Carpo v.
Ayala Land and APVC from doing construction and
FACTS:
 On February 16, 1995, petitioner
spouses Morris and Socorro Carpo
(Carpos) filed a Complaint for Quieting of
Title with the RTC of Makati City against
Ayala Corporation, Ayala Property
Ventures Corporation (APVC), and the
Register of Deeds of Las Pias.
 In their Complaint, the Carpos claimed to
be the owners of a 171,209-square
meter parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 296463
issued in their names. They further
alleged that Ayala Corporation was
claiming to have titles (specifically, TCT
Nos. 125945, T-4366, T-4367 and T-
4368) over the property covered by the
Carpos TCT No. 296463 and that Ayala
Corporation had made such property its
equity contribution in APVC to be
developed into a residential subdivision.
 According to the complaint, TCT Nos.
125945, T-4366, T-4367 and T-4368 and
their derivatives appear to have been
issued in the name of Ayala and purport
to cover and embrace the Carpos
property or portion thereof duly covered
registered under the already
indefeasible and incontrovertible TCT
[No.] 296463 are inherently invalid and
enforceable (sic) for not being the duly
issued derivatives of the Carpos title. The
Carpos additionally applied for a effectively. The Court need not emphasize
restraining order and writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin Ayala Corporation
and development works on the
properties in purported violation of the
Carpos rights.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
DECLARING THAT THE TITLE OF RESPONDENT
IS VALID EVEN WITHOUT THE REQUISITE
SURVEY PLAN APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR
OF LANDS.
RULING:
No. It is settled that "(t)he general rule is that
in the case of two certificates of title,
purporting to include the same land, the
earlier in date prevails which in this case is
Mayuga whom the Realty derived its title. It is
admitted that a survey plan is one of the
requirements for the issuance of decrees of
registration, but upon the issuance of such
decree, it can most certainly be assumed that
said requirement was complied with by ALI’s
original predecessor-in-interest at the time
the latter sought original registration of the
subject property. Moreover, the land
registration court must be assumed to have
carefully ascertained the propriety of issuing
a decree in favor of ALI’s predecessor-in-
interest, under the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions by
public officers. The court upon which the law
has conferred jurisdiction, is deemed to have
all the necessary powers to exercise such
jurisdiction, and to have exercised it
that it is not for ALI to allege in its pleadings,
much less prove, that its predecessor-in-
interest complied with the requirements for
the original registration of the subject
property. A party dealing with a registered
land need not go beyond the Certificate of
Title to determine the true owner thereof so
as to guard or protect his or her interest.
Hence, ALI was not required to go beyond
what appeared in the transfer certificate of
title in the name of its immediate transferor.
SECTION 21
Requirement of additional facts and papers;
ocular inspection. The court may require facts
to be stated in the application in addition to
those prescribed by this Decree not
inconsistent therewith and may require the
filing of any additional paper. It may also
conduct an ocular inspection, if necessary.
SECTION 23 : NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING 
 The court must WITHIN 5 DAYS from the
filing of application, shall issue an order
setting the date and hour of the initial
hearing which shall not be earlier than
45 days nor later than 90 days from the
date of the order 
 Notice by means of PUBLICATION,
MAILING, and POSTING is MANDATORY
 The court has the power and duty to set
the hearing date
 The notice of initial hearing is a court
document—the party applicant has
absolutely no participation
Director of Lands v. CA and Abistado
FACTS:
 Private Respondent Teodoro Abistado
filed a petition for original registration of
his title over 648 square meters of land
under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.
The application was docketed as Land
Registration Case (LRC) No. 86 and
assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional
Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro.
 However, during the pendency of his
petition, applicant died. Hence, his heirs
— Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold
and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado —
represented by their aunt Josefa
Abistado, who was appointed their
guardian ad litem, were substituted as
applicants.
 The land registration court in its decision
dismissed the petition for want of
jurisdiction. The Court noted that
applicants failed to comply with the
provisions of Section 23 (1) of PD 1529,
requiring the Applicants to publish the
notice of Initial Hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines.
