par. (1) Section 14 virtually inoperative and even precludes
Civil Code framework. o
Decree and the the government from giving it effect even as it decides to reclassify
public agricultural lands as A&D. w
s

t
SEC. 14 h
(3) – e
ACCESSI
ON AND
ACCRETI p
ON r
A. i
n
c
i
p
a
l
.
river.
Basis in the Civil Code
Article 440. The
ownership of property B. Accretion and Alluvion
gives the right by accession Accretion – defined as the
to everything which is addition of portions of soil, by
produced thereby, or which gradual deposition through the
is incorporated or attached operation of natural causes, to
thereto, either naturally or that already in the possession of
artificially. the owner. (Black’s Law)

er. The earliest that petitioners can date back their possession, as evidenced a tax declaration, is to the year 1848. Therefore, they cannot register the land under Sec. 14 (1). Neither can petitioners properly invoke Sec

Requisites of Accession Alluvion – It refers to the

(applies to lakes, creeks, accretion made by flow of rivers.
and streams): A form of accession natura ,
1. That the deposit be which is provided for in Articles
gradual and 457 and 461.
imperceptible;
2. That it be made Article 457. To the owners of
through the lands adjoining the banks of
effects of the rivers belong the accretion
current of the which they gradually receive
water; from the effects of the current
3. That the land where of the waters.
the accretion takes
place is adjacent to Article 461. River beds which
the banks of the are abandoned through the

17
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
natural change in the SE Issue: WON Calalungs this might defeat
course of the waters acquired the alluvial the imperfect
ipso facto belong to property in question right of a settler.
the owners whose G through prescription? Lands covered by
lands are occupied by R reservation are
the new course in A not subject to
Ruling:
proportion to the area N entry and may
lost. However, the It is undisputed that
D not be the
owners of the lands under Art. 457 of the
E subject of lawful
adjoining the old bed Civil Code, petitioners
settlement.
shall have the right to Grande are the lawful
acquire the same by V owners of said alluvial
Example:
paying the value . property, as they are
1) Proclamation 791. It
thereof, which value the registered owners
set aside a parcel of
shall not exceed the of the land which it
land for the University
value of the area C adjoins. Any alluvial
of the Philippines’
occupied by the new A deposits adjoining
College of Agriculture
bed. 5 one’s land does not
even though a
become ipso facto
logger- corporation
Requisites of S registered land.
had been possessing
Accretion or C Ownership of a piece
the land by virtue of a
Alluvion: of land is one thing,
R timber license.
1) The change must and registration under
A (International
be sudden; Torrens system of that
hardwood vs.
ownership is quite
2) The changing of 5 University of the
another. To obtain the Phil.)
the course must 2 protection of Proclamation 350 was
be more or less 4 2)
imprescriptibility, the
permanent, and a land grant to the
Facts: land must be placed
not temporary Mindanao Medical
Petitioners Grande are the under the operation of
over flooding of Center even though
owners of a parcel of land the registration laws
another’s land; the occupant
located in the Municipality of where in certain
3) The change of the possessed a sales
Magsaysay, province of Isabela. judicial procedures
river must be a patent. (Republic &
They inherited the said land have been provided.
natural one, not Mindanao Medical
from their mother who inherited
nce is not entitled to the protection of imprescriptibility, which means it was subject to acquisition through prescription by 3rd persons. Furthermore, in this case, the CA found that Calalungs were in possession of the

