Classification of Lands

Classification based on Ownership

1. Public Domain
 Intended for public use; (2) belongs to the State, without being for public use, and is intended for
some public service or for the development of national wealth
2. Private/Patrimonial Property
 Patrimonial property of the State under Art. 421 of the Civil Code;
 Patrimonial property of LGU under Art. 424 of the Civil Code;
 Property belonging to private indivuals under Art. 425 of the Civil Code.

Classification of Public Lands According to Alienability

Inalienable Alienable and Disposable

1. Forest or Timber 1. Agricultural lands
2. Mineral
3. National Park
(Sec. 2, Art. XII of the 1987 Phil Const.)

Concept of Alienable and Disposable Lands of the State

1. Patrimonial property of the State under Art. 421 of the Civil Code, without limitations.
2. Lands of public domain as provided by the Constitution but with a limitation that lands must only be
agricultural.

Agricultural Lands
 Definition: Those alienable portions of the lands of the public domain, which are not forest or
timber, or national park.
 Who has the power to classify lands into alienable and disposable land of public domain? 1) the
DENR Secretary has the power to classify forest land into agricultural land; 2) The President
under CA 141 may classify agricultural lands as alienable and disposable of the public domain.
 Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic: For as long as the property belongs to the State, although
already classified as alienable and disposable, it remains property of the public dominion if when
it is intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. Hence, to
convert agricultural lands already declared as alienable disposable into patrimonial property,
there must be an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer
intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth, or the property has
been converted into patrimonial property. Such declaration shall be in the form duly enacted by
Congress or a Presidential Decree in cases where the President is duly authorized by law.

Modes of Disposition of Public Agricultural Lands

Modes of Disposition
1. homestead settlement;
 Applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines over age of 18, or head of the family
 Only 12 hectares of agricultural land of public domain may be acquired.
 Prior to its disposition, the public land must be classified first as alienable and disposable
through a positive act of the government; otherwise, title issued to it is null and void, and the
rule on indefeasibility of title will not apply.
2. by sale;
 Applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines who is of legal age or head of the family, and to
have at least 1/5 of the land broken and cultivated within 5 years from the date of award;

1
  The applicant must show actual occupancy, cultivation and improvements of at least 1/5 of the
land applied for until date of final payment is made;
 Only 12 hectares of agricultural land of public domain may be acquired through sales patent.
 Under the CONST, private corporations and associations can only lease agricultural lands
3. by lease;
 The lessee should have cultivated 1/3 of the land “within five years after the date of approval of
the lease.
 Citizens may lease not more than 500 hectares of agricultural lands of public domain
 Private corporations and associations may lease a maximum of 1000 hectares of agricultural lands
of public domain for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.
4. by confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles.
a. Judicial Confirmation

“Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an
application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:

(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier(Sec. 14(1)Public Land Act)”

 Requisites: 1) The land is alienable and disposable property of the public domain; 2) the
applicant or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership; and 3) the
applicant or through their predecessors-in-interest have possessed and occupied the land since
June 12, 1945, or earlier.
 The date June 12, 1945 is the reckoning date of the applicant’s possession and occupation, and not
the reckoning date of when the property was classified as alienable and disposable.
 Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic: Sec 14(1) merely requires that the property sought to be
registered as already alienable and disposable at the time for registration of title is filed.
 Proof of Alienability (Republic vs. Tan): 1) Copy of the original classification approved by
DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the legal custodian of records; and 2) certificate of
land classification status issued by Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) or Provincial Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) based
on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary
 Note: Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141 is virtually the same as Section 14(1) of Property Registration
Decree

“(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of
existing laws. (Sec. 14(2)Public Land Act)”

 Requisites: 1) the land is an alienable and disposable, and patrimonial property of the public
domain; 2)the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the land for at
least 10 years, in good faith and with just title, or for at least 30 years, regardless of good faith or
just title; 3) the land had been converted to or declared as patrimonial property of the State at the
beginning of the said 10-year or 30-year period of possession
 Declaration of Alienability Not sufficient: Before acquisitive prescription could commence, the
property sought to be registered must not only be classified as alienable and disposable; it must
be declared by the State that it is no longer intended for public use, service or for the
development of the national wealth. Therefore, the period of acquisitive period would only begin
to run from the time that the State officially declares that the public dominion property is no
longer intended for public use, service or for the development of the national wealth.