It was only published in the Official
Gazette.
 Under Section 23 [of PD 1529] has a two-
fold purpose; the first, which is
mentioned in the provision of the
aforequoted provision refers to
publication in the Official Gazette, and is
jurisdictional; while the second, which is
mentioned in the opening clause of the
same paragraph, refers to publication
not only in the Official Gazette but also
 in a newspaper of general circulation, circulation in the Philippines: Provided,
and is procedural. however, that the publication in the Official
 Private respondents appealed CA, which, Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
as earlier explained, set aside the jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall
decision of the trial court and ordered be addressed to all persons appearing to have
the registration of the title in the name an interest in the land involved including the
of Teodoro Abistado. adjoining owners so far as known, and "to all
 The Director of Lands represented by the whom it may concern." Said notice shall also
Solicitor General thus elevated this require all persons concerned to appear in
recourse to us. court at a certain date and time to show
ISSUE: cause why the prayer of said application shall
Whether newspaper publication of the notice not be granted.
of initial hearing in an original land
registration case mandatory or directory. It should be noted further that land
RULING: registration is a proceeding in rem. Being in
The pertinent part of Section 23 of rem, such proceeding requires constructive
Presidential Decree No. 1529 requiring seizure of the land as against all persons,
publication of the notice of initial hearing including the state, who have rights to or
reads as follows: interests in the property. An in rem
Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, proceeding is validated essentially through
etc. — The court shall, within five days from publication. This being so, the process must
filing of the application, issue an order setting strictly be complied with.
the date and hour of the initial hearing which
shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor PUBLICATION: PURSPOSE
later than ninety days from the date of the 1. To confer jurisdiction upon the court over
order. the res
The public shall be given notice of initial 2. To apprise the whole world of the pending
hearing of the application for land registration case so that they may assert their
registration by means of (1) publication; (2) rights or interests in the land, if any, and
mailing; and (3) posting. oppose the application, if so minded.
1. By publication. —Upon receipt of the order
of the court setting the time for initial POSTING
hearing, the Commissioner of Land  Within 14 days before the initial hearing,
Registration shall cause a notice of initial the LRA administrator shall cause a duly
hearing to be published once in the Official attested copy of the notice to be posted
Gazette and once in a newspaper of general by the sheriff in a conspicuous place on
 the land applied for and also in a Whether respondents have sufficient
conspicuous place on the bulletin board evidence to prove ownership over the subject
of the municipality or city in which the property.
land is situated  RULING:
 mandatory requirement  The court ruled against respondents.
 The applicant showed a survey plan
PROOF REQUIRED IN REGISTRATION classifying it as alienable and disposable,
PROCEEDINGS this was the only proof. He was not able
to show a POSTIVE ACT OF THE
Republic v. Dela Paz GOVERNMENT classifying the land as
FACTS: alienable and disposable.
 Respondents Avelino R. dela Paz, Arsenio  Did not show a certificate from DENR
R. dela Paz, Jose R. dela Paz, and Glicerio that he failed to show.
R. dela Paz, represented by Jose R. dela  The burden of proof in overcoming the
Paz (Jose), filed with the RTC of Pasig presumption of State ownership of the
City an application for registration of lands of public domain is on the person
land3 under Presidential Decree No. applying for registration, who must
1529. prove that the land subject of the
 They alleged that they acquired the application is alienable or disposable SC
property which is an agricultural land said that the notation of the surveyor is
executed by the parents who also not sufficient proof.
acquired it from their deceased parent.  To prove that the land subject of an
 They claimed to be owners of the land application for registration is alienable,
and have been in continuous, an applicant must establish the existence
uninterrupted, open, public, adverse of a positive act of the government.
possession of the same even before June  He must have presented a certificate
12, 1945. from CENRO & PENRO of land
 They maintained that the property is classification status as alienable and
classified as alienable and disposable disposable.
land.  There must be a positive act from the
 Republic, through the OSG opposed the government such as a PD, EO,
application. RTC decided in favor of Administrative Action, investigation
respondents. CA also affirmed RTC’s report of the bureau of lands
decision. investigators and a legislative act or
ISSUE: statute.