by artificial the same from her parents. The Center vs. CA)
means; land is registered in the name of Alluvial formation 3) Proclamation 180 set
4) There must be the parents of their mother. along the seashore aside a parcel of land
definite When it was surveyed for forms part of the upon which a public
abandonment by purposes of registration in 1930, public domain school was to be built.
the government; the northeastern boundary was - It may only be The occupant could
5) The river must the Cagayan River. Since then, a disposed of if there is not prove OCENPO
continue to exist, gradual accretion on the a formal declaration by and could not
that is, it must northeastern side took place, by the government that therefore assert a
not completely action of the current of the the same is A and D. superior right over the
dry up or Cagayan River. That by 1958, Its school. (Republic vs.
disappear. an alluvial deposit of 19, 964 disposition falls under Doldol)
square meters, more or less, the exclusive
Rationale of the law had been added to the supervision and control
on accretion: registered area. of the Land RP BY MINDANAO
- It is primarily Management Bureau. MEDICAL CENTER V.
anchored on the CA
In 1958, Grandes filed an action
principle or right SEC. 14 (4) – IN ANY OTHER
to quiet title to said portion
of accession in MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY FACTS:
formed by accretion. They
Art. 457. Also, to LAW
alleged that they and their In 1921, Eugenio de Jesus,
compensate the 1) Presidential
predecessor-in-interest were the father of respondent
owner for the proclamation
formerly in peaceful and Alejandro de Jesus, applied
danger of loss reserving lands
continuous possession of the with Bureau of Lands for
that he suffers for specific
said land until the Calalungs Sales Patent of a land
because of the public purpose
entered upon the said land situated in Davao City, the
location of his  The
under claim of ownership in subject property applied for
lands. president
1948. The Calalungs, on the was a portion of what was
has the
was conductedand theother hand, asserts that they known as ofDavao Cadastre.
given to Eugenio. ACQUISITION
➢ Thereafter, A survey OF same was approved. In 1936, the DL ordered the amendment of the Sales Application of Eugenio saying that
authority to
a portion the property is needed by the Ph
have been in continuous, open, Bureau of Lands accepted
ampsite after it wasOWNERSHIP
excluded from theINapplication. Finally, in 1948, the Sales Patent was awarded to him by DL and by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Subsequently, President Ramon Magsaysa
and undisturbed possession of set aside sealed bids for the
ANY MANNTER the land since prior to the year lands from purchase of the land. The
PROVIDED FOR BY 1933 up to the present. sale/public Director of Lands annulled
LAW acquisition the auction sale by reason
o and reserve of non-participation of
them to Eugenio due to non-service
public use, of notice.
RESERVATIO
even though
N FOR
SPECIFIC
PUBLIC
PURPO

18
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
RTC ruled in favor of the Grandes and ordered Calalungs to vacate the premises. The lower court said that the land in question being an accretion to the mother or registered land, the same belongs to G

19
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
Proclamation No. 85 which opened the subject property to Infiels substantiates their ownership saying that their ancestors have
disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act for possessed and occupied the land from generation to generation until it
resettlement of the squatters. However, the same revocation was came into their possession. Acme contended in its application that
superseded by another order reserving the lot for medical their adverse and continuous possession since 1962 and by tacking
center site. In 1969, Mindanao Medical Center applied for the their possession to that of the possession of the Infiels, they have
registration of the land under Torrens System claiming a “fee simple” already acquired title over it; that the ownership of lands by
title. Respondents De Jesus opposed the registration on the ground corporations is governed by the 1935 Constitution. Acme further
that his father has prior vested right on the property. proves that the subject land is a private land after it ownership was
given to the non-Christian tribes pursuant to RA 3872. That also,
RTC Davao ruled in favor of MMC. CA overturned RTC’s decision they have introduced more than 45 million pesos worth of
recognizing De Jesus’ alleged vested right. improvements on the land. Also that their ownership is recognized by
Municipality of Isabela through the donation it made which was
accepted by the former.
ISSUE: WON De Jesus has vested right and is consequently entitled to
the registration of the property in dispute?
The Director of Lands opposed to nothing of the allegations except the
applicability of the 1935 Constitution. DL contends that the
RULING: registration was commenced only in 1981 which was long after the
No. President Magsaysay’s proclamation (No. 350) legally effected a 1973 Constitution took effect.
land grant to MMC of the whole lot and not only a portion thereof. Article 14 Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits private
Such land grant amounts to a “fee simple” title or absolute title in corporations or associations from holding alienable lands of the public
favor of MMC. domain, except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares. This
proscription is not found in the 1935 Constitution which was in force
Section 64 (e) of the Revised Administrative Code empowers the the time Acme bought the land in question. Hence, it cannot be
president “to reserve from sale or other disposition to the private registered under Sec. 48 of CA 141. RTC and CA ruled in favor of the
domain of the Government of the Philippines, the use of which is not Director of Lands.
otherwise directed by law.” The land reserved “shall be used for the
specific purposes directed by such Executive Order until otherwise Issue: WON the title Infiels transferred to Acme in 1962 could be
provided by law. confirmed in favor of Acme? And WON 1973 Constitution should
apply?
Section 83 of the Public Land Act authorizes the President to issue
proclamation
y “public” land to declare
despite immemorial lands
possession of thereserved for ancestors,
Infiels and their public useuntilor
titlewhen
in theirthe
favor was actually confirmed in appropriate proceedings under the Public Land Act, there can be no question to Acme
public interest requires it.
It is true that Proclamation No. 350 states that the same is subject to
"privilege rights, if any there be," but Eugenio de Jesus or his son What is a Corporation Sole?
Alejandro de Jesus failed to prove any private rights over the property  It is a special
reserved. Wee-settled is the rule that unless the applicant has shown form of
by clear and convincing evidence that a certain portion of the public corporation
domain was acquired by him or his ancestors either by composition usually associated
title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, with the clergy. It
or any other means for the acquisition of public lands, such as grants consists of one
B. LAND
or patents, the property must be held to be part of the public domain person only, and
ACQUISITION BY
PRIVATE his successors
ted between Eugenior de Jesus and Serafin Marabut, such donation would anyway be void, because Eugenior de jesus (who by
held no dominical rights over the site when it was allegedly donated
CORPORATIONS will always
him in 1936.
Ownership by be one at a time),
Corporations who are
History incorporated by
1935 It allowed private juridical entities to acquire alienable law to give them
some legal
Constitut lands of public domain, which shall only be less than 1,
capacity to
ion 024 hectares. administer church
1973 Section 11, Article 14 of the said constitution stated that properties that
Constitut no private corporation xxx may hold alienable lands come into their
ion except by lease not to exceed 1000 hectares in possession.
area.  They are not
1987 Section 3, Article 12 retained the 1973 Constitution’s treated as
Constitut limitations, but added lease period not exceeding 25 ordinary private
ion years and renewable for not more than 25 years. corporation. As by
General Rule: Corporations are disqualified from owning alienable the nature of its
incorporation, it is
lands of public domain except through lease.
empowered by
law to purchase
Exception: Where at the time the Corporation acquired the land, its and hold real
predecessors-in-interest have complied with OCENPO as to entitle him estate and
registration in his name. The Constitutional prohibition will no longer personal property.
apply as the land, by virtue of prescription has become private. (Suzi
vs. Razon) Vested rights
 It is some right or
interest in
property, which
has become fixed
and established
and no longer
open to doubt or
controversy. It
cannot be
impaired without
violating one’s
right to due
process.

