Land Titles and Deeds Notes Cancan

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS 2010 (Atty.
Gimarino)
Midterm Outline Notes by Can-Can
I. Introduction
II. The Governing Laws (See Outline)
III. Legal Basis
Chapter I: SEC.2 P.D. 1529
Sec. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. - Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands
throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the
Torrens System. Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of
title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of
title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its
clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders,
and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes,
within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.
Sec. 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.
Notes (Atty G. says…)
- Sec.2 – decree recognizes the Torrens system as our registration system in the country.
- Original registration but also all petitions and action after or arising from original registration.
- Act 494 – the registration is limited to land registration matters. Whenever issues of ownership are involve in land
registration proceedings, it must be thresh it out in a separate civil action. Regional trial court may entertain
questions or issues to ownership.
- Sec. 3 – makes mention of continuance of Spanish.
- Discontinuance of the Spanish mortgage law as a system of registration.
- Prior of such law – Spanish titles has been abused. Fraudulent claims, Pres. Marcos saw it fit to invalidate Spanish
Mortgage Law. Holders of Spanish titles were given 6months to have it titled under PD 1529. Spanish titles can no
longer be used as evidence of ownership.
- It should be of judicial notice that Spanish titles are not allowed. They are now considered unregistered lands. They
should be registered under Act 344.
- Friar land – different from Spanish title. Friar lands are valid titles.
1. Concept of Jura Regalia

Notes:
- Generally under the concept of jura regalia, private title to land must be traced to some grant or implied, from
the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine
Republic. The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all land titles in the Philippines has persisted
because title to land must emanate from some source for it cannot issue forth from nowhere. In its broad
sense, the term “jura regalia” refers to prerogatives. In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the sovereign has
over anything in which a subject has a right of property or propriedad. These were rights enjoyed during
feudal times by the King as the sovereign. (Agcaoili)
- The capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the State’s power or dominium. This was the
foundation of the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. (Agcaoili)
REGALIAN DOCTRINE – is enshrined in 1987 Constitution in Sec. 2 of Article XII on National Economy and Patrimony. To wit, Concept
of Jure Regalia: All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State, and
1
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS 2010 (Atty. Gimarino)
unless it has been shown that they have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person, they remain part of the
inalienable public domain.
EXCEPTION: NATIVE TITLE to land, or private 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 – “It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that
when, 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.” (Cruz vs.
Secretary of DENR, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000 citing Cariño vs. Insular Government)
a. Cruz vs Sec. of DENR – Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous
People Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) on the ground that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’ s
ownership over lands of public domain and all other natural resources therein, by recognizing the right of
ownership of Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous People (ICCs/IPs) to the their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands on the basis of native title.
2. Purpose and Meaning of Torrens System of Registration

Notes:
- Purpose and Meaning of Torrens System – see case of Legarda vs Saleeby. One of the arguments, legarda
should have opposed the proceedings. How did the SC ruled? No the same argument can also be used by
legarda. Priority – first in time, first in right. First one who registers has the better right. Because this
forecloses any claim against the property. This is notice to the whole world. Who is the first applicant? Legarda
is considered who has the first right.
- Torrens System of Registration. Registration does not vest title. It is merely a procedure to establish evidence
of title over realty. The Torrens system is a system for the registration of title to land only, and not a system
established for the acquisition of land. Registration merely confirms and thereafter protects the title already
possessed by the owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. The registration does not
give the owner any better title than he has. He does not obtain title by virtue of the certificate. He secures his
certificate by virtue of the fact that he has a fee simple title. (Legarda vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil 590)
- Registration under the Torrens system does not create nor vest title if title was based on a forged deed. (Heirs
of Rosa Dumaliang vs. Serban 516 SCRA 343)
- The system merely confirms ownership and does not create it. (Heirs of Doronio vs. Heirs of Doronio, G.R. No.
169454, Dec. 27, 2007)
a. Legarda vs Saleeby - The real purpose of Torrens system is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question
of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may
arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title is registered the owner
may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to
avoid the possibility of losing his land. Of course, it cannot 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. The registration,
2
under the torrens system, does not give the owner any better title than he had. If he does not already have a perfect
title, he cannot have it registered. 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 cannot be altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding and not even by a direct
proceeding, after the lapse of the period prescribed by law.
b. Traders Royal Bank vs CA – The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate
and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate
of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of
facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. Where innocent
third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the
court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright
cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property
registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title has been regularly
or irregularly issued by the court. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the
condition of the property.
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee
the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized.
If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of
being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that
if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions would have to be
attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further
consequence would be that land conflicts could be even more numerous and complex than they are now and possibly
also more abrasive, if not even violent. The Government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system,
should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are
satisfied.
Notes (Atty. G. says…):
- Notice of lis pendens – notice to the whole world, that the subject matter is subject to litigation and it depends
on the outcome of the case.
Purpose: (Lis pendens has been conceived to protect the real rights of the party causing the registration
thereof With the lis pendens duly recorded, he could rest secure that he would not lose the property or any
part of it. For, notice of lis pendens serves as a warning to a prospective purchaser or incumbrancer that the
particular property is in litigation; and that he should keep his hands off the same, unless of course he intends
to gamble on the results of the litigation.- Baranda vs Gustilo)
- Mirror Principle – what you see is what you get. Except – when there is something that a prudent man would
inquire
- Remedy the of Capay spouses – claim for damages against TRD who was considered a seller in bad faith. Buyer
– Alcantara
- Laches – the failure to assert a right within a considerable length of time.
- Baguio city property – ones there is a real estate mortgage – the moment title is foreclose, once consolidated
or annotated, it’s supposed to be free from all liens and encumbrances. Junior liens. No need to carry over to
succeeding titles. Exception – when case filed involves validity of estate mortgage/ validity of title.
- You should be a buyer in good faith so that Torrens system will protect you.
3
Chapter II: LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS
1. Land Registration Authority
Sec. 4. Land Registration Commission. - In order to have a more efficient execution of the laws relative to the registration
of lands, geared to the massive and accelerated land reform and social justice program of the government, there is created
a commission to be known as the Land Registration Commission under the executive supervision of the Department of
Justice.

Sec. 5. Officials and employees of the Commission. - The Land Registration Commission shall have a chief and an assistant
chief to be known, respectively, as the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Land Registration who shall be
appointed by the President. The Commissioner shall be duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar 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 of the
Court of First Instance. The Deputy Commissioner, who shall possess the same qualifications as those required of the
Commissioner, shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand pesos per annum less than that of the
Commissioner. He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during the absence or disability of the Commissioner and
when there is a vacancy in the position until another person shall have been designated or appointed in accordance with
law. The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions as the Commissioner may assign to him.

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 Commissioner, and by a Chief Geodetic Engineer who shall each receive
compensation at the rate of three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. All
other officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission including those of the Registries of Deeds whose salaries
are not herein provided, shall receive salaries corresponding to the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges as
provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, notwithstanding
the maximum salary allowed for their respective civil service eligibilities

The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be without prejudice to such benefits and adjustments
as may from time to time be granted by the President or by the legislature to government employees.

All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon
recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration.

a. Functions of the Authority – the Land Registration Authority shall have the following functions:
a. Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other
agencies in the implementation of the land reform program of the government;
b. Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings;
c. Be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled under the Torrens system
including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled lands.
Functions of the Administrator – The LRA Administrator shall have the following functions:
(a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts in land registration proceedings and cause
the issuance by the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of title;
(b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other personnel of the Commission;

(c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of, Registers of Deeds;

(d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of the Courts of First Instance throughout the
Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and functions in relation to the registration of lands;

(e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to the registration of lands and issue, subject to
4
the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor;

(f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision survey plans of properties titled under
Act No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No. 957.
b. Executive Order 649
2. Office of the Register of Deeds: General Functions

Sec. 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. - There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each province and one for each
city. Every Registry with a yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos during the last three years shall have
one 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 Deputy Register of Deeds and one second Deputy Register of Deeds.

The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial jurisdiction of each Registry upon the
recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration, with the end in view of making every registry easily accessible
to the people of the neighboring municipalities.

The province or city shall furnish a suitable space or building for the office of the Register of Deeds until such time as the
same could be furnished out of national funds.
Notes (Atty. G says…)

- Recently there are 186 registrees nationwide. In region 7 we have 13.
- All provinces and all cities should have its own registry.
- Land registration commission is under the administrative code of 1987.
- There has been executive order – the administrator has the rank of a justice of court of appeals.
a. Baranda vs Gustilo - Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to
immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all
the requisites for registration. ... . If the instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and
inform the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the ground or reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to
appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree."
Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or
memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration or
where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such
instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the
party in interest thru the Register of Deeds. ... ."
The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal,
their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it
says. (Aparri v. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231; Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union [IBAAEU] v. Inciong, 132
SCRA 663) The statute concerning the function of the Register of Deeds to register instruments in a torrens certificate of
title is clear and leaves no room for construction. According to Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English
Language — the word shall means "ought to, must, ...obligation used to express a command or exhortation, used in laws,
regulations or directives to express what is mandatory." Hence, the function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the
registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting Register of
Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order directing him to
cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land. In
case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other instrument presented to him, he
should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the Administrator of the National Land Title
and Deeds Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
b. Balbin vs Register of Deeds of Ilocus Sur – We find no merit in petitioners' contention. Section 55, supra, obviously assumes
that there is only one duplicate copy of the title in question, namely, that of the registered owner himself, such that its
5
production whenever a voluntary instrument is presented constitutes sufficient authority from him for the register of deeds
to make the corresponding memorandum of registration. In the case at bar, the three other copies of the title were in
existence, presumably issued under section 43 * of Act 496. As correctly observed by the Land Registration Commissioner,
petitioners' claim that the issuance of those copies was unauthorized or illegal is beside the point, its legality being
presumed until otherwise declared by a court of competent jurisdiction. There being several copies of the same title in
existence, it is easy to see how their integrity may be adversely affected if an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is
annotated on one copy and not on the others. The law itself refers to every copy authorized to be issued as a duplicate of
the original, which means that both must contain identical entries of the transactions, particularly voluntary ones, affecting
the land covered by the title. If this were not so, if different copies were permitted to carry differing annotations, the whole
system of Torrens registration would cease to be reliable.
Notes (Atty. G. says…)

 See Balbin vs Register of Deeds of Ilocus Sur
There were portions sale, in the absence of a survey plan. Registration is by means of annotation. Under Act 496, we have a
lessee copy of the title, this time discontinued. Now is co-owners copy. 2/3 Donation. Balbin was not able to present 3 other
existing owners copy.
 What are the requirements be considered ministerial? Certain requirements in registration.
1. The instrument or subject matter should comply with essential requisites of a valid contract.
Subject matter, consent and consideration
2. Jurisdictional requirements – means that there should be an entry in the primary book, normally transactions are valid,
usually it is an act of registration that it becomes binding. The act of filing, registration, entering is considered a notice
to the whole world. Entry and payment of fees.
3. It should comply with the formalities of an instrument. Signed by the parties. Only public instrument is duly registered
in register of deeds.
4. Supporting documents as required by law – a requirement under the local government code. Payment of real estate tax
should be in a current quarter. With regards to agricultural, clearance of department of agrarian reform.
 Decree – exact copy of OCT issued. One year after – it becomes incontrovertible.
 Function of administrator – the moment he issues decree, he acts as an officer of court, the head of clerk of court, the
moment the administrator, he denies or refuses decrees
 Noblejas vs Teejankee
- As commissioner, he approved plans, Sec. 13 PD 1529 – only the DENR through Land Management Bureau can approve
original survey plans – which are the basis for applying for OCT
- LRC – before, it can also approve Original Survey Plan – presently it cannot, but it has concurrent jurisdiction to approve
subdivision plans
- Commission of Land Registration – official of Executive, it exercises supervision over all register of deeds , resolves
cases in consulta, appeal is not available, implements promulgations, verify and approve subdivision consolidation
plans
- LRA – repository of all records of OCTs, judicial titling
Chapter III: ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
1. Application
a. Who may apply? Sec. 14, PD 1529
Sec. 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.

