LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS have been held in the same way before the
Spanish conquest, and never to have been public
land (Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U.S., 449;
GENERAL PRINCIPLES 53 Law Ed., 594)

Q: On March 1980, Cornelio filed an

application for land registration of a parcel of
REGALIAN DOCTRINE (jura regalia)
agricultural land. During the trial, Cornelio
claimed that he and his predecessors-in-
All lands of whatever classification and other
interest had been in open, continuous,
natural resources not otherwise appearing to be
uninterrupted, public and adverse possession
clearly within private ownership are presumed to
and occupation of the land for more than 30
belong to the State which is the source of any
years. He likewise introduced a certification,
asserted right to ownership of land (Republic v.
dated February 1981 citing a presidential
Sin, G.R. No. 157485, March 26, 2014).
declaration that on June 1980, the subject
matter of the application was declared
Jura regalia means that the State is the original
alienable and disposable agricultural land.
proprietor of all lands and the general source of all
private titles. All claims of private title to land,
If you are the judge, will you grant the
save those acquired from native title, must be
application for land registration of Cornelio?
traced from some grant, whether express or
(2014 Bar)
implied, from the State. Absent a clear showing
that the land had been into private ownership
A: NO, I will not grant the application. To be
through the State’s imprimatur, such land is
entitled to register the parcel of land, the applicant
presumed to belong to State (Republic v. Santos,
must show that the land being applied for is an
G.R. No. 180027, July 18, 2012).
alienable land. At the time of the filing of the
application, the land has not yet been declared
NOTE: To prove that the subject property is
alienable by the state (Republic v. CA, G.R. No.
alienable and disposable land of the public
144057, January 17, 2005).
domain, applicant must:
Q: Can Cornelio acquire said agricultural land
(1) Present a Community Environment and
through acquisitive prescription, whether
Natural Resources Office Certificate
ordinary or extraordinary? (2014 Bar)
(CENRO);
(2) Prove that the DENR Secretary had
A: Cornelio may acquire the land by acquisitive
approved the land classification and
prescription only after it was declared part of
released the land of the public domain as
alienable land by the state by possession for the
alienable and disposable; and
required number of years through ordinary
(3) That the land subject of the application
prescription, which requires ten years of
for registration falls within the approved
possession in good faith with just title; or
area per verification through survey by
extraordinary prescription by possession for
the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the
thirty years without need of any other condition
applicant for land registration must
(NCC, Art. 1134).
present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR
Native title
Secretary and certified as a true copy by
the legal custodian of the official records.
Refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and
domains which, as far back as memory reaches,
Exception to the Regalian Doctrine
have been held under a claim of private ownership
by Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous
NOTE: The Regalian Doctrine does not negate
People (ICCs/IPs), have never been public lands
native title to lands held in private ownership
and are thus indisputably presumed to have been
since time immemorial (Cruz v. Secretary of
held that way since before the Spanish Conquest
Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No.
[R.A. 8371, Sec. 3 (l)].
135385, December 6, 2000).
Time immemorial possession for native title
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

609
 CIVIL LAW
Refers to a period when as far back as memory
can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have
occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and
utilized a defined territory devolved to them, by
operation of customary law or inherited from
their ancestors, in accordance with their customs
and traditions [R.A. 8371, Sec. 3(p)].
Q: Socorro Orcullo was a grantee of a Free
Patent for a parcel of land in Cebu.
Subsequently, the subject lot was sold to SAAD
Agro-Industries, Inc. by one of Orcullo’s heirs.
Yet, the Solicitor General filed a complaint for
the annulment of the title and reversion of the
said lot on the ground that the issuance of the
free patent and title was irregular and
erroneous, following the discovery that the lot
is allegedly part of the timberland and forest
reserve. Decide on the case.
A: In instances where a parcel of land considered
to be inalienable land of the public domain is
found under private ownership,
the Government is allowed by law to file an
action for reversion in which the ultimate relief
sought is to revert the land to the government
pursuant to the Regalian doctrine.
Nevertheless, in applying the Regalian Doctrine,
the paramount considerations of fairness and due
process must be observed in every claim of right
by the Government against one of its citizens.
Respondent Orcullo in this case failed to show that
the subject lot is part of timberland or forest
reserve it adverted to (Saad Agro-Industries, Inc. v.
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 152570,
September 27, 2006).
THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION
The Torrens system title by registration takes the
place of "title by deeds" of the system under the
"general" law. A sale of land, for example, is
effected by a registered transfer, upon which a
certificate of title is issued. The certificate is
guaranteed by statute, and, with certain
exceptions, constitutes indefeasible title to the
land mentioned therein.
Under the old system the same sale would be
effected by a conveyance, depending for its
validity, apart from intrinsic flaws, on the
correctness of a long series of prior deeds, wills,
etc. The object of the Torrens system, them, is to
do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense
of the old conveyancing system. (Grey Alba v. Dela
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
Cruz citing Duffy & Eagleson on The Transfer of
Land Act, G.R. No. 5246, September 16, 1910).
Purpose of registration
①
To quiet title to land and to stop forever any
question of legality of title. The Torrens system
aims to decree land titles that shall be final,
②
irrevocable, and indisputable, and to relieve the
land of the burden of known and unknown claims
(J. Agcaoli, Property Registration Decree & Related
Laws : Land Titles and Deeds, 2011).
NOTE: The government has adopted the Torrens
system due to its being 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
(Casimiro Development Corporation v. Nato Mateo,
G.R. No. 175485, July 27, 2011).
Nature land registration proceedings under
the Torrens System
The Torrens system is judicial in character and
not merely administrative. 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 (P.D. 1529, Sec. 2).
Accordingly, all other interested persons are
notified of the proceedings by publication of the
notice of initial hearing. They also and have the
right to appear in opposition to such application.
A decree of registration that has become final shall
be deemed conclusive not only on the questions
actually contested and determined but also upon
all matters that might be litigated or decided in
the land registration proceedings.
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
(P.D. 1529, Sec. 52).
Judicial and quas-judicial bodies covering land
registration under the Torrens system
1. Courts;
610
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
GR: RTCs have plenary jurisdiction over land
registration cases.
XPN: MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs have
delegated jurisdiction to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases in the
following instances:
a. Where the lot sought to be registered is
not the subject of controversy; or
b. Where the lot is contested but the value
thereof does not exceed P100,000.00,
such value to be ascertained by the
affidavit of the claimant or by the
agreement of the respective claimants, if
there be more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real
property (Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended
by Sec. 4, R.A. No. 7691)
2. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR);
3. Department of Justice (DOJ) through the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) and its
Register of Deeds;
4. Department of Land Reform (DLR); and
5. Department of Agriculture (DAR).
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Laws that govern land registration
1. Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529, as
amended);
NOTE: P.D. 1529 amended and superseded
C.A. No. 496, otherwise known as the then
Land Registration Act.
2. Cadastral Act (Act 2259, as amended);
3. Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141, as amended);
4. Emancipation Decree (P.D. 27, as amended);
5. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
(R.A. 6657); and
6. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (R.A. 8371).
Original registration
JUDICIAL / ADMINISTRATIVE
A proceeding filed in the MTC where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots
where the value of which does not exceed
P100,000.00 (Sec. 4, R.A. 7691) or in the RTC (as a
land registration court) when the value exceeds
P100,000 to determine title or ownership of land
on the basis of an application for registration or
611
answer/opposition by a claimant in a cadastral
registration.
Kinds of original registration
(a) Judicial/Voluntary/Ordinary - filing with
the proper court an application by the private
individual himself; and
(b) Administrative/Involuntary/Cadastral -
compulsory registration initiated by the
government, to adjudicate ownership of land
and involuntary on the part of the claimants,
but they are compelled to substantiate their
claim or interest through an answer.
Who may apply for registration
1. Those who by themselves or 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 (OCENPO);
2. Those who have acquired ownership over
private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws;
3. Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands or abandoned river beds by
right of accession or accretion under the
existing laws; and
4. Those who have acquired ownership of land
by any other manner provided for by law.
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-
owners shall file the application jointly (P.D. 1529,
Sec. 14).
Q: Rosario filed her application for land
registration of a rice land that she had
inherited, owning and possessing it openly,
publicly, uninterruptedly, adversely against
the whole world, and in the concept of owner
since then. This was opposed by the The
Republic opposed claiming that Rosario failed
to occupy and possess the land for at least 30
years immediately preceding the filing of the
application; and that the land applied for,
being a portion of a river control system, that
could not be subject of appropriation or land
registration. Is land subject of application
susceptible of private acquisition?
A: NO. The land of the public domain, to be the
subject of appropriation, must be declared
alienable and disposable either by the President
or the Secretary of the DENR. Unless public land is
shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a
 CIVIL LAW
private person by the State, it remains part of the
inalienable public domain. Indeed, occupation
thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how
long, cannot ripen into ownership and be
registered as a title (Republic vs. De Joson, G.R. No.
163767, March 10, 2014)
Q: Mario applied for registration of his land. He
claims that he bought the land from Eduardo
who also claims that his great grandfather
owned the land. Mario submitted a CENRO
from DENR stating that the land is alienable
and disposable in 1982. However, the Republic
appealed claiming that Mario did not adhere to
the requirements of time required by the law
and he failed to proof that the land is an
alienable and disposable land. The Court ruled
in favor of the Republic stating that the
possession of the land before it is declared
alienable and disposable cannot be included in
the computation of possession of the land,
thus, Mario did not adhere to the period
required by law. Can Mario register his land?
A: NO. Mario failed to present sufficient evidence
to establish that they and their predecessors-in-
interest had been in possession of the land since
June 12, 1945. Without satisfying the requisite
character and period of possession—possession
and occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious since June 12, 1945, or earlier—the
land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to
private property even upon the subsequent
declaration of it as alienable and disposable.
Prescription never began to run against the State,
such that the land has remained ineligible for
registration under Sec. 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree. Likewise, the land continues
to be ineligible for land registration under Sec.
14(2) of the Property Registration Decree unless
Congress enacts a law or the President issues a
proclamation declaring the land as no longer
intended for public service or for the development
of the national wealth (Malabanan v. Republic, G.R.
No. 179987, September 3, 2013) (Bersamin, J.).
Persons qualified for registration in case the
land is subject to:
1. Pacto de retro sale
GR: Vendor a retro may apply for registration.
XPN: Vendee a retro should the period for
redemption expire during pendency of
registration proceedings and ownership to
property is consolidated in vendee a retro.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
2. Trust
GR: Trustee may apply for registration.
XPN: Unless prohibited by the instrument
creating the trust.
NOTE: Trusteeship or trust is a fiduciary
relationship with respect to property which
involves the existence of equitable duties
imposed upon the holder of the title to the
property to deal with it for the benefit of
another.
3. Reserva troncal
Reservista has the right to apply for
registration but the reservable character of
the property will be annotated in the title.
NOTE: In reserva troncal, the ascendant who
inherits from his descendant any property
which the latter may have acquired by
gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a
brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such
property as he may have acquired by
operation of law for the benefit of relatives
who are within the third degree and who
belong to the line from which said property
came.
Q: Banco Filipino needs to acquire new real
properties to open new branch sites during the
expansion of its operations. However, Sections
25(a) and 34 of RA 337 imposed a limit to a
bank’s real estate investment to only 50% of
its capital assets. By doing so, three of its
major stockholders, organized and
incorporated Tala Realty that will “warehouse”
several of its properties; the latter will
purchase and hold the real properties of Banco
Filipino in trust. Sometime later, Tala Realty
denied the trust agreement, asserted
ownership, and claimed full title over the
properties, which prompted Banco Filipino to
file complaints for reconveyance against Tala
Realty. Will the reconveyance complaints filed
by Banco Filipino before the courts a quo can
be allowed to prosper?
A: NO. The implied trust agreement between
Banco Filipino and Tala Realty was “inexistent and
void for being contrary to law.” Ergo, Banco
Filipino cannot demand reconveyance of its
properties based on the said implied trust,
effectively depriving it of any cause of action. The
Clean Hands Doctrine will not allow the creation
or the use of a juridical relation such as a trust to
subvert, directly or indirectly, the law. Neither
612
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Banco Filipino nor Tala Realty came to court with
clean hands; neither will obtain relief from the
court (Banco Filipino Savings v. Tala Realty
Services Corporation, G.R. No. 15866, September 9,
2013). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Eligibility of private corporations to hold
alienable lands of the public domain
Private corporations may not hold alienable lands
of the public domain. The word “persons” refer to
natural persons who are citizens of the
Philippines. Juridical or artificial persons are
excluded. Sec. 3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
prohibits private corporations or associations
from holding alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease.
GR : Private corporations or associations may not
hold alienable lands of public domain except by
lease, for a period not exceeding 25 years,
renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to
exceed 1,000 hectares in area (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution).
XPN : Where at the time the corporation acquired
land, its predecessor-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 corporation acquiring
alienable lands of the public domain except
through lease does not apply for the land was no
longer public land but private property.
Q: Noynoy, Erap, Manny and Gibo are co-
owners of a parcel of land. May Manny seek
registration in his name of the land in its
entirety?
A: NO. Since a co-owner cannot be considered a
true owner of a specific portion until division or
partition is effected, he cannot file an application
for registration of the whole area without joining
the co-owners as applicants.
Q: In 1998, Iglesia ni Cristo filed its application
for Registration of Title before the MCTC which
the Republic opposed. The cadastral court
held that the essential elements for judicial
confirmation of an imperfect title over the
subject lot have been complied with. The CA
also held that the INC has been in continuous,
open, and peaceful possession and occupation
of the lot for more than 40 years. May a judicial
confirmation of imperfect title prosper when
the subject property has been declared as
alienable only after June 12, 1945?
613
A: In Naguit, the Court held a less stringent
requirement in the application of Sec. 14(1) of P.D.
1529 that the reckoning period for possession is
the actual possession of property and it is
sufficient that the property sought to be registered
is already alienable and disposable at the time the
application for registration of title is filed.
The possession of INC has been established not
only from 1952 and 1959 when it purchased the
respective halves of the subject lot, but is also
tacked on to the possession of its predecessors-in-
interest. These possessions and occupation—from
Sabuco, including those of his parents, to INC; and
from Sabuco to Badanguio to INC—had been in
the concept of owners: open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation under a bona fide claim of acquisition
of property. These had not been disturbed as
attested to by respondent’s witnesses (Republic of
the Philippines v. Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. No. 180067,
June 30, 2009).
Adverse possession of land
Possession of land is adverse when it is open and
notorious. It is open when it is patent, visible, and
apparent and it is notorious when it is so
conspicuous that it is generally known and talked
of by public or the people in the neighborhood.
Q: An Emancipation Patent OCT was issued in
Remy’s favor. However, Madarieta filed a
complaint for annulment and cancellation of
the OCT against Remy before the DARAB,
alleging that the Department of Agrarian
Reform mistakenly included her husband’s lot
as part of Luspo’s property where Remy’s
house was constructed. What is the nature of
Remy’s possession of the subject land?
A: Remy possessed the subject land in the concept
of an owner. No objection was interposed against
his possession of the subject land and Remy did
not employ fraud in the issuance of the
emancipation patent and title. In fact, Madarieta
faulted the DAR, not him (Rementizo v. Heirs of
Vda. De Madarieta, G.R. No. 170318, January 15,
2009).
Sec. 14(1) v. Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529
In Malabanan v. Republic, the Court clarified the
difference between Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2) of
P.D. 1529.
SEC. 14(1) SEC. 14(2)
 CIVIL LAW
Registration of Free Patent To any Does not own
Registration of title on
property on the basis of Natural Born more than 12
the basis of possession.
prescription. Citizen of the hectares of land;
Deals with possession Involves prescription as Philippines. Has continuously
and occupation in the a mode of acquiring occupied and
concept of an owner. ownership. cultivated, either
Extended under the by himself or his
Available both by P.D.
aegis of the P.D. 1529 predecessors-in-
1529 and the Civil
and the Public Land Act interest tract/s of
Code.
(PLA). agricultural public
Under Sec. 48(b) of the The 30-year period land subject to
PLA, as amended by involves extraordinary disposition.
R.A. 1472, the 30-year prescription under the
period is in relation to Civil Code, particularly
possession without Art. 1113 in relation to
regard to the Civil Code. Art. 1137. Sales Patent Citizens of the To have at least
Philippines of 1/5 of the land
ACQUISITION OF TITLE BY LAW lawful age or broken and
such citizens cultivated within
1. Free patents based on Public Land Act; not of lawful five years from the
2. Title to accretion in river banks; age who is date of the award;
3. Reclamation; or head of a and
4. Title by escheat (Rules of Court, Rule 91). family may Shall have
purchase established actual
PATENTS UNDER THE PUBLIC LAND ACT public occupancy,
agricultural cultivation and
KIND OF TO WHOM land of not improvement of at
REQUIREMENTS more than 12 least 1/5 of the
PATENT GRANTED
hectares. land until the date
Homestead To any Does not own of such final
Patent Filipino more than 24 payment.
Citizen over hectares of land in
the age of 18 the Philippines or Special To non- Sec. of the DILG
years or head has not benefitted Patent Christian shall certify that
of a family. from any Filipinos the majority of the
gratuitous under Sec. 84 non-Christian
allotment of more of the Public inhabitants of any
than 24 hectares; Land Act. given reservation
Must have resided have advanced
continuously for sufficiently in
at least one year civilization.
in the
municipality Acquisition of patents
where the land is
situated; 1. By succession (testate or intestate)
Must have a. By descent – Title is acquired when an
cultivated at least heir succeeds the deceased owner
1/5 of the land whether by testate or intestate; and
applied for. b. By devise – Person acquires land from one
who may or may not be a relative, if he is
named in the deceased’s will as devisee
for such property.