➢ Judicial confirmation of
Imperfect or Incomplete
Titles

A
18
 © COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
YOG VS. x x x that the parcel of land "once a parcel of land is
CUSI 146 sought to be registered by the declared or adjudged public
SCRA 15 applicants consisting of 107 land by the court having
hectares, more or less, was jurisdiction x x x it cannot
FACTS: included in the area of the be the subject anymore of
In 1953, the Director of parcel of land applied for another land registration
Lands granted Binan registration by Vicente S. de proceeding x x x (that) it is
Development Co., Inc. its Villa, Sr. in Civil Case No. 26, only the Director of Lands
Sales Application of the L.R. Case No. 601 in this Court, who can dispose of the
land located in Davao City which was decided by this same same by sale, by lease, by
with an area of Court through the then free patent or by
250 hectares. incumbent Judge, the Honorable homestead."
There were Juan
protesters but P. Enriquez, on September 30,
then their protest In the present appeal from
1949; that the parcel sought to
was dismissed by the order of dismissal
be registered by the
the Director and applicants was declared public neither the Director of
DOL V. IAC AND ACME Lands nor the Director of
f Natural Resources the approval of the Sales Patent saying that the ordered
Corporationthem to
had complied land inlong
with the said requirements said decision;
before that ofthey
the effectivity the 1973 Constitution, that the
Forestry land in
filed a question
brief wasas free from cla
PLYWOOD vacate the (the oppositors Vicente V. de
subject lot. No appellee.
AND VENEER Villa, Jr. and Vicente S. de Villa,
c. applied for a land registration of 5 parcels (481, 390 sqm) of land itappeal
146 SCRA allegedlywas made
acquired Sr.)both
from Mariano and Acer Infiel, have
member an ofinterest
the Dumagatover the
tribe. The
from the land in question because for a ISSUE:
509
decision. Despite period more than sixty (60) whether the 1949 judgment
that, the years, the de Villas have been in in the previous case,
“squatters” possession, and which denying the application of
defied the possession, according to them, Vicente S. de Villa, Sr., and
Director of Land’s was OCENCO that the declaring the 107 hectares
order to vacate. proceeding being in rem, the in question to be public
An ejectment suit failure of the applicants to land, precludes a
was brought appear at the case No. 26, L.R. subsequent application by
which caused the Case No. 601 to prove their an alleged possessor for
delay of the imperfect and incomplete title judicial confirmation of
issuance of the over the property, barred them title on the basis of
patent. from raising the same issue in continuous possession for at
The Secretary of Natural another
A vested right is defined as when the right to enjoyment has case;
becomeand that asoffar
the property as person as a present
some interest,years,
least thirty or, it is pursuant
some right or interest in
Resources noted that the compliance with the requirements of the Public LandtheLawdecision in Civil
had the effect Case No.the
of segregating 26,said land fromtopublic domain. 48,
Section The petitioners
subsection contention that
applicant had acquired a L.R. Case No. 601 which was
(b) of the Public Land Law,
vested right to issuance. affirmed in the appellate court in
C.A. 141, as amended.
Subsequently, the CA-G.R. No. 5847-R is
ejectment suit was concerned, there is already "res-
decided in favor of the judicata" — in other words, the HELD:
corporation. However, the cause of action of the applicant Section 48, subsection
“squatters” alleged that is now barred by prior (b) of the Public Land
the adoption of the 1973 judgment; and that this Court Law, C.A. 141, as
Constitution was a has no more jurisdiction over amended.
supervening fact that will the subject matter, the decision The right to file an
make the issuance of of the Court in said case having application under the
patent illegal since no transferred to the Director of foregoing provision has
private corporation is Lands. been extended by Republic
allowed to hold alienable ZAR
Act No. 2061 to December
lands of the public A V.
On November 15, 1960 the De 31, 1968.
domain except by lease DOL
Villas (De Villa, Sr. was It should be noted that
not to exceed 1,000 FACTS: subsequently included as appellants' application is in