6
(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.
Notes (Atty. G. says…)
 SC is very strict about the requirements of land registration; 2laws involved:

a. Under sec. 14 par.1 ,decree defines who may apply – ordinary registration proceedings
b. Sec.48 par b of CA 141 – judicial confirmation of title
 3 requisites for the filing of an application for registration of title under Section 14(1)
a. that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
b. that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation, and;
c. that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
i. Ong vs Republic - Thus, pursuant to the aforequoted provision of law, applicants for registration of title must prove: (1)
that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and (2) that they have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
Further, as correctly pointed by the Court of Appeals, possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable
lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation. As held in Republic v. Alconaba:
The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear
intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it
includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all
encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a
mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a
party would naturally exercise over his own property.
ii. Canete vs Genuino Ice Company – The Piedad Estate has long been segregated from the mass of the public domain
and has become private land duly registered under the Torrens system following the procedure for the confirmation of
private lands prescribed in Act 496. Thus the lands inside the Piedad Estate are no longer lands of the public domain.
One who acquires land under the Friar Lands Act, as well as his successors-in-interest, may not claim successional rights
to purchase by reason of occupation from time immemorial, as this contravenes the historical fact that friar lands were
bought by the Government of the Philippine Islands, pursuant to an Act of Congress of the United States, approved on
July 1, 1902, not from individual persons but from certain companies, a society and a religious order. Under the Friar
Lands Act, only "actual settlers and occupants at the time said lands are acquired by the Government" were given
7
preference to lease, purchase, or acquire their holdings, in disregard of the settlement and occupation of persons
before the government acquired the lands.
Notes:
- History of friar lands
- Just to make distinction – predecessors in interest – SC they cannot be considered as successors in interest – land is
already a private land. Having been transferred from friar to the state, it’s already patrimonial.
- June 12 – independence day
On the basis of their capacity to acquire or hold lands of the public domain, who may acquire private lands?
(1) Filipino citizens

(2) Filipino corporations and associations as defined in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution; and by exception:
(3) Aliens, but only by hereditary succession; and
(4) A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his citizenship under the terms of Section 8.
** Filipino citizens can both “acquire” or otherwise “hold” lands of the public domain. Filipino corporations cannot acquire lands of
the public domain but they can “hold” such lands by modes other than acquisition, such as “lease”.
Re: Acquisition of Lands by Aliens
GENERAL RULE: Aliens are not qualified to own lands
Constitutional Basis: Art. XII, Section 7 - Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
EXCEPTIONS
1. Art. XII, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution: Hereditary Succession
2. P.D. 713 (American Parity Rights – May 27, 1975): The Law allowing Americans who were formerly Filipino Citizens, Americans
who became Permanent Residents of the Philippines, and Americans who have resided in the Philippines continuously for at least
twenty years and who in good faith had acquired private residential lands for family dwelling purposes in the Philippines prior to July
3, 1974, to continue holding such lands and transfer ownership over the same to qualified persons or entities
3. B.P. 185 - An Act to Implement Sec. 15 of Art. XIV of the Constitution and for Other Purposes (March 16, 1982): Any natural-born
citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under
Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban
land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence.
4. R.A. 8179 – An Act to Further Liberalize Foreign Investments, Amending for the Purpose R.A. No. 7042 (Foreign Investments Act),
and for other purposes
SEC. 5. The Foreign Investment Act is further amended by inserting a new section designated as Section 10 to read as follows:
SEC. 10. Other Rights of Natural Born Citizen Pursuant to the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution.
- Any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under
Philippine Laws may be a transferee of a private land up to maximum area of five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of
urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for business or other purposes. In the case of
married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted: Provided, That If both shall avail of the same, the total
are acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.
8
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural land for business or other purposes, he shall be entitled to be a transferee of
additional urban or rural land for business or other purposes which when added to those already owned by him shall not exceed
the maximum areas herein authorized.
A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two (2) lots which should be situated in different municipalities or cities
anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, That the Total land area thereof shall not exceed five thousand (5,000) square meters in
the case of urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land for use by him for business or other purposes. A transferee
who has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified form acquiring rural land and vice versa.
5. R.A. No. 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (Aug. 29, 2003)
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights. . .
6. P.D. No. 471 (May 24, 1974) – Fixing a Maximum Period for the Duration of Leases of Private Lands to Aliens
Section 1. The maximum period allowable for the duration of leases of private lands to aliens or alien-owned corporations,
associations, or entities not qualified to acquire private lands in the Philippines shall be twenty-five years, renewable for another
period of twenty-five years upon mutual agreement of both lessor and lessee.
2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles

Sec. 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, C.A. 141
Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands
or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the
province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land
Registration Act , to wit:
(a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the prior United States have applied for the purchase, composition
or other form of grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and royal decrees then in force and have instituted and
prosecuted the proceedings in connection therewith, but have with or without default upon their part, or for any other cause, not
received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the
filing of their applications.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at
least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force
majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture, whether
disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights granted in sub-section (b)
hereof.
a. Susi vs Razon - In favor of Valentin Susi, there is, moreover, the presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph (b) of
section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied
with, for he has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an agricultural land of the public
domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the
provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already
acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title
9
should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefore is sufficient, under the provisions
of section 47 of Act No. 2874. If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a grant of the State, it had
already ceased to be the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the
control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in selling the land in question to Angela Razon, the Director of Lands disposed of a
land over which he had no longer any title or control, and the sale thus made was void and of no effect, and Angela Razon did not
thereby acquire any right.
b. Rep vs IAC and ACME Plywood and Veneer Co. - Where at the time the corporation acquired the land, its predecessors-in-interest
had been in possession and occupation thereof in the manner and for the period prescribed by law as to entitle him to registration in
his name, then the proscription against corporations acquiring alienable lands of the public domain except through lease does not
apply for the land was no longer public land but private property.
c. Rep vs CA and Naguit - The more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) is that it merely requires the property sought to be
registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the
application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of
the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and
disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over
the property.
d. Republic vs Herbierto - Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, now requires adverse possession of the land since 12 June
1945 or earlier. In the present Petition, the subject lots became alienable and disposable only on 25 June 1963.
e. Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic - Thus, neither Herbieto nor its principal discipular ruling in Buenaventura has any precedental
value with respect to Section 14(1). On the other hand, the ration of Naguit is embedded in Section 14(1), since it precisely involved
situation wherein the applicant had been in exclusive possession under a bona fide claim of ownership prior to June 12, 1945. The
Courts interpretation of Section 14(1) therein was decisive to the resolution of the case. Any doubt as to which between Naguit or
Herbieto provides the final word of the Court on Section 14(1) is now settled in favor of Naguit.
There must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth, or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. Without such express declaration,
the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and
thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or a
Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law.
Notes:
 Naguit - Same issue was brought before the SC, until Malabanan – where SC clarified such cases.
 See Case of Malabanan Sec. 14 par 1 – presumed a private land, under Sec. 48 –presumed a public land
 Will prescription be invoked in so far as lands already declared as inalienable and disposable? Only when there has been an
express declaration that land is patrimonial
 Once a land is declared as a and d, its not enough to acquire this land based on prescription, it has to be established as
patrimonial.
 Herbierto case – very important case – the naguit case and herbierto case
- It has been a trend – land classification, there was no issue yet about it, the land would have been classified and a and
d since june 12, 1945
- Naguit case – no, it is enough that at the time of application, land should be a and d
- Herbierto – period of possession that land has been classified a and d since june 12, 1545
 There were some issues in the Herbierto case
10
1. In the absence, the SC said that in the absence of, PD 1529 whenever two applicants that’s allowed, in Herbierto two of
them applied the land to be named in each of them..SC disallowed a misjoinder of parties
2. Publication – for purposes of notice – notices are sent by means of publication, notice of initial hearing that’s going to
be published.
3. It should be made prior to initial hearing, the SC said that publication in the official gazette is sufficient to confer
jurisdiction,
4. Publication in the newspaper of general circulation is also mandatory since it’s a proceeding in rem, notice to the world
5. Prescription - a distinction was made bet. Application PD !529 sec. 14 and sec, 48, (b) – under PD 1529 presumption is
private land, under Sec. 48 – presumption is private land.
6. In herbierto case – the land was classified as a and d since 1963, the period from that tme cannot be counted. Public
land is a special law it requires, since june 12, 1945,Special law shall prevail.
7. Prescription shall not prevail
- In Malabanan – it should be expressly declared as patrimonial property – before you can invoke prescription as a mode of
ownership
f. Rep vs Carag - When the land registration court issued a decision for the issuance of a decree which was the basis of an original
certificate of title to the land, the court had already made a determination that the land was agricultural and that the applicant had
proven that he was in open and exclusive possession of the subject land for the prescribed number of years.
“The law prevailing when Decree No. 381928 was issued in 1930 was Act. No. 2874.
It is true that Section 8 of Act. 2874 opens to disposition only Lands which have been declared alienable or disposable. However,
Section 8 provides that Lands which are already private Lands, as well as Lands on which a private claim maybe made under any Law
are not covered by the classification requirement in Section 8 for purpose of disposition.”
“Clearly with respect to Land’s excluded from the classification requirements in Section 8, trial courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate
these Lands to private parties.”
Notes:
- Were the courts allowed to classify the land? As early as 1919 the law already requires that the Governor has the
responsibility to classify lands.
- Courts now does not classify lands, now it is vested in Executive Department who has the authority to classify land
- SC interpreted Section 8. Using the position taken by OSG, even title issued before even it was not yet classified as a and d,
is valid, because courts before has the right to classify.
- Act 2874.
- The power to classify rest in the President. It effect it was an exercise provided by law. Then it follows that there’s no vested
right to speak of.
Prescription
- How do you apply prescription for purposes of acquiring ownership under registration law?
Sec.14 Par 3
- A mode or would entitle one as registrable – accretion or accession
- Art 457. Accretion – entitles an applicant to have a registrable title of property, gradual or imprescriptible grow of land
- Art. 465 Accession – sudden addition to the land that you already own
- Do they own the accreted land? No. you have to file a separate land registration proceeding or application. You amend the
title to include the accreted area. – alluvial deposit
- Both are covered by Civil Code provisions
- What about lands form that adjoins foreshore? But because of current water certain portions are added, definitely -
foreshore land is inalienable – only upon lease.
- Santulan vs Executive Secretary – what right if any does the owner of dry land have? He has this preferential right to be
granted a foreshore lease. Riparian owner
- Water code – salvage zone cannot be disposed of nor can it be leased. – foreshore – the area during the highest tide and
the lowest – during high tide – you have to observe a 40m salvage zone for forest– rural area – 20m; urban – 3m.
11
g. Leonardo-De Castro vs. Mayor Jose Yap – 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 P.D. No. 705.
If we accept the position of private claimants, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 would have automatically made all lands in
the Philippines, except those already classified as timber or mineral land, alienable and disposable lands. That would take these
lands out of State ownership and worse, would be utterly inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the long-entrenched Regalian
doctrine.
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 land. 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. Since then, courts no longer had the authority, whether express or implied, to determine the classification of lands
of the public domain.
3. Registration under the Indigenous People’s Rights Act