2
 b. Administrative Confirmation
 Section 44-46 of Public Land Act governs administrative legalization through grant of
free patents
 Requisites: 1) has to be a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and 2) since July 4,
1945 or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, whether by himself
or his predecessor-in-interest, a tract of or tracts of public agricultural lands subject to
disposition not exceeding 24 hectares.
 Moreover, the applicant must be accompanied by a map and the technical
description of the land occupied, along with affidavits proving his occupancy from two
disinterested persons residing in the municipality or barrio where the land may be
located.
 Unlike an applicant in judicial confirmation of title who claims ownership over the
land, the applicant in free patent recognizes that the land applied for belongs to the
government.

Indefeasibility of Title

Principle of Indefeasibility of Title

 Title to the property covered by a Torrens Title certificate becomes indefeasible after expiration of
one year from the entry of the decree of registration. Such decree of registration is
incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons.
 “Section 32 of P.D. 1529. 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 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.”

o Only actual fraud or extrinsic fraud as a ground for review: fraud is extrinsic if it is
employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevented them from
asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant. If fraud is
intrinsic, it will not be granted.
o Counting of one (1) year period in Public Land Patent: There is no specific provisions in
the P.D. 1529 fixing a similar one year period within which a public land patent can be
considered open to review on ground of actual fraud. But in Republic vs. Guerrero, SC
held that in case of public land grants or patents, the one year period commences from
the issuance of the patent of the government.
o One (1) year period not applicable: the one year period does not apply when the person
seeking annulment of title or reconveyance is in possession of the lot. This is because the
action partakes of a suit to quiet title which is imprescriptible.
o Petition for Review within One year no exclusive remedy: The remedy of the
landowner whose property has been erroneously or wrongfully registered in another’s

3
 name, after one year from the date of the decree, bring (1) action in the ordinary court for
reconveyance, or (2) if the property has been passed into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, for damages.
o Action for Reconveyance: General Rule - The prescriptive period for reconveyance
fraudulently registered real property is 10 years reckoned from the date of issuance of the
certificate of title; Exception – Prescription does not commence to run to a party seeking
reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust who is in actual, continuous, and
peaceful possession of the property involved because the nature of the action would be in
the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action which is imprescriptible; Action for
reconveyance based on void deed or contract is imprescriptible under Art. 1410 of the
Civil Code.
o Where there are two conflicting titles: General Rule – the earlier date prevails;
Exception: If the inclusion of the land in the earlier registered title was result of a
mistake, then the later registered title will prevail.
 Action for Compensation Against the Assurance Fund
o Nature: The intent of the Assurance Fund is to indemnify the innocent “original” title
holder for his property loss, which loss is attributable to not only the acts of the usurper
but ultimately the operation of the Torrens System of registration which, by reasons of
public policy, tilts the scales in favor of innocent “purchasers” for value.
o When Recovery Against the Fund Proper: May be brought only after claimant’s property
is registered in the name of an innocent purchaser for value since it is the only time it can
be said that the claimant effectively 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.
o Prescriptive period: Section 102. Limitation of Action. Any action for compensation
against the Assurance Fund by reason of any loss, damage or deprivation of land or any
interest therein shall be instituted within a period of six years from the time the right to
bring such action first occurred (P.D. 1529);
 Should be reckoned from the moment the innocent purchaser for value registers
his title and upon actual knowledge thereof of the original title holder.
 In actions for compensation against the Assurance Fund grounded on fraud,
registration of the innocent purchaser for value’s title should only be considered
as a condition sine quo non to file an action and not as a form of constructive
notice for the purpose of reckoning the prescriptive period since the concept of
registration as a form of constructive notice is essentially premised on the policy
of protecting the innocent purchaser for value’s title, which consideration does
not, however obtain in Assurance Fund cases. An action against the Assurance
Fund Operates as a form of relief in favor of the original property owner.

Certificate of title Not Subject to Collateral Attack

Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
(P.D. 1529)
 An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on existing
title.
 Action for Reconveyance, Not Collateral Attack
o What cannot be collaterally attack is the certificate of title and not the title or ownership
which is represented by such certificate. Ownership is different form certificate of title.
o Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title,
because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an
evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein.

4
 o Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not been passed to an
innocent purchaser for value.
 Action to annul certificate if title is a direct attack on the title because it challenges the judgment
decree.
o This action goes into the issue of ownership of the land covered by the Torrens title.
o Counterclaim raising the nullity of title is not a violation of Section 48 because
counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on the title.
 Ejectment cases
o Torrens title is not being subject to a collateral attack in ejectment cases because there is
no real attack, whether direct or collateral because the resolution of issue of ownership is
allowed only on provisional basis.
 Action Publiciana
o It will not trigger a collateral attack on the plaintiffs Torrens or certificate of title because
the resolution is done only to determine the issue of possession. Courts could resolve the
issue of ownership only on provisional basis to determine the “better right of
possession”.