2. By prescription – Possession of land for

required number of years and assertion of
ownership through an uninterrupted actual
possession of property within the period of

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 614
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
time prescribed by law (Articles 712, 1134,
and 1137).
LAND PATENTS
Q: How are public lands suitable for
agricultural purposes disposed of?
A: Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes
are disposed as follows:
1. Homestead settlement;
2. Sale;
3. Lease;
4. Confirmation of imperfect title or incomplete
titles either by judicial or administrative
legalization; or
5. Free title.
As evidence of ownership of land, a homestead
patent prevails over a land tax declaration (Jose
Medina v. CA & The Heirs of the Late Abundio
Castaňares, G.R. No. 137582, August 29, 2012).
NOTE: When a free patent title is issued to an
applicant and the sea water moves toward the
estate of the title holder, the invaded property
becomes part of the foreshore land. The land
under the Torrens system reverts to the public
domain and the title is annulled.
After a free patent application is granted and the
corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land
ceased to be part of the public domain and
becomes private property over which the Director
of Lands had neither control nor jurisdiction.
Restrictions on alienation or encumbrance of
lands titled pursuant to patents
1. Lands acquired under free patent or
homestead patent are prohibited from being
alienated;
XPN : If in favor of the government, five years
from and after the issuance of the patent or
grant.
2. No alienation, transfer or conveyance of any
homestead after five years and before 25
years after the issuance of title shall be valid
without the approval of the Secretary of DENR
(C.A. No. 141 as amended by C.A. No. 458);
3. It cannot be alienated within five years after
approval of such patent application;
4. It cannot be liable for the satisfaction of debt
within five years after the approval of such
patent application;
615
5. It is subject to repurchase of the heirs within
five years after alienation when such is
already allowed; and
6. No private corporation, partnership or
association may lease such land unless it is
solely for commercial, industrial, educational,
religious or charitable purposes, or right of
way (subject to the consent of the grantee and
the approval of the Secretary of the DENR)
[The Public Land Act]
Proper action in cases of improper or illegal
issuance of patents
Reversion suits
The objective of which is the cancellation of the
certificate of title and the consequent reversions
of the land covered thereby to the State.
Q: Respondents are the grantees of
agricultural public lands in General Santos City
through Homestead and Free patents
sometime in 1986 and 1991. Negotiations
were made by petitioner sometime in 1995
and eventually a Deed of Conditional Sale of
the properties in question was executed in
favor of petitioner Filinvest Land Inc. A few
days after the execution of the aforestated
deeds, respondents found that the sale was
null and void as it was done within the
prohibitory period and that the sale was not
approved by the secretary of DENR. Thus, they
filed a case for declaration of nullity of the
deeds of conditional and absolute sale of the
questioned properties. Will the action
prosper?
A: YES. The five-year prohibitory period following
the issuance of the homestead patent is provided
under Sec. 118 of the Public Land Act. It bears
stressing that the law was enacted to give the
homesteader or patentee every chance to
preserve for himself and his family the land that
the State had gratuitously given to him as a
reward for his labour in cleaning and cultivating it.
In the present case, the negotiations for the
purchase of the properties covered by the patents
issued in 1991 were made in 1995 and, eventually,
an undated Deed of Conditional Sale was executed.
The prohibition does not distinguish between
consummated and executory sale. The conditional
sale entered into by the parties is still a
conveyance of the homestead patent; that the
formal deed of sale was executed after the
expiration of the said period did not and could not
legalize a contract that was void from its inception
 CIVIL LAW
(Filinvest Land, Inc., Efren C. Gutierre v. Abdul
Backy, Abehera, Baiya, Edris, et al. G.R. No. 174715.
October 11, 2012).
To whom free patent may be issued
1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. Is not the owner of more than 12 hectares of
land;
3. Has continuously occupied and cultivated,
either by himself or through his predecessors-
in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural
public land subject to disposition, for at least
30 years prior to the effectivity of Republic
Act No. 6940; and
4. Has paid the real taxes thereon while the
same has not been occupied by any person.
NOTE : Once a patent is registered and the
corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land
covered thereby ceases to be part of public
domain and becomes private property, and the
Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent
becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one
year from the date of such issuance.
XPN: A title emanating from a free patent which
was secured through fraud does not become
indefeasible.
Reason: The patent from whence the title sprung
is itself void and of no effect whatsoever. The
registration of a patent under the Torrens System
does not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the
registrant’s already existing one. Verily,
registration under the Torrens System is not a
mode of acquiring ownership.
NOTE: Nonetheless, a free patent that was
fraudulently acquired, and the certificate of title
issued pursuant to the same, may only be assailed
by the government in an action for reversion
pursuant to Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act (Nancy
T. Lorzano v. Juan Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647,
February 6, 2012).
Free patent issued over a private land
The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a
private land is null and void, and produces no
legal effect whatsoever. Private ownership of
land-as when there is a prima facie proof of
ownership like a duly registered possessory
information or a clear showing of open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession,
by present or previous occupants-is not affected
by the issuance of a free patent over the same
land, because the Public Land Law applies only to
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
lands of the public domain (Heirs of Simplicio
Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano Santiago, G.R. No.
151440, June 17, 2003).
RECLAMATION
Reclamation is the act of filling up of parts of the
sea for conversion to land.
NOTE: It must be initially owned by the
government. It may be subsequently transferred
to private owners.
Q: Who may undertake reclamation projects?
A: Only the national government may engage in
reclamation projects.
Q: To whom does a reclaimed area belong?
A: Under the Regalian Doctrine, the State owns all
waters
and lands of the public domain, including those
physically reclaimed.
UNDER C.A. 141
Persons qualified for registration under Public
Land Act or C.A. No. 141
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
agricultural lands of the public domain, under a
bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since
June 12, 1945, except when prevented by war or
force majeure.
Requisites:
1. The applicant must be a Filipino citizen;
2. He must have, by himself or through his
predecessors in-interest, possessed and
occupied an alienable and disposable
agricultural portion of the public domain;
3. Such possession and occupation must have
been open, continuous, exclusive, notorious
and in the concept of owner, since June, 12,
1945; and
4. The application must be filed with the proper
court.
Public land
The term is uniformly used to describe so much of
the national domain under the legislative power of
616
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
the Congress as has not been subjected to private 4. By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete
right or devoted to public use. titles:
a. By judicial legalization; or
Public lands v. Government lands b. By administrative legalization (free
patent).
GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC LANDS A person deemed to possess an imperfect title
LANDS
over property when:
Includes not only the The government
government lands, but owns real estate, The applicant for confirmation of imperfect title
also other lands of the which is part of the has shown possession and occupation that is:
government already “public lands,” and
reserved or devoted to other real estate, 1. Open;
public use or subject to which is not a part 2. Continuous;
private right. thereof. 3. Exclusive;
4. Notorious; and
Equivalent to public 5. In the concept of an owner.
domain and does not, by
any means, include all Factors to consider the applicant in an open,
lands of government continuous, exclusive and notorious
ownership, but only so possession in the concept of an owner
much of said lands as are (OCENPO):
thrown open to private
appropriation and OPEN - When it is patent, visible apparent
settlement by homestead notorious and not clandestine;
and other like general
laws (Montano v. Insular CONTINUOUS - When uninterrupted, unbroken
Government, G.R. No. L- and not intermittent or occasional;
3714, January 26, 1909).
EXCLUSIVE - When the adverse possessor can
Patrimonial property v. Public land show exclusive dominion over the land and an
appropriation of it to his own use and benefits;
and
PATRIMONIAL
PUBLIC LAND
PROPERTY NOTORIOUS - When it is so conspicuous that it is
All other property of the Property for public generally known and talked of by the public or the
State which is not of the use of provinces and people in the neighborhood (Heirs of Marcelina
character of public towns. Azardon-Crisologo v. Raon, G.R. No. 171068, Sept. 5,
dominion or not intended 2007).
for public use, public
service, or for the Effect of possession of an Imperfect title
development of national
wealth. When the conditions set by law are complied with,
the possessor of the land, by operation of law,
Property of public acquires a right to government grant, without the
dominion, when no longer necessity of a certificate of the title being issued.
needed for public use, or
for public service, shall Q: RP opposed the application for registration
form part of the filed by Manna Properties under Sec. 48(b),
patrimonial property of C.A. No. 141 arguing that, as a private
the State. corporation, it is disqualified from holding
alienable lands of the public domain, except by
lease, citing Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution.
Means by which public lands may be disposed On the other hand, Manna Properties claims
of that the land in question has been in the open
and exclusive possession of its predecessors-
1. For homestead settlement; in-interest since the 1940s, thus, the land was
2. By sale; already private land when Manna Properties
3. By lease; and

617
 CIVIL LAW
acquired it from its predecessors-in-interest.
Decide.
A: Lands that fall under Sec. 48, C.A. No. 141
are effectively segregated from the public
domain by virtue of acquisitive prescription. Open,
exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable
public land for the period prescribed by C.A. No.
141 ipso jure converts such land into private land.
Judicial confirmation in such cases is only a
formality that merely confirms the earlier
conversion of the land into private land, the
conversion having occurred in law from the
moment the required period of possession
became complete.
Under C.A. No. 141, the reckoning point is June 12,
1945. If the predecessors-in-interest of Manna
Properties have been in possession of the land in
question since this date, or earlier, Manna
Properties may rightfully apply for confirmation
of title to the land. Manna Properties, a private
corporation, may apply for judicial confirmation of
the land without need of a separate confirmation
proceeding for its predecessors-in-interest first
(Republic v. Manna Properties Inc., G.R. No. 146527,
January 31, 2005).
Q: Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a
1,000-square meter property where he grew
up helping his father, Michael, cultivate the
land. Michael has lived on the property since
the land was opened for settlement at about
the time of the Commonwealth government in
1935, but for some reason never secured any
title to the property other than a tax
declaration in his name. He has held the
property through the years in the concept of
an owner and his stay was uncontested by
others. He has also conscientiously and
continuously paid the realty taxes on the land.
Michael died in 2000 and Manuel-as Michael’s
only son and heir-now wants to secure and
register title to the land in his own name. He
consults you for legal advice as he wants to
perfect his title to the land and secure its
registration in his name.
a. What are the laws that you need to consider
in advising Manuel on how he can perfect
his title and register the land in his name?
Explain the relevance of these laws to your
projected course of action.
b. What do you have to prove to secure
Manuel's objectives and what
documentation are necessary? (2013 Bar)
A:
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
(a) For purposes of confirmation of imperfect
title, I will consider the provisions of C.A. No. 141
as well as the Property Registration Decree or P.D.
1529. C.A. No. 141 provides two requisites for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title namely: (1)
open and continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land by himself
or through his predecessor in interest under bona
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945; and
(2) the classification of the land as alienable and
disposable land of the public domain. (Secretary of
DENR v. Yap, G.R. No. 167707, October 8, 2008).
The Property Registration Decree or P.D. 1529
provides that those who by themselves or 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. Since
Manuel’s father Michael had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
the land since 1935, and that the land was
declared alienable in the same year, his possession
has ripened into ownership which entitles him or
his successor Manuel to file an application for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
(b) I have to prove that the land was already
declared alienable at the time that Manuel or his
father Michael took possession of the land and
that their possession was open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious which started prior to or
on June 12, 1945 as required by C.A. No. 141. To
prove the first requisite, the original classification
of the land as approved by the DENR Secretary
(Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 154953,
June 26, 2008) or in lieu thereof, a Certification by
the DENR Regional office attesting to the alienable
and disposable character of the land must have to
be submitted (Republic v. Serrano G.R. No. 183063,
February 24, 2010). I also have to file together
with the application for registration all original
muniments of title or copies thereof and a survey
plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands
in accordance with Sec. 17 of P.D. 1529. Manuel
may also submit the tax declarations and tax
payment receipts which have been ruled to be
good indications of possession in the concept of
owner (Republic v. Candy Maker, Inc., G.R. No.
163766, June 22, 2006).
Persons qualified for judicial confirmation
1. Filipino citizens who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of
618
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
alienable and disposable lands of public
domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition
since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto or since
time immemorial ;
2. Filipino citizens who by themselves or their
predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to
the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25,
1977, 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 30 years, or at least since January
24, 1947 ;
3. Private domestic corporations or associations
which had acquired lands from Filipino
citizens who had possessed the same in the
manner and for the length of time indicated in
paragraphs 1 & 2 above ; or
4. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who
have lost their citizenship and who has the
legal capacity to enter into a contract under
Philippine laws may be a transferee of private
land up to a maximum area of 5,000 sq.m., in
case of urban land, or three hectares in case of
rural land to be used by him for business or
other purposes. For residence purposes, the
maximum area is 1,000 sq. m. in case of urban
lands or one hectare in case of rural lands.
NOTE: Aliens are disqualified from acquiring
public and private lands (Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc.,
G.R. No. 156364, September 3, 2007; Krivenko v.
Register of Deeds, G.R. No .L-630, November 15,
1947).
NOTE: Extended period for filing of application–
Sec. 1, R.A. 9176 provides in part that, “The time to
be fixed in the entire archipelago for the filing of
applications shall not extend beyond December
31, 2020. Provided that the area applied for does
not exceed 12 hectares.”
Q : Bracewell asserts that he has a right of title
to a parcel of land having been, by himself and
through his predecessors-in-interest, in
occupation under a bona fide claim of
ownership since 1908. Thus, he filed an
application for registration in 1963 but the
land has been classified as alienable or
disposable only on May 27, 1972. May his
application for confirmation of imperfect title
be granted ?
A : NO. The land was only classified as alienable or
disposable on May 27, 1972. Prior to said date,
when the subject parcels of land were classified as
inalienable or not disposable, the same could not
be the subject of confirmation of imperfect title.
619
There can be no imperfect title to be confirmed over
lands not yet classified as disposable or alienable. In
the absence of such classification, the land
remains unclassified public land until released
and opened to disposition. Indeed, it has been held
that the rules on the confirmation of imperfect
title do not apply unless and until the land
classified as forest land is released in an official
proclamation to that effect so that it may form
part of the disposable agricultural lands of the
public domain (Bracewell v. CA, G.R. No. 107427,
January 25, 2000).
Q : In an application for judicial confirmation
of imperfect title filed by Naguit, the OSG
argues that the property must first be
alienable. Since the subject land was declared
alienable only on 1980, Naguit could not have
maintained a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945, as required by Sec. 14 of
the Property Registration Decree, since prior
to 1980, the land was not alienable or
disposable. Is it necessary under Sec. 14(1) of
the Property Registration Decree (now Sec.
48(b) of the Public Land Act) that the subject
land be first classified as alienable and
disposable before the applicant’s possession
under a bona fide claim of ownership could
start?
A : NO. Sec. 14(1) 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 (Republic v. CA and Naguit, G.R. No.
144057, January 17, 2005).
NOTE: This case is distinguishable from Bracewell
v. CA, where the claimant had been in possession
of the land since 1908 and had filed his
application in 1963, or nine years before the
property was declared alienable and disposable in
1972. Hence, registration was denied. The
Bracewell ruling will not apply in this case
because here, the application was made years
AFTER the property had been certified as
alienable and disposable.
 CIVIL LAW
A different rule obtains for forest lands, such as 6. Service of notice by sheriff upon contiguous
those which form part of a reservation for owners, occupants and those known to have
provincial park purposes, the possession of which interest in the property;
cannot ripen into ownership. It is elementary in 7. Filing of answer or opposition to the
the law governing natural resources that forest application by any person whether named in
land cannot be owned by private persons. As held the notice or not;
in Palomo v. CA, forest land is not registrable and 8. Hearing of case by court;
possession thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot 9. Promulgation of judgment by court;
convert it into private property, unless such lands 10. Issuance of a decree by court declaring the
are reclassified and considered disposable and decision final, and instructing the NALDTRA
alienable. In the case at bar, the property in to issue a decree of confirmation and
question was undisputedly classified as registration;
disposable and alienable; hence, the ruling in 11. Entry of decree of registration in NALDTRA;
Palomo is inapplicable (Palomo v. CA, G.R. No. 12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration
95608, January 21, 1997). to corresponding RD; and
13. Transcription of decree of registration in the
NOTE : The law does not require that the land registration book and issuance of owner’s
subject of registration should have been alienable duplicate original certificate of title (OCT) of
and disposable during the entire period of applicant by RD, upon payment of prescribed
possession, or since June 12, 1945. It is sufficient fees.
that the land is already declared as alienable and
disposable land at the time the application for NOTE: After judgment has become final and
registration is filed so as to entitle the possessor executory, the issuance of decree and OCT is
to registration (Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. ministerial on the part of LRA and RD.
179987, April 29, 2009). It must be stressed,
however, that the applicant for land registration Application of Rules of Court in land
must have been in possession of the land sought to registration proceedings
be registered since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The Rules of Court could be applied in land
REGISTRATION PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS registration proceedings in a suppletory character
or whenever practicable or convenient.
Modes of registering land titles
NOTE: Motion to intervene in a land registration
There are two modes: case is not allowed.
1. Original registration proceedings under the
Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529); and APPLICATION
2. Confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
under Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as Form of the application for registration or
amended. judicial confirmation

Requisites in ordinary registration In writing:

proceedings and judicial confirmation of
imperfect title 1. Signed by the applicant or person duly
authorized in his behalf;
1. Survey of land by Bureau of Lands or any duly 2. Sworn to before an officer authorized to
licensed private surveyor; administer oaths for the province or city where
2. Filing of application for registration by the application was actually signed; and
applicant; 3. If there is more than one applicant, they shall be
3. Setting of date for initial hearing by the court; signed and sworn to by and in behalf of each.
4. Transmittal of application and date of initial
hearing with all documents or other pieces of Documents that must accompany the
evidence attached thereto by clerk of court to application
National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration (NALTDRA); All muniments of titles and copies thereof with
5. Publication of notice of filing of application survey plan approved by Bureau of Lands must
and date and place of hearing; accompany the application.
Muniments of title