a. Constitutionality – Sec. 5, Article XII of 1987 Constitution
Cruz vs DENR - Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the 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 therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution. Petitioners also content that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral
domains” and “ancestral lands” which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b)
violate the rights of private landowners. In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers
and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral
domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998,
which provides that “the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a
lateral but autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination.” They contend that said Rule
infringes upon the President’s power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of the
Constitution.
b. Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands
Ancestral Domains – refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas
and natural resources therein, held under claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICC./IPs by themselves or
through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when
interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government
projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporation, and which
are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare.
Ancestral Lands – it refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and class who are members
of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of
individual or traditional group ownership, continuously , to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure
or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government and private individuals/corporations,
including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.
c. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) – it is the primary government agency which is responsible for the
formulation and implementation of policies, plan and programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of
ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions.
4. Forms and Contents

Sec. 15. Form and contents. - The application for land registration shall be in writing, signed by the application or the
person duly authorized in his behalf, and sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths for the province or city
where the application was actually signed. If there is more than one applicant, the application shall be signed and sworn to
by and in behalf of each. The application shall contain a description of the land and shall state the citizenship and civil status
of the applicant, whether single or married, and, if married, the name of the wife or husband, and, if the marriage has been
legally dissolved, when and how the marriage relation terminated. It shall also state the full names and addresses of all
12
occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners, if known, and, if not known, it shall state the extent of the search
made to find them.
a. What and where to file.

Sec. 17. What and where to file. - The application for land registration shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of
the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file together with the application all original
muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands.

The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has furnished the Director of
Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.
b. Steps in bringing the land under Torrens System.

1. Survey of land by the Lands Management Bureau or a duly licensed private surveyor;
2. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;
3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the court;
4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all the documents or other evidences
attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Authority;
5. Publication of the notice of the filing of the application and date and place of the hearing in the Official Gazette and
in a newspaper of general circulation;
6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have interests in the property by the
sheriff;
7. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not;
8. Hearing of the case by the court;
9. Promulgation of judgment by the court;
10. Issuance of an order for the issuance of a decree declaring the decision final and instructing the Land Registration
Authority to issue the decree of confirmation and registration;
11. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Authority;
12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Register of Deeds; and
13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owner’s duplicate
original certificate of title to the applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the prescribed fees.
c. Amendments of boundaries or areas

Sec. 18. Application covering two or more parcels. - An application may include two or more parcels of land belonging
to the applicant/s provided they are situated within the same province or city. The court may at any time order an
application to be amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or by a severance of the application.

Sec. 19. Amendments. - Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to parties
may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms. Amendments which shall
consist in a substantial change in the boundaries or an increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the
inclusion of an additional land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and notice as in an original
application.
i. Benin vs Tuazon – It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that only in cases where the original survey plan is amended
during the registration proceedings by the addition of lands not previously included in the original plan should
publication be made in order to confer jurisdiction on the court to order the registration of the area that was added
after the publication of the original plan.
The settled rule, further, is that once the registration court had acquired jurisdiction over a certain parcel, or parcels, of
land in the registration proceedings in virtue of the publication of the application, that jurisdiction attaches to the land
or lands mentioned and described in the application. If it is later shown that the decree of registration had included
land or lands not included in the original application as published, then the registration proceedings and the decree of
registration must be declared null and void in so far — but only in so far — as the land not included in the publication is
concerned. This is so, because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the land not included in the publication-the
13
publication being the basis: of the jurisdiction of the court. But the proceedings and the decree of registration, relating
to the lands that were included in the publication, are valid. Thus, if it is shown that a certificate of title had been issued
covering lands where the registration court had no jurisdiction, the certificate of title is null and void insofar as it
concerns the land or lands over which the registration court had not acquired jurisdiction.
d. Survey of the Land - It is required that the application for registration must be accompanied by a survey plan of the
land duly approved by the Director of Lands, together with the claimant’s muniments of title to prove ownership. No
plan or survey may be admitted in the land registration proceedings until approved by the Director of Lands.
i. Republic vs Sarmiento - No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from
the government, and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was
acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.
Reliance on the notation of surveyor-geodetic engineer that “this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area” to
prove that the lot is alienable is insufficient and does not constitute controvertible evidence to overcome the
presumption that it remains part of the inalienable public domain.
Notes:
SURVEY
- It starts with the identity of the land
- Original is a requirement of a mandatory character
- Tracing cloth – a material gusot mayaman – the moment you put liquid – it softens – its not easy to tamper with
- Garcia vs Dir. Of lands – submission is of mandatory character
- Recto vs Republic – certified a copy of a surveyed plan. SC ruled that a certified true copy of a survey plan duly certified by
government agaency – maybe submitted in evidence for purposes of land registration.
See Republic vs Sarmiento
- A mere notation that land is within alienable and disposable area is not sufficient – it has to have a land certification that it
is a and d
5. Publication, Opposition and Default
It bears emphasis that the publication requirement 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, and is procedural. Neither one nor the other is dispensable.
As to the first, publication in the Official Gazette is indispensably necessary because without it, the court would be
powerless to assume jurisdiction over a particular land registration case. As to the second, publication of the notice of initial
hearing also in a newspaper of general circulation is indispensably necessary as a requirement of procedural due process;
otherwise, any decision that the court may promulgate in the case would be legally infirm. (Agcaoili)
Notes:
- It was held that publication should be in an official gazette or general circulation to give it wider coverage and to give
meaning of proceedings in rem\
Sec. 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. - The court shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an
order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety
days from the date of the order.

The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2)
mailing; and (3) posting.

1. By publication. –

Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause
notice of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
14
Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the
court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining
owners so far as known, and "to all whom it may concern." Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appear in
court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted.

2. By mailing. –
(a) Mailing of notice to persons named in the application. - The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also, within seven
days after publication of said notice in the Official Gazette, as hereinbefore provided, cause a copy of the notice of initial
hearing to be mailed to every person named in the notice whose address is known.

(b) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Public Highways, the Provincial Governor and the Mayor. - If the applicant requests
to have the line of a public way or road determined, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a copy of said notice
of initial hearing to be mailed to the Secretary of Public Highways, to the Provincial Governor, and to the Mayor of the
municipality or city, as the case may be, in which the land lies.

(c) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Public
Works, the Director of Forest Development, the Director of Mines and the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. - If
the land borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the sea where a river or harbor line has been
established, or on a lake, or if it otherwise appears from the application or the proceedings that a tenant-farmer or the
national government may have a claim adverse to that of the applicant, notice of the initial hearing shall be given in the
same manner to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Mines and/or
the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as may be appropriate.

3. By posting. –

The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also cause a duly attested copy of the notice of initial hearing to be posted by
the sheriff of the province or city, as the case may be, or by his deputy, in a conspicuous place on each parcel of land
included in the application and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the
municipality or city in which the land or portion thereof is situated, fourteen days at least before the date of initial hearing.

The court may also cause notice to be served to such other persons and in such manner as it may deem proper.
a. Notice of Initial Hearing

i. Director of Lands vs CA - The law used the term "shall" in prescribing the work to be done by the Commissioner of Land
Registration upon the latter's receipt of the court order setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an
imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute. 15 While concededly such literal mandate is not an
absolute rule in statutory construction, as its import ultimately depends upon its context in the entire provision, we hold
that in the present case the term must be understood in its normal mandatory meaning. In Republic vs. Marasigan, 16 the
Court through Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. held that Section 23 of PD 1529 requires notice of the initial hearing by
means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all of which must be complied with. "If the intention of the law were
otherwise, said section would not have stressed in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in the
petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land." Indeed, if
mailing of notices is essential, then by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general circulation is likewise
imperative since the law included such requirement in its detailed provision.
It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem. 17 Being in rem, such proceeding requires
constructive seizure of the land as against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in the property.
An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. This being so, the process must strictly be complied with.
Otherwise, persons who may be interested or whose rights may be adversely affected would be barred from contesting an
application which they had no knowledge of. As has been ruled, a party as an owner seeking the inscription of realty in the
land registration court must prove by satisfactory and conclusive evidence not only his ownership thereof but the identity
of the same, for he is in the same situation as one who institutes an action for recovery of realty. 18 He must prove his title
against the whole world. This task, which rests upon the applicant, can best be achieved when all persons concerned — nay,
15
"the whole world" — who have rights to or interests in the subject property are notified and effectively invited to come to
court and show cause why the application should not be granted. The elementary norms of due process require that before
the claimed property is taken from concerned parties and registered in the name of the applicant, said parties must be
given notice and opportunity to oppose.
b. Proof required in Registration Proceedings