hectares. "application for registration of oppositor) filed a motion to the alternative:
the parcel of land consisting of dismiss, invoking the same - for registration of their
ISSUE: WON BInan On August 4, 1960 appellants grounds alleged in its
title of
Development Corporation filed an application for opposition, but principally the
ownership
may validly acquire the registration of 107 hectares fact that the land applied for
had already been declared under Act 496
Sales Patent despite the parcel of land pursuant to the
public land by the judgment in or
prohibition embodied in the provisions of Act 496. They
1973 Constitution? Yes. alleged that the land had been the former registration case. - for judicial
inherited by them from their confirmation of their
grandfather, Pelagio Zara, who "imperfect" title or claim
RULING: The trial court, over the objection of the applicants, based
granted onthe adverse and by order dated Ja
motion to dismiss
in turn acquired the same under
The said constitutional continuous possession for
a Spanish grant known as
prohibition has no at least thirty years.
"Composicion de Terrenos
retroactive application to It may be that although
Realengos" issued in 1888.
the sales application of they were not actual
Alternatively, should the
Binan Corp. because it has parties in that previous
provisions of the Land
already acquired a vested Registration Act be not case the judgment
right to the land applied for applicable, applicants invoke therein is a bar to their
at the time of the 1973 the benefits of the provisions claim as owners under
Constitution took effect. of Chapter VIII, Section 48, the first alternative,
Such vested right has to be subsection (b) of C.A. 141 as since the proceeding was
respected. It could not be amended, on the ground that in rem, of which they
abrogated by the new they and their predecessor-in- and their predecessor
Constitution. interest had been in continuous had constructive notice
and adverse possession of the by publication. Even so
land in concept of owner for this is a defense that
more than 30 years immediately properly pertains to the
preceding the application. Government, in view of
the fact that the judgment
Oppositions were filed by the declared the land in
Director of Lands, the Director question to be public land.
of Forestry and by Vicente V. de
Villa, Jr. The latter's opposition In any case, appellants'
recites: imperfect possessory
19
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
title was not ON
disturbed or OF
foreclosed by IMP
such ERF
declaration, for ECT
precisely the TIT
proceeding LES
contemplated in (SE
the aforecited CTI
provision of ON
Commonwealth
48
Act 141
(b)
presupposes
that the land is of
public. The basis CA
of the decree of 141
judicial )
confirmation Period of
authorized possession for
therein is not that Judicial
the land is Confirmation of
already privately imperfect title:
owned and hence Historical Background
no longer part of LAW DATE OF RULE
the public EFFECTIVIT
domain, but Y
rather that by PLA- 926 Oct. 17, OCENPO of agricultural lands for 10
reason of the 1903 years before the effectivity of this Act
claimant's 2nd PLA – Nov. 29, OCENPO of ‘agricultural lands’
possession for 2874 1919 (excluding timber and mineral lands) of
thirty years he is
the public domain, under bona fide
conclusively
presumed to claim of acquisition of ownership, since
have performed JULY 26, 1894
all the conditions RPLA – 141 Dec. 1, 1936 Possession and occupation of lands of
essential to a the public domain since JULY 26, 1984
Government only limited to Filipinos
grant. RA 1942 June 22, Possession and occupation for atleast
On the question of 1957 30 years immediately preceding the
whether or not filing of the application
the private PD 1073 January 25, Land must be A&D (not anymore
oppositors-
1977 ‘agricultural lands’ of the public
appellees have
the necessary domain,
personality to file and
an opposition, we occupied since June 12, 1945
find in their favor,
considering that  The amendment
they also claim to from
be in possession ‘agricultural
of the land, and lands’ to ‘A & D’
have furthermore is not a
applied for its substantial
purchase from the amendment
Bureau of Lands. because only
Wherefore, the agricultural
order appealed lands are
from is set aside
and the case is
remanded to the
Court a quo for
trial and judgment
on the merits,
with costs against
the private
oppositors-
appellees.