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 620
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
They are instruments or written evidence which
the applicant holds/possesses to enable him to
substantiate and prove title to his estate.
Rule regarding 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 (P.D.
1529, Sec. 18).
Jurisdiction and venue where the application
can be filed
If the application covers a single parcel of land
situated within:
1. Only one city or province:
RTC or MTC, as the case may be, of the
province or city where the land is situated.
2. Two or more provinces or cities:
a. When boundaries are not defined – In the
RTC or MTC of the place where it is
declared for taxation purposes.
b. When boundaries are defined – Separate
plan for each portion must be made by a
surveyor and a separate application for
each lot must be filed with the
appropriate RTC or MTC.
NOTE: MeTC, MCTC, and MTC has jurisdiction to
decide cadastral and land registration cases,
provided:
1. There is no controversy or opposition
(uncontested lots); or
2. Value of contested lots does not exceed P100,
000 (R.A. 7691, Sec. 4).
In other cases, the RTC has jurisdiction.
NOTE: Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals.
NOTE: The value of the property is ascertained in
three ways:
(1) By the affidavit of the claimant;
(2) By agreement of the respective claimants,
if there are more than one; or
(3) From the corresponding tax declaration
of the real property (B.P. 129, Sec. 34).
Q: Bantigue Corp. filed with the RTC an
application for registration over a lot with an
assessed value of P14,920. However, the RTC
motu proprio remanded the case to the MTC
621
since the assessed value of the land is only
P14,920. After hearing, the MTC granted the
application. The Republic appealed arguing
that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction since
the selling price of the property per deed of
sale attached to the application is P160,000.
Did the MTC acquire jurisdiction over the
case?
A: YES. The value of the land is determined, not
from the selling price, but from the tax declaration
which, in this case, stated that the assessed value
of the land is only P14,920, or below the
jurisdictional amount of P100,000 pertaining to
first level courts (Republic v. Bantigue, G.R. No.
162322, March 14, 2012).
Q: Is there need for a formal
assignment/delegation by the SC before first
level courts may exercise jurisdiction?
A: NO. Bantigue stresses:
“The delegated jurisdiction of the MTC over
cadastral and land registration cases is indeed set
forth in the Judiciary Reorganization Act, x xx”
“(T)he MTC has delegated jurisdiction in cadastral
and land registration cases in two instances: first,
where there is no controversy or opposition; or,
second, over contested lots, the value of which
does not exceed P100,000.”
Clearly, the law itself, Sec. 34 of B.P. Blg. 129,
already provides the specific instances when first
level courts may exercise their delegated
jurisdiction.
Q: Leonor Santos filed an application for
registration with the CFI of Rizal. The Director
of Lands opposed. Notices were given and the
case was set for hearing. Later, the court
issued an order dismissing the application on
the basis of a report from the LRC that a
“homestead patent was issued (to Julio
Delgado) by the Director of Lands during the
pendency of the registration proceedings.” Was
the court divested of its jurisdiction by a
subsequent administrative act consisting in the
issuance by the Director of Lands of a
homestead patent covering the same land
subject of the registration case?
A: NO. In her application for registration, Santos
alleged, among other matters, that she is the
owner in fee simple of the land. Since the
existence or non-existence of applicant’s
registrable title is decisive of the validity or nullity
of the homestead patent, the court’s jurisdiction
 CIVIL LAW
could not have been divested by the homestead
patent's issuance.
Proceedings for land registration are in rem,
whereas proceedings for acquisition of homestead
patent are not. A homestead patent, therefore,
does not finally dispose of the public or private
character of the land as far as courts acting upon
proceedings in rem are concerned (De los Angeles
v. Santos, G.R. No. L-19615, December 24, 1964).
Sec. 2, P.D. 1529 has eliminated the distinction
between the court’s general jurisdiction and
limited jurisdiction.
A regional trial court has the authority to hear not
only applications for original registration but also
all petitions filed after original registration of title.
The amendment aims to avoid multiplicity of suits
and simplify registration proceedings. The court
can now hear and decide not only non-
controversial cases but even contentious issues
which before were beyond its competence
(Lozada v. Bracewell, G.R. No. 179155, April 2,
2014; Averia v. Caguioa, G.R. No. L-65129,
December 29, 1986).
PUBLICATION
Within five days from the filing of the application
for registration, the court shall issue an order
setting the date and hour of initial hearing which
shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 90
days from date of the order.
Manner of giving notice
1) Publication once in the Official Gazette and
once in a newspaper of general circulation;
2) Mailing of the notice to persons named in the
application for registration and also to
relevant government officials; and
3) Posting of the notice on a conspicuous place
on the land itself and on the bulletin board of
the city or municipality where the land is
situated (P.D. No. 1529, Sec. 23).
NOTE: Publication in the Official Gazette shall be
sufficient to confer jurisdiction (P.D. No. 1529, Sec.
24).
However, publication of the notice in a newspaper
of general circulation remains an indispensable
requirement consistent with procedural due
process (Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118436,
March 21, 1997; Director of Lands v. Court of
Appeals and Abistado, G.R. No. 102858, July 28,
1997).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
NOTE: The requirement of mailing and posting
are mandatory.
New publication necessary to include
additional area
If amendment of the application is made to
include additional area, a new publication of the
amended application must be made, but not when
the amendment consists in the exclusion of a
portion form the area originally applied for (Benin
v. Tuason, G.R. No. L-26127, June 28, 1974).
Purpose of the publication requirement
To:
1. Confer jurisdiction upon the court over the
res; and
2. Apprise the whole world of the pending
registration case so that they may assert their
rights or interests in the land, if any, and
oppose the application.
NOTE: The settled rule is that once the
registration court had acquired jurisdiction over a
certain parcel, or parcels of land in the
registration proceedings by virtue of the
publication of the application, that jurisdiction
attaches to the land or lands mentioned and
described in the application.
Q : May publication of the notice of filing of
application and date and place of hearing be
dispensed with ?
A : NO. Publication of the notice of filing of
application and date and place of hearing is
mandatory.
Q: Where must the said notice be published?
A:
1. Once in the Official Gazette (OG) – this
confers jurisdiction upon the court; and
2. Once in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Publication in a newspaper is necessary to
accord with due process requirement
Sec. 23 of P.D. 1529 clearly provides that
publication in the Official Gazette suffices to
confer jurisdiction upon the land registration
court. However, absent any publication of the
notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation, the land registration court cannot
validly confirm and register the title of the
applicants. The rationale behind the newspaper
622
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
publication is due process and the reality that the
Offcial Gazette is not as widely read and circulated
as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its
circulation. This requirement is mandatory. For
non-compliance with the requirement of
publication, the application may be dismissed,
without prejudice to reapplication in the future,
after all the legal requisites are complied with
(Director of Lands v. CA and Abistado, G.R. 102858,
July 28, 1997).
NOTE: Publication in the Official Gazette does not
dispense with the requirement of notice by
mailing and posting.
Lack of personal notice does not vitiate the
proceedings
Land registration proceedings are proceedings in
rem, not in personam, and therefore it is not
necessary to give personal notice to the owners or
claimants of the land sought to be registered, in
order to vest the courts power or authority over
the res. Notice of hearing by proper publication in
the Official Gazette is sufficient to clothe the court
with jurisdiction, and the mere fact that a person
purporting to have a legitimate claim in the
property did not receive persoanl notice is not
sufficient ground to invalidate the proceedings
(Adez Realty Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 100643, December
12, 1995).
Defective publication
There is a defective publication in the following
instances:
1. Where what was published in the Official
Gazette is the description of a bigger lot which
includes the lands subject of registration.
Reasons:
a. Sec. 15, P.D. 1529 requires that the
application for registration should contain
the description of the land subject of
registration and this is the description to
be published;
b. It is the publication of specific boundaries
of lands to be registered that would
actually put the interested parties on
notice of the registration proceedings and
enable them, if they have rights and
interests in the property, to show why the
application for registration should not be
granted;
c. The adjoining owners of the bigger lot
would not be the same owners of the
smaller lots subject of registration. Hence,
623
notice to adjoining owners of the bigger lot
is not notice to those of the smaller lots.
2. Where the actual publication of the notice of
initial hearing was after the hearing itself.
Effect of a defective publication
It deprives the court of jurisdiction. Hence, the
proceeding will be void.
GR: If it is later shown that the decree of
registration had included land or lands not
included in the publication, then the registration
proceedings and the decree of registration must
be declared null and void–but only insofar–as the
land not included in the publication concerned.
But the proceedings and the decree of registration,
relating to the lands that were included in the
publication, are valid.
XPN: If the difference is not as substantial as
would affect the identity of the land, failure to
publish the bigger area (insubstantial inclusion)
does not perforce affect the court’s jurisdiction.
Q: When may an amendment of the application
be made?
A: Amendments to the application including
joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to the
parties may be allowed by the court at any stage of
the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms
(P.D. 1529, Sec. 19).
Necessity of publication and notice in the
amended application
GR: Publication and notice are necessary where
the amendment to the application consists in:
1. Substantial change in the boundaries;
2. Increase in the area of the land applied
for; and
3. The inclusion of additional land.
NOTE: Without such publication, the registration
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the area
that is added.
Situations when publication and notice are not
necessary
1. If the amendment consists in the exclusion of a
portion of the area covered by the original
application and the original plan as previously
published, a new publication is not necessary;
 CIVIL LAW
NOTE: In this case, the jurisdiction of the
court is not affected by the failure of filing a
new application.
2. If the amendments to the application involves
joinder, substitution or discontinuance as to
the parties; and
NOTE: This may be allowed by the court at
any stage of the proceedings upon just and
equitable terms.
3. If the amendment is due to change of name of
the applicant.
Q : Is dealing with land under controversy
allowed while there’s pending original
registration?
A : YES. Sec. 22 allows land subject of registration
to be dealt with after the filing of the application
and before issuance of decree. The land may be
sold or otherwise encumbered, but whatever may
be the nature of the transaction, the interested
party should submit to the court the pertinent
instruments evidencing the transaction to be
considered in the final adjudication of the case.
Dealings or transactions entered into pending
registration do not require amendment of
application (Mendoza v. CA, G.R. No. L-36637, July
14, 1978).
The law does not require that the application for
registration be amended by substituting the
‘buyer’ or the ‘person to whom the property has
been conveyed’ for the applicant. Neither does it
require that the ‘buyer’ or the ‘person to whom
the property has been conveyed’ be a party to the
case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land
registration proceedings.
Requirements
1. That the instrument be presented to the court
by the interested party together with a motion
that the same be considered in relation with the
application; and
2. That prior notice be given to the parties to the
case (Mendoza v. CA, G.R. No. L-36637, July 14,
1978).
OPPOSITION
Persons who may oppose the application for
registration
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
Any person claiming an interest, whether named
in the notice or not, may appear and file an
opposition on or before the date of initial hearing,
or within such further time as may be allowed by
the court.
Procedure to oppose the application
The opposition shall state all the objections to the
application and shall set forth the interest claimed
by the party filing the same and apply for the
remedy desired, and shall be signed and sworn to
by him or by some other duly authorized person
(P.D. No. 1529, Sec. 25).
Requisites for a valid opposition
1. The oppositor must have an interest in
the land applied for;
2. He should state the grounds for his
objection as well as the nature of his
claimed interest;
3. He should indicate the desired relief;
4. The opposition should be signed and
worn to by him or his duly authorized
representative.
NOTE: The opposition partakes of the nature of an
answer with a counterclaim.
Persons who may oppose the application for
registration or judicial confirmation
Any person whether named in the notice or not,
provided, his claim of interest in the property
applied for is based on a right of dominion or
some other real right independent of, and not
subordinate to, the rights of the government.
Persons who may oppose in specific cases
1. A homesteader who has not yet been issued
his title but who had fulfilled all the
conditions required by law to entitle him to a
patent;
2. A purchaser of friar land who is deemed to
have an equitable title to the land even before
the issuance of the patent;
3. Persons who claim to be in possession of a
tract of public land and have applied with the
Bureau of Lands for its purchase;
4. The Government relative to the right of
foreshore lessees of public land as the latter’s
right is not based on dominion or real right
independent of the right of the government;
or
5. An awardee in a sales application who, by
virtue of the award, is authorized to take
624
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
possession of the land to enable him to Difference between declaration of default in
comply with the requirements for the ordinary civil cases and in land registration
issuance of patent (De Castro v. Marcos, G.R. proceedings
No. L-26093, January 27, 1969).
DEFAULT IN CIVIL DEFAULT IN LAND
NOTE: A private person may not oppose an CASES REGISTRATION
application for registration on the ground that the PROCEEDINGS
land applied for is a property of the government Section 3(b), Rule 9 of Section 22 of P.D. 1529
(Roxas vs. Cuevas, GR. No. L-3637, August 31, 1907). the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure
The oppositor also need not show title in himself;
he should however appear to have interest in the In civil cases, there is 2 kinds :
property. only one kind of 1. Order of general
default. default—if no person
NOTE: The oppositor’s interest over the land is appears and answers
immaterial whether his interest is in the character To lift the order of within the time
of legal owner or is of a purely equitable nature as default It must be allowed ; by
where he is a beneficiary of a trust. shown that the person description in the
declared in default notice “to whom it
Absence of opposition by the government does must have a may concern”, all the
not justify outright registration meritorious defense, world are made
along with the grounds parties defendant and
Notwithstanding the absence of opposition from : shall be concluded by
the government, the applicant in land registration 1. Fraud ; the default order.
cases is not relieved of the burden of proving the 2. Accident ; 2. Order of special
imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed 3. Mistake ; and default—when an
(Director, Lands Management Bureau v. CA, G.R. No. 4. Excusable appearance has been
112567, February 7, 2000). negligence entered and answer
filed, default order
Courts are not justified in registering property shall be entered upon
under the Torrens system, simply because there is against persons who
no opposition offered. Courts may, even in the did not appear and
absence of any opposition, deny the registration of answer.
the land under the Torrens system, upon the
ground that the facts presented did not show that Effect of an order of default in land
the petitioner is the owner, in fee simple, of the registration proceedings
land which he is attempting to have registered
(Director of Lands v. Agustin, G.R. No. 16179, It is binding “against the whole world.”
October 6, 1921).
XPN: To parties who had appeared and filed
Declaration of default in land registration pleadings in the registration case.
proceedings
Effect of the absence of an opposition as
If no person appears and answers within the time regards allegations in the application
allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the
applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing, All allegations in the application are deemed
order a default to be recorded and require the confessed on the part of the opponent.
applicant to present evidence. By the description
in the notice “To all Whom It May Concern, ” all Q: What if a certificate of title was issued
the world are made parties defendant and shall be covering non-registrable lands without the
concluded by the default order. government opposing, is the government
estopped from questioning the same?
Where an appearance has been entered and an
answer filed, a default order shall be entered A: NO. The government cannot be barred from
against persons who did not appear and answer questioning the validity of the certificates of title,
(P.D. 1529, Sec. 26). which were granted without opposition from the
government, pursuant to the principle that the
State is never barred by estoppel. The principle of