i. Prov. Of Camarines Sur vs Dir. Of Lands - The appellants, therefore, cannot invoke the provisions of section 19,
paragraph 3, of Act No. 496, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 2164, which require that an applicant for registration
of title must claim "to own or hold any land under a possessory information title, acquired under the provisions of the
Mortgage Law of the Philippine Islands and the general regulations for the execution of same." (Fernandez Hermanos
vs. Directors of Lands, 57 Phil., 929, 933.) The failure of the appellants' predecessors in interest to legalize their
possession of the land in question by the institution of possessory information proceedings for the gratuitous grant to
file from the Spanish Government, thereby perfecting and covering their possessory right into one of ownership,
caused the land to revert to the Government.
ii. Rep vs Lapina – But what should not be missed in the disposition of this case is the fact that the Constitution itself
allows private respondents to register the contested parcels of land in their favor. Sections 7 and 8 of Article XII of the
Constitution contain the following pertinent provisions, to wit:
Sec. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has
lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. (Emphasis
supplied)
It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land, were natural-born citizens of the
Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private
respondents are no longer Filipino citizens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in question. What is
important is that private respondents were formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private
land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution.
Considering that private respondents were able to prove the requisite period and character of possession of their
predecessors-in-interest over the subject lots, their application for registration of title must perforce be approved.
c. Issuance of Decrees
i. Rep vs Nillas - The peculiar procedure provided in the Property Registration Law from the time decisions in land
registration case became final is complete in itself and does not need to be filled in – the judgment does not have to be
executed by motion or enforced by action within the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ii. Ting vs Heirs of Lirio - There is no provision in the Land Registration Act xxx regarding the execution of a judgment in a
civil action, except the proceedings to place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a
land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any further action,
upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.
xxx [t]he provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and
after 5 years but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39) xxx refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special
proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a
judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable
time as provided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special proceedings, the
purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a
parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration,
16
no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in
possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
d. When OCT Takes Effect
The original certificate of title is issued on the date the decree of registration is transcribed. What stands as the
certificate of title is the transcript of the decree or registration made by the registrar of deeds in the registry.
(Manotok Realty vs. CLT Realty)
i. Manotok Realty vs CLT Realty - Such jurisdiction is limited to the necessary correction of technical errors in the
description of the lands, provided such corrections do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner, and
that such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title. (Id. at 561) It was further clarified in
Timbol v. Diaz (44 Phil 587 (1923)) that the limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court over such lands even extends to
the determination of “which one of the several conflicting registered titles shall prevail[, as such] power would seem to
be necessary for a complete settlement of the title to the land, the express purpose of cadastral proceedings, and must
therefore be considered to be within the jurisdiction of the court in such proceedings.”
6. Classification of Public Lands
a. Dir. Of Lands vs CA and Bisnar – In the case of Bureau of Forestry vs. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 351, we ruled:
As provided for under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 141, which was lifted from Act 2874, the classification or
reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive
Department of the government and not the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt that it is
not the court which determines the classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but
the Executive Branch of the government, through the Office of the President. Hence, it was grave error and/or abuse of
discretion for respondent court to ignore the uncontroverted facts that (1) the disputed area is within a timberland
block, and (2) as certified to by the then Director of Forestry, the area is needed for forest purposes. (pp. 21-22, Rollo.)
It bears emphasizing that a positive act of the government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest and
to convert it into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes (Republic vs. Animas, 56 SCRA 499).
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
(Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, 126 SCRA 69; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689; Director of
Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 701; Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 480; Vallarta vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 151 SCRA 679).
Thus, possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership (Vano vs. Government, 41 Phil. 161
[1920]; Adorable vs. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil. 401 [1960]). A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Bureau of Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens
System
b. Rep vs Mendoza - It cannot be gainsaid that the prerogative of classifying public lands pertains to administrative
agencies which have been specially tasked by statues to do so and that the courts will not interfere on matters which
are addressed to the sound discretion of government and/or quasi-judicial agencies entrusted with the regulation of
activities coming under their special technical knowledge and training. It should be stressed that the function of
administering and disposing of lands of the public domain in the manner prescribed by law is not entrusted to the
courts but to executive officials. And as such, courts should refrain from looking into the underlying reasons or grounds
which impelled the classification and declaration . . . and its subsequent release as alienable and disposable land.
Courts cannot inquire into reasons why a land is reclassified into alienable and disposable land.
17
From the facts of the case, it is evident that the Bureau of Forestry released Silot Bay as alienable and disposable by
virtue of the Memorandum issued by then President Marcos on 16 January 1967 which clearly empowered said bureau
to identify and locate the 700,000 hectares of fishpond areas and to release said areas as alienable and disposable.
Hence, the courts, in view of the clear legal directive by which said area was released as alienable and disposable, will
refrain from questioning the wisdom of such classification or declaration.
7. Non-Registrable Properties
a. Rep vs CA and Lastimado - The essential elements for the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree are: a) that the
petitioner has a real and dominical right; b) that he has been deprived thereof; c) through fraud; d) that the petition is filed
within one year from the issuance of the decree; and e) that the property has not as yet been transferred to an innocent
purchaser. 4
However, for fraud to justify the review of a decree, it must be extrinsic or collateral and the facts upon which it is based
have not been controverted or resolved in the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. 5 The
following ruling spells out the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud:
Extrinsic or collateral fraud, as distinguished from intrinsic fraud, connotes any fraudulent scheme executed by a
prevailing litigant "outside the trial of a case against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses,
whereby said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case." But intrinsic fraud
takes the form of "acts of a party in a litigation during the trial such as the use of forged instruments or perjured
testimony, which did not affect the present action of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the
case.
The fraud is one that affects and goes into the jurisdiction of the Court.
b. Laurel vs Garcia – We emphasize, however, that an abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public
service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite Abandonment cannot be
inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the government's own deliberate and
indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro,
166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises.
- The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms of the
Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and
the Japanese government.
- There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become
patrimonial.
- This, the respondents have failed to do.
- the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated.
- Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of collective
needs, and resides in the social group.
- The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare
and cannot be the object of appropriation
- The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the
State and intended for some public service.
- The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert
it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen
and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]).
- A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a
formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such
- Rep Act No. 6657, therefore, does not authorize the Executive Department to sell the Roppongi property. It merely
enumerates possible sources of future funding to augment (as and when needed) the Agrarian Reform Fund created under
Executive Order No. 299. Obviously any property outside of the commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of funds.
18
- There is no law authorizing its conveyance.
Take note of the distinction of the two Chavez cases. Both involved the sale of reclaimed lands to private corporations. In
the first Chavez case, the sale was nullified while in the latter Chavez case, the sale was upheld
c. Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority July 9, 2002 - The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is
rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain. . . . Foreshore
lands became inalienable as natural resources of the State, unless reclaimed by the government and classified as
agricultural lands of the public domain. . . These lands remained sui generis, as the only alienable or disposable lands of the
public domain the government could not sell to private parties.
Since then and until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties government reclaimed lands of the public
domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing such sale.
xxx
The reclaimed lands being sold or leased by PEA are not private lands, in the same manner that DENR, when it disposes of
private lands but alienable lands of the public domain. Only when qualified private parties acquire these lands will the
lands become private lands. In the hands of the government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of alienable lands of
the public domain, these lands are still public, not private lands.
d. Chavez vs. National Housing Authority August 15, 2007 - The NHA is a government agency not tasked to dispose of public
lands under its charter—The Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The NHA is an “end-user agency” authorized by law to
administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. The moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the special patents are
transferred to the NHA by the Register of Deeds, they are automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the State
which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private corporations, 60% of which are owned by Filipinos. The reason is obvious:
if the reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial land once transferred to NHA, then it would be useless to transfer it to
the NHA since it cannot legally transfer or alienate lands of public domain. More importantly, it cannot attain its avowed
purposes and goals since it can only transfer patrimonial lands to qualified beneficiaries and prospective buyers to raise
funds for the SMDRP. From the foregoing considerations, we find that the 79-hectare reclaimed land has been declared
alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and in the hands of NHA, it has been reclassified as patrimonial
property.
8. Remedies
a. Remedies Available in a Registration Case
Remedies Available to the Losing Party in a Registration Case
(1) Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court
(2) Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
(3) Appeal to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, in the same manner as in ordinary actions
b. Remedies under the Property Registration Decree available to the aggrieved party in cases of fraudulent registration
i. Petition for review of Decree (Sec. 32)

Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. - The decree of registration shall not be
reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by
any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the
government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or
confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and
19
review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of
registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has
acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser
for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee,
or other encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case
may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.

Heirs of Tama Tan Buto vs Luy - When the petition for review of decree is filed after the expiration of one (1) year from
the issuance of the decree of registration, the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon. The certificate of title that was issued attained the
status of indefeasibility one year after its issuance. The aggrieved party cannot defeat title previously issued by
subsequently filing an application for registration of land previous registered.
ii. Action for Reconveyance (Secs. 53 and 96)
Sec. 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. - No voluntary instrument shall be registered
by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases
expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.

The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration,
shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a
memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be
binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and
in good faith.