J
U
D
I
C
I
A
L

C
O
N
F
I
R
M
A
T
I

20
© COMPILED BY KC
II-MANRESA 2016
alienable. The prevailing rule for OCENPO is not anymore 30
years. It is now ‘since June 12, 1945 or earlier’. The amendment
was made to ‘jive’ with Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529.
Did PD 1529 and PD 1073 (which removed the 30 yr
requirement for OCENPO) preclude application for registration
of alienable lands of public domain commenced only after
June 12, 1945?
 No, considering Section 14(2) still allows acquisition of alienable
lands of public domain through prescription. In civil law,
prescription is one of the wars of acquiring public land. So even
if the possession was commenced later than June 12, 1945, you
may still qualify under Section 14(2).
Requirements for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title
1) The land must form part of the A&D agricultural lands of the
public domain;
2) Applicant must have been in OCENPO
3) Under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial
or since June 12, 1945
RA 8371
Oct. 29, 1997
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT
CARINO V. INSULAR
Facts:
Carino applied for the registration of a parcel of land located in
Benguet province. Carino alleges that:
a. His predecessors has been in the possession of the land for
more than 50 years.
b. He was inherited the land under the Igorot customs.
However, it was not shown that Carino has a document of title to
prove ownership such as royal grant. The dispute arose when the
government opposed the registration contending that the land in
question belonged to the State.
That the Spanish law provides that all lands belonged to the Spanish
Crown (Jura Regalia), and it could not have been acquired by Carino
since prescription does not lie against the crown.
Issue: WON Carino’s application should be granted?
YES. Ruling:
Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted title.
The Supreme Court of the United States through Justice Holmes
had this to say: “It might perhaps be proper and sufficient to say
that when, as far as testimony or memory goes, the land has
been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership. It will
be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the
Spanish Conquest, and never to have been in Public Land.” It was
further ruled that Carino’s kind of title, a native title, is an
exception to Jura Regalia.
CRUZ V. DENR
FACTS:
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, petitioners, assailed the
constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 ( Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997) together with its implementing rules and
regulations. The OSG also commented that IPRA is partly
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural
resources to indigenous people.
On the other hand, CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the
principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to
protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious
disadvantage like indigenous people. For this reason, it prays that the
petition be dismissed. Petitioners Cruz and Europa countered the
constitutionality of IPRA and its implementing rules on the ground that
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over
lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural
resources. Also, that the law is in violation of the Regalian Doctrine
embodied in the Constitution.
Also, petitioners contended that, by providing for an all-encompassing
definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, it might
include private lands found within the said areas.
Issue:WON IPRA is unconstitutional as it contravenes Regalian
Doctrine?
Ruling: NO, IPRA is held to be constitutional.
After due deliberation on the petition, 7 members of the court voted
to dismiss the petition, and 7 members of the court voted to grant the
same.
The case was redeliberated upon, however, the votes remained the
same. According to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition has to be
dismissed. The constitutionality of IPRA is upheld.
Justice Panganiban’s Dissenting Opinion:
Contentions of RA 8371’s unconstitutionality:
1. It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and of Public
Domains. That this is in contravention to Section 2, Art. 12 of the
Constitution that only agricultural lands of the public domain can
be considered as alienable and disposable lands.
2. No land area limits are specified - That 4/5 of the country’s
natural resources and 1/3 of the country’s land will be
concentrated to 12 Million IPs, and while 60 million other Filipinos
will share the remaining. These figures violates the constitutional
principle of a “more equitable distribution of opportunities,
income, and wealth” among Filipinos.
3. It abdicates the State Duty to take Full Control and Supervision of
Natural Resources
4. Public Domains and Natural Resources are owned by the State
and Cannot be Alienated or Ceded
Ancestral Domain- refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs
comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources
therein
Ancestral Land – refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by
individuals, families, and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since
time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest, under claims of individual or traditional ownership
Native Title- refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains,
which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under claim of
private ownership by ICCs/IPs.
Time Immemorial – period of time when as far back as memory can
go, certain IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept
of owner
IPRA connotes group or communal ownership. Ancestral
domains are private, but community property
 Private- since it is not part of the public domain
 Community – ancestral domain is owned in common and
not by 1 particular person
Ownership over the natural resources STILL belong to the
State
- ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to manage and
conserve them for future generation. The rights of IPs take
the form of management and stewardship
Modes of Acquisition of Ancestral domains and ancestral lands
by the IP
a) Applicant must be a member of indigenous cultural group;
b) He must have been in possession of an individually-owned
ancestral land for not less than 30 years
c) By operation of law (IPRA), the land is already classified as
A&D land, even if it has a slop of 18% hence there is no
need to submit a separate certification that the land is A&D
Transfer of land or property rights
1) Only the members of the ICCs/IPs
2) In accord with customary laws and customs
3) Subject to the right of redemption of the ICCs/IPs for a
period of 15 years if the land was transferred to a non-
member of ICCs/IPs
Mining Operations on Ancestral Land
General Rule: Not allowed
Exception: If the ICCs concerned consent to it
In the event of an agreement of mining operations
1) Parties shall agree upon the Royalty payment
2) The Royalty payment shall form part of trust fund for the
socio-economic well-being of the ICC
Members of the cultural communities are given priority in awarding of
SMALL-SCALE MINING CONTRACTS- Sec. 7, 7076
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
1) Jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving the
rights of ICCs/IPs
o Condition precedent to the acquisition of
jurisdictions: Exhaustion of all remedies provided
under their customary laws and a certification
from the Council of Elders/Leaders who
participated in the attempt to settle the dispute
and that it was not resolved.
2) It has the authority to issue Certificates of Ancestral
Lands Title (CALT) and Certificates of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT)
20
 3) It has OEJ over petition for cancellation of CADT and harvest of 3 normal crop years
CALT alleged to have been fraudulently acquired to  It shall be paid by the tenant in 15 equal annual
any person amortizations including interest at the rate of 6% per
4) Issuance of certification as a precondition to grant of
annum
permit for disposition
5) Power to cite for contempt and issue restraining
orders
Requisite before the title to the land owned be actually issued
Ancestral Domains Office to the tenant farmer
- Responsible for identification, delineation, and recognition of  Tenant farmer should become a full-fledged member of a duly
ancestral lands/domains recognized farmer’s cooperative