625
 CIVIL LAW
estoppel does not operate against the government
for the acts of its agents.
Q: If an order of general default is issued, may
the court automatically grant the application?
A: NO. Even in the absence of an adverse claim,
the applicant still has to prove that he possesses
all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to obtain the title. If he fails to do
so, his application will not be granted.
Q: Can a party who has been declared in
default appeal from the judgment by default
without first filing a motion to set aside the
order of default?
A: YES. As held in the case of Martinez v. Republic:
“If it cannot be made any clearer, we hold that a
defendant party declared in default retains the
right to appeal from the judgment by default on
the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the
material allegations of the complaint, or that the
decision is contrary to law, even without need of
the prior filing of a motion to set aside the order of
default. We reaffirm that the Lim Toco doctrine,
denying such right to appeal unless the order of
default has been set aside, was no longer
controlling in this jurisdiction upon the effectivity
of the 1964 Rules of Court, and up to this day”
(Martinez v. Republic, G.R. No. 160895, October 30,
2005).
EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN LAND REGISTRATION
Proof of:
1. Declassification – The land applied for has
been declassified from the forest or timber
zone and is a public agricultural land, is
alienable and disposable, or otherwise capable
of registration;
2. Identity of the land; and
3. Possession and occupation of the land for the
length of time and in the manner required by
law.
Proof to establish declassification of land
1. Presidential proclamation;
2. Administrative Order issued by the Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources;
3. Executive order;
4. Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) Land
Classification Map;
5. Certification by the Director of Forestry, and
reports of District Forester;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
6. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigator; or
7. Legislative act, or by statute.
NOTE: The Court held that the CENRO/PENRO
certification is not sufficient evidence of the facts
stated therein (Gaerlan v. Republic, G.R. No.
192717, March 12, 2014).
“In Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading
Corporation, the Court declared that the CENRO is
not the official repository or legal custodian of the
issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring the
alienability and disposability of public lands. Thus,
the CENRO Certification should be accompanied
by an official publication of the DENR Secretary's
issuance declaring the land alienable and
disposable” (Republic v. Aboitiz, G.R. No. 174626,
October 23, 2013).
Q: The Cenizas applied for registration of their
title over a parcel of public land which they
inherited. Without presenting proof that the
land in question is classified as alienable or
disposable, the court granted the application,
holding that mere possession for a period as
provided for by law would automatically
entitle the possessor the right to register
public land in his name. Was the court ruling
correct?
A: NO. Mere possession for a period required by
law is not enough. The applicant has to establish
first the disposable and alienable character of the
public land, otherwise, public lands, regardless of
their classification, can be subject of registration
of private titles, as long as the applicant shows
that he meets the required years of possession.
The applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive order;
administrative action; reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators and a legislative act or a statute
(Republic v. Ceniza, G.R. No. 127060, November 19,
2002).
Proof to establish the identity of the land
sought to be registered
1. Survey plan in general;
2. Tracing cloth plan and blue print copies of
plan;
3. Technical description of the land applied for
duly signed by a Geodetic Engineer; and
4. Tax declarations.
Conflict between areas and boundaries
626
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
What defines a piece of land is not the area,
calculated with more or less certainty mentioned
in the description, but the boundaries therein laid
down, as enclosing the land and indicating its
limits (Balantakbo v. CA, G.R. No. 108515, October
16, 1995).
GR: Boundaries prevail over area.
XPNs:
1. Boundaries relied upon do not identify
land beyond doubt;
2. Boundaries given in the registration plan
do not coincide with outer boundaries of
the land covered and described in the
muniments of title.
Evidence of possession
It is not enough to simply declare one’s possession
and that of the applicant’s predecessors-in-
interest to have been “adverse, continuous, open,
public, peaceful and in concept of owner” for the
required number of years. The applicant should
present specific facts to show such nature of
possession because bare allegations, without
more, do not amount to preponderant evidence
that would shift the burden to the oppositor (Diaz
v. Republic, G.R. No. 141031, August 31, 2004).
Under Sec. 48(b) of C.A. No. 141 and Sec. 14(1) of
P.D. 1529, the reckoning point of possession is
June 12, 1945. It is only necessary that the land is
already classified as alienable and disposable at
the time of the filing of the application for
registration (Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No.
179987, April 29, 2009).
Possession must be under a claim of
ownership
Acts of a possessory character by one who holds
the property by mere tolerance of the owner is not
in the concept of owner, and do not start the
period of prescription.
Actual possession consists of acts of dominion of
such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property.
Occupation delimits the all-encompassing effect of
constructive possession.
Overt acts of possession
1. Introducing valuable improvements on the
land like fruit-bearing trees;
2. Fencing the area;
627
3. Constructing a residential house thereon; and
4. Declaring the land for taxation purposes.
Mere possession will not defeat the title of a
holder of registered land (Eduarte v. CA, G.R. No.
121038, July 22, 1999).
NOTE: Evidence to be admissible must, however,
be credible, substantial and satisfactory.
Q: Exequiel Ampil, as representative of heirs of
the late Albina Ampil, filed a complaint for
ejectment against Perfecto Manahan, et al.
Allegedly, Albina was the owner of two
adjoining residential lots located in Bulacan as
evidenced by tax declarations. They asserted
that Albina allowed Perfecto and his family to
occupy a portion of said properties on the
condition that they would vacate the same
should the need to use it arise. Despite
requests however, Perfecto and his family
refuse to vacate the property. Respondents
aver that they had been in peaceful and
continuous possession of the property in the
concept of an owner since time immemorial
and that Albina was never the owner of the
property. Who between the petitioners and the
respondents have the better right to the
physical possession of the disputed property?
A: The petitioners have the better right to the
property in question. The bare allegation of
respondents that they had been in peaceful and
continuous possession of the lot in question
because their predecessor-in-interest had been in
possession thereof in the concept of an owner
from time immemorial, cannot prevail over the tax
declarations and other documentary evidence
presented by petitioners. In the absence of any
supporting evidence, that of the petitioners
deserves more probative value. A perusal of the
records shows that respondents’ occupation of the
lot in question was by mere tolerance. From the
minutes of the meeting in the Barangay Lupon,
Perfecto admitted that Albina permitted them to
use the lots on the condition that they would
vacate the same should Albina need it (Heirs of
Albina G. Ampil, namely Precious A. Zavalla,
Eduardo Ampil, et al. v. Teresa Manahan and Mario
Manahan, G.R. No. 175990, October 11, 2012).
Q : Mauricio and Carmencita testified to
establish their claim over the subject lots.
When the application was granted, the OSG
appealed, arguing that weight should not be
given to the self-serving testimonies of the
two; that their tax declaration is not sufficient
proof that they and their parents have been in
possession of the property for at least thirty
 CIVIL LAW
years, said tax declaration being only for the
year 1994 and the property tax receipts
presented by them were all of recent dates.
Are the said pieces of evidence sufficient to
establish actual possession of land for the
period required by law thus warranting the
grant of the application?
A: NO. Their bare assertions of possession and
occupation by their predecessors-in-interest are
hardly the “well-nigh incontrovertible” evidence
required in cases of this nature. Proof of specific
acts of ownership must be presented to
substantiate their claim. They cannot just offer
general statements which are mere conclusions of
law than factual evidence of possession.
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 (Republic v. Alconaba, G.R. No.
155012, April 14, 2004).
NOTE: “Well-nigh incontrovertible evidence”
refers to the degree of proof of registrable rights
required by law in registration proceedings.
Proof to establish private ownership of land
1. Spanish title;
NOTE: Spanish titles are no longer admissible
as proof of ownership in land registration
proceedings filed after August 16, 1976.
2. Tax declaration and tax payments;
Tax declarations and receipts are not
conclusive evidence of ownership. At most,
they constitute mere prima facie proofs of
ownership of the property for which taxes have
been paid. In the absence of actual, public and
adverse possession, the declaration of the land
for tax purposes does not prove ownership.
They may be good supporting or collaborating
evidence together with other acts of possession
and ownership; but by themselves, tax
declarations are inadequate to establish
possession of the property in the nature and
for the period required by statute for acquiring
imperfect or incomplete title to the land (Tan v.
Republic, G.R. No. 177797, December 4, 2008).
NOTE: While tax declarations are not
conclusive proof of ownership, they constitute
good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner and a claim of title over the subject
property for no one in his right mind would be
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
paying taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or constructive possession (Charles L.
Ong v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No.
175746, March 12, 2008 and Republic of the
Philippines v. Teodoro P. Rizalvo, Jr. G.R. No.
172011, March 7, 2011).
Delayed declaration of property for tax
purposes negates a claim of continuous,
exclusive, and interrupted possession in the
concept of an owner (Regalado v. Republic, G.R.
No. 168155, February 15, 2007).
Mere failure of the owner of the land to pay the
realty tax does not warrant a conclusion that
there was abandonment of his right to the
property.
3. Other kinds of proof
e.g. Testimonial evidence (i.e. accretion is on a
land adjacent to a river);
NOTE: Any evidence that accretion was formed
through human intervention negates the claim.
4. Presidential issuances and legislative acts.
NOTE: It is constitutive of a “fee simple” title or
absolute title in favor of the grantee.
Q: Ildefonso died leaving a parcel of land in
favor of her granddaughter Paraguya covered
by a titulo posesorio issued sometime in 1983
or 1985 in the name of the former. However,
Paraguya found that a title on the same land
was issued in the name of Escurel, the
administrator of her grandfather’s estate. To
protect her rights, she sought the annulment of
Escurel’s title alleging that such was obtained
through fraud and deceit. In defense, Escurel
stated that she acquired the title through her
father who applied for a free patent over the
subject properties, resulting in the issuance of
Free Patent No. V-3 005844 under OCT No. P-
17792 in her name. Should the trial court give
due course to Paraguya’s complaint?
A: No. Paraguya’s complaint for annulment of title
should be dismissed altogether since she merely
relied on the titulo posesorio issued in favor
Ildefonso sometime in 1983 or 1985. Based on
Section 1 of PD 892, entitled "Discontinuance of
the Spanish Mortgage System of Registration and
of the Use of Spanish Titles as Evidence in Land
Registration Proceedings," Spanish titles can no
longer be used as evidence of ownership after six
(6) months from the effectivity of the law, or
starting August 16, 1976. (Laura Paraguya v.
628
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Spouses Alma and Emetrio Crucillo, G.R. No.
200265, December 02, 2013). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Q: Carmen Galeno, a co-owner of the subject
property applied for a petition for correction
of the land area. She alleged that there was a
discrepancy as the title reflects only 20,498
square meters while the certification issued by
the DENR Office of the Regional Technical
Director shows an area of 21,298 square
meters. The trial court, in allowing the
evidence to be presented ex parte, granted the
petition on the basis of the Certification. It was
only after the decision of the trial court that
the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
motion for reconsideration opposing the
petition for correction on the ground that the
no competent evidence was given to warrant a
correction.
(a) Can the Office of the Solicitor General still
question the propriety of the petition even
after judgment?
(b) Should the petition for correction be
granted?
A:
(a) Yes. The Republic cannot be barred from
assailing the petition granting the correction of
title, if based on the law and evidence of record,
such petition has no merit. Thus, the court can
admit motion for reconsideration even after
judgment of the trial court.
(b). No. The certifications issued by the Regional
Technical Director cannot be considered prima
facie evidence for a petition for correction of title.
At best, they may be considered only as prima
facie evidence of their due execution and date of
issuance but not the former. The certifications
issued by the Regional Technical Director are not
the certified copies nor authenticated
reproductions of original records in the legal
custody of government service. Considering this,
the documentary evidence is not sufficient to
warrant the correction prayed for (Republic v.
Carmen Santorio Galeno, G.R. No. 215009, January
23, 2017). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Q: Agustin executed an Affidavit of Transfer of
Real Property where Ducat is to perform all
the necessary procedures for the registration
and acquisition of title over several parcels of
land possessed and occupied by Agustin.
Before Ducat was able to accomplish his task,
Agustin died and Bernardo administered the
properties. Ducat then filed an Application for
Free Patent over the land, which was granted.
629
The parcels of land were registered in the
names of Ducat and Kiong. The heirs of
Bernardo sought the reconveyance of the land
with damages but did not question the
authenticity of the agreement. Who is the
rightful owner of the property ?
A: The spouses Ducat and Kiong. The Affidavit
of Transfer of Real Property proved Ducat’s
ownership of the property. It stated that Ducat
bought the subject property from Cecilio and
Bernardo. The heirs did not question the
authenticity and due execution of said document.
It constitutes an admission against interest made
by Bernardo, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest.
Bernardo's admission against his own interest is
binding on his heirs. The heirs' predecessor-in-
interest recognized Ducat and Kiong as the legal
owner of the lot in dispute.
Thus, there is no proof that the titling of the
subject property was fraudulently obtained by
Ducat and Kiong in their names (Heirs of Bernardo
Ulep v. Sps. Cristobal Ducat and Flora Kiong, G.R.
No. 159284, January 27, 2009).
Q: After due hearing for registration, what will
the court do?
A: If the court, after considering the evidence and
report of the LRA, finds that the applicant or the
oppositor has sufficient title proper for
registration, it shall render judgment confirming
the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the
land or portions thereof, as the case may be (P.D.
1529, Sec. 29).
JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF REGISTRATION
The judgment confirms the title of the
applicant or the oppositor. Partial judgment is
proper where a subdivision plan is submitted
(P.D. 1529, Sec. 28).
Judgment becomes final after 15 days from receipt
of notice of the judgment.
NOTE: The adjudication of land in a cadastral or
land registration proceeding does not become
final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after
the expiration of one year after the entry of the
final decree of registration. The Court retains
jurisdiction over the case until after the expiration
of one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration (Gomez v. CA, G.R. No. 77770,
December 15, 1988).
 CIVIL LAW
NOTE: The principle of res judicata applies to all
cases and proceedings, including land registration
and cadastral proceedings (Aring v. Original, G.R.
No. L-18464, December 29, 1962).
Contents of judgment in land registration
proceedings
When judgment is rendered in favor of the
plaintiff, the court shall order the entry of a new
certificate of title and the cancellation of the
original certificate and owner’s duplicate of the
former registered owner.
NOTE: A judgment in rem is binding upon the
whole world, such as a judgment in a land
registration case or probate of a will; and a
judgment in personam is binding upon the parties
and their successors-in-interest but not upon
strangers.
A judgment directing a party to deliver possession
of a property to another is in personam.
An action for declaration of nullity of title and
recovery of ownership of real property, or
reconveyance, is a real action but it is an action in
personam, for it only binds the parties impleaded
although it concerns the right to a tangible thing
(Muoz v. Yabut, G.R. No. 142676, June 6, 2011).
Motion for execution of judgment not required
Upon finality of judgment in land registration
cases, the winning party does not file a motion for
execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he
files a petition with the land registration court for
the issuance of an order directing the Land
Registration Authority to issue a decree of
registration, a copy of which is then sent to the
Register of Deeds for inscription in the
registration book, and issuance of the original
certificate of title.
The LRA merely issues an order for the issuance of
a decree of registration and the corresponding
certificate of title in the name of such applicant
(Top Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, G.R.
No.150462, June 15, 2011).
Execution pending appeal not required
Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a
land registration proceeding and the certificate of
title thereby issued is null and void.
A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment
that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the
explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act
which requires that a decree shall be issued only
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
after the decision adjudicating the title becomes
final and executory, and it is on the basis of said
decree that the Register of Deeds concerned issues
the corresponding certificate of title (Director of
Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594, November 28,
1975).
No period within which decree may be issued
The fact that no decree has as yet been issued
cannot divest the applicant of his title to and
ownership of the land in question. There is nothing
in the law that limits the period within which the
court may issue a decree. The reason is that the
judgment is merely declaratory in character and
does not need to be enforced against the adverse
party (Del Rosario v. Limcaoco, G.R. No. 177392,
November 26, 2012).
From another perspective, 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 (Republic v. Nillas, G.R. No.
159595, January 23, 2007).
Decree of registration
It is a document prepared in the prescribed form
by the LRA Administrator, signed by him in the
name of the court, embodying the final disposition
of the land by the court and such other data found
in the record, including the name and other
personal circumstances of the applicant, the
technical description of the property, liens and
encumbrances affecting it, and such other matters
as determined by the court in its judgment.
Q: In a land registration case, the court
rendered a decision granting Reyes’
application, hence the Director of Lands
appealed. Reyes moved for the issuance of a
decree of registration pending appeal. May his
motion be granted?
A: NO. Innocent purchasers may be misled into
purchasing real properties upon reliance on a
judgment which may be reversed on appeal. A
Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment
that is not final is a nullity as it violates the explicit
provisions of the LRA, which requires that a
decree shall be issued only after the decision
adjudicating the title becomes final and executor
(Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594,
November 28, 1975).
Scope of decree of registration
630
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Only claimed property or a portion thereof can be
adjudicated. A land registration court has no
jurisdiction to adjudge a land to a person who has
never asserted any right of ownership thereof.
A land registration court has no jurisdiction to
order the registration of land already decreed in
the name of another in an earlier land registration
case. A second decree for the same land would be
null and void, since the principle behind the
original registration is to register a parcel of land
only once (Rodolfo V. Francisco v. Emilliana M.
Rojas, G.R. No. 167120, April 23, 2014).
Partial Judgment in land registration
proceedings
Where only a portion of the land, subject of
registration is contested, the court may render
partial judgment provided that a subdivision plan
showing the contested land and uncontested
portions approved by the Director of Lands is
previously submitted to the court.
Effect of a decree of registration
The decree of registration binds the land, quiets
title, subject only to such exceptions or liens as
may be provided by law.
It is conclusive upon all persons including the
national government and all branches thereof.
Such conclusiveness does not cease to exist when
the title is transferred to a successor.
Land becomes registered land only upon the
transcription of the decree in the book of the
Register of Deeds, and not on the date of the
issuance of the decree (Manotok v. CLT Realty, G.R.
No. 123346, November 29, 2005).
NOTE: Title once registered cannot be impugned,
altered, changed, modified, enlarged or
diminished, except in a direct proceeding
permitted by law.
Reopening of judgment or decree of
registration
The court has no jurisdiction or authority to
reopen the judgment or decree of registration, nor
impair the title or other interest of a purchaser
holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or
his heirs and assigns, without his or their written
consent.
631
Effects of the entry of the decree of registration
in the National Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Authority (NALDTRA)
1. This serves as the reckoning date to determine
the one year period from which one can
impugn the validity of the registration;
2. One year after the date of entry, it becomes
incontrovertible, and amendments will not be
allowed except clerical errors. It is deemed
conclusive as to the whole world; and
3. Puts an end to litigation.
NOTE: An application for registration of a titled
land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing
title (SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, G.R. No.
164687, February 12, 2009).
WRIT OF POSSESSION
An order by which the sheriff is commanded to
place a person in possession of a real or personal
property.
The writ may be issued not only against the
person defeated in the registration case but also
against any one adversely occupying the land
during the proceedings up to the issuance of the
decree (Vencilao v. Vano, G.R. No. L-25660,
February 23, 1990).
The writ does not lie against a person who
entered the land after the issuance of the decree
and who was not a party in the case. He may only
be proceeded against in a separate action for
ejectment or reivindicatory action (Bernas v.
Nuevo, G.R. No. L-58438, January 31, 1984).
The writ is imprescriptible. A writ of demolition is
but a complement of the writ of possession
(Gawaran v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
L-72721, June 16, 1988; Lucero v. Loot, G.R. No. L-
16995, October 28, 1968).
It may be issued by a special order of the court.
Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the
issuance of a writ of possession (Edralin v.
Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 168523, March 9,
2011).
Instances where a writ of possession may be
issued
1. In a land registration proceeding, which is a
proceeding in rem;
2. In an extrajudicial foreclosure of a realty
mortgage;
 CIVIL LAW
3. In a judicial foreclosure of mortgage, a quasi in
rem proceeding, provided that the mortgagor
is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no
third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit
had intervened; and
4. In execution sales.
Issuance of writ of possession not ministerial
where third party is in adverse possession or
is not a privy to the debtor
GR : A purchaser in a public auction sale of a
foreclosed property is entitled to a writ of
possession.
XPN : The possession of the property shall be
given to the purchaser or last redemptioner unless
a third party is actually holding the property
adverse to the judgment obligor (Sec. 3, Rule 39,
Rules of Court).
NOTE : The phrase ‘a third party who is actually
holding the property adversely to the judgment
obligor’ contemplates a situation in which a third
party holds the property by adverse title or right,
such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary.
The co-owner, agricultural tenant, and
usufructuary possess the property in their own
right, and they are not merely the successor or
transferee of the right of possession of another co-
owner or the owner of the property. Notably, the
property should not only be possessed by a third
party, but also held by the third party adversely to
the judgment obligor (Marquez v. Alindog, G.R. No
184045, January 22, 2014).
Q: How may possession of property be
obtained?
A: Possession of the property may be obtained by
filing an ex parte motion with the RTC court of the
province or place where the property is situated.
Upon filing of the motion and the required bond, it
becomes a ministerial duty of the court to order
the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the
purchaser. After the expiration of the one-year
period without redemption being effected by the
property owner, the right of the purchaser to the
possession of the foreclosed property becomes
absolute (Laureano v. Bormaheco Inc., G.R. No.
137619, February 6, 2001).
Q: PNCB purchased a parcel of land in a
foreclosure sale and applied for a writ of
possession after the lapse of more than one
year. On appeal, however, it was held that the
writ of possession cannot be issued because
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
the foreclosure sale, upon which it is based,
was infirm. Is said ruling correct?
A: NO. Any question regarding the regularity and
validity of the sale, as well as the consequent
cancellation of the writ, is to be determined in a
subsequent proceeding as outlined in Sec. 8, Act
3135, as amended by Act 4118. Such question is
not to be raised as a justification for opposing the
issuance of the writ of possession, since, under the
Act, the proceeding is ex parte.
As the purchaser of the properties in the extra-
judicial foreclosure sale, PNCB is entitled to a writ
of possession. The basis of this right to possession
is the purchaser’s ownership of the property.
Mere filing of an ex parte motion for the issuance
of the writ of possession would suffice, and no
bond is required (Sulit v. CA, G.R. No. 119247,
February 17, 1997; Agcaoili, 2008).
Q: If the court granted the registration, must
the applicant move for the issuance of a writ of
possession in case he is deprived of possession
over the land subject of the registration
proceedings?
A: YES, if it is against:
1. The person who has been defeated in a
registration case; or
2. Any person adversely occupying the land or
any portion thereof during the land
registration proceedings up to the issuance of
the final decree.
However, if it is against persons who took
possession of the land AFTER final adjudication of
the same in a registration proceeding, in which
case, the remedy is to file a separate action for:
1. Unlawful entry;
2. Unlawful detainer; or
3. Reinvindicatory action, as the case may be, and
only after a favorable judgment can the
prevailing party secure a writ of possession
(Bernas v. Nuevo, G.R. No. L-58438, January 31,
1984).
Prescription of a writ of possession
GR: A petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession does not prescribe.
XPN: If a party has once made use of the benefit of
a writ of possession, he may not ask for it again, if
afterwards he loses possession of the property
obtained by virtue of the original writ.
632
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Issuance of a writ of possession in a
reconstitution case
Issuance of a writ of possession cannot be issued
in reconstitution case. Reconstitution does not
confirm or adjudicate ownership over the
property covered by the reconstituted title unlike
in original land registration proceedings wherein
a writ of possession may be issued in order to
place the applicant-owner in possession.
claiming that the applicant’s OCT is fake must
file a counterclaim, and that such counterclaim
partakes the nature of a direct attack.
REASON: Fake titles do not enjoy indefeasibility.
Well-settled is the rule that the indefeasibility of a
title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. However, every certificate of
title is presumed to have been validly issued. If an
opponent claims that it is fake, he has the burden
of proving it.

DECREE OF CONFIRMATION AND EFFECT: It was as if no title was ever issued in this
REGISTRATION case to the petitioner and therefore this is hardly
the occasion to talk of collateral attack against a
It is issued by LRA after finality of judgment, and title (Heirs of Leoncio C. Oliveros, represented by
contains technical description of the land. It is Aurora B. Oliveros, et al. vs San Miguel Corporation,
subject only to an appeal. et al., G.R. No. 173531, February 1, 2012).

It is conclusive evidence of the ownership of the Q: In a case for recovery of possession based
land referred to therein and becomes indefeasible on ownership, is a third-party complaint to
and incontrovertible after one year from the nullify the title of the third-party defendant
issuance of the decree. considered a direct attack on the title?

Decree of confirmation and registration v. A: YES. If the object of the third-party complaint is
Decree of registration to nullify the title of the third-party defendant, the
third-party complaint constitutes a direct-attack
DECREE OF DECREE OF on the title because the same is in the nature of an
CONFIRMATION AND REGISTRATION OF original complaint for cancellation of title.
REGISTRATION OF TITLE
TITLE Q: If an attack is made thru a counterclaim,
should it be disregarded for being a collateral
Issued pursuant to the Issued pursuant to the attack?
Public Land Act, where Property Registration
the presumption is that Decree, where there A: NO. A counterclaim is also considered an
the land applied for already exists a title original complaint, and as such, the attack on the
pertains to the State, which is confirmed by title is direct and not collateral.
and the occupants and the court (Limcoma
possessors only claim Multi-Purpose Q: Mr. and Mrs. Roman and Mr. and Mrs. Cruz
an interest in the same Cooperative v. Republic, filed an application for registration of a parcel
by virtue of their G.R. No. 167652, July 10, of land which after due proceedings was
imperfect title or 2007). granted by the RTC acting as a land
continuous, open, and registration court. However, before the decree
notorious possession. of registration could be issued, the spouses
Roman and the spouses Cruz sold the lot to
Juan. In the notarized deed of sale, the sellers
Doctrine of non-collateral attack of a decree or
expressly undertook to submit the deed of sale
title
to the land registration court so that the title
to the property would be directly issued in
A decree of registration or a registered title cannot
Juan's name.
be impugned, enlarged, altered, modified, or
diminished either in collateral or direct
a. Is such stipulation valid?
proceeding, after the lapse of one year from the
b. Distinguish a direct attack from a
date of its entry.
collateral attack on a title.
c. If the title in (a) is issued in the names of
XPN: Fake or non-existent titles.
the original sellers, would a motion filed
by Juan in the same case to correct or
NOTE: An oppositor cannot simply invoke the
amend the title in order to reflect his name
nullity of the title as a defense as it partakes
the nature of a collateral attack. The opponent

633
 CIVIL LAW
as owner considered be collateral attack? Affidavits of merit required to prove FAMEn
(2015 Bar)
1. Affidavit setting forth the facts and
A: circumstances alleged to constitute such
a. YES, because when one who is not the owner fraud, accident, mistake, or execusable
of the property sells or alienates it and later negligence;
the seller or grantor acquires title, such title
passes by operation of law to the buyer or Reason: It is to enable the court to determine
grantee (NCC, Art. 1434). if the movant’s claim of fraud, etc. is not mere
b. A direct attack on a title is one where the conclusion but is indeed borne our by the
action filed is precisely for the purpose of relevant facts (Yap v. Tanada, G.R. No. L-32917,
pointing out the defects in the title with a July 19, 1988).
prayer that it be declared void. A collateral
attack is one where the action is not instituted 2. Affidavit setting forth the facts claimed to
for the purpose of attacking the title but the constitute the movant’s meritorious cause
nullity of the title is raised as a defense in a of action or defense.
different action.
c. NO, because Juan is not attacking the title but Reason: It would be useless, a waste of time,
merely invoking his right as transferee. Hence, to set aside the judgment and reopen the case
it does not involve a collateral attack on the to allow the movant to adduce evidence when
title. he has no valid cause of action or meritorious
defense (Yap v. Tanada, G.R. No. L-32917, July
19, 1988).
REVIEW OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION
EXTRINSIC FRAUD INTRINSIC FRAUD
refers to any fraudulent refers to acts of a party
Available remedies to question the validity of act of the successful in a litigation during
judgment in a registration case party in a litigation the trial, such as the
which is committed use of forged
1. New trial or reconsideration (Rule 37, Rules of outside the trial of a instruments or
Court); case against the perjured testimony,
2. Appeal to the CA or SC in the manner as defeated party, or his which did not affect the
ordinary actions (Section 33, PD 1529); agents, attorneys or presentation of the
3. Relief of judgment (Rule 38, Rules of Court); witnesses, whereby said case, but did prevent a
4. Annulment of judgment (Rule 37, Rules of defeated party is fair and just
Court); prevented from determination of the
5. Claim under Assurance Fund (Section 95, PD presenting fully and case.
1529); fairly his side of the
6. Review of Decree of Registration (Section 32, PD case.
1529); Fraud in the Not fraud in the
7. Reversion (Section 101, CA 141); procurement of procurement of
8. Action for reconveyance; judgment. jugment.
9. Cancellation of title;
10. Quieting of Title; Q: What kind of accident does the law
11. Criminal prosecution under the Revised Penal contemplate?
Code.
A: It must appear that there was accident or
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL surprise which ordinary prudence could not have
guarded against, and by reason of which the party
Grounds applying has probably been impaired in his rights.
Illness constitutes accident over which a party has
1. (FAMEn) - extrinsic Fraud, accident, nocontrol. Failure to attend trial for lack of
mistake, or excusable negligence; advance notice justifies new trial (Agcaoili, 2015).
2. Newly discovered evidence, which he
could not, with reasonable diligence, have Q: What kind of mistake does the law
discovered, and produced at the trial, and contemplate?
which if presented would probably alter
the result;