In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the
parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title.
After the entry of the decree of registration on the original petition or application, any subsequent registration
procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be
null and void.
Sec. 96. Against whom action filed. - If such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land
or of any estate or interest therein arising wholly through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of the
court personnel, Register of Deeds, his deputy, or other employees of the Registry in the performance of their
respective duties, the action shall be brought against the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land is
situated and the National Treasurer as defendants. But if such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for
deprivation of land or of any interest therein arising through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of
person other than court personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or other employees of the Registry, such action
shall be brought against the Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer and other person or persons, as co-defendants. It
shall be the duty of the Solicitor General in person or by representative to appear and to defend all such suits with the
aid of the fiscal of the province or city where the land lies: Provided, however, that nothing in this Decree shall be
construed to deprive the plaintiff of any right of action which he may have against any person for such loss or damage
or deprivation without joining the National Treasurer as party defendant. In every action filed against the Assurance
Fund, the court shall consider the report of the Commissioner of Land Registration.
Notes:
- Under Sec. 32 PD 1529 – Reconveyance – in case of Labanon - Constancio and Maximo Brothers – heirs of Constancio
wants to get one share, but was opposed because of 1 year lapse – express trust – exception – when trust is repudiated by
the trustee, that’s the time prescription starts to run. Trust agreement between brothers binds the children. SC granted
heirs of Maximo to recover 1half share of property.
- Define what a trust is. Trust - legal title is transferred to a trustee in favor of the trustor.
- Amerol vs Bagumbayan – 1989 case, it has something to do about the period of prescription – it says that prescriptive
period from the ground of fraud is 4 years, implied trust – 10 years.
20
- Accdg. SC 4 year period applies only to causes of action accruing under the Civil Code. Any action based on fraud shall be
instituted within 4 years from discovery. Art. 1456 in Civil Code as well as Article in prescription, Art. 1144 are new
provisions found only 1950 civil code.
- Action based fraud, by operation of law, a holder of a title fraudulently acquired is a trustee. The obligation is imposed by
law, prescriptive period is 10 years. Explanation in this case, Art. 1456 and 1144 are new provisions, 4 year was based only
prior to 1950. The prescriptive period would really be 10 years. Agcaoili never mentioned 4 year periods. Imposition of the
civil code should always be 10 years for titles fraudulently or erroneously acquired or of implied constructive trust.
a. Gasataya vs Mabasa - Reconveyance is available not only to the legal owner of a property but also to the person with a
better right than the person under whose name said property was erroneously registered. While respondent is not the legal
owner of the disputed lots, she has a better right than petitioner to the contested lots on the following grounds: first, the
deed of conditional sale executed by DBP vested on her the right to repurchase the lots and second, her right to repurchase
them would have subsisted had they (the Gasatayas) not defrauded her.
Neither can this Court uphold petitioner’s contention that his titles are unsullied on the mere fact that he purchased the
properties at public auction. Fraud overthrows the presumption that the public sale was attended with regularity. The
public sale did not vest petitioner with any valid title to the properties since it was but the consequence of his and his
father’s fraudulent schemes.
The registration of the properties in petitioner’s name did not obliterate the fact that fraud preceded and facilitated such
registration. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of misrepresentation of
material facts,10 which in this case was the conscious representation by petitioner’s father (Sabas Gasataya) that
respondent’s obligation to DBP had already been settled. It is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit
is obtained, to the prejudice of another.11 Consequently, fraud is a ground for reconveyance.
Moreover, the law only protects an innocent purchaser for value and not one who has knowledge of and participation in
the employment of fraud. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in that same property, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the
purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim.13 Obviously, petitioner was not an innocent purchaser
for value.
Notes:
- Reconveyance is not only available to the person aggrieved but also to a person who has a better right than the person
under whose name said property was erroneously registered
b. Reyes vs Montemayor - Indeed, petitioner's belated act of applying for a notice of lis pendens, if allowed by the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Cavite, would infringe on the right to due process of Engracia's heirs, who were never parties to the
reconveyance suit between petitioner and respondent now pending appeal before the CA. While the notice of lis pendens
would not create a right or lien over the property, it will definitely be an inconvenience or a burden, however slight, on the
title of Engracia's heirs, especially when dealing with the same property in the concept of owners. Justice and fair play
require that Engracia's heirs be rightfully informed of petitioner's claim over the same property by impleading them in the
pending suit before the application for annotation of lis pendens be favorably acted upon.
Notes: (Atty.G. says..)
- RTC ruled in favor Montemayor - what were the findings that the SC did not agree on? – negligence of petitioners in failing
to register the subject property in their names. One fo the defenses made by Montemayor was a buyer in good faith, then
by sale to gratia, she admitted the transfer was attended with irregularity. This is a case in Cavite. Impt. Facts – 1 st SC, he
was a party to the case, Register of Deeds proceeded the registration on the quitclaim. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO PLACE A LIS PENDENS ON TITLE EVEN IF HE IS A PARTY TO CASE. Owners duplicate was spurious and an
addition to forged document. Reyes has a better right over the property. It turned out what was registered was the second
sale.
c. New Reagent vs Tanjuatco - Petitioner filed a complaint for rescission/declaration of nullity of contract, reconveyance and
damages against respondents. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by
21
another, to its rightful and legal owner. In an action for reconveyance, the certificate of title is respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property, specifically the title thereof, which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better right.
To warrant a reconveyance of the land, the following requisites must concur: (1) the action must be brought in the
name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right over the land registered in the name of the defendant; (2) the
registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal means; (3) the
property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value; and (4) the action is filed after the certificate of title
had already become final and incontrovertible but within four years from the discovery of the fraud, or not later than 10
years in the case of an implied trust. Petitioner failed to show the presence of these requisites.
A person dealing with registered land may safely rely upon the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the
law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. This applies even
more particularly when the seller happens to be the Republic, against which, no improper motive can be ascribed. The law,
no doubt, considers Tanjuatco an innocent purchaser for value. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the
property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such property and pays the full price
for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the
property.
d. Sanjorjo vs Quijano - The petitioners’ action for reconveyance may not be said to have prescribed, for, basing the present
action on implied trust, the prescriptive period is ten years. 25 The questioned titles were obtained on August 29, 1988 and
November 11, 1988, in OCT Nos. OP-38221 and OP-39847, respectively. The petitioners commenced their action for
reconveyance on September 13, 1993. Since the petitioners’ cause of action is based on fraud, deemed to have taken place
when the certificates of title were issued,26 the complaint filed on September 13, 1993 is, therefore, well within the
prescriptive period.
iii. Action for Damages (Section 32)
iv. Recovery from the Assurance Fund (Sec. 95)

Sec. 95. Action for compensation from funds. - A person who, without negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is
deprived of land or any estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under the operation of the Torrens
System of arising after original registration of land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the registration book, and who by the provisions of
this Decree is barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an action for the recovery of such
land or the estate or interest therein, may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to
be paid out of the Assurance Fund.
c. Other Remedies Available
(1) Action for cancellation or reversion instituted by the government through the Solicitor General (Sec. 101 of the Public Land
Act)
Sec. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be
instituted by the Solicitor-General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines.
(2) Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47, Rules of Court)

Estate of Yujuico vs Rep – Effective 1 July 1997, any action for reversion of public land instituted by the Government was
already covered by Rule 47 and the same should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial Court.
(3) Criminal Prosecution under the RPC
Chapter IV: CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
22
a. Key Concepts of the Torrens System
(a) Best Evidence of Ownership
A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best evidence of ownership of the land described therein. (Lee Tek Sheng vs. CA 292 SCRA 544)
(b) Constructive Notice
A Torrens title binds the whole world. (People vs. Reyes 175 SCRA 597)
The issuance of a torrens certificate of title is constructive notice to the whole world that the person in whose name it is issued has
become the owner of the lot described therein. (Borbe vs. Calalo 535 SCRA 89)
No one can plead ignorance of the registration. (Jacob vs. CA 224 SCRA 189)
(c) Curtain Principle
Unregistered Claims
A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered on the title. (Republic vs. Umali 171 SCRA 647)
All claims and liens of whatever character existing against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title are barred, if not noted
on said certificate. (Id.)
The registered owner of a Torrens Certificate of Title and the subsequent purchaser for value and in good faith of registered land
shall hold the certificate, free from all liens and encumbrances, except those noted in said certificate and those specified by law.
(Secs. 44 and 46, P.D. 1529)
(d) Indefeasibility
A Torrens certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. (Ortegas vs. Hidalgo 198 SCRA 635)
Title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate becomes incontrovertible or indefeasible after one year from the entry of the
decree of registration. (Heirs of Santiago vs. Heirs of Santiago 404 SCRA 193)
A certificate of title cannot be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession by third persons. (D’Oro Land Realty & Dev’t
Corp. vs. Claunan 516 SCRA 681)
(e) Imprescriptible
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
(Rivera vs. Court of Appeals 244 SCRA 218)
(f) Integrity of Titles
Insurance Principle
Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore and the law
will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Stated differently, an innocent
purchaser for value, relying on a Torrens title issued, is protected. (Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals 343 SCRA 637)
(g) Not Subject to Collateral Attack

23
A certificate of title shall not be the subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law. (Vda. de Retuerto vs. Barz 372 SCRA 712)
(h) Fraudulent Registration
The Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title
in bad faith. (Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr. 181 SCRA 431)
The Torrens system only protects a title holder in good faith and cannot be used as shield for fraud and chicanery. ( Philippine
Commercial & Industrial Bank vs. Villalva 48 SCRA 31)
The person in whose name the land is fraudulently registered holds it as a mere trustee, with the legal obligation to reconvey the
property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner. (Caro vs. CA 180 SCRA 401)
(i) Forgery
A fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred
from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. (Reyes vs. Borbon 50 Phil. 791)
The doctrine that a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title cannot be applied where the owner still holds a valid and
existing certificate of title covering the same interest in a realty. (Torres vs. CA 186 SCRA 672)
(j) Loss
As between two innocent persons, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting
loss. (Traders Royal Bank vs. CA 315 SCRA 190)
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 transfer of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rights. ( Torres vs. Court of Appeals 186 SCRA
672)
(k) Presumption: Regular and Valid
A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued regularly and legally, unless contradicted and overcomed by clear, convincing, strong
and irrefutable proof. More than merely preponderant evidence is required. (Ramos vs. Rodriguez 244 SCRA 418)
(l) Double Titles
Where two certificates of title include the same land, the certificate of title that is earlier in date prevails. ( Garcia vs. CA 95 SCRA
380)
(m) Priority of Rights
“Prior tempura potior jure”. He who is first in time is preferred in right. (Santiago vs. CA 186 SCRA 672)
(n) Reliance on the Title
Mirror Principle (1999, 2005 BAR)
. . .[u]nder the Torrens System of Registration, the minimum requirement for one to be a good faith buyer for value is that the
vendee at least sees the owner's duplicate copy of the title and relies upon the same. The private respondent, presumably
knowledgeable on the aforesaid workings of the Torrens System, did not take heed of this and nevertheless went through with the
sale with undue haste. The unexplained eagerness of INC to buy this valuable piece of land in Quezon City without even being
24
presented with the owner's copy of the titles casts very serious doubt on the rightfulness of its position as vendee in the transaction.
(Islamic Directorate of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117897, May 14, 1997)
An innocent purchaser for value has every right to rely on the correctness of the title. He is not required to explore further than
what the Torrens title on its face indicates, in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right
thereto. (Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals 343 SCRA 637).
When a person deals with registered land through someone who is not the registered owner, he is expected to look behind the
certificate of title and examine all the factual circumstances, in order to determine if the vendor has the capacity to transfer of any
interest in the land. (Chua vs. Soriano 521 SCRA 68, 4/13/2007)
EXCEPTION: This principle does not apply when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor
or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation.
(Domingo vs. Roces 401 SCRA 197)
(o) Titles derived from a void title
If a certificate of title is void, all subsequent certificates of title derived therefrom are also void because of the truism that the
“spring cannot rise higher than its source”. This truism is in accord with the Latin maxim “Nemo potest plus juris ad alium transferre
quam ipse habet.” No one can transfer a greater right to another than he himself has. (Mathay vs. Court of Appeals 295 SCRA 556)
Chapter V: SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
A. Voluntary Dealings
1. Entry in the Primary Entry Book (Sec. 52, 53, 56)
Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration. - Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment,
instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering,
filing or entering.
Sec. 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. - No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the
Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided
for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.

The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be
conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of
registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered
owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.

In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to
such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. After the entry of
the decree of registration on the original petition or application, any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a
forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.
Sec. 56. Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies. - Each Register of Deeds shall keep a primary entry book in which, upon
payment of the entry fee, he shall enter, in the order of their reception, all instruments including copies of writs and processes
filed with him relating to registered land. He shall, as a preliminary process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and
minute of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they were received. They shall be regarded as registered from the
time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument, when made on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the
25
same date: Provided, That the national government as well as the provincial and city governments shall be exempt from the
payment of such fees in advance in order to be entitled to entry and registration.

Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, so filed with the Register of Deeds shall be numbered and
indexed and endorsed with a reference to the proper certificate of title. All records and papers relative to registered land in the
office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public in the same manner as court records, subject to such reasonable
regulations as the Register of Deeds, under the direction of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may prescribe.

All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their respective copies and shall be attested and sealed by the
Register of Deeds, endorsed with the file number, and copies may be delivered to the person presenting them.

Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from the Register of Deeds upon payment of the
prescribed fees.
a. Auto Corp vs CA - They fail to consider the voluntary or involuntary nature of the instrument subject of registration. A
voluntary instrument is a willful act of the registered owner of the land to be affected by registration, 33 while an involuntary
instrument is one pertaining to a transaction affecting lands in which the registered owner’s cooperation is not needed and
which transaction may even be done against his will. 34 For the registration of a voluntary instrument, it is necessary not only
to register the deed, instrument or assignment, mortgage, or lease in the entry book of the register of deeds, but a
memorandum thereof must also be made on the owner’s duplicate and on its original. The mere entry by the register of
deeds in the entry or diary book, without the presentation of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title for corresponding
annotation of the conveyance, does not have the effect of a conveyance of the property. 35 On the other hand, for the
registration of an involuntary instrument, the law does not require the presentation of the owner’s duplicate certificate of
title and considers the annotation of such instrument upon the entry book, as sufficient to affect the real estate to which it
relates.36 The reason for the difference is obvious. In a voluntary instrument, the registered owner of the land to be affected
by registration is presumed to be interested in registering the instrument and would willingly surrender, present or produce
his duplicate certificate of title to the register of deeds in order to accomplish such registration. On the other hand, as the
registration of an involuntary instrument is contrary to the interest of the registered owner or will affect him adversely, it is
but natural that he will not willingly present or produce his duplicate certificate or at least delay the production as long as
possible.
Registration is merely a specie of notice. 39 It is a ministerial act by which an instrument is sought to be inscribed in the
records of the Office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of title covering the land subject
of the instrument. It is not a declaration by the State that such an instrument is a valid and subsisting interest in the land. 40
The law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered. The purpose of registration is
merely to give notice.
b. Ballesteros vs. Abion - The Primary Entry of a Void Contract does not produce the effect of registration. Moreover,
assuming for the sake of argument that the second contract could be registered, the primary entry thereof did not produce
the effect of registration. Petitioner presented the second lease contract to the Register of Deeds of Iriga City for
registration on October 31, 1995, or a day after its execution. The contract was, however, merely entered in the primary
book. It was not registered because it lacked certain requisites.
It is well settled that for the registration of voluntary instruments (e.g., deed of sale or contract of lease), it is necessary not
only to register the deed, instrument of assignment, mortgage or lease in the entry book of the register of deeds but also
for the Register of Deeds to annotate a memorandum thereof on the owner’s duplicate certificate and its original. 14 In
voluntary registration, if the owner’s duplicate certificate is not surrendered and presented or if no payment of registration
fees is made within fifteen days, entry in the day book will not convey or affect the land sold, mortgaged or leased. 15
Entry alone produces the effect of registration, whether the transaction entered is voluntary or involuntary, so long as the
registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to
26
be done but a duty incumbent solely on the Register of Deeds. 16 Here, petitioner admits that the second lease contract was
refused registration by the Register of Deeds for his failure to comply with certain conditions for registration. And since
petitioner failed to comply with all the requisites for entry and annotation, the entry in the primary book did not ripen into
registration
c. Sps. Abrigo vs. de Vera - Registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the land. , the law provides that a
double sale of immovables transfers ownership to (1) the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good
faith; and (3) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. 13 There is no ambiguity in the application of this
law with respect to lands registered under the Torrens system.
This principle is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529 14 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.15 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.
It is undisputed that Villafania had been issued a free patent registered as Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-30522. 21
The OCT was later cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 212598, also in Villafania’s name. 22 As a consequence
of the sale, TCT No. 212598 was subsequently cancelled and TCT No. 22515 thereafter issued to respondent.
Soriano v. Heirs of Magali23 held that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the land. Since the
property in dispute in the present case was already registered under the Torrens system, petitioners’ registration of the sale
under Act 3344 was not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code.
Petitioners cannot validly argue that they were fraudulently misled into believing that the property was unregistered. A
Torrens title, once registered, serves as a notice to the whole world. 29 All persons must take notice, and no one can plead
ignorance of the registration.
Notes:
- The first registrant – the first one to register

- Issue: who between Abrigo and De Vera has a better right to the property. SC is without merit. Does the rule on double sale
in the Civil Code, apply in this case? A double sale: 3 requisites. De Vera’s registered lot – notice to the whole world, in
Abrigo its not because it was registered in a wrong industry.
- Civil code does not apply here. It was made in a wrong register. Double sale do not apply, PD 1529 is always valid and
superior. 1524 – does not contemplate into to two registration. De Vera – was innocent purchaser of value. Abrigo did not
take over. The first one to register, the next step who took possession. Double registration. Double Sale – Villafanias
2. Double Sale
a. San Lorenzo Devt vs CA – However, it must be stressed that the juridical relationship between the parties in a double sale is
primarily governed by Article 1544 which lays down the rules of preference between the two purchasers of the same
property. It provides:
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.
27
The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right) gains greater significance in case of double sale of
immovable property. When the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of
Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed the owner. 38 Verily, the act of registration must be coupled with good faith—
that is, the registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor or must not have been aware of facts which
should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his
vendor.
b. Melencion vs CA - Registration Under Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code; Registration of Sale of Titled Land Under Act 3344
If a parcel of land is registered under the Land Registration Act and has a torrens certificate of title and is sold and
the sale is registered not under Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, such sale is not considered registered as
the term is used under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.
The loss of a certificate of title of a titled land does not convert the land into unregistered land.
c. Antonio vs Santos - we agree with respondents that petitioner cannot rely on the decision in LRC No. 142-A. As pointed out
by the Court of Appeals, even if a title had been issued to petitioner based on said decision, his title would be of a later date
than the title of respondents, hence inefficacious and ineffective. This Court has ruled that, when two certificates of title are
issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail; and in case of
successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate
is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
For an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, this Court has held that the party seeking reconveyance must
prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud. 10 The RTC, in making the
abovementioned findings, was not treating petitioner’s action for reconveyance as one for titling of property. But it was
weighing whether petitioner has, by clear and convincing evidence, proven his title to the property. Moreover, the RTC, in
its decision, discussed the merits of petitioner’s ground for his action for reconveyance, i.e. whether or not respondents
committed fraud in titling the subject property in their names. The RTC held that as shown by public records in the custody
of the RTC, Pasig City and the Land Registration Authority, petitioner’s claim that the property was fraudulently titled in the
names of respondents is baseless. Thus, petitioner’s contention that the RTC and the Court of Appeals treated his action for
reconveyance as one for titling of property lacks any persuasive basis.
Note, however, should be taken of the established doctrine that an action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes
four years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place upon the issuance of the
certificate of title over the property. Registration of real property is considered a constructive notice to all persons, thus,
the four-year period shall be counted therefrom. 12 It appears that OCT No. 108 was issued to respondents by the Register of
Deeds for Metro Manila on May 20, 1977. From the time of registration of the land in the name of respondents on May 20,
1977 to the filing of the complaint on September 19, 1988, more than four years had already elapsed. Hence, it cannot be
denied that petitioner’s action had already prescribed.
3. Innocent Purchaser for Value

a. Islamic Directorate of the Phils vs CA - Furthermore, the Court observes that the INC bought the questioned property
from the Carpizo Group without even seeing the owner's duplicate copy of the titles covering the property. This is very
strange considering that the subject lot is a large piece of real property in Quezon City worth millions, and that under the
Torrens System of Registration, the minimum requirement for one to be a good faith buyer for value is that the vendee at
least sees the owner's duplicate copy of the title and relies upon the same. 41 The private respondent, presumably
knowledgeable on the aforesaid workings of the Torrens System, did not take heed of this and nevertheless went through
with the sale with undue haste. The unexplained eagerness of INC to buy this valuable piece of land in Quezon City
without even being presented with the owner's copy of the titles casts very serious doubt on the rightfulness of its
position as vendee in the transaction.
- Minimum requirement of good faith, the buyer has at least seen the duplicate copy of the owner.
28
b. Legarda vs Court of Appeals - We do not have to belabor the fact that all the successors-in-interest of Cabrera to the
subject lot were transferees for value and in good faith, having relied as they did on the clean titles of their predecessors.
The successive owners were each armed with their own indefeasible titles which automatically brought them under the
eagis of the Torrens System. As the Court declared in Sandoval v. Court of Appeals, 6 "(i)t is settled doctrine that one who
deals with property registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title.
He is charged with notice only such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title." 7 In the case at bar, it is not
disputed that no notice of lis pendens was ever annotated on any of the titles of the subsequent owners. And even if
there were such a notice, it would not have created a lien over the property because the main office of a lien is to a warn
prospective buyers that the property they intend to purchase is the subject of a pending litigation. Therefore, since the
property is already in the hands of Luminlun, an innocent purchaser for value, it can no longer be returned to its original
owner by Cabrera, much less by Cathay itself.
The fact that Cabrera is an officer of Cathay does not make him a purchaser in bad faith. His act in representing the
company was never questioned nor disputed by Legarda. And while it is true that he won in the bidding, it is likewise true
that said bidding was conducted by the book. There is no call to be alarmed in case an official of the company emerges as
the winning bidder since in some cases, the judgment creditor himself personally participates in the bidding.
Neither Cathay nor Cabrera should be made to suffer for the gross negligence of Legarda's counsel. If she may be said to
be "innocent" because she was ignorant of the acts of negligence of her counsel, with more reason are respondents truly
"innocent." As between two parties who may lose due to the negligence or incompetence of the counsel of one, the party
who was responsible for making it happen should suffer the consequences. This reflects the basic common law maxim, so
succinctly stated by Justice J.B.L. Reyes, that ". . . (B)etween two innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the
wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss." 15 In this case, it was not respondents, but Legarda, who
misjudged and hired the services of the lawyer who practically abandoned her case and who continued to retain him
even after his proven apathy and negligence.
c.Chua vs Soriano – A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person has a right
to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another
person in the same property. The honesty of intention which constitutes good faith implies a freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry. 30 As the Court enunciated in Lim v. Chuatoco:31
x x x good faith consists in the possessor’s belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner of the
same and could convey his title. Good faith, while it is always to be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary,
requires a well founded belief that the person from whom title was received was himself the owner of the land, with the
right to convey it. There is good faith where there is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious
advantage from another. Otherwise stated, good faith is the opposite of fraud and it refers to the state of mind which is
manifested by the acts of the individual concerned
When a person who deals with registered land through someone who is not the registered owner, he is expected
to look behind the certificate of title and examine all the factual circumstances, in order to determine if the vendor has
the capacity to transfer any interest in the land. 34 He has the duty to ascertain the identity of the person with whom he is
dealing and the latter’s legal authority to convey.
Notes: In keeping with Mirror Principle.
The law "requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land
object of the transaction is registered. While one who buys from the registered owner does not need to look behind the certificate
of title, one who buys from one who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual
circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the
land.
4. Real Estate Mortgage. Sec. 50
Sec. 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. - Any owner subdividing a tract of registered land into lots which do not constitute a
subdivision project has defined and provided for under P.D. No. 957, shall file with the Commissioner of Land Registration or with
29
the Bureau of Lands a subdivision plan of such land on which all boundaries, streets, passageways and waterways, if any, shall be
distinctly and accurately delineated.