Transferability of title acquired to PD 27

 Only through hereditary succession or to the Govt in
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT,
accordance w/ pertinent laws
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY

SEC. 104. Provisional Register of Documents. — The Department

of Agrarian Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a
special registry book to be known as the “Provisional Register of
Documents issued under PD-27” which shall be kept and
maintained in every Registry of Deeds throughout the country.
Said Registry Book shall be a register of:
a) All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No.
27; and
b) All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer
such as adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of
erroneous Certificates of Land Transfer
SEC. 105. Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents.
— The Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27
issue in duplicate, a Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought
under “Operation Land Transfer,” the original of which shall be kept by
the tenant-farmer and the duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds.
After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the
requirements for a grant of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation
Patent which may cover previously titled or untitled property shall be
issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the
aforementioned Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original
certificate of title number in case of unregistered land, and in case of
registered property, shall issue the corresponding transfer certificate
of title without requiring the surrender of the owner’s duplicate of the
title to be cancelled.
In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform
shall determine his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the
Register of Deeds accordingly. In case of subsequent transfer of
property covered by an Emancipation Patent or a Certificate of Title
emanating from an Emancipation Patent, the Register of Deeds shall
effect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the
Department of Agrarian Reform.
No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in connection with the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and for the registration of related documents.
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM
PROGRAM (RA 6657)
Aug. 7, 2009
Agrarian Reform - redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits
produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless,
irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors
and support services designed to lift the economic status of the
beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical
redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor
administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will
allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands
they work
Agricultural land – land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial,
or industrial land.
Agricultural activity – cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the
harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and
practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming
operations done by person whether natural or juridical.
Coverage
 All public and private agricultural lands including lands of
public domain suitable for agriculture
 All lands in excess of the specific limits as determined by
Congress
 All other lands owned by the gov’t devoted to or suitable for
agriculture
 All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
regardless
of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon
o Except landholdings of landowners with a total area of
5 hectares below