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 634
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
A: It is some unintentional act, omission, or error
arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition or
misplaced confidence. It may arise either from
unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, impo-
sition, or misplaced confidence. Belief that there is
no need to appear during the trial because there
was already a compromise agreement is a ground
for new trial (Agcaoili, 2015).
Q: What kind of excusable neglect does the law
contemplate?
A: It means a failure to take the proper steps at the
proper time, not in consequence of the party’s
own carelessness, inattention, or willful disregard
of the process of the court, but in consequence of
some unexpected or unavoidable hindrance or
accident, or reliance on the care and vigilance of
his counsel or on promises made by the adverse
party (Agcaoili, 2015).
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Grounds
1. Damages awarded were excessive.
2. Insufficiency of evidence to support the
decision;
3. Final order or decision is contrary to law.
Similarities of New Trial and Reconsideration
The period to file the motion must be within the
period to take an appeal.
No motion for extension of time shall be allowed.
Also. a pro forma motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary
period.
NOTE: A party who has filed a timely motion for
new trial cannot file a petition for relief after his
motion has been denied. These two remedies are
exclusive of each other. He should appeal from the
judgment and question such denial. Relief will not
be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved
from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the
remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or a
mistaken mode of procedure (Feria and Noche,
Civil Procedure, Vol. I, 644).
APPEAL
Modes of appeal
(a) Ordinary appeal — The appeal to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
635
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal with the court
which rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from and serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party. No record
on appeal shall be required except in
special proceedings and other cases of
multiple or separate appeals where the
law or the Rules so require. In such cases,
the record on appeal shall be filed and
served in like manner.
(b) Petition for review — The appeal to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition
for review in accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by certiorari — In all cases
where only questions of law are raised or
involved, the appeal shall be to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with Rule 45
(Agcaoili, 2015).
Period to file an appeal
The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from. Where a record on appeal is
required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal
and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days
from notice of the judgment or final order.
NOTE: This is subject to the Fresh Period Rule
where the person who seeks an appeal shal
acquire a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of
the final order or the order dismissing their
motion for reconsideration or new trial (Neypes v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No.141524, September 14,
2005).
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Grounds: (FAMEn)
1. Fraud;
2. Accident;
3. Mistake; and
4. Excusable negligence.
Period to file
A petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60)
days after the petitioner learns of the judgment,
final order, or other proceeding to be set aside,
and not more than six (6) months after entry of
judgment (Rule 38, Rules of Court).
 CIVIL LAW
Requirements for its validity
1. Accompanied with affidavits showing the
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence relied upon;
2. The facts constituting the petitioner’s
good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be; and
3. Verification.
NOTE: The date of finality of the judgment or final
order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry.
PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
When available
The annulment by the Court of Appeals of
judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil
actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner
(Section 1, Rule 47).
Grounds for annulment
1. Extrinsic fraud; and
NOTE: This shall not be a valid ground if it
was availed of, or could have been availed of,
in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
2. Lack of jurisdiction (Section 2, Rule 47).
NOTE: If the ground for annulment is lack of
jurisdiction, another remedy is certiorari under
Rule 65, in which case, the Court of Appeals does
not have exclusive jurisdiction since the Supreme
Court also has such jurisdiction (Feria and Noche,
Civil Procedure, Vol. I, 644).
Action by the court
Should the court find no substantial merit in the
petition, the same may be dismissed outright with
specific reasons for such dismissal.
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition,
the same shall be given due course and summons
shall be served on the respondent (Section 5, Rule
47).
Effect of judgment
A judgment of annulment shall set aside the
questioned judgment or final order or resolution
and render the same null and void, without
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
prejudice to the original action being refiled in the
proper court.
However, where the judgment or final order or
resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic
fraud, the court may on motion order the trial
court to try the case as if a timely motion for new
trial had been granted therein (Section 7, Rule 47).
CLAIM AGAINST THE ASSURANCE FUND
Purpose
Act No. 496 provides for an Assurance Fund to pay
for the loss or damage sustained by any peron
who, without negligence on his part, is wrongfully
deprived of any land or interest therein on
account of the bringing of the same under the Act
or registration of any other persons as owner of
the land (Agcaoili, 2015).
Requisites for recovery:
1. That a person sustains loss or damage, or
is deprived of any estate or interest in
land;
2. On account of the bringing of land under
the operation of the Torrens system
arising after original registration;
3. Through fraud, error, omission, mistake,
misdescription in any certificate of title or
in any entry or memorandum in the
registration book;
4. Without negligence on his part; and
5. Is barred or precluded from bringing an
action for the recovery of such land or
estate or interest therein (Section 95,
Property Registration Decree).
Who must file
It is a condition sine qua non that he be the
registered owner, and, as to holders of a TCT, that
they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for
value. Moreover, there must be a showing that
there is no negligence on the part of the party
sustaining the loss or damage or deprivation of
any land or interest therein (La Urbana v.
Bernardo, G.R. No. 41915, January 8, 1936).
Against whom
1. The Register of Deeds of the province or city
where the land lies and the National Treasurer - If
the action is brought for the recovery of loss or
damage or for deprivation of land or of any estate
or interest therein arising through fraud,
negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of
the court personnel, the Register of Deeds or other
636
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
employees of the registry in the performance of
their duties.
2. The action shall be brought against the Register
of Deeds, the National Treasurer and such other
persons - If the action is brought for the recovery
of loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of
any estate or interest therein arising through
fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or
misfeasance of persons other than the court
personnel, the Register of Deeds or other
employees of the Registry (Section 96, P.D. 1529).
Limitation on the amount to be recovered
The plaintiff cannot recover as compensation
more than the fair market value of the land at the
time he suffered the loss, damage, or deprivation
thereof (Sec. 99, Property Registration Decree).
Amendment or cancellation of title
In the event the Assurance Fund is held liable on
account of the unlawful or erroneous issuance of a
certificate of title, the Register of Deeds, upon
authority of the LRA Administrator, shall file the
necessary action to amend or cancel the title or
perform any other act as may be directed by the
court. Such action may pre-empt any ac tion
against the Assurance Fund (Agcaoili, 2015).
Prescriptive period
The action must be brought within 6 years from
the time the right to bring the action first occured
(Sec. 102, Property Registration Decree).
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECREE OF
REGISTRATION
The Torrens title becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible one year from the issuance of the
final decree and is generally conclusive evidence
of the ownership of the land referred to therein.
However, courts may reopen proceedings already
closed by final decision or decree when
application for review is filed by the party
aggrieved within one year from the issuance of the
decree of registration.
The one-year period stated in Section 32 of PD No.
1529 within which a petition to reopen and
review the decree of registration refers to the
decree of registration which is prepared and
issued by the Land Registration Authority
pursuant to Section 31 of the Decree (Agcaoili,
2015).
637
Period to file
The petition for review must be filed within one
year from entry of decree of registration (Sec. 32,
Property Registration Decree).
With respect to lands covered by patents, the one
year period starts from the date of issuance of the
patent (Sumail v. Judge of CFI of Cotabato, G.R. No.
L-8278, April 30, 1955).
Requisites
1. The petitioner must have an estate or
interest in the land;
2. He must show actual or extrinsic fraud in
the procurement of the decree of
registration;
3. The petition must be filed within one year
from the issuance of the decree by the
Land Registration Authority; and
4. The property has not yet passed to an
innocent purchaser for value.
Q: Lozada was able to secure the registration
over a parcel of land located in Las Piñas upon
securing a favorable judgment in the RTC of
Makati. Within a year from its issuance,
Bracewell filed a petition for review of a
decree of registration before the RTC of Las
Piñas City, alleging that the decree was
fraudulently acquired by deliberately
concealing his involvement in the case. The
RTC of Las Piñas then rendered a decision in
favor of Bracewell. However, Lozada
questioned the latter’s jurisdiction. He alleged
that pursuant to Section 32 of P.D. 1529, the
petition for review must be filed in the same
branch which ordered the issuance of the
decree. Moreover, he argued that the petition
for review should not have been entertained
since it was filed beyond the one-year period.
Is Lozada’s contention correct?
A: NO. Since the subject lot is situated in Las Piñas
City, it was proper for Bracewell to file the petition
for review in the RTC of Las Piñas City. Also, the
petition was timely filed since the one-year period
commences from the date of entry of the decree.
The title is not finally adjudicated and the decision
in the registration proceeding continues to be
under the control and sound discretion of the
court rendering it (Lozada v. Bracewell, GR.No.
179155, April 2, 2014). [Perlas-Bernabe]
PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who
buys property of another, without notice that
 CIVIL LAW
some other person has a right to, or interest in,
such property, and pays a full and fair price for the
same, at the time of such purchase, or before he
has notice of the claim or interest of some other
person in the property. Good faith is the opposite
of fraud and of bad faith, and its non-existence
must be established by competent proof. Sans
such proof, a buyer is deemed to be in good faith
and his interest in the subject property will not be
disturbed. A purchaser of a registered property
can rely on the guarantee afforded by pertinent
laws on registration that he can take and hold it
free from any and all prior liens and claims except
those set forth in or preserved against the
certificate of title [Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office (PCSO) v. New Dagupan Metro Gas
Corporation, et al.; G.R. No. 173171, July 11, 2012].
NOTE: An innocent purchaser for value includes a
lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrances for
value.
Purchaser in good faith and for value is the same
as a purchaser for value.
Q: Spouses Roque Magsano and Susana Capelo
(Sps. Magsano), the parents of Norma, et. al.,
executed in favor of PSLB a Real Estate
Mortgage over their parcel of land as security
for their loan. Sps. Magsano defaulted in their
obligation, causing the extra-judicial foreclose
of the mortgaged property in which PSLB
emerged as the highest bidder. It subsequently
sold the subject land to Sps. Manuel.
Thereafter, Sps. Magsano refused to vacate the
premises despite PSLB’s demands; hence, the
latter applied for and was granted a writ of
possession and demolition. Norma et. al.
sought to annul the Real Estate Mortgage. They
averred that Roque Magsano passed away
prior to the execution of the Real Estate
Mortgage; hence, the mortgage was void, and
could not have conferred any right to PSLB
which it could pass to Sps. Manuel. PSLB and
the heirs of Sps. Manuel denied knowledge of
the death of Roque, and averred that
petitioners have no cause of action to seek the
annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage since
they were not parties thereto.
3. Is the Real Estate Mortgage void?
4. Are Sps. Manuel purchasers in
good faith?
A: 1. No. The validity of the Mortgage in favor of
PSLD should be limited only to the Susana’s
portion. At the time the Mortgage was constituted,
Roque was already deceased. Upon Roque’s death,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
the conjugal partnership between him and Susana
was dissolved. Thus, an implied co-ownership
arose among Susana and the other heirs of Roque
with respect to his share in the assets of the
conjugal partnership pending liquidation.
While she herself as co-owner had the right to
mortgage or even sell her undivided interest in
the subject property, she could not mortgage or
otherwise dispose of the same in its entirety
without the consent of the other co-owners.
2. No. While the rule is that 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, where the land sold is in
the possession of a person other than the vendor,
as in this case, the purchaser must go beyond the
certificate of title and make inquiries concerning
the actual possessor.
Here, Norma, et. al. were in possession of the
subject property when Sps. Manuel bought the
same. There is no showing that Sps. Manuel
inspected the property and inquired into the
nature of petitioners' possession and/or the
extent of their possessory rights as a measure of
precaution (Norma Magsano v. Pangasinan Savings
& Loan Bank, G.R. No. 215038, October 17, 2016).
[Perlas-Bernabe]
A forged deed may be the root of a valid title
GR: A forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and
conveys no title.
XPN: 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, and while it remained that way, the
land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser (Muoz v. Yabut, G.R. No. 142676, June 6,
2011).
Q: If the land subject of the dispute was not
brought under the operation of the Torrens
system, will the concept of an innocent
purchaser for value apply?
A: NO. If the land in question was not brought
under the operation of Torrens system because
the original certificate of title is null and void ab
initio, the concept of an innocent purchaser for
value does not apply.
638
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
NOTE: Good faith and bad faith is immaterial in
case of unregistered land. One who purchases an
unregistered land does so at his peril.
Q: Nestor applied for and was granted a Free
Patent over a parcel of agricultural land in
General Santos City. He presented the Free
Patent to the Register of Deeds, and he was
issued a corresponding Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 375. Subsequently, Nestor sold
the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was
submitted to the Register of Deeds and on the
basis thereof, OCT No. 375 was cancelled and
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4576
was issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986, the
Director of Lands filed a complaint for
annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No. 4576
on the ground that Nestor obtained the Free
Patent through fraud. Eddie filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that he was an innocent
purchaser for value and in good faith and as
such, he has acquired a title to the property
which is valid, unassailable and indefeasible.
Decide the motion. (2000 Bar)
A: Nestor’s motion to dismiss the complaint for
annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No. 4576
should be denied for the following reasons:
1. Eddie cannot claim protection as an innocent
purchaser for value nor can he interpose the
defense of indefeasibility of his title, because
his TCT is rooted on a void title. Under Sec.
91, C.A. No. 141, as amended, otherwise
known as the Public Land Act, statements of
material facts in the applications for public
land must be under oath. Sec. 91 of the same
act provides that such statements shall be
considered as essential conditions and parts
of the concession, title, or permit issued, any
false statement therein, or omission of facts
shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of
the concession. The patent issued to Nestor
in this case is void ab initio not only because
it was obtained by fraud but also because it
covers 30 hectares which is far beyond the
maximum of 24 hectares provided by the
free patent law.
2. The government can seek annulment of the
original and transfer certificates of title and
the reversion of the land to the State. Eddie's
defense is untenable. The protection
afforded by the Torrens System to an
innocent purchaser for value can be availed
of only if the land has been titled thru
judicial proceedings where the issue of fraud
becomes academic after the lapse of one
year from the issuance of the decree of
639
registration. In public land grants, the action
of the government to annul a title
fraudulently obtained does not prescribe
such action and will not be barred by the
transfer of the title to an innocent purchaser
for value.
Q: Heirs of Kusop, filed for application of sales
patents for Lot X, a lot reserved for recreation
and health purposes under Proclamation No.
168. The DENR approved such application and
conveyed 16 titles to Kusop, who subsequently
transferred it to AFP-RSBS. Republic filed a
complaint for reversion, and annulment of
AFP-RSBS’ titles since the Lot X is classified as
inalienable and non-disposable public land. Is
the Republic correct?
A: YES. Certificates of title issued covering
inalienable and non-disposable public land, even
in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for
value, should be cancelled. The Heirs of Kusop
didn’t acquire any right to Lot X. The sales patents
over Lot X are null and void, for at the time the
sales patents were applied for and granted, the
land had lost its alienable and disposable
character (Republic of the Philippines v. AFP
Retirement and Separation Benefits System, G.R. No.
180463, January 16, 2013) ( Del Castillo, J.).
Q: Mahilum entrusted the owner’s duplicate
copy of her land to Perez, real estate broker,
who claimed that she can assist the latter in
obtaining a loan, with the title serving as
collateral. Mahilum demanded the return of
the title but Perez failed to produce the same
alleging that it was lost. Thereafter Mahilum
was informed by the RD that the title was not
lost but was presented by Sps. Ilano who
claimed that the property was sold to them
and showed Mahilum a notarized Agreement
and a Deed of Absolute Sale containing
Mahilum’s forged signature. However, the
spouses did not register the title in their
names. Mahilum then sought the annulment of
the Agreement and the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Spouses Ilano prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint arguing that Mahilum failed to
allege that they were purchasers in bad faith
and in the absence of such an allegation, the
presumption that respondents are purchasers
in good faith prevails. Can the Spouses Ilano
claim that they are purchasers in good faith?
A: NO. Since the title of the property remained
with Mahilum, there is no new title to annul.
Indeed, if the agreement and deed of sale are
forgeries, then they are a nullity and convey no
 CIVIL LAW
title. The underlying principle is that no one can
give what one does not have. Moreover, in order
for the holder of a certificate for value issued by
virtue of the registration of a voluntary
instrument may be considered a holder in good
faith for value, the instrument registered should
not be forged. When the instrument presented is
forged, even if accompanied by the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner
does not thereby lose his title, and neither does
the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right
or title to the property (Mahilum v. Spouses Ilano,
G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015)
Q: Spouses Rufloe acquired a parcel of land
located at Muntinlupa. However, in 1978 Delos
Reyes forged the signatures of the spouses in
Deed of Sale to make it appear that the
disputed property was sold to her by the
former. On the basis of the said deed of sale,
Delos Reyes succeeded in obtaining title in her
name. Hence, the Rufloes filed a complaint for
damages against Delos Reyes alleging that the
Deed of Sale was falsified as their signatures
appearing thereon was forged.
During the pendency of the case, Delos Reyes
sold the subject property to the Burgos
siblings who then sold the same to their aunt,
Leonarda Burgos. However, the sale in favor of
Leonarda was not registered. Thus, no title
was issued in her name. The subject property
remained in the name of the Burgos siblings
who also continued paying the real estate
taxes thereon.
a. Are the sales of the subject property by
Delos Reyes to the Burgos siblings and the
subsequent sale to Leonarda valid and
binding?
b. Are the respondents considered as
innocent purchasers in good faith and for
value despite the forged deed of sale of
their transferor Delos Reyes?
A:
a. The forged deed of sale was null and void
and conveyed no title. It is a well-settled
principle that no one can give what one does
not have, nemo dat quod non habet. One can
sell only what one owns or is authorized to
sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right
than what the seller can transfer legally. Due
to the forged deed of sale, Delos Reyes
acquired no right over the subject property
which she could convey to the Burgos
siblings. All the transactions subsequent to
the falsified sale between the spouses Rufloe
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
and Delos Reyes are likewise void, including
the sale made by the Burgos siblings to their
aunt, Leonarda.
b. The evidence shows that the Rufloe caused a
notice of adverse claim to be annotated on the
title of Delos Reyes as early as November 5,
1979. The annotation of an adverse claim is a
measure designed to protect the interest of a
person over a piece of real property, and
serves as a notice and warning to third parties
dealing with said property that someone is
claiming an interest on the same or may have
a better right than the registered owner
thereof. Despite the notice of adverse claim,
the Burgos siblings still purchased the
property in question. Equally significant is the
fact that Delos Reyes was not in possession of
the subject property when she sold the same
to the Burgos siblings. Leonarda cannot be
categorized as a purchaser in good
faith. Since it was the Rufloes who continued
to have actual possession of the property,
Leonarda should have investigated the nature
of their possession (Adoracion Rosales Rufloe,
et al., v. Leonarda Burgos et al., G.R. No.
143573, January 30, 2009).
Q: Cipriano, one of Pablo’s heirs, executed an
extrajudicial settlement of a sole heir and
confirmation of sales, declaring himself as the
only heir and confirmed the sales made in
favor of the spouses Rodolfo. Consequently, a
certificate of title was issued in the name of the
spouses, who then sold the property to
Guaranteed Homes. Pablo’s other descendants
seek reconveyance of the property sold to the
spouses alleging that the extrajudicial
settlement was forged. Who is the rightful
owner of the property?
A: Guaranteed Homes is the rightful owner,
even assuming that the extrajudicial settlement
was a forgery. Generally a forged or fraudulent
deed is a nullity and conveys no title. There are,
however, instances when such a fraudulent
document may become the root of a valid title.
One such instance is where the certificate of title
was already transferred from the name of the true
owner to the forger, and while it remained that
way, the land was subsequently sold to an
innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the
right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate.
Also, the extrajudicial settlement was recorded in
the Register of Deeds. Registration in the public
registry is notice to the whole world (Guaranteed
Homes, Inc. v. Heirs of Valdez, Heirs of Tugade,
640
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Heirs of Gatmin, Hilaria Cobero and Alfredo and rightful owner of the property (Sec. 35, Chapter
Siony Tepol, G.R. No. 171531, January 30, 2009). XII, Title III, The Administrative Code of 1987).

Q: Spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of Who institutes the action

registered land to A, delivering as well the OCT
to the latter, but they continued to possess and
cultivate the land, giving 1/2 of each harvest to
A in partial payment of their loan to the latter.
A however, without the knowledge of X and Y,
forged a deed of sale of the aforesaid land in
favor of himself, got a TCT in his name, and
then sold the land to B.
It is instituted by the government, through the
Solicitor General.
Grounds
In all cases where lands of the public domain and
the improvements thereon and all lands are held
in violation of the Constitution.