If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands
together with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented for
registration, the Register of Deeds shall, without requiring further court approval of said plan, register the same in accordance with
the provisions of the Land Registration Act, as amended: Provided, however, that the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the new
certificate of title covering the street, passageway or open space, a memorandum to the effect that except by way of donation in
favor of the national government, province, city or municipality, no portion of any street, passageway, waterway or open space so
delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed of by the registered owner without the approval of the Court of First
Instance of the province or city in which the land is situated.

A registered owner desiring to consolidate several lots into one or more, requiring new technical descriptions, shall file with the Land
Registration Commission, a consolidation plan on which shall be shown the lots to be affected, as they were before, and as they will
appear after the consolidation. Upon the surrender of the owner's duplicate certificates and the receipt of consolidation plan duty
approved by the Commission, the Register of Deeds concerned shall cancel the corresponding certificates of title and issue a new
one for the consolidated lots.
The Commission may not order or cause any change, modification, or amendment in the contents of any certificate of title, or of any
decree or plan, including the technical description therein, covering any real property registered under the Torrens system, nor
order the cancellation of the said certificate of title and the issuance of a new one which would result in the enlargement of the area
covered by the certificate of title.
Requisites:
1. Constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation.
2. The mortgagor is the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.
3. The persons constituting the mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally
authorized for the purpose. (Art. 2085, NCC)
How Foreclosed:
1. JUDICIAL Foreclosure – governed by Rule 68 of the Rules of Court
2. EXTRAJUDICIAL – governed by Act 3135, as amended by Act 411
a. Home Bakers vs CA – Issue on Jurisdcition – W/N Homebankers were mortagagee is good faith. They are not purchasers in
good faith. SC says Section 17 of PD 957. It is the responsibility. Why was jurisdiction questioned?
PD 957 Subdivisions and Condominiums

1st – one of reasons is that Town Houses were not considered as subdivision project, SC quoted PD 957 which defines what is
considered as a subdivision lot. Subdivision lot" shall mean any of the lots, whether residential, commercial, industrial, or
recreational, in a subdivision project.
2nd - Any kind of transaction under Sec. 18 is considered null and void
3rd – Sec. 17, it is the seller who has the responsibility to register the contract to sell.
Section 17. Registration. All contracts to sell, deeds of sale and other similar instruments relative to the sale or conveyance of the
subdivision lots and condominium units, whether or not the purchase price is paid in full, shall be registered by the seller in the
Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the property is situated.
Whenever a subdivision plan duly approved in accordance with Section 4 hereof, together with the corresponding owner's duplicate
certificate of title, is presented to the Register of Deeds for registration, the Register of Deeds shall register the same in accordance
30
with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, as amended: Provided, however, that it there is a street, passageway or required
open space delineated on a complex subdivision plan hereafter approved and as defined in this Decree, the Register of Deeds shall
annotate on the new certificate of title covering the street, passageway or open space, a memorandum to the effect that except by
way of donation in favor of a city or municipality, no portion of any street, passageway, or open space so delineated on the plan shall
be closed or otherwise disposed of by the registered owner without the requisite approval as provided under Section 22 of this
Decree.
Notwithstanding that petitioner became the owner of the subject lots by being the highest bidder in the extrajudicial foreclosure
sale, it must be remembered that it was first a mortgagee of the same. Since the lot was mortgaged in violation of Section 18 of P.D.
No. 957, HLURB has jurisdiction to declare the mortgage void insofar as private respondents are concerned and to annul the
foreclosure sale. In Far East Bank and Trust Co. vs. Marquez,21 we held that Section 18 of P.D. No. 957 is a prohibitory law, and acts
committed contrary to it are void. We said:
In determining whether a law is mandatory, it is necessary to ascertain the legislative intent, as stated by Sen. Arturo M. Tolentino,
an authority on civil law:
There is no well-defined rule by which a mandatory or prohibitory law may, in all circumstances, be distinguished from one
which is directory, suppletory, or permissive. In the determination of this question, the prime object is to ascertain the
legislative intention. Generally speaking, those provisions which are mere matter of form, or which are not material, do not
affect any substantial right, and do not relate to the essence of the thing to be done, so that compliance is a matter of
convenience rather than substance, are considered to be directory. On the other hand, statutory provisions which relate to
matters of substance, affect substantial rights and are the very essence of the thing required to be done, are regarded as
mandatory.
Section 17 of P.D. No. 95728 provides that the seller shall register the contracts to sell with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
Thus, it is Garcia’s responsibility as seller to register the contracts and petitioner should not blame private respondents for not doing
so. As we have said earlier, considering petitioner’s negligence in ascertaining the existence or absence of authority from HLURB for
Garcia/TransAmerican to mortgage the subject lots, petitioner cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith.
Petitioner is bound by private respondents’ contracts to sell executed with Garcia/TransAmerican.
b. De La Merced vs GSIS – Petitioners' rights of ownership over the properties in dispute, albeit unregistered, are superior to the
registered mortgage rights of GSIS over the same. The execution and validity of the contract to sell dated September 3, 1957
executed by the Zulueta spouses, as the former subdivision owner, in favor of Francisco dela Merced, are beyond cavil. There is also
no dispute that the contract to sell was entered into by .the parties before the third mortgage was constituted on October 15, 1957
by the Zuluetas in favor of GSIS on the property covered by TCT No. 26105, which included the subject lots. Francisco dela Merced
was able to fully pay the purchase price to the vendor, who later executed a deed of absolute sale in his favor. However, the
Zuluetas defaulted on their loans; hence, the mortgage was foreclosed and the properties were sold at public auction to GSIS as the
highest bidder.
In the case of State Investment House, Inc. v. court of Appeals,20 it was held that: STATE's registered mortgage right over the property
is inferior to that of respondents-spouses' unregistered right. The unrecorded sale between respondents-spouses and SOLID is
preferred for the reason that if the original owner (SOLID, in this case) had parted with his ownership of the thing sold then he no
longer had ownership and free disposal of that thing so as to be able to mortgage it again. Registration of the mortgage is of no
moment since it is understood to be without prejudice to the better right of third parties.
In the same vein, therefore, the registered right of GSIS as mortgagee of the property is inferior to the unregistered right of
Francisco dela Merced. The unrecorded sale between Francisco dela Merced as the vendee of, the property and the Zuluetas, the
original owners, is preferred for the same reason stated above.
Respondents cannot, even assert that as mortgagee of land registered under the Torrens system, GSIS was not required to do more
than rely upon the certificate of title. As a general rule, where there is nothing on the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or
vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what
31
the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right
thereto (Mirror Principle). This rule however, admits of an exception as where the purchaser or mortgagee has knowledge of a
defect or lack of title in the vendor, or that he was aware of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the
status of the property in litigation.21
In the case at bar, GSIS is admittedly a financing institution. In its answer to the complaint filed with the trial court, GSIS admitted
knowledge that the spouses Jose C. Zulueta and Soledad B. Ramos owned the Antonio Subdivision when they mortgaged the same
with GSIS. In Sunshine Finance and Investment Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 22 we held that when the purchaser or
mortgagee is a financing institution, the general rule that a purchaser or mortgagee of land is not required to look further than what
appears on the face of the title does not apply.
Notes: Loan came later.
Likewise, in Philippine National Bank v. Office of the President,24 we held that ---
As between these small lot buyers and the gigantic financial institutions which the developers deal with, it is obvious that the law ---
as an instrument of social justice --- must favor the weak. Indeed, the petitioner Bank had at its disposal vast resources with which it
could, adequately protect its loan activities, and therefore is presumed to have conducted the usual "due diligence" checking and
ascertained (whether thru ocular inspection or; other modes of investigation) the actual status, condition, utilization and occupancy
of the property offered as collateral. It could not have been unaware that the property had been built on by small lot buyers. On the
other hand, private respondents obviously were powerless to discover the attempt of the land developer to hypothecate the
property being sold to them. It was precisely in order to deal with this kind of situation that P.D. 957 was enacted, its very essence
and intendment being to provide a protective mantle over helpless citizens who may fall prey to the razzmatazz of what P.D. 957
termed "unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers.” Razmatazz – double talk
c. Ereña vs. Querrer-Kauffman – The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith presupposes that the mortgagor who is not the rightful
owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over the property in his name and that, after obtaining the
said title, he succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on what appears on the said title. It does not apply to a
situation where the title is still in the name of the rightful owner and the mortgagor is a different person pretending to be the owner.
The ruling of the CA, that the Real Estate Mortgage executed in petitioner’s favor is null and void, is correct. The registration thereof
with the Register of Deeds and its annotation at the dorsal portion of TCT No. 48521 is also null and void, as provided in the last
paragraph of Section 53, P.D. 1529 which reads:
Sec. 53. Presentation of owner’s duplicate upon entry of new certificate.–
xxxx
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such
fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder of the decree of registration on the original petition or
application; any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or
other instrument, shall be null and void (emphasis supplied).
One of the essential requisites of a mortgage contract is that the mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged. 42 A
mortgage is, thus, invalid if the mortgagor is not the property owner. 43 In this case, the trial court and the CA are one in finding that
based on the evidence on record the owner of the property is respondent who was not the one who mortgaged the same to the
petitioner.
In Cavite Development Bank v. Lim,54 the Court explained the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith, thus:
32
There is, however, a situation where, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title being
fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising therefrom are given effect by reason of public policy. This is the
doctrine of "mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that all persons dealing with the property covered by a Torrens Certificate of
Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public interest in upholding
the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon, protects a
buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title. 55
Indeed, a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor of the property given as security and
in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation. Hence, even if the
mortgagor is not the rightful owner of, or does not have a valid title to, the mortgaged property, the mortgagee in good faith is
nonetheless entitled to protection.56 This doctrine presupposes, however, that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful owner of the
property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over the property in his name and that, after obtaining the said title, he
succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on what appears on the said title. The innocent purchaser (mortgagee in
this case) for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself,
not by a forged deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the situation of petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors
pretending to be the registered owners but who are not said owners. 57 The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith does not apply to a
situation where the title is still in the name of the rightful owner and the mortgagor is a different person pretending to be the owner.
In such a case, the mortgagee is not an innocent mortgagee for value and the registered owner will generally not lose his title.
5. Sale Involving Real Estate

a. Esguerra vs. Trinidad (518 SCRA 186, March 12, 007)
In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose between two types of pricing agreement to unit price contract
wherein the purchase price is determined by way of references to a stated rate unit area, or in lump sum contract
which states a full purchase for an immovable the area of which may be declared based on an estimate or where both
the area and boundaries are stated.
6. Caveat Emptor Principle
a. Sy vs Capsitrano - Notable likewise is that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496 in the name of Capistrano had
always been in his possession since he gave Scott only a photocopy thereof pursuant to the latter’s authority to look for
a buyer of the property. On the other hand, the Jamilars were able to acquire a new owner’s duplicate copy thereof by
filing an affidavit of loss and a petition for the issuance of another owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496. The
minimum requirement of a good faith buyer is that the vendee of the real property should at least see the owner’s
duplicate copy of the title. A person who deals with registered land through someone who is not the registered owner
is expected to look beyond the certificate of title and examine all the factual circumstances thereof in order to
determine if the vendor has the capacity to transfer any interest in the land.
b. Domingo Realty vs CA - (How to conduct Due Diligence Verification of title)
1. Verify the origin, history, authenticity and validity of the title with the Register of Deeds and Land Registration Authority
2. Engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify the boundary, metes and bounds of the lot
subject of said title based on the technical description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land Management
Bureau
3. Conduct an actual ocular inspection
4. Inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal ownership of the lot in question
5. Put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased or encumbered
33
6. Undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot will be subject to alienation, lease or
encumbrance by the parties (Domingo Realty Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, Jan. 26, 2007)
Notes (Atty. Gimarino says…)