 The applicant may also secure a  Oppositor files an opposition but fails to
certification from the government that appear at the initial period.
the lands applied are alienable and  He will not be considered in default,
disposable. unlike your order of special default
4. ORDERS OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL
OPPOSING APPLICATION DEFAULT
1. Order of General Default
 if no person appears and answers within
1. REQUISITES
the time allowed, the court shall, upon
Any person, whether named in the notice or
motion of the application, order a
not, may appear and file an opposition on or
default entered and require applicant to
before the date of initial hearing, or within
present evidence.
such time as may be allowed by the court,
 The order of GENERAL default by the
provided he has an interest in the property
name general it is directed against the
applied for
whole world, the whole world is made a
 The oppositor must have an interest in
party
the land applied for - based on the right
2. Order of Special Default
of dominion or some other real right
 when an appearance has been entered
opposed to the adjudication or
and answer filed, a default order shall be
recognition of the ownership of the
entered against persons who did not
applicant, whether it be limited or
appear an answer
absolute
 to those who did not enter their
 He should state the grounds for his
appearance or submit an answer
objection as well as the nature of his
directed to specific individuals and those
claimed interest
who did not enter their appearance.
 The relief being prayed for
2. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PASS OPPOSITION
PERSONS DEEMED TO HAVE LEGAL
 All the allegations contained in the
STANDING
application shall be held as confessed by
reason of the absence of denial on the part of
1. Private persons may not oppose in behalf
the opponent 
of the government
 The person who has not challenged
2. Opposition by the government
cannot allege damage or error against the
 Pursuant to the Regalian doctrine, all
judgment ordering the registration inasmuch
lands of the public domain and all other
as he didn't allege or pretend to have right
natural resources are owned by the
over the land
State, hence, it is the burden of the
3. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR
applicant to overthrow the presumption
 that the land is public land by well nigh
inconvertible proof and that he is
entitled to registration under the law.
Republic v. Tiotioen
FACTS:
 Before us is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari filed by the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), seeking to set aside a
part of the Decision of the CA as it
sustained the denial of the Notice of
Appeal filed by petitioner from the
Decision dated August 30, 2001 of RTC of
La Trinidad, Benguet, in Land
Registration Case (LRC) No. 93-LRC-0008.
 This case involves a second application
filed by Tiotioen (respondent) for judicial
confirmation and registration of Torrens
System of these two parcels of land.
 Petitioner Republic filed its opposition
on the ground that the parcels of land
belong to the communal forest of La
Trinidad, Benguet and are therefore
inalienable land of the public domain
and such have not been classified as
disposable and alienable.
 Land registration court decided in favor
of Tiotioen and this was affirmed by the
CA. For resolution is the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the (OSG) of the
Order of the Court dated January 29,
2002 denying their Notice of Appeal
having been filed beyond the
reglementary period.Be it noted that the
OSG received the Decision dated August
30, 2001 on September 06, 2001 and
filed its Notice of Appeal on January 11,
2002. Conformably with Section 3, Rule
41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
prescribing a 15-day appeal period, the
last day for the perfection of an appeal
by OSG should have been on the 21st
day of September 2001. Per se, it was
filed beyond the reglementary period for
which to perfect an appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure of the Republic to
file any opposition or answer to the
application for registration despite receipt of
the notice thereof, did not deprive its right to
appeal the RTC decision.
RULING:
 The belated filing of an appeal by the
state, or even its failure to file and
opposition, in a land registration case
because of the mistake or error of its
agents does not deprive the right of the
government to appeal of a judgment of
the court because of the principle that
the State cannot be estopped by the
errors of its officials or agents
 You cannot let the government suffer by
the incompetence of its officials or
agents
 It is a well-known and settled rule in our
jurisdiction that the Republic or its
government, is usually not estopped by
mistake or error on the part of its
officials or agents.