B bought the land relying on A's title, and NOTE: The State is not barred by res judicata nor
thereafter got a TCT in his name. It was only estoppel in instituting an action for reversion.
then that the spouses X and Y learned that
their land had been titled in B's name. May RECONVEYANCE
said spouses file an action for reconveyance of
the land in question against B? Reason (1999 Who institutes the action
Bar).
It is granted to the rightful owner of land which
A: The action of X and Y against B for has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
reconveyance of the land will not prosper the name of another to compel the latter to
because B has acquired a clean title to the transfer or reconvey the land to him.
property being an innocent purchaser for value.
When to file
A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys
no title. The fact that the forged deed was A landowner whose property was wrongfully or
registered and a certificate of title was issued in erroneously registered under the Torrens system
his name, did not operate to vest upon A may bring an action, after one year from the
ownership over the property of X and Y. The issuance of the decree, for the reconveyance of the
registration of the forged deed will not cure the subject property. Such an action does not aim or
infirmity. However, once the title to the land is purport to re-open the registration proceeding
registered in the name of the forger and title to the and set aside the decree of registration, but only to
land thereafter falls into the hands of an innocent show that the person who secured the registration
purchaser for value, the latter acquires a clean title of the questioned property is not the real owner
thereto. A buyer of a registered land is not thereof (Agcaoili, 2015).
required to explore beyond what the record in the
registry indicates on its face in quest for any ACTION FOR ACTION FOR
hidden defect or inchoate right which may REVERSION RECONVEYANCE
subsequently defeat his right thereto. This is the The State files the It is granted to the
"mirror principle" of the Torrens system which action through the rightful owner of land
makes it possible for a forged deed to be the root Solicitor General. which has been
of a good title. wrongfully or
erroneously registered
REVERSION in the name of another.
Public domain Registered property
Subject of Reversion The State is not barred Persons qualified to file
by res judicata nor an action for
Reversion connotes restoration of public land estoppel in instituting reconveyance can be
fraudulently awarded or disposed of to the mass an action for reversion. barred by res judicata
of the public domain and may again be the subject and estoppel.
of disposition in the manner prescribed by law to
qualified applicants. It is instituted by the QUIETING OF TITLE
government, through the Solicitor General. But an
action for cancellation, not reversion, is proper Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property
where private land had been subsequently titled, or any interest therein, by reason of any
and the party plaintiff in this case is the prior instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or

641
 CIVIL LAW
proceedings which is apparently valid or effective
but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial
to said title, an action may be brought to remove
such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may also
be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
upon title to real property or any interest therein
(Art. 476, Civil Code).
Cloud on the title
A cloud on title is an outstanding claim or
encumbrance which, if valid, would affect or
impair the title of the owner of a particular estate,
and on its face has that effect, but can be shown by
extrinsic proof to be invalid or inapplicable to the
estate in question. The remedy for removing a
cloud on title is usually the means of an action to
quiet title (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 255).
CADASTRAL LAND REGISTRATION
It is a proceeding in rem, initiated by the filing of a
petition for registration by the government, not by
the persons claiming ownership of the land
subject thereof, and the latter are, on the pain of
losing their claim thereto, in effect compelled to go
to court to make known their claim or interest
therein, and to substantiate such claim or interest.
Purpose of cadastral registration
Here, the government does not seek the
registration of land in its name. The objective of
the proceeding is the adjudication of title to the
lands or lots involved in said proceeding.
Furthermore, it is to serve public interest by
requiring that the titles to the lands be settled and
adjudicated (Act. No. 2259, Sec. 1).
Extent of authority of cadastral courts
The cadastral court is not limited to merely
adjudication of ownership in favor of one or more
claimants. If there are no successful claimants, the
property is declared public land.
Cadastral courts do not have the power to
determine and adjudicate title to a lot already
covered by homestead patent to a person other
than a patentee.
Cadastral court possesses no authority to award
damages.
NOTE: A parcel of forest land is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry
and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
cadastral court to register under the Torrens
system.
TRANSCMPTION
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
It is the transcript of the decree of registration
made by the Register of Deeds in the registry. It
accumulates in one document a precise and
correct statement of the exact status of the fee
simple title which an owner possesses.
Registration is the operative act which gives
validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the
land. A certificate of title serves as an evidence of
an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein (Spouses Vilbar v. Opinion, G.R. No.
176043, January 15, 2014).
NOTE: A certificate of title is different from a title.
Title constitutes a just cause of exclusive
possession or the foundation of ownership of
property. A certificate of title is merely an
evidence of ownership and not the title to the land
itself (Castillo v. Escutin, G.R. No. 171056, March 13,
2009).
Types of certificates of title
1. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) – The first
title issued in the name of the registered
owner by the Register of Deeds covering a
parcel of land which had been registered
under the Torrens system by virtue of a
judicial or administrative proceeding. It
consists of one original copy filed in the
Register of Deeds, and the owner’s duplicate
certificate delivered to the owner; and
2. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) – The title
issued by the Register of Deeds in favor of a
transferee to whom the ownership of a
registered land has been transferred by any
legal mode of conveyance.
Difference between title over land, land title,
certificate of title and deed
TITLE LAND TITLE
A juridical act or deed The evidence of the
which is not sufficient owner’s right or extent
by itself to transfer of interest, by which he
ownership but provides can maintain control,
only for a juridical and as a rule, assert
justification to effect the right to exclusive
acquisition or transfer possession and
642
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
ownership. enjoyment of property. the annulment and cancellation of the TCT
issued in the name of St. Jude. Is the
government estopped from questioning the
approved subdivision plan which expanded
CERTIFICATE OF DEED the areas covered by the TCTs in question?
TITLE
A: YES, estoppels against the public are less
The transcript of the The instrument in favored. They should not be invoked except in
decree of registration writing, by which any rare and unusual circumstances, nor if it would
made by the Register of real estate or interest operate to defeat the effective operation of a
Deeds in the registry. It therein is created, policy adopted to protect the public. They must
accumulates in one alienated, mortgaged or be applied with circumspection and only in those
document a precise and assigned, or by which special cases where the interests of justice clearly
correct statement of the title to any real estate require it. In the case at bar, St. Jude failed to
exact status of the fee may be affected in law correct and recover the alleged increase in the
simple title which an or equity. land area for nearly 20 years. Its prolonged
owner possesses. inaction strongly militates against its cause, as it is
tantamount to laches.
Ownership as distinguished from title
Verily, all persons dealing with registered land
may safely rely on the correctness of the
OWNERSHIP TITLE certificate of title issued therefor, and the law or
the courts do not oblige them to go behind the
An independent right of The cause for
certificate in order to investigate again the true
exclusive enjoyment acquisition of
condition of the property (Republic of the
and control of the thing ownership
Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Catalino
for the purpose of e.g. sale = title; delivery
Santos, et al., G.R. No. 116111, January 21, 1999).
deriving therefrom all = mode of acquisition of
advantages required by ownership.
Modes of acquiring title over land
the reasonable needs of
the owner and the
1. By possession of land since time
promotion of the
immemorial;
general welfare but
2. By possession of alienable and disposable
subject to the
public land; and
restrictions imposed by
law and the rights of
NOTE: Under the Public Land Act (C.A. No.
others (NCC, Art. 427).
141), citizens of the Philippines, who by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-
NOTE: Registration under the Torrens system, not interest have been in open, continuous,
being a mode of acquiring ownership, does not exclusive and notorious possession and
create or vest title. The Torrens certificate of title occupation of alienable and disposable
is merely an evidence of ownership or title in the agricultural land of the public domain under a
particular property described therein. In that bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
sense, the issuance of the certificate of title to a 1945, or earlier, (except when prevented by
particular person does not preclude the possibility war or force majeure), shall be conclusively
that persons not named in the certificate may be presumed to have performed all the
co-owners of the real property therein described conditions essential to a government grant
with the person named therein, or that the and shall be entitled to a certificate of title.
registered owner may be holding the property in
trust for another person (Casimiro Development 3. By sale, donation, and other modes of
Corporation v. Renato Mateo, G.R. No. 175485, July acquiring ownership.
27, 2011).
Modes of acquiring ownership over land
Q: St. Jude’s Enterprise, Inc. is the registered
owner of a parcel of land. It subdivided the 1. Occupation;
said land which was later on found to have 2. Law;
expanded with an increase of 1,421 sqm. St. 3. Donation;
Jude sold the lots to several individuals. Thus, 4. Tradition;
the Solicitor General filed an action seeking

643
 CIVIL LAW
5. Intellectual creation; the Torrens certificate and tax declarations in
6. Prescription; and her name. Is Filomena the lawful owner of such
7. Succession. property?

NOTE: 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.
Thus, notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the
Torrens title, the registered owner may still be
compelled to reconvey the registered property to
its true owners (Heirs of Tanyag v. Gabriel, et. al.,
G.R. No. 175763, April 11, 2012).
Possession v. Occupation
POSSESSION OCCUPATION
Applies to a property Applies only to a
with or without an property without an
owner. owner.
By itself does not confer Confers ownership by
ownership. itself.
There can be possession There can be no
without ownership. occupation without
ownership.
Acquisition of land titles
1. Public grant;
2. Emancipation patent or grant;
3. Reclamation;
5. Adverse possession / acquisitive prescription;
6. Private grant or voluntary transfer;
7. Accretion;
8. Involuntary alienation; and
9. Descent or devise.
Torrens Title
A certificate of ownership issued under the
Torrens system of registration by the government,
through the Register of Deeds (RD) naming and
declaring the owner in fee simple of the real
property described therein, free from all liens &
encumbrances, except as may be expressly noted
there or otherwise reserved by law.
Q: Filomena allegedly bought a parcel of
unregistered land from Hipolito. When she had
the property titled and declared for tax
purposes, she sold it. The Mapili’s question the
transfer, saying that Filomena falsely stated in
her Affidavit that Hipolito sold it to her in
1949, since by that time, he is already dead.
Filomena maintains that she is the lawful
owner of the land by virtue of the issuance of
A: NO. A Torrens certificate does not create or
vest title, but is merely an evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein. Land registration under the
Torrens system was never intended to be a means
of acquiring ownership.
Neither does the existence of tax declarations
create or vest title. It is not a conclusive evidence
of ownership, but a proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property (Larena v. Mapili,
et. al., G.R. No. 146341, August 7, 2003).
Q: In 1929, an OCT covering the lot in
controversy was issued in the name of Maria
Ramos, Heirs of Maligaso’s aunt. In 1965,
Maria sold it to the Spouses Encinas which led
to the issuance of a TCT in favor of the latter.
30 years from the time they purchased the lot,
Spouses Encinas issued two demand letters to
the Heirs of Maligaso asking them to vacate the
contested area but they refused to leave.
Hence, the Spouses Encinas filed a complaint
for unlawful detainer against them. According
to the Heirs, however, their occupation
remained undisturbed for more than 30 years
and the Spouses’ failure to detail and specify
the Heirs’ supposedly tolerated possession
suggest that they are aware of their claim over
the subject area. Decide with reason.
A: The validity of Spouses’ certificate of title
cannot be attacked by the Heirs in this case for
ejectment. Under Sec. 48 of P.D. No. 1529, a
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled,
except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in
accordance with law. Whether or not petitioner
has the right to claim ownership over the property
is beyond the power of the trial court to determine
in an action for unlawful detainer.
As ruled in Spouses Ragudo v. Fabella Estate
Tenants Association, Inc., laches does not operate
to deprive the registered owner of a parcel of land
of his right to recover possession thereof (Heirs of
Jose Maligaso, Sr., etc. v. Sps. Simon D. Encinas and
Esperanza E. Encinas, G.R. No. 182716, June 20,
2012).
Probative value of a Torrens title