- Certificate of Sale – mortgagor has one year; during period of redemption; possession is a matter of right
- Bank will consolidate the title - affidavit of consolidation that 1year period has already lapsed; bank now becomes the
owner
- Voluntary – owner’s duplicate be presented
- Involuntary – need not be presented
- Certificate of sale – always a voluntary action, all the time owner’s duplicate is with the bank always
- SC – in a voluntary, there has to be a memorandum on the certificate before considered as fully registered
- In involuntary – enough that it is entered in the record book or primary entry book
- Under Sec. 52 – mere entry is already considered as constructive notice to the whole world
- Both – it is enough the it is entered in the primary entry book
- SC – Levin vs Bas – entry in the entry book
- Ruling case DBP vs Nueva Ejica – whether voluntary or involuntary, entry is enough so long as requirements are complied
with.
- Under PD 1529 – no longer 15day period, payment be immediately be made. Unless party to such transaction is
government instrumentality.
- Ballesteros vs Abion – there are two contract of lease, 1 st was valid. The 2nd was void because Ronald Vargas has no
authority. What then is the doctrine in this case? The registration of contract was null and void. Good faith – elements of
the contract; whether or not there were lacking requirements – contract is void; assuming contract was not void, it is not
considered registered since it lack requirements, there must also be compliance with the rules; primary entry book also
known as entry book
B. Involuntary Dealings
1. Adverse Claim (Sec. 70)

Sec. 70. Adverse claim. - Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent
to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement
in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of the
certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or
interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant's residence, and a place at which all notices may be
served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim
shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse
claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation,
no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.

Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is
situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of
such adverse claim, and shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the
registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall find that the adverse claim
thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand
pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of
Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.
Essential Requisites
i. The claimant must have an interest in the land adverse to the registered owner
34
ii. The right or interest must arise subsequent to the original registration of the land
iii. The registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided by P.D. 1529
iv. The claim must be in writing, signed and sworn to by the adverse claimant, and must comply with
formal requirements
An attorney’s lien may be annotated on the delinquent client’s title only after it has become judicially settled and the execution
thereof ordered by the court. Where the interest of a lawyer by way of attorney’s fees consists of a share in the property recovered
by the client, such interest may be the basis of an adverse claim.
a. Sajonas vs CA - Cancellation of an adverse claim is still necessary even after the lapse of thirty days to render it in
ineffective.
b. Rodriguez vs CA - The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designated to protect the interest of a person over a
piece of real property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided by the Land Registration Act,
and such serves as a notice and warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on
the same or better right than the registered owner thereof.
2. Enforcement of liens on registered land and Application for new certificate upon expiration of redemption period. Sec. 74
and 75.
Sec. 74. Enforcement of liens on registered land. - Whenever registered land is solved on execution, or taken or sold for
taxes or for any assessment or to enforce a lien of any character, or for any costs and charges incident to such liens, any
execution or copy of execution, any officer's return, or any deed, demand, certificate, or affidavit, or other instrument made
in the course of the proceedings to enforce such liens and required by law to be recorded, shall be filed with the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the land lies and registered in the registration book, and a memorandum made upon
the proper certificate of title in each case as lien or encumbrance.

Sec. 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of redemption period. - Upon the expiration of the time, if any,
allowed by law for redemption after registered land has been sold on execution taken or sold for the enforcement of a lien
of any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court
for the entry of a new certificate of title to him. Before the entry of a new certificate of title, the registered owner may
pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings.
1. Padilla vs Phil Producer – It is settled that execution is enforced by the fact of levy and sale. The result of such execution
sale—with Sarmiento Trading Corporation as the highest bidder—was that title to Lot No. 22 of TCT No. 14749 vested
immediately in the purchaser subject only to the judgment debtor’s right to repurchase. Therefore, upon Sarmiento
Trading Corporation’s purchase of Lot No. 22 covered by TCT No. 14749 at the auction sale, private respondent’s
successor-in-interest had acquired a right over said title.

The right acquired by the purchaser at an execution sale is inchoate and does not become absolute until after the
expiration of the redemption period without the right of redemption having been exercised. But inchoate though it be, it is
like any other right, entitled to protection and must be respected until extinguished by redemption. Gaudencio Blancaflor
was not able to redeem his property after the expiration of the redemption period, which was 12 months after the entry
or annotation of the certificate of sale made on the back of TCT No. 14749. Consequently, he had been divested of all his
rights to the property. (underscoring ours)
The fact of levy and sale constitutes execution, and not the action for the issuance of a new title. Here, because the levy
and sale of the properties took place in June and July of 1990, respectively, or less than a year after the decision became
final and executory, the respondent clearly exercised its rights in timely fashion.
35
It is clear that PD 1529 provides the solution to respondent’s quandary. The reasons behind the law make a lot of sense; it
provides due process to a registered landowner (in this case the petitioner) and prevents the fraudulent or mistaken
conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the judgment obligation. Petitioner contends that only his interest in
the subject lots, and not that of his wife who was not a party to the suit, should have been subjected to execution, and he
should have had the opportunity to prove as much.
3. Lis Pendens (Sec. 76)

Sec. 76. Notice of lis pendens. - No action to recover possession of real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds
upon the title thereof, or for partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to land or the use
or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgment, and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgment,
shall have any effect upon registered land as against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum or
notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and the court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of
the institution thereof, together with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate description of
the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall have been filed and registered.
Requisites of a Valid Lis Pendens
a. There must be an action or proceeding affecting the title of real property on the possession thereof
b. The court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the property
c. That the property is sufficiently described in the complaint
a. Viewmaster Construction Corporation vs. Maulit (326 SCRA 821, February 29, 2000) Lis Pendens. Availability of lis pendens
not confined to cases involving the title to or possession of real property. It applies to suits brought “to establish an
equitable estate, interest or right in specific real property or to enforce any lien, charge or encumbrance against it.”
b. Atlantic Erectors vs Herbal Cove Realty – As a general rule, the only instances in which a notice of lis pendens may be
availed of are as follows: (a) an action to recover possession of real estate; (b) an action for partition; and (c) any other
court proceedings that directly affect the title to the land or the building thereon or the use or the occupation thereof. 10
Additionally, this Court has held that resorting to lis pendens is not necessarily confined to cases that involve title to or
possession of real property. This annotation also applies to suits seeking to establish a right to, or an equitable estate or
interest in, a specific real property; or to enforce a lien, a charge or an encumbrance against it.11
However, a careful examination of petitioner's Complaint, as well as the reliefs it seeks, reveals that no such lien or interest
over the property was ever alleged. The Complaint merely asked for the payment of construction services and materials
plus damages, without mentioning -- much less asserting -- a lien or an encumbrance over the property. Verily, it was a
purely personal action and a simple collection case. It did not contain any material averment of any enforceable right,
interest or lien in connection with the subject property.
As it is, petitioner's money claim cannot be characterized as an action that involves the enforcement of a lien or an
encumbrance, one that would thus warrant the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens. Indeed, the nature of an action is
determined by the allegations of the complaint. 12
Even assuming that petitioner had sufficiently alleged such lien or encumbrance in its Complaint, the annotation of the
Notice of Lis Pendens would still be unjustified, because a complaint for collection and damages is not the proper mode for
the enforcement of a contractor's lien.
4. Levies on Execution
a. Registration of the Levy on Execution
36
b. Registration of the Certificate on Sale

c. Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale
d. Petition for Issuance of a New Certificate of Title pursuant to Sec. 75 of P.D. 1529
a. Pineda vs Arcalas - A levy on execution registered takes preference over a prior unregistered sale – a registered lien is
entitled to preferential consideration. An exception to the preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party
has actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious possession of the disputed property at the
time the levy or attachment is registered.
37

Land Titles and Deeds Notes Cancan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Titles and Deeds Notes Cancan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS 2010 (Atty.

Notes (Atty G. says…)

1. Concept of Jura Regalia

2. Purpose and Meaning of Torrens System of Registration

Notes (Atty. G. says…):

Chapter II: LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS

1. Land Registration Authority

b. Executive Order 649

2. Office of the Register of Deeds: General Functions

Notes (Atty. G says…)

Notes (Atty. G. says…)

Chapter III: ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

a. Who may apply? Sec. 14, PD 1529

Notes (Atty. G. says…)

 SC is very strict about the requirements of land registration; 2laws involved:

(1) Filipino citizens

Re: Acquisition of Lands by Aliens

GENERAL RULE: Aliens are not qualified to own lands

1. Art. XII, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution: Hereditary Succession

2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles

 There were some issues in the Herbierto case

3. Registration under the Indigenous People’s Rights Act

4. Forms and Contents

a. What and where to file.

b. Steps in bringing the land under Torrens System.

c. Amendments of boundaries or areas

5. Publication, Opposition and Default

a. Notice of Initial Hearing

b. Proof required in Registration Proceedings

d. When OCT Takes Effect

6. Classification of Public Lands

- There is no law authorizing its conveyance.

a. Remedies Available in a Registration Case

Remedies Available to the Losing Party in a Registration Case

i. Petition for review of Decree (Sec. 32)

ii. Action for Reconveyance (Secs. 53 and 96)

Notes: (Atty.G. says..)

iii. Action for Damages (Section 32)

iv. Recovery from the Assurance Fund (Sec. 95)

c. Other Remedies Available

(2) Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47, Rules of Court)

(3) Criminal Prosecution under the RPC

Chapter IV: CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

a. Key Concepts of the Torrens System

(a) Best Evidence of Ownership

(b) Constructive Notice

(c) Curtain Principle

(f) Integrity of Titles

(g) Not Subject to Collateral Attack

(h) Fraudulent Registration

(k) Presumption: Regular and Valid

(l) Double Titles

(m) Priority of Rights

(n) Reliance on the Title

Mirror Principle (1999, 2005 BAR)

(o) Titles derived from a void title

Chapter V: SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION

1. Entry in the Primary Entry Book (Sec. 52, 53, 56)

- The first registrant – the first one to register

3. Innocent Purchaser for Value

4. Real Estate Mortgage. Sec. 50

1. Constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation.

2. The mortgagor is the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.

1. JUDICIAL Foreclosure – governed by Rule 68 of the Rules of Court