Ian Emmanuel C.

Ronquillo 19-13809-414

1. What is Regalian doctrine? What is the constitutional basis of this doctrine?

All lands of whatever classification and other natural resources not otherwise appearing
to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State which is the
source of any asserted right to ownership of land (Republic vs. Sin)

The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, embodies the principle of
State ownership of lands and all other natural resources in Section 2 of Article XII on
“National Economy and Patrimony,” to wit:

“SEC. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated….”

2. What is a native title. Cite the law and jurisprudence supporting native titles.

Native title refers to ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim
of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish
Crown, as an exception to the theory of jura regalia.

In the case of Cariño v. Insular Government, the United States Supreme Court ruled that:
“…as far back 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 public land.” The said ruling
institutionalized the recognition of the existence of native title to land.

Furthermore, Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act of 1997 (IPRA), recognizes the existence of Indigenous Cultural Communities or
Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine society. It grants these
people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and
defines the extent of these lands and domains. The ownership given is the indigenous
concept of ownership under customary law which traces its origin to native title.

3. Is there a conflict between regalian doctrine and the concept of native titles? Why?

No, there is no conflict between Regalian Doctrine and the concept of native titles. The
Regalian Doctrine does not negate native title to lands held in private ownership since
time immemorial (Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources).

4. Supposing A, an IP, has been occupying an agricultural land since time immemorial, can
A register the land? Why? Supposing the land is classified as forestland? Can A register
the land?

Yes, A, as an IP, can register the agricultural land that he has been occupying since time
immemorial. Section 3 par. 1 of Republic Act No. 8371 refers to pre-conquest rights to
Ian Emmanuel C. Ronquillo 19-13809-414

lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim
of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably
presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.

Yes, A as an IP, can register the land even if it is classified as a forestland. Section 3(a) of
Republic Act No. 8371 states that the ancestral domains belonging to the ICCs/IPs shall
include forests.

5. What are the classifications of public land under the constitution? Who classify the public
land? Can the President reclassify public lands?

Section 3 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
provides for the primary classification of lands of the public domain into four categories:
(a) agricultural, (b) forest or timber, (c) mineral lands, and (d) national parks.

It is the President who classify the public land. Under the Section 6 of the Public Land
Act, the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into: (a)
alienable or disposable; (b) timber, and (c) mineral lands, and may at any time and in a
like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for the purposes of their
administration and disposition.

No, the President cannot reclassify public lands….

6. What is secondary classification of public lands. Who undertakes secondary

classification?

Section 3 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines also
provides that agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified according
to the uses to which they may be devoted. This further classification of agricultural lands
is referred to as secondary classification: (a) residential, (b) commercial, or (c) industrial.

The authority to reclassify agricultural lands into residential, commercial or industrial is

lodged, among others, in cities and municipalities (LGUs), under the Local Government
Code of 1991.

7. What are the National Agencies that have mandates to issue titles? Cite the type of titles
they issue?

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) thru Land Management

Bureau - Patents over Public Lands

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) - Emancipation Patent

National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) - Certificate of Ancestral Domain

Titles (CADT); and, Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (CALT)
Ian Emmanuel C. Ronquillo 19-13809-414

Courts - Judicial Confirmation of Title

8. What is torrens system? Cite the benefits of placing your title under the torrens system.
Will the owner of the title have additional rights when the title is placed under the
system? Is the system considered mode of transferring ownership?

The Torrens system title by registration takes the place of “title by deeds” of the system
under the “general” law. A sale of land, for example, is effected by a registered transfer,
upon which a certificate of title is issued. The certificate is guaranteed by statute, and,
with certain exceptions, constitutes indefeasible title to the land mentioned therein.

Sir Robert Torrens summarized the benefits of the system of registration of titles, to wit:
(a) It has substituted security for insecurity; (b) It has reduced the cost of conveyances
from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from months to days; (c) It has
exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage; (d) It has so simplified
ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the ‘three R’s’ can transact his own
conveyancing; (e) It affords protection against fraud; (f) It has restored to their just value
many estates, held under good holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur
or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults.

Yes, the owner of the title have additional rights when the title is placed under the
Torrens system. As expressed in the case of Legarda vs Saleeby, the Torrens system
quiets title to land and stops forever any question of legality of title. Therefore, it gives
the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense
with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge
of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such
further inquiry.

No, the Torrens system is not considered as a mode of transferring ownership.

Registration of land under Act No. 496 or PD No. 1529 does not vest in the registrant
private or public ownership of the land. Registration is not a mode of acquiring
ownership but is merely evidence of ownership previously conferred by any of the
recognized modes of acquiring ownership. Registration does not give the registrant a
better right than what the registrant had prior to the registration.
9. Describe briefly the following legislation:

a) CA 141
Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act, applies to lands of the public domain which
have been declared open to disposition or concession and officially delimited and classified. It
contains provisions on the different modes of government grant, e.g., homesteads, sale, free
patents (administrative legalization), and reservations for public and semi-public purpose. The
Public Land Act also has a chapter on judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles
based on acquisitive prescription.

b) CA 496
Ian Emmanuel C. Ronquillo 19-13809-414

Commonwealth Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act, established the Torrens system of
registration in the country. It created a court called the “Court of Land Registration” which had
exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for registration, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications. It also provides for an Assurance Fund to pay for the
loss or damage sustained by any person who, without negligence on his part, is wrongfully
deprived of any land or interest therein on account of the bringing of the same under the Act or
registration of any other persons as owner of the land.

c) Act 2259

d) PD 1529

10. Difference of proceeding in rem and proceeding in personam. What is the nature of
proceeding in land registration?
11. Which court has exclusive jurisdiction in land registration? Where do you appeal the
decision?
12. How about the delegated jurisdiction of the inferior courts in land registration, where do you
appeal the decision?
13. What are the requirements for the inferior courts to exercise the delegated functions? What if
one requirement is lacking, can the delegated functions be exercised?
14. What are Spanish titles? Do we still respect and recognize these titles?
15. Briefly discuss the following cases: Director of Forestry v. Munos, GR. No.L-24796 and
Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro v. CA, GR no. 103727.