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 644
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
A Torrens title may be received as evidence in all
courts of the Philippines and shall be conclusive as
to all matters contained therein, principally as to
the identity of the land owner, except so far as
provided in the Land Registration Act (LRA).
A Torrens certificate is an evidence of indefeasible
title of property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein–such holder is entitled to
the possession of the property until his title is
nullified.
Q: Hadji Serad filed an action to quiet title with
damages with the RTC. Accordingly, Datu
Kiram with several armed men, forcibly and
unlawfully entered his property and destroyed
the nursery buildings, cabbage seedlings and
other improvements. Datu Kiram however
denied the material allegations of Hadji Serad,
asserting that he and his predecessors-in-
interest are the ones who had been in open,
public, continuous, and exclusive possession of
the property in dispute. He also alleged that he
inherited the land in 1952 from his father and
had been in adverse possession and ownership
of the subject lot, cultivating and planting trees
and plants. He also declared the land for
taxation purposes and paid real estate taxes.
Who is the rightful owner of the subject
property?
A: Hadji Serad is the rightful owner.
The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with
respect to the ownership of the land described
therein, and other matters which can be litigated
and decided in land registration proceedings. Tax
declarations and tax receipts cannot prevail over a
certificate of title which is an incontrovertible
proof of ownership. An original certificate of title
issued by the Register of Deeds under an
administrative proceeding is as indefeasible as a
certificate of title issued under judicial
proceedings. Thus, Hadji Serad’s Torrens title is a
valid evidence of his ownership of the land in
dispute (Datu Kiram Sampaco v. Hadji Serad
Mingca Lantud, G.R. No. 163551, July 18, 2011).
Q: Ruben filed a complaint against Spouses
Agustin alleging that he is the registered
owner of two parcels of land. Accordingly, his
father bought it from Elias and then allowed
spouses Agustin to occupy the subject
properties. Despite demand to vacate, the
Agustins refused to leave the premises.
Ruben alleged that he has better right to
possess the property having acquired the same
from his father through a Deed of Quitclaim in
645
1971. Spouses Agustin however contends that
they are the rightful owners as evidenced by a
Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor. Decide
who between the parties has the right to
possession of the disputed properties.
A: Ruben has the right to possession. A title
issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all
the attributes of property ownership, which
necessarily includes possession. Ruben is correct
that as a Torrens title holder over the subject
properties, he is the rightful owner and is entitled
to possession thereof. In this case, the Quitclaim
executed by the elder Corpuz in favor of Ruben
was executed made ahead of the Deed of Sale of
Spouses Agustin. Thus, the sale of the subject
properties by Ruben’s father to Spouses cannot be
considered as a prior interest at the time Ruben
came to know of the transaction (Ruben C. Corpuz
v. Spouses Hilarion Agustin and Justa Agustin, G.R.
No. 183822, January 18, 2012).
Rules regarding the indefeasibility and
incontrovertibility of Torrens Title
1. The certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible title to the property in favor of
the person whose name appears therein;
2. After the expiration of the one year period
from the issuance of the decree of registration
upon which it is based, it becomes
incontrovertible; and
3. Decree of registration and the certificate of
title issued pursuant thereto may be attacked
on the ground of actual fraud within one year
from the date of its entry and such an attack
must be direct and not by a collateral
proceeding. The validity of the certificate of
title in this regard can be threshed out only in
an action expressly filed for the purpose.
NOTE: The defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens
title does not extend to a transferee who takes it
with notice of a flaw in the title of his
transferor. To be effective, the inscription in the
registry must have been made in good faith. A
holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not
entitled to the protection of the law, for the law
cannot be used as a shield for fraud (Adoracion
Rosales Rufloe, et al., v. Leonarda Burgos et al., G.R.
No. 143573, January 30, 2009).
Q: There is no specific provision in the Public
Land Law (C.A. No. 141, as amended) or the
Land Registration Act (Act 496), now P.D.
1529, fixing the one year period within which
the public land patent is open to review on the
ground of actual fraud as in Sec. 38 of the Land
 CIVIL LAW
Registration Act, now Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529, and
clothing a public land patent certificate of title
with indefeasibility. What is the effect of such
absence?
A: NONE. The rule on indefeasibility of certificates
of title was applied by the Court in Public Land
Patents because such application is in consonance
with the spirit and intent of homestead laws.
The pertinent pronouncements in cases clearly
reveal that Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act,
now Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 was applied by
implication to the patent issued by the Director of
Lands duly approved by the Secretary of Natural
Resources, under the signature of the President of
the Philippines in accordance with law.
The date of issuance of the patent, therefore,
corresponds to the date of the issuance of the
decree in ordinary registration cases because the
decree finally awards the land applied for
registration to the party entitled to it, and the
patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and
finally grants, awards, and conveys the land
applied for to the applicant.
NOTE: A certificate of title issued under an
administrative proceeding pursuant to a
homestead patent is as indefeasible as a certificate
of title issued under a judicial registration
proceeding, provided the land covered by said
certificate is a disposable public land within the
contemplation of the Public Land Law.
Mirror doctrine
All persons dealing with a property covered by
Torrens certificate of title are not required to go
beyond what appears on the face of the title.
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 the Torrens title upon its face indicates in
quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that
may defeat his right thereto (Chua v. Soriano,
GR.No. 150066, April 13, 2007).
Application of mirror doctrine
GR: Mirror Doctrine applies when title over a land
is registered under the Torrens system.
XPN: Mirror Doctrine cannot be invoked where:
1. The purchaser or mortgagee is a
bank/financing institution;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
2. The owner still holds a valid and existing
certificate of title covering the same property,
because the law protects the lawful holder of
a registered title over the transfer of a vendor
bereft of any transmissible right;
3. The purchaser is in bad faith;
4. The purchaser purchases land with a
certificate of title containing a notice of lis
pendens;
5. There are sufficiently strong indications to
impel closer inquiry into the location,
boundaries and condition of the lot;
6. The purchaser had full knowledge of flaws
and defects in the title; or
7. A person buys land not from the registered
owner but from whose rights to the land has
been merely annotated on the certificate of
title.
Q: Cipriana Delgado was the registered owner
of the lot in controversy. She and her husband
sold the property to Cecilia where it was
agreed that the latter shall make partial
payments from time to time and pay the
balance when the Spouses are ready to execute
the deed of sale and transfer title to her. After
paying the total amount and being ready to
pay the balance, Cecilia demanded the
execution of the deed which was refused.
Cecilia learned of the sale of the property to
the Dys and its subsequent mortgage to
petitioner Philippine Banking Corporation
(Philbank). Thus, a complaint for annulment of
the Certificate of title and for specific
performance and/or reconveyance with
damages was filed against Spouses Delgado,
the Dys and Philbank. However, Philbank
contends that it is a mortgagee in good faith. Is
the bank’s contention correct?
A: NO. Primarily, it bears noting that the doctrine
of “mortgagee in good faith” is based on the rule
that all persons dealing with property covered by
a Torrens Certificate of Title are not required to go
beyond what appears on the face of the title. In the
case of banks and other financial institutions,
however, greater care and due diligence are
required since they are imbued with public
interest, failing which renders the mortgagee in
bad faith. Thus, before approving a loan
application, it is a standard operating practice for
these institutions to conduct an ocular inspection
of the property offered for mortgage and to verify
the genuineness of the title to determine the real
owner(s) thereof. The apparent purpose of an
ocular inspection is to protect the “true owner” of
the property as well as innocent third parties with
a right, interest or claim thereon from a usurper
646
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
who may have acquired a fraudulent certificate of
title thereto (Philippine Banking Corporation v.
Arturo Dy, et al., G.R. No. 183774, November 14,
2012).
CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS
Primary classification
1. Agricultural;
2. Forest or timber;
3. Mineral lands; and
4. National parks (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution).
The classification of lands of the publc domain is
an exclusive prerogative of the executive
department and not of the courts. In the absence
of such classification, the lands remain as
unclassified until it is released therefrom and
rendered open to disposition (Valiao v. Republic,
G.R. No. 170757, November 28, 2011).
NOTE: Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands
of the public domain belong to the State. Hence,
"all lands not appearing to be clearly under
private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State. Also, public lands remain part of the
inalienable land of the public domain unless the
State is shown to have reclassified or alienated
them to private persons." To prove that a land is
alienable, the existence of a positive act of the
government, such as presidential proclamation or
an executive order; an administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands
investigators; and a legislative act or a statute
declaring the land as alienable and disposable
must be established (Republic v. Cortez, G.R. No.
197472, September 7, 2015)
Alienable and disposable lands of the State fall
into two categories:
(a) Patrimonial lands of the State, or those
classified as lands of private ownership under Art.
425 of the Civil Code, without limitation; and
(b) Lands of the public domain, or the public lands
as provided by the Constitution, but with the
limitation that the lands must only be agricultural.
Consequently, lands classified as forest or timber,
mineral, or national parks are not susceptible of
alienation or disposition unless they are
reclassified as agricultural (Malabanan v. Republic,
G.R. No. 179987, September 3, 2013).
Secondary classification
647
Agricultural lands of the public domain may be
further classified by law according to the uses
which they may be devoted (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution).
1. Agricultural;
2. Residential commercial industrial or for
similar productive purposes;
3. Educational, charitable, or other similar
purposes; and
4. Reservations for town sites and for public
and quasi-public uses (C.A. 141, Sec. 9).
CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT
Persons qualified to acquire private lands
1. Filipino citizens;
NOTE: Naturalized Filipino citizens can
acquire private lands. They are considered
Filipino citizens under Art. IV of the 1987
Constitution.
2. Filipino corporations and associations as
defined in Sec. 2, Art. XII of the Constitution;
and by exception;
NOTE : Only Filipino citizens or corporations
at least 60% of its capital is owned by
Filipinos are qualified to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain.
3. Aliens but only by hereditary succession; and
4. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who
has lost citizenship may be a transferee of
private lands subject to the limitations
provided by law (Sec. 8, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution).
Former Filipinos who became aliens may also
acquire private lands. It is provided under R.A. no
9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act
of 2003), which declares that natural-born citizens
of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of foreign country are hereby deemed to
have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon
taking their oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws
of the Philippines.
NOTE: Filipino citizens can both acquire or hold
lands of public domain.
 CIVIL LAW
The time to determine whether a person acquiring
land is qualified is at the time the right to own is
acquired and not the time to register ownership
(Director of Lands v. IAC and Acme, G.R. No. 73002,
December 29, 1986).
Acquisition of private land by an alien
GR: An alien cannot acquire private lands.
XPN: By way of hereditary succession.
Aliens may not acquire private or public
agricultural lands and all acquisitions made in
contravention of the prohibitions since the
fundamental law became effective are null and
void per se and ab initio. The prohibition is a
declaration of imperative national policy
(Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, G.R. No. L-630,
November 15, 1957).
The constitutional ban against foreigners apply
only to ownership of Philippine land and not to
the improvements built thereon (Beumer v.
Amores, G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012).
NOTE: Under R.A. No. 4726, foreign nationals can
own Philippine real estate through the purchase of
condominium units or townhouses. It expressly
allows foreigners to acquire condominium units
and shares in condominium corporations up to
not more than 40% of the total and outstanding
capital stock of a Filipino owned or controlled
corporation. The land is owned by the
condominium corporation and the unit owner is
simply a member in this condominium
corporation.
Q: Spouses Pinoy and Pinay, both natural-born
Filipino citizens, purchased property in the
Philippines. However, they sought its
registration when they were already
naturalized as Canadian citizens. Should the
registration be denied on the ground that they
cannot do so being foreign nationals?
A: NO. For the purpose of transfer and/or
acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not
significant whether they are no longer Filipino
citizens at the time they purchased or registered
the parcels of land in question. What is important
is that they 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 Sec. 8, Art. XII of
the Constitution which states that
notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 7 of this
Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private lands, subject to limitations
provided by law (Republic v. CA and Lapina, G.R.
No. 108998, August 24, 1994).
Q: Julian and respondens own a 227,270-
square meter parcel of land, covered by TCT
No. 8027[5] (subject land). Julian who owns
8/14 of the subject land sold some portions to
various buyers, including Gaspar Genorga, the
husband of petitioner. However, buyers cannot
register their respective sale because Julian
failed to surrender the TCT NO. 8027 to them.
This prompts them to file a case for the
surrender of the owner’s duplicate copy of the
TCT Mo. 8027 which the court granted. The
said decision became final and executory but
remained unexecuted. Thus, in an Order, the
RTC declared TCT No. 8027 null and void,
resulting in the issuance of a new one, bearing
annotations of the buyers' adverse claims. The
new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 8027
(subject owner's duplicate title) was given to
petitioner in 2009. On April 22, 2013,
respondents filed a Complaint against
petitioner before the court a quo, seeking the
surrender of the subject owner's duplicate title
with damages. Petitioner averred that their
possession of the subject owner's duplicate
title was by virtue of a court decision, and for
the legitimate purpose of registering the sales
in their favor and the issuance of titles in their
names, they should be allowed to retain
possession until the completion of the
requirements therefor. Is the petitioner
correct?
A: No. Notably, from the time petitioner received
possession of the subject owner's duplicate
title in 2009, a considerable amount of time
had passed until she submitted the same to
the RD-Naga on September 13, 2013. But even
up to the time she filed the instant petition
before the Court on May 6, 2016, she failed to
show any sufficient justification for the
continued failure of the concerned buyers to
comply with the requirements for the
registration of their respective deeds of sale
and the issuance of certificates of title in their
names to warrant a preferential right to the
possession of the subject owner's duplicate
title as against respondents who undisputedly
own the bigger portion of the subject land
(Remedios Genorga v. Heirs of Julian Meliton,
G.R. No. 224515, July 03, 2017). [Perlas-
Bernabe]
648
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Q: Joe, an alien, invalidly acquired a parcel of
land in the Philippines. He subsequently
transferred it to Jose, a Filipino citizen.
a. What is the status of the transfer?
b. If Joe had not transferred it to Jose but he,
himself, was later naturalized as a Filipino
citizen, will his acquisition thereof remain
invalid?
A:
a. If a land is invalidly transferred to an alien
who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen
or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the
original transaction is considered cured and
the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
Since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve
the nation’s land for future generations of
Filipinos, that aim is achieved by making
lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens
who became Filipino citizens by
naturalization or those transfers made by
aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in
dispute is already in the hands of a qualified
person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no
more public policy to be protected. The
objective of the constitutional provision to
keep our lands in Filipino hands has been
achieved.
b. NO. If a land is invalidly transferred to an
alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino
citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is
also considered cured and the title of the
transferee is rendered valid (Borromeo v.
Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009).
Maximum area that may be acquired by a
natural born citizen who has lost his
Philippine citizenship
A natural born citizen who has legal capacity to
enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be
a transferee of a private land up to the following
maximum areas:
a. For residence purposes: 1,000 sq. m. in
the case of urban lands or one hectare in
the case of rural lands. In the case of
married couples, one of them may avail of
the privilege herein granted, but if both
shall avail of the same, the total area
acquired shall not exceed the maximum
area fixed (B.P. Blg. 185, Sec 2).
b. For business (investment) or other
purposes: 5,000 sq. m. if urban land, or
three hectares if rural land (Sec. 10, R.A.
No. 7042, as amended by R.A. 8179).
649
Q: Does the area limitation under R.A. 9225, as
amended, apply to a natural-born Filipino who
has lost his citizenship but who re-acquired
the same under the terms of R.A. 9225?
A: The area limitation no longer applies since it is
the policy of the law “that all Philippine citizens
who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship
under this Act.“
R.A. 9225 expressly grants him the same right, as
any Filipino citizen to enjoy full civil and political
rights upon the re-acquisition of his Filipino
citizenship.
Acquisition of lands by a corporation
Corporation sole, which consists of one person
only, is vested with the right to purchase and hold
real estate and to register the same in trust for the
faithful or members of the religious society or
church for which the corporation was organized
(Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao,
Inc. v. Land Registration Commission, G.R. No. L-
8451, December 20, 1957).
It can acquire by purchase a parcel of private
agricultural land without violating the
constitutional prohibition since it has no
nationality.
Q: Why is it in a corporation sole, citizenship is
not in question?
A: The framers of the constitution did not have in
mind the religious corporation sole when they
provided that 60 percentum of the capital thereof
be owned by Filipino citizens. A corporation sole
or “ordinary” is not the owner of the properties
that he may acquire but merely the administrator
thereof. The properties pass, upon his death, not
to his personal heirs but to his successor in office.
Corporation:
Private Lands
1. At least 60% (Sec. 7, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution) ;
2. Restricted as to extent reasonably necessary
to enable it to carry out purpose for which it
was created; and
3. If engaged in agriculture, it is restricted to
1,024 hectares.
Patrimonial property of the State (Sec. 3, Art. XII,
1987 Constitution).
1. Lease (cannot own land of the public domain)
for 25 years renewable for another 25 years;
 CIVIL LAW
2. Limited to 1,000 hectares; and
3. Applies to both Filipinos and foreign
corporations.
Q: May a corporation apply for registration of a
parcel of land?
A: YES, through lease not exceeding 1,000
hectares. The lease shall not exceed 25 years and
is renewable for not more than 25 years (Sec. 3,
Art. XII, 1987 Constitution).
NOTE: Determinative of this issue is the character
of the parcels of land–whether they were still
public or already private–when the registration
proceedings were commenced. If they are already
private lands, the constitutional prohibition
against acquisitions by a private corporation
would not apply.
SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
It is where incidental matters after original
registration may be brought before the land
registration court by way of motion or petition
filed by the registered owner or a party in interest.
Q: After registering his land, what conveyances
may the registered owner do?
A: An owner of registered land may convey,
mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the
same in accordance with existing laws. He may
use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or
other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in
law.
GR: Such deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
instrument shall operate only as a contract
between the parties and as evidence of authority
to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is
the act of registration which shall operate to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons
are concerned, and in all cases, the registration
shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds
for the province or city where the land lies. The
act of registration creates a constructive notice to
the whole world of such voluntary or involuntary
instrument or court writ or process (P.D. 1529,
Sec. 52).
XPN: A will purporting to convey or affect
registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or
bind the land, not merely as a contract or evidence
of authority of the RD to make registration (P.D.
1529, Sec. 51).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
VOLUNTARY DEALINGS
Mortgages and leases
GR: The mortgagor should be the absolute owner
of the property to be mortgaged; otherwise, the
mortgage is considered null and void.
XPN: Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith. All
persons dealing with 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. This is the same
rule that underlies the principle of innocent
purchasers for value. The prevailing jurisprudence
is that a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith
on the certificate of title of the mortgagor to 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 (Duque-
Rosario v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank, G.R. No. 140528, December 7, 2011).
NOTE : The subsequent nullification of the
mortgagor’s title will not nullify the mortgage
(Gonzales v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69622, January 29,
1988).
Effect of registration of such voluntary
dealings
It:
1. Creates a lien that attaches to the property in
favor of the mortgagee; and
2. Constitutes constructive notice of his interest
in the property to the whole world.
Rule on carry-over of encumbrances
If, at the time of any transfer, subsisting
encumbrances or annotations appear in the
registration book, they shall be carried over and
stated in the new certificate or certificates; except
so far as they may be simultaneously released or
discharged (P.D. 1529, Sec. 59).
Q: If the property that was the subject of
mortgage was subsequently foreclosed, must a
new certificate of title be automatically issued
in favor of the purchaser?
A: The answer must be qualified.
650
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
1. No right of redemption – The certificate of
title of the mortgagor shall be canceled, and a
new certificate issued in the name of the
purchaser; and
2. There is right of redemption – The certificate
of title of the mortgagor shall not be
cancelled, but the certificate of sale and the
order confirming the sale shall be registered
by a brief memorandum thereof made by
the Register of Deeds upon the certificate of
title.
In the event the property is redeemed, the
certificate or deed of redemption shall be filed
with the Register of Deeds, and a brief
memorandum thereof shall be made by the
Register of Deeds on the certificate of title of the
mortgagor.
If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of
sale executed by the sheriff in favor of the
purchaser at a foreclosure sale shall be registered
with the Register of Deeds; whereupon the title of
the mortgagor shall be canceled, and a new
certificate issued in the name of the purchaser
(P.D. 1529, Sec. 63).
Q: Sps. Guevarra obtained a loan from TCLC,
which was secured by a real estate mortgage
over a parcel of land emanating from a free
patent granted to Sps. Guevarra. Sps. Guevarra,
however, defaulted in the payment of their
loan, prompting TCLC to extra-judicially
foreclose the mortgage on the subject property
in accordance with Act No. 3135 as amended.
In the process, TCLC emerged as the highest
bidder at the public auction sale. the certificate
of sale was registered with the Registry of
Deeds of Iloilo. Eventually, Sps. Guevarra failed
to redeem the subject property within the one-
year reglementary period, which led to the
cancellation of Title of the spouses in favor of
TCLC. Thereafter, TCLC demanded that Sps.
Guevarra vacate the property, but to no avail.
Does Sps. Guevarra still has the right to
repurchase? If so, who should fix the
repurchase price?
A: Yes. In an extra-judicial foreclosure of
registered land acquired under a free patent, the
mortgagor may redeem the property within two
(2) years from the date of foreclosure if the land is
mortgaged to a rural bank under Republic Act No.
(RA) 720, as amended, otherwise known as the
Rural Banks Act, or within one (1) year from the
registration of the certificate of sale if the land is
mortgaged to parties other than rural banks
pursuant to Act No. 3135. If the mortgagor fails to
651
exercise such right, he or his heirs may still
repurchase the property within five (5) years
from the expiration of the redemption period.
It is TLCL who has the right to fix the price. But
such price must be limited to the amount
mentioned in the mortgage (Spouses Rodolfo and
Marcelina Guevarra v. The Commoner Lending
Corporation, Inc., G.R. No. 204672, February 18,
2015). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Q: Does non-registration of property after
judicial foreclosure and sale have the effect of
invalidating the foreclosure proceedings, such
that ownership reverts to the original owner?
A: NO. The effect of the failure to obtain the
judicial confirmation was only to prevent the title
to the property from being transferred. For sure,
such failure did not give rise to any right in favor
of the mortgagor or the respondents as his
successors-in-interest to take back the property
already validly sold through public auction. Nor
did such failure invalidate the foreclosure
proceedings. To maintain otherwise would render
nugatory the judicial foreclosure and foreclosure
sale, thus unduly disturbing judicial stability. After
all, under the applicable rule earlier cited, the
judicial confirmation operated only “to divest the
rights of all the parties to the action and to vest
their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights
of redemption as may be allowed by law” (Robles
vs. Yapcinco et. al., G.R. No. 169569, October 22,
2014)
REMEDY IN CASE OF LOSS OR DESTRUCTION
OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Remedy in case a person lost his certificate of
title
1. If what is lost is the OCT or TCT –
Reconstitution of certificate of title;
2. If, however, it is the duplicate of the OCT or
TCT – Replacement of lost duplicate certificate
of title.
Reconstitution of certificate of title
The restoration of the instrument which is
supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its
original form and condition, under the custody of
Register of Deeds.
Purpose of reconstitution of title
To have the same reproduced, after proper
proceedings, in the same form they were when the
loss or destruction occurred.
 CIVIL LAW
The reconstitution or reconstruction of a
certificate of title literally denoted restoration of
the instrument which is supposed to have been
lost or destroyed in its original form and
condition. It does not resolve or determine the
ownership of the land covered by the lost or
destroyed title. Restitution is proper only when it
is satisfacorily shown that the title sought to be
reconstituted is lost or no longer available.
Q: Homer and Ma. Susana Dagondon, as
attorneys-in-fact of Jover P. Dagondon, prayed
for the reconstitution of the Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) of Lot No. 84. In their
petition, they alleged that the subject property
had no existing OCT and that it was probably
destroyed or dilapidated during the eruption
of Hiboc-Hiboc Volcano or World War II. The
Republic prayed for the dismissal of the
petition for insufficiency in form and
substance, considering that respondents failed
to establish the existence of the very Torrens
Title (OCT) which they sought to reconstitute.
Is the Republic correct?
A: Yes. The reconstitution of a certificate of title
denotes restoration in the original form and
condition of a lost or destroyed instrument
attesting the title of a person to a piece of land.
The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to
have, after observing the procedures prescribed
by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same
way it has been when the loss or destruction
occurred. RA 26 presupposes that the property
whose title is sought to be reconstituted has
already been brought under the provisions of the
Torrens System.
In the case at bar, respondents miserably failed to
adduce clear and convincing proof that an OCT
covering Lot 84 had previously been issued.
Accordingly, there is no title pertaining to Lot 84
which could be reconstituted, re-issued, or
restored. Guided by the foregoing, judicial
reconstitution of title under Section 2 of RA 26 is
clearly improper in this case (Republic v. Homer
and Ma. Susana Dagondon, G.R. No. 210540, April
19, 2016). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Q: May a writ of possession be issued in a
petition for reconstitution?
A: NO, because reconstitution does not adjudicate
ownership over the property. A writ of possession
is issued to place the applicant-owner in
possession.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
Requisites for the issuance of an order for
reconstitution
1. That the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyed;
2. That the documents presented by petitioner
are sufficient and proper to warrant
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed
certificate of title;
3. That the petitioner is the registered owner of
the property or had an interest therein;
4. That the certificate of title was in force at the
time it was lost or destroyed; and
5. That the description, area and boundaries of
the property are substantially the same as
those contained in the lost or destroyed
certificate of title (Republic of the Philippines v.
Apolinaria Catarroja, et al., G.R. No. 171774,
February 12, 2010).
Jurisdictional requirements in petitions for
reconstitution of title
Notice thereof shall be:
1. Published twice in successive issues of the
Official Gazette;
2. Posted on the main entrance of the provincial
building and of the municipal building of the
municipality or city, where the land is situated;
and
3. Sent by registered mail to every person named
in said notice.
NOTE: The above requirements are mandatory
and jurisdictional.
Q: Alleging that the original copy of a 240,269
square meter property was destroyed by the
fire, Gertrudes Susi filed a petition for
reconstitution of title to cover the property on
basis of his owner's copy. In opposing the
petition, the LRA filed a Manifestation
questioning the reconstitution considering
that the claim was anchored on the owner's
duplicate certificate which bore a different
serial number. Having duly complied with the
publication and posting requirement, the trial
court set the case for hearing and granted the
same. Should the petition for reconstitution be
granted?
A: No. It is well to point out that the trial courts
hearing reconstitution petitions under RA 26 are
duty-bound to take into account the LRA's report.
Notably, since the serial number of the owner's
duplicate did not bear a similar serial number
from the subject lot, the same should have been
denied by the trial court for failure to comply with
652
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
the requirements of law. Since the petition for
reconstitution failed to comply with the applicable
procedures and requirements, it follows that the
RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the case, and
all proceedings held thereon are null and void
(Republic v. Gertrudes Susi, G.R. No. 213209,
January 16, 2017). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Q: Respondent De Asis filed an amended
petition to reconstitute TCT No. 8240 in favor
of his uncle, Lauriano De Asis; for the title was
destroyed by the fire in the Quezon City Hall.
RTC found substance therefore required LRA
to furnished a copy of the title and for the
Official Gazette publish such the title in two
consecutive issues for at least 30 days prior to
the date of hearing. However, the latter was
not duly complied with, it was short of 3 days.
Is the non-compliance of RA 26 requiring
publication of notice of hearing in two
consecutive issued of the Official Gazette at
least 30 days prior to the date of hearing, a
jurisdictional requisite?
A: Yes. Reconstitution of Titles requires that (a)
notice of the petition should be published in two
successive issues of the Official Gazette; and (b)
publication should be made at least 30 days prior
to the date of hearing. While it is true that the 30-
day period in the case was short of only 3 days,
the principle of substantial compliance cannot
apply, as the law requires strict compliance,
without which the SC is devoid of authority to pass
upon and resolve the petition (Republic v.
Ricordito De Asis Jr., G.R. No. 193874, July 24, 2013).
[Perlas-Bernabe]
Kinds of reconstitution of title
1. Judicial – Partakes the nature of a land
registration proceeding in rem. The registered
owners, assigns, or any person having an
interest in the property may file a petition for
that purpose with RTC where property is
located. RD is not the proper party to file the
petition.
2. Administrative – May be availed of only in case
of:
a. Substantial loss or destruction of the
original land titles due to fire, flood, or
other force majeure as determined by the
Administrator of the Land Registration
Authority.
b. The number of certificates of title lost or
damaged should be at least 10% of the total
number in the possession of the Office of
the Register of Deeds
653
In no case shall the number of certificates of
title lost or damaged be less than 500.
c. Petitioner must have the duplicate copy of
the certificate of title.
NOTE: The law provides for retroactive
application thereof to cases 15 years immediately
preceding 1989.
Sources where a certificate of title may be
reconstituted
JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION
For OCT (in the following order):
1. Owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
2. Co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate
of said certificate;
3. Certified copy of such certificate, previously
issued by the Register of Deeds;
4. Authenticated copy of the decree of
registration or patent, as the case may be,
which was the basis of the certificate of title;
5. Deed or mortgage, lease or encumbrance
containing description of property covered by
the certificate of title and on file with the
Registry of Deeds, or an authenticated copy
thereof; or
6. Any other document which, in the judgment of
the court, is sufficient and proper basis for
reconstitution.
For TCT (in the following order):
1. Owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
2. Co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate
of said certificate;
3. Certified copy of such certificate, previously
issued by the Register of Deeds;
4. Deed of transfer of other document, on file in
the registry of deeds, or an authenticated copy
thereof, showing that its original had been
registered, and pursuant to which the lost or
destroyed transfer of certificate was issued;
5. A document, on file with the Register of deeds,
by which the property, the description of
which is given in said document, is
mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing
that its original had been registered; and
6. Any other document which, in the judgment of
the court, is sufficient and proper basis for
reconstitution.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION
1. Owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;
and
2. Co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate
of said certificate.
 CIVIL LAW
Q: Catarroja et al. filed a petition for
reconstitution of title covering two lots in
Cavite which they inherited from their parents.
Allegedly, the LRA issued a certification
confirming that the land registration court
issued a Decree covering the lots. A copy of the
decree however was no longer available in the
record. It was also claimed that the owner’s
duplicate copy of the title had been lost while
with their parents. If you were the judge, will
you grant the petition for reconstitution of
title?
A: In Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
applied the principle of ejusdem generis in
interpreting Sec. 2(f) of R.A. 26. “Any other
document” refers to reliable documents of the
kind described in the preceding
enumerations. This Court is not convinced that
the following documents (Microfilm printouts of
Official Gazette. A certification by the LRA and
from the Register of Deeds, a Report of the LRA
and an Affidavit of Loss) of the Catarrojas fall in
the same class as those enumerated in paragraphs
(a) to (e). None of them proves that a certificate of
title had in fact been issued in the name of their
parents. Accordingly, the documents must come
from official sources which recognize the
ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-
interest. None of the documents presented in this
case fit such description (Republic of the
Philippines v. Apolinaria Catarroja, et al., G.R. No.
171774, February 12, 2010).
Where reconstituted title is a nullity, the order
for reconstitution may be attacked at any time.
A reconstitution of Torrens title, whether judicial
or administrative, cannot proceed once it is shown
that another Torrens title has already been issued
to another person over the same property. The
reconstituting body or court has no jurisdiction to
issue another Torrens title over the same property
to the petitioner. The existence of a prior title ipso
facto nullifies the reconstitution proceedings. The
proper recourse is to assail directly in a
proceeding before the regional trial court the
validity of the Torrens title already issued to the
other person (Justice Carpio’s separate concurring
opinion, Manotok v. Barque, GR. No. 162335,
December 18, 2008).
NOTE : Petition for reconstitution can be barred
by laches.
Q: Spouses Cruz are the registered owners of a
parcel of land. Nelson Cruz, through his father,
Lamberto, sold the subject lot in favor of Joy
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
Sebastian. After Sebastian paid all the
corresponding tax and capital gains, the
Register of Deeds required her to present a
Special Power of Attorney executed by Nelson
which authorized the agent, Lamberto, to sell
the property to former. When Sebastian
requested for the document, Nelson did not
comply. It was only upon the latter’s inquiry
with the Register of Deeds that Nelson had in
fact executed an Affidavit of Loss which
subsequently resulted to an issuance of a
second owner’s copy covering the subject lot.
Sebastian filed a petition for annulment of
judgment to nullify the decision issuing a new
owner’s duplicate copy. Should the petition for
annulment of judgment be granted?
A: Yes. It has been consistently ruled that when
the owner’s duplicate certificate of title was not
actually lost or destroyed, but is in fact in the
possession of another person, the reconstituted
title is void because the court that rendered the
order of reconstitution had no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case. In this case, the
owner’s duplicate copy was in truth and in fact in
the possession of Spouses Cruz, contrary to their
claim in the lower court. Consequently, the
judgment of the lower court should be annulled on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction (Joy Vanessa
Sebastian v. Spouses Nelson and Cristina Cruz, G.R.
No. 220940, March 20, 2016). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Persons entitled to a Duplicate Certificate of
Title
1. Registered owner; and
2. Each co-owner.
Requirements for the replacement of lost
duplicate certificate of title
1. Due notice under oath shall be sent by the
owner or by someone in his behalf to the
Register of Deeds of the province or city
where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft
is discovered;
2. Petition for replacement should be filed with
the RTC of the province or city where the land
lies;
3. Notice to Solicitor General by petitioner is not
imposed by law but it is the Register of Deeds
who should request for representation by the
Solicitor General; and
4. A proceeding where the certificate of title was
not in fact lost or destroyed is null and void
for lack of jurisdiction and the newly issued
duplicate is null and void.
654
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
Necessity of registration of involuntary
dealings
Involuntary dealings, unlike the voluntary
dealings, requires the registration. It is the act of
registration which creates a constructive notice to
the whole world of such instrument or court writ
or process and is the operative act that conveys
ownership or affects the land insofar as third
persons are concerned.
Difference between voluntary and involuntary
dealings
VOLUNTARY INVOLUNTARY
DEALINGS DEALINGS
Does not require Requires registration
registration to create a Holdings, Inc. (Polished Arrow), and its
constructive notice to
the whole world of
such instrument or
court writ
Entry in the day book An entry thereof in the
is insufficient day book is sufficient
notice to all persons
(Garcia vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-
48971 & 49011
January 22, 1980).
Involuntary dealings that must be registered
1. Attachment;
2. Adverse claim; and
3. Notice of lis pendens.
ADVERSE CLAIM NOTICE OF LIS
PENDENS
Notice to third persons Literally means
that any transaction pending suit. It
regarding the disputed operates as a notice to
land is subject to the the whole world that a
outcome of the dispute particular real property
is in litigation. The
inscription serves as a
warning that one who
acquires interest over
litigated property does
so at his own risk, or
that he gambles on the
result of the litigation
over the property
Its purpose is to Its purpose is to protect
apprise third persons the rights of the party
that there is a causing the registration
controversy over the of the lis pendens and
655
ownership of the land to advise third persons
and to preserve and who purchase or
protect the right of the contract on the subject
adverse claimant property that they do
during the pendency of so at their peril and
the controversy. subject to the result of
the pending litigation.
Writ of attachment
It is used primarily to seize the debtor’s property
in order to secure the debt or claim of the creditor
in the event that a judgment is rendered.
Q: : Petitioner Ligon filed a complaint for the
collection of a sum of money with prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against the Sps. Baladjay, a certain
Olivia Marasigan (Marasigan), Polished Arrow
incorporators. The complaint alleges among
others that the spouses Baladjay enticed her to
extend a short-term loan secured by a PDC
which bounced upon presentment, and that
the subject property was transferred to
respondent Polished Arrow allegedly
defendants’ dummy corporation to defraud
creditors. The application for the writ was
granted so the subject property was levied
upon by annotating the writ on the dorsal
portion of TCT No. 9273.While the case was
pending, a similar complaint for the sum of
money damages, and cancellation of title with
prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment was lodged before the RTC Makati
by the Sps Vicente against the same
respondents. During the proceedings therein,
a writ of preliminary attachment also against
the subject property was issued and annotated
on the dorsal portion of TCT No. 9273.While
the case is still pending in QC, the Makati RTC
rendered a decision rescinding the transfer of
the subject property to Polished Arrow upon a
finding that the same was made in fraud of
creditors. Consequently, the Makati City RTC
directed the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa
City to: (a) cancel TCT No. 9273 in the name of
Polished Arrow; and (b) restore TCT No. 8502
“in its previous condition” in the name of
Rosario Baladjay. In the subsequent execution
proceedings, the property was sold at a public
auction to respondent Ting.The RTC Makati
then ordered the RD under pain of contempt to
issue a new certificate in favor of Ting free
from any liens and encumbrances. Meanwhile,
the QC RTC ruled in favor of Ligon who sought
its execution and discovered the earlier
attachment annotation in her favor has been
 CIVIL LAW
deleted. Did the Makati City RTC gravely abuse
its discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders?
A: YES. Attachment is defined as a provisional
remedy by which the property of an adverse party
is taken into legal custody, either at the
commencement of an action or at any time
thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any
judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or
any proper party. Case law instructs that an
attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is
against the particular property, enforceable
against the whole world. Accordingly, the
attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the
attached property which nothing can
subsequently destroy except the very dissolution
of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding,
in effect, means that the property attached is an
indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to
pay the owner's debt. The lien continues until the
debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued
on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied,
or the attachment discharged or vacated in some
manner provided by law (Ligon v. RTC Makati, G.R.
No. 190028, February 26, 2014). [Perlas-Bernabe]
Effect of the non-recording of a writ of
attachment
An attachment levied on real state not duly
recorded in the Registry of Property is not an
encumbrance on the attached property, nor can
such attachment unrecorded in the registry, serve
as a ground for decreeing the annulment of the
sale of the property at the request of another
creditor.
Adverse claim
It is a notice to third persons that someone is
claiming an interest on the property or has a
better right than the registered owner thereof,
and that any transaction regarding the disputed
land is subject to the outcome of the dispute.
Purpose of annotating the adverse claim
The purpose of annotating the adverse claim on
the title of the disputed land is to apprise third
persons that there is a controversy over the
ownership of the land and to preserve and protect
the right of the adverse claimant during the
pendency of the controversy.
Instances when a claim of interest is adverse
1. Claimant’s right or interest in registered land
is adverse to the registered owner;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
2. Such right or interest arose subsequent to the
date of original registration; or
3. No other provision is made in the decree for
the registration of such right or claim.
Formal requisites of an adverse claim for
purposes of registration
1. Adverse claimant must state the following in
writing:
a. His alleged right or interest;
b. How and under whom such alleged right
of interest is acquired;
c. Description of the land in which the right
or interest is claimed; and
d. Certificate of title number.
2. Such statement must be signed and sworn to
before a notary public or other officer
authorized to administer oath; and
3. Claimant shall state his residence or place to
which all notices may be served upon him.
Registration of adverse claim
By filing a sworn statement with the Register of
Deeds of the province where the property is
located, setting forth the basis of the claimed right
together with other data pertinent thereto. The
duty of the Register of Deeds to record the same
on the title is ministerial.
NOTE: Entry of the adverse claim filed on the day
book is sufficient without the same being
annotated at the back of the corresponding
certificate of title (Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R.
No. L-27594, November 28, 1975).
Effect of the registration of an adverse claim
It renders the adverse claim effective and any
transaction regarding the disputed land shall be
subject to the outcome of the dispute.
Effect of non-registration of an adverse claim
The effect of non-registration or invalid
registration of an adverse claim renders it
ineffective for the purpose of protecting the
claimant’s right or interest on the disputed land,
and could not thus prejudice any right that may
have arisen thereafter in favor of third parties.
Limitations to the registration of an adverse
claim
656
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
1. No second adverse claim based on the same
ground may be registered by the same
claimant; and
2. A mere money claim cannot be registered as
an adverse claim.
Q: May an adverse claim exist concurrently
with a subsequent annotation of a notice of lis
pendens?
A: YES, an adverse claim may exist concurrently
with a subsequent annotation of a notice of lis
pendens. When an adverse claim exists
concurrently with a notice of lis pendens, the
notice of adverse claim may be validly cancelled
after the registration of such notice, since the
notice of lis pendens also serves the purpose of the
adverse claim.
Lifespan of a registered adverse claim
The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of
30 days from the date of registration and it may be
cancelled.
Effect of the expiration of the period of
effectivity of an adverse claim
The expiration does not ipso facto terminate the
claim. The cancellation of the adverse claim is still
necessary to render it ineffective; otherwise, the
inscription will remain annotated and shall
continue as a lien to the property.
property involved in a suit, pending the
continuance of the action, and until final
judgment.
It merely creates a contingency and not a lien. It
does not produce any right or interest which may
be exercised over the property of another. It only
protects the applicant’s rights which will be
determined during trial.
NOTE: It is not a lien or encumbrance under our
civil law. It is mere cautionary notice to
prospective buyers of certain property that said
property is under litigation. The annotation of a
notice of lis pendens at the back of the original
copy of the certificate of title on file with the
Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute
constructive notice to purchasers or other persons
subsequently dealing with the same property. One
who deals with property subject of a notice of lis
pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in
good faith neither can he acquire better rights that
those of his predecessors-in-interest (Tanchoco v.
Aquino, G.R. No. 30670, January 17, 1990).
Purposes of a notice of lis pendens
To:
1. Protect the rights of the party causing the
registration of the lis pendens; and
2. Advise third persons who purchase or
contract on the subject property that they do
so at their peril and subject to the result of the
pending litigation.