Exemptions and Exclusions from CARP coverage

TENANT EMANCIPATION DECREE 1) LandsThis
▪ is baseddirectly,
actually, on DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990)
and exclusively used for which provides that
parks,
(PD 27) withforest
wildlife, respect to the conversion
reserves, of agricultural
reforestation, lands covered
fish sanctuaries and by RA
(Oct. 21, 1972) No. grounds,
breeding 6657 to non- agricultural
watersheds uses, the authority of the DAR to
and mangroves;
Applicability/Coverage 2) approve
Private such conversion
lands actually, directly,may
and be exercisedused
exclusively fromforthe date of its
▪ This applies to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands prawn effectivity
farms andorfishponds,
on June 15, 1988. Thus,
provided that all
thelands
samealready
have not classified as
primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of been commercial,
distributed industrial or residential
and Certificate of Land before that Award
Ownership date no longer
sharecrop or lease tenancy, whether classified as landed issuedneed any conversion
to agrarian clearance from
reform beneficiaries the the
under DAR.CARP;
estate or not 3) Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to
 Homesteads
be necessary for:
Retention Limits/Award Ceiling ▪ While
a. PD No. 27
National decreeing
defense, the emancipation
school of tenants from the
sites and campuses,
▪ A farmer shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a bondageincluding
of theexperimental
soil and transferring
farm stations
to them
operated
ownership
by of the
family-size farm of land they
publictill
orisprivate
a sweeping social
schools for legislation,
educationalitpurposes,
cannot defeat the
o 6 hectares if not irrigated very purpose
seeds and of seeding
the Publicresearch
Land Actandwhich
pilot has
production
been enacted for
o 3 hectares if irrigated the welfare
center and protection of the poor.
b. Church sites and convents, mosque sites and
Landowner Retention Limit Islamic centers, common burial grounds
c. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by
o 7 hectares if such landowner is cultivating such
Qualified Beneficiaries inmates
area or will now cultivate it
d. ofGovernment
the same and privateorresearch
in the and quarantine
Landless residents barangay, absence thereof, landless
centers
Cost of Land/Compensation residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority
e. All lands with 18% slope and over, except those
 The land shall be equivalent to 2 ½ times the average 1) Agricultural lessees and share tenants;
already developed
2) Regular farmworkers;
 Agricultural lands reclassified by LGU’s into residential,
 3) Seasonal farmworkers;  Payment for the first 3 years may be at reduced amounts
4) Other farmworkers;  LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded, it
5) Actual tillers or occupants of public lands may be foreclosed by the LBP for nonpaymnet of an aggregate
6) Collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries
of 3 annual amortizations
7) Others directly working on the land
 Beneficiary whose land was foreclosed shall be permanently
disqualified from becoming a beneficiary
 children of landowners who are qualified shall be given
preference. Actual land-tillers shall not, however, be ejected
Transferability of awarded lands (CLOA)
or removed therefrom
 only through hereditary succession, to the government, or to the
 A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness,
LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a
aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive
period of 10 years
as possible
 Support services shall be extended equally to women and men
Voluntary Land Transfer
agrarian reform beneficiaries
 landowners of agricultural lands may enter into a voluntary
arrangement to direct transfer of their lands to qualified
beneficiaries subject to guidelines set in the law
Retention Limits of Landowners
 Payment shall be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the land
o Maximum of 5 hectares
owner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
o 3 hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner
 It shall be binding upon them, upon registration with the
subject to the following qualifications
approval by the DAR
1. Atleast 15 years of age
 Approval is deemed given, unless notice of disapproval is
2. He is actually tilling the land or directly managing
the farm received by the farmer-beneficiary within 30 days from the date
 Retention limits shall not apply to LGUs acquiring private of registration
 In case they don’t agree on the price, the procedure for
agricultural land by expropriation or other modes of acquisition
compulsory acquisition shall apply
be used for public purposes
 LBP may extend financing to the beneficiaries
Disposition or Sale of retained land by land owner
 Valid, as long as the total landholding that shall be owned by the
When the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound
transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall
for agricultural purposes, or that the land will have greater
not exceed the landholding ceilings
economic value for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes
Award ceiling to beneficiaries
The DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the land-owner, may
o 3 hectares
o It may be a contiguous tract or several parcels of land authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its
disposition Provided that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his
cumulate up to the prescribed award limits
obligation Irrigated and irrigable lands, shall not be subject to
conversion
Landless Beneficiary – owns less than 3 ha. Of agricultural lands
Determination of just compensation
Jurisdiction of DAR
1. Cost of acquisition of the land
2. Value of the standing crop a) Adjudication of all matters involving implementation of
3. Current value of like properties agrarian reform
4. Its nature, actual use, and income b) Resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related
5. Sworn valuation by the owner problems
6. Tax declarations c) Approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or
7. Assessment made by government assessors d) readjustment of agricultural lands into residential,
8. 70% zonal valuation by the BIR commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural
uses
Manner of Payment
 It shall be paid by the beneficiaries to the LBP in 30 annual Appeals
DAR decision 
amortization of 6% interest per annum
 15 days from the receipt  CA by certiorari
 Notwithstanding appeal to the CA, the decision of the DAR
shall be immediately executory.
Jurisdiction of DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)
a) Determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of CARP
b) Cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of
EPs and CLOAs which are registered with the ROD.

For DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must be a tenancy

relationship between the parties which has the following
elements:
1. Parties are the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee
2. Subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land
3. Consent between the parties to the relationship
4. Purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production
5. There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee
6. Harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee
Note: If the action is brought before the trial court, it must determine
first the existence of tenancy relationship. If there is, then it should
dismiss the case. It there is no such relationship, then it has
jurisdiction over the case. Finding by DAR of such relationship is
merely preliminary and does not bind the courts.

An action to enforce rights as a tenant is barred by
prescription
 If not filed within 3 years
Special Agrarian Court designated by the RTC shall have the
following original and exclusive jurisdiction
1) All petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners, and
2) Prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657
Titles issued pursuant to PD 27 and RA 6657 shall become
indefeasible and imprescriptible after 1 year from their
registration in the ROD
Jurisdiction of DAR and DARAB
DAR DARAB
Prior to registration with the ROD After registration with ROD
Case involving issuance, recall or Issuance, correction
cancellation of CLOAs and EPs cancellation of CLOAs or EPs
MODES OF ACQUIRING PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND
1) Operation Land Transfer
2) Volutary Offer to Sell
3) Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme
4) Compulsory Acquisition
5) Voluntary Stock Distribution in the case of corporation
Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable and suitable
agricultural lands and do not include commercial, industrial and
residential lands. Lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of RA 6657 are outside its coverage– Natalia vs. DAR
Lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the
definition of agricultural land. It declared as unconstitutional the
provision in RA 6657 insofar as it included livestock farms in the
coverage of agrarian reform – Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V. SAR (1989)
1) the requirement of public use has been settled by the
Constitution itself. It noted that “(n)o less than the 1987 Charter
calls for agrarian reform which is the reason why private
agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to
the prescribed maximum retention limits.” The Court also
declared that the law is a valid exercise by the State of the police
power and the power of eminent domain.
2) On the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar
planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class
and should be differently treated.
3) And on the alleged payment of public money as just
compensation without the corresponding appropriation, the Court
said that there is no rule that only money already in existence
can be the subject of an appropriation law. The earmarking of
fifty billion pesos as Agrarian Reform Fund, although
denominated as an initial amount, is actually the maximum sum
appropriated. The word “initial” simply means that additional
amounts may be appropriated later when necessary.
4) Finally, on the contention that the law is unconstitutional insofar
as it requires the owners of the expropriated properties to accept
just compensation therefor in less than money, which is the only
medium of payment allowed, the Court held that the law “is not
an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of
relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its
owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose,” but deals with “a
revolutionary kind of expropriation (which) affects all private
agricultural lands.” “(S)uch a program will involve not mere
millions of pesos (but) hundreds of billions of pesos will be
needed, far more indeed than the amount of P50 billion initially
appropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our present
standards.”
Based on the slogan: Land for the Landless
1935 constitution – mandated the policy of social justice to “ensure
the well-being and economic security of all the people”, especially the
less privileged.
Art. XIII, Sec. 4
The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
- founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers,
- who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they
till or,
- in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof.
To this end, the State shall
- encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands,
or - subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Congress may prescribe,
o taking into account ecological, developmental, or
equity considerations and subject to the payment
of just compensation.
- In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
of small landowners.
o The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land-sharing.”
3844 - Agricultural land reform code (aug. 8, 1963)
PD 27 - compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among
tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for land
owners (Oct. 21, 1972)
EO 228 - full ownership in favor of PD 27 beneficiaries and providing
valuation of still unvalued lands
PP 131- CARP and EO 229 providing mechanisms for its
implementation
RA 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998, by P. Aquino
(June 10, 1988)
NATALIA REALTY V. DAR
 Lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of CARL are outside its coverage
HELD:
Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of
CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural
uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other
than DAR. Thus, for instance, the conversion of portions of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision for residential use and developed such prior
to the passage of the law excluded the area for CARL coverage
because it ceased to be devoted to agricultural activity.
 Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988,
respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore
error to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.”
LUZ FARMS V. SECRETARY
 Farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine
not covered
in determining the area of land to be excluded, AO No. 9 fixed the
following retention limits, viz.: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of
land per 1 head of animal shall be retained by the landowner), and a
ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads
of cattle shall likewise be excluded from the operations of the CARL.