Q: May the RD cancel an adverse claim? Q: When may a notice of lis pendens be made
and when may it not be resorted to?
A: NO. The RD cannot, on its own, automatically
cancel the adverse claim. A:

NOTE: Before the lapse of 30-day period, the NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
claimant may file a sworn petition withdrawing
his adverse claim, or a petition for cancellation of When applicable When Inapplicable
adverse claim may be filed in the proper Regional
Trial Court. (1) Recover possession (1) Preliminary
of real estate; attachments;
Q: What must an interested party do if he (2) Quieting of title; (2) Levy or
seeks the cancellation of a registered adverse (3) Remove clouds upon execution;
claim? title; (3) Proceedings on
(4) For partition; or probate or wills;
A: The interested party must file with the proper (5) Any other (4) Administration
court a petition for cancellation of adverse claim, proceeding of any of the real estate
and a hearing must also first be conducted. kind in court directly of deceased
affecting title to the person; or
Notice of lis pendens land or its use or (5) Proceedings for
occupation or the the recovery of
Lis pendens literally means a pending suit. The building thereon. money
doctrine of lis pendens refers to the jurisdiction, judgments.
power or control which a court acquires over

657
 CIVIL LAW
Effects of the annotation of notice of lis
pendens
1. It keeps the subject matter of litigation within
the power of the court until the entry of the
final judgment to prevent the defeat of the
final judgment by successive alienation; and
2. It binds a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the
land subject of the litigation to the judgment
or decree that the court will promulgate
subsequently.
Notice of lis pendens negates good faith
One who deals with property subject of a notice of
lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser
in good faith—neither can he acquire better rights
than those of his predecessor-in-interest.
Q: When may a notice of lis pendens be
cancelled?
A: A notice of lis pendens may be cancelled in the
following cases before final judgment upon order
of the court:
1. When it is shown that the notice is for the
purpose of molesting the adverse party;
2. Where the evidence so far presented by the
plaintiff does not bear out the main
allegations of the complaint;
3. When it is shown that it is not necessary to
protect the right of the party who caused the
registration thereof;
4. Where the continuances of the trial are
unnecessarily delaying the determination of
the case to the prejudice of the defendant;
5. Upon verified petition of the party who
caused the registration thereof; or
6. It is deemed cancelled after final judgment in
favor of defendant, or other disposition of the
action, such as to terminate all rights of the
plaintiff to the property involved.
Q: When is a notice of lis pendens deemed
cancelled?
A: Under Sec. 77 of P.D. 1529, a notice of lis
pendens shall be deemed cancelled only upon the
registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in
which the action or proceeding was pending
stating the manner of disposal thereof if there was
a final judgment in favor of the defendant or the
action was disposed of terminating finally all
rights of the plaintiff over the property in
litigation (Isabelita Cunanan et al., v. Jumping Jap
Trading Corporation et al., G.R. No. 173834, April
24, 2009).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES
Non-registrable lands
These are properties of public dominion which,
under existing legislation, are not the subject of
private ownership and are reserved for public
purposes.
NOTE: The properties of public dominion are not
susceptible to acquisitive prescription and only
properties of the State that are no longer
earmarked for public use, otherwise known as
patrimonial, may be acquired by prescription. In
Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, the Supreme
Court, in observance of the foregoing, clarified the
import of Sec. 14(2) and made the following
declarations:
a. The prescriptive period for purposes of
acquiring an imperfect title over a property of
the State shall commence to run from the date
an official declaration is issued that such
property is no longer intended for public
service or the development of national
wealth; and
b. Prescription will not run as against the State
even if the property has been previously
classified as alienable and disposable as it is
that official declaration that converts the
property to patrimonial (Republic of the
Philippines v. Metro Index Realty and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 198585, July
2, 2012).
Reason behind their non-registrability
Property of the public domain is beyond the
commerce of man and not susceptible of private
appropriation and acquisitive prescription.
Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no
matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and
be registered as a title (Valiao v. Republic, G.R. No.
170757, November 28, 2011).
Non-Registrable Lands
1. Property of public domain or those intended
for public use, public service or development
of the national wealth;
2. Forest or timber lands;
3. Water sheds;
4. Mangrove swamps;
5. Mineral lands;
6. National parks and plazas;
658
 LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
7. Military or naval reservations;
8. Foreshore lands;
9. Reclaimed lands;
10. Submerged areas;
11. River banks;
12. Lakes, rivers, creeks and lagoons;
13. Reservations for public and semi-public
purposes;
14. Protected areas;
15. Resources within ancestral domains; and
16. Others of similar character.
Q: In 1913, Gov. Gen. Forbes reserved a parcel
of land for provincial park purposes.
Sometime thereafter, the court ordered said
land to be registered in Ignacio & Carmen
Palomo’s name. What is the effect of the act of
Gov. Gen Forbes in reserving the land for
provincial park purposes?
A: As part of the reservation for provincial park
purposes, they form part of the forest zone. It is
elementary in the law governing natural resources
that forest land cannot be owned by private
persons. It is not registrable and possession
thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert it
into private property, unless such lands are
reclassified and considered disposable and
alienable (Sps. Palomo, et. al. v. CA, et. al., G.R. No.
95608, January 21, 1997).
Q: Does land classified as forest loses its
classification because it has been stripped of it
forest cover?
A: NO. A forested area classified as forest land of
the public domain does not lose such classification
simply because loggers or settlers may have
stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land
classified as forest land may actually be covered
with grass or planted with crops
by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. Forest
lands do not have to be on mountains or in out-of-
the-way places. The classification of land is
descriptive of its legal nature or status and does
not have to be descriptive of what the land
actually looks like (Heirs of Jose Amunategui v.
Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-27873, November 9,
1983).
Foreshore land
A strip of land that lies between the high and low
water marks and is alternately wet and dry
according to the flow of tide. It is that part of the
land adjacent to the sea, which is alternately
covered by the ordinary flow of tides.
659
Foreshore lands are inalienable unless reclaimed
by the government and classified as agricultural
lands of the public domain (Chavez v. Public
Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, November 11,
2003).
NOTE: Seashore, foreshore land, and/or portions
of the territorial waters and beaches, cannot be
registered. Even alluvial formation along the
seashore is part of the public domain and,
therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse
possession by private persons unless
subsequently declared as no longer needed for
public use.
Mangrove swamps
These are mud flats, alternately washed and
exposed by the tide, in which grows various
kindred plants which will not live except when
watered by the sea, extending their roots deep
into the mud and casting their seeds, which also
germinate there. These constitute the mangrove
flats of the tropics, which exist naturally, but
which are also, to some extent, cultivated by man
for the sake of the combustible wood of the
mangrove and like trees as well as for the useful
nipa palm propagated thereon (Montano v. Insular
Government, G.R. No. L-3714, January 26, 1909).
Q: Are mangrove swamps disposable?
A: NO. Mangrove swamps or manglares are
forestall and not alienable agricultural land.
Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests
and, therefore, not subject to disposition until and
unless they are first released as forest land and
classified as alienable agricultural land (Director of
Forestry v. Villareal, G.R. No. L-32266, February 27,
1989).
Mineral lands
Mineral land means any land where mineral
resources are found. Mineral resources, on the
other hand, mean any concentration of
mineral/rocks with potential economic value.
NOTE : Possession of mineral land, no matter how
long, does not confer possessory rights.
Q: Can land be partly mineral and partly
agricultural?
A: NO. The rights over the land are indivisible and
that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and
half mineral. The classification of land must be
 CIVIL LAW
categorical; the land must be either completely
mineral or completely agricultural.

Watershed

It is a land area drained by a stream or fixed body

of water and its tributaries having a common
outlet for surface runoff.

Watershed reservation

It is a forest land reservation established to

protect or improve the conditions of the water
yield thereof or reduce sedimentation.

Q: Public Reclamation Authority (formerly

Philippine Estate Authority or PEA) reclaimed
several portions of the foreshore and offshore
areas of Manila Bay. In 2003, the Parañaque
City Treasurer issued Warrants of Levy on
PRA’s reclaimed property. PRA filed a petition
for prohibiton with prayer for TRO but was
denied by the RTC on the ground that PRA was
not exempt from payment of real property
taxes as it was organized as a stock
corporation. Is PRA exempted from the
payment of real propery tax for its reclamation
project ?

A: YES. The subject lands are reclaimed lands,

specifically portions of the foreshore and offshore
areas of Manila Bay. As such, these lands remain
public lands and form part of the public domain. It
is clear from Sec. 234 of the LGC that real property
owned by the Republic of the Philippines is
exempt from real property tax unless the
beneficial use thereof has been granted to a
taxable person. In the case of Chavez v. Public
Estates Authority and AMARI Coastal Development
Corporation, the Court held that the fact that
alienable lands of the public domain were
transferred to the PEA (now PRA) and issued land
patents or certificates of title in PEA’s name did
not automatically make such lands private.
Supreme Court also held therein that reclaimed
lands retained their inherent potential as areas for
public use or public service [Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Philippine
Reclamation Authority (PRA) v. City of Parañaque;
G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012].